5 ms·

Not only we don't enjoy life we also destroy it (as in climate change) [Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change] https://ecology.iww.org/PDF/mi

Not only we don't enjoy life we also destroy it (as in climate change) [Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change] https://ecology.iww.org/PDF/misc/climate-change-workshare-2013-02.pdf https://ecology.iww.org/PDF/misc/climate-change-workshare-20...

luckylion 6y ago
> [Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change] Great, how do we do that without reducing output? If the share of society that supports all of it cuts their hours in half, their personal situation will certainly improve. But a lot of people will go hungry.
- eropple 6y ago
  > But a lot of people will go hungry. Will they? Honest question. How much of the labor share is human versus automation in 2020?
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    The hunger itself is less of an issue because the food itself is pretty damn cheap. With resturants the labor is the biggest cost component. Especially if it is just "rice and dried beans boiled in water plus multivitamins". Hell the supply chain issues show distribution is an expensive part in comparison - although unfortunately the cheapness comes from high scale too. The real issues with scalability are things like medical care and other higher skilled labor - not just because of task switching inefficiencies but because any proportional hour reduction means increased demand - assuming that the hours worked are useful. Less skilled labor is more or less commoditized and would be easier to spread the burden around and would likely show a boost instead of a decline in productivity (although involving say 10 people working 4 hour shifts instead of 5 working 8 hour shifts). Regardless of stance on what we should do a massive societal lifestyle shift would neither be easy nor well received.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- packet_nerd 6y ago
  Nah, most people are caught in bullshit jobs that wouldn't matter if they went away. Consider, we're more or less just as busy now as our grandparents a 100 years ago, despite massive improvements in computers, manufacturing, agriculture, etc. etc.. We have to work because not working would be socially unacceptable, not because we actually provide anything of value.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    That depends on what you value, I believe. Yes, we can provide the 1800 quality of life to everyone by mostly automation. The issue is that very few are content with that, they want the 2020 version.
    - viklove 6y ago
      The issue is we're preserving jobs like coal mining just so people can have a job to get a paycheck. If we can automate those jobs (or make them obsolete with solar power), what's the value in stopping those peoples' paychecks? Oh right, the fat cats have got to get fatter, can't have anyone eating and having a roof over their head without back-breaking labor to accompany it.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        We'll need to fully replace them first, but even then, I don't think it's a significant number. In the US, there are about 50k workers left in the mining industry, and other advanced nations mirror that. I'm not a fan of keeping coal mining around, but I don't believe it's a large issue, and I do believe that this is mostly a safety system. If all else fails due to some disaster, war or alien attack, you want to have the ability to scale coal mining back up. That'll only work if you retain the know how and technology.
        viklove 6y ago
        The transportation industry accounts for 4M jobs across the US, what do you think will happen to those people once driving is automated? Some billionaire will collect their paychecks and they'll be left to starve.
- freehunter 6y ago
  The promise of machinery, computers, automation, and robots was that humans could stop working so hard and so many hours. Instead productivity, hours worked, and profits made have skyrocketed, while free time and worker compensation have remained stagnant. If everyone cut their hours in half the only thing that would happen is growth would slow a little bit and billionaires would make a little less money. If people are going hungry, that's not a problem of productivity. There is more than enough money in most Western countries to make sure that doesn't happen. The only problem is how that money is distributed.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    People want smartphones and TVs and cars and entertainment and health systems etc pp, they don't just want nutrition. To provide that, we still need a lot of stuff that isn't automated (yet). I'm not talking about distribution of profits, I'm talking about raw output.
    - viklove 6y ago
      This is just not true, the vast majority of people are not manufacturing smartphones, they're just pushing papers (selling you insurance you don't need, signing you up for a loan you don't need, selling you your 6th pair of shoes, etc.). We could easily sustain our livelihood with much less work, but that would free up too many minds to start wondering why we reward a tiny fraction of our population with the vast majority of the wealth we generate as a society. The boot stays on our throats because the billionaire class benefits from keeping us chained to our desks.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        > We could easily sustain our livelihood with much less work Sure. But not everyone wants the same, and central planning has proven that it's even more inefficient and wasteful than the capitalist free market system with its insane shoe-storage-system-stores and shoe-storage-systems-insurance-salespeople.
        6y ago
- vsareto 6y ago
  Keep in mind that some of that output is only there because of planned obsolescence.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    And a great deal of it is only because we have been conditioned to "consume" things we don't really need. Consider the fashion industry, to take a somewhat arbitrary example. I don't mean the clothing industry -- most of us would agree we need clothing -- but the fashion industry, which exists not to clothe us but to convince us to constantly buy new and different clothing, because otherwise we won't be seen as "cool" or "fashionable" or "successful" enough. And it's not the only such case.
- marto1 6y ago
  Last I heard more people are dying from obesity than hunger. Also there is the whole essential vs non-essential work debate. Don't think it's such a black and white picture, there are many variables to consider, probably way too many for a human brain to comprehend.

