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

Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's (2009)

groups.csail.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 523 posts

Re: Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's (2009)

#221

Post by bot1 »

jdavis703 wrote: post #218
H8crilA wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple rules that work for me: a) don't take my work laptop home, no corp provided phone (if they insist I'd keep the phone at my work desk, where it belongs). b) work 40 hours on average per week. Just go home already! Helps if you're a late sleeper (like me), you can simply arrive later at work to compensate for the hours you've recently donated to your employer. This works very well for me, although I'm based in E…

Not taking your laptop home is poor information security practice. We had a break-in where dozens of laptops were stolen. We had to do key rolling, password resets, etc for the whole organization. Many people couldn't even work until new computers were shipped in. Of course me and the people who took our laptops home were fine.

you cant be serious

Re: Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's (2009)

#222

Post by honestoHeminway »

natalyarostova wrote: post #111
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's "space labor"?

Imperial Rome enslaved the martians, and as a result creates an entire lower caste of space laborers. Over time they could not adapt to earth and their species went extinct. This resulted in the dark ages.

Romani ite domum. Martiani libertas

Re: Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's (2009)

#223

Post by silveroriole »

jokoon wrote: post #150

I'm not waiting for society to change to live a better, more normal life, I've already abandoned the classic work sphere and its crazy carousel, and it has a long time since I have accepted it. All those findings done in that research confirms a lot of how I'm feeling already. It's true that I don't "see" as many people as people who work, so I socialize less and I don't meet many people, but: * I learned that having…

May I ask what you do? As in, to sustain your life/living situation/etc.

Re: Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's (2009)

#224

Post by dTal »

WalterBright wrote: post #187
ido wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe anti-poor is a better description? Could also be that I only notice the assholes and the milder form of libertarians just don't stick out as much :)

> Maybe anti-poor is a better description? No. Libertarians are against any sort of class system (i.e. legal privileges for certain groups). They are neither anti-rich nor anti-poor. Of course, there are libertarians who are jerks, but that isn't what Libertarianism is about. Also, most people only hear about Libertarianism from non-Libertarians, hence they only hear negative things about it. Libertarianism is mainly…

The process of making sure people aren't hurting others is called "government" and "regulation", which self-professed Libertarians appear to be against. They say things like "the FDA is stupid, the free market will sort it out" - when the FDA was created because the free market was killing people.

Vis a vis classism, if you refuse to regulate and allow everyone to be "free to choose", you are essentially advocating a dog-eat-dog world where people with money and power consolidate more and more of it. This is "feudalism" and it generally results in a raw deal for the poor.

Re: Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's (2009)

#225

Post by WalterBright »

dTal wrote: post #224
WalterBright wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe anti-poor is a better description? No. Libertarians are against any sort of class system (i.e. legal privileges for certain groups). They are neither anti-rich nor anti-poor. Of course, there are libertarians who are jerks, but that isn't what Libertarianism is about. Also, most people only hear about Libertarianism from non-Libertarians, hence they only hear negative things about it. Libertarianism is mainly…

The process of making sure people aren't hurting others is called "government" and "regulation", which self-professed Libertarians appear to be against. They say things like "the FDA is stupid, the free market will sort it out" - when the FDA was created because the free market was killing people. Vis a vis classism, if you refuse to regulate and allow everyone to be "free to choose", you are essentially advocating a…

> which self-professed Libertarians appear to be against.

That's conflating Anarchists with Libertarians. Libertarians are not Anarchists.

Feudalism is something different altogether.

Re: Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's (2009)

#226

Post by abdullahkhalids »

lazyjones wrote: post #133
lmilcin wrote: post #95

I think there is absolutely no need every adult person needs to work 8 hours a day for 5 days a week. We might just as well work 4 hours a day or 3 days a week. It seems to me, this is just a matter of how the market pressures people to spend as much time as possible at work vs how much work most people can tolerate. How do I know? There are countries where it is normal that both parents work to provide for their hou…

> How do I know? There are countries where it is normal that both parents work to provide for their household and there are countries when it is mostly male parent that does the same with same effect. I don't understand how this supposedly proves that e.g. male single providers could work only 4 hours a day instead of 8. Care to explain? As an argument against both parents working it would make more sense...

