3 ms·
We never got the 20 hour work week partially because people actually want to reap the benefits of that increased productivity, like smartphones, better food, et
by wyager 10y ago
We never got the 20 hour work week partially because people actually want to reap the benefits of that increased productivity, like smartphones, better food, etc. It's much cheaper to live at a 1950s standard of life.
We are also forced to spend more in many cases; taxes are higher, EPA vehicle regs are stricter, etc. I am effectively forced to give away ~40% of my work time to federal and state governments (not including taxes on the employer side, like payroll taxes), and I don't make much as a student.
- branchless 10y agoNope these things are all cheap. Land prices dominate. I agree the state is part of the problem: the goverbankment.
- MagnumOpus 10y agoYes, land prices dominate. And who owns all that land? Not the goverbankment, but the people who are willing to work 2x50 hours per week to get the house with the 100 acre garden. Land is a competitive good, land near commercial hubs is scarce and eventually goes to the highest earners in relative terms. If you want to cut working hours for everyone, the government has to mandate it - otherwise people will always be willing to work a smidgen more than you for the better house. The government here is part of the solution, not the problem. (Unless you are talking about municipal zoning and NIMBYism which is certainly part of the problem.)
- branchless 10y agoI don't agree with this vision of people as slavish consumers. I think given the choice people would not work extra hours. If they did they could purchase a house. They would gain no advantage from buying multiple if we taxed land. If people add more value I have no problem with them having a bigger house / more stuff. I have a problem with being forced to work for my landlord.