7 ms·
Remote work is the reason why Wall Street was wrong about a recession
- gmerc 3y agoImagine if we rolled the AI productivity gains made possible by all our data and rolled it into the 4 day workweek. It’d still leave 5-10 pp efficiency gain for shareholder presents and actually improve quality of life for everyone.
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y agoSo you suggest taking a productivity gain and using it to keep production while working less. Why not use the productivity gain to keep the same worked time and increase production?
- Frummy 3y agoSo you get nothing and the shareholders get more, and you think that’s good? Unless you’re already a billionaire then that doesn’t serve you
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y agoIf you find it acceptable to act on your selfish behavior you should also find it acceptable that the company acts on its selfish behavior, and fires you for someone to works the same but produces more, no? Which is what actually happens. Also, if I believe that newfound productivity is so amazing for stock price, I buy stock. What's wrong with this approach?
- Frummy 3y agoYea, I find it acceptable to be just as greedy about the middle class priorities as the 0,01% are about theirs. What’s wrong is that you don’t benefit as much as them, and us workers outnumber them. I prioritise the quality of life of a larger quantity of people rather than the capital increase of a select few sociopaths.
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y agoUhm, plenty wrong with that. Someone’s left holding the bag. It sounds like you’ve sufficiently alleviated any personal risk in this hypothetical by ensuring that you get a piece of the pie.
- analognoise 3y agoAh, the risk canard. Those wealthy people are so at risk! Why they're more at risk than the single mother who takes a bus to work, because of their highly leveraged position and the extreme table stakes of those so lofty! Or that's a myth, everything is setup for them to succeed, and they've captured value that we should all be sharing in because we don't fully account for externalities or the accumulation of capital. As a human being everyone should have a piece of the pie, and we can remove force from the system if we choose to - and we will one day.
- thicknavyrain 3y agoNo because the marginal returns on utility to the average individual from working less is far, far, far greater than the marginal returns to utility to already insanely wealthy shareholders from squeezing a worker for all they're worth.
- sokoloff 3y agoIf you have a 401K, it’s very likely (and for your sake, I hope) that you’re also in the set of shareholders.
- Arelius 3y agoThat sort-of just strengthens their point then right? It seems they should then be well positioned to compare the potential outcomes.
- sokoloff 3y agoThe overwhelming majority of shareholders are anything but “insane wealthy”.
- altereds 3y agoThat is again reiterating their point that it is favorable only to the small portion of insanely wealthy shareholders and does not even favor the overwhelming majority of shareholders too who are not insanely wealthy.
- thicknavyrain 3y agoYes, that was exactly it although I should have qualified that's what I meant.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoThe marginal returns on the individual then manifest as returns to the broader society, happier 99.99% outweighs the earnings of the billionaires in terms of societal impact and QoL improvements. But sadly, we don’t make the rules.
- arcticbull 3y agoMan you’re going to freak out when you hear what unions do.
- robertlagrant 3y agoThey start out well but often have no negative feedback loops, so everything gets a bit rubbish.
- arcticbull 3y agoWell, their feedback loop is the employer. The point is there's a natural tension between the two.
- robertlagrant 3y agoMost unions cut across employers, do they not? That's why they break the natural competition over individual employees that the presence of other employers generates.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoWhat is wrong with this approach is that not everyone has disposable income to buy stock. I suggest that you come and visit Poland and live on the median salary for a year or two. How about we start building society for the 99.99% of us?
- prepend 3y ago61% of Americans own stock [0] so it’s certainly of more interest than 0.01%. I don’t think owning stock is about disposable income, it’s about saving. I would expect many people have a savings plan, if at least for retirement. So the majority of people directly own stock and there are more who indirectly do through pensions and other instruments that own stock for beneficiary purposes. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoThe world exists beyond the US. Purchasing power is also a thing. Median gross salary in Poland is $18000, and about $14000 net. They earn less than 1200 per month, of which 300-400 is spent on rent excluding utilities, add another 50-100 utilities, 200 for food, then gas and transport and you quickly see that the savings are minuscule. How can you buy stock on 200 (at best) after all expenses?
