3 ms·

It's because of where most people assign value - consumer goods ownership. People are always going into debt for unneeded goods like that giant TV or upgraded c

It's because of where most people assign value - consumer goods ownership. People are always going into debt for unneeded goods like that giant TV or upgraded car. These things make them feel good because society says you're a success if you have them. Very few people can look past this and get that $3k car by choice when they can afford much more. And until society puts greater social value on things like time with family this won't change and people will seek the dollar for as many hours as they reasonably can. And surely not fight for the opposite. What I find sad is that almost every politician would say they are 'family orientated' but I never see any fighting to make sure people can spend more time with their family - the most important thing IMO. In my life I have only seen one country reduce official working hours. This was France about 10-ish years ago. This to me is the sign of an advancing society far above the TV screen size I own.

StandardFuture 13y ago
I completely agree with you. However, let's not forget the inevitability of game theory: people will always take advantage of the system for their good. France made their rules and it really did not solve the problems they were trying to solve e.g. unemployment. And a jobless family may end up worse off (family-wise) than a family whose parents work 5-10 more hours a week.
- Gustomaximus 13y ago
  With the French example they said it didn't improve employment as they just increase output. So in a way it was a win as no-one lost and workers gained time. Personally I have seen this result in myself when I go from extended long hours back to a more normal routine, I'm just more efficient. I've seen studies saying the most efficient work hours are about 6 hours a day (I think I found on HN). I'm not sure how you get to the jobless family being worse off... what is the logic there?

StandardFuture 13y ago

I completely agree with you. However, let's not forget the inevitability of game theory: people will always take advantage of the system for their good. France made their rules and it really did not solve the problems they were trying to solve e.g. unemployment. And a jobless family may end up worse off (family-wise) than a family whose parents work 5-10 more hours a week.

Gustomaximus 13y ago
With the French example they said it didn't improve employment as they just increase output. So in a way it was a win as no-one lost and workers gained time. Personally I have seen this result in myself when I go from extended long hours back to a more normal routine, I'm just more efficient. I've seen studies saying the most efficient work hours are about 6 hours a day (I think I found on HN). I'm not sure how you get to the jobless family being worse off... what is the logic there?