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

191–200 of 279 posts

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

#191

Post by raverbashing »

Strshps1MoreTim wrote: post #66
learc83 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the studies that showed rapid mental decline in old age have been debunked. A 70 year old with no actual problems (e.g., Alzheimer's) is very likely to function perfectly fine mentally. A 2002 study (published in the Alzheimer's and Dementia Journal) found that ~91% of people 70 and older were capable of normal mental function.

Seriously? How many 70 year old people do you know? Let say you need to urgently take your child to a doctor and can choose between a 30 yo and a 70 yo. What would you do?

I'd say the 70 yo doctor is less likely to prescribe new 'fad meds' that cost more and perform worse than the classical drugs

Also, experience

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

#192

Post by stdbrouw »

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…

While I agree with you in general, to some extent poverty/luxury really is relative. If getting a decent job (or starting your own business) means learning how to operate a spreadsheet, then suddenly you're going to need a computer. People didn't have personal computers 50 years ago, but does that make them a luxury now? Likewise, if not having central heating and an indoor toilet makes you a social outcast (who would want to come and visit you in a cold, dark house?) then it stops being about just personal comfort and becomes essential to a happy life.

So, yes, perhaps we don't always have our priorities right (choosing money over time) but it's not necessarily something an individual can do something about -- there's a huge social dimension to it.

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

#193

Post by yaix »

tossacct wrote: post #93
lotu wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are allow to do what ever the fuck you want until you die just don't expect me to give you money for doing what ever the fuck you want. As I too am doing what every the fuck I want, which happens to include only giving money to people who do something useful for me.

I think it is a good thing that individuals control their own money, and can choose to give it to whomever they want. Can we agree that people with no money will starve to death unless they use violence to take food from someone, or the government uses violence to take food from someone on their behalf? The foodstamps of this great depression are equivalent to the soup lines of the old great depression: they prevent…

I don't know in the US, but here in Europe the gov't does not need to "use violence" for that. It is pretty much general consensus that people with no monies should get money (not "foodstamps") from the gov't, payed by our taxes, so they can live with dignity, independently of what the reason for their unemployment / poverty might be.

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

#194

Post by vl »

aridiculous wrote: post #137
mark_l_watson wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, for example, at Google it's possible, some people I know work less than full week, however I doubt that this option is immediately available to a new hire.

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

#196

Post by wildgift »

Osiris wrote: post #147

It would be interesting if people were paid on some measure of productivity rather than just raw hours. Then we could get paid based on our contribution to economic output. Of course, the problem with that is how to do you measure productivity?

How do you measure productivity for management, especially.

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

#197

Post by vidarh »

javert wrote: post #166
derleth wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, the best that the government can do for startups and the economy is just get out of the way. We've tried that and it failed. Does the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire ring any bells?

The proper role of the government is to protect citizens from the initiation of force, and the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire was certainly that. I'm not advocating anarchism.

If you believe this, do you also believe in minimising government enforcement of private property rights?

I ask, because this argument about the "proper role" of government tends to start growing all kinds of exceptions that expand the role of government the moment someone starts taking it to its logical conclusion and argues for removing protections of exclusive access and use of land in particular, as a means of maximising liberty by removing government enforcement of artificial monopolies.

Most countries even today do have substantial exceptions to private property rights for the purpose of increasing liberty for society as a whole (e.g. granting access to natural resources to society as a whole).

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

#198

Post by wildgift »

zanny wrote: post #51
r4dius wrote: post #11

If I didn't have to answer email or deal with any middle management, this could work. But the paradox is that the only scenario in which legitimate optimal efficiency can be attained is in a small-group, highly-communicative environment (like a startup); in that kind of environment, you're putting in 80-hour weeks so you can get profitable as quickly as possible, so there's no way anyone is saying "I've put in my 25…

But those startups are people basically willingly surrendering themselves to the ideology. The article isn't about the empassioned individuals who want to make it big, it is about Average Joe who works at any middle class company 40 hours a week without any desire to do it and no passion to continue. If you have the drive to try to do something big, putting all your time into it is kind of mandatory. But if you just…

The average joe might have passion for work, but also a family and other responsibilities that preclude extended periods of long workdays. They might not want to get divorced.

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

#199

Post by vidarh »

yaix wrote: post #193
tossacct wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is a good thing that individuals control their own money, and can choose to give it to whomever they want. Can we agree that people with no money will starve to death unless they use violence to take food from someone, or the government uses violence to take food from someone on their behalf? The foodstamps of this great depression are equivalent to the soup lines of the old great depression: they prevent…

I don't know in the US, but here in Europe the gov't does not need to "use violence" for that. It is pretty much general consensus that people with no monies should get money (not "foodstamps") from the gov't, payed by our taxes, so they can live with dignity, independently of what the reason for their unemployment / poverty might be.

When Americans use the "use violence" argument, your argument doesn't work as a response, I'm afraid.

It is a libertarian tactic of assuming that anything the government does they don't like is use of violence, except for government protection of artificial property rights which is somehow usually magically exempt.

Post reply on HN