4 ms·

I think that's because people are tired and are constantly thinking about how they have to go back to work / school soon. If people had more time off, I think m

I think that's because people are tired and are constantly thinking about how they have to go back to work / school soon. If people had more time off, I think more interesting things would happen.

czbond 5y ago
I agree in theory, but disagree in practice. Covid lockdowns taught me the general public is superb at wasting time and being inefficient. Their mind turned to Netflixing all day, making Tiktok dance numbers, etc. I am bullish on machines & software improving because people are incentivized through salaries to improve them. I am bearish / pessimistic on the average humans productive use of time outside of amusement or relaxation. Humanity has taught me that Pareto's principle applies to humans.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  Why shouldn't they relax if they can? It's bizarre to me that we need to regiment the entire population in order to... make sure people don't have fun?
  - czbond 5y ago
    Whether it is human nature, or learned behavior, the typical human is unable to fill their time with productive use over a longer period of time unless purpose is imposed on them. Hence "work". The concept in a more general term is even mentioned in religious text so there must be a basis....
    - tehjoker 5y ago
      This is puritanism. There is something to the idea that idle hands make for the devils workshop, but that's mainly when people are dissatisfied. If they're satisfied, let them play pokemon cards or whatever it is they do. You only get one life.
      - czbond 5y ago
        I believe at a higher level, a universe level, rather than a human level - human natural state must be an equilibrium of "energy" & detriment. (energy is a meta concept crossing domains here, stay with me). Humans consume energy (animals, resources) and create detriment (greenhouse gases, etc) - and must offset all of those to positively benefit the Earth or else that (and each) particular human is a net negative to the Earth. If a human is a net negative, at a higher level why should that person exist? Humans must each therefore cause a positive net of energy to the Earth through creating useful, productive, additions to the universe to push it forward. Otherwise, as in the matrix, said human is a parasite.
    - sitkack 5y ago
      You see what you seek. I saw amazing creative output by many many people. It is telling that you reference religious texts as evidence for something.
chris_acree 5y ago
I think we do have more time off. This page (https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours) indicates working hours are nearly half of what they were 150 years ago in wealthy countries. Even assuming some faults in the source, I can't believe working hours haven't dropped significantly in that time, and many household chores are also taking less time due to technology. While I also would enjoy more leisure time, I agree with the parent that most of it would go to consuming media. What specific interesting things do you think would happen if the typical working week dropped to say 30 hours a week instead of ~40?
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  The time around the industrial revolution was particularly bad for work. I wonder what working hours looked like pre-industry?
  - syntheweave 5y ago
    Pre-industry describes early modernity, the period where press gangs roamed the streets to capture people and force them to crew a ship, and slaves were taken from their homelands and their ancestry decontextualized, rendering a return impossible. While you could certainly make the case that the hours were fewer(because it was still agrarian) the state of labor relations suggests a huge demand for cheap workers, not efficient workers. Productivity needs inputs: with no canals or railroads, you couldn't get resources to factories in quantity, so you couldn't get the gains of automation. So the idle hours reflect a general impoverishment of possibility: nothing better to do with the idle bodies. Making them cheap, rather than good, reflects the drive to accumulate within the zero-sum dynamic of merchantalism. Or rather, you wanted to define good as "loyal to me and skilled at attending to my needs", which is different from "good at the job". So there was a lot of emphasis on preserving the body but minimizing resistance. The labor exploitation in early industrialization reflects the combination of productivity dynamic and merchantalistic norms: now, in a competitive marketplace where you have a lot of opportunities to make products and quickly build wealth, there is a reason to overwork bodies and then dispose of them. That's never gone away, we've just engaged in some collective pushback from time to time, as Marx outlined. But it could be that we're on the verge of another shift in the norms of labor relations. I suspect that's what is going on now. There are a lot of "pieces of the puzzle" that are ready to nibble away at existing norms.

I think that's because people are tired and are constantly thinking about how they have to go back to work / school soon. If people had more time off, I think more interesting things would happen.

czbond 5y ago

I agree in theory, but disagree in practice. Covid lockdowns taught me the general public is superb at wasting time and being inefficient. Their mind turned to Netflixing all day, making Tiktok dance numbers, etc. I am bullish on machines & software improving because people are incentivized through salaries to improve them. I am bearish / pessimistic on the average humans productive use of time outside of amusement or relaxation. Humanity has taught me that Pareto's principle applies to humans.

tehjoker 5y ago
Why shouldn't they relax if they can? It's bizarre to me that we need to regiment the entire population in order to... make sure people don't have fun?
- czbond 5y ago
  Whether it is human nature, or learned behavior, the typical human is unable to fill their time with productive use over a longer period of time unless purpose is imposed on them. Hence "work". The concept in a more general term is even mentioned in religious text so there must be a basis....
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    This is puritanism. There is something to the idea that idle hands make for the devils workshop, but that's mainly when people are dissatisfied. If they're satisfied, let them play pokemon cards or whatever it is they do. You only get one life.
    - czbond 5y ago
      I believe at a higher level, a universe level, rather than a human level - human natural state must be an equilibrium of "energy" & detriment. (energy is a meta concept crossing domains here, stay with me). Humans consume energy (animals, resources) and create detriment (greenhouse gases, etc) - and must offset all of those to positively benefit the Earth or else that (and each) particular human is a net negative to the Earth. If a human is a net negative, at a higher level why should that person exist? Humans must each therefore cause a positive net of energy to the Earth through creating useful, productive, additions to the universe to push it forward. Otherwise, as in the matrix, said human is a parasite.
  - sitkack 5y ago
    You see what you seek. I saw amazing creative output by many many people. It is telling that you reference religious texts as evidence for something.

chris_acree 5y ago

I think we do have more time off. This page (https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours) indicates working hours are nearly half of what they were 150 years ago in wealthy countries. Even assuming some faults in the source, I can't believe working hours haven't dropped significantly in that time, and many household chores are also taking less time due to technology. While I also would enjoy more leisure time, I agree with the parent that most of it would go to consuming media. What specific interesting things do you think would happen if the typical working week dropped to say 30 hours a week instead of ~40?

micromacrofoot 5y ago
The time around the industrial revolution was particularly bad for work. I wonder what working hours looked like pre-industry?
- syntheweave 5y ago
  Pre-industry describes early modernity, the period where press gangs roamed the streets to capture people and force them to crew a ship, and slaves were taken from their homelands and their ancestry decontextualized, rendering a return impossible. While you could certainly make the case that the hours were fewer(because it was still agrarian) the state of labor relations suggests a huge demand for cheap workers, not efficient workers. Productivity needs inputs: with no canals or railroads, you couldn't get resources to factories in quantity, so you couldn't get the gains of automation. So the idle hours reflect a general impoverishment of possibility: nothing better to do with the idle bodies. Making them cheap, rather than good, reflects the drive to accumulate within the zero-sum dynamic of merchantalism. Or rather, you wanted to define good as "loyal to me and skilled at attending to my needs", which is different from "good at the job". So there was a lot of emphasis on preserving the body but minimizing resistance. The labor exploitation in early industrialization reflects the combination of productivity dynamic and merchantalistic norms: now, in a competitive marketplace where you have a lot of opportunities to make products and quickly build wealth, there is a reason to overwork bodies and then dispose of them. That's never gone away, we've just engaged in some collective pushback from time to time, as Marx outlined. But it could be that we're on the verge of another shift in the norms of labor relations. I suspect that's what is going on now. There are a lot of "pieces of the puzzle" that are ready to nibble away at existing norms.