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

We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

sciencenordic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 279 posts

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#101

Post by pteredactyl »

jdietrich wrote: post #92

In the 1950s, there was the great promise of "the leisure society" - a future of such material abundance that most people would hardly need to work. That society became possible, but we systematically rejected it in favour of more consumption. The cost of living hasn't meaningfully increased, we've just continually redefined luxuries as necessities. My grandparents are perfectly typical working-class people. They gre…

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” -- Edward Bernays, 'Propaganda', 1928

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#102

Post by electromagnetic »

rndmize wrote: post #31
Zigurd wrote: post #2

Until we come to grips with what will likely be a post-labor world, this is a good transitional approach. The 40 hour week is an arbitrary standard, and it may now be rational to reduce that number. Few jobs are now so arduous that 70 year olds cannot perform well. We are suffering from outdated standards for work weeks and retirement age, and un-sticking our assumptions is likely to benefit the situation.

I'm fairly sure the 40 hour week is far from arbitrary. There's someone on HN who has a long post about working hours and the wide variety of studies that were done demonstrating that 40 hours resulted in higher efficiency than 50 or more as far back as the 1930s, and that peak efficiency for white collar work is even less (6 hour days). I'll have to see if I can find it.

The thing is, 40 hours less my hour lunch a day ends up at 35 hours, which over 7 days is only 5 hours. To me personally I would prefer to work 5 hours a day every day than be getting up at 6am to get home for 6pm, and forget it if I want to do groceries on a night, I'll be getting home in time to have a shower, read a chapter of a book and fall asleep.

My weekend work usually averages around 4-5 hours a day, I get to relax, I get to run out and do groceries and don't even notice having worked.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#103

Post by ruswick »

jdietrich wrote: post #92

In the 1950s, there was the great promise of "the leisure society" - a future of such material abundance that most people would hardly need to work. That society became possible, but we systematically rejected it in favour of more consumption. The cost of living hasn't meaningfully increased, we've just continually redefined luxuries as necessities. My grandparents are perfectly typical working-class people. They gre…

My life has exhibited at various points a preponderance of the issues that your grandparents faced. Most people I know still cope with issues mentioned above. I'm not sure why you believe that poverty has vanished even among people on minimum wage: it has absolutely not.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#104

Post by eriksank »

tossacct wrote: post #64
ahomescu1 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could start your own company, be your own employer and work as much as you feel like.

>>>You could start your own company, be your own employer and work as much as you feel like. Most people in the United States do not have this option because they do not have enough money to do so.

In any modern economy, you can redefine a business plan that requires capital into one that does not. The problem is rather what will you live off while the business is still taking off? That is where you may need savings. But then again, it is possible for approximately anybody to cut their expenses to less than 25% of what they are today. (1) Move to a cheaper area (2) get rid of everything you can do without. And then you will see what the real problem is: They hang out to things they could get rid off. This is what it truly means: "they do not have enough money to do so".

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#105

Post by chad_oliver »

ruswick wrote: post #103
jdietrich wrote: post #92

In the 1950s, there was the great promise of "the leisure society" - a future of such material abundance that most people would hardly need to work. That society became possible, but we systematically rejected it in favour of more consumption. The cost of living hasn't meaningfully increased, we've just continually redefined luxuries as necessities. My grandparents are perfectly typical working-class people. They gre…

My life has exhibited at various points a preponderance of the issues that your grandparents faced. Most people I know still cope with issues mentioned above. I'm not sure why you believe that poverty has vanished even among people on minimum wage: it has absolutely not.

Saying that poverty is significantly and astoundingly reduced is not the same thing as saying it has vanished.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#106

Post by WalterBright »

mattschoch wrote: post #21
bertzzie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Few jobs are now so arduous that 70 year olds cannot perform well. I think it's mostly physical jobs that 70 year olds cannot perform well. And that kind of job can be automated by robots anyway. For job like programming or CEO, I kind of think that 70 year olds can do better than say 20 year olds.

>>For job like programming or CEO, I kind of think that 70 year olds can do better than say 20 year olds. Maybe in 50 years, but currently I'd say a 20-30 years old is the prime programmer age. Young people tend to learn new tech quicker, and be faster/more efficient at typing and using computers.

