4 ms·

Unfortunately capitalism gets in the way. Suppose you're a factory owner with 4 workers working 40 hours per week. You invest in a new machine that lets every

Unfortunately capitalism gets in the way. Suppose you're a factory owner with 4 workers working 40 hours per week. You invest in a new machine that lets everyone be twice as productive. If you don't have demand for the extra output, then do you cut everyone's hours in half or let two people go? Think the far more common solution is to let two people go. So even though productivity went up, hours worked per week stayed constant. And I think 40 hours per week is status quo. Suppose you get a job offer, and ask to work just 30 hours per week. There are a number of forces conspiring against you: 1) If you're salaried, the employer would see this as less efficient (even if you're actually more efficient) 2) If you're used to a particular way of living, 30 hours could entail pay cut 3) Others are willing to work 40 hours per week, and hence employer gets more "value" out of hiring someone else per week I think best bet to achieve that reality is to be your own boss. Friend of mine works as a UI consultant and bills out at $200 per hour, works maybe 20-30 hours per week. It's a brilliant gig.

annnnd 13y ago
I don't think the factory owner example applies here (the article is talking about creative workers. And I also think that a lot of stuff is negotiable - you just need to show your worth. It is all too easy to go the same path as all others did, just because we think this is somehow expected of us. But then again, I work 9-5 too and hate it (just the working hours, not the job), so I guess I should fix that first before I lecture others... ;)
- xivzgrev 13y ago
  Totally agree that article is talking about creative workers. But the factory example is concrete and great for a basic discussion on the question of "why the hell are we working so much when productivity has increased". And completely agree stuff is negotiable. But as mentioned, if not here then above, I think being your own boss has the highest possibility for that. For example, the ONLY people working <40 hours at my job are all independent contractors. They come in, do exactly what is asked, and GTFO. My company doesn't want them to "take on this as well" because every hour costs a pretty penny :).
mseebach 13y ago
> You invest in a new machine that lets everyone be twice as productive. If you don't have demand for the extra output, then do you cut everyone's hours in half or let two people go? You let two people go, and they go work at another factory that has higher demands for its products. Then that factory invests in a machine and the process repeats. The output of products increased with the same number of workers. This process is known as "The industrial revolution" and is generally considered a pretty neat thing, not "capitalism getting in the way". > I think best bet to achieve that reality is to be your own boss. You're absolutely right. I don't think it's coincidental that experiments with different styles of working (remote, flexible hours etc) is coming out of the businesses more associate with low-cost entrepreneurship (ie. the industries where the barrier to entry is a good brain and a laptop). Ironically, this is capitalism at its absolute best.
mike_esspe 13y ago
The answer to this problem is to offer discount to your employer when you want to work 30 hours.
mattlutze 13y ago
> do you cut everyone's hours in half or let two people go? I think the argument here is to take a third option - offer to double the 4's salaries and simultaneously cut their hours in half. You maintain the same workforce and productivity but, non-traditionally, allow your employees and not just your profit numbers to benefit from good business decisions.
- mhurron 13y ago
  And that has no tangible benefit to the company so it will never happen. Just look up thread, the solution was shorter hours and less pay. Put everyone in the McDonalds position, full time job doesn't cover living expenses but damn if those corporate profits don't look good.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    The benefit to the company is not immediately monetary, no. However, you're going to be buying this new machine from long-term improvement profits (and not leveraging it against future profit from staff reductions), so keeping the current payroll won't hurt your bottom line, either. But you can be damn skippy that you'll retain those employees longer, reducing turn-over costs. You'll maintain redundant, deep institutional knowledge. You'll have the flexibility (unless they're unionized, and even then sometimes) that when there's a down period and you need to temporarily drop or freeze wages, you can often negotiate it. But, I don't approach work from the pure-profit perspective and I treat my reports like valuable people instead of commodities. I fully plan to continue doing so when I eventually start businesses of my own.
    - streptomycin 13y ago
      What happens when your competitors buy the same machine, are not so generous with their workers, and undercut your prices so that you're no longer profitable?
brized 13y ago
>Suppose you're a factory owner with 4 workers working 40 hours per week. Your analogy doesn't work because its premise doesn't apply here. This article regards knowledge/creative workers like programmers and engineers, not line workers like retail and factory workers. In line work, the hourly threshold at which you see diminishing returns is much higher compared with knowledge/creative work. There's also generally less need to be physically present at work as a knowledge worker, while as a line worker it's inherent to the job.
Florin_Andrei 13y ago
> Unfortunately capitalism gets in the way. > I think best bet to achieve that reality is to be your own boss. In other words, the system (capitalism) is broken for the vast majority out there who are not their own bosses. If something is broken, then it needs fixing, is the way I see it.

