4 ms·

Shhhh... don't tell the plebes what it really means to "2x their productivity". Seriously though, this kind of tech-assisted work output improvement has happen

Shhhh... don't tell the plebes what it really means to "2x their productivity". Seriously though, this kind of tech-assisted work output improvement has happened many times in the past, and by now we should all have been working 4-hour weeks, but we all know how it has actually worked out.

netdevphoenix 1y ago
As a business owner, why would give up some of the profits? You started a business to make money not to do charity. Expecting businesses to act against their interests make no sense
- bendigedig 1y ago
  This is the kind of attitude that leads to revolutions.
  - xpe 1y ago
    Blame the system, not the actors. See a recent HN submission, The Evolution of Trust by Nicky Case: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ If there's one big takeaway from all of game theory, it's this: What the game is, defines what the players do. Our problem today isn't just that people are losing trust, it's that our environment acts against the evolution of trust. That may seem cynical or naive -- that we're "merely" products of our environment -- but as game theory reminds us, we are each others environment. In the short run, the game defines the players. But in the long run, it's us players who define the game. So, do what you can do, to create the conditions necessary to evolve trust. Build relationships. Find win-wins. Communicate clearly. Maybe then, we can stop firing at each other, get out of our own trenches, cross No Man's Land to come together... My take: don't blame corporations when they act rationally. (Who designed the conditions under which they act?) Don't blame people for being angry or scared when they feel unsettled. A wide range of behaviors are to be expected. If I am surprised about the world, that is probably because I don't understand it well enough. "Blame" is a waste of time here. Instead, we have to define what kind of society we want, predict likely responses, and build systems to manage them.
    - netdevphoenix 1y ago
      > we have to define what kind of society we want, predict likely responses, and build systems to manage them. Nailed it. At the end of the day, companies are automatons. It is up to use to update the reward and punishment functions to get the behaviour we desire. Behaviourism 101
      - bendigedig 1y ago
        Got it: I was just following orders.
        xpe 1y ago
        I didn't say that, and I think you know I didn't say that. Want to engage on this in way that is more than trading one-liners? On a human level, people are held to a set of laws and exist in a world of social norms. "Following orders" is of course not the most important goal in most contexts; it is not the way most people think of their own ethics (hopefully) nor the way society wants people to behave. Even in military contexts, there is often the notion of a "lawful order". When it comes to public for-profit companies, they are expected to generate a profit for their shareholders and abide by various laws, including their own charters. To demand or expect them to do more than this is foolish. Social pressure can help but is unreliable and changes over time. To expect that a few humans will step up to be heros exactly when we need them and "save the day" from a broken system is wishful thinking. We have to do better than this. Blaming something that is the statistical norm is scapegoating. In many/most situations, the problem is the system, not the actors.
      - spacemadness 1y ago
        What a clever way to resolve responsibility. Companies are made of people who strategize to rewrite the rules in their favor. They’re not “automatons.”
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - bithive123 1y ago
- erikerikson 1y ago
  For many, profit is only one of the purposes of the business.
GreenWatermelon 1y ago
Hell, when the industorial revolution happened, working hours increased, not decrease. And especially with electricity, Factory owners forced workers to work deep into the night. A constant 16-hour shift was the norm, so much that it requires legal intervention [1] > In 1833, the Factory Act banned children under 9 from working in the textile industry, and the working hours of 10-13 year olds was limited to 48 hours a week, while 14-18 year olds were limited to 69 hours a week, and 12 hours a day. Government factory inspectors were appointed to enforce the law. Constant work day in and out, morning and night. At least before the industrial revolution farmers only had to work as long as there was daylight, and winters meant shorter work times. This video [2] from Historia Civilis is very relevant. The gist of ot is that to this day, we work more hours than medieval peasants did. [1] https://www.striking-women.org/module/workplace-issues-past-and-present/working-hours https://www.striking-women.org/module/workplace-issues-past-... [2] https://youtu.be/hvk_XylEmLo?feature=shared https://youtu.be/hvk_XylEmLo?feature=shared
- igorbark 1y ago
  not sure if you will still see this 7 days later, but the claim "we work more hours than medieval peasants did" jumped out at me so i looked into a bit and am curious if you have more thoughts on it! i found this lively criticism of the video on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/16y233q/historia_civiliss_work_gets_almost_everything/ https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/16y233q/histori.... my brief takeaway was that the claim might be true if "work" means "working for an employer for wages", but not if "work" includes "necessary labor for shelter, food, clothing, survival". but it's an interesting thought though so i'm curious if you have other related resources to dig into.

