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

Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 225 posts

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#41

Post by sametmax »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #36
sametmax wrote: post #32

It 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?

There are several reasons for that.

First, employee don't want less money and fake it. Employers want the employee to be on site because they paid for it.

Second, society praises people for working. You will look better if say you are busy.

Third, our systems would collapse if people were actually paid to their real value. You would see the total unfairness of it, and also how truly brilliant or useless people are.

Fourth, laws, syndicates, medias and logistics come in the way. And with a big inertia.

Fifth, humans are not rational and don't do "the right thing" according to the intellectual or displayed objectives. And they have all their own agenda.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#42

Post by dustingetz »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #38
dustingetz wrote: post #35

Competition—A system designed around competition rewards those who compete. Surprise!

There is such a thing as working too hard, to one's own detriment.

"Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast." —Paul Graham

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#43

Post by dalbasal »

bandrami wrote: post #4

Because we are never satisfied with a stable standard of living; people want to live better than their parents did. Automation only decreases the need for labor if you hold standard of living constant.

This has generally been the standard argument since Keynes (and others) first turned out to be spectacularly wrong. We just consume more. But, I see this argument differently these days.

In tech stuff, we definitely have more stuff. A phone+plan for every person over 13. Laptops for most people. But, you can't function without these. It's not really a discretionary spending. A student (for example) is at a disadvantage without those things. In fact, the student is also consuming more education then in Keynes' day. That's also a competitive consumption, that you must buy in order to participate in the job market to a greater extent then before. Housing in a lot of urban or semi-urban areas is also competitive. Median house prices in these cities is a multiple of median salary, and prices don't scale well below the median.

So... I think the statement is true in an almost tautological sense. But, very little is discretionary spending. Most of it is competitive and in a competition the median person is still the median person.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#44

Post by wu-ikkyu »

etr-strike wrote: post #27

The Federal Reaerve actually thinks productivity is too low: http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fed-productivity-idUSL1N1... Would be a dream to work just 40 hours per week.

It's also worth noting that 2 of the Fed's main goals are

1. Achieve maximum employment

2. Maintain stable prices

Both of which are counter productive to the goals of automation.

This seems like the root of the problem to me, as the Fed is a "super admin" of the economy.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#45

Post by j9461701 »

megalodon wrote: post #37
purple-again wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here is an economist article on the subject:

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21719790-going-...

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#46

Post by sametmax »

fatwah wrote: post #39
sametmax wrote: post #32

It 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.

Population increased also. And consumerism. And debt. And a lot of laws have been added.

But last year, 2 of my friends fire their 5 employees and started again, them alone. They made the calculation: there productivity ratio was better with only them 2, than with the 5 part time workers they had that they were paying full time + benefits. And their team was "good" in my book. Most teams I meet are not, and I travel from companies to companies all the time.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#47

Post by lazyjones »

surfmike wrote: post #5

People's perceived needs grow but that is not the whole story. Many people now are spending almost 50% of their pre-tax income on housing, and most of that is the price of land and goes to landlords. It seems that landlords inevitably capture a big chunk of people's salary increases. Additionally in the US your health insurance is generally tied to your job; even after Obamacare you probably have to work to pay for y…

> If housing costs went way down and health insurance were universal, I suspect many people would feel much less need to work so many hours.

Housing costs are directly related to the area per person and the location. If people expect to live in much larger flats or houses compared to e.g. the 19th century and in expensive urban areas, they will have to pay the price.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#48

Post by a3n »

dgellow wrote: post #33
a3n wrote: post #9

Most 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 pe…

Ah, an enlightened society. As a US resident, I hope to live in one of those someday. Here I'm just a resource like any farm animal.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#49

Post by etr-strike »

lazyjones wrote: post #47
surfmike wrote: post #5

People's perceived needs grow but that is not the whole story. Many people now are spending almost 50% of their pre-tax income on housing, and most of that is the price of land and goes to landlords. It seems that landlords inevitably capture a big chunk of people's salary increases. Additionally in the US your health insurance is generally tied to your job; even after Obamacare you probably have to work to pay for y…

> If housing costs went way down and health insurance were universal, I suspect many people would feel much less need to work so many hours. Housing costs are directly related to the area per person and the location. If people expect to live in much larger flats or houses compared to e.g. the 19th century and in expensive urban areas, they will have to pay the price.

That’s a cute theory, but housing costs are much more related to the cost of money. When the federal reserve makes money cheap, asset prices increase. Since mortgage rates are at historic lows, people simply borrow as much as possible until their monthly payment is at some threshold. If you want housing prices to return to historic norms, you need to ask the Fed to first return the cost of money to normal.

Re: Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more? (2016) [video]

#50

Post by louithethrid »

Because powerthirsty psychopaths have social needs too. What is it worth to rule a small kingdom, if nobody lives, suffers and does your bidding in this kingdom. Being the CEO in a lightsout factory, is beeing the janitor.

So why do all these shitty jobs and hamster wheels exist? To give all those "great-men" the ilusion of importance.

Post reply on HN