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

51–60 of 225 posts

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

#51

Post by digi_owl »

paganel wrote: post #34
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…

> 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 subje…

The impression i have developed of Marx's thinking is that in his fervor to get his labor theory of value to work he ignored or managed to talk himself in circles regarding the impact of industrial machinery.

Looking at it with modern eyes, it would be easy to make said machinery operate like an amplifier of labor. Meaning that for each unit of labor used to operate the machine, the owner would get a multiple of said labor out.

Marx instead tried to reason that machines were simple stores of labor, never giving more out than was used to make the machine in the first place.

He still managed to make some observations that i will claim still holds to this day.

While in volume one he focused on the industrial labor side, as a way to lay the foundation of his other commentary, his later volumes pulls in finance and lending.

From that he concluded that it would actually be in the best interest of industrial capital to collaborate with labor in a common front against finance, but that sadly they would side with finance capital until it was too late.

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

#52

Post by digi_owl »

a3n wrote: post #48
dgellow wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Germany has maintained a strict no wage growth policy for decades now however to push exports, potentially contributing to the stagnation of the euro zone.

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

#53

Post by oceanghost »

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…

Us Americans solved that problem by making health care unaffordable and systematically reducing and eliminating sick/vacation pay.

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

#56

Post by maxxxxx »

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…

That's mainly because the unions have some power in Germany. Without them German employers would also happily have people work overtime.

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

#57

Post by chillwaves »

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…

This is just some weird anecdote. I work at an architecture firm where the employees have deliverables and bill to clients, we all work really really hard. I work between 45-50 hours a week of real work. One any given Saturday or Sunday you will find dozens of people in my firm working. They are not just pretending.

I have worked at a job you describe where people do not do much, but I would hardly say that is the norm.

Especially for people on the lower end of the pay scale. In my experience they typically work more than they are paid for (forced to work off the clock) than there are people just sitting around on facebook.

That's great for you that your life is so comfortable but do not assume it applies universally.

You really think the working poor in this country who have 2 or 3 jobs are just on facebook all day? This has to be one of the most out of touch comments I have ever read on HN.

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

#58

Post by chewz »

That was famous Keynes prediction [1][2] that due to increased productivity people will work 15 hours weeks.

Consumer capitalism however not only created productivity gains and satisfied all demands (for which should be rightly praised) but also created new demands (like better healthcare, education, technology items, vanity items etc.).

It is however characteristic of money economy (urban economy) that there is nothing limiting human need to accumulate capital and consume.

In subsistence economy (non-monetary) whenever there is a surplus people rather stop working then trying to accumulate more and they tend to focus on accumulating social capital.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/inequal...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/sep/01/economics

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

#59

Post by sliverstorm »

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…

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.

1) That's really not a countrywide thing

2) It's not specifically the landlords, it's whoever was already there. A landlord who bought in just recently is not rolling in dough. The people who capture the gains are the people who got in fifty years ago and sold & moved, or the landlords who got in fifty years ago and are still renting the property.

3) But, yes, from the worker's perspective his salary increases will tend to go towards housing/land. This is a natural state in a competitive housing market. He must compete in the market for the space to live so that he can live near his job. The power of the market will continually optimize for those who make the most money (i.e. hypothetically produce the most economic value) to live in the most desirable housing (e.g. the closest to work)

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

#60

Post by EGreg »

May I suggest that it may be the Hobbsian Trap?

The more resources we have - especially necessities such as food and water - the more children can be born. And eventually the population is large enough that the amount per person goes back to what it was before.

That doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to work. But in the current economy, where you have to work to afford the rent, many people work long hours.

However, once you factor in the growing unemployment, you can see that, in fact, there is less work to go around. But people still need to pay the rent, eat and drink water!

Post reply on HN