Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991) • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by BuyMyBitcoins » Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

SequoiaHope wrote: post #193

didibus wrote: post #156

Tangentially, the physical labor jobs I had when younger never really tired me out the way that the mental/bureaucratic/political job I have now does. Physical work actually energized me, I mean this is all confirmed today as well, we know all the benefits exercise brings on well being. There's something about desk jobs that is frankly soul sucking and literally mentally draining in a way where when the day ends, it'…

I have a theory that we can eliminate 90% of the required labor in our economy with the following strategy: End “consumerism” behavior where every problem is perceived to have a solution in the form of a quick product you can buy - much of that is a psychological trick played by marketers and rarely solves the real problem. Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. Des…

This isn’t a dig against you, but isn’t this just an idealized view of a communist society?

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

#202

Post by dang » Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 8:18 PM UTC

Rendello wrote: post #134

dang wrote: post #54

The submitted title ("Our ancestors may not have been rich, but they had an abundance of leisure") broke the site guidelines. Please don't do that. The rule is: " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Hi dang, I have a question about this. A while back I posted "Code Checking Automation [video]", but I couldn't help but feel the original title was quite vague. The video itself is about QuickCheck and more specifically, property-based testing. Would it have been kosher to add, maybe, "(QuickCheck)" or "(property-based testing)" to the end of the title to disambiguate, or did the original video authors screw themsel…

It's ok if you do things like that for clarity. We might (or might not) edit it out if the post makes the front page - that's a judgment-call area*. But we wouldn't post a scolding for it. We only do that when the guideline was broken in an obvious or baity way.

For example, the OP was clearly editorialized when it didn't need to be—and in a baity way, which ended up lowering the quality of the thread. I'm sure that was unintentional, but the guidelines are intended to guard against that so we want people to be aware of them.

The title guideline is necessarily worded in a generic way. In practice there are lots of nuances, details, etc.

* One informal practice that works fairly well is that we often leave edited titles (assuming they aren't egregious) in place until/unless the submission makes the front page. At that point it is guaranteed a certain amount of attention, so the downside of reverting to the original title is lower, and we'll often do it then.

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

#203

Post by ajuc » Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 8:18 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #150

legitster wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough! But I think it would also be fair to say that if we shouldn't assume peasants had idyllic lives just because we compare their medieval timecards to our own.

We could start by looking at their equivalents in developing countries. In many respects, they have it better than medieval peasants. They can obtain tools made by machines rather than days of artisan labour, have electric light in the evenings, usually have some level of education and access to some and the harvests aren't any more arduous. And yet curiously, the leisure time they get isn't widely envied, not necess…

> and the harvests aren't any more arduous

they are, in some ways. Efficiency gains can mean you work less, but they more often mean you have less people doing the same work. Back then one peasant had much less land to cultivate, a third of all fields were fallowed each year, and 90% of the population worked in farming. Now it's more like 10% and in some countries even less than that.

The problem with being a peasant wasn't the hard work - it was the constant risk of starvation or sickness killing you and your family. So they optimized for lowering the risks instead of optimizing for better profits or more free time.

> even by the people who left the village for jobs in sweatshops

Sweatshops are harder work but less risks than farming.

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

#204

Post by quantified » Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 8:20 PM UTC

go_elmo wrote: post #170

didibus wrote: post #156

Tangentially, the physical labor jobs I had when younger never really tired me out the way that the mental/bureaucratic/political job I have now does. Physical work actually energized me, I mean this is all confirmed today as well, we know all the benefits exercise brings on well being. There's something about desk jobs that is frankly soul sucking and literally mentally draining in a way where when the day ends, it'…

Thats too romantic - physical labour isnt funny when its repetetive and continuous, which most are. Also not using your head is frustrating / degenerative. What helps me most is keeping a balance, making mid day breaks for long runs outside or a nap does miracles. But I agree, it also needs mental relief to regenerate, but doing sports gives at least minimal breaks.

Citation or explanation of “most”? And was that the case pre-industrial revolution?