annnnd 13y ago

I don't think the factory owner example applies here (the article is talking about creative workers. And I also think that a lot of stuff is negotiable - you just need to show your worth. It is all too easy to go the same path as all others did, just because we think this is somehow expected of us. But then again, I work 9-5 too and hate it (just the working hours, not the job), so I guess I should fix that first before I lecture others... ;)

xivzgrev 13y ago
Totally agree that article is talking about creative workers. But the factory example is concrete and great for a basic discussion on the question of "why the hell are we working so much when productivity has increased". And completely agree stuff is negotiable. But as mentioned, if not here then above, I think being your own boss has the highest possibility for that. For example, the ONLY people working <40 hours at my job are all independent contractors. They come in, do exactly what is asked, and GTFO. My company doesn't want them to "take on this as well" because every hour costs a pretty penny :).

mseebach 13y ago

> You invest in a new machine that lets everyone be twice as productive. If you don't have demand for the extra output, then do you cut everyone's hours in half or let two people go? You let two people go, and they go work at another factory that has higher demands for its products. Then that factory invests in a machine and the process repeats. The output of products increased with the same number of workers. This process is known as "The industrial revolution" and is generally considered a pretty neat thing, not "capitalism getting in the way". > I think best bet to achieve that reality is to be your own boss. You're absolutely right. I don't think it's coincidental that experiments with different styles of working (remote, flexible hours etc) is coming out of the businesses more associate with low-cost entrepreneurship (ie. the industries where the barrier to entry is a good brain and a laptop). Ironically, this is capitalism at its absolute best.

mike_esspe 13y ago

The answer to this problem is to offer discount to your employer when you want to work 30 hours.

mattlutze 13y ago

> do you cut everyone's hours in half or let two people go? I think the argument here is to take a third option - offer to double the 4's salaries and simultaneously cut their hours in half. You maintain the same workforce and productivity but, non-traditionally, allow your employees and not just your profit numbers to benefit from good business decisions.

mhurron 13y ago
And that has no tangible benefit to the company so it will never happen. Just look up thread, the solution was shorter hours and less pay. Put everyone in the McDonalds position, full time job doesn't cover living expenses but damn if those corporate profits don't look good.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  The benefit to the company is not immediately monetary, no. However, you're going to be buying this new machine from long-term improvement profits (and not leveraging it against future profit from staff reductions), so keeping the current payroll won't hurt your bottom line, either. But you can be damn skippy that you'll retain those employees longer, reducing turn-over costs. You'll maintain redundant, deep institutional knowledge. You'll have the flexibility (unless they're unionized, and even then sometimes) that when there's a down period and you need to temporarily drop or freeze wages, you can often negotiate it. But, I don't approach work from the pure-profit perspective and I treat my reports like valuable people instead of commodities. I fully plan to continue doing so when I eventually start businesses of my own.
  - streptomycin 13y ago
    What happens when your competitors buy the same machine, are not so generous with their workers, and undercut your prices so that you're no longer profitable?

brized 13y ago

>Suppose you're a factory owner with 4 workers working 40 hours per week. Your analogy doesn't work because its premise doesn't apply here. This article regards knowledge/creative workers like programmers and engineers, not line workers like retail and factory workers. In line work, the hourly threshold at which you see diminishing returns is much higher compared with knowledge/creative work. There's also generally less need to be physically present at work as a knowledge worker, while as a line worker it's inherent to the job.

Florin_Andrei 13y ago

> Unfortunately capitalism gets in the way. > I think best bet to achieve that reality is to be your own boss. In other words, the system (capitalism) is broken for the vast majority out there who are not their own bosses. If something is broken, then it needs fixing, is the way I see it.