3 ms·
One of the great surprises in the 20th century is that per worker productivity has risen massively, but we still work an unnecessary 40 hours a week. Realistica
by village-idiot 8y ago
One of the great surprises in the 20th century is that per worker productivity has risen massively, but we still work an unnecessary 40 hours a week. Realistically 15-18 hours would probably be enough to maintain early to mid 20th century output, and 30 hours would actually increase output a bit.
In my opinion we as a society are addicted to work.
- Fjolsvith 8y agoSome work doesn't happen any faster despite worker productivity. The 40 hour work week isn't determined by the output, but rather by the income the worker receives. People are free to work 15-18 hours a week, but they don't.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago>People are free to work 15-18 hours a week, but they don't. I'm forced to work 40 hours per week no matter what I'm getting paid or I get fired, not sure how this is a 'choice'.
- Fjolsvith 8y agoExactly my point. You make the choice to engage at a job that doesn't allow flexibility. There's more than one job out there.
- metabagel 8y agoIn most cases, the employer establishes the hours worked. Working fewer hours would have to be negotiated with the employer.
- NeoBasilisk 8y ago>People are free to work 15-18 hours a week, but they don't. Not if you live in the US and want health insurance.
- Fjolsvith 8y agoThere's another supporting argument to my point.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago>In my opinion we as a society are addicted to work. We're not addicted to it, we're forced to do it or we go into homelessness and have an extremely hard time getting out of it. Homelessness has to exist in this system or people have nothing to be afraid of by not working. I don't think any of us are born just to endlessly work until we're 70, at least in this way. We're giving our entire lives away to someone else for profit.