Live data from Hacker News

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

youtube.com

221–225 of 225 posts

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

#221

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?

It's very much easier to measure hours of physical presence than actual value of a worker's output.

The other problem is that if you measured people purely by output, 10x developers (assuming you believe in such a concept) would be able to work 1/10th as much and would very visibly be missing much of the rest of the time. This would lead to a lot of resentment from people who are less productive and would be having it rubbed in their faces.

To get to a place where people are judged purely on output we would need to change society such that the notion of equality was essentially never mentioned or thought about at all. Because people's productivity is wildly, wildly unequal.

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

#222

Guys, what do you think about universal basic income?

There's no point trying to explicitly introduce it now. I watch these experiments with befuddlement - it's like watching a small baby try to run before it can walk.

UBI will arrive slowly, incrementally and by the time it or an equivalent is finally here nobody will celebrate because it won't seem like a big deal. It'll just be the result of welfare and other services getting better and better over time, with more and more lightweight "bullshit" jobs that require essentially no exertion or risk and lower and lower hours until one day people find that the benefits system is so generous that having a job has become a lifestyle choice.

But we have a long way to go to get there. It won't happen in our lifetimes. Almost all increases in wealth at the moment seem to be absorbed by healthcare and social care costs. UBI makes no sense whilst people are being bankrupted by health costs. Priorities people!

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

#223
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, this is interesting to me -- if your example is representative, US income tax rates are often quoted at the marginal rate, whereas European taxes (higher on a percentage basis) are quoted at the net rate, skewing the perception in the direction of European taxes sounding lower than they really are. Of course, there's both deductions and non-income taxes also, which complicate the issue. In Norway, the total tax p…

is there not a CGT allowance in Norway I thought the Nordics had a strong individual share holder lobby groups

I guess in effect we have a "CGT allowance" of ~$6000 USD/year, but if you make more than 6000 USD in taxable income from _any_ source, you cannot use it. It's a deduction that is used for all income sources.

If we do have shareholder lobby groups, they certainly do not have any impact on policy. Capital gains tax increases one percentage point to 31% next year, up from 27% five years ago. In addition, there is the 0.85% wealth tax on net assets above ~180,000 USD. There is no deduction for long term capital gains.

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the US. Prior to the ACA there was no requirement to give FTEs health care.

Incorrect. It seems mandates were state-by-state prior to the ACA, and certainly existed. Here's a quickly dredged up citation. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/09/16/3489562...

What are you citing? There's nothing in that article about hours or benefits that accrue to FTEs only. Did you even read it?

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

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the US. Prior to the ACA there was no requirement to give FTEs health care.

In the dark red states, sure. Not everywhere. Most places added those requirements 30 years ago. It’s not just health care. Intrusive regulation like requiring a nominal amount of paid sick leave is mandated in my state over a certain number of hours. (32 iirc)

By "not everywhere" you mean... Massachusetts? Benefits like paid sick leave are rounding errors compared to health care.
Post reply on HN