5 ms·

He was extrapolating, as well. Going from children in the mines to the welfare state in a generation was quite something. Unfortunately, progress slowed down si

He was extrapolating, as well. Going from children in the mines to the welfare state in a generation was quite something. Unfortunately, progress slowed down significantly for many reasons but I don’t think we should really blame Keynes for this. > We live in a time that the working class is unbelievably brainwashed and manipulated. I think it has always been that way. Looking through history, there are many examples of turkeys voting for Christmas and propaganda is an old invention. I don’t think there is anything special right now. And to be fair to the working class, it’s not hard to see how they could feel abandoned. It’s also broader than the working class. The middle class is getting squeezed as well. The only winners are the oligarchs.

ireadmevs 1y ago
There’s no middle class. You either have to work for a living or you don’t.
- d4mi3n 1y ago
  While you’re not wrong in what differentiates those with wealth to those without, I think ignores a lot of nuance. Does one have savings? Can they afford to spend time with their children outside of working day to day? Do they have the ability to take reasonable risks without chancing financial ruin in pursuit of better opportunities? These are things we typically attribute to someone in the middle class. I worry that boiling down these discussions to “you work and they don’t” misses a lot of opportunity for tangible improvement to quality of life for large number of people.
  - hobs 1y ago
    It doesn't - its a battle cry for the working classes (ie anyone who actually works) to realize they are being exploited by those that simply do not. If you have an actual job and an income constrained by your work output, you could be middle class, but you could also recognize that you are getting absolutely ruined by the billionaire class (no matter what your level of working wealth)
    - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
      I'm really not convinced that I and my CEO share a common class interest against the billionaires, and I'm not particularly interested in standing together to demand that both of us need to be paid more.
      - hobs 1y ago
        I don't know how to convince you that both of you are struggling against each other when you should be in common cause, but in my experience if the CEO thinks even more they are a temporarily embarrassed billionaire then I can see why you'd resent them. That doesn't change the facts of the matter though.
- dagw 1y ago
  You either have to work for a living or you don’t The words 'have to' are doing a lot of work in that statement. Some people 'have to' work to literally put food on the table, other people 'have to' work to able to making payments on their new yacht. The world is full of people who could probably live out the rest of their lives without working any more, but doing so would require drastic lifestyle changes they're not willing to make. I personally think the metric should be something along the lines of how long would it take from losing all your income until you're homeless.
  - dgfitz 1y ago
    The sentence works without those two words. “You either work for a living or you don’t.” Now what?
    - dagw 1y ago
      Now it comes down to how you define 'for a living'. You still need to differentiate between people who work to survive, people who work to finance their aspirational lifestyle, and people who have all the money they could possibly need and still work because they either see it as a calling or they just seem to like working. Considering all these people in the same 'class' is far too simplistic.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - dgfitz 1y ago
        Enh, to me it’s not, either you work or you don’t.
        dagw 1y ago
        So someone on the edge of poverty, balancing two or three minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet, should be considered part of the same class as the CEO of Microsoft or Google? Hell most people on the Forbes list 'work' in at least some meaning of the word, even if many of them effectively work for themselves. What about the trust fund kid working part time at an art gallery just because they like the scene and hanging out with artists? Same class? And on the flip side, are pensioners, the unemployed, and people on permanent disability part of the same class as the dilettante children of billionaires?
- freefrog334433 1y ago
  Traditionally there were the English upper class, who had others work for them, and the working class who did. Doctors and Bankers were the middle class, because they owned houses with 6-8 servants running it, so while they worked, they also had plenty of people working for them. I agree with your point. Now doctors are working class as well.
- laughing_man 1y ago
  That's reductive. The middle class in the US commonly describes people who have access to goods and services in moderation. You aren't poor just because you can't retire.
FabHK 1y ago
> progress slowed down significantly for many reasons I think progress (in the sense of economic growth) was roughly in line with what Keynes expected. What he didn't expect is that people, instead of getting 10x the living standard with 1/3 the working hours, rather wanted to have 30x the living standard with the same working hours.
- Ray20 1y ago
  It's not really clear where he got this from. Throughout human history, starting with the spread of agriculture, increased labor efficiency has always led to people consuming more, not to them working less. Moreover, throughout the 20th century, we saw several periods in different countries when wages rose very rapidly - and this always led to a temporary average increase in hours worked. Because when a worker is told "I'll pay you 50% more" - the answer is usually not "Cool, I can work 30% less", but "Now I'm willing to work 50% more to get 2x of the pay".
  - jjk166 1y ago
    > Throughout human history, starting with the spread of agriculture, increased labor efficiency has always led to people consuming more, not to them working less. Can you give a single example where that happened? During the industrial revolution it was definitely not what happened. In the late 1700s laborers typically averaged around 80 hours per week. In the 1880s this had decreased to around 60 hours per week. In the 1920s the average was closer to 48 hours per week. By the time Keynes was writing, the 40 hour work week had become standard. Average workweek bottomed out in the mid 1980s in the US and UK at about 37 hours before starting to increase again.
    - Ray20 1y ago
      >80 hours per week >60 hours per week That never was the case (except for short periods after salary increases). And this is not a question where there could be any speculation: in those days there were already people collecting such statistics, and we have a bunch of diaries describing the actual state of affairs, both from the workers themselves and from those who organized their labor - and everything shows that few people worked more than 50 hours a week on average. Most likely, the myth about 80 hours a week stems from the fact that such weeks really were common, but it was work in the format of "work a week or two or a month for 80 hours, then a week or two or a month you don't work, spend money, arrange your life" There is also agriculture, which employed a significant part of the population in the past. There, on average, there was usually even less than 40 hours of productive work, it's just that timing is of great importance there, and there are bottlenecks, and when necessary, you have to work 20 hours a day, which is compensated by periods when the workload is much less than 6 hours a day.

