3 ms·

We are translating these into the option of increased quality of life. The fact that people spend 2-3 hours/day watching TV, YouTube, and screwing around online

We are translating these into the option of increased quality of life. The fact that people spend 2-3 hours/day watching TV, YouTube, and screwing around online in general is a demonstration that most people do have a higher quality of life. Or to put it another way, most people don't have to work 16+ hours/day just to stay alive. What people choose to spend that time doing is up to them. Most will use it to watch TV/Netflix/etc while a much smaller number will work on skills and things to make their lives better.

Dylan16807 7y ago
> Or to put it another way, most people don't have to work 16+ hours/day just to stay alive. They almost never had to, so that's a pretty lousy bar to use. If you're working a ton of hours in a low wage job, there's a good chance you can't get a stable home if you cut back to a reasonable amount of hours. In a situation like that it's not "optional", even if you wouldn't actually die. Even if you have a solid 40 hours a week job, and you get paid well enough that you'd be happy cutting back to 32 hours a week, it's very hard to arrange something like that. It's only optional if you have an especially good negotiation position or you're lucky, not if you're a normal worker. > a much smaller number will work on skills and things to make their lives better It's pretty awful to expect someone that's already working far more than full time to spend even more time practicing work skills on top of that. Anyone that can do so is amazing, but anyone that doesn't do so should not be blamed. Edit: To the dead reply to this: No one with an ounce of self respect is going to incentivize leisure? Even if you have no humanity in you, and don't think people deserve a single free hour in the week, it's less efficient to work people until they're worn out. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face because the poors don't "deserve" it. People don't get depressed because they lack 100+ hours of labor to slog through in a week. The ennui of feeling no purpose kicks in a hell of a lot lower than that.
- ooobit2 7y ago
  >>Or to put it another way, most people don't have to work 16+ hours/day just to stay alive. >They almost never had to, so that's a pretty lousy bar to use. We didn't outlaw child labor definitively until the FLSA in 1938. The Great Depression was a huge turning point, and children were forced out of employment as adults desperately needed any employment available. But even during WW2, there were debates about reversing the laws because Germany was using forced labor on children to support its war efforts. People were more willing to give women the right to vote than to ratify laws that stopped parents from having their children work in a factory, sweeping a store, or selling newspapers or shoe shines or other repetitive, easily-replicated duties. >It's pretty awful to expect someone that's already working far more than full time to spend even more time practicing work skills on top of that. Anyone that can do so is amazing, but anyone that doesn't do so should not be blamed. No one with an ounce of self-respect is going to incentivize leisure. You don't create value in life by relaxing. There's a saying among Muslims that Allah did not give you life for you to rest in it. And that perspective is what divides top performers from their peers. This is a frustrating philosophy to read. Where in the world did you get the idea that you're already being asked to do too much... before you've even managed to have something to show for any spent effort whatsoever? Depression is rooted in idling. The less you straddle life with one foot in, and the other out, of your comfort zone, the more you become risk averse. The more risk averse you become, the less motive you have to act. The less motive to act you have, the less value you create. Less value becomes less purpose. Less purpose becomes less incentive to live. If you don't want to work hard, fine. But to suggest that the bar should be lowered so you can feel like you're amazing too, when you've chosen to preoccupy yourself with leisure, is immature. Life doesn't reward you for smarts, it rewards for effort. If you can't see that now, you'll waste years and years growing increasingly angry at the world for not giving you what you think you've earned. Trust me, waking up to realize you've got nothing to show for your so-called hard work, and that itself proves you haven't done hard work, is harsh. I'm coming to terms with that at 33. Don't wait as long as I have to accept that feedback from the world around you.
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  > They almost never had to, so that's a pretty lousy bar to use. If you limit your perspective to the last ~120 years, you are correct. I did not.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/07/22/modern-american-medieval-peasants/ https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/07/22/modern-american-me... There were a couple periods where the norm for many was horribly long factory hours. But in the long view it was definitely not normal to work 16 hour days, year round, with modern minimal break lengths.
- throwaway0887 7y ago
  > They almost never had to, so that's a pretty lousy bar to use. That's a pretty naive thing to say IMO. Humans almost always had to work that much, especially after agriculture was invented.
dmos62 7y ago
I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you saying that automation and reduced manpower requirement is reasonably trickling down to the working class or that it isn't?
viklove 7y ago
You're completely missing the point and using this as an opportunity to call wage laborers lazy. Nice. As automation becomes more pervasive, billionaires and VCs are not the only ones who should be benefitting from it. Wage laborers should also get rewards from that, meaning higher wages, and no need to work 40+ hour weeks. We should be working on improving QOL for all people, not just wealthy asset holders. But sure, just call them lazy so you can feel good about yourself when you keep treading all over them.

