6 ms·

What if John McCarthy or Richard Feynman had been limited to 52 hours a week? Or more recently, pg or sama? Or less recently, Albert Einstein or Alan Turing? E

What if John McCarthy or Richard Feynman had been limited to 52 hours a week? Or more recently, pg or sama? Or less recently, Albert Einstein or Alan Turing? Edit: I posted it without reading the article, but it's worse than expected. Execs can go to prison. Edit 2: Having a working hour limit applied across the board could result in knowledge workers having to track their time, which works great for some but not for others.

Teeer 8y ago
Because we shouldn't sacrifice millions of people's free time just so we can have a couple geniuses do lots of work?
throwaway080383 8y ago
Academics and entrepreneurs don't get paid by the hour.
- benatkin 8y ago
  Not all countries have certain types of salaried employees exempt from overtime and overtime pay. South Korea doesn't appear to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hours_in_South_Korea#Different_working_hours_in_terms_of_jobs_and_productivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hours_in_South_Korea#D...
  - throwaway080383 8y ago
    That's fine, but then "hours worked" at best measures how much time was physically spent "at work", and will be entirely disconnected from how much time guys like McCarthy, Turing, Einstein, and Feynman thought about their research. They weren't doing it for the overtime pay.
    - benatkin 8y ago
      I picture a lot of them living at their office, like Richard Stallman was in the Free as in Freedom [1]. If their managers had to worry about going to prison, they'd probably be prohibited from working at their offices. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_Freedom
claudiawerner 8y ago
I don't think it's wise to be against this law because some people might be limited; by and large, this is a good thing - it means that workers are exploited less, it means that there will be consequences for those who force workers to work so much overtime in a culture in which you're not seen as being dedicated enough if you refuse to do overtime. I immediately thought "the people you've named would just continue to work anyway, because they're 'the greats'", but I also realised that some of them would need specialised equipment, the sort that would be closed off outside of the hours permitted. Perhaps there should be some system in which such people can apply to use the eqipment outside of hours. But it could be that bosses (or even employees themselves, feeling pressured) would apply to use them, citing personal reasons rather than "work reasons". But in the end, I really don't see it as a bad thing that "execs can go to prison"; I think that unless there are serious consequences, and the law only has monetary fines (which matter less and less so long as they aren't large proportions of revenue) then the law will be skirted or simply violated. In the end, I really think this law does more good than it does potential harm. Overwork is a serious issue, but your proposal that we shouldn't have it raises important questions. Employers discovered in the 20th century that it would be efficient for the direction of the employee's conatus aligns with the company's, such that the employee will feel joy and even want to work longer hours - this of course being more effective than the older system (usually employed in manual labour with few levels of management) of taking advantage of the basal desire for material reproduction. With longer hours, it's easier for an employer to push this desire to the employee. And by the way, I was much more convinced of your argument with regard to people like McCarthy, Feynman, Einstiein and Turing than our friends pg and sama :-)
- sokoloff 8y ago
  > I don't think it's wise to be against this law because some people might be limited; by and large, this is a good thing I don't like infringing the freedom of individual workers to contract as they see fit. Pursuit of happiness and all that... (I'm also opposed to minimum wage and pro-sustenance-UBI.)
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    Although I doubt we'd come to any agreement (I don't subscribe to liberalism nor the same ideas of contextual freedom you do), I'm curious: what would you say about the freedom to sell oneself into slavery? Is there such thing as "voluntary servitude" to you? I think a more nuanced view is required: how do these freedoms arise, what makes one person work for another, is the subjecitvist-individualist philosophy the end of liberal politics, how do desires form and conatus aligns under modern capitalism, and does the pursuit of happiness entail the requirement for the desire to employ others for a goal that they don't have an interest in (in the Spinozist sense of desire), what is the role of money (or money-capital) (and its pursuit) in the desires, and what role does the education system play in nurturing such desires? All these are questions of interest, and I don't think they can be whisked away with a sentence accusing the law of "infringing freedom". There are much greater injustices with regard to our freedom right in front of us in this mode of economic organisation.
jhpriestley 8y ago
What if Einstein's job at the patent office had been 60 hours a week?
- benatkin 8y ago
  That's a good counterpoint. A carefully constructed law might be needed, but this one sounds like it's only based on the size of the company, and has harsh penalties.
- robertAngst 8y ago
  I dont think a revolutionary would have taken that sitting down. They find solutions to everything.
robertAngst 8y ago
So: >Intellectually slow workers will be replaced/fired >Good workers will be working more to compensate for less labor output in the country >Outsourcing former SK jobs to other countrys with less oppressive laws.

