5 ms·

Come on! We live in a world which is specifically designed to make us unhappy. I mean most of us don't even have the option to be less materialistic; most job

Come on! We live in a world which is specifically designed to make us unhappy. I mean most of us don't even have the option to be less materialistic; most jobs that pay enough that you could spend less time at work don't give you the option of doing so. So the only freedom left to people is the freedom to choose how their money is spent. Human relations are constantly being squeezed out and replaced with business deals. And I keep seeing these articles blaming the victims. Folks, this is not some unintended side effect of capitalism- this is the way the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be happy.

romaniv 10y ago
If this was an issue with capitalism in general we wouldn't be discussing it this way, since the issue would date back at lease a century.
- ashark 10y ago
  > If this was an issue with capitalism in general we wouldn't be discussing it this way, since the issue would date back at lease a century. Unless I'm misunderstanding what "this" and "it" refer to, it's not exactly a new topic. Identity, ego, happiness, capitalism, consumerism, work, family, and their various relationships and conflicts have been discussed in ways nearly indistinguishable from how they are today since the dawn of the modern global economy (the 50s), and similar issues have been covered by Western writers since at least the 19th century (much farther back, depending on how much you want to stretch "similar").
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The issue has been discussed for at least a century; as well as being directly discussed, its been a common and recurring theme of art and literature within and concerning the capitalist economies for more than a century.
hgh 10y ago
Is that true? Take a look at e.g. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS# https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS#. In most places, people are working less hours, and they have significantly higher standards of living in many ways. Especially in software development, there are enormous opportunities to work however you like for as many hours as you like. Sure, if you want a mid six-figure salary and try to keep up with the Jones' in SF you'll need to sacrifice some leisure and relationships, but that's not universally true. If your preference is to enjoy meaningful relationships and leisure time outside of work, and you have STEM skills, this is a great time to be alive.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  I chose to work four days a week, and it's been an overwhelmingly good decision. Combined with living somewhere with an extremely low cost of living (I live in a nice flat and have a nice car for $1k/mo) and not liking owning too many material possessions, it's been a fantastic decision. The alternative would be to spend another day a week working for money I literally have no need for and cannot use. I don't want to trade time during my thirties for time during my sixties, either, since time in my thirties is much more useful, as I am better able to do things with it.
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    Was the employer initially interested in hiring 5 days a week for 4?
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      Hmm, if I'm parsing your sentence correctly, yes, I used to work 5 days a week, I requested it be changed to 4 (with a 20% reduction in pay), and they agreed. I can also go back to 5 days if I want, since they've indicated they would prefer that, but I strongly feel that a 5-day work week isn't a good fit for me right now.
      - Ericson2314 10y ago
        Sorry s/for/or in my original post. I've been thinking about whether is reduction in the workweek is politically or culturally possible, even if it is economically motivated. I sort of came to the conclusion that people turning 5 days jobs into 4 would be necessary on the cultural front. Glad to hear of someone that actually did it!
  - bbradley406 10y ago
    I work at a small manufacturing facility, while living in a relatively low COL area. The pay is not exceptional, but enough to clear all expenses, have some fun and save 15%. I am given the choice almost every week (crunch periods and other workers plans sometimes take priority) of working either 4 ~10 hour shifts or 5 ~8's. I find it extremely useful and pleasant, and would gladly keep my current job (6:30-2:30|4:30) over one that paid $4-5 more per hour that had a fixed 9-5 M-F schedule. Having an optional 3 day weekend allows a lot of possibility for longer recreational trips, large projects, dedicating one day to errands and totally freeing the other two, etc. On the other side of the equation, having a wide open afternoon + evening every weekday is great too. It may seem like I'm just preaching to the choir on this one, but I'm also trying to simply raise awareness of what an excellent benefit it is. Realistically, could businesses in other fields adopt this? It's a great way to keep employees happy (saving turnover expenses) and doesn't alter their paycheck. [edit] Since you are working less in exchange for the 20% cut, I realize not every business can do this since paying more people for fewer hours has diminishing returns. Giving the option of 4 10's or 5 8's, though, is still the same hours + work done. Why do we not see this offered more?
DominikR 10y ago
> most jobs that pay enough that you could spend less time at work don't give you the option of doing so. In most countries outside of the West jobs pay much less and you'll be forced to work much more to merely survive. Want to trade with them? > Folks, this is not some unintended side effect of capitalism- this is the way the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be happy. So an economic system where private enterprises produce goods and services based on what they believe will make profit (and not through coercion) and where you, the consumer, as a result have more options to choose from is somehow designed to make you unhappy? What would make you happy? "Democratic Socialism"? Would you prefer to work in forced labour camp? Because that's how Socialism inevitably ends every single time. Even in case of the poster child of Socialism, Venezuela, which recently passed a forced labour law.
- merpnderp 10y ago
  I often wonder if anyone who believe that the freedom to sell your goods and services is a bad thing can be rationalized with. Where do you even start with someone who disagrees with free trade? I mean their stance is basically that slavery (to the state) is a good thing. That's such a philosophical starting point based on intrinsic values, where do you start?
  - randomgyatwork 10y ago
    Doesn't a disagreement with free trade mean that you think products from other countries should be taxed? If thats the case than local goods have a completive advantage in price, thats a good thing for a community isn't it? Free trade is an advantage to these who have the capital to move around, and to the idea of consumerism because unnecessary goods can be cheaper.
    - merpnderp 10y ago
      I meant free market.
- projektir 10y ago
  Some places being worse to live doesn't have any effect on his argument. There's a fairly wide range of states that can make a person unhappy.

