Live data from Hacker News

Can we have the day off?

mlsu.io

561–570 of 823 posts

Re: Can we have the day off?

#561
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone thinking about going that way, I highly recommend listening to the Revolutions podcast series starting here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1wVvwnrBP2cVQrFf06RoO9 It'll probably disabuse you of the idea that its a good way to get things done.

It is one of the most eye opening pieces of media. Especially the French and Russian Revolutions are covered in such great detail, while staying interesting. I also loved the appendix to the show where Mike talked about "patterns" in a revolution. Learned a lot about the relationship between the government and its people.

Yeah, for me, Revolutions and The History of Rome are two of the best examples of "this is why knowing history is useful", and that history isn't actually boring - it's basically a highlight reel of some of the highest human dramas. Mike Duncan put out some incredible work.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#562
post #33

This article is kind of playful, but I think there’s a serious point here that’s not discussed enough. We’re being asked to usher in huge productivity gains by introducing AI to our workflows, but we’re not asking how does it help us? Not a lot of us stand to directly gain from our employers becoming more productive. I know everybody is afraid of getting fired and replaced with AI or whatever right now. But we should…

One possibility is once AI becomes profitable and wildly successful, and we all lose our jobs, we vote to nationalize the AI companies, and send some good vibes (but no money) to the VCs who paid for it, and remember that the AI was only built by breaking copyright law at an industrial scale and so it's fair to nationalize it.

[dead]

Re: Can we have the day off?

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone gave me the chance to join something more like a worker-owned coop, where the workers on the business and vote on how it works I run a co-op, and the most surprising thing I've learned is that it seems the only reason other people don't set up their businesses as co-ops is, frankly, greed. In this startup ecosystem, why would you do a co-op when you could instead chase that multi million dollar exit that…

Maybe i’m a cynical capitalist, but I expect everyone to be operating in their own self interest. There are few true saints. Startups are high risk high reward. 9/10 fail. If a VC gets less upside when it works, the successes wouldn’t pay for the failures. Co-op for consulting actually seems like it could work.

> Maybe i’m a cynical capitalist, but I expect everyone to be operating in their own self interest.

Down to explore this with me?

I often wonder if this is self fulfilling. I'm not saying you're selfish, I mean, has capitalism trained people that all people are inherently selfish, and then, within this system where selfishness is rewarded, incentivized further selfishness and continued to sell this myth?

How much maintenance does capitalism take? If human nature is inherently selfish, and capitalism is a force of nature, a ground truth, the answer should basically be no maintenance, right? Is that reality though? It seems to me it takes a lot of maintenance, the myths of capitalism. Look at the incredible amount of resources the USA dedicated to fighting Communism, both explicitly (crossing swords with the Soviet Union) and in the background (overthrowing socialist leaders in south America, meddling in southeast Asia).

Is the key difference for me that led to me making a co-op (rather than a traditional geographic arbitrage agency) that I don't buy into the capitalist notion that humans are inherently selfish? Maybe I just happened to have the experiences that indicated to me that this isn't true, that humans are inherently mostly selfless and social, which led to me researching this and learning that history supports this notion of humans as social-first organisms.

When I tell people about my business, a lot of questions I get confuse me: "You don't require timesheets tracking granular work? How do you know people are actually accurately recording the hours and not 'stealing time?'" the answers are always basically, "because I trust my co-op members," and "I really don't care if people are 'stealing' from me." Capitalism teaches us to always "get ours," but as soon as you let go of that, if people trust me as a genuine actor, they seem to abandon these unnatural principles and work with me honestly, as humans naturally want to.

For your VC example, I mean, nobody will invest in us. Maybe that's the double edged sword - you stop playing within the rules of the game, people won't throw the ball your way anymore. There's no massive value to extract here. That probably limits our ability to rapidly develop some products to generate revenue outside of selling engineering hours. Maybe that's ok though, the business might grow more slowly but sustainably? And maybe that cements our reputation as "no really, actually a co-op that genuinely doesn't put profit first?" I don't know. We'll find out.

But for you, what do you think would happen if you started putting yourself forward as a non-participant, non-self-interested? The prisoner's dilemma equivalent of saying "I will always cooperate no matter what you choose," and then following through on that? Is there a sort of aversion to that knowing that someone might exploit this aspect of you at some point, where you might end up in a situation where your personal profit wasn't maximized?

Re: Can we have the day off?

#565

Benefits for extra productivity filter up to the shareholders not to the workers producing the extra productivity. This reminds me of the Luddite movement in England. Industrial machines were disrupting the textile industry. The Luddites were not anti technology they were against technology allowing employers to suppress wages and working conditions and for increasing the quality of life and more humane working condi…

> The Luddites were not anti technology they were against technology allowing employers to suppress wages and working conditions and for increasing the quality of life and more humane working conditions for the extra productivity. I’m seeing this talking point circulated a lot recently but it’s not really the whole story. Luddites weren’t on a selfless crusade to steal from the rich and give to the poor. They wanted…

It is you that is spreading misinformation. I suggest everyone thinking Aurornis is right, to read the article below, from the smithsonian.

