Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 211 posts

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#171

Post by scrollaway »

scrollaway wrote: post #114
nitrogen wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd advise caution. Last time I did the same I lost the ability to vouch. Responding to the comment itself: the idea behind reduced workweeks is that some jobs become more productive with fewer hours worked. But those are probably all white collar jobs. I'd say there's something deeply, fundamentally broken in a society if the very thought of people being able to live while working less seems so anathema.

> Last time I did the same I lost the ability to vouch. Shoot an email to the mods, I'm sure they'll restore it. Looking at rebootthesystem's previous comments, a couple are a bit heated but in general it's decent quality. I've made worse comments than that one without getting flagged myself; assuming good faith goes a long way.

Welp, guess I was wrong.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#172

Post by nitrogen »

scrollaway wrote: post #171
scrollaway wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Last time I did the same I lost the ability to vouch. Shoot an email to the mods, I'm sure they'll restore it. Looking at rebootthesystem's previous comments, a couple are a bit heated but in general it's decent quality. I've made worse comments than that one without getting flagged myself; assuming good faith goes a long way.

Welp, guess I was wrong.

Assuming you're referring to the discussion that followed your vouch, I know people who talk like that comment in person, and their tone of voice and body language makes it clear that they're reasonable and genuine people just with a different vocabulary. But it's impossible to tell online, with only text.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#173

Post by executesorder66 »

imesh wrote: post #123
mason240 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I preferred working 4x10 or even 4x12 before having kids (while working flexible resturant shift work). Now that I have kids and work an office job, I would much prefer a 5x6 to a 4x8.

With kids I prefer 4x8 to 5x6 but my wife wouldn't.

> but my wife wouldn't.

Why not? You'd get to spend more contiguous time together.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#174

Post by grzm »

nitrogen wrote: post #172
scrollaway wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welp, guess I was wrong.

Assuming you're referring to the discussion that followed your vouch, I know people who talk like that comment in person, and their tone of voice and body language makes it clear that they're reasonable and genuine people just with a different vocabulary. But it's impossible to tell online, with only text.

Indeed. I find I take extra care to review what I've written with an eye towards how it could be interpreted uncharitably. I'd rather not waste time and good will working through any misunderstandings.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#175

Post by rebootthesystem »

MaulingMonkey wrote: post #138
rebootthesystem wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No hostility intended. When something is nonsense it isn't hostile to call it nonsense. Why waste paragraphs? That's part of the problem these days. You can't call bullshit bullshit because people get offended. I think this idea is unmitigated manure. A smart 13 year old with experience making and selling lemonade could explain this in 15 in front of a whiteboard. I find it perplexing that governments spend millions…

> When something is nonsense it isn't hostile to call it nonsense. Why waste paragraphs? Correct, that part's fine. The part that comes off as hostile is equating everyone who would be fine with a 25% paycut to being a "single hippie who wants to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities" - certain implications of lawlessness ("dope" being illegal in various parts of the world, and frowned upon by many) and slo…

The validity of an argument is absolutely independent of the messenger.

People tend to forget this one as well. Some of the most foul rap music out there is authored and sung by people who have been in prison and have a hard time putting two coherent sentences together. Yet, in some cases, the arguments they put forth are perfectly valid.

People flag because they are offended. I find that interesting. I have never down-voted anyone for tone. I don't get offended (it's kind of a pointless state of mind). My approach is to either up-vote or do nothing. In other words, I am perfectly content with the idea that everyone needs to have the ability to say their piece without being stepped on, whether I like the tone or not.

The other interesting thing is people also fail to read and comprehend before posting a comment. Case in point, your comment:

> The part that comes off as hostile is equating everyone who would be fine with a 25% paycut to being a "single hippie who wants to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities"

If you read my post this is not what I said. I did not equate "everyone" to this caricature purely intended to drive a point rather than be factually accurate.

In the context of a discussion where the proposal is to limit all workers to six hours a day it is far more likely true that people would be unhappy due to the massive hit in income. You can hate the messenger but the message holds.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#177

Post by rebootthesystem »

mwfunk wrote: post #162
rebootthesystem wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are just too sensitive these days. Calling bullshit for what it is without going around in circles not to offend anyone used to have a name: Being honest. These days people are so delicate that get offended by straight talk and "flag" you. I wonder if they realize the facts don't change at all. Every time I run into these kinds of situations I remember that my grandparents survived a Genocide. People are so in…

"Offending people" isn't "being honest" or vice versa. If they seem to go hand in hand, that's failure on the part of the communicator almost 100% of the time. There are tons of people who are totally honest all the time, who somehow manage to not offend random people when interacting with them. It can be done, it's not magic.

No. You are wrong.

Being offended is one of those really weird states of mind.

It is purely one that is created by the person who becomes offended.

