4 ms·

> Imagine if we could largely eliminate sleep, it seems like science fiction for now, but what if? Our employers would suddenly expect us to spend that time wo

> Imagine if we could largely eliminate sleep, it seems like science fiction for now, but what if? Our employers would suddenly expect us to spend that time working for them. More realistically: it wouldn't be sudden, but we'd still get to the same result eventually, maybe in a couple decades.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
Highly doubt it. Historically, working time has gone down, not up. https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours#working-hours-per-worker-have-declined-after-the-industrial-revolution https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours#working-hours-per-w... I see no reason why longer days would reverse the trend. Most countries have legal limits on hours/week, and these would have to be raised, which would be immensely unpopular.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  The industrial revolution was an aberration when it comes to how many hours people worked. For example, prior to the industrial revolution, people worked roughly 1,440 hours a year[1]. During the industrial revolution, that shot up past 3,200 hours of working a year. Today, in the US, the number of hours worked per year has stayed relatively stable since the 1970's. People work about 1,800 hours a year which, while lower than during the industrial revolution, is still more than people historically did in the past. [1] https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...
Jeff_Brown 5y ago
Supply and demand suggest that, laws permitting, the new time per day would be split, some of it going to the workplace and the rest not. That would be entirely due to a labor supply shift, i.e a rise in workwrs' willingness to provide hours. If supply somehow did not rise, there would be no change in hours worked, as employers' demand for labor (which is equivalent to the money they expect to earn by employing someone for another hour) would be unchanged by the new tech.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

Highly doubt it. Historically, working time has gone down, not up. https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours#working-hours-per-worker-have-declined-after-the-industrial-revolution https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours#working-hours-per-w... I see no reason why longer days would reverse the trend. Most countries have legal limits on hours/week, and these would have to be raised, which would be immensely unpopular.

heavyset_go 5y ago
The industrial revolution was an aberration when it comes to how many hours people worked. For example, prior to the industrial revolution, people worked roughly 1,440 hours a year[1]. During the industrial revolution, that shot up past 3,200 hours of working a year. Today, in the US, the number of hours worked per year has stayed relatively stable since the 1970's. People work about 1,800 hours a year which, while lower than during the industrial revolution, is still more than people historically did in the past. [1] https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...

Jeff_Brown 5y ago

Supply and demand suggest that, laws permitting, the new time per day would be split, some of it going to the workplace and the rest not. That would be entirely due to a labor supply shift, i.e a rise in workwrs' willingness to provide hours. If supply somehow did not rise, there would be no change in hours worked, as employers' demand for labor (which is equivalent to the money they expect to earn by employing someone for another hour) would be unchanged by the new tech.