6 ms·

So 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 an

So 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 ago
So 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Yea, 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 ago
    Uhm, 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 ago
      Ah, 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 ago
    No 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 ago
      If 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 ago
        That sort-of just strengthens their point then right? It seems they should then be well positioned to compare the potential outcomes.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        The overwhelming majority of shareholders are anything but “insane wealthy”.
        altereds 3y ago
        That 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 ago
        Yes, that was exactly it although I should have qualified that's what I meant.
    - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
      The 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 ago
    Man you’re going to freak out when you hear what unions do.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      They start out well but often have no negative feedback loops, so everything gets a bit rubbish.
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        Well, their feedback loop is the employer. The point is there's a natural tension between the two.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Most 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 ago
    What 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 ago
      61% 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        You’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 ago
    I'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 ago
      Not 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 ago
      How about you don't tell me how to live my life?
  - sanitycheck 3y ago
    Well 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 ago
    That’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 ago
      Well, 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 ago
I believe that was addressed in the original comment: "...improve quality of life for everyone."
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
  Why 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 ago
    That'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 ago
    Not everybody is like you.
  - monooso 3y ago
    Fine, you can work 5 days a week.
  - amoss 3y ago
    And that is why you are not invited to the party. Please stop calling this number.
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    Only 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 ago
    Because we live in a society of people other than just ourselves. Life is generally better when we take care of each other.
maxehmookau 3y ago
Yes. 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 ago
Because we don’t need that much production.

So 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 ago

So 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 ago
If 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 ago
  Yea, 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 ago
  Uhm, 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 ago
    Ah, 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 ago
  No 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      That sort-of just strengthens their point then right? It seems they should then be well positioned to compare the potential outcomes.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        The overwhelming majority of shareholders are anything but “insane wealthy”.
        altereds 3y ago
        That 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 ago
        Yes, that was exactly it although I should have qualified that's what I meant.
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    The 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 ago
  Man you’re going to freak out when you hear what unions do.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    They start out well but often have no negative feedback loops, so everything gets a bit rubbish.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      Well, their feedback loop is the employer. The point is there's a natural tension between the two.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Most 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    61% 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        You’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 ago
  I'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 ago
    Not 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 ago
    How about you don't tell me how to live my life?
- sanitycheck 3y ago
  Well 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 ago
  That’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 ago
    Well, 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 ago

I believe that was addressed in the original comment: "...improve quality of life for everyone."

hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
Why 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 ago
  That'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 ago
  Not everybody is like you.
- monooso 3y ago
  Fine, you can work 5 days a week.
- amoss 3y ago
  And that is why you are not invited to the party. Please stop calling this number.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  Only 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 ago
  Because we live in a society of people other than just ourselves. Life is generally better when we take care of each other.

maxehmookau 3y ago

Yes. 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 ago

Because we don’t need that much production.