- prepend 3y agoYou’re proposing a simple problem to solve. Select a percentage that you want to save (say 5-10%) and save that. So if you have $200/month put $10-20 into an index fund and retire in 40 years. This is the same way Americans do it. Purchasing stock hasn’t been difficult for decades and there are many zero fee index funds that you can put small amounts into each month. I can’t find percent Polish people who own stock but I will bet you $1000 that it’s greater than 0.01%.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
- smallerfish 3y agoI'll let you into a little secret - you're going to die in about 40 years from now. After that, no more _hsjqllzlfkf_. Nobody will remember you in about 50 years from now. Everything you did in your life will be forgotten in about 75 years from now. In fact, it'll be as if you never existed. (*Maybe you have children, in which case revise this a little; they'll have their fond memories, but they'll also resent you for a lot of things.) There should be a _lot_ more to life than working for other people.
- robertlagrant 3y agoNot there should be. Because of mostly capitalist advances we can look forward to working less and still having a good life, but there's no should. It's been achieved, so there is more, but that's on the back of a lot of work, productivity, and progress.
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y agoHow about you don't tell me how to live my life?
- sanitycheck 3y agoWell done for accurately voicing the "opinion" of the existing system, and getting near universal criticism for it! I hope those who object who aren't already some degree of socialist will move a little leftwards now.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> Unless you’re already a billionaire then that doesn’t serve you The obsession some HN commenters have with billionaires is silly. If more is produced then the following can happen: - your company is more likely to stay in business and thus your job is more secure (although if a competitor does this and your company doesn't, perhaps you could move, although you would be going in at a lower grade than your new, automation-trained colleagues) - your job is higher paid because your are more valuable to the company; it can have more clients and/or more work from existing clients - your company's investors are safer and pension funds etc invested in you do better - your company's budget is bigger and they have more to spend on nonessentials to attract and retain staff - your customers get lower prices and in turn they can offer more attractive pricing to their customers, which benefits end consumers I know this all sounds very obvious, e.g. it's why tech salaries are so high: automation allows our work to scale absurdly, but occasionally when I read "only billionaires like productivity!!!111eleven" I need to say something. I want to say something, anyway.
- Frummy 3y agoThat’s all great. I work five days a week and all. I just don’t want to be oppressed by money. Notice that all points you mentioned are economically related. Maybe I’d use that extra day to paint and read poetry, or smoke cigs and drink beer on the porch. I actually don’t do that but either way I value the freedom to do what I want with my time more than money and power (edit: power as in over the rest, compared to with the rest back from the few). I’m just speaking for myself here, but I would predict a cultural increase for society as well. Others would love what you mention. I still think they would be shortsighted, Ive been fired and manipulated by companies, more stability could even reduce that so I admit my bias, but the second order effects of the elites disproportional capital increase is more social and political power to them which I think leads to oppression. Maybe fifteen years later the people who love your perks wont even notice that they have less rights, potentially from corporate lobbying, worse health from work, and maybe they forgot to have fun and be creative as well since theres no time for that.
- robertlagrant 3y agoWell, the good news is you can't be oppressed by money. Money is just a value intermediary. What you value might require you doing something of value to someone else. That might be employing them at a steady wage, or giving them back more money later than they gave you today, or doing some task or service for someone who contracts or employs you, or whatever it is. In terms of oppression: it's possible. I would just put the blame where it's deserved. Corporate lobbying is not bad. The government, who takes money from you to pay for itself, should be lobby-proof. That might be one of the most important things they do. If they can't just take money and spend it well without being corrupted by companies who'd like it to do things, that is a failure of government. As for being fun and creative: up until not too long ago many lives were short and almost all were hard. Some of us, especially in the West, have been able to break away from that due to various advances. That's great, but it's not something to return to as much as it is to keep improving towards, or settle for the advances we have and enjoy them.
- monooso 3y agoI believe that was addressed in the original comment: "...improve quality of life for everyone."
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y agoWhy would I want to improve quality of life for "everyone"? I can improve my quality of life by a greater amount by making more money.
- pgeorgi 3y agoThat's a reasonable approximation of the stance adopted by the French monarchy. Improve quality of life for "everyone" if you want to achieve a different outcome for your kin.
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y agoNot everybody is like you.
- monooso 3y agoFine, you can work 5 days a week.
- amoss 3y agoAnd that is why you are not invited to the party. Please stop calling this number.
- mrweasel 3y agoOnly to certain point. There have already been plenty of research that indicates that after a certain point more money have a very limited effect on your quality of life. After that point other factors becomes way more important. It is individual of course, so you might very well improve your quality of life greatly by making money alone, but that makes you an outlier.
- jckahn 3y agoBecause we live in a society of people other than just ourselves. Life is generally better when we take care of each other.
