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

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

groups.csail.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 419 posts

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

#381

Post by adrianN »

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #251
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…

>Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. I assume someone must be in charge of determining what products are essential and what products are frivolous consumerism. I assume you have someone in mind for the job. Yourself perhaps? I'm a big girl. I can make my own decisions on what is essential and what is frivolous in my own life.

You are conditioned from a young age by the ad industry to want a lot of things that are not essential in your life.

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

#383

Post by alecst »

bobthepanda wrote: post #329
didibus wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I think I need to be more specific, assembly line work in some factory might count as physical labor, and that might not be any better, I can't say as I've never had that job. I'm thinking more in terms of the article, construction work, farming, and the more pre-industrial kind of physical labor. For me specifically, it was construction work, bus boy, landscaping, janitorial work and military training.…

While exercise is good, it's worth noting that in those lines of work your body wears its out after decades of doing it, and injury rates are fairly high.

When I lived in Cambodia I saw a lot of Abercrombie-model looking guys in their 50s. They were farmers, I think. I’m currently in Italy living with a farmer in her 60s who’s in great shape. The other day she dropped cold into a front split. I don’t want to say farm work is a panacea — I know it depends on what you’re doing and how you do it — but my own experience plus a book by Esther Gokhale have convinced me that healthy work builds your body and doesn’t tear it down.

I do think there’s a lot of physical labor that isn’t healthy. And there’s also labor that’s kind of on the line, like heavy lifting — if done properly it’s safe, improperly and it can cause damage.

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

#384

Post by alecst »

after_care wrote: post #246
didibus wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I think I need to be more specific, assembly line work in some factory might count as physical labor, and that might not be any better, I can't say as I've never had that job. I'm thinking more in terms of the article, construction work, farming, and the more pre-industrial kind of physical labor. For me specifically, it was construction work, bus boy, landscaping, janitorial work and military training.…

Probably the most common pre-industrial job was farmer, which is super repetitive. Imagine a task like tilling with a hoe, which would be a very repetitive and strong swinging motion.

Hoeing is a great full body workout. You go pretty fast if you swing from your hips without moving your arms too much, and your joints don’t feel strained either. I have seen people swing the hoe like an axe but I suspect this is not the most sustainable technique.

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

#385

Post by alecst »

bserge wrote: post #244
didibus wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I think I need to be more specific, assembly line work in some factory might count as physical labor, and that might not be any better, I can't say as I've never had that job. I'm thinking more in terms of the article, construction work, farming, and the more pre-industrial kind of physical labor. For me specifically, it was construction work, bus boy, landscaping, janitorial work and military training.…

Yeah, it was great. Until I fucked both of my knees and my back, and have been in pain ever since. It affected me mentally, as well lol. No one helped me, no one even thanked me. Take the mental work. At least you can always exercise enough to be spared them physical injuries.

What happened?

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

#386

Post by go_elmo »

gxs wrote: post #360
redisman wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most manual labor has you doing a handful of quite repetitive moves over and over and over until something breaks and you retire on disability. Some people seem to think it’s like going to the gym or something smh

There is a whole lot of kids here with romanticized ideas of what physical labor is. My dad is a contractor and every summer through college I’d go work for him as a low-skilled laborer. I hated it at the time - all these years later I’m grateful because a) it taught me a lot of useful handyman stuff and b) I have no illusions of how great it is to “work with your hands” or outside everyday. No one I worked with ever…

This!!

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

#387

Post by QuarterReptile »

SequoiaHope wrote: post #348
QuarterReptile wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Without the authoritarian rule, how does it get started? And what happens when people lose interest in playing by these voluntary guidelines?

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

#388

Post by pietrovismara »

chromaton wrote: post #332
pietrovismara wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lives of the peasants were not great. They were mal-nourished and lived at the whims of their lords. Replace "peasants" with "working class" and "lords" with "employers and landlords" and you could apply the exact same statement to 38 million people in the US alone[0]. - [0]: https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america

A very different situation in degree. The nobility in Hungary considered the peasants to be sub-human. This was partly because they were physically distinct from the upper classes. This, in turn, was because they didn't have enough to eat, though the nobles didn't recognize that. Also, the high-born were free to rape and kill peasants with no repercussions. Like I say, read the book.

> The nobility in Hungary considered the peasants to be sub-human.

Honestly even this statement would probably apply to our society as well if you'd replace nobility with the "ruling class", but I get your point.

Obviously there are big differences between then and today and I don't want to minimize those, although I feel even though the "implementation details" have changed a lot (no more free raping and killing thankfully - but only if you exclude submerged stories like the Epstein case), structurally our society still works similarly.

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

#389

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #347
MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I guess so. For myself though I had to do almost a decade of soul searching before committing to programming. Didn't get my BS until I was 27. Having worked numerous garbage tier jobs, any of the crap that gets sent my way is nothing in comparison to the low waged crap in those other positions.

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

#390

Post by thegrimmest »

SequoiaHope wrote: post #368
thegrimmest wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> what happens when some people don't want to participate in your voluntary communism and insist on inventing new things and marketing them? What happens when someone decides they do not want to contribute to wikipedia? > You'll note that membership in intentional communities is quite low. Which is why I am designing an open source farming robot. Maybe if the work is fixing robots it will be more appealing than labor…

Open source tractors and other agricultural equipment have been around for quite a while now, but don't really have much uptake. People still prefer to buy John Deere. Why do you think that might be?
Post reply on HN