We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by xtracto » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:41 AM UTC

samstave wrote: post #110

burntsushi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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…

Can you please go back to Slashdot? you are polluting an otherwise interesting discussion.

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

#132

Post by tossacct » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:44 AM UTC

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #125

tossacct wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>It is possible for approximately anybody to cut their expenses to less than 25% of what they are today. I will strongly agree for consumer purchases by people at or above the median household income in America. Strongly disagree for medical purchases , since if you try to save money you may die. I'd love to see some numbers or studies to prove your claim as it applies to Americans in poverty. Even some anecdotal m…

> 20% of American children live in poverty The poverty numbers are cooked to drum up support for the socialist welfare apparatus. For example, if a 17 year old's family moves and they stay behind with a friend's family, they are classified as a "homeless child".

Note: Poverty in my post is intended to mean "low income". I understand that homeless means "without home". How does your post relate to the part of my post that you quoted?

Additionally, do you have any evidence for your assertion?

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

#133

Post by Kluny » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:44 AM UTC

obstacle1 wrote: post #68

revscat wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says someone who obviously doesn't have a child support payment.

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

It's not super helpful to tell someone what they should have done a decade ago, and it doesn't support your argument.

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

#134

Post by zurn » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:47 AM UTC

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…

> We overwhelmingly choose to work the greatest number of hours we can sustainably tolerate (somewhere between 40 and 60 hours for most people), in order to maximise our spending power.

Not so: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=AVE_HRS

(the statistic above excludes vacatyion and national holidays, sick leave, paid maternity/paternity leave etc, which are also much more generous these days)

Note how the well off countries tend to have shorter working hours.

Anecdotally, I only know maybe 2 people who I'd say work more than 40 hours and they're small business owners who really like what they do.

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

#135

Post by jlgreco » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:50 AM UTC

samstave wrote: post #127

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... what it actually costs to live a normal life in Silicon Valley with kids ... By design, the Valley's zoning laws create an artificial shortage of housing units. It costs a lot to live a "normal life" in order to keep out the riff raff.

How does this defen the guys claim "Ill show you how to live well off $10/hr." Every person on HN should realize that they are worth more than $10/hr. Stop defending living in poverty as an exploit of others.

He wasn't suggesting that you do it; he was suggesting that it is possible.

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

#136

Post by Androsynth » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:51 AM UTC

pteredactyl wrote: post #101

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 res…

If anyone else wants to find out more about Edward Bernays, and how he created the field of public relations, I highly recommend the bbc documentary The Century of the Self. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self

It is very much in line with the quote that pteredactyl posted. He also did a lot of early work in consumerism and marketing.

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

#137

Post by aridiculous » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:55 AM UTC

mark_l_watson wrote: post #114

jseliger wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 tha…

Sorry, I must disagree. Two people working 20 hours a week are refreshed, not burned out, have time for educationally side projects, etc. I am in my early 60s and for my whole life I limited my work hours to 32 hours per week, even working for large companies. I had lots of time for educational side projects, exercise, extra time with family and friends, and mediation. My only regret was not perhaps cutting this to l…

Can I ask how you approached this issue with your employer(s)? I am willing to entertain that trade, but it doesn't appear many employers are willing to even think about it. They might fear it hurts employee relations or is simply too radical to comprehend.

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

#138

Post by loca » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:55 AM UTC

The New Economics Foundation (nef) proposes 21 hours:

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/21-hours

A ‘normal’ working week of 21 hours could help to address a range of urgent, interlinked problems: overwork, unemployment, over-consumption, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, and the lack of time to live sustainably, to care for each other, and simply to enjoy life.

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

#139

Post by derleth » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:56 AM UTC

chad_oliver wrote: post #105

ruswick wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Saying that poverty is significantly and astoundingly reduced

... is still going to get a lot of people angry, even if you explicitly limit your scope to the First World. It's a combination of lack of historical perspective coupled with a perception that admitting anything has improved is tantamount to agreeing with the people who think social welfare programs need to be eliminated.

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

#140

Post by Androsynth » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:58 AM UTC

samstave wrote: post #122

danilocampos wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If not, then fuck you you smug ass - it costs to live. Wow. Now why was that necessary? Poster makes a valid point – $10 daily will buy you an existence that looks positively palatial to some, and near a pauper to others. You will be living well, relative to any number of other humans, but lacking the things you want. For example, you probably stop living in the Bay Area.

What? Your argument is to not live in the bay area? OK - Ill move to [WHERE EXACTLY?] to live on a palatial compound for $10/day. N has adopted the reality distortion field, apparently only idiots live here now. Why would I live in the bay area? how stupid of me... *Danilocampos, you're quire renowned here on HN, I find your post to be the lamest thing you have ever said. The replies to my comments have been the lame…

Chill out dude.

If you want to live in the bay area, you have to work for it. If you want to live on $10 a day, the point is you dont want to work for it. You can't have both.

Living on $10 a day can be done. Go build an earthship in Taos.