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

'It's better for humans in general': The 4-day workweek is closer than you think

marketwatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 198 posts

Re: 'It's better for humans in general': The 4-day workweek is closer than you think

#181

Post by kortilla »

lm28469 wrote: post #142
retrac wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real cost of food has steadily decreased for the last 200 years. (Much of the decrease was before 1980, though.) Here in Canada, one hour of labour at minimum wage, will buy you a 10 kilogram bag of flour, or 4 litres of cooking oil. That's enough calories for days . That is insane buying power compared to the historical norm, right into the 20th century. This is the cost of food as % of household income in the U…

Ok but again, housing is the exact opposite: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr... and worker productivity vs income: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tobias-Arbogast/publica... I'm 200% positive that both my grandparents and great grandparents had it better in pretty much every aspect (job security, housing, future perspectives) than we currently do. We have unlimited bread and circuses…

Unless your great grandparents were born after world war 2, they had it worse in every aspect. People starved in the Great Depression. The only people who starve today are those who refuse to ask for help.

Infant mortality back then was atrocious, my grandpa had two (out of 13) siblings die at birth. He grew up working on the small family farm that was the family’s primary food source with the little excess produced sold to buy supplies for it. A bad harvest meant the whole family starving for months. Healthcare was essentially non-existent.

Step into the 50s during the baby boom and the huge economic boon that came from the post war rebuild and things started to look up, but they were still crap compared to today.

The houses they could so easily afford looked quaint but were absolutely trash quality on average. The ones left today are the nicest from that era. The average ones were gone by the 70s. That’s available today too, go get a manufactured home and it will be roughly the same quality but with better insulation, plumbing and electrical.

>I couldn't afford 14 kids even if 10 died instantly.

You absolutely could if you fed, housed, treated, and schooled them the way they were back when this was common.

Job security was also terrible back then. There was a reason unions were more popular.

You’re really getting a rose colored view of the past and I’m not sure where it’s from.

Re: 'It's better for humans in general': The 4-day workweek is closer than you think

#182

Post by kortilla »

lm28469 wrote: post #138
Jensson wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80 years ago was ww2, not the 60's.

I couldn't afford my great grandparents house on either side of the family, I'm in tech and don't have kids (they had 5 and 2). I can't even qualify for a mortgage for an equivalent house today in the same city

Get off your fucking ass and move like everyone back then did. They didn’t all sit around and cry that they couldn’t afford to live in Manhattan where their great grandparents lived.

Re: 'It's better for humans in general': The 4-day workweek is closer than you think

#183

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

unsigner wrote: post #178
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we really need to do is find a way to get the large nations to go to perpetual war with each other so that we can all live in miserable poverty and spend that beautiful economic output on mutilating random teenagers for no reason!

or you can submit to Putin and Xi and see if they grant you your four-day work week

True yeah huge risk that putin or xi initiates a US land invasion

Re: 'It's better for humans in general': The 4-day workweek is closer than you think

#184

Post by Paul-Craft »

kortilla wrote: post #182
lm28469 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't afford my great grandparents house on either side of the family, I'm in tech and don't have kids (they had 5 and 2). I can't even qualify for a mortgage for an equivalent house today in the same city

Get off your fucking ass and move like everyone back then did. They didn’t all sit around and cry that they couldn’t afford to live in Manhattan where their great grandparents lived.

Listen up, you little shit, why don't you back the fuck down and have a little fucking respect for your fellow commenter?

See how you like it? Assume good faith and have some goddamn manners.

Re: 'It's better for humans in general': The 4-day workweek is closer than you think

#185

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #166
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it about managing others that attracts ghoulish humans?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_superego https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of...

:(

Re: 'It's better for humans in general': The 4-day workweek is closer than you think

#186

Post by bluesign »

machomaster wrote: post #158
bluesign wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me personally, when no commute, even 6x4 hours is much better than 4x8 hours ( 1 hour spent at lunch etc, effectively 4x7 maybe 4x6 anyway )

Of course for you personally 6x4=24 hours of work is better than 4x8=32 hours of work. The math is so simple, obvious and scewed that I don't understand why you wrote your comment, what is the informational value.

