7 ms·

Completely agree - we should be working to _reduce_ the number of "jobs".

by ed312 8y ago

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Run for office, run for office, run for office. Crafting public policy to handle the situation is the only path to success. If you're building the automation and there are no public policy guardrails and safety nets, it only makes the problem worse. Start ratcheting down the work week (40 hrs->32 hours, 5 days->4 days) for starts, considering the productivity already realized in the workplace over the last several decades, data showing how many hours a week people aren't working at their job, at that work will expand to fill the time you allow it to fill (Parkinson's law). The world does not need more incubators and startups (for the most part). It needs better public policy, governing, and a more equitable distribution of resources. "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." -- William Gibson
- woolvalley 8y ago
  There are jobs that need to be done, but not enough funding for it. A lot of people could use some therapy or other mental health resources, but don't because of a lack of funding for it. It lacks funding because the people who need it most often are the poorest among us. Same with crumbling infrastructure, affordable housing & education and other such things in the USA.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    This doesn't conflict with what I said, and I do not disagree.
- odorousrex 8y ago
  If I were ever in such a position of power I would aggressively push for 32 hour work weeks by 2022. (Tapering down each year until then). I would loop most salaried (OT exempt) jobs into this category as well as I think a lot of "OT exempt" employees should not really be classified as such. (Including SW engineers and DevOps ppl) 32 hours a week. Every hour after 32 and before 40 would be time and half. Every hour after 40 and before 50 would be double. Hours after 50 would be billed at triple the hourly rate. I would only change the hours. Not rates, or anything else. Let the market settle out the rest. I've been working as a SWE now at 35 hours a week for almost 4 years (admittedly at a lowend SWE salary [but still much higher than average, we live pretty comfortably]) and honestly I can't even imagine going back to 40+ hours a week (or 60+ when I was a fresh out of college kid at a start up) The extra time now I spend with my family, and just getting stuff done has been so much more valuable than I ever could have imagined. It's something I wish I could spread to others. When I was at a startup I scoffed at people going home at 5-5:15. Considered them not "passionate about the product". Oh how misguided I was...but I digress.
  - harryh 8y ago
    You would make it illegal for someone else to hire me at $100/hr for a 40 hour week? What business is it of yours? Geez.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    When a large number of people are working two jobs already because a lot of jobs will only let you work for less than 30hrs a week to keep costs down (not full time so don't need to include many costly benefits), it is probably not helping people if they now have to go to three different jobs. The USA should probably get rid of the rules that force companies to pay people more when the work longer. It would be a lot easier for workers to just work at one place for 60-80 hr/wk and not have to commute to an extra job if they need/want more money.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      This is a terrible idea, and does nothing to increase the quality of life of workers. No one should need to work more than 40 hours a week to survive, but if you want to work more than that voluntarily, that’s okay. Wages need to continue to be driven up while also reducing the minimum number of hours per week making a worker considered full time.
      - njarboe 8y ago
        Say you would rather work 60hr a week at one job at the same pay rate instead of working 40hr at one job and 20hr at another. You like your main job and the extra commute time to another job is a pain. Your main employer likes your work and is willing to pay you your standard wage for 60hr a week. This rate is even higher than your second job. This is not allowed by the US government. You can't legally voluntarily give up an hourly overtime wage increase. Unless, of course, you are in a salaried position. Then you can work as many hours a week as your employer and you agree on. A higher standard of living for everyone is a great idea. How to do that over a long period of time in a society is a hard problem. I think it probably consists of letting people decided for themselves how to live their lives and have as little central planning, state control, and corporations as possible, but who knows?
jniedrauer 8y ago
I've been waiting my entire adult life for a politician to run on a platform of "less jobs." To me this seems like the patently obvious goal of all this technology we've been building. Instead, we're living in a bizarre opposite world where nothing makes sense.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Keep your eyes out for a candidate who does run on that in the next federal election cycle.
- harryh 8y ago
  In order to have less jobs, then people have to consume less stuff. Luckily, you don't have to wait for everyone to buy into this agenda, you can make that choice for yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=financial+independence+retire+early https://www.google.com/search?q=financial+independence+retir... Not saying this is the right thing for everyone. Lots of people would hate it, and that's fine. The nice thing is that we all get to choose what's best for ourselves.
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
  As soon as technology itself starts electing politicians without human intervention, we'll have that. Until then, well...
- Thriptic 8y ago
  People want more things and they want to be better than other people. People want a higher quality of life. People want the social status and personal gratification that comes with performing higher status, skilled work well. It's not as easy as simple saying "you don't have to work anymore to have a decent quality of life". You would have to profoundly retool peoples' expectations and the way we view work as a society. I know several people who could retire tomorrow and never work again but they keep working away anyway. If your premise is we would all like to stop working but can't because we aren't deploying tech correctly or don't have the money to do so, why do large numbers of these people exist?
forty 8y ago
I don't understand this theory. If we do that, how people that don't already have a lot of money are supposed to get money to purchase food for exemple ?
- jtolmar 8y ago
  Don't use money to distribute things needed for basic human existence. Throw out all your ideas about economics and politics. You want as many people as possible to have a comfortable enough life to pursue things they find fulfilling without stress about survival. You're an engineer, how do you do it?
  - forty 8y ago
    Well, it's probably cultural and because I love my job, but I have a hard time imagining a fulfilling live without a job :)

Completely agree - we should be working to _reduce_ the number of "jobs".

by ed312 8y ago

Completely agree - we should be working to _reduce_ the number of "jobs".

