5 ms·

I wonder how large percentage of the workforce have jobs where time spent working is very strongly correlated with "output"? I'm thinking of stuff like nurses,

I wonder how large percentage of the workforce have jobs where time spent working is very strongly correlated with "output"? I'm thinking of stuff like nurses, bus drivers, shop clerks, probably a chunk of people in hospitality industries (restaurants/hotels/theme parks etc). Probably also some/many roles in manufacturing industries. It seems obvious that a lot of "HN jobs" probably could have the same output while working less. But for almost all non-office jobs, we would still need someone to drive the bus, or take care of people in hospitals etc. Wouldn't a switch to four-day working week just mean a 25% pay increase for those employees?

_jstreet 5y ago
> Wouldn't a switch to four-day working week just mean a 25% pay increase for those employees? Would that be a bad thing? As we've discovered over the past year, a lot of those people play a crucial role in society today - why do they get paid so little for that?
- carlhjerpe 5y ago
  > why do they get paid so little for that? What follows isn't necessarily right, but I believe It's why they're paid little. Because they're all easily replaceable, companies doesn't have to invest more than maybe a week of salary into replacing them if they ask for higher pay. At my company we're having a hard time finding people, so sometimes even questionable talent gets hired and trained because we need people. But in low-skill work people will always be paid what is regulated. If we increase their salary enough, then I wouldn't want my job, even though I enjoy what I do, because of the mental burden of never having my head to myself. The best job I've ever had was when backpacking Australia, was taking care of gardens, hedges and stairwells. It paid shit, but every day I felt gratification because I worked with my body and actually finished something (even though It had to be done again in a week or 2 since things grow like crazy in Brisbane). What I do now is an endless struggle of never being finished, so my brain keeps computing solutions to these problems even once I'm off the clock, so if a bus driver all of a sudden has my salary, why on earth would I want a job that requires more of me. As in, I'm not just the current meatbag at this place. I bet we could even stretch this into that it would reduce output of society greatly, since people that otherwise would pursue "high skill" work (Idk, somehow i feel like anyone could be taught my job in a week, but this is more Imposter Syndrome than anything i guess) could be just as happy or happier doing something that doesn't increase human efficency. I will argue for this "to death" (since It's really one of my core beliefs), but i would also love someone to be able to change my mind as it could potentially increase my mental well-being. I'm sadly looking "down" on "simple work", I think as a means to justify wtf I'm doing. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
  - rpadovani 5y ago
    It sounds like you hate your job, and you are doing it only for money. That's totally okay! It also means, that given a good trade-off, you would do something else. But a lot of people care less about money, and more about other things in life: work-life balance, mental health, closeness to family, whatever. Given that working is a must, why wouldn't we try to make it suck less for everybody? At the end of the day, life is complicated enough without having other people trying to make it harder for you. It sounds like you want the other to be paid less, since you are having a hard time. The solution IMO is not paying other people less, it is finding a better place for yourself! > I bet we could even stretch this into that it would reduce output of society greatly, since people that otherwise would pursue "high skill" work As you can imagine, I disagree - I like my job (not position! I like it as well, but I could change it), and I wouldn't do any other job for the same amount of money. I like not being dead tired at the end of the day, I like being challenged, I like being able to deliver something to millions of people. Unwanted suggestion: focus less on other people, and a bit more on your own well-being. Edit: I have also to disclose, I wouldn't mind a 20% tax increase if this means bus drivers and nurses are paid more: we don't do anything special, I really don't understand why we should be paid 3x what other people are making. I understand the _mechanism_ behind it, but at the end of the week my SO does much more work than me, and she's paid 1/3.
    - carlhjerpe 5y ago
