4 ms·

I definitely think we're nowhere near where we could be. I just meant to say that the article's claim that slow productivity growth is "real" doesn't make any

• toomuchtodo 11y ago
  >We definitely could be doing much better though. The question shouldn't be: "what more can we have?" then. It should be: "how can we work less?" http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/ http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/ "An average worker needs to work a mere 11 hours per week to produce as much as one working 40 hours per week in 1950. (The data here is from the US, but productivity increases in Europe and Japan have been of the same magnitude.) The conclusion is inescapable: if productivity means anything at all, a worker should be able to earn the same standard of living as a 1950 worker in only 11 hours per week." To do that, you must legislate a reduction in work hours as productivity increases. Otherwise, corporations and shareholders see all of the gains while workers continue to slave away.
  • toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I can't edit this comment, but hey YC! If you're looking for a basic income candidate who'll spend the money to survive while working as an activist for legislation to reduce working hours in the US, I'm your guy!
    • Joof 11y ago
      Sounds like adding bias to a study :p. Do a Kickstarter?