romaniv 10y ago

If this was an issue with capitalism in general we wouldn't be discussing it this way, since the issue would date back at lease a century.

ashark 10y ago
> If this was an issue with capitalism in general we wouldn't be discussing it this way, since the issue would date back at lease a century. Unless I'm misunderstanding what "this" and "it" refer to, it's not exactly a new topic. Identity, ego, happiness, capitalism, consumerism, work, family, and their various relationships and conflicts have been discussed in ways nearly indistinguishable from how they are today since the dawn of the modern global economy (the 50s), and similar issues have been covered by Western writers since at least the 19th century (much farther back, depending on how much you want to stretch "similar").
dragonwriter 10y ago
The issue has been discussed for at least a century; as well as being directly discussed, its been a common and recurring theme of art and literature within and concerning the capitalist economies for more than a century.

hgh 10y ago

Is that true? Take a look at e.g. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS# https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS#. In most places, people are working less hours, and they have significantly higher standards of living in many ways. Especially in software development, there are enormous opportunities to work however you like for as many hours as you like. Sure, if you want a mid six-figure salary and try to keep up with the Jones' in SF you'll need to sacrifice some leisure and relationships, but that's not universally true. If your preference is to enjoy meaningful relationships and leisure time outside of work, and you have STEM skills, this is a great time to be alive.

StavrosK 10y ago
I chose to work four days a week, and it's been an overwhelmingly good decision. Combined with living somewhere with an extremely low cost of living (I live in a nice flat and have a nice car for $1k/mo) and not liking owning too many material possessions, it's been a fantastic decision. The alternative would be to spend another day a week working for money I literally have no need for and cannot use. I don't want to trade time during my thirties for time during my sixties, either, since time in my thirties is much more useful, as I am better able to do things with it.
- Ericson2314 10y ago
  Was the employer initially interested in hiring 5 days a week for 4?
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Hmm, if I'm parsing your sentence correctly, yes, I used to work 5 days a week, I requested it be changed to 4 (with a 20% reduction in pay), and they agreed. I can also go back to 5 days if I want, since they've indicated they would prefer that, but I strongly feel that a 5-day work week isn't a good fit for me right now.
    - Ericson2314 10y ago
      Sorry s/for/or in my original post. I've been thinking about whether is reduction in the workweek is politically or culturally possible, even if it is economically motivated. I sort of came to the conclusion that people turning 5 days jobs into 4 would be necessary on the cultural front. Glad to hear of someone that actually did it!
- bbradley406 10y ago
  I work at a small manufacturing facility, while living in a relatively low COL area. The pay is not exceptional, but enough to clear all expenses, have some fun and save 15%. I am given the choice almost every week (crunch periods and other workers plans sometimes take priority) of working either 4 ~10 hour shifts or 5 ~8's. I find it extremely useful and pleasant, and would gladly keep my current job (6:30-2:30|4:30) over one that paid $4-5 more per hour that had a fixed 9-5 M-F schedule. Having an optional 3 day weekend allows a lot of possibility for longer recreational trips, large projects, dedicating one day to errands and totally freeing the other two, etc. On the other side of the equation, having a wide open afternoon + evening every weekday is great too. It may seem like I'm just preaching to the choir on this one, but I'm also trying to simply raise awareness of what an excellent benefit it is. Realistically, could businesses in other fields adopt this? It's a great way to keep employees happy (saving turnover expenses) and doesn't alter their paycheck. [edit] Since you are working less in exchange for the 20% cut, I realize not every business can do this since paying more people for fewer hours has diminishing returns. Giving the option of 4 10's or 5 8's, though, is still the same hours + work done. Why do we not see this offered more?

DominikR 10y ago

> most jobs that pay enough that you could spend less time at work don't give you the option of doing so. In most countries outside of the West jobs pay much less and you'll be forced to work much more to merely survive. Want to trade with them? > Folks, this is not some unintended side effect of capitalism- this is the way the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be happy. So an economic system where private enterprises produce goods and services based on what they believe will make profit (and not through coercion) and where you, the consumer, as a result have more options to choose from is somehow designed to make you unhappy? What would make you happy? "Democratic Socialism"? Would you prefer to work in forced labour camp? Because that's how Socialism inevitably ends every single time. Even in case of the poster child of Socialism, Venezuela, which recently passed a forced labour law.

merpnderp 10y ago
I often wonder if anyone who believe that the freedom to sell your goods and services is a bad thing can be rationalized with. Where do you even start with someone who disagrees with free trade? I mean their stance is basically that slavery (to the state) is a good thing. That's such a philosophical starting point based on intrinsic values, where do you start?
- randomgyatwork 10y ago
  Doesn't a disagreement with free trade mean that you think products from other countries should be taxed? If thats the case than local goods have a completive advantage in price, thats a good thing for a community isn't it? Free trade is an advantage to these who have the capital to move around, and to the idea of consumerism because unnecessary goods can be cheaper.
  - merpnderp 10y ago
    I meant free market.
projektir 10y ago
Some places being worse to live doesn't have any effect on his argument. There's a fairly wide range of states that can make a person unhappy.