ireadmevs 1y ago

There’s no middle class. You either have to work for a living or you don’t.

d4mi3n 1y ago
While you’re not wrong in what differentiates those with wealth to those without, I think ignores a lot of nuance. Does one have savings? Can they afford to spend time with their children outside of working day to day? Do they have the ability to take reasonable risks without chancing financial ruin in pursuit of better opportunities? These are things we typically attribute to someone in the middle class. I worry that boiling down these discussions to “you work and they don’t” misses a lot of opportunity for tangible improvement to quality of life for large number of people.
- hobs 1y ago
  It doesn't - its a battle cry for the working classes (ie anyone who actually works) to realize they are being exploited by those that simply do not. If you have an actual job and an income constrained by your work output, you could be middle class, but you could also recognize that you are getting absolutely ruined by the billionaire class (no matter what your level of working wealth)
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    I'm really not convinced that I and my CEO share a common class interest against the billionaires, and I'm not particularly interested in standing together to demand that both of us need to be paid more.
    - hobs 1y ago
      I don't know how to convince you that both of you are struggling against each other when you should be in common cause, but in my experience if the CEO thinks even more they are a temporarily embarrassed billionaire then I can see why you'd resent them. That doesn't change the facts of the matter though.
dagw 1y ago
You either have to work for a living or you don’t The words 'have to' are doing a lot of work in that statement. Some people 'have to' work to literally put food on the table, other people 'have to' work to able to making payments on their new yacht. The world is full of people who could probably live out the rest of their lives without working any more, but doing so would require drastic lifestyle changes they're not willing to make. I personally think the metric should be something along the lines of how long would it take from losing all your income until you're homeless.
- dgfitz 1y ago
  The sentence works without those two words. “You either work for a living or you don’t.” Now what?
  - dagw 1y ago
    Now it comes down to how you define 'for a living'. You still need to differentiate between people who work to survive, people who work to finance their aspirational lifestyle, and people who have all the money they could possibly need and still work because they either see it as a calling or they just seem to like working. Considering all these people in the same 'class' is far too simplistic.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - dgfitz 1y ago
      Enh, to me it’s not, either you work or you don’t.
      - dagw 1y ago
        So someone on the edge of poverty, balancing two or three minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet, should be considered part of the same class as the CEO of Microsoft or Google? Hell most people on the Forbes list 'work' in at least some meaning of the word, even if many of them effectively work for themselves. What about the trust fund kid working part time at an art gallery just because they like the scene and hanging out with artists? Same class? And on the flip side, are pensioners, the unemployed, and people on permanent disability part of the same class as the dilettante children of billionaires?
freefrog334433 1y ago
Traditionally there were the English upper class, who had others work for them, and the working class who did. Doctors and Bankers were the middle class, because they owned houses with 6-8 servants running it, so while they worked, they also had plenty of people working for them. I agree with your point. Now doctors are working class as well.
laughing_man 1y ago
That's reductive. The middle class in the US commonly describes people who have access to goods and services in moderation. You aren't poor just because you can't retire.

FabHK 1y ago

> progress slowed down significantly for many reasons I think progress (in the sense of economic growth) was roughly in line with what Keynes expected. What he didn't expect is that people, instead of getting 10x the living standard with 1/3 the working hours, rather wanted to have 30x the living standard with the same working hours.

Ray20 1y ago
It's not really clear where he got this from. Throughout human history, starting with the spread of agriculture, increased labor efficiency has always led to people consuming more, not to them working less. Moreover, throughout the 20th century, we saw several periods in different countries when wages rose very rapidly - and this always led to a temporary average increase in hours worked. Because when a worker is told "I'll pay you 50% more" - the answer is usually not "Cool, I can work 30% less", but "Now I'm willing to work 50% more to get 2x of the pay".
- jjk166 1y ago
  > Throughout human history, starting with the spread of agriculture, increased labor efficiency has always led to people consuming more, not to them working less. Can you give a single example where that happened? During the industrial revolution it was definitely not what happened. In the late 1700s laborers typically averaged around 80 hours per week. In the 1880s this had decreased to around 60 hours per week. In the 1920s the average was closer to 48 hours per week. By the time Keynes was writing, the 40 hour work week had become standard. Average workweek bottomed out in the mid 1980s in the US and UK at about 37 hours before starting to increase again.
  - Ray20 1y ago
    >80 hours per week >60 hours per week That never was the case (except for short periods after salary increases). And this is not a question where there could be any speculation: in those days there were already people collecting such statistics, and we have a bunch of diaries describing the actual state of affairs, both from the workers themselves and from those who organized their labor - and everything shows that few people worked more than 50 hours a week on average. Most likely, the myth about 80 hours a week stems from the fact that such weeks really were common, but it was work in the format of "work a week or two or a month for 80 hours, then a week or two or a month you don't work, spend money, arrange your life" There is also agriculture, which employed a significant part of the population in the past. There, on average, there was usually even less than 40 hours of productive work, it's just that timing is of great importance there, and there are bottlenecks, and when necessary, you have to work 20 hours a day, which is compensated by periods when the workload is much less than 6 hours a day.