3 ms·

>>We take that entirely for granted now, like it can't come back and get us. It can. There's no evidence at all that industrial revolution era working conditio

>>We take that entirely for granted now, like it can't come back and get us. It can. There's no evidence at all that industrial revolution era working conditions can return. The dominant force shaping working conditions was and is labour productivity. Before industrialization, low labour productivity meant short brutish lives. The 12 hour work days of the industrial revolution were a relative improvement, because they provided a more reliable source of sustenance than the substitence farming of previous eras. As productivity increased, the number of hours of works, especially very dangerous and streneous work, declined, as the risks of such work started to outweigh the risks of foregoing the additional income of taking on that work. This decline had next to nothing to do with any concerted social effort.

musage 8y ago
Working conditions means much more than just raw number of hours. Let's take the "pop culture" notion of the Pyramids: You're talking about the difference between thousands of slaves working for generations, and a few slaves working for a few years. They're talking about the more important struggle, which revolves around whether people build pyramids for Pharaohs, or working for themselves and each other as peers. If you squint just right, you're kind of being an Uncle Tom saying if we just please master really well, and work harder, master will be nice to us. Whereas I suspect master will never be happy because master got up on the wrong foot before we even entered the picture, and will just grow more sadistic as the power gap increases. > There's no evidence at all that industrial revolution era working conditions can return. Well, not literally. Even if the exact same conditions returned, the calendar would show a different date, so they wouldn't be exactly the same conditions. But when it comes to servitude and exploitation, that's about power and abuse, and something social and psychological things rather than anything to do with productivity -- and if you want to claim that can't "return", good luck, but you'd first have to explain away those parts of it it that never really went away. At any rate, the burden of proof is not on the person saying that it can get worse. > This decline had next to nothing to do with any concerted social effort. Considering that sentence and the reality, this isn't that much better than, say, Holocaust denial. Fuck anyone dragging out Godwin, too: people were brutally murdered over wanting to not be exploited like farm animals. To belittle this is to murder them again. I stand by that. At the least I want to ask "who told you this.. disgusting shit", and then ask that person the same, until I get to someone I can lean into. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_rights > Many labor movement campaigns have to do with limiting hours in the work place. 19th century labor movements campaigned for an Eight-hour day. Worker advocacy groups have also sought to limit work hours, making a working week of 40 hours or less standard in many countries > Labor rights advocates have also worked to combat child labor. They see child labor as exploitative, cruel, and often economically damaging. Child labor opponents often argue that working children are deprived of an education. > Labor advocates and other groups often criticize production facilities with poor working conditions as sweatshops and occupational health hazards, and campaign for better labor practices and recognition of workers rights throughout the world. There's of course so much more to quote, and more to quote from than that WP article, but at any rate, to claim there was and is "no concerted societal effort" involved --- I'm kind of speechless still. Anyone still able, reject this poison. Take note of it, dissect it, reverse engineer it. But do not drink it.
vertexFarm 8y ago
Do you know where the 8-hour work day came from? Because it definitely wasn't an increase in productivity. Just because our productivity has risen doesn't mean industries wouldn't demand even more production from an increase in hours. Publicly traded companies in fact must continuously grow and increase productivity endlessly so as to increase shareholder value. It's almost a tropism. It's not somebody's conscious conspiracy or mustache-twirling evil plan, it's just the nature of these societal mechanisms we're living with. And people lived brutal lives for many more reasons besides low labor productivity. I feel like that's a correlation fallacy on your part or something. I'm a TA in advertising who specializes in motion graphics, rigging, and 3d rendering. My work has shifted from permanent employees to contractors over the last few years, along with the loss of protections that implies. Predictably, working hours have expanded vastly. It's very stressful work and I have virtually no security. This is happening to steadily more people in more industries, including ones that were thought to be too highly educated to be vulnerable. It's a trend that will continue if nobody does anything about it. You say there's no evidence those conditions can return, but that's a weird negative proof situation. What kind of evidence am I supposed to provide for that, a crystal ball? Trends are already moving in that direction. The decay of the middle class is already happening. Even with all our increases in productivity, people on average just can't afford the benefits that previous generations had, and are less likely to be upwardly socially mobile. And it's only getting worse. That, combined with the fact that society often defaults to immense wealth divides in multiple cultures all throughout history--transforming the vast majority of people into paupers and serfs--should be proof enough. The secure, prosperous lives we enjoy in the developed world are not the default state. The privileges we take for granted are the result of blood and toil from labor and civil rights movements over the centuries.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  >>Do you know where the 8-hour work day came from? Because it definitely wasn't an increase in productivity. The mandated 8 hour work week came as a result of concerted political effort, but the reductions in work hours were happening anyway, due to independend economic forces. Just to give one example, Henry Ford instituted a 5-day work week in 1922. He instituted an 8 hour work day in 1926: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-factory-workers-get-40-hour-week https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-factory-wor... Moves like this had competitive implications, which forced other employers to do the same. Today employers are exploring 4 hour work days. None of this is driven by top-down mandates imposed through legislation. >>Just because our productivity has risen doesn't mean industries wouldn't demand even more production from an increase in hours. This comment belies a basic misunderstanding of the leverage held by employers. First of all, their profitability declines if their employees are less productive per hour of labor as a result of longer work days. That's saying nothing of the health implications of longer work days, and the higher rates of worker turn-over. Second, employers are competing with each other for a limited pool of workers. They have to offer attractive terms to recruit quality employees. They are not in a position to demand anything they want. We would be in a sorry state if the only force that improves labor conditions and compensation is top-down mandates that regiment the range of acceptable employment contracts. Fortunately it is not the only force. In fact, such laws are worse than useless, in removing options from the market that would otherwise be in everyone's best interests to exist. >>And people lived brutal lives for many more reasons besides low labor productivity. It was almost solely down to low labor productivty, as a consequence of the economy having very little physical capital. The United States economy in the mid 19th century had per capita GDP comparable to some of the poorest countries in the world today. The story of development is one of private investment generating capital, which boosts output, which enables higher volumes of investment. It's a long-term process that can transform a society from a state of extreme primitivity, to one of great opulence over the course of a few generations. >>I'm a TA in advertising who specializes in motion graphics, rigging, and 3d rendering. My work has shifted from permanent employees to contractors over the last few years, along with the loss of protections that implies. Predictably, working hours have expanded vastly. It's very stressful work and I have virtually no security. That's a consequence of an increase in the supply of people with your skillset relative to demand. Restricting work hours and mandating long-term employment in your field would greatly reduce the demand for the services you provide, because it would cost employers more to procure said services. The second order consequence of this would be less of these services being consumed by society, meaning the price paid by consumers increasing, and fewer people being able to make a living from providing these services.