He is implying that in some countries only one spouse works 8 hours a day, and the couple/family have a fairly comfortable life. So presumably in these countries, both spouses could instead work 4 hours a day and they could still have the same comfortable life.

Re: Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's (2009)

#227

Post by claudeganon »

WalterBright wrote: post #187
ido wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe anti-poor is a better description? Could also be that I only notice the assholes and the milder form of libertarians just don't stick out as much :)

> Maybe anti-poor is a better description? No. Libertarians are against any sort of class system (i.e. legal privileges for certain groups). They are neither anti-rich nor anti-poor. Of course, there are libertarians who are jerks, but that isn't what Libertarianism is about. Also, most people only hear about Libertarianism from non-Libertarians, hence they only hear negative things about it. Libertarianism is mainly…

>Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" is a good introduction if you're interested in more.

At some point you have to acknowledge the irony at refusing to see Libertarianism as anti-poor ideology, while simultaneously pointing people to a man who worked (and trained others to work with at the University if Chicago) far right dictators like Pinochet.

Re: Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's (2009)

#228

Post by WalterBright »

dTal wrote: post #209
WalterBright wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Im kinda blown away by this non-selfish (in a company's view) behaviour and strongly consider to rejoin at some point. The beauty of capitalism is that it rewards such altruistic behavior - in that you may rejoin them in the future.

If the behavior is rewarded, it is not altruistic but self-interested, which is the true nature of things that capitalism rewards. It is not true in the general case that altruism aligns with self-interest, which is precisely the problem with capitalism.

> It is not true in the general case that altruism aligns with self-interest

Actually, it is true. Treating your customers, employees and associates results in them wanting to do business with you, which increases profits. Treat them badly, they go away and deal with someone else.

Put simply, you aren't going to go the extra mile for someone you hate.

Re: Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's (2009)

#229

Post by chosenbreed37 »

jdavis703 wrote: post #218
H8crilA wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple rules that work for me: a) don't take my work laptop home, no corp provided phone (if they insist I'd keep the phone at my work desk, where it belongs). b) work 40 hours on average per week. Just go home already! Helps if you're a late sleeper (like me), you can simply arrive later at work to compensate for the hours you've recently donated to your employer. This works very well for me, although I'm based in E…

Not taking your laptop home is poor information security practice. We had a break-in where dozens of laptops were stolen. We had to do key rolling, password resets, etc for the whole organization. Many people couldn't even work until new computers were shipped in. Of course me and the people who took our laptops home were fine.

In a recent office I worked in they were just looking for the large iMac screens :-) Although I don't think there were any laptops lying around...

Re: Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's (2009)

#230

Post by WalterBright »

claudeganon wrote: post #227
WalterBright wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe anti-poor is a better description? No. Libertarians are against any sort of class system (i.e. legal privileges for certain groups). They are neither anti-rich nor anti-poor. Of course, there are libertarians who are jerks, but that isn't what Libertarianism is about. Also, most people only hear about Libertarianism from non-Libertarians, hence they only hear negative things about it. Libertarianism is mainly…

>Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" is a good introduction if you're interested in more. At some point you have to acknowledge the irony at refusing to see Libertarianism as anti-poor ideology, while simultaneously pointing people to a man who worked (and trained others to work with at the University if Chicago) far right dictators like Pinochet.

I'll just refer you to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/6i0vsr/milton_f...

(Ironically, you say Libertarian Friedman supported far right dictator Pinochet and the other reply says Libertarianism is for no government at all. Clearly something is amiss with these two criticisms of Libertarianism.)

Post reply on HN