3 ms·

> We haven't kept on lowering the weekly hours because despite the unstoppable productivity gains, people want more stuff. Which people? It's the ones with al

> We haven't kept on lowering the weekly hours because despite the unstoppable productivity gains, people want more stuff. Which people? It's the ones with all the money and power who actually control this. Don't try to blame this on regular working people.

Qwertious 3y ago
>Which people? People who are advertised to, and told that they aren't good enough unless they use <product>. Ads create negative utility by attempting to make people less satisfied with what they were already happy with. Obviously "not all ads", some ads do useful work of informing the public about a useful product when word-of-mouth isn't working "fast enough". I'm adding this line specifically to pre-empt nitpicker replies.
hirako2000 3y ago
I'm not seeking to blame the average earner over the super rich. Most people are very much attached to consumption, it's been a bigger factor that kept the common 40h week than the employers very possible desire to keep workers hustling so much. Which people? In term of numbers and total impact that would be regular people, more so than those possibly having more leverage on defining what a working week should look like. In any case the control is over the regular people. If the latter change the other bunch will de facto have to revisit how much they consume, by rough as much.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  You forget that rent goes up with income in an area. So does the price of many necessary goods.
  - hirako2000 3y ago
    I rather forgot to mention that and how it turns into a cycle, pushing out people with ordinary income out of those cities.
sanderjd 3y ago
It's pretty much everyone who wants more stuff, when they can afford it. But the kind of stuff different people want varies a ton cultural and individually. But no, it's not that "regular working people" eschew possessions while the rich consume. "Minimalism" and "FIRE" and "#vanlife" type things are all distinctly wealthy phenomena. It's people who can bail out of that lifestyle into a life of bounty if they decide to. Working class people may have fewer possessions (though this isn't even necessarily true IME), but that doesn't mean they don't want more stuff. Every "regular working person" I know is trying to save up money for stuff they really want but can't yet afford. The only people I know who talk about consumerism and people having too much stuff are those who can already afford anything they want.

Qwertious 3y ago

>Which people? People who are advertised to, and told that they aren't good enough unless they use <product>. Ads create negative utility by attempting to make people less satisfied with what they were already happy with. Obviously "not all ads", some ads do useful work of informing the public about a useful product when word-of-mouth isn't working "fast enough". I'm adding this line specifically to pre-empt nitpicker replies.

hirako2000 3y ago

I'm not seeking to blame the average earner over the super rich. Most people are very much attached to consumption, it's been a bigger factor that kept the common 40h week than the employers very possible desire to keep workers hustling so much. Which people? In term of numbers and total impact that would be regular people, more so than those possibly having more leverage on defining what a working week should look like. In any case the control is over the regular people. If the latter change the other bunch will de facto have to revisit how much they consume, by rough as much.

sudosysgen 3y ago
You forget that rent goes up with income in an area. So does the price of many necessary goods.
- hirako2000 3y ago
  I rather forgot to mention that and how it turns into a cycle, pushing out people with ordinary income out of those cities.

sanderjd 3y ago

It's pretty much everyone who wants more stuff, when they can afford it. But the kind of stuff different people want varies a ton cultural and individually. But no, it's not that "regular working people" eschew possessions while the rich consume. "Minimalism" and "FIRE" and "#vanlife" type things are all distinctly wealthy phenomena. It's people who can bail out of that lifestyle into a life of bounty if they decide to. Working class people may have fewer possessions (though this isn't even necessarily true IME), but that doesn't mean they don't want more stuff. Every "regular working person" I know is trying to save up money for stuff they really want but can't yet afford. The only people I know who talk about consumerism and people having too much stuff are those who can already afford anything they want.