Competition.
Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
31–40 of 225 posts
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#32It has.
80 years ago your worked more hours, and you could not slack at work.
Today, you work not only less, but half of the people in the offices I go to don't work their full shift. They go to facebook, send text messages, take long breaks, do their shopping and watch porno (yep), etc.
Also, an hour of work doesn't have the same value.
When your work is moving boxes, an hour is an hour.
But in an office work, there are plenty of opportunities to be busy without being productive. I'd say 30% of the work I see in offices is at best useless, at worst harmful.
So we have more office jobs, which have less hours, during which we work less, said hours being worth less.
And this is very uneven, because a nurse probably works more now than before. But all in all, office jobs are talking over in rich countries.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#33Most people don't get to choose how many hours they work. Employers, especially those that pay benefits, want you working as much as possible. Anything less is money on the table. (I'm not an employer.) It's good for an employer if you work overtime, all he has to pay is time, or time and a half, or nothing if you're salaried. He doesn't have to pay more benefits, as he would with an additional employee. Of course an…
So, I currently work in Germany, maybe that’s why, but in my personal experience employers are very strict with overtime and only allow it when there is a justification (e.g: big project to get done at the end of the month). I guess because of strict regulations, but you also have the fact that having tired employees results in more sick days used, a higher error rate and mood swings. To be fair, even knowing this people (including myself) do some overtime.
Working more is a short term solution to increase the productivity of a team, but on the long term the benefits of doing so aren’t that obvious.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#34Most people don't get to choose how many hours they work. Employers, especially those that pay benefits, want you working as much as possible. Anything less is money on the table. (I'm not an employer.) It's good for an employer if you work overtime, all he has to pay is time, or time and a half, or nothing if you're salaried. He doesn't have to pay more benefits, as he would with an additional employee. Of course an…
> Employers, especially those that pay benefits, want you working as much as possible. Anything less is money on the table.
That’s exactly Marx’s point when he discusses his theory of Surplus Value. I know that that theory has been “debunked” and “proven” to be false, but I’m just reading now about it in its “Grundrisse” (I had read its Capital I some years ago) and it’s frightening about how right he was about subjects reguarding capitalism way back in the 1850s (in this particular case about capitalists’ dependence on their workers’, well, surplus work; if you look at the issue under this light it makes perfect sense why capitalists would insist on their workers not decreasing the number of hours they spend working). I’m no socialist nor marxist (even though I think he’s one of the best social and political thinkers ever) but if we want to really understand how things reguarding humans work we should not be blind-sided by political allegiances.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#35Competition—A system designed around competition rewards those who compete. Surprise!
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#36It has. 80 years ago your worked more hours, and you could not slack at work. Today, you work not only less, but half of the people in the offices I go to don't work their full shift. They go to facebook, send text messages, take long breaks, do their shopping and watch porno (yep), etc. Also, an hour of work doesn't have the same value. When your work is moving boxes, an hour is an hour. But in an office work, there…
If there is so much useless/wasted time at office jobs, what's the practical purpose of requiring them to be there for a fixed number of hours?
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#37Among other good reasons mentioned here lets not forget inequality went up and a lot of the progress is materialized at the top.
In the US. Inequality has dropped significantly. A large portion of the gains to America were captured by its elite. The large portion of the gains in other parts of the world have lifted billions out of poverty. Turns out globalization is good or bad depending on who you are and where you are.
> The large portion of the gains in other parts of the world have lifted billions out of poverty.
You may be correct, but it's hard to trust this sentence without a proper source.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#38Competition—A system designed around competition rewards those who compete. Surprise!
There is such a thing as working too hard, to one's own detriment.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#39It has. 80 years ago your worked more hours, and you could not slack at work. Today, you work not only less, but half of the people in the offices I go to don't work their full shift. They go to facebook, send text messages, take long breaks, do their shopping and watch porno (yep), etc. Also, an hour of work doesn't have the same value. When your work is moving boxes, an hour is an hour. But in an office work, there…
80 years ago women could afford to stay at home.
Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]
#40Or even if people had more leisure time, they’d spend it on working on a bigger project because it’s our driver. I’ve noticed when I made thousands a month, I spent much more time in charities, but I was still just as stressed ;)
Ok that only works for people who are not struggling around the minimum wage.