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

Why Not a Three-Day Week?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Why Not a Three-Day Week?

#101

Post by odonnellryan »

wlievens wrote: post #58
odonnellryan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say no one is pursuing it. I think it just has yet to become considered as a real possibility for many. I believe there may be a certain point in the development of society where there has to be a shift from the economic/capitalist model into a model based on human betterment or an effort directly focused on increased capability to sustain and improve our quality of living. Capitalism worked to get us wher…

But without a personal incentive, nobody will want to do the stuff that isn't fun, or is very risky. How about that?

The personal incentive is that we could all live better lives. We have the means and the capability to directly improve quality of life, rather than gaining capital to trade it for quality of life.

Re: Why Not a Three-Day Week?

#102

Post by TeMPOraL »

wyager wrote: post #100
twobits wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there are also other people that are more desperate, and are willing to work more for less.

That's obviously false. If there were an infinite supply of desperate people "willing to work more for less", wages would be zero, or minimum wage at most. There is a finite supply of labor, and we are not anywhere near a level of technology where we no longer have an unbounded demand for labor.

> If there were an infinite supply of desperate people "willing to work more for less", wages would be zero, or minimum wage at most.

Well, isn't it exactly what's happening? As far as I can tell, in the unskilled job market, like retail or fast food, wages are what they are because anything less is either illegal or makes it better for an employee to stay on welfare.

Re: Why Not a Three-Day Week?

#103

Post by mkr-hn »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #87
TeMPOraL wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should, but they aren't and this is the reality. Capitalism sucks at valuing things that don't give immediate profit. Education is such a thing - it has extreme ROI... 20 years down the line. Which is too long a time and it gets valued less than small changes that will bring in a little bit of money next month.

How is capitalism the thing valuing teacher's salaries? If referring to the US and public education, aren't they a branch of the government? And even ignoring that(for example, at private schools), the 'consumer' here is really the parent. The child isn't in a position to choose schools, so it's really about selling to the parent. I imagine it has to be hard to get a sense of any 20-year projected ROI if you can only…

> How is capitalism the thing valuing teacher's salaries? If referring to the US and public education, aren't they a branch of the government?

The tax base that funds the schools depends on the whims of capitalism.

Re: Why Not a Three-Day Week?

#104

Post by mkr-hn »

wlievens wrote: post #58
odonnellryan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say no one is pursuing it. I think it just has yet to become considered as a real possibility for many. I believe there may be a certain point in the development of society where there has to be a shift from the economic/capitalist model into a model based on human betterment or an effort directly focused on increased capability to sustain and improve our quality of living. Capitalism worked to get us wher…

But without a personal incentive, nobody will want to do the stuff that isn't fun, or is very risky. How about that?

Those jobs aren't different from any other. Some people enjoy installing and maintaining septic systems.

Re: Why Not a Three-Day Week?

#105

Post by psychometry »

wyager wrote: post #97
psychometry wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If automation continues and demand stays the same, things like 3-day work weeks will come about naturally. That's simply not true, otherwise we wouldn't be working the same hours at the same adjusted wages as we were 50 years ago despite massive gains in productivity. A company's increased productivity doesn't benefit the workers, it benefits the owners/shareholders. What do you think the typical factory owner will…

We are working the same hours as 50 years ago because we want to be able to purchase cell phones and modern cars bad stuff. You could work a lot less and live with 50s level technology, but almost no one chooses to. Also, if a shareholder makes more money, they buy more, creating new labor requirements elsewhere.

Your first point is true, but it's not the only explanation for why people still work 40 hours a week. My explanation is far more influential.

And your second point is blatantly false. That's the same, tired, rhetoric Republicans have been spewing since Reagan. Owners of companies doing well won't reinvest that into their companies unless there is demand on the consumer side and they don't spend all of that money on consumables like a worker would (since they have to).

Re: Why Not a Three-Day Week?

#106

Post by czep »

iagooar wrote: post #9
happycube wrote: post #2

I've always thought a four-day week makes a lot more sense than five... 4:3 on/off is a much nicer ratio than 5:2.

It's exactly what I'm thinking about lately. A lot of colleagues of mine work 4 days a week, from Mon - Thu, and have 3 days off. It is a HUGE difference compared to the 5:2 ratio. It's not that I don't enjoy my job, but it sound so much sane to me. I hope next year I'll have saved a little bit of money I currently need so I'll be able to do a 4 day working week.

If you ever have the opportunity to work 4 days a week, choose Tuesday to Friday, rather than Monday to Thursday. The reason is that everyone else will be in a good mood on Friday so it will be much less stressful working Fridays rather than Mondays. For the same reason, don't burn your floating holiday on a Friday.

Re: Why Not a Three-Day Week?

#107

Post by wyager »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #102
wyager wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's obviously false. If there were an infinite supply of desperate people "willing to work more for less", wages would be zero, or minimum wage at most. There is a finite supply of labor, and we are not anywhere near a level of technology where we no longer have an unbounded demand for labor.

> If there were an infinite supply of desperate people "willing to work more for less", wages would be zero, or minimum wage at most. Well, isn't it exactly what's happening? As far as I can tell, in the unskilled job market, like retail or fast food, wages are what they are because anything less is either illegal or makes it better for an employee to stay on welfare.

No. Zero wages would be all people working for free. And clearly most people aren't. Most people also make a lot more than minimum wage.

Re: Why Not a Three-Day Week?

#108

Post by wlievens »

mkr-hn wrote: post #104
wlievens wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But without a personal incentive, nobody will want to do the stuff that isn't fun, or is very risky. How about that?

Those jobs aren't different from any other. Some people enjoy installing and maintaining septic systems.

I don't actually mean particular jobs, bur rather that 20% of any job that everyone hates. Almost no job on earth is fun 100% of the time.

But if I were to bail on the part of my job that I don't like, my end users will be pissed off. So I do all of it because I get paid okay.

Re: Why Not a Three-Day Week?

#109

Post by jazzyk »

padobson wrote: post #80

Economists of yore were wise to see that productivity would increase dramatically, but they were wrong in believing that surplus productivity would translate into leisure time. I look at Google and Ycombinator as the model for the future economy, if economic systems are left unchecked by the threat of physical force. How many people are working at Google everyday on a product that will never produce one red cent? Hun…

"paying such high wages"

High wages? Not compared to doctors or lawyers or mid-level business folks. My friend is a marketing manager (a glorified secretary/copy writer with an MBA, by her own admission) and she makes more or less as much as a senior developer.

Enough already with the "high wages" myth. It is the exact cause for the shortage of software engineers in the US - most young people in the US don't want to pursue it because the reward is not commensurate with the effort and risk.

Re: Why Not a Three-Day Week?

#110

Post by mjburgess »

wyager wrote: post #96
mjburgess wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Reduced labour" isnt produced by automation, increased profit is. To "give back" labour you have to reduce profits. "Leisure time" was won by unions, collective bargaining and legislation. "The Weekend" only exists at all because of the collective actions of the workforce, not of capital owners.

Reduced labor (per output value) and increased profit are the same thing. There is always a trade off between time spent working and wealth. Only through automation can we keep our current quality of life while working less, increase our quality of life without working any more, or do anything between those two possibilities.

No, automation just reduces the amount of repetitive labour. The remaining labour isn't distributed evenly across the workforce: some people take up more work to increase or maintain their level of wealth and some people become unemployed.

Envy and ambition create worst-case nash equilibria for all.

Post reply on HN