11 ms·

On the other hand, without all this working for others we wouldn't have a system which lets us spend that other half of our lives seeing the things we do get to

On the other hand, without all this working for others we wouldn't have a system which lets us spend that other half of our lives seeing the things we do get to see. It's a net win overall.

cortic 8y ago
That's just speculation, what system are you imagining in place of 'wage labour'? chattel? I imagine UBI and an explosion in the sciences; When anyone with interest can afford to follow that interest.
- throwaway76543 8y ago
  No, it's not speculation. I have a cite: literally the entire progression of human history and societal development. Steady (and in the last century, enormous) progression toward more leisure time, with more wealth and latitude at our disposal than ever before. UBI is good. You're going to fund UBI by working for other people.
  - cortic 8y ago
    Having a system to enriches the few who don't need more wealth reinforced by impoverishing the many is better than chattel slavery and worse than a system which offers real choice and ownership of ones labor.
    - throwaway76543 8y ago
      You appear to have a twisted understanding of both economics and human history.
      - cortic 8y ago
        maybe. History shows me that, unregulated, our system makes kings and queens that own not only own land and wealth but people as well. If i wanted to make a system that insured the absolute minimum advancement and progress, the absolute maximum misery and poverty, while giving a random few almost god like powers..
        throwaway76543 8y ago
        See, that's what I'm talking about. What history actually shows is that humans have steadily moved away from barbaric structures such as owning people. Primarily through the construction of societies built around the notion of private employment. Your working assumptions are gross distortions of reality.
      - dang 8y ago
        Can you please not do flamewars on HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - rfrey 8y ago
    How are you measuring leisure time? My impression is that great gains were made in the union heyday of the 40s-60s, but that leisure time for most workers has been declining since then. The move to almost universal dual income households means outside-work time is spent doing the stuff that used to be done during the day. Also many more people have a second job. I’d be greatly heartened by data showing leisure time had increased in, say, the last 50 years.
    - throwaway76543 8y ago
      If the context here is the development of human history leading up to notions of private employment then our timeline is in the tens of thousands of years and variations within past decades become almost irrelevant. Comparing hunter-gatherers or roaming tribes with modern city dwellers? Enough said. I'm not sure I disagree with you about the last 50 years. I think it's a bit of a hard topic to dissect because the notion of a "workday" is relative and changes over time. I think a day of work is a lot easier now than in the 1950s and I think the ancillary work we perform to care for ourselves and our homes is reduced. By how much, I'm not sure how to quantify. I recall Hans Rosling did a great talk along these lines, "The Magic Washing Machine." It's mostly talking about the mechanization of household labor in the mid century which we agree took place. I think since then we no longer spend as much time cooking, or cleaning, maintaining our appliances or cars. I think improvements in communication systems save a surprising amount of time -- consider how many hours a month you might waste if cell phones didn't exist? If you had to drive to a place to sign paperwork instead of fill out an online form? There's nothing so large as the washing machine in the last 50 years but I think we have a significant amount of small improvements. Coupled with work becoming more palatable (part of why work/life becomes blurred is that some large percentage of us enjoy working) I think there's a possibility that labor has shrank in the last 50 years even if people work longer hours. Which they may not, factoring in household labor. I know many people who do not need to work as hard as they do -- some who do not need to work at all. Yet they still do, even when the requirement is removed. My opinion about the last 50 years is fairly weakly held, I'm basically just thinking freely. My strong comments above are in reference to the development of much more basic notions like "private employment."
- hueving 8y ago
  UBI doesn't work because it depends on people working to fund it. The amount of money required for poverty level UBI in the US (one of the richest countries) is more than all of the federal current tax revenue, which comes from working people. We can't all decide we are going to live for free and magically still get to drive cars, live in houses, eat food, have running water, etc. The entire point of the economic system is to motivate people to help each other. If the money motivation goes away, people either stop helping each other or you have to motivate with violence.
  - cortic 8y ago
    ..in your opinion. But in reality the current system doesn't work and needs constant massive bailouts and public funding R&D to just barely operate for the minority.. The entire point of the current economic system is to motivate the masses to enrich the few. If the motivation goes away then maybe people will work to enrich their own lives.
    - windows_tips 8y ago
      >But in reality the current system doesn't work and needs constant massive bailouts and public funding R&D to just barely operate for the minority.. Says an HN comment.. Maybe try to rework this sentence, because it doesn't appear to be true. While things may not be excellent for everyone, clearly the "system" works to some extent. >The entire point of the current economic system is to motivate the masses to enrich the few. Do you have a source on this? What do you consider to be the current system? The Federal Reserve System? >If the motivation goes away then maybe people will work to enrich their own lives. Do you seriously not think that people work to enrich their own lives right now? I can tell you that I'm posting this to enrich mine.
      - cortic 8y ago
        >Maybe try to rework this sentence The current state of our market system requires massive bailouts and massive funding into research and development, massive subsidies (e.g. arms), and an overworked and underpaid workforce to limp along and pay out a healthy dividend to the richest(few) investors. >source on this? Just look at any multi billion dollar company; whats the difference between shareholder payout and worker payout? How else would you define this system where a company can declare hundred million dollar profits while paying minimum wage? >Do you seriously not think that people work to enrich their own lives right now? We try. for the last 8 hours i worked to make money that would enrich my life, but my work made someone else a hundred times this amount so 1% of my last 8 hours was for me.

