5 ms·

Workers in industrial societies work way more hours than their ancestors did. There's enough resources for people to work less hours.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Which goods would you cut out?
- sapphicsnail 2y ago
  Most people I know spend a lot of time doing unnecessary things for their job. I don't have a magic solution to fix all the bureaucratic bullshit people are subject to but acknowledging it's a problem is a start.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Sure, there are lots of things that are inefficient. I think everyone recognizes that. That doesnt mean there is an obvious and viable alternative.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Stock buybacks. They serve nothing but short term driving up of profits purely to increase the value of management's stock options. They have no place in the functions/purpose of a healthy stock market.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    How would that free up worker time while preserving the same amount of physical goods and services available for consumption? Lets say every company stops buybacks, that doesnt mean workers can make more "stuff" with fewer hours.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      It's because the people who say things like the above have no real alternative solution in place and simply say things that sound good in theory (or are even wholly unrelated, as you explained) but fundamentally don't change anything about the world.
      - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        Weak response personal attack is weak and lame.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        It's not really a personal attack, it's an observation. You haven't actually elaborated on the parent's question but for some reason replied to me instead, which proves my point.
        _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        Not a personal attack, sure. I responded to the personal attack first my dude and responded to his post literally within one minute of your reply here. Stock buybacks are stock manipulation by management and a means of tax evasion (raises the stock value in order for the big holders to borrow against held stock so benefiting from gains without paying taxes, something average holders don't benefit from) and add ZERO to the economy or the market. Companies using the funds as intended by a functioning market, either re-investing in the company, strengthening the company by holding in reserve, or rewarding investors with taxable income that then circulates in the economy and provides the expected tax funds. Also your response to my was was again a personal attack in the form of 'observation'.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        My point is that that can all be true about stock buybacks (which I disagree with your interpretation of, but anyway), but that is completely orthogonal to what was asked, which is, why would stock buybacks allow more time and less work for workers? That is what I meant when I said that people respond to such questions with something unrelated because they have no real alternate solution.
swatcoder 2y ago
I'm with you that things suck now and don't need to be this way, having carefully not said otherwise. But I also think you might be underestimating how many people's ancestors were slaves, serfs, miners, and laborers during hose prior several millenia of settled, urbanizing civilization. We don't all come from aristocratic or even subsistence farming stock. It can be less bad than it is, we might want to strive to make it less bad than it is, but it's been pretty darn bad for a long while. For pressing modern problems we also need to commit to more immediate tactics.
- sapphicsnail 2y ago
  I'm not saying everyone had it better. Chattle slavery is definitely worse. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think we needed to have slaves to make progress. I want to push back against this idea that it's inevitable to have to work as much as we do. A worker today is significantly more productive. We could probably make life a lot easier for everyone by finding a more equitable way to distribute resources and by breaking up and regulating all the rent-seeking monopolists who makes things more expensive than they need to be.
  - swatcoder 2y ago
    > I want to push back against this idea that it's inevitable to have to work as much as we do I'm with you. Has anyone here said that?
    - sapphicsnail 2y ago
      Yes, someone responded to me saying just that and it's also a position I've seen frequently on HN. I think plenty of people have that as a gut reaction to any proposed change in the status quo.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
satvikpendem 2y ago
Your first sentence is a false factoid repeated online [0][1]. And anyway, there is always more work to be done, so I don't understand why people think working hours would ever decrease; as soon as we build one thing, another problem crops up. We would only stop working until all problems in the world would have been solved, which is never. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/z38k5p/i_have_read_a_lot_lately_about_how/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/z38k5p/i_h... [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/im1lqu/is_it_true_that_hunter_gatherers_had_more_leisure/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/im1lqu/is_...
- sydbarrett74 2y ago
  Maybe we could get off the hedonic treadmill and be content with a certain level of material affluence.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    I don't know about you, but I don't want to die of now-curable diseases that were only able to be cured due to the hard work of many, many humans over generations. To think that that human progress is akin to a personal hedonic treadmill is misguided.
    - sydbarrett74 2y ago
      One doesn't have to come at the expense of another. Cf. 'Steady State Economy'.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        In theory, sure, but not so in practice.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Which goods would you cut out?

