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)

#341

Post by ikr678 » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:39 AM UTC

t-3 wrote: post #195

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'…

Agreed. Another great thing about physical labor (to me at least) is that you can avoid most of the forced social interactions, politicking, and drama that happens in offices. Go in to work, put in my headphones, do repetitive task, go home. It's simple, keeps me in shape, and doesn't make me loathe myself or my hobbies. If I were skilled and smart enough to get jobs that were more interesting/less evil than setting…

The progress, in most physical tasks, is also immediately apparent.

Shift 10 pallets of stock, or plough a field? You know how much you have left of the task at a glance.

Work through a pile of Jira tickets? That could be a morning or a day of headaches.

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

#342

Post by tcmart14 » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:45 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #296

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #293

This feels off. Farming today is a seven day, every day work week. There is no day off with livestock, no matter what century, and what season. If the sun sets, or the weather is bad outside, there are plenty of work to be done indoors. I would presume it was even harder without all the automation and technology in the Middle Ages. Maybe they did not labour for the employer all the time, but all the 'free time' was s…

> If I recall correctly, the 8 hour day, 40 hour week, and five day work-week are all 19th century trends. They were reactions to the extended working hours employed in the industrial revolution to maximize capital utilization in factories.

Yup. Can't forget. The 8 hour work day was because unions fought for it, not because companies willing gave it.

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

#343

Post by thegrimmest » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:37 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #290

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way "esteem" is distributed today is if you produce something I want I "esteem" you by buying it. If you don't produce anything I want I "disrespect" you by doing absolutely nothing to you. I don't give you anything, I don't take anything away from you. I simply smile, nod, and move on with my life. Seems like you want to take freedom of association away from the rest of humanity and put it into your own hands. I…

that's an odd and quite uncharitable interpretation. there's not even a remote connection to (restricting) freedom of association, much less with my own hands (how would that even work?). the underlying point is that money isn't the be-all-and-end-all of what we value and what we exchange in our socioeconomic lives. money collapses a multidimensional social calculus into a single-dimensional metric, with all the unde…

The binary metric you're referring to is simply an answer to the question "are you interested in an exchange?". This question is fundamentally binary. "Consumerism" is just the interaction of private property and freedom of association - which of these would you get rid of to abolish it?

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

#344

Post by thegrimmest » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:43 AM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #253

clairity wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just zoom out and really look at the scope of the issue: 7+ billion people in the world want stuff. there's a huge matching problem between the want and the stuff, and a huge geographic/wealth/information asymmetry as well. there's going to be a lot of friction and waste in that huge, inefficient matching process (e.g., 30-40% of US food goes into the trash, 30-40% of stuff is returned to retailers). to achieve your…

You and I view this very differently. First of all, getting people goods that they need is not consumerism. Consumerism is the idea that buying a new car or a Pepsi will make you feel better. Or that doing so will make you “cool”. So for example most car manufacturers come out with a new model every year and then push the idea that buying a new model is an indicator of success. But I claim we would be better off if c…

> if cars were more similar year to year

They were like this in the Soviet Union, and it was laughable how much they ended up lagging behind after a few decades. I see the process you describe, despite it's perceived but necessary inefficiency, as resulting in a system that delivers the most progress and the most resiliency. There's a reason that self-driving cars are being invented in one place and not another. The driving force behind that reason is much more important to preserve than any incidental waste or excess along the way.

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

#345

Post by thegrimmest » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:45 AM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #263

Chris2048 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little hand-wavey though. Who services the machines? Are the machines centralised in mass-manufacture-scales and products distributed (as they are now); or de-centralised but also less efficient (wrt manufacture and supply chain) as a result. What would the raw materials be, and how are they powered (given the carbon-crisis). I'd also ask what specifically are the essentials. Food? Shelter? ok. What about heal…

I love that you are asking these questions. Indeed I think any writing meant to describe an entire economy in a few paragraphs will necessarily be a bit hand wavey. I did try to answer one of your questions: the machines are serviced by the members of the collective. In any plan for a society education must be considered. But much the same way that any halfway technical person can learn how to fix a 3D printer, these…

How would you prevent one of these collectives from, say, inventing an iPhone and monetizing it? And if you don't, aren't you back to square one again?

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

#346

Post by thegrimmest » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:47 AM UTC

SequoiaHope wrote: post #276

WalterBright wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyway that’s my theory Not really. It's called communism, and it's been tried many times.

Who has tried a voluntary form of communism focused on the use of automation to lower material costs of living?

what happens when some people don't want to participate in your voluntary communism and insist on inventing new things and marketing them?

You'll note that membership in intentional communities is quite low.

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

#347

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 6:12 AM UTC

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #256

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'…

> 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. Every single physical labor job person I speak to complains about back issues, being tired, or work significant overtime. They're all stuck and can't shift careers cause they're too far in. >There's something about desk jobs that is frankly soul sucking and literally…

>It sounds like you were either in the field for money or are just in a shitty company.

Isn't that most of office workers. If you are in a role that gives you some fulfilment then you should consider yourself lucky.

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

#348

Post by SequoiaHope » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 6:26 AM UTC

QuarterReptile wrote: post #319

SequoiaHope wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. >Develop a culture where getting rich is not the goal but making sure everyone has what they need is. This ha…

Yes. One could call this communism and I often do. But note that this is a voluntary system, so it is libertarian communism. It is not based on authoritarian rule as many people who mention communism will associate it with.

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

#349

Post by WalterBright » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 6:41 AM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #323

throwaway438290 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm willing to believe that we could continue to produce the equipment we do today. But what's the motivation to advance? Take programming: we could all easily cut down our work hours by just maintaining current systems, which do a huge amount already. There are artificial forces that make us continue to trade one-time innovations for the same living standards as yesterday. Why not automate food production etc, and s…

There are a lot of motivations to advance. Why do we research cancer cures? We use profit motives to encourage the formation of specific organizations but the reason we really care about curing cancer is that we lose loved ones that mean the world to us. Similarly, the developers of Blender are able to get paid for their work, but it seems that they choose this particular task because it interests them. If they had a…

I took a 100% pay cut to work on D. But there aren't enough people like that to run a society like that, not remotely close.

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

#350

Post by WalterBright » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

lindseymysse wrote: post #283

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how did those indigenous cultures fair when they came in contact with Western systems of resource collection and distribution? How can a system be both agrarian and strong enough to survive contact with non-agrarian systems? How do you stop 10 people from secretly working hard and producing an extra ration of gruel right under your commie nose?

Well, we just watched the greatest military in the world™ scuttle out of Afghanistan with its tail between its legs, so we know that a primarily agrarian society CAN resist a militaristic society as long as its prepared. Pre-Colonial American societies were decimated by the biological warfare of the Europeans first. Now America turns its taste for biological warfare on itself. But, anyway, I digress.

> Pre-Colonial American societies were decimated by the biological warfare of the Europeans first.

Pizzaro defeated the Incas before the diseases did.