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

Can we have the day off?

mlsu.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 823 posts

Re: Can we have the day off?

#811

Post by jonstewart »

tsunamifury wrote: post #372
jonstewart wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." — Thucydides

It’s a stupid statement by a stupid philosopher. Years later we learned collective development and incentive produced a society he could have never imagined. It’s simply being looted now by the idiots this moron worshiped.

It’s from the Melian Dialogue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos) and it’s perhaps the most succinct embodiment of the realist school of international relations/politics.

I quote it here because the best way to get a day off is not to continue being weak, but to find strength, just as miners and railroad workers found strength in the 1870s.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#812

Post by topaz0 »

Gareth321 wrote: post #787
topaz0 wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what starvation and gulags have to do with anti-capitalist reform. In this country (the USA), capitalism is what produces gulags and starvation.

On the contrary. The U.S. has so much food that 72% of Americans are fat. There is simply too much tasty food available. This happened in a very short space of time, historically speaking, thanks to capitalism. As for gulags, one would need to use a very cynical definition to believe that. Especially when we have real gulags around the world today. I imply that the alternative to capitalism is starvation an gulags be…

My man, you suffer from capitalist realism. I don't think I can help you.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#813

Post by throw0101a »

moduspol wrote: post #651
throw0101a wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Computers and the Internet ushered in huge productivity gains. “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.” — Robert Solow * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox * https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-solow-productivity-pa... Connectivity/the Internet gave a bit of a boost during the 1990s, but the numbers pearked around 2004: * https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/…

I mean productivity generally, not economic productivity as measured by market cap growth or GDP. Nobody is operating businesses now without electronic cash registers, POS systems, accounting systems, etc. It's way more productive to use computers and the Internet than to try to accomplish the same stuff without them.

> Nobody is operating businesses now without electronic cash registers, POS systems, accounting systems, etc. It's way more productive to use computers and the Internet than to try to accomplish the same stuff without them.

Well, yes. But once you make the switch and get your productivity boost, that's it: a one-time shot. How do you improve things after that?

Re: Can we have the day off?

#814

Post by throw0101a »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #319
throw0101a wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Computers and the Internet ushered in huge productivity gains. “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.” — Robert Solow * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox * https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-solow-productivity-pa... Connectivity/the Internet gave a bit of a boost during the 1990s, but the numbers pearked around 2004: * https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/…

We wouldn’t expect productivity to keep growing from one innovation. Growth requires new innovations every year. So in the absence of innovations productivity would stop increasing.

> So in the absence of innovations productivity would stop increasing.

But isn't the premise of "progress" a continuing improvement of things? At what point does it change to "stagnation"?

Re: Can we have the day off?

#815

Post by musicale »

musicale wrote: post #447
jlebar wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The historical automation story seems to be that technology replaces workers, and those workers typically end up taking lower-paying jobs As I said, when farming became more efficient, it wasn't great to be a farmer. But when I say (and I assume everyone else here also says) "I don't want to go back to a world where 90% of people had to be farmers" (because farming was so inefficient), that's another way of saying,…

> As I said, when farming became more efficient, it wasn't great to be a farmer What you seem to be saying is that consolidation of the farming industry into fewer producers with higher productivity was good for food buyers and society at large, which might be true but doesn't contradict GP's point that when their company earns $100 more due to improved employee productivity, approximately $0 of that will be paid to…

see also: "The Record Divide Between Corporate Profits and Worker Pay"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48330421

Re: Can we have the day off?

#816

Post by therealpygon »

suttontom wrote: post #761
therealpygon wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Nobody is actually getting replaced” is an interesting take given currently available information on force reductions, stated cause, and AI implementation increases across sectors replacing workloads and causing fewer employees to accomplish the same goals, regardless of any opinions on whether that is positive, negative, problematic, or anything else to the future since the impact is now. Could you point to some fa…

https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/technology/ai-layoffs... https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2025/10/seven-myths-about-ai-and-pr... https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/05/26/1137855/a-realit... You?

Cool opinion pieces that build stories from cherry-picked data.

My sources? Easy.