Teeer 8y ago

Because we shouldn't sacrifice millions of people's free time just so we can have a couple geniuses do lots of work?

throwaway080383 8y ago

Academics and entrepreneurs don't get paid by the hour.

benatkin 8y ago
Not all countries have certain types of salaried employees exempt from overtime and overtime pay. South Korea doesn't appear to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hours_in_South_Korea#Different_working_hours_in_terms_of_jobs_and_productivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hours_in_South_Korea#D...
- throwaway080383 8y ago
  That's fine, but then "hours worked" at best measures how much time was physically spent "at work", and will be entirely disconnected from how much time guys like McCarthy, Turing, Einstein, and Feynman thought about their research. They weren't doing it for the overtime pay.
  - benatkin 8y ago
    I picture a lot of them living at their office, like Richard Stallman was in the Free as in Freedom [1]. If their managers had to worry about going to prison, they'd probably be prohibited from working at their offices. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_Freedom

claudiawerner 8y ago

I don't think it's wise to be against this law because some people might be limited; by and large, this is a good thing - it means that workers are exploited less, it means that there will be consequences for those who force workers to work so much overtime in a culture in which you're not seen as being dedicated enough if you refuse to do overtime. I immediately thought "the people you've named would just continue to work anyway, because they're 'the greats'", but I also realised that some of them would need specialised equipment, the sort that would be closed off outside of the hours permitted. Perhaps there should be some system in which such people can apply to use the eqipment outside of hours. But it could be that bosses (or even employees themselves, feeling pressured) would apply to use them, citing personal reasons rather than "work reasons". But in the end, I really don't see it as a bad thing that "execs can go to prison"; I think that unless there are serious consequences, and the law only has monetary fines (which matter less and less so long as they aren't large proportions of revenue) then the law will be skirted or simply violated. In the end, I really think this law does more good than it does potential harm. Overwork is a serious issue, but your proposal that we shouldn't have it raises important questions. Employers discovered in the 20th century that it would be efficient for the direction of the employee's conatus aligns with the company's, such that the employee will feel joy and even want to work longer hours - this of course being more effective than the older system (usually employed in manual labour with few levels of management) of taking advantage of the basal desire for material reproduction. With longer hours, it's easier for an employer to push this desire to the employee. And by the way, I was much more convinced of your argument with regard to people like McCarthy, Feynman, Einstiein and Turing than our friends pg and sama :-)

sokoloff 8y ago
> I don't think it's wise to be against this law because some people might be limited; by and large, this is a good thing I don't like infringing the freedom of individual workers to contract as they see fit. Pursuit of happiness and all that... (I'm also opposed to minimum wage and pro-sustenance-UBI.)
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Although I doubt we'd come to any agreement (I don't subscribe to liberalism nor the same ideas of contextual freedom you do), I'm curious: what would you say about the freedom to sell oneself into slavery? Is there such thing as "voluntary servitude" to you? I think a more nuanced view is required: how do these freedoms arise, what makes one person work for another, is the subjecitvist-individualist philosophy the end of liberal politics, how do desires form and conatus aligns under modern capitalism, and does the pursuit of happiness entail the requirement for the desire to employ others for a goal that they don't have an interest in (in the Spinozist sense of desire), what is the role of money (or money-capital) (and its pursuit) in the desires, and what role does the education system play in nurturing such desires? All these are questions of interest, and I don't think they can be whisked away with a sentence accusing the law of "infringing freedom". There are much greater injustices with regard to our freedom right in front of us in this mode of economic organisation.

jhpriestley 8y ago

What if Einstein's job at the patent office had been 60 hours a week?

benatkin 8y ago
That's a good counterpoint. A carefully constructed law might be needed, but this one sounds like it's only based on the size of the company, and has harsh penalties.
robertAngst 8y ago
I dont think a revolutionary would have taken that sitting down. They find solutions to everything.

robertAngst 8y ago

So: >Intellectually slow workers will be replaced/fired >Good workers will be working more to compensate for less labor output in the country >Outsourcing former SK jobs to other countrys with less oppressive laws.