>But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices.

>“They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”[1]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...

Re: Can we have the day off?

#566
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone thinking about going that way, I highly recommend listening to the Revolutions podcast series starting here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1wVvwnrBP2cVQrFf06RoO9 It'll probably disabuse you of the idea that its a good way to get things done.

It's never been a good way to get things done, but when you block off every other venue for change people will be much more willing to take a chance on a high risk option. Violent revolutions aren't usually the first thing people try. Democracies that arise by nonviolent revolution, do so in part due to the threat of what comes next if the nonviolent revolution is crushed. Because if you make sure placards and petiti…

Yeah, I get that it's a useful threat to back up the nonviolent options. I just don't think Americans have tried the nonviolent options wrt economics with any amount of real effort yet, and it's worrying/annoying to see people jumping to the nuclear option as soon as they personally hit a rough patch or start getting scared of one.

When I've gone to local government meetings, I've generally been one of only a few without gray hair. The vast majority of working-age people seemingly can't be bothered to learn the basics about who's running in a non-presidential election, let alone go argue for the boring but extremely impactful things that would actually help people out.

People need to put down the phones and put in some actual effort on fixing things before even jokingly advocating for something that would almost certainly be a mass casualty event. It's shameful.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your labor force makes gains in productivity you can choose to do one of two things: 1. Reduce working hours 2. Grow the economy Guess which option was last picked in 1868 and never again despite massive gains in productivity?

Are we really so sure that reducing working hours can't, itself, lead to improved economic health? Such as by increasing distribution of income flows, and increasing time available for economic consumption? One of the greatest tricks of the modern era in the US has been to convince everyone that making the slice of pie bigger for the richest people is necessary to grow the economy.

In fact, we now know, with a fairly high degree of certainty, that it can.

There have been numerous experiments with four-day work weeks or six-hour work days that have almost uniformly shown increases in overall productivity.

Not just productivity per hour at work. Overall productivity.

The resistance to this is clearly not based in financial concerns, but rather in control, and classism.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#568
post #65

The four day work week is a prisoner's dilemma. If everyone did it, then we'd all get a payoff, but if someone defects to a longer work week they tend to get ahead at work. Thus we all do it and thus we all lose. It's funny how underappreciated it is how the five day work week is powered by norms...at least in the US. People assume there are laws about it. The only laws dictate compensation past certain thresholds, a…

> but if someone defects to a longer work week they tend to get ahead at work. Thus we all do it and thus we all lose.

A four-day-a-week worker here.

I don't know what you exactly mean, but my personal experience is exactly the opposite. I worked for a startup as a founding engineer, just 4d/w (the CTO was crazily open-minded), and I was never so productive. Doesn't matter that the others were working 5 days, pushing more; it was my responsibility to keep up, and it worked pretty well.

Same now, working for a company with the same arrangement.

And no one is or was "losing."

Re: Can we have the day off?

#569
post #467
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That would be true if you and only you are 10x more productive than anyone else. Since everyone is now 10x more productive it just means you have to work just as much as before since you're competition can outwork you. Why? I don't need 10x more stuff. I'd far rather spend 10x less time working. If we're talking about an actual productivity increase, let's just produce the same amount of stuff in 10x less time.

> Why? I don't need 10x more stuff. I'd far rather spend 10x less time working. It's a free market - if you can find someone willing to hire you to work 0.5 days a week, and are happy receiving the same income you do today, you can do so. But your living standards won't improve, while everyone else's will, and by 10x. And the people you are competing with to buy housing, a car, consumer goods, healthcare, food, and e…

> Resources like housing, which are supply constrained, will seem to go up dramatically in price relative to your income, and you'll be living in a slum.

That sounds like a problem with that system. If we're 10x more productive why can't we make 10x as much nice housing?

Re: Can we have the day off?

#570
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That would be true if you and only you are 10x more productive than anyone else. Since everyone is now 10x more productive it just means you have to work just as much as before since you're competition can outwork you. Why? I don't need 10x more stuff. I'd far rather spend 10x less time working. If we're talking about an actual productivity increase, let's just produce the same amount of stuff in 10x less time.

> Why? I don't need 10x more stuff. If everyone had said this 100 years ago we wouldn't have the Polio vaccine, air conditioning etc. There are lots of problems in the world and there are still a ton of incentives to fix those problems. Yes there is also greed, scams, and exploitation - but that's never going to go away

> If everyone had said this 100 years ago we wouldn't have the Polio vaccine, air conditioning etc.

If we got a 4-hour work week that might be a worthwhile trade.

Post reply on HN