5 ms·

Sadly, I don’t think this is how capitalism works…

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Yes. 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 ago
  China is implementing proper time off regulations because of this, to increase domestic consumption.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Recently 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 ago
  Maybe, 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 ago
    Nah. 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 ago
Eventually 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.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Even the most hardline neoliberals are now seriously thinking about UBI. That's interesting. Can you give some examples?
  - gmerc 3y ago
    Sam Altman
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    "The Libertarian Case for UBI" https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/The%20Libertarian%20Case%20for%20a%20universal%20Basic%20Income.pdf https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents... Similar discussions from UC San Diego https://digital.sandiego.edu/law_philosophy_scholarship/189/ https://digital.sandiego.edu/law_philosophy_scholarship/189/ The basic idea is that the state is there to create and ensure a free market exists, and that outside of that creating organs to redistribute wealth is an inefficient hack. Glenn Beck, proving that broken clocks can be right, said something about Obamacare to the effect of: "this will cost close to $3 million per US citizen. why not just give the citizen that money, and let them fly to Korea or Mexico? prices may go up but the free market is still a thing and consumers could just go to Europe instead. Cut out the middle man"
- mejutoco 3y ago
  Still waiting for someone to explain why the UBI won't just increase the price of all real state / rent to be $price_before + $UBI. When seen in that light, it would not be surprising that people with many assets support it.
rvense 3y ago
A few years ago, I read an essay that pointed out that the typewriter meant that people could write five or so times faster than before. And of course, what happened was not that people spent less times typing, quite the opposite. This plays out again and again, of course.
- zo1 3y ago
  The typewriter is irrelevant to the value equation at that point. You're paying for "potential" human labour, and that's governed by scarcity and fundamental limitations of how much a human can physically do. I.e. you're paying for 8 hours of that humans time, not their output. They still expect 8 hours, whether you output 10wpm or 100. Now are there some employers happy with splitting the difference in gains with their employees? Sure, but the market's emergent behavior will favor employers that get X output per $, not X-15%. But remember, this same equation applies to the employer. So they can't tell the market "hey we can now produce this same product 5x more cheaply but pretty please will you keep paying the same while we reduce our expenses by 5x?" In my head, it's essentially the same, perhaps I'm not explaining very well.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - thunky 3y ago
    > But remember, this same equation applies to the employer. I don't think it does. > So they can't tell the market "hey we can now produce this same product 5x more cheaply but pretty please will you keep paying the same while we reduce our expenses by 5x?" Why would they advertise their internal efficiency gains? And even if they can't hide it, why would it force them to lower their prices? It doesn't affect the supply/demand equation. It just makes them more profitable.
prepend 3y ago
Isn’t that exactly how capitalism works? Increased productivity increases competition so new firms using AI, remote work, and short work weeks can attract and retain a superior workforce and be cheaper than older firms that can’t adapt? I’m not sure what method other than markers would be best suited for making such a large industry shift.
- gmerc 3y ago
  It’s really hard to not adapt when the barrier is a rest API and microsoft office / photoshop
gmerc 3y ago
It worked like this in the 80s in Europe. Too many steel mills closed, governments and unions capped thr total labor hours to create balance and ensure a healthy job market. It can be done and if everyone for their earnings call is promising the gains to shareholders through layoffs or may end viable way to avoid an utter labor market disaster that’s brewing.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  I personally think we should eliminate poverty, war and have a 3 day work week. We don't seem to like that idea for some reason.

Yes. 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 ago
China is implementing proper time off regulations because of this, to increase domestic consumption.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Recently 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 ago
Maybe, 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 ago
  Nah. 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 ago

Eventually 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.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> Even the most hardline neoliberals are now seriously thinking about UBI. That's interesting. Can you give some examples?
- gmerc 3y ago
  Sam Altman
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  "The Libertarian Case for UBI" https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/The%20Libertarian%20Case%20for%20a%20universal%20Basic%20Income.pdf https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents... Similar discussions from UC San Diego https://digital.sandiego.edu/law_philosophy_scholarship/189/ https://digital.sandiego.edu/law_philosophy_scholarship/189/ The basic idea is that the state is there to create and ensure a free market exists, and that outside of that creating organs to redistribute wealth is an inefficient hack. Glenn Beck, proving that broken clocks can be right, said something about Obamacare to the effect of: "this will cost close to $3 million per US citizen. why not just give the citizen that money, and let them fly to Korea or Mexico? prices may go up but the free market is still a thing and consumers could just go to Europe instead. Cut out the middle man"
mejutoco 3y ago
Still waiting for someone to explain why the UBI won't just increase the price of all real state / rent to be $price_before + $UBI. When seen in that light, it would not be surprising that people with many assets support it.

rvense 3y ago

A few years ago, I read an essay that pointed out that the typewriter meant that people could write five or so times faster than before. And of course, what happened was not that people spent less times typing, quite the opposite. This plays out again and again, of course.

zo1 3y ago
The typewriter is irrelevant to the value equation at that point. You're paying for "potential" human labour, and that's governed by scarcity and fundamental limitations of how much a human can physically do. I.e. you're paying for 8 hours of that humans time, not their output. They still expect 8 hours, whether you output 10wpm or 100. Now are there some employers happy with splitting the difference in gains with their employees? Sure, but the market's emergent behavior will favor employers that get X output per $, not X-15%. But remember, this same equation applies to the employer. So they can't tell the market "hey we can now produce this same product 5x more cheaply but pretty please will you keep paying the same while we reduce our expenses by 5x?" In my head, it's essentially the same, perhaps I'm not explaining very well.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thunky 3y ago
  > But remember, this same equation applies to the employer. I don't think it does. > So they can't tell the market "hey we can now produce this same product 5x more cheaply but pretty please will you keep paying the same while we reduce our expenses by 5x?" Why would they advertise their internal efficiency gains? And even if they can't hide it, why would it force them to lower their prices? It doesn't affect the supply/demand equation. It just makes them more profitable.

prepend 3y ago

Isn’t that exactly how capitalism works? Increased productivity increases competition so new firms using AI, remote work, and short work weeks can attract and retain a superior workforce and be cheaper than older firms that can’t adapt? I’m not sure what method other than markers would be best suited for making such a large industry shift.

gmerc 3y ago
It’s really hard to not adapt when the barrier is a rest API and microsoft office / photoshop

gmerc 3y ago

It worked like this in the 80s in Europe. Too many steel mills closed, governments and unions capped thr total labor hours to create balance and ensure a healthy job market. It can be done and if everyone for their earnings call is promising the gains to shareholders through layoffs or may end viable way to avoid an utter labor market disaster that’s brewing.

ChatGTP 3y ago
I personally think we should eliminate poverty, war and have a 3 day work week. We don't seem to like that idea for some reason.