3 ms·

Eventually it will dawn on most people that it is time once again to shorten the standard work week. Until then it's all talking in circles.

Timon3 5mo ago
Unfortunately it seems like the winds are blowing in the opposite direction - the German government for example is trying to move us to a 48-hour-week instead.
surgical_fire 5mo ago
I would love that. But that is not going to happen. We would need tangible, meaningful productivity improvements for it to be possible. LLMs are sort of moderately useful, but companies adopting it see no real productivity increase (they see cost increase however). In many ways it is a bullshit technology, being marketed way beyond its capabilities.
- sillyfluke 5mo ago
  >But that is not going to happen. I don't think the 8-hour work day was accepted during the industrial revolution because job providers were convinced of productivity gains. It was won due to the leverage the labor unions and workers had over job providers. The whole thing rests on whether workers can maintain their leverage in the AI era. That leverage is being eroded by the attempt by job providers to decouple humans from production and productivity (whether they will be succesful in this iteration is, as you say, debatable). The other axis is the attempt to erode democratic norms in order to prevent the majority from checking the power of a wealthy minority. Once those two points of leverage are completely eroded, the only leverage left is mob power. And as history has shown on multiple occasions, excercising that leverage is ugly and messy.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - surgical_fire 5mo ago
    > I don't think the 8-hour work day was accepted during the industrial revolution because job providers were convinced of productivity gains. It was won due to the leverage the labor unions and workers had over job providers. Good point. Count me in. > The whole thing rests on whether workers can maintain their leverage in the AI era. That leverage is being eroded by the attempt by job providers to decouple humans from production and productivity Being brutally honest, I have zero concerns about AI displacing jobs en masse. I honestly believe it to be a deadend technology. And I say this as someone that uses it daily. I am a lot more concerned about the incoming economic downturn. Things have the potential get very ugly pretty soon. This will have a huge detrimental impact on labor rights for the foreseeable future. AI is just smoke and mirrors, something asshole CEOs can gesture at to spin layoffs as optimistic and sound like visionaries while mismanaging companies under their control.
- tavavex 5mo ago
  It's not about productivity. Never was. If humanity doubled its productivity tomorrow, companies would either demand triple the output and/or lay off the majority of their workers. The length of work weeks is a question of worker rights, which at this point seems like a distant concept from a bygone era. It will never make sense for businesses to shorten work weeks voluntarily.
insane_dreamer 5mo ago
> shorten the standard work week sure, but don't expect companies to pay you the same as they did for the 5-day work-week. And there lies the rub: yes, AI can increase productivity. But the gains of that productivity are being, and will be, captured entirely by shareholders, not employees.
- euroderf 5mo ago
  It seems so. I think there's general awareness that the I.T. productivity gains of the last 50 years have been entirely captured by capital. And I think there is general awareness that the same scenario is threatening to unfold now with AI.
- euroderf 5mo ago
  > don't expect companies to pay you the same as they did for the 5-day work-week. There's room here for argument and further evidence gathering. I've read of cases where the leap in productivity fully justifies holding pay steady. But admittedly these leaps may or may not hold up over the longer run. Many people might (say) trade a 10% pay cut for a 50% jump in weekly days off. Others can't afford to do that because, well, that's the state of things. But work is becoming a scarce resource, and if you look at the numbers, more is desired (especially. part-time) by pensioners, students, and others. If only health care was state-funded, so that it was not a deterrence to headcount.
  - insane_dreamer 5mo ago
    > There's room here for argument and further evidence gathering. Look at this: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ (there are plenty of other sources corroborating these findings) Companies have been pocketing the gains in productivity for almost 50 years. How much more evidence do you need? You think they will stop now?
    - euroderf 5mo ago
      Oh, the evidence has convinced me for quite a while but others may still need persuading :)

Timon3 5mo ago

Unfortunately it seems like the winds are blowing in the opposite direction - the German government for example is trying to move us to a 48-hour-week instead.

surgical_fire 5mo ago

I would love that. But that is not going to happen. We would need tangible, meaningful productivity improvements for it to be possible. LLMs are sort of moderately useful, but companies adopting it see no real productivity increase (they see cost increase however). In many ways it is a bullshit technology, being marketed way beyond its capabilities.

sillyfluke 5mo ago
>But that is not going to happen. I don't think the 8-hour work day was accepted during the industrial revolution because job providers were convinced of productivity gains. It was won due to the leverage the labor unions and workers had over job providers. The whole thing rests on whether workers can maintain their leverage in the AI era. That leverage is being eroded by the attempt by job providers to decouple humans from production and productivity (whether they will be succesful in this iteration is, as you say, debatable). The other axis is the attempt to erode democratic norms in order to prevent the majority from checking the power of a wealthy minority. Once those two points of leverage are completely eroded, the only leverage left is mob power. And as history has shown on multiple occasions, excercising that leverage is ugly and messy.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- surgical_fire 5mo ago
  > I don't think the 8-hour work day was accepted during the industrial revolution because job providers were convinced of productivity gains. It was won due to the leverage the labor unions and workers had over job providers. Good point. Count me in. > The whole thing rests on whether workers can maintain their leverage in the AI era. That leverage is being eroded by the attempt by job providers to decouple humans from production and productivity Being brutally honest, I have zero concerns about AI displacing jobs en masse. I honestly believe it to be a deadend technology. And I say this as someone that uses it daily. I am a lot more concerned about the incoming economic downturn. Things have the potential get very ugly pretty soon. This will have a huge detrimental impact on labor rights for the foreseeable future. AI is just smoke and mirrors, something asshole CEOs can gesture at to spin layoffs as optimistic and sound like visionaries while mismanaging companies under their control.
tavavex 5mo ago
It's not about productivity. Never was. If humanity doubled its productivity tomorrow, companies would either demand triple the output and/or lay off the majority of their workers. The length of work weeks is a question of worker rights, which at this point seems like a distant concept from a bygone era. It will never make sense for businesses to shorten work weeks voluntarily.

insane_dreamer 5mo ago

> shorten the standard work week sure, but don't expect companies to pay you the same as they did for the 5-day work-week. And there lies the rub: yes, AI can increase productivity. But the gains of that productivity are being, and will be, captured entirely by shareholders, not employees.

euroderf 5mo ago
It seems so. I think there's general awareness that the I.T. productivity gains of the last 50 years have been entirely captured by capital. And I think there is general awareness that the same scenario is threatening to unfold now with AI.
euroderf 5mo ago
> don't expect companies to pay you the same as they did for the 5-day work-week. There's room here for argument and further evidence gathering. I've read of cases where the leap in productivity fully justifies holding pay steady. But admittedly these leaps may or may not hold up over the longer run. Many people might (say) trade a 10% pay cut for a 50% jump in weekly days off. Others can't afford to do that because, well, that's the state of things. But work is becoming a scarce resource, and if you look at the numbers, more is desired (especially. part-time) by pensioners, students, and others. If only health care was state-funded, so that it was not a deterrence to headcount.
- insane_dreamer 5mo ago
  > There's room here for argument and further evidence gathering. Look at this: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ (there are plenty of other sources corroborating these findings) Companies have been pocketing the gains in productivity for almost 50 years. How much more evidence do you need? You think they will stop now?
  - euroderf 5mo ago
    Oh, the evidence has convinced me for quite a while but others may still need persuading :)