Live data from Hacker News

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

youtube.com

91–100 of 225 posts

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

#91
post #34
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…

I think what's more relevant here is Marx's theory of alienation.

In order for people to work less hours at their job there would have to be strong local communities and a kind of socio-economic framework to support constructive, productive and satisfying activities outside of their day job. Things like improving or fixing up the neighborhood or your own household, political activism, caregiving, teaching, citizen science are all examples of things that one could do not for money but for the benefit of the community or the betterment of society. But due to the capitalist mode of production people are alienated from each other and the product of their labor so much that they think of work as a commodity to be traded for money only. And rather than doing these things as a way of finding fulfillment and building communities, people contract others to do it for them for money.

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

#94
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 disadvanta…

The key realization for me was that the phone-plan-at-13 isn't really optional, the kid needs it to stay competitive with the median kid

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

#95
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 disadvanta…

    > you can't function without [a phone
    > + plan once you're 13yo, and laptop].
    > It's not really a discretionary
    > spending.
Even if I give you that a network connected phone is something a teenager absolutely must have, that still leaves the fact that most people vastly overspend on these items.

Yes you might need a smartphone and a laptop for school, but those are going to cost at most $200 used, but people conflate the need for these devices with the fashion statement of owning the latest iPhone or MacBook.

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

#96
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 landlo…

1) It seems to be a worldwide thing. I see the same in most major cities Europe.

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

#97
post #80

What we desperately need is a way to reverse-brainwash the workaholics that spoil the labor market by willing to work more than 6 hrs a day. If we could figure out a clever way to penalize them for working more we could damn enjoy the heaven-on-earth that current technology should afford us all (now that we seem to have figured out how to stop population growth too)...

Pretty relevant short fiction story: http://blog.ncase.me/take-your-time/

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

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marx's writings around the working day are built on the assumption that wages will be set at the level necessary for the worker to survive long enough to turn up to work the following day rather than according to the perceived value of their labour time by the highest bidder, and that because of this near-universal day rate for undifferentiated "labour power", employers' main route to improving profitability would be…

> Marx's writings around the working day are built on the assumption that wages will be set at the level necessary for the worker to survive long enough to turn up to work the following day rather than according to the perceived value of their labour time by the highest bidder, and that because of this near-universal day rate for undifferentiated "labour power", employers' main route to improving profitability would…

American retail workers might have a tough lot but the economics behind it is the precise opposite of the Kapital model: the retail outlets pay people by the hour and the workers need the long hours because they can't afford their family/debt/house/consumerism on 40 hrs per week at minimum wage and sometimes take additional jobs because retailers won't offer them enough shifts, rather than the retailers paying people by the day and their profit margins being driven mostly by lengthening it. The threshold for what is considered subsistence-level real incomes has risen a bit since the Industrial Revolution too.

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

#99

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 a ago a single parent would go to work and provide for the family. Productivity increases have decoupled from wage rises.

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

#100
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.

As someone that isn't particularly materialistic, I can afford to buy most "things". I can barely afford to buy a house where I live and I have a feeling that my pension with be worth squat when I retire.
Post reply on HN