On the other hand, without all this working for others we wouldn't have a system which lets us spend that other half of our lives seeing the things we do get to see. It's a net win overall.

cortic 8y ago

That's just speculation, what system are you imagining in place of 'wage labour'? chattel? I imagine UBI and an explosion in the sciences; When anyone with interest can afford to follow that interest.

throwaway76543 8y ago
No, it's not speculation. I have a cite: literally the entire progression of human history and societal development. Steady (and in the last century, enormous) progression toward more leisure time, with more wealth and latitude at our disposal than ever before. UBI is good. You're going to fund UBI by working for other people.
- cortic 8y ago
  Having a system to enriches the few who don't need more wealth reinforced by impoverishing the many is better than chattel slavery and worse than a system which offers real choice and ownership of ones labor.
  - throwaway76543 8y ago
    You appear to have a twisted understanding of both economics and human history.
    - cortic 8y ago
      maybe. History shows me that, unregulated, our system makes kings and queens that own not only own land and wealth but people as well. If i wanted to make a system that insured the absolute minimum advancement and progress, the absolute maximum misery and poverty, while giving a random few almost god like powers..
      - throwaway76543 8y ago
        See, that's what I'm talking about. What history actually shows is that humans have steadily moved away from barbaric structures such as owning people. Primarily through the construction of societies built around the notion of private employment. Your working assumptions are gross distortions of reality.
    - dang 8y ago
      Can you please not do flamewars on HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- rfrey 8y ago
  How are you measuring leisure time? My impression is that great gains were made in the union heyday of the 40s-60s, but that leisure time for most workers has been declining since then. The move to almost universal dual income households means outside-work time is spent doing the stuff that used to be done during the day. Also many more people have a second job. I’d be greatly heartened by data showing leisure time had increased in, say, the last 50 years.
  - throwaway76543 8y ago
    If the context here is the development of human history leading up to notions of private employment then our timeline is in the tens of thousands of years and variations within past decades become almost irrelevant. Comparing hunter-gatherers or roaming tribes with modern city dwellers? Enough said. I'm not sure I disagree with you about the last 50 years. I think it's a bit of a hard topic to dissect because the notion of a "workday" is relative and changes over time. I think a day of work is a lot easier now than in the 1950s and I think the ancillary work we perform to care for ourselves and our homes is reduced. By how much, I'm not sure how to quantify. I recall Hans Rosling did a great talk along these lines, "The Magic Washing Machine." It's mostly talking about the mechanization of household labor in the mid century which we agree took place. I think since then we no longer spend as much time cooking, or cleaning, maintaining our appliances or cars. I think improvements in communication systems save a surprising amount of time -- consider how many hours a month you might waste if cell phones didn't exist? If you had to drive to a place to sign paperwork instead of fill out an online form? There's nothing so large as the washing machine in the last 50 years but I think we have a significant amount of small improvements. Coupled with work becoming more palatable (part of why work/life becomes blurred is that some large percentage of us enjoy working) I think there's a possibility that labor has shrank in the last 50 years even if people work longer hours. Which they may not, factoring in household labor. I know many people who do not need to work as hard as they do -- some who do not need to work at all. Yet they still do, even when the requirement is removed. My opinion about the last 50 years is fairly weakly held, I'm basically just thinking freely. My strong comments above are in reference to the development of much more basic notions like "private employment."
hueving 8y ago
UBI doesn't work because it depends on people working to fund it. The amount of money required for poverty level UBI in the US (one of the richest countries) is more than all of the federal current tax revenue, which comes from working people. We can't all decide we are going to live for free and magically still get to drive cars, live in houses, eat food, have running water, etc. The entire point of the economic system is to motivate people to help each other. If the money motivation goes away, people either stop helping each other or you have to motivate with violence.
- cortic 8y ago
  ..in your opinion. But in reality the current system doesn't work and needs constant massive bailouts and public funding R&D to just barely operate for the minority.. The entire point of the current economic system is to motivate the masses to enrich the few. If the motivation goes away then maybe people will work to enrich their own lives.
  - windows_tips 8y ago
    >But in reality the current system doesn't work and needs constant massive bailouts and public funding R&D to just barely operate for the minority.. Says an HN comment.. Maybe try to rework this sentence, because it doesn't appear to be true. While things may not be excellent for everyone, clearly the "system" works to some extent. >The entire point of the current economic system is to motivate the masses to enrich the few. Do you have a source on this? What do you consider to be the current system? The Federal Reserve System? >If the motivation goes away then maybe people will work to enrich their own lives. Do you seriously not think that people work to enrich their own lives right now? I can tell you that I'm posting this to enrich mine.
    - cortic 8y ago
      >Maybe try to rework this sentence The current state of our market system requires massive bailouts and massive funding into research and development, massive subsidies (e.g. arms), and an overworked and underpaid workforce to limp along and pay out a healthy dividend to the richest(few) investors. >source on this? Just look at any multi billion dollar company; whats the difference between shareholder payout and worker payout? How else would you define this system where a company can declare hundred million dollar profits while paying minimum wage? >Do you seriously not think that people work to enrich their own lives right now? We try. for the last 8 hours i worked to make money that would enrich my life, but my work made someone else a hundred times this amount so 1% of my last 8 hours was for me.