musage 8y ago

Working conditions means much more than just raw number of hours. Let's take the "pop culture" notion of the Pyramids: You're talking about the difference between thousands of slaves working for generations, and a few slaves working for a few years. They're talking about the more important struggle, which revolves around whether people build pyramids for Pharaohs, or working for themselves and each other as peers. If you squint just right, you're kind of being an Uncle Tom saying if we just please master really well, and work harder, master will be nice to us. Whereas I suspect master will never be happy because master got up on the wrong foot before we even entered the picture, and will just grow more sadistic as the power gap increases. > There's no evidence at all that industrial revolution era working conditions can return. Well, not literally. Even if the exact same conditions returned, the calendar would show a different date, so they wouldn't be exactly the same conditions. But when it comes to servitude and exploitation, that's about power and abuse, and something social and psychological things rather than anything to do with productivity -- and if you want to claim that can't "return", good luck, but you'd first have to explain away those parts of it it that never really went away. At any rate, the burden of proof is not on the person saying that it can get worse. > This decline had next to nothing to do with any concerted social effort. Considering that sentence and the reality, this isn't that much better than, say, Holocaust denial. Fuck anyone dragging out Godwin, too: people were brutally murdered over wanting to not be exploited like farm animals. To belittle this is to murder them again. I stand by that. At the least I want to ask "who told you this.. disgusting shit", and then ask that person the same, until I get to someone I can lean into. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_rights > Many labor movement campaigns have to do with limiting hours in the work place. 19th century labor movements campaigned for an Eight-hour day. Worker advocacy groups have also sought to limit work hours, making a working week of 40 hours or less standard in many countries > Labor rights advocates have also worked to combat child labor. They see child labor as exploitative, cruel, and often economically damaging. Child labor opponents often argue that working children are deprived of an education. > Labor advocates and other groups often criticize production facilities with poor working conditions as sweatshops and occupational health hazards, and campaign for better labor practices and recognition of workers rights throughout the world. There's of course so much more to quote, and more to quote from than that WP article, but at any rate, to claim there was and is "no concerted societal effort" involved --- I'm kind of speechless still. Anyone still able, reject this poison. Take note of it, dissect it, reverse engineer it. But do not drink it.

