Live data from Hacker News

The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

mstdn.ca

381–390 of 511 posts

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post you are responding to didn't have Starbucks coffee every day, did have internet, cable tv, subscriptions to streaming services, a computer with a monthly subscription in every pocket. They didn't even have that option. The above is just a short list. Live like 1955 and you can support a family of 5 with, a car, vacations every year and a nice retirement. You won't have many of the other luxuries people enjoy…

Okay, so do the math. How many Starbucks coffees should I abstain from to afford a home?

I wouldn't worry too much about the coffee, everyone knows it's avocado toast that really destroys your chance of affording housing.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument, like all arguments that somehow equate wages with inflation, would hold water if the productivity of the workforce was constant. We know that it isn't. Productivity of the workforce is ever increasing. The generated wealth simply doesn't make it to the workforce.

> The generated wealth simply doesn't make it to the workforce. Some of it does - real wages in the US are higher than in the past: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Let me contextualize that "some" for you: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17rEg

Real wages have effectively flat-lined over the past 50+ years.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#383
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think piketty would disagree. Productivity per worker has gone up but the share of profits going to workers has gone down. This is not some kind of inflation driven by scarcity.

Except that with machines doing more of the on the job labor at the same time that women are entering the work force en-mass, there was more competition for fewer jobs which depressed wages.

There is always an infinite amount of jobs. Whenever too few people hoard too much wealth is when economic activity slows down and some jobs are no longer worth doing.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post I am responding to mentioned providing a family of five with a self-owned house, a car, a couple of vacations per year and a comfortable retirement. To many people around the world - still today - that would be considered a luxurious lifestyle. You are right that it's possible for one person to support a family. For most people working in the tech industry here on HN they could probably figure out a way to d…

The post you are responding to didn't have Starbucks coffee every day, did have internet, cable tv, subscriptions to streaming services, a computer with a monthly subscription in every pocket. They didn't even have that option. The above is just a short list. Live like 1955 and you can support a family of 5 with, a car, vacations every year and a nice retirement. You won't have many of the other luxuries people enjoy…

No you can't. What does Internet and a computer cost next to rent and going college? Let's say $2,000 for a really nice laptop and another $1,800 for 3 years of Internet access (@ $50/month), round to $4k? Vs $40k, easy, for college?

Before there was starbucks there was a local cafe and coffee shop, before the Internet there were newspapers and magazines to pay for.

It can't be done. We've lost something. We have also gained things. don't get me wrong, I like having the Internet.

If only I could give up Hulu and Netflix, I could afford to go back to college and go on vacation every year? Let me guess, I also just need to eat less avocado toast and I'll be able to afford the downpayment on a house.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#385

It's pretty simple really. If the reward from working is barely enough to cover the necessities, then there is technically no difference between working as a free citizen, and being forced to work as an indentured servant, other than a vague notion of freedom, which in that case is the freedom to decide between working and living on the streets. And people don't like being indentured servants. History should have mad…

You’re going to get a bunch of static because of the objectivist leanings of all the “temporarily impoverished tech billionaires” on HN and pg’s rare miss of an essay about the scarce reagents of the United States manufacturing economy during the Cold War. But you’re fundamentally right. It’s really easy to manipulate indices like the CPI (and oh boy do they have some interesting ideas about what people need in life)…

I'll bite:

> The action item that falls out is the same in both cases: drive capture to keep the “right people” running things.

This rings true, and seems an insightful point. But I lost the plot in the following:

> The result is the same in both cases: if you do a halfway honest plot of productivity and genuine standard of living against the decades, you get divergent lines that seem to be training for an Olympic gymnastics qualification.

I don't really get how this "result" follows, or what prescription you're hinting at. Are you just saying we're very productive but fail to distribute among the citizens? That seems like a garden variety left talking point, which is a bit.. anti-climactic. Not that I even agree or disagree overmuch, but the tone of your post made me think you were building towards a more heterodox take. Am I missing something?

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post I am responding to mentioned providing a family of five with a self-owned house, a car, a couple of vacations per year and a comfortable retirement. To many people around the world - still today - that would be considered a luxurious lifestyle. You are right that it's possible for one person to support a family. For most people working in the tech industry here on HN they could probably figure out a way to d…

> But is it realistic for all families everywhere to be able to support themselves with just a single worker? Yes, because a single worker today is maybe fifty or a hundred times more productive than a worker in the past, thanks to modern equipment.