Sorry I could write it more clear I suppose; I meant 4 hour daily work 6 days almost has the same productivity (if not more) as 8 hour daily work for 4 days.

If you consider time for lunch and productivity decline in long working hours; having usable free time everyday without spending all your mental energy has huge benefits.

Re: 'It's better for humans in general': The 4-day workweek is closer than you think

#187

Post by BehindBlueEyes »

retrac wrote: post #141
lm28469 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people didn't have ipad pros but could afford rent/mortgage and 3 kids on a single paycheck ? We're flooded in useless shit but can't afford the basics. So yes, underfloor heating, smart light bulbs and google maps are great but is it really all there is to life

The real cost of food has steadily decreased for the last 200 years. (Much of the decrease was before 1980, though.) Here in Canada, one hour of labour at minimum wage, will buy you a 10 kilogram bag of flour, or 4 litres of cooking oil. That's enough calories for days . That is insane buying power compared to the historical norm, right into the 20th century. This is the cost of food as % of household income in the U…

Sure, but what quality of food? It's not affordable if you pay for it later with health issues.

Re: 'It's better for humans in general': The 4-day workweek is closer than you think

#188

Post by BehindBlueEyes »

kortilla wrote: post #181
lm28469 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but again, housing is the exact opposite: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr... and worker productivity vs income: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tobias-Arbogast/publica... I'm 200% positive that both my grandparents and great grandparents had it better in pretty much every aspect (job security, housing, future perspectives) than we currently do. We have unlimited bread and circuses…

Unless your great grandparents were born after world war 2, they had it worse in every aspect. People starved in the Great Depression. The only people who starve today are those who refuse to ask for help. Infant mortality back then was atrocious, my grandpa had two (out of 13) siblings die at birth. He grew up working on the small family farm that was the family’s primary food source with the little excess produced…

There are people starving now in my community in Canada and it's not a problem of pride or asking for help... It is due to multiple issues interacting and compounding. Limited pools of volunteers for the food bank to be open, lack of funding for non profits that help with food security, increased costs of food due to remoteness, lack of appropriate housing and transport esp. for elders who end up isolated, kids bullying each other when accepting free meals at school (that was solved by making meals free for all at least) etc. I myself only started scratching the surface of the problem really.

Re: 'It's better for humans in general': The 4-day workweek is closer than you think

#189

Post by BehindBlueEyes »

soco wrote: post #113
whythre wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet many businesses would love that. More places of employment start acting like Walmart, where you have to be management to get a full time job with benefits. Everyone else has a shifting 30-35 hour schedule that makes it effectively impossible to have a predictable, normal life outside of work. And no benefits for part time workers either. And the pay is so crappy food stamps are practically mandatory.

Let me understand this: the state is actually indirectly subventioning Walmart with those food stamps right? It allows them to give crappy wages because the difference is supported with food stamps paid directly to the employees. And we still call this market economy and capitalism and and and.

And yet, I only ever hear rants about the unemployed being parasites, but never the same about corporations despite them getting way more tax dollars when you add up subventions, grants, tax cuts and indirect support like described above and letting others pay for the damage they do to the environment.

Re: 'It's better for humans in general': The 4-day workweek is closer than you think

#190

Post by BehindBlueEyes »

bobthepanda wrote: post #70
galkk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Daycare closes at 5-6, and schools even earlier. That will greatly limit amount of people who can sustain longer hours.

Not only that but also the reason why eight is popular is because it evenly divides 24. Which ten hours you pick starts getting hard.

Kind of, I thought the reason was because productivity dropped after longer hours.

But mostly, the idea it gives you 8h work, 8h sleep, 8h for self seems like rationalizing and not even entirely true if you commute, unless you take half your commute out of work time...

Post reply on HN