4 ms·

(3) Less work. People need to work and be useful, but they don't need to slave away for 40-50 hours a week. Humans evolved to work for about 20 hours a week, an

(3) Less work. People need to work and be useful, but they don't need to slave away for 40-50 hours a week. Humans evolved to work for about 20 hours a week, and I think that as soon as automation and society permit it, we'll get back to that. That's a very naive view. The prevalent mentality is "If you can make me $2000 by working 20 hours, then you can make me $5000 by working 50 hours. Why should I settle for $2000 a week if I can get $5000 a week?" How do you envision technology changing that mentality?

KennethMyers 16y ago
I think that the value of money has diminishing returns, so that more than $60K per annum doesn't make you more happy (http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_exper.... If automation and efficiency could bring most people to the point where they could hit this point of diminishing returns at 20 hours a week, I think we'd find more (though not all) people opting for that kind of life.
- reitzensteinm 16y ago
  You're expecting people to behave rationally. I expect them to work 50 hours a week and buy an Aston.
  - mquander 16y ago
    "People" are not a homogeneous blob. I'll work 20 and live cheaply, thanks. If other people work 50 and wind up comparatively wealthy, that's fine.
- CodeMage 16y ago
  You're making an implicit assumption that the only thing that matters is the happiness of the "experiencing self" and that the happiness of the "remembering self" is not important. I'm not convinced of that at all and, frankly, watching the video didn't leave me with an impression that Daniel Kahneman prefers one over the other. You're also making an assumption about which variable will be influenced by "automation and efficiency", as you put it, and how it will be affected. Throughout the human history, the technology has helped us overcome obstacles and "optimize" our lives. Where before you would need to invest significant effort to overcome an obstacle, now you have technology to do it for you. What's the consequence of that? The human effort that was previously needed to overcome that obstacle has become devalued. In other words, technology is more likely to make someone's work obsolete than to allow them to lay back and enjoy having a 20-hour work week. Simply put, whenever technology simplifies a part of your work, you either get more work or you're out of work. It's not that I wouldn't like having a 20-hour work week. It's just that I don't think technology is going to solve that.
wazoox 16y ago
In many studies people that earn enough money appear eager to work less and earn less. YMMV of course.

KennethMyers 16y ago

I think that the value of money has diminishing returns, so that more than $60K per annum doesn't make you more happy (http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_exper.... If automation and efficiency could bring most people to the point where they could hit this point of diminishing returns at 20 hours a week, I think we'd find more (though not all) people opting for that kind of life.

reitzensteinm 16y ago
You're expecting people to behave rationally. I expect them to work 50 hours a week and buy an Aston.
- mquander 16y ago
  "People" are not a homogeneous blob. I'll work 20 and live cheaply, thanks. If other people work 50 and wind up comparatively wealthy, that's fine.
CodeMage 16y ago
You're making an implicit assumption that the only thing that matters is the happiness of the "experiencing self" and that the happiness of the "remembering self" is not important. I'm not convinced of that at all and, frankly, watching the video didn't leave me with an impression that Daniel Kahneman prefers one over the other. You're also making an assumption about which variable will be influenced by "automation and efficiency", as you put it, and how it will be affected. Throughout the human history, the technology has helped us overcome obstacles and "optimize" our lives. Where before you would need to invest significant effort to overcome an obstacle, now you have technology to do it for you. What's the consequence of that? The human effort that was previously needed to overcome that obstacle has become devalued. In other words, technology is more likely to make someone's work obsolete than to allow them to lay back and enjoy having a 20-hour work week. Simply put, whenever technology simplifies a part of your work, you either get more work or you're out of work. It's not that I wouldn't like having a 20-hour work week. It's just that I don't think technology is going to solve that.

wazoox 16y ago

In many studies people that earn enough money appear eager to work less and earn less. YMMV of course.