vertexFarm 8y ago

Do you know where the 8-hour work day came from? Because it definitely wasn't an increase in productivity. Just because our productivity has risen doesn't mean industries wouldn't demand even more production from an increase in hours. Publicly traded companies in fact must continuously grow and increase productivity endlessly so as to increase shareholder value. It's almost a tropism. It's not somebody's conscious conspiracy or mustache-twirling evil plan, it's just the nature of these societal mechanisms we're living with. And people lived brutal lives for many more reasons besides low labor productivity. I feel like that's a correlation fallacy on your part or something. I'm a TA in advertising who specializes in motion graphics, rigging, and 3d rendering. My work has shifted from permanent employees to contractors over the last few years, along with the loss of protections that implies. Predictably, working hours have expanded vastly. It's very stressful work and I have virtually no security. This is happening to steadily more people in more industries, including ones that were thought to be too highly educated to be vulnerable. It's a trend that will continue if nobody does anything about it. You say there's no evidence those conditions can return, but that's a weird negative proof situation. What kind of evidence am I supposed to provide for that, a crystal ball? Trends are already moving in that direction. The decay of the middle class is already happening. Even with all our increases in productivity, people on average just can't afford the benefits that previous generations had, and are less likely to be upwardly socially mobile. And it's only getting worse. That, combined with the fact that society often defaults to immense wealth divides in multiple cultures all throughout history--transforming the vast majority of people into paupers and serfs--should be proof enough. The secure, prosperous lives we enjoy in the developed world are not the default state. The privileges we take for granted are the result of blood and toil from labor and civil rights movements over the centuries.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>Do you know where the 8-hour work day came from? Because it definitely wasn't an increase in productivity. The mandated 8 hour work week came as a result of concerted political effort, but the reductions in work hours were happening anyway, due to independend economic forces. Just to give one example, Henry Ford instituted a 5-day work week in 1922. He instituted an 8 hour work day in 1926: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-factory-workers-get-40-hour-week https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-factory-wor... Moves like this had competitive implications, which forced other employers to do the same. Today employers are exploring 4 hour work days. None of this is driven by top-down mandates imposed through legislation. >>Just because our productivity has risen doesn't mean industries wouldn't demand even more production from an increase in hours. This comment belies a basic misunderstanding of the leverage held by employers. First of all, their profitability declines if their employees are less productive per hour of labor as a result of longer work days. That's saying nothing of the health implications of longer work days, and the higher rates of worker turn-over. Second, employers are competing with each other for a limited pool of workers. They have to offer attractive terms to recruit quality employees. They are not in a position to demand anything they want. We would be in a sorry state if the only force that improves labor conditions and compensation is top-down mandates that regiment the range of acceptable employment contracts. Fortunately it is not the only force. In fact, such laws are worse than useless, in removing options from the market that would otherwise be in everyone's best interests to exist. >>And people lived brutal lives for many more reasons besides low labor productivity. It was almost solely down to low labor productivty, as a consequence of the economy having very little physical capital. The United States economy in the mid 19th century had per capita GDP comparable to some of the poorest countries in the world today. The story of development is one of private investment generating capital, which boosts output, which enables higher volumes of investment. It's a long-term process that can transform a society from a state of extreme primitivity, to one of great opulence over the course of a few generations. >>I'm a TA in advertising who specializes in motion graphics, rigging, and 3d rendering. My work has shifted from permanent employees to contractors over the last few years, along with the loss of protections that implies. Predictably, working hours have expanded vastly. It's very stressful work and I have virtually no security. That's a consequence of an increase in the supply of people with your skillset relative to demand. Restricting work hours and mandating long-term employment in your field would greatly reduce the demand for the services you provide, because it would cost employers more to procure said services. The second order consequence of this would be less of these services being consumed by society, meaning the price paid by consumers increasing, and fewer people being able to make a living from providing these services.