Dylan16807 7y ago

> Or to put it another way, most people don't have to work 16+ hours/day just to stay alive. They almost never had to, so that's a pretty lousy bar to use. If you're working a ton of hours in a low wage job, there's a good chance you can't get a stable home if you cut back to a reasonable amount of hours. In a situation like that it's not "optional", even if you wouldn't actually die. Even if you have a solid 40 hours a week job, and you get paid well enough that you'd be happy cutting back to 32 hours a week, it's very hard to arrange something like that. It's only optional if you have an especially good negotiation position or you're lucky, not if you're a normal worker. > a much smaller number will work on skills and things to make their lives better It's pretty awful to expect someone that's already working far more than full time to spend even more time practicing work skills on top of that. Anyone that can do so is amazing, but anyone that doesn't do so should not be blamed. Edit: To the dead reply to this: No one with an ounce of self respect is going to incentivize leisure? Even if you have no humanity in you, and don't think people deserve a single free hour in the week, it's less efficient to work people until they're worn out. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face because the poors don't "deserve" it. People don't get depressed because they lack 100+ hours of labor to slog through in a week. The ennui of feeling no purpose kicks in a hell of a lot lower than that.

ooobit2 7y ago
>>Or to put it another way, most people don't have to work 16+ hours/day just to stay alive. >They almost never had to, so that's a pretty lousy bar to use. We didn't outlaw child labor definitively until the FLSA in 1938. The Great Depression was a huge turning point, and children were forced out of employment as adults desperately needed any employment available. But even during WW2, there were debates about reversing the laws because Germany was using forced labor on children to support its war efforts. People were more willing to give women the right to vote than to ratify laws that stopped parents from having their children work in a factory, sweeping a store, or selling newspapers or shoe shines or other repetitive, easily-replicated duties. >It's pretty awful to expect someone that's already working far more than full time to spend even more time practicing work skills on top of that. Anyone that can do so is amazing, but anyone that doesn't do so should not be blamed. No one with an ounce of self-respect is going to incentivize leisure. You don't create value in life by relaxing. There's a saying among Muslims that Allah did not give you life for you to rest in it. And that perspective is what divides top performers from their peers. This is a frustrating philosophy to read. Where in the world did you get the idea that you're already being asked to do too much... before you've even managed to have something to show for any spent effort whatsoever? Depression is rooted in idling. The less you straddle life with one foot in, and the other out, of your comfort zone, the more you become risk averse. The more risk averse you become, the less motive you have to act. The less motive to act you have, the less value you create. Less value becomes less purpose. Less purpose becomes less incentive to live. If you don't want to work hard, fine. But to suggest that the bar should be lowered so you can feel like you're amazing too, when you've chosen to preoccupy yourself with leisure, is immature. Life doesn't reward you for smarts, it rewards for effort. If you can't see that now, you'll waste years and years growing increasingly angry at the world for not giving you what you think you've earned. Trust me, waking up to realize you've got nothing to show for your so-called hard work, and that itself proves you haven't done hard work, is harsh. I'm coming to terms with that at 33. Don't wait as long as I have to accept that feedback from the world around you.
caseysoftware 7y ago
> They almost never had to, so that's a pretty lousy bar to use. If you limit your perspective to the last ~120 years, you are correct. I did not.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/07/22/modern-american-medieval-peasants/ https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/07/22/modern-american-me... There were a couple periods where the norm for many was horribly long factory hours. But in the long view it was definitely not normal to work 16 hour days, year round, with modern minimal break lengths.
throwaway0887 7y ago
> They almost never had to, so that's a pretty lousy bar to use. That's a pretty naive thing to say IMO. Humans almost always had to work that much, especially after agriculture was invented.

dmos62 7y ago

I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you saying that automation and reduced manpower requirement is reasonably trickling down to the working class or that it isn't?

viklove 7y ago

You're completely missing the point and using this as an opportunity to call wage laborers lazy. Nice. As automation becomes more pervasive, billionaires and VCs are not the only ones who should be benefitting from it. Wage laborers should also get rewards from that, meaning higher wages, and no need to work 40+ hour weeks. We should be working on improving QOL for all people, not just wealthy asset holders. But sure, just call them lazy so you can feel good about yourself when you keep treading all over them.