      > It sounds like you hate your job, and you are doing it only for money. That's totally okay! I do like the challenge, It's just a bit much. I'll be honest, I haven't been at many other places (26 years of age) so this might be 100% true and I just didn't know it until now. If I'm also entirely honest, if I were given the option to never "work" a single day of my life again I would take it any time. Would pick up opensource development of whatever I find interesting again as I did a bit when i was younger. > Unwanted suggestion: focus less on other people, and a bit more on your own well-being. My previous comment might've been interpreted as if I would actively argue against a suck-less change for others in my country, I would not. On HN I like to express what I otherwise wouldn't since I get thought-out replies like your own to challenge my own beliefs (If i were to do the same in a Facebook discussion/Reddit the pie throwing contest would start) That's not to say you don't have a point though. > I have also to disclose, I wouldn't mind a 20% tax increase if this means bus drivers and nurses are paid more: we don't do anything special, I really don't understand why we should be paid 3x what other people are making. I understand the _mechanism_ behind it, but at the end of the week my SO does much more work than me, and she's paid 1/3. I don't make nearly enough to be comfortable losing 20% of my salary, not as in that it'd make be poor, but it would put me closer to the average. Should mention, I manage a small datacenter (I don't own it) in Sweden, Swedens IT job salaries aren't as "inflated" as the US ones. Thanks for your reply :)
roenxi 5y ago
20% pay decrease. Employers would figure out that they are producing 20% less and scale pay accordingly.
1123581321 5y ago
Many non-office jobs have a results-oriented aspect to them that should result in employers and customers preferring shorter, more effective workweeks in the long run. Programming had to go through this transition and is still not there yet in many companies. It may seem strange to think of a nurse or driver being more useful when contributing 30 hours a week instead of 40, but that’s because we don’t appreciate the potential range of their decision making quality, error rate, and so on. In the long run, too, any job we don’t want to see become higher paid and more effective, we will want to see be eliminated or automated. So the effective pay increase would not uniformly drag on GDP across many industries.
- linspace 5y ago
  As someone who is always doing side projects or at least thinking about them I do wonder if for certain part of the population having more free time would also mean more creativity and a net improvement for all of society. I know I'm biased and it's wishful thinking but it could be true.
  - borjah 5y ago
    You nailed. True, less work means more time for side gigs, ideas and self-improvement, you are not the only one that hopes for a future like this. Every day more I think Star-Trek predicted the future with a degree of precision quite impressive.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    This is the basis for Marx' infamous "hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic" quote from The German Ideology - the notion that wage work alienates people from the work they do and end up controlling them.
    - alexgmcm 5y ago
      I wasn't familiar with the quote: “For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
jstx1 5y ago
> Wouldn't a switch to four-day working week just mean a 25% pay increase for those employees? No, those are the same industries and jobs in which people are paid by the hour. And even if they weren't, it's naive to assume that employers wouldn't adjust compensation down when hours go down by 20%. Personally, I'd rather work 5 days a week than work 4 and get my pay decreased.
borjah 5y ago
Yeah, but I think that would be a good think. A lot of the people you mention, are underpaid strained workers that do jobs with high level of responsibility (The bus driver that pick up your kids, the nurses) and the ones in services industries that, are straight exhausted and overloaded. BUT while I think that the 4-day week would be awesome, more days to rest, more consumption and other stuff. This measure, by itself would have a minimal impact. Needs to be in conjunction with others, like Universal income, taxes to the corporations and wealthy. We are in a world where AI is here to stay and it will only get better. Self-driving cars, Store free-clerks, hell AI can now co-write code. A lot of jobs will be reduced within a few short years, and I think that we are not prepared to absorb all that people and inequalities are going to explode all around the world.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
> It seems obvious that a lot of "HN jobs" probably could have the same output while working less. It's actually a good tactic you can use to negotiate working less hours: "You will get my best hours". Working 36 or 40 hours a week doesn't make much of a difference in terms of productivity, but the former can get you an extra afternoon off once a week (or a day if you save it up) if you keep working 9-5.
cblconfederate 5y ago
they d also work less because businesses would be closed for 1 extra day etc (like they are now). They d be probably paid the same, but perhaps a 'presence premium' would be required to lure them.
voakbasda 5y ago
Why give them a 25% raise? This seems like an opportunity for employers to take back 20% of their workers’ salaries.