Just try searching for news stories of companies directly stating AI is the reason for layoffs. I don’t need to do any statistical or mental gymnastics for my evidence of it happening when it is literally as easy as looking at the result and the stated causes.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#817

Post by Eridrus »

omnimus wrote: post #535
Eridrus wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a fair question to ask ourselves. But it's worth noting how leisure hours have been allocated after the invention of the 5 hour work week: we've reduced working hours at the end of life (longer retirements), start of life (longer education), and some amount of people simply do not work. There hasn't been a reduction in hours during peak earning potential because many jobs are competitive, because firms a…

It's strange to put it like “we invented 40hour workweek”. It was extremely hard fight won by cooperation of many levels of the working class. The business owners absolutely didn't want it. This would have to happen again. But there is none of that worker unity so it's unlikely to happen. The productivity gains will go solely to the bussiness owners.

While unions did fight for the 40 hour work week and crystalized that specific number, their actual causal impact (on hours worked, not law) is contested since hours were already falling well before unions were organizing for the 40 hour work week.

Re: Can we have the day off?

#818

Post by suttontom »

therealpygon wrote: post #816
suttontom wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/technology/ai-layoffs... https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2025/10/seven-myths-about-ai-and-pr... https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/05/26/1137855/a-realit... You?

Cool opinion pieces that build stories from cherry-picked data. My sources? Easy. Just try searching for news stories of companies directly stating AI is the reason for layoffs. I don’t need to do any statistical or mental gymnastics for my evidence of it happening when it is literally as easy as looking at the result and the stated causes.

What is your problem? Do you think something is an opinion piece just because it has a byline? What about https://www.forrester.com/press-newsroom/forrester-impact-ai...? Is there literally any evidence you'd accept?

You know companies lie and overstate things, right?

Re: Can we have the day off?

#819

Post by bdangubic »

therealpygon wrote: post #816
suttontom wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/technology/ai-layoffs... https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2025/10/seven-myths-about-ai-and-pr... https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/05/26/1137855/a-realit... You?

Cool opinion pieces that build stories from cherry-picked data. My sources? Easy. Just try searching for news stories of companies directly stating AI is the reason for layoffs. I don’t need to do any statistical or mental gymnastics for my evidence of it happening when it is literally as easy as looking at the result and the stated causes.

if you believe what companies are telling you (publicly traded companies especially which have to say this), I got some Enron stock options to sell to you :)

Re: Can we have the day off?

#820

Post by therealpygon »

suttontom wrote: post #818
therealpygon wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool opinion pieces that build stories from cherry-picked data. My sources? Easy. Just try searching for news stories of companies directly stating AI is the reason for layoffs. I don’t need to do any statistical or mental gymnastics for my evidence of it happening when it is literally as easy as looking at the result and the stated causes.

What is your problem? Do you think something is an opinion piece just because it has a byline? What about https://www.forrester.com/press-newsroom/forrester-impact-ai... ? Is there literally any evidence you'd accept? You know companies lie and overstate things, right?

Your first article seems to start with a premise that laying off workers, whose jobs magically no longer need doing, and hiring AI focused workers means AI didn’t replace anyone. Your second article really doesn’t seem to address the subject beyond mostly talking about “overhyped” versions of conversations. The third article uses the fact that people who are exposed to AI aren’t entirely unemployed (despite rising unemployment across sectors and decreasing pay) and as such is proof a job apocalypse is unlikely. You follow up with yet another article in a similar vein.

Are you missing the pattern here?

Which of these articles and which part specifically do you believe supports the statement “NO ONE” is losing their job due to AI? Zero. Not a single one?

Okay, if not that, are you trying to refute my statement that automation is increasing across sectors? Which one of your articles refutes this statement categorically? Is it that you’re refuting AI is used in or to implement automations? Are you refuting that people have lost jobs to automations? Are you refuting that an AI does not need to replace an ENTIRE job in order to cause someone to lose their job or for a job to be replaced with a lesser paying job?

I’m not clear on how you think what you have provided is actually contextually relevant to the words I actually wrote, much less how I must have a “problem” because of it.

Post reply on HN