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

Medieval peasants got more vacation time than modern workers (2013)

blogs.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 226 posts

Re: Medieval peasants got more vacation time than modern workers (2013)

#191

Post by zanny »

ctdonath wrote: post #160
barrkel wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have HVAC now and nor have I ever felt much need for it; I don't do much online ordering; and I don't spend much time reading other than frivolities online. On the other hand, power, especially over a large organization, and playing in a much bigger game is very interesting.

You use no heating or cooling? That's unusual. Approximate latitude? I spent 37 years largely without A/C, northern climate usually being below preferred room temperature. Heating, however, was essential. Moving south, both are surprisingly necessary as the area, while quite temperate on average, has annual temperature swings from about 25°F to 105°F - requiring HVAC. Unless you're in an unusual situation, like high…

Why would the Mad King not have all the fireplaces he could want, considering he was a king?

Traditionally heating was easier to come across than cooling, despite cooling taking less energy to have happen.

Re: Medieval peasants got more vacation time than modern workers (2013)

#192

Post by Double_Cast »

vadimberman wrote: post #167
Double_Cast wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the quote intended to imply that Capitalism propagated a myth. I think the quote intended to imply that the subject of the myth was Capitalism. E.g. suppose I said "One of bowling's most enduring myths is that wearing a bowler's hat improves your score". Does this imply that a cabal of bowlers spread propaganda? Or simply that the myth exists within the bowling community.

It could be possible theoretically if not the context of the article. "We are asked to imagine" and so on. But even if it were the case, the fact that the same idea was commonplace in the USSR means that it's not inherently connected to capitalism. And, obviously, I am still wondering why people decided it was about capitalism vs. Communism.

Suppose the article had said "One small step for man, one big step for mankind." You are responding with the equivalent of "What about womankind? There are female engineers at NASA. Isn't the moon landing a big step for women too? Neil Armstrong is clearly a misogynist." We can debate whether to replace "mankind" with a more gender-neutral term. But nobody would interpret Neil Armstrong as having a political agenda against women.

However, you've concluded that because the author described a problem with capitalism but not the equivalent problem with communism, the author must be a marxist.

I generally dislike the word "capitalism" because (like the word "man") it's ambiguous. By capitalism do you mean Private Ownership? a market economy? deregulation? Laissez Faire? Regardless of its definition and etymology, people irl use it to signify different concepts. Which dilutes the semantics and relies on context to properly resolve. In the article, perhaps "capitalism's most durable myths" should have been replaced with "industrialized-societies' most durable myths". But nobody except you seems to have interpreted the article as having a political agenda against Private Ownership.

> we are asked to imagine

not by a cabal, but by "The implicit -- but rarely articulated -- assumption".

Re: Medieval peasants got more vacation time than modern workers (2013)

#193

Post by ctdonath »

Retric wrote: post #174
ctdonath wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the land isn't producing (winter), and you're just living mostly off reserves, and you're not enjoying being pretty much trapped in a hut covered with snow, that counts as "unemployment". Sure isn't a "vacation".

You where not limited to your own hut. Further you where often staying with a large extended family so playing with children and telling stories etc. It was very different than staying home at a modern single apartment.

Making the best of a bad situation (the essence of unemployment) does not equate to choosing the manner & location of frolicking (the essence of vacation).

Re: Medieval peasants got more vacation time than modern workers (2013)

#195

Post by notahacker »

emodendroket wrote: post #187
notahacker wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing calamitous other than the inability to compensate for crop failures which periodically left families starving. They didn't have to worry about repossessions of course, on the basis they were closer to being property than owning property. The salient fact about modern unemployment in developed countries is that unemployed people (and especially seasonally un[der]employed people) generally receive more through…

Crop failures can just as easily happen under a capitalist mode of production; this seems somewhat orthogonal to the question of whether people not working in the off-season are "unemployed." Yes, I agree that the government is more effective at providing social welfare programs than it was in the past, although probably some of that was compensated for by the greater connection to neighbors and kin that someone woul…

> Crop failures can just as easily happen under a capitalist mode of production; this seems somewhat orthogonal to the question of whether people not working in the off-season are "unemployed."

The point was that if the people had employment opportunities, they'd be less likely to die from their own crops failing, either through acquiring savings during downtime to pay for food or being able to move out of farming when the crops failed. I mean, the seasonal pattern of agricultural labour still exists for millions in many developing countries, but none of them have any shortage of people who used to work on the land seeking work in their sweatshops.