Are you so sure about that? I'm 53, and I believe I'm a far more effective programmer than I was in my 20's.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#107

Post by jseliger »

jdietrich wrote: post #92

In the 1950s, there was the great promise of "the leisure society" - a future of such material abundance that most people would hardly need to work. That society became possible, but we systematically rejected it in favour of more consumption. The cost of living hasn't meaningfully increased, we've just continually redefined luxuries as necessities. My grandparents are perfectly typical working-class people. They gre…

>In the 1950s, there was the great promise of "the leisure society" - a future of such material abundance that most people would hardly need to work. That society became possible, but we systematically rejected it in favour of more consumption.

I'm not convinced this is true: there are also intense coordination costs and learning costs. Two programmers working 20 hours a week, for example, are way less productive than one programmer working 40 hours a week. And the one programmer will learn faster because she's putting in an extra 20 hours a week.

That's true in virtually all knowledge / creative / intellectual professions.

If people are simply executing a set of tasks, maybe working 20 hours a week can make sense, but those jobs are basically commodities, and commodity jobs are a) highly competitive, b) not that remunerative, and c) because of a and b, not that much fun.

EDIT: In response to the commenters below, take a look at Brooks' The Mythical Man Month if you'd like data, at least as far as programmers are concerned.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#108

Post by samstave »

ctdonath wrote: post #94
samstave wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the title should be: "It should only require 25 hours per week to make a comfortable living" We should all put in the most amount of time to our lives and passions, but to maintain a comfortable life should not consume 100% of our available productive hours. (assuming productive hours == 8/day, 5 days/week) If maintaining a living (comfortable or not) requires 100% of our productive work time (40 hours/w…

The problem is what constitutes "maintaining a living", both in your own choices and governmental influence. I can show you how to live well on $10/day, but then you'd complain about not having X Y and Z (starting with two cars and a mortgage in a narrow geographic range). If you can't do without what amounts to luxuries to 75% of the world population, discussing how many hours a week you "should" work is a non-start…

OK - I am your student

I live in the bay area, Married, have 2 kids and work in SF.

Show me how to live on $10/day.

Consider me your student.

Unless your comment of "showing me how to live on $10/day" is really titled "show a homeless 15 year-old with no job, family or financial obligations how to subsist on $10/day"

If you really can show me how to live on less than the cost it is for me to get to work ($7.10, BTW) then i will accept you as my teacher. (I already ride my bike EVERYWHERE - literally - I do not personally drive at all)

If not, then fuck you you smug ass - it costs to live.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#109

Post by adamors »

tossacct wrote: post #100
obstacle1 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, looks like he chose to not get married, not have a kid, and not get divorced.

>>>Yes, looks like he chose to not have a kid In the US this is not legally a man's choice. Wikipedia>>>In some cases, men and boys that have been raped (statutorily or otherwise) by women have been forced to pay child support to their rapists.[1] [1] http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm

Also, shotgun weddings.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#110

Post by samstave »

burntsushi wrote: post #88
samstave wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the title should be: "It should only require 25 hours per week to make a comfortable living" We should all put in the most amount of time to our lives and passions, but to maintain a comfortable life should not consume 100% of our available productive hours. (assuming productive hours == 8/day, 5 days/week) If maintaining a living (comfortable or not) requires 100% of our productive work time (40 hours/w…

> (assuming productive hours == 8/day, 5 days/week) Bad assumption. > If maintaining a living (comfortable or not) requires 100% of our productive work time (40 hours/week) then how are you not a slave to that subsistence lifestyle? What is "subsistence" about it? I understand subsistence living to mean "having just enough to survive."

Jesus, you and ctdonath sound like 20-something morons.

Get a fucking life with several mortgages and children.

Or, better yet - go live the idolized life of the genius software development hermit you both appear to think yourself to be. What a wonderful life that will be.

I am so sick of these douchebag HNers that all think of themselves to be the next rails revolution and have no fucking clue as to what it actually costs to live a normal life in Silicon Valley with kids (even when, as I have, you have been living and working in tech for 20 years)

Get the fuck out.

Post reply on HN