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

#205

Post by paulryanrogers » Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 8:23 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #102

slv77 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest increases in quality of life comes from public health measure such as access to clean water, food and air. The next is protection from the elements with access to adequate clothing, shelter and fuel. After that I would argue that trust in the integrity of public institutions (rule of law) and security from the threat of violence and extortion. Then it would be access to education, basic health care to pro…

“What have the Romans ever done for us” https://youtu.be/uvPbj9NX0zc

How much of the things Romans are credited with reached the lower classes or conquered people?

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

#206

Post by dnissley » Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 8:23 PM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #198

Chris2048 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has worked in other human societies before so this should be possible Which ones?

Many indigenous cultures. The Iroquois native Americans might be one example. There was no notion that a minority got rich off the labor of others.

Any that definitely supported some form of individual rights? As a total weirdo it frightens me to think that I might have been born into a society where my differences may have caused me great suffering at the hands of tradition.

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

#207

Post by matrixcubed » Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 8:27 PM UTC

SequoiaHope wrote: post #193

didibus wrote: post #156

Tangentially, the physical labor jobs I had when younger never really tired me out the way that the mental/bureaucratic/political job I have now does. Physical work actually energized me, I mean this is all confirmed today as well, we know all the benefits exercise brings on well being. There's something about desk jobs that is frankly soul sucking and literally mentally draining in a way where when the day ends, it'…

I have a theory that we can eliminate 90% of the required labor in our economy with the following strategy: End “consumerism” behavior where every problem is perceived to have a solution in the form of a quick product you can buy - much of that is a psychological trick played by marketers and rarely solves the real problem. Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. Des…

I would entice you to read Manna by Marshall Brain.

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

#208

Post by ace2358 » Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 8:28 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #164

didibus wrote: post #156

Tangentially, the physical labor jobs I had when younger never really tired me out the way that the mental/bureaucratic/political job I have now does. Physical work actually energized me, I mean this is all confirmed today as well, we know all the benefits exercise brings on well being. There's something about desk jobs that is frankly soul sucking and literally mentally draining in a way where when the day ends, it'…

Age difference is important here. Physical labor jobs will work better for young people than old.

Here I sit, at my local farmers market working a stall. Looking around at the farmers and how hard they work, I don’t know many young people that could keep up. Above a certain age and physical condition, maybe. But I know both men and women pushing late 50s that would put a lot of young people to shame.

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

#209

Post by TaylorAlexander » Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 8:28 PM UTC

dnissley wrote: post #206

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many indigenous cultures. The Iroquois native Americans might be one example. There was no notion that a minority got rich off the labor of others.

Any that definitely supported some form of individual rights? As a total weirdo it frightens me to think that I might have been born into a society where my differences may have caused me great suffering at the hands of tradition.

I’m not sure I follow? In today’s society a lot of people suffer because they are different. Disabled people for example, who would have been cared for in indigenous cultures. Yes the Iroquois supported individual rights. They just had a culture where whatever you did, you kept the needs of others in mind and did what you could to help. You were still an individual.

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

#210

Post by agumonkey » Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 8:29 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #200

agumonkey wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's partly what I assume. I think our social side came from survival in harsh condition. Falsely comfy society remove the need to live together, while subjecting us to a strange chaos. Some war veteran said they preferred the battlefield because even with the threat of death, the life in those times were closer, more intense. Now that's an extreme case but it's telling. And even about art/leisure.. you don't need…

This debate -- noble, enlightened savages vs. modern culture -- comes up again and again on the internet. To me it seems to miss the point. Modern life is not something that was intentionally designed. We're talking about the emergent output of different complicated systems, with wonderful things and horrific things enabled by both. Undoubtedly we've sacrificed some of the best aspects of the past for dubious gains.…

How I see the last 200 years of progress was that past life was indeed harsh and chaotic (how do you handle potential deadly diseases popping anywhere without biological models.. not easy). Ensuring more food, more time for the mass was an obvious unstoppable benefit, but to a certain extent.

> One of the problems with an increasingly global culture and economic system is the erosion of diversity. If we had drastically different systems and experiences, we could try and marry the best aspects from each. Instead, we get some semi-stable equilibrium that emerged by happenchance and the only path out towards something different seems to be by some kind of central planning or massive movement-- both of which have tended to make things worse in practice because of unintended consequences and institutional inertia.

I'm not sure I fully get your paragraph (you write conceptually dense ideas) but I kinda see a globalized homogenization of cultures which seems impoverished.