Re: Medieval peasants got more vacation time than modern workers (2013)

#196

Post by TheDanielD »

ctdonath wrote: post #160
barrkel wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have HVAC now and nor have I ever felt much need for it; I don't do much online ordering; and I don't spend much time reading other than frivolities online. On the other hand, power, especially over a large organization, and playing in a much bigger game is very interesting.

You use no heating or cooling? That's unusual. Approximate latitude? I spent 37 years largely without A/C, northern climate usually being below preferred room temperature. Heating, however, was essential. Moving south, both are surprisingly necessary as the area, while quite temperate on average, has annual temperature swings from about 25°F to 105°F - requiring HVAC. Unless you're in an unusual situation, like high…

A fair amount of the world has no "need" for heating or air conditioning. Mediterranean climates and all of Latin America qualify here, as does much of Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands.

In fact, the only place where HVAC would be a "need" would be super cold climates, or super hot climates. Everything else is tolerable, just not comfortable. Plenty of places are hot, but people lived there just fine before we had electricity or any fancy cooling tech.

Re: Medieval peasants got more vacation time than modern workers (2013)

#197

Post by TheDanielD »

ctdonath wrote: post #97
barrkel wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time you got an infection or disease that would have struck you down without modern medicine? I never have. In fact if hospitals didn't exist and I never saw a doctor my entire life, I don't think anything would have changed. I don't expect to live much longer than 60 as it is. Most 14th century monarchs, in the brief glance I did on Wikipedia before my answer, lived to 55 or 60 or so before they di…

I'd be dead four times over (and those are the obvious near-lethal maladies), and I just turned 50.

A small percentage of the population uses the majority of the health-care. You would have died back then, but most of us would have been fine.

Re: Medieval peasants got more vacation time than modern workers (2013)

#198

Post by emodendroket »

notahacker wrote: post #195
emodendroket wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crop failures can just as easily happen under a capitalist mode of production; this seems somewhat orthogonal to the question of whether people not working in the off-season are "unemployed." Yes, I agree that the government is more effective at providing social welfare programs than it was in the past, although probably some of that was compensated for by the greater connection to neighbors and kin that someone woul…

> Crop failures can just as easily happen under a capitalist mode of production; this seems somewhat orthogonal to the question of whether people not working in the off-season are "unemployed." The point was that if the people had employment opportunities, they'd be less likely to die from their own crops failing, either through acquiring savings during downtime to pay for food or being able to move out of farming wh…

I don't think it's very likely in a medieval context that, if you are experiencing crop failure, there is an abundance of food to purchase from someone else.

Re: Medieval peasants got more vacation time than modern workers (2013)

#199

Post by chrisjack »

barrkel wrote: post #87
ghaff wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To say nothing of the fact that let's see the first time he gets an infection or disease or needs surgery given no vaccinations, antibiotics, or anesthetics.

When was the last time you got an infection or disease that would have struck you down without modern medicine? I never have. In fact if hospitals didn't exist and I never saw a doctor my entire life, I don't think anything would have changed. I don't expect to live much longer than 60 as it is. Most 14th century monarchs, in the brief glance I did on Wikipedia before my answer, lived to 55 or 60 or so before they di…

You don't get infection or disease because. 1- most of the people (and probably you too) are vaccinated and prevent the spreading of such disease. 2- Most of our current developed world is sanitize compare to back them 3- a cut could be lethal or could meant amputation in the middle age, now you just need to put alchool on it. 4- you might had suffer from malnutrition even has a monarch, lack of vitamin C could lead to scurvy in the winter and lack of iodine in the food might cause Iodine deficiency (wich lead to Goitre or Cretinism) If you your so keen of wanting to live that life style, you can find a sweet amish girl and go live in her community.

Re: Medieval peasants got more vacation time than modern workers (2013)

#200

Post by barrkel »

chrisjack wrote: post #199
barrkel wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time you got an infection or disease that would have struck you down without modern medicine? I never have. In fact if hospitals didn't exist and I never saw a doctor my entire life, I don't think anything would have changed. I don't expect to live much longer than 60 as it is. Most 14th century monarchs, in the brief glance I did on Wikipedia before my answer, lived to 55 or 60 or so before they di…

You don't get infection or disease because. 1- most of the people (and probably you too) are vaccinated and prevent the spreading of such disease. 2- Most of our current developed world is sanitize compare to back them 3- a cut could be lethal or could meant amputation in the middle age, now you just need to put alchool on it. 4- you might had suffer from malnutrition even has a monarch, lack of vitamin C could lead…

How could I control the destiny of hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, in an Amish community?

That's the lifestyle explicitly being referred to when talking about swapping with a monarch.

Post reply on HN