For example, in some cultures crossing your arms while someone is talking to you can be deemed offensive. In other cultures burping is perfectly fine while in others it is not acceptable.

Leaving cultures behind, people, individuals, become offended for a huge variety of things and it varies from person to person.

The difference here (and other fora) is that those who choose to be offended pile on and engage in down-vote wars that are utterly meaningless. Being offended serves exactly zero purpose and does nothing whatsoever to the facts.

The facts in this case are that a national reduction of hours work --for everyone, not just someone's wife-- is a nonsensical and destructive an idea as can be. You can't force something like that without severe consequences.

The "hippie on dope" comment was merely a colorful way to describe the state of mine someone would have to be in to think that this is a good idea at a national level.

And people get offended. Hilarious.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#178

Post by rebootthesystem »

tempestn wrote: post #151
rebootthesystem wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are just too sensitive these days. Calling bullshit for what it is without going around in circles not to offend anyone used to have a name: Being honest. These days people are so delicate that get offended by straight talk and "flag" you. I wonder if they realize the facts don't change at all. Every time I run into these kinds of situations I remember that my grandparents survived a Genocide. People are so in…

Calling bullshit might not the best approach if you want to convince others to see things the same way though. Could you lead with your reasoning, rather than by outright dismissing the original argument? (Especially using a term like 'bullshit', or even 'hippie logic' that's likely to shut people down from considering your points, whether that makes them delicate or not.) Just putting myself in the parent commenter'…

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with labeling nonsense as such. If it is nonsense it is nonsense. We can devote five paragraphs to describing it in a number of styles of prose and it would still be nonsense.

Sometimes I want to call nonsense nonsense and bullshit bullshit. I have those days. We all do. Today was one of them.

I am not going to apologize for something adults ought to be perfectly capable of dealing with. So much time wasted focusing on the style of the message rather than the argument itself. That's a choice made by the reader. Just like someone listening to rap music can choose to conclude it is foul crap and ignore the underlying messages, which may or may not be valid. The reader (or listener) makes the choice.

I have yet to see a solid argument showing that the statement I responded to was nothing more than nonsense. I repeat it here for convenience:

> Then again, the hours that were cut also wouldn't have to be paid to the people not working them. In a perfect situation this would have led to higher employment numbers and happier employees.

Slicing it up and paraphrasing:

"they would have received a 25% cut in pay"

"they would have to hire more people to make up for the deficit in man-hours"

"people would be happier"

"employment would increase"

So:

We pass a law that says "people can only work six hours".

Everyone loses 25% of their pay. Whole households.

Companies still need to make widgets so they run more shifts and hire more people.

Yet now entire households have a severe income deficit.

People are forced to make ends meet and either work double shifts or look for a second job.

This does not lead to happier employees, happy families, good family life, well-cared-for kids, etc.

And so, the statement is nonsense. People get paid less, work more and are miserable. They are not going to be happy and the higher employment numbers are fake and useless. This is as close to nonsense as one can get and yes, it'd take a very unique state of mind to think this a sensible idea.

Offensive? So be it. It happens to be the truth.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#179

Post by scrollaway »

nitrogen wrote: post #172
scrollaway wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welp, guess I was wrong.

Assuming you're referring to the discussion that followed your vouch, I know people who talk like that comment in person, and their tone of voice and body language makes it clear that they're reasonable and genuine people just with a different vocabulary. But it's impossible to tell online, with only text.

I'm just a little sad some people don't understand the difference between "being offended" and simply not wanting a default-hostile tone on a discussion forum.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#180

Post by scrollaway »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #177
mwfunk wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Offending people" isn't "being honest" or vice versa. If they seem to go hand in hand, that's failure on the part of the communicator almost 100% of the time. There are tons of people who are totally honest all the time, who somehow manage to not offend random people when interacting with them. It can be done, it's not magic.

No. You are wrong. Being offended is one of those really weird states of mind. It is purely one that is created by the person who becomes offended. For example, in some cultures crossing your arms while someone is talking to you can be deemed offensive. In other cultures burping is perfectly fine while in others it is not acceptable. Leaving cultures behind, people, individuals, become offended for a huge variety of…

You don't seem to be getting this.

It's not about "getting offended". I told you to tone it down because your comment is unnecessarily hostile. If you, as you say, didn't intend it to be hostile you should take my comment even more seriously: You're coming across as increasingly hostile and rude in each new post you wrote.

Calling somebody a hippie with hippie logic just because you disagree with it? That's not a reasonable thing to do. It's not something I, or I'm sure even the person you were talking to, got offended about - it's just unnecessary and veers the discussion from "friendly chat" to "argument where everyone has their guards up".

That's not ok, nobody wants HN to be that.

If you think this isn't a reasonable think to ask, then what are you doing here?

Post reply on HN