5 ms·

> Part of the deal with progress should be that we all start working less. If not is the progress all that attractive? But we don't want to work less, we want

> Part of the deal with progress should be that we all start working less. If not is the progress all that attractive? But we don't want to work less, we want more stuff.

throwaway290 1y ago
> But we don't want to work less, we want more stuff. Hold on. That's what tech is for right? certain people on this forum keep saying we don't want to work. They say it's OK that they steal our art to train AI that takes our jobs, because then we can finally chillax and not work. But now apparently we also must keep working the remaining shitty jobs to not starve until we die? who is supposed to win here??
- sdeframond 1y ago
  Obviously it depends a lot but, as white-collars tech people, we can already work less. What's preventing us from going on sabbatical ? We would earn less, sure, but do we really need that money? I mean it is buying us things that our parents didnt have so it should be possible to do without, no? Again, that's a different story for poor people.
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    Yeah I guess it answers the question who wins (for now). for sure it's just a problem for copywriters who will need to work as roofers until the ever increasing retirement age because a thing trained on stolen text now does the copywriting. The tech people who made it happen can just chill and tell everybody how they can work less while snowboarding in the alps.
  - sudahtigabulan 1y ago
    > What's preventing us from going on sabbatical? Companies are not thrilled to hire people with long gaps in their resume, in my experience. (I have 2, 1, 1, years each gaps in mine.) You risk making yourself unhirable. And, if not now, at some point you will need money.
    - sdeframond 1y ago
      One can only do it so much, that's true. And at some point will all need some money. Are you unhirable now or do you simply feel you are less valuable ?
simianparrot 1y ago
Who says that? Because that’s not the prevailing opinion among me (soon 40), my friends snd my family. Benefits from «stuff» caps off ar a certain level. After that you want to work less so you have more time to, among other things, actually enjoy your stuff. The exception to this are wealth chasers with multiple yachts etc., but that isn’t «we», that’s a tiny tiny sliver of the elite.
- dagss 1y ago
  Assuming your country is similar to Norway: 1) Unions say it when they always demand increased salary (= focus on private spending) rather than reduced working hours 2) Voters say it when the right and far right is polling high. Lower taxes = wish for higher private spending, if people are going to work less then tax rate must up for society to function as public expenditure will increase, not decrease, with lots of elderly needing care and fewer workers available. 3) Lots of people have the ability to reduce working hours by working fewer hours (in Norway, if you have kids you can always get 20% unpaid leave by law). And most could do so economically if they reduced their consumption and spending. But people do not seem to consider reducing their salary as an option. The option is available to lots of people and they are not taking it. PS: You talk about getting more stuff, but to meet the future labor problems we are talking about reductions being needed to peoples consumption, not staying at the 2025 level.
  - slaw 1y ago
    I don't want fewer working hours. I want to make enough money so I don't have to work for a few years.
    - babyent 1y ago
      No tax revenue
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >The option is available to lots of people and they are not taking it. They're not taking it because living costs are up across the board. The laws allows you to work part time, but your expenses don't so you have to work 40h week to keep up in the rat race with everyone else.
imtringued 1y ago
Rent is a fixed expense that keeps rising. Therefore there is a minimum amount of work you need to do that keeps rising even if you want nothing.
sentimentscan 1y ago
My friends and I would love to have 4/5 or 3/5 of working days with 4/5 or 3/5 of salary, but sadly I don't know any companies that offer that. I understand that it may be hard with meeting culture, but we can make 1 or 2 days with no meetings. I don't want to go back to the stress and uncertainty of freelancing; I want a predictable, safe income with simply scaled-back hours/pay. My salary (and my friends') in IT is 2-3 times more than the average pay, and 60/80% is more than enough to live comfortably
- zamadatix 1y ago
  I don't think time worked linearly correlates with profitability, especially when talking about long timeframes. E.g. working 120 hours per week for a year is extremely unlikely to result in 3x the productivity as 40 hours a week. Same with working 3/5ths as much, it's unlikely to linearly scale down to 3/5ths the value (not that "it can't ever", just not as a typical expectation). That aside, plenty of places offer a 4x10, or are fine with it when asked, and I think that's a more productive way to put in 40 hours each week while also being more convenient for yourself (before even getting into wanting to lower total hours).
  - instagib 1y ago
    4x10 is rough. I’ve been in positions that started with 5x8 then went to 4x10, then others 8,10, or 12 with built in overtime or comp time to get to 40hrs average. You end up trying to cheat meals for speed eating unhealthy. High amounts of caffeine, little family time, and at least the first day off is usually wasted catching up on lost sleep. If you happen to do shift work, good luck trying to get much done as you need to shift to a different schedule to be somewhere during open hours. We were more inefficient going from 5x8 to 4x10. Try training on little sleep before coffee kicks in. You need to re-do it later. Try sleeping after drinking coffee all day to stay awake, it’s great for your heart and blood pressure.
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      If you're already time constrained to the point working 2 extra hours means you can't get through the day without caffeine and skipping meals then of course it's a bad idea, but that's not an inherent fault of a 4x10 in itself. A 4x10 is particularly attractive for those able to work remote and/or without lots of other time commitments. If you have an hour commute each way, kids to drop off/pick up from school/sports, responsibility for cooking meals 100% of the time, and so on then it really doesn't make sense to point the finger at the 2 extra hours as the sole root cause of the problem in that situation.
thrance 1y ago
No, the capital class wants you to work more and sell you more slop. I would certainly do with less work and less things, as would many.
Gothmog69 1y ago
Do we? Most people struggling to get the things that were easily available 50 years ago

