Live data from Hacker News

Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)

groups.csail.mit.edu

21–30 of 419 posts

Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)

#21
post #16

This is especially interesting when I think about all the discussions I had about bosses and recruiters. People would say I'm lazy, because I'm come to work at 11am or wanted to work from home. Many even got angry and said I'm insolent for wanting to work like this, while the rest of the world simply does as they're asked.

It's all in the name of efficiency. While efficiency is good to some degree, it comes at a cost of robustness. If you are working at 100% capacity, if anything goes wrong you are screwed!

Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)

#22

> And they worked only as many days as were necessary to earn their customary income -- which in this case amounted to about 120 days a year, for a probable total of only 1,440 hours annually (this estimate assumes a 12-hour day because the days worked were probably during spring, summer and fall). This goes against everything I've been taught, that the plebian class basically toiled endlessly, from Feudal Times to I…

It's generally suspect when someone preaches that "this is what life is like in Feudal times", considering that spans 500 years and a whole continent. Likewise for the Industrial Revolution.

Very true. Also: the last time I studied feudal times was in the US 10th grade... in the early 1980's.

Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)

#23
"An important piece of evidence on the working day is that it was very unusual for servile laborers to be required to work a whole day for a lord. One day's work was considered half a day, and if a serf worked an entire day, this was counted as two "days-works." "

Presumably because in the other half of the day, they'd be working to harvest and grow their own food. I'm not sure what the difference is between working 8 hours, and getting enough money to buy food, and working 4 hours and then another 4 hours to make your own food.

Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)

#24

> And they worked only as many days as were necessary to earn their customary income -- which in this case amounted to about 120 days a year, for a probable total of only 1,440 hours annually (this estimate assumes a 12-hour day because the days worked were probably during spring, summer and fall). This goes against everything I've been taught, that the plebian class basically toiled endlessly, from Feudal Times to I…

Before there were artificial lights and other things there really wasn’t much you could do when it was cold and dark.

Factory workers at the end of the 19th century definitely had a horrible life. They had to fight for 6day weeks and often had to work away hours a day under very dangerous and unhealthy conditions.

Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)

#25

This isn't the first time I've seen this sentiment displayed here on HN with regard to historic European civilization. What I haven't seen is a comparison to other ones. I'm particularly interested in Asian civilization.

I'd be interested in other places too, but I expect a wide variance by locality, trade, etc. I wouldn't expect, especially back then, England and Wales to be the same, or possibly not different regions of those countries. Groupings as large as 'Europe' and 'Asia' might not be meaningful.

Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)

#26
This analysis is solely focused on the "job" aspects of pre-industrial life and includes almost none of the domestic considerations. I'm not sure if it would be fair to call all non-wage time "leisure". Once work was still over there were still things to clean, fix, prepare, butcher, etc.

Although, I think it goes without saying that before affordable lighting and heating, we all underestimate how lazy winters were for the average peasant, whether idyllic or not (accounts I have read make it sound incredibly, incessantly dull).

And I think the best evidence we have that we are overrating the quality of pre-industrial leisure time is that people developed almost no leisure activities! Common people had almost no sports, no games (beyond precursors to Bocce or backgammon), no literature! They supposedly had half a year of doing nothing, and perhaps singing and drinking was sufficient to fill the time, but you'd think they would show lots of other innovations. Or even steal the activities of the rich (organized sports)!

Instead you don't see leisure activities develop until the rise of the 40 hour workweek and the availability of consumer appliances.

Edit: I hope people understand that the argument the article presents is largely a romanticization of poverty.

Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)

#27
post #3

Sure they had a “shorter workweek” but it also took women a full workday to wash the family’s clothes, hours of walking to get water for the day, and if you wanted something from the town over that was a 3 day trip. So many everyday things we take for granted were incredibly difficult and involved a lot of manual labor and/or waiting around for hours and days. I wonder how much of that leisure time came from being bl…

I'm curious about this argument. It was mentioned in some TED talk about the benefits of simple machines. I might just be a change of pace, also a change of dependencies. Walking long is fine (people need daydream and wandering time, some dose of boredom). Washing your family clothes may be work but it's still better than doing what your boss doesn't want to do. Emotionally your a lot less invested in the latter yet…

Here’s a great talk about clothes washing.

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_magic_washing_mac...

Hans Rosling argues that washing machines are magic because clothes go in and books come out. Women education, literacy rates, workplace participation etc directly correlates with automation in the home. The less time it takes to keep a family running, the more empowered women get in a society.

Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)

#28
> but, as the Bishop Pilkington has noted, work was intermittent - called to a halt for breakfast, lunch, the customary afternoon nap, and dinner. Depending on time and place, there were also midmorning and midafternoon refreshment breaks.

Sounds like a typical day at a big tech company...

Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)

#29

> And they worked only as many days as were necessary to earn their customary income -- which in this case amounted to about 120 days a year, for a probable total of only 1,440 hours annually (this estimate assumes a 12-hour day because the days worked were probably during spring, summer and fall). This goes against everything I've been taught, that the plebian class basically toiled endlessly, from Feudal Times to I…

Yeah even these days the friends I have that are active in the agricultural sector. Pretty much still work those hours where it peaks in the summer time and there is pretty much no activity latter half of fall and winter. Maybe except preparation for the next season and some maintenance on machines.

Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)

#30
post #20
post #3

Sure they had a “shorter workweek” but it also took women a full workday to wash the family’s clothes, hours of walking to get water for the day, and if you wanted something from the town over that was a 3 day trip. So many everyday things we take for granted were incredibly difficult and involved a lot of manual labor and/or waiting around for hours and days. I wonder how much of that leisure time came from being bl…

There are confounding factors in figuring supposed historic misery: Fewer clothes, washed less frequently, for example. Average life expectancy being pulled down by high infant and maternal mortality. That's obviously not good, but it also means that survivors lived longer than averages suggest.

The problem with child mortality is that birthing 8 kids is a lot more taxing on women’s lives than birthing 2. Maybe that doesn’t fall under work but it’s not quite leisure either.
Post reply on HN