Run for office, run for office, run for office. Crafting public policy to handle the situation is the only path to success. If you're building the automation and there are no public policy guardrails and safety nets, it only makes the problem worse. Start ratcheting down the work week (40 hrs->32 hours, 5 days->4 days) for starts, considering the productivity already realized in the workplace over the last several decades, data showing how many hours a week people aren't working at their job, at that work will expand to fill the time you allow it to fill (Parkinson's law). The world does not need more incubators and startups (for the most part). It needs better public policy, governing, and a more equitable distribution of resources. "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." -- William Gibson

woolvalley 8y ago
There are jobs that need to be done, but not enough funding for it. A lot of people could use some therapy or other mental health resources, but don't because of a lack of funding for it. It lacks funding because the people who need it most often are the poorest among us. Same with crumbling infrastructure, affordable housing & education and other such things in the USA.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  This doesn't conflict with what I said, and I do not disagree.
odorousrex 8y ago
If I were ever in such a position of power I would aggressively push for 32 hour work weeks by 2022. (Tapering down each year until then). I would loop most salaried (OT exempt) jobs into this category as well as I think a lot of "OT exempt" employees should not really be classified as such. (Including SW engineers and DevOps ppl) 32 hours a week. Every hour after 32 and before 40 would be time and half. Every hour after 40 and before 50 would be double. Hours after 50 would be billed at triple the hourly rate. I would only change the hours. Not rates, or anything else. Let the market settle out the rest. I've been working as a SWE now at 35 hours a week for almost 4 years (admittedly at a lowend SWE salary [but still much higher than average, we live pretty comfortably]) and honestly I can't even imagine going back to 40+ hours a week (or 60+ when I was a fresh out of college kid at a start up) The extra time now I spend with my family, and just getting stuff done has been so much more valuable than I ever could have imagined. It's something I wish I could spread to others. When I was at a startup I scoffed at people going home at 5-5:15. Considered them not "passionate about the product". Oh how misguided I was...but I digress.
- harryh 8y ago
  You would make it illegal for someone else to hire me at $100/hr for a 40 hour week? What business is it of yours? Geez.
- njarboe 8y ago
  When a large number of people are working two jobs already because a lot of jobs will only let you work for less than 30hrs a week to keep costs down (not full time so don't need to include many costly benefits), it is probably not helping people if they now have to go to three different jobs. The USA should probably get rid of the rules that force companies to pay people more when the work longer. It would be a lot easier for workers to just work at one place for 60-80 hr/wk and not have to commute to an extra job if they need/want more money.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    This is a terrible idea, and does nothing to increase the quality of life of workers. No one should need to work more than 40 hours a week to survive, but if you want to work more than that voluntarily, that’s okay. Wages need to continue to be driven up while also reducing the minimum number of hours per week making a worker considered full time.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      Say you would rather work 60hr a week at one job at the same pay rate instead of working 40hr at one job and 20hr at another. You like your main job and the extra commute time to another job is a pain. Your main employer likes your work and is willing to pay you your standard wage for 60hr a week. This rate is even higher than your second job. This is not allowed by the US government. You can't legally voluntarily give up an hourly overtime wage increase. Unless, of course, you are in a salaried position. Then you can work as many hours a week as your employer and you agree on. A higher standard of living for everyone is a great idea. How to do that over a long period of time in a society is a hard problem. I think it probably consists of letting people decided for themselves how to live their lives and have as little central planning, state control, and corporations as possible, but who knows?

jniedrauer 8y ago

I've been waiting my entire adult life for a politician to run on a platform of "less jobs." To me this seems like the patently obvious goal of all this technology we've been building. Instead, we're living in a bizarre opposite world where nothing makes sense.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Keep your eyes out for a candidate who does run on that in the next federal election cycle.
harryh 8y ago
In order to have less jobs, then people have to consume less stuff. Luckily, you don't have to wait for everyone to buy into this agenda, you can make that choice for yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=financial+independence+retire+early https://www.google.com/search?q=financial+independence+retir... Not saying this is the right thing for everyone. Lots of people would hate it, and that's fine. The nice thing is that we all get to choose what's best for ourselves.
HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
As soon as technology itself starts electing politicians without human intervention, we'll have that. Until then, well...
Thriptic 8y ago
People want more things and they want to be better than other people. People want a higher quality of life. People want the social status and personal gratification that comes with performing higher status, skilled work well. It's not as easy as simple saying "you don't have to work anymore to have a decent quality of life". You would have to profoundly retool peoples' expectations and the way we view work as a society. I know several people who could retire tomorrow and never work again but they keep working away anyway. If your premise is we would all like to stop working but can't because we aren't deploying tech correctly or don't have the money to do so, why do large numbers of these people exist?

forty 8y ago

I don't understand this theory. If we do that, how people that don't already have a lot of money are supposed to get money to purchase food for exemple ?

jtolmar 8y ago
Don't use money to distribute things needed for basic human existence. Throw out all your ideas about economics and politics. You want as many people as possible to have a comfortable enough life to pursue things they find fulfilling without stress about survival. You're an engineer, how do you do it?
- forty 8y ago
  Well, it's probably cultural and because I love my job, but I have a hard time imagining a fulfilling live without a job :)