_jstreet 5y ago

> Wouldn't a switch to four-day working week just mean a 25% pay increase for those employees? Would that be a bad thing? As we've discovered over the past year, a lot of those people play a crucial role in society today - why do they get paid so little for that?

carlhjerpe 5y ago
> why do they get paid so little for that? What follows isn't necessarily right, but I believe It's why they're paid little. Because they're all easily replaceable, companies doesn't have to invest more than maybe a week of salary into replacing them if they ask for higher pay. At my company we're having a hard time finding people, so sometimes even questionable talent gets hired and trained because we need people. But in low-skill work people will always be paid what is regulated. If we increase their salary enough, then I wouldn't want my job, even though I enjoy what I do, because of the mental burden of never having my head to myself. The best job I've ever had was when backpacking Australia, was taking care of gardens, hedges and stairwells. It paid shit, but every day I felt gratification because I worked with my body and actually finished something (even though It had to be done again in a week or 2 since things grow like crazy in Brisbane). What I do now is an endless struggle of never being finished, so my brain keeps computing solutions to these problems even once I'm off the clock, so if a bus driver all of a sudden has my salary, why on earth would I want a job that requires more of me. As in, I'm not just the current meatbag at this place. I bet we could even stretch this into that it would reduce output of society greatly, since people that otherwise would pursue "high skill" work (Idk, somehow i feel like anyone could be taught my job in a week, but this is more Imposter Syndrome than anything i guess) could be just as happy or happier doing something that doesn't increase human efficency. I will argue for this "to death" (since It's really one of my core beliefs), but i would also love someone to be able to change my mind as it could potentially increase my mental well-being. I'm sadly looking "down" on "simple work", I think as a means to justify wtf I'm doing. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
- rpadovani 5y ago
  It sounds like you hate your job, and you are doing it only for money. That's totally okay! It also means, that given a good trade-off, you would do something else. But a lot of people care less about money, and more about other things in life: work-life balance, mental health, closeness to family, whatever. Given that working is a must, why wouldn't we try to make it suck less for everybody? At the end of the day, life is complicated enough without having other people trying to make it harder for you. It sounds like you want the other to be paid less, since you are having a hard time. The solution IMO is not paying other people less, it is finding a better place for yourself! > I bet we could even stretch this into that it would reduce output of society greatly, since people that otherwise would pursue "high skill" work As you can imagine, I disagree - I like my job (not position! I like it as well, but I could change it), and I wouldn't do any other job for the same amount of money. I like not being dead tired at the end of the day, I like being challenged, I like being able to deliver something to millions of people. Unwanted suggestion: focus less on other people, and a bit more on your own well-being. Edit: I have also to disclose, I wouldn't mind a 20% tax increase if this means bus drivers and nurses are paid more: we don't do anything special, I really don't understand why we should be paid 3x what other people are making. I understand the _mechanism_ behind it, but at the end of the week my SO does much more work than me, and she's paid 1/3.
  - carlhjerpe 5y ago
    > It sounds like you hate your job, and you are doing it only for money. That's totally okay! I do like the challenge, It's just a bit much. I'll be honest, I haven't been at many other places (26 years of age) so this might be 100% true and I just didn't know it until now. If I'm also entirely honest, if I were given the option to never "work" a single day of my life again I would take it any time. Would pick up opensource development of whatever I find interesting again as I did a bit when i was younger. > Unwanted suggestion: focus less on other people, and a bit more on your own well-being. My previous comment might've been interpreted as if I would actively argue against a suck-less change for others in my country, I would not. On HN I like to express what I otherwise wouldn't since I get thought-out replies like your own to challenge my own beliefs (If i were to do the same in a Facebook discussion/Reddit the pie throwing contest would start) That's not to say you don't have a point though. > I have also to disclose, I wouldn't mind a 20% tax increase if this means bus drivers and nurses are paid more: we don't do anything special, I really don't understand why we should be paid 3x what other people are making. I understand the _mechanism_ behind it, but at the end of the week my SO does much more work than me, and she's paid 1/3. I don't make nearly enough to be comfortable losing 20% of my salary, not as in that it'd make be poor, but it would put me closer to the average. Should mention, I manage a small datacenter (I don't own it) in Sweden, Swedens IT job salaries aren't as "inflated" as the US ones. Thanks for your reply :)

roenxi 5y ago

20% pay decrease. Employers would figure out that they are producing 20% less and scale pay accordingly.

1123581321 5y ago

Many non-office jobs have a results-oriented aspect to them that should result in employers and customers preferring shorter, more effective workweeks in the long run. Programming had to go through this transition and is still not there yet in many companies. It may seem strange to think of a nurse or driver being more useful when contributing 30 hours a week instead of 40, but that’s because we don’t appreciate the potential range of their decision making quality, error rate, and so on. In the long run, too, any job we don’t want to see become higher paid and more effective, we will want to see be eliminated or automated. So the effective pay increase would not uniformly drag on GDP across many industries.

linspace 5y ago
As someone who is always doing side projects or at least thinking about them I do wonder if for certain part of the population having more free time would also mean more creativity and a net improvement for all of society. I know I'm biased and it's wishful thinking but it could be true.
- borjah 5y ago
  You nailed. True, less work means more time for side gigs, ideas and self-improvement, you are not the only one that hopes for a future like this. Every day more I think Star-Trek predicted the future with a degree of precision quite impressive.
- vidarh 5y ago
  This is the basis for Marx' infamous "hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic" quote from The German Ideology - the notion that wage work alienates people from the work they do and end up controlling them.
  - alexgmcm 5y ago
    I wasn't familiar with the quote: “For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”

jstx1 5y ago

> Wouldn't a switch to four-day working week just mean a 25% pay increase for those employees? No, those are the same industries and jobs in which people are paid by the hour. And even if they weren't, it's naive to assume that employers wouldn't adjust compensation down when hours go down by 20%. Personally, I'd rather work 5 days a week than work 4 and get my pay decreased.

borjah 5y ago

Yeah, but I think that would be a good think. A lot of the people you mention, are underpaid strained workers that do jobs with high level of responsibility (The bus driver that pick up your kids, the nurses) and the ones in services industries that, are straight exhausted and overloaded. BUT while I think that the 4-day week would be awesome, more days to rest, more consumption and other stuff. This measure, by itself would have a minimal impact. Needs to be in conjunction with others, like Universal income, taxes to the corporations and wealthy. We are in a world where AI is here to stay and it will only get better. Self-driving cars, Store free-clerks, hell AI can now co-write code. A lot of jobs will be reduced within a few short years, and I think that we are not prepared to absorb all that people and inequalities are going to explode all around the world.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

> It seems obvious that a lot of "HN jobs" probably could have the same output while working less. It's actually a good tactic you can use to negotiate working less hours: "You will get my best hours". Working 36 or 40 hours a week doesn't make much of a difference in terms of productivity, but the former can get you an extra afternoon off once a week (or a day if you save it up) if you keep working 9-5.

cblconfederate 5y ago

they d also work less because businesses would be closed for 1 extra day etc (like they are now). They d be probably paid the same, but perhaps a 'presence premium' would be required to lure them.

voakbasda 5y ago

Why give them a 25% raise? This seems like an opportunity for employers to take back 20% of their workers’ salaries.