4 ms·

It's frightening that people "at the top" write those things without even realizing how it sounds for ordinary people. I think this delusion is on par with Mar

It's frightening that people "at the top" write those things without even realizing how it sounds for ordinary people. I think this delusion is on par with Marie Antoinette and her "eat cakes if you don't have bread".

beardyw 4y ago
What happened to the future, a 3 day week for all as computers/machines did the work.
- LeonM 4y ago
  Because of the competitive nature of business (and humans). If you can build a factory that can build products more efficiently, it means you can sell them cheaper then your competitors, meaning you can move more volume and thus make more profit. So you are definitely not going to run that new shiny factory for only 3 days a week. Eventually, competitors will notice your improved output and react with their own improved factory. If you sit still in your shiny new factory, you will eventually be outpaced by competitors as they catch up. In the end though, the throughput per human is greatly increased as computers and machines do (most of) the work. This has increased prosperity greatly. Unless you can accept living with less then the competition, you are not going to work less then your competitors.
  - thatfrenchguy 4y ago
    > So you are definitely not going to run that new shiny factory for only 3 days a week. 3/8 is a thing in factories, so you could have just hired more employees part/lower time. It’s a cultural artefact that we work 40 hours a week.
    - LeonM 4y ago
      Again, it is due to competitive nature. Nobody is forcing you to work a 40h week, but because 40 hours is about the average of how many hours people work, you'll need to match that to stay 'competitive'. It's a very primitive instinct in natural selection. For people earning average wage, they often cannot afford to work less hours, as prices of commodities (housing, food, energy) are naturally regulated by what people can afford. Because most of their peers work 40 hours, they need to do the same in order to be able to pay their bills. Those that make more than average wage could afford to work less, yet most people chose not to do that. Because now that you make a lot of money, you could still work 40 hours and get a bigger house then your neighbor! And a faster car! You could impress a potential partner with that, which increases your chance of reproduction and creating (w/h)ealthy offspring. No amount of automation, computers, machines or whatever technology will prevent people from staying competitive. edit: replaced 'minimum wage' with 'average wage', because cost of living is highly location dependent.
      - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
        People making minimum wage typically have to work well above 40 hours, and even then often find their earnings difficult to live off of. See also: all the calls for paying low-level employees a "living wage".
- throwaway74829 4y ago
  How would that stoke the egos of all godless psycopaths?
japanuspus 4y ago
This is the question I see way too few people asking: how do we want end-game capitalism to look. Should it be Banks' "The Culture", or should it be neo-feudal with the populace at large acting as serf to capital. Without discussing the vision, discussing the strategy becomes sort of meaningless. (Edit: typo)
- adamsmith143 4y ago
  As awesome as The Culture sounds I find it unsettling that Humans basically become the exceptionally pampered pets of the Minds and at least right now it's unlikely we will create AIs as benign and benevolent as they are.

beardyw 4y ago

What happened to the future, a 3 day week for all as computers/machines did the work.

LeonM 4y ago
Because of the competitive nature of business (and humans). If you can build a factory that can build products more efficiently, it means you can sell them cheaper then your competitors, meaning you can move more volume and thus make more profit. So you are definitely not going to run that new shiny factory for only 3 days a week. Eventually, competitors will notice your improved output and react with their own improved factory. If you sit still in your shiny new factory, you will eventually be outpaced by competitors as they catch up. In the end though, the throughput per human is greatly increased as computers and machines do (most of) the work. This has increased prosperity greatly. Unless you can accept living with less then the competition, you are not going to work less then your competitors.
- thatfrenchguy 4y ago
  > So you are definitely not going to run that new shiny factory for only 3 days a week. 3/8 is a thing in factories, so you could have just hired more employees part/lower time. It’s a cultural artefact that we work 40 hours a week.
  - LeonM 4y ago
    Again, it is due to competitive nature. Nobody is forcing you to work a 40h week, but because 40 hours is about the average of how many hours people work, you'll need to match that to stay 'competitive'. It's a very primitive instinct in natural selection. For people earning average wage, they often cannot afford to work less hours, as prices of commodities (housing, food, energy) are naturally regulated by what people can afford. Because most of their peers work 40 hours, they need to do the same in order to be able to pay their bills. Those that make more than average wage could afford to work less, yet most people chose not to do that. Because now that you make a lot of money, you could still work 40 hours and get a bigger house then your neighbor! And a faster car! You could impress a potential partner with that, which increases your chance of reproduction and creating (w/h)ealthy offspring. No amount of automation, computers, machines or whatever technology will prevent people from staying competitive. edit: replaced 'minimum wage' with 'average wage', because cost of living is highly location dependent.
    - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
      People making minimum wage typically have to work well above 40 hours, and even then often find their earnings difficult to live off of. See also: all the calls for paying low-level employees a "living wage".
throwaway74829 4y ago
How would that stoke the egos of all godless psycopaths?

japanuspus 4y ago

This is the question I see way too few people asking: how do we want end-game capitalism to look. Should it be Banks' "The Culture", or should it be neo-feudal with the populace at large acting as serf to capital. Without discussing the vision, discussing the strategy becomes sort of meaningless. (Edit: typo)

adamsmith143 4y ago
As awesome as The Culture sounds I find it unsettling that Humans basically become the exceptionally pampered pets of the Minds and at least right now it's unlikely we will create AIs as benign and benevolent as they are.