- maxehmookau 3y agoYes. 100%. Absolutely. Without a doubt. It'd be nice to use some increases in efficiency and productivity to actually benefit something other than shareholder profits.
- detourdog 3y agoBecause we don’t need that much production.
- ChatGTP 3y agoSadly, I don’t think this is how capitalism works…
- chiefalchemist 3y agoYes. But hopefully someone eventually figures out a (higher) disproportionate part of the economy happens on the weekends. That is, if two days off is good for spending, three days is even better. Aside from more of the usual, three-day weekends would, for example, be good for tourism.
- user_named 3y agoChina is implementing proper time off regulations because of this, to increase domestic consumption.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoRecently I read, tho not in reference to China, that more "down time" likely leads to more sex, and more sex leads to more babies. Perhaps the four-day week is the answer to contracting population numbers in The West?
- kypro 3y agoMaybe, until someone else figures out what you're actually maximising for is total spending, not the frequency of it. An optimal system would probably require people to work 6 days a week and buy everything in a single day.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoNah. Weekends are already a shit show with traffic, waiting in line, etc. Plus, soccer games, Little League, etc. There's not enough excessive capacity in the system for that.
- wkat4242 3y agoEventually we'll need to drop that anyway. Capitalism will always externalise to the poorer, the environment etc. We're getting to the point where it can't continue. Not just because we're screwing up the world but also because eventually a few people will have all the money and nobody will have any left to buy things. Even the most hardline neoliberals are now seriously thinking about UBI.
- amelius 3y agoHumans need work for meaning. Just ask many retired people.
- wkat4242 3y agoThat's what those 4 days are for I guess?
- denkmoon 3y agoWhat a pithy and pointless comment, and kind of sad even. You can work your 5 day weeks, hell you can work 12hr days if you want. Please, don't let anyone here stop you. I find significantly more meaning in my life from the things I do outside of work and having an extra 1 day per week for those things is literally a personal career goal.
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago(Some). Many of us found meaning in other areas and are very happy about it.
- cassianoleal 3y agoEven taking that at face value, "work" doesn't necessarily relate to full-time employment. Work can be crafts, social work, volunteering, actually taking time to raise one's kids, hell even playing ball games in the park with friends can constitute work for meaning purposes!
- mrweasel 3y agoWrong way around, humans need to do meaningful things, that's why mental health suffers when people doing meaningless work.
- rhaway84773 3y agoThe evidence given in the linked Axios article is a stronger justification for unlimited holidays and/or summer Fridays than anything else. The real reasons appear to be revenge spending (which was predicted) and higher personal incomes. It’s hard to see how any of this is tied to remote work specifically from the actual article.
- ranting-moth 3y agohttps://archive.is/4fxkV https://archive.is/4fxkV Edit: link fixed
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y agoIt didn't work for me - the text is blurred. What helped though was turning off JS (one click in uBlock Origin).
- ranting-moth 3y agoSorry, I've replaced the link now.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jongjong 3y agoThe reason is because for the price of things to crash relative to dollars, there needs to be a shortage of dollars relative to the things that can be bought with dollars and since more dollars are being printed constantly and at zero cost by the government and banks, it's simply impossible to create enough goods and services in the economy to vacuum up all those dollars. Attempts have been made to make dollars appear scarce to the masses by manufacturing extreme wealth inequality but the inflation we're seeing today likely comes from wealthy consumers, not from the masses. The masses are already totally squeezed out of all wealth-creation opportunities and the system is just creating tons of wasteful bullshit jobs for them instead. The system we have today is utterly incapable of using the masses for anything other than bullshit bureaucratic jobs because it doesn't want the masses to compete against existing corporations; it needs a way to keep them busy but, as a side effect, this anti-competitive economy just destroys innovation through the systematic deprivation of opportunities.
- landoftheice 3y ago[dead]
- lamontcg 3y agoProbably not. Mostly it is because we're still dealing with bullwhip effects from the pandemic, and the interest rate hikes from the Fed haven't really had time yet. It takes 6-12 months from the end of rate hikes for a recession to hit, and given how fast the rate hikes were and that policy was still accommodative up until earlier this year my expectations are closer to the tail end of that range--and we're not even certain the Fed is done with rate hikes yet. If this strong economy results in a resurgence of inflation and more tight labor markets then the Fed may continue with a terminal policy much higher than we think is possible right now (and that kicks the end date of Fed rate hikes even further down the road, along with the 6-12 month recession expectation).