I gather average productivity growth in most developed countries has been around 2 or 2.5% for the past 60 or so years, working out to at best 3.5 times what it was in the 50s or 60s. Which still makes it reasonable to ask why it's not feasible today for a single income to be sufficient to support a mortgage on a typical family home in the way it was in those times. What I'd like to know is in what cities around the world has housing not become so unaffordable in that period...

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is funny, people somehow think that a momentary episode of utter economic dominance after all other economic powers had been bombed into dust should be the norm. And the 50s and 60s weren't that great for e.g. black people or women in the US either.

Gimme a good argument why good conditions should diminish, or deteriorate, despite the fact that workforce productivity, as well as corporate margins, have been growing steadily ever since.

Good conditions didn't diminish. People now buy vastly bigger and more things. Want to live on one salary like a 1950 person, with 1950 level goods, you can.

Also more classes of people now have much better things: women, minorities.

Labor is not the only input to productivity, so there is zero reason labor rewards should match productivity. As capital expenses increased to obtain modern productivity gains, the reward should go towards capital, which enabled purchase of upgrading tooling. Also as people demanded more rights and benefits, some is taken from wages. When you track total cost to employ, which is what an employer pays to have an employee, you can see all the gains. BLS tracks this and many other related variables (like wages, total remuneration, and a host of other costs and benefits employees have gained over the decades.)

And corporate margins are pretty much the same as ever, net profit ~10% of revenue, since time immemorial. That 10% is what provides cushion so businesses don't implode every hiccup, leaving lots unemployed. [1] has some 1950-now data. There's plenty more places to find more. Fairly constant profit is why stock returns have averaged what they did over 100+ years. If now had vastly more profitable companies, it would have vastly increased returns.

[1] https://cdn.pficdn.com/cms/pgim-fixed-income/sites/default/f...

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... I used to go for walks to think. There is much evidence that it helps people in general, but I know it does for me. I got dinged on my performance review for being away from my desk. Didn't stay long at that company.

> got dinged on my performance review I thought performance reviews were supposed to focus on performance, that is on whether you got the job done on time!

Maybe I'm cynical, but in my experience, performance reviews have very little to do with managing employee performance. They are a bureacratic ritual that lets the company demonstrate they have been managing your performance.

This is useful to the company if they want to let people go, to mitigate any legal risks. They have a record that your performance was being managed. Even though 9 times out of 10 there was no actual management throughout the year.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a tech lead, the big problem I see now is that people are not hungry anymore. The best engineers I've ever worked with were consistently asking for more and leveling up the team at the same time. Now, the post-covid hires, especially the junior engineers, just do the bare minimum to scrape by, and they seem totally unbothered by it. Because they see management not pulling their weight for the pay they get. Why s…

What do you consider a fair pay for junior engineers in order for them to contribute at the capacity they're expected to? Our fresh college grads are paid a total compensation higher than $200K. Is that not enough to expect working, at minimum , 8 hours a day?

Software engineering isn’t like manual labor. Only results should be measured. A programmer in a flow state who is completely focused will get more accomplished in 2 hours than they would in 8 if they were feeling uninspired and disengaged.

Our job is foremost to think and solve problems. She might very well be thinking about solutions to her coding issues while walking the dog. You are not a very deep thinker if you think butt-in-seat time = results.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's important to note that the good old days of a working man being able to support a family of five was only true for a brief period of history in a handful of elite countries. In most of the world, and for most of human history, it hasn't been the case that any single person working 40 hours a week could provide a luxurious lifestyle for a large family. Keyword "luxurious". People first and foremost want…

A roof, food and leisure time are historically luxurious. Poverty is the natural default. Anything more than that requires a lot of hard work as a society, and has only been realized in the tiny sliver of humanity that is recent (last ~200 years) western society. Everywhere else and at all other times has been starvation, strife and constant work to subsist. And you die by 40 on average.

Studies of how remaining hunter/gatherer tribes around the world have/had been living suggests that's not really true - shelter, food and leisure time were almost always readily available. What wasn't was modern medical technology, which has been almost solely responsible for massively reducing deaths in childbirth and early infancy and giving us the average lifespans we enjoy today. Even among civilizations that founded around agriculture, there's little evidence that homelessness, starvation or lack of free time were the constant reality for the masses, even if there's no question what life they did have would be considered incredibly basic by modern developed-world standards.
Post reply on HN