netdevphoenix 1y ago

As a business owner, why would give up some of the profits? You started a business to make money not to do charity. Expecting businesses to act against their interests make no sense

bendigedig 1y ago
This is the kind of attitude that leads to revolutions.
- xpe 1y ago
  Blame the system, not the actors. See a recent HN submission, The Evolution of Trust by Nicky Case: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ If there's one big takeaway from all of game theory, it's this: What the game is, defines what the players do. Our problem today isn't just that people are losing trust, it's that our environment acts against the evolution of trust. That may seem cynical or naive -- that we're "merely" products of our environment -- but as game theory reminds us, we are each others environment. In the short run, the game defines the players. But in the long run, it's us players who define the game. So, do what you can do, to create the conditions necessary to evolve trust. Build relationships. Find win-wins. Communicate clearly. Maybe then, we can stop firing at each other, get out of our own trenches, cross No Man's Land to come together... My take: don't blame corporations when they act rationally. (Who designed the conditions under which they act?) Don't blame people for being angry or scared when they feel unsettled. A wide range of behaviors are to be expected. If I am surprised about the world, that is probably because I don't understand it well enough. "Blame" is a waste of time here. Instead, we have to define what kind of society we want, predict likely responses, and build systems to manage them.
  - netdevphoenix 1y ago
    > we have to define what kind of society we want, predict likely responses, and build systems to manage them. Nailed it. At the end of the day, companies are automatons. It is up to use to update the reward and punishment functions to get the behaviour we desire. Behaviourism 101
    - bendigedig 1y ago
      Got it: I was just following orders.
      - xpe 1y ago
        I didn't say that, and I think you know I didn't say that. Want to engage on this in way that is more than trading one-liners? On a human level, people are held to a set of laws and exist in a world of social norms. "Following orders" is of course not the most important goal in most contexts; it is not the way most people think of their own ethics (hopefully) nor the way society wants people to behave. Even in military contexts, there is often the notion of a "lawful order". When it comes to public for-profit companies, they are expected to generate a profit for their shareholders and abide by various laws, including their own charters. To demand or expect them to do more than this is foolish. Social pressure can help but is unreliable and changes over time. To expect that a few humans will step up to be heros exactly when we need them and "save the day" from a broken system is wishful thinking. We have to do better than this. Blaming something that is the statistical norm is scapegoating. In many/most situations, the problem is the system, not the actors.
    - spacemadness 1y ago
      What a clever way to resolve responsibility. Companies are made of people who strategize to rewrite the rules in their favor. They’re not “automatons.”
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - bithive123 1y ago
erikerikson 1y ago
For many, profit is only one of the purposes of the business.

GreenWatermelon 1y ago

Hell, when the industorial revolution happened, working hours increased, not decrease. And especially with electricity, Factory owners forced workers to work deep into the night. A constant 16-hour shift was the norm, so much that it requires legal intervention [1] > In 1833, the Factory Act banned children under 9 from working in the textile industry, and the working hours of 10-13 year olds was limited to 48 hours a week, while 14-18 year olds were limited to 69 hours a week, and 12 hours a day. Government factory inspectors were appointed to enforce the law. Constant work day in and out, morning and night. At least before the industrial revolution farmers only had to work as long as there was daylight, and winters meant shorter work times. This video [2] from Historia Civilis is very relevant. The gist of ot is that to this day, we work more hours than medieval peasants did. [1] https://www.striking-women.org/module/workplace-issues-past-and-present/working-hours https://www.striking-women.org/module/workplace-issues-past-... [2] https://youtu.be/hvk_XylEmLo?feature=shared https://youtu.be/hvk_XylEmLo?feature=shared

igorbark 1y ago
not sure if you will still see this 7 days later, but the claim "we work more hours than medieval peasants did" jumped out at me so i looked into a bit and am curious if you have more thoughts on it! i found this lively criticism of the video on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/16y233q/historia_civiliss_work_gets_almost_everything/ https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/16y233q/histori.... my brief takeaway was that the claim might be true if "work" means "working for an employer for wages", but not if "work" includes "necessary labor for shelter, food, clothing, survival". but it's an interesting thought though so i'm curious if you have other related resources to dig into.