> Part of the deal with progress should be that we all start working less. If not is the progress all that attractive? But we don't want to work less, we want more stuff.

throwaway290 1y ago

> But we don't want to work less, we want more stuff. Hold on. That's what tech is for right? certain people on this forum keep saying we don't want to work. They say it's OK that they steal our art to train AI that takes our jobs, because then we can finally chillax and not work. But now apparently we also must keep working the remaining shitty jobs to not starve until we die? who is supposed to win here??

sdeframond 1y ago
Obviously it depends a lot but, as white-collars tech people, we can already work less. What's preventing us from going on sabbatical ? We would earn less, sure, but do we really need that money? I mean it is buying us things that our parents didnt have so it should be possible to do without, no? Again, that's a different story for poor people.
- throwaway290 1y ago
  Yeah I guess it answers the question who wins (for now). for sure it's just a problem for copywriters who will need to work as roofers until the ever increasing retirement age because a thing trained on stolen text now does the copywriting. The tech people who made it happen can just chill and tell everybody how they can work less while snowboarding in the alps.
- sudahtigabulan 1y ago
  > What's preventing us from going on sabbatical? Companies are not thrilled to hire people with long gaps in their resume, in my experience. (I have 2, 1, 1, years each gaps in mine.) You risk making yourself unhirable. And, if not now, at some point you will need money.
  - sdeframond 1y ago
    One can only do it so much, that's true. And at some point will all need some money. Are you unhirable now or do you simply feel you are less valuable ?

simianparrot 1y ago

Who says that? Because that’s not the prevailing opinion among me (soon 40), my friends snd my family. Benefits from «stuff» caps off ar a certain level. After that you want to work less so you have more time to, among other things, actually enjoy your stuff. The exception to this are wealth chasers with multiple yachts etc., but that isn’t «we», that’s a tiny tiny sliver of the elite.

dagss 1y ago
Assuming your country is similar to Norway: 1) Unions say it when they always demand increased salary (= focus on private spending) rather than reduced working hours 2) Voters say it when the right and far right is polling high. Lower taxes = wish for higher private spending, if people are going to work less then tax rate must up for society to function as public expenditure will increase, not decrease, with lots of elderly needing care and fewer workers available. 3) Lots of people have the ability to reduce working hours by working fewer hours (in Norway, if you have kids you can always get 20% unpaid leave by law). And most could do so economically if they reduced their consumption and spending. But people do not seem to consider reducing their salary as an option. The option is available to lots of people and they are not taking it. PS: You talk about getting more stuff, but to meet the future labor problems we are talking about reductions being needed to peoples consumption, not staying at the 2025 level.
- slaw 1y ago
  I don't want fewer working hours. I want to make enough money so I don't have to work for a few years.
  - babyent 1y ago
    No tax revenue
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >The option is available to lots of people and they are not taking it. They're not taking it because living costs are up across the board. The laws allows you to work part time, but your expenses don't so you have to work 40h week to keep up in the rat race with everyone else.

imtringued 1y ago

Rent is a fixed expense that keeps rising. Therefore there is a minimum amount of work you need to do that keeps rising even if you want nothing.

sentimentscan 1y ago

My friends and I would love to have 4/5 or 3/5 of working days with 4/5 or 3/5 of salary, but sadly I don't know any companies that offer that. I understand that it may be hard with meeting culture, but we can make 1 or 2 days with no meetings. I don't want to go back to the stress and uncertainty of freelancing; I want a predictable, safe income with simply scaled-back hours/pay. My salary (and my friends') in IT is 2-3 times more than the average pay, and 60/80% is more than enough to live comfortably

zamadatix 1y ago
I don't think time worked linearly correlates with profitability, especially when talking about long timeframes. E.g. working 120 hours per week for a year is extremely unlikely to result in 3x the productivity as 40 hours a week. Same with working 3/5ths as much, it's unlikely to linearly scale down to 3/5ths the value (not that "it can't ever", just not as a typical expectation). That aside, plenty of places offer a 4x10, or are fine with it when asked, and I think that's a more productive way to put in 40 hours each week while also being more convenient for yourself (before even getting into wanting to lower total hours).
- instagib 1y ago
  4x10 is rough. I’ve been in positions that started with 5x8 then went to 4x10, then others 8,10, or 12 with built in overtime or comp time to get to 40hrs average. You end up trying to cheat meals for speed eating unhealthy. High amounts of caffeine, little family time, and at least the first day off is usually wasted catching up on lost sleep. If you happen to do shift work, good luck trying to get much done as you need to shift to a different schedule to be somewhere during open hours. We were more inefficient going from 5x8 to 4x10. Try training on little sleep before coffee kicks in. You need to re-do it later. Try sleeping after drinking coffee all day to stay awake, it’s great for your heart and blood pressure.
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    If you're already time constrained to the point working 2 extra hours means you can't get through the day without caffeine and skipping meals then of course it's a bad idea, but that's not an inherent fault of a 4x10 in itself. A 4x10 is particularly attractive for those able to work remote and/or without lots of other time commitments. If you have an hour commute each way, kids to drop off/pick up from school/sports, responsibility for cooking meals 100% of the time, and so on then it really doesn't make sense to point the finger at the 2 extra hours as the sole root cause of the problem in that situation.

thrance 1y ago

No, the capital class wants you to work more and sell you more slop. I would certainly do with less work and less things, as would many.

Gothmog69 1y ago

Do we? Most people struggling to get the things that were easily available 50 years ago