sapphicsnail 2y ago
Most people I know spend a lot of time doing unnecessary things for their job. I don't have a magic solution to fix all the bureaucratic bullshit people are subject to but acknowledging it's a problem is a start.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Sure, there are lots of things that are inefficient. I think everyone recognizes that. That doesnt mean there is an obvious and viable alternative.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Stock buybacks. They serve nothing but short term driving up of profits purely to increase the value of management's stock options. They have no place in the functions/purpose of a healthy stock market.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  How would that free up worker time while preserving the same amount of physical goods and services available for consumption? Lets say every company stops buybacks, that doesnt mean workers can make more "stuff" with fewer hours.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    It's because the people who say things like the above have no real alternative solution in place and simply say things that sound good in theory (or are even wholly unrelated, as you explained) but fundamentally don't change anything about the world.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      Weak response personal attack is weak and lame.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        It's not really a personal attack, it's an observation. You haven't actually elaborated on the parent's question but for some reason replied to me instead, which proves my point.
        _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        Not a personal attack, sure. I responded to the personal attack first my dude and responded to his post literally within one minute of your reply here. Stock buybacks are stock manipulation by management and a means of tax evasion (raises the stock value in order for the big holders to borrow against held stock so benefiting from gains without paying taxes, something average holders don't benefit from) and add ZERO to the economy or the market. Companies using the funds as intended by a functioning market, either re-investing in the company, strengthening the company by holding in reserve, or rewarding investors with taxable income that then circulates in the economy and provides the expected tax funds. Also your response to my was was again a personal attack in the form of 'observation'.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        My point is that that can all be true about stock buybacks (which I disagree with your interpretation of, but anyway), but that is completely orthogonal to what was asked, which is, why would stock buybacks allow more time and less work for workers? That is what I meant when I said that people respond to such questions with something unrelated because they have no real alternate solution.

swatcoder 2y ago

I'm with you that things suck now and don't need to be this way, having carefully not said otherwise. But I also think you might be underestimating how many people's ancestors were slaves, serfs, miners, and laborers during hose prior several millenia of settled, urbanizing civilization. We don't all come from aristocratic or even subsistence farming stock. It can be less bad than it is, we might want to strive to make it less bad than it is, but it's been pretty darn bad for a long while. For pressing modern problems we also need to commit to more immediate tactics.

sapphicsnail 2y ago
I'm not saying everyone had it better. Chattle slavery is definitely worse. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think we needed to have slaves to make progress. I want to push back against this idea that it's inevitable to have to work as much as we do. A worker today is significantly more productive. We could probably make life a lot easier for everyone by finding a more equitable way to distribute resources and by breaking up and regulating all the rent-seeking monopolists who makes things more expensive than they need to be.
- swatcoder 2y ago
  > I want to push back against this idea that it's inevitable to have to work as much as we do I'm with you. Has anyone here said that?
  - sapphicsnail 2y ago
    Yes, someone responded to me saying just that and it's also a position I've seen frequently on HN. I think plenty of people have that as a gut reaction to any proposed change in the status quo.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

satvikpendem 2y ago

Your first sentence is a false factoid repeated online [0][1]. And anyway, there is always more work to be done, so I don't understand why people think working hours would ever decrease; as soon as we build one thing, another problem crops up. We would only stop working until all problems in the world would have been solved, which is never. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/z38k5p/i_have_read_a_lot_lately_about_how/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/z38k5p/i_h... [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/im1lqu/is_it_true_that_hunter_gatherers_had_more_leisure/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/im1lqu/is_...

sydbarrett74 2y ago
Maybe we could get off the hedonic treadmill and be content with a certain level of material affluence.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  I don't know about you, but I don't want to die of now-curable diseases that were only able to be cured due to the hard work of many, many humans over generations. To think that that human progress is akin to a personal hedonic treadmill is misguided.
  - sydbarrett74 2y ago
    One doesn't have to come at the expense of another. Cf. 'Steady State Economy'.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      In theory, sure, but not so in practice.