luckylion 6y ago

> [Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change] Great, how do we do that without reducing output? If the share of society that supports all of it cuts their hours in half, their personal situation will certainly improve. But a lot of people will go hungry.

eropple 6y ago
> But a lot of people will go hungry. Will they? Honest question. How much of the labor share is human versus automation in 2020?
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The hunger itself is less of an issue because the food itself is pretty damn cheap. With resturants the labor is the biggest cost component. Especially if it is just "rice and dried beans boiled in water plus multivitamins". Hell the supply chain issues show distribution is an expensive part in comparison - although unfortunately the cheapness comes from high scale too. The real issues with scalability are things like medical care and other higher skilled labor - not just because of task switching inefficiencies but because any proportional hour reduction means increased demand - assuming that the hours worked are useful. Less skilled labor is more or less commoditized and would be easier to spread the burden around and would likely show a boost instead of a decline in productivity (although involving say 10 people working 4 hour shifts instead of 5 working 8 hour shifts). Regardless of stance on what we should do a massive societal lifestyle shift would neither be easy nor well received.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
packet_nerd 6y ago
Nah, most people are caught in bullshit jobs that wouldn't matter if they went away. Consider, we're more or less just as busy now as our grandparents a 100 years ago, despite massive improvements in computers, manufacturing, agriculture, etc. etc.. We have to work because not working would be socially unacceptable, not because we actually provide anything of value.
- luckylion 6y ago
  That depends on what you value, I believe. Yes, we can provide the 1800 quality of life to everyone by mostly automation. The issue is that very few are content with that, they want the 2020 version.
  - viklove 6y ago
    The issue is we're preserving jobs like coal mining just so people can have a job to get a paycheck. If we can automate those jobs (or make them obsolete with solar power), what's the value in stopping those peoples' paychecks? Oh right, the fat cats have got to get fatter, can't have anyone eating and having a roof over their head without back-breaking labor to accompany it.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      We'll need to fully replace them first, but even then, I don't think it's a significant number. In the US, there are about 50k workers left in the mining industry, and other advanced nations mirror that. I'm not a fan of keeping coal mining around, but I don't believe it's a large issue, and I do believe that this is mostly a safety system. If all else fails due to some disaster, war or alien attack, you want to have the ability to scale coal mining back up. That'll only work if you retain the know how and technology.
      - viklove 6y ago
        The transportation industry accounts for 4M jobs across the US, what do you think will happen to those people once driving is automated? Some billionaire will collect their paychecks and they'll be left to starve.
freehunter 6y ago
The promise of machinery, computers, automation, and robots was that humans could stop working so hard and so many hours. Instead productivity, hours worked, and profits made have skyrocketed, while free time and worker compensation have remained stagnant. If everyone cut their hours in half the only thing that would happen is growth would slow a little bit and billionaires would make a little less money. If people are going hungry, that's not a problem of productivity. There is more than enough money in most Western countries to make sure that doesn't happen. The only problem is how that money is distributed.
- luckylion 6y ago
  People want smartphones and TVs and cars and entertainment and health systems etc pp, they don't just want nutrition. To provide that, we still need a lot of stuff that isn't automated (yet). I'm not talking about distribution of profits, I'm talking about raw output.
  - viklove 6y ago
    This is just not true, the vast majority of people are not manufacturing smartphones, they're just pushing papers (selling you insurance you don't need, signing you up for a loan you don't need, selling you your 6th pair of shoes, etc.). We could easily sustain our livelihood with much less work, but that would free up too many minds to start wondering why we reward a tiny fraction of our population with the vast majority of the wealth we generate as a society. The boot stays on our throats because the billionaire class benefits from keeping us chained to our desks.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > We could easily sustain our livelihood with much less work Sure. But not everyone wants the same, and central planning has proven that it's even more inefficient and wasteful than the capitalist free market system with its insane shoe-storage-system-stores and shoe-storage-systems-insurance-salespeople.
      - 6y ago
vsareto 6y ago
Keep in mind that some of that output is only there because of planned obsolescence.
- jfk13 6y ago
  And a great deal of it is only because we have been conditioned to "consume" things we don't really need. Consider the fashion industry, to take a somewhat arbitrary example. I don't mean the clothing industry -- most of us would agree we need clothing -- but the fashion industry, which exists not to clothe us but to convince us to constantly buy new and different clothing, because otherwise we won't be seen as "cool" or "fashionable" or "successful" enough. And it's not the only such case.
marto1 6y ago
Last I heard more people are dying from obesity than hunger. Also there is the whole essential vs non-essential work debate. Don't think it's such a black and white picture, there are many variables to consider, probably way too many for a human brain to comprehend.