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

Can we have the day off?

mlsu.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 823 posts

Re: Can we have the day off?

#321

Post by Eridrus »

cattown wrote: post #33

This article is kind of playful, but I think there’s a serious point here that’s not discussed enough. We’re being asked to usher in huge productivity gains by introducing AI to our workflows, but we’re not asking how does it help us? Not a lot of us stand to directly gain from our employers becoming more productive. I know everybody is afraid of getting fired and replaced with AI or whatever right now. But we should…

I think it's a fair question to ask ourselves.

But it's worth noting how leisure hours have been allocated after the invention of the 5 hour work week: we've reduced working hours at the end of life (longer retirements), start of life (longer education), and some amount of people simply do not work.

There hasn't been a reduction in hours during peak earning potential because many jobs are competitive, because firms are in competition with each other.

Maybe some companies will start doing 4 day work weeks because they find that productivity doesn't actually increase from 4 to 5 days and then start outcompeting other companies for talent. But unless 5 days is actually not more productive than 4 days, we're going to have the most competitive organizations continue to be 5 days a week.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#322

Post by zeroonetwothree »

shimman wrote: post #211
moduspol wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computers and the Internet ushered in huge productivity gains. Despite many people losing their jobs as a result, it's tough to argue society isn't better off. I think that's the key difference with AI, though. It's not like I'm losing my job, but at least I have a robot at home that cleans the house and does my laundry. People are having their livelihoods threatened while their utility bills go up because of datacen…

Is this a joke? Income inequality is at it's highest (even worse than the gilded age), deaths of despair are at their highest as well, people can't afford childcare (a years worth of childcare costs more than college), people are losing access to health insurance en masse; but we're suppose to think society is truly better off? What brand of edibles do you have there 'bud? I'd like to fly into that realm of alternate…

When I was a kid “child care” was either your grandparents or the neighborhood kid watching 6 screaming toddlers at once.

I’m pretty sure that doesn’t cost more than college today :).

Our standards have just risen massively.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#324

Post by jatora »

NDlurker wrote: post #85
jatora wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it seems like the lack of consistency would b a net negative in life quality and very annoying to schedule around

Oh it totally is for some people. I don't have or want kids so that's not an issue for me. Scheduling things with friends isn't usually too hard, just have to be more intentional about it/schedule in advance. I like having days off during the week to get errands done when most other people are at work. And if I do need a weekend off that's usually fine because I accrue enough vacation hours where I usually end up sel…

ya overall i am net jealous as fuck of your schedule still lol

Re: Can we have the day off?

#325

Post by mil22 »

krashidov wrote: post #22

> If AI is going to 10x our productivity across the board, that means that I should be able to produce the same amount of output by midday on Monday that, in the before times, would have taken all week. That would be true if you and only you are 10x more productive than anyone else. Since everyone is now 10x more productive it just means you have to work just as much as before since you're competition can outwork you…

This comment should not be getting downvoted. It's exactly right.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#326

Post by defrost »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #317
Auracle wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The houses built in the 60s aren't affordable either. Far, far more people and the same amount of land. > Average families aren't buying prepared food and they have a washing machine from the 90s they bought on craigslist. Well, that's just not true. The average person is absolutely terrible with their money. Not only are they buying prepared food, they're paying someone to drive it to their house.

According to USDA average spending on restaurants is around $4k/yr. So close to 10% of average income.

Does that have any bearing on the experiences of those in the lower four wealth quintiles though ?

The trouble with averages is they don't always say much that is accurate about most people .. it all rests on distributions.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#327

Post by jlebar »

ncallaway wrote: post #304
jlebar wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Choices are made by people who have power and imposed upon people who don't. In a capitalist society, choices are made according to supply and demand. In a world where there's a positive supply shock (in this case, there's a lot more programming available for purchase today than there was a year ago), supply goes up. We therefore expect the price for the good to decrease. This has nothing to do with power or whethe…

Right, but a day off would reduce supply. And 2 days off was not a system dictated by God, which we are obligated to keep in perpetuity (in fact, most religions dictate 1 day off, not 2). So, we could, as a society, just choose to make a 32 hour workweek “full time”, and mandate overtime pay after that. There’s no reason, even under capitalism that we must allow all of the productivity gains to accrue to the benefit…

> There’s no reason, even under capitalism that we must allow all of the productivity gains to accrue to the benefit of solely those at the top of an enormous pile of wealth.

I would question the premise that all or even most of the productivity gains of any past technological improvement have accrued to the benefit of solely those at the top of an enormous pile of wealth.

200 years ago 90% of Americans lived on farms. In the early 1900s, it was 40%. Today that number is 2%.

The economic surplus from that increase in productivity accrued to everyone in society, not just the wealthy. (The evidence for this is that we are all living at a higher standard of living today than we were in the early 1800s or 1900s.)

But certainly the positive supply shock was not great news for farmers, many of whom lost their jobs. In the case of AI, I'm asking us -- programmers -- not to make the mistake of saying "this is not a benefit for me, therefore it's not a benefit for society".

Re: Can we have the day off?

#328

Post by macintux »

porknubbins wrote: post #293
_moof wrote: post #257

Whenever a new way is found to improve efficiency, choices have to be made about how to distribute the new surplus. Choices are made by people who have power and imposed upon people who don't. The people with power under current systems don't care about the people who do the work. They care about getting rich. So if there's an efficiency gain to be had, all of that new efficiency is going to be put towards increasing…

My employers who are introducing AI are not laughing evil supervillains hoovering up all the excess profits, they are normal people who wanted long careers and are as nervous as anyone about competition amd what AI will do to organizations if people become truly redundant.

How many of those employers are living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to feed their kids?

I have less sympathy for decision-makers who are stressed than the people who’ll be fired first, and have less mobility. Or safety net.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#329

Post by jvanderbot »

_moof wrote: post #257

Whenever a new way is found to improve efficiency, choices have to be made about how to distribute the new surplus. Choices are made by people who have power and imposed upon people who don't. The people with power under current systems don't care about the people who do the work. They care about getting rich. So if there's an efficiency gain to be had, all of that new efficiency is going to be put towards increasing…

This narrative is clean, matches expectations and history.

But let's be clear - we all probably own a decent part of our companies (collectively). Productivity gains mean winning the race to market, profits, glory. And that means ownership is valuable.

At the _very least_, you can push your company stock higher and buy it with your 10% IRA contributions or through a similar investment program and make 16x your investment over your 40 year career.

It's easy to look tactically at productivity gains being "captured" by high CEO bonuses, and that's legitimate, but we have so sufficiently seized the means of wealth production if we have stock options and market access that I'm not sure it's really valid to say we get, paraphrasing, "nothing if not a day off work".

Re: Can we have the day off?

#330

Post by OneOffAsk »

fg137 wrote: post #296

I never understand why software engineers are so excited about AI as a whole. If you are excited about the technology, sure. But if you are excited about the increase in productivity, unless you are a manager, I don't really understand it. Like, why? You are not working one hour less than before. If anything, it's more likely you'll get laid off and have trouble finding your next job.

There’s a natural desire for people to want to make things. Most of the time it’s physical: homes, crafts, woodworking. But for a few of us it’s ok for it to be non physical. Actually, that’s part of the allure of programming: you don’t need much more than a computer and some thinking to build incredibly intricate… things. AI is like a brand new power tool. It’s fun to use because you can build faster. I felt a sense of giddiness the first time I used a table saw after using a push saw my whole life.
Post reply on HN