3 ms·

"The biggest crime the 60's and 70's European socialist movement, was the failure to severely limit the average working hours" - TechieChan I know most people,

by atmosx 13y ago

"The biggest crime the 60's and 70's European socialist movement, was the failure to severely limit the average working hours" - TechieChan I know most people, especially in a neo-liberal western society, would never give this a chance, but IMHO it's really life-changing. As scarcity is a virtue and many people still believe that worker's productivity in the secondary and primary economy sector is still of importance. ps. I'm all for free-lancers working 24/7 if they choose too. But for things housing/food/clothes/energy/internet/etc. 3 hours per 5 days a week should be enough all over our planet.

twoodfin 13y ago
ps. I'm all for free-lancers working 24/7 if they choose too. But for things housing/food/clothes/energy/internet/etc. 3 hours per 5 days a week should be enough all over our planet. At my market wage rate, I absolutely could get housing/food/clothes/energy/internet working 15 hours a week. But: - What I could get would not be nearly as nice as what I get for working anywhere between 2-4x that per week, which is a tradeoff I am happy to make. - If culture or law made it impossible for me to work more than 15 hours a week, my contributions to society would be immensely curtailed. I do what I do because I'm damned good at it, and what I produce is of value to others (who pay a fair price for it). If I started writing poetry or running more marathons, I might produce some things for society I would not have produced otherwise, but in the aggregate society would lose out. If a 15 hour work week became mandatory, unemployment might drop, and wages for those limited hours would likely rise, but the overall size of the productive economy would be horrifyingly reduced.
- atmosx 13y ago
  > If a 15 hour work week became mandatory, unemployment might drop, and wages for those limited hours would likely rise, but the overall size of the productive economy would be horrifyingly reduced. Nope. It's 3 hours per day, per worker. And when I saw worker I mean the lowest paid salary in an economy. So if you wanna keep an shop open 24/7 you might want to employ more workers or pay the long hours. I get you are in the IT sector which pays above the lowest established salary. However, my reasoning above, was about whoever choses to do so. Today you don't get that choice, you're either up or down. I'm with, doesn't cut for me... But I reckon that a society which doesn't give that choice to the 90% of it's population will have to face some level of social unrest. So since, we have the technology, and work equals food, we need to at least make sure that people have food with a minimal effort. ps. Think about a mother with 2 children that needs only to round up the house income. Three hours per day is good, while the husband could work for more...
- im3w1l 13y ago
  But if you work 25/8, then I have to, too, to stand any chance in zero sum games with you.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    The whole point of my comment is that it's not a zero sum game. Because most of us work eight hours a day means there is a lot more stuff to go around.
    - im3w1l 13y ago
      Agreed. But my point is not that it is a zero sum game. My point is that some things are zero sum games. And you will win those if you work harder.

by atmosx 13y ago

twoodfin 13y ago

ps. I'm all for free-lancers working 24/7 if they choose too. But for things housing/food/clothes/energy/internet/etc. 3 hours per 5 days a week should be enough all over our planet. At my market wage rate, I absolutely could get housing/food/clothes/energy/internet working 15 hours a week. But: - What I could get would not be nearly as nice as what I get for working anywhere between 2-4x that per week, which is a tradeoff I am happy to make. - If culture or law made it impossible for me to work more than 15 hours a week, my contributions to society would be immensely curtailed. I do what I do because I'm damned good at it, and what I produce is of value to others (who pay a fair price for it). If I started writing poetry or running more marathons, I might produce some things for society I would not have produced otherwise, but in the aggregate society would lose out. If a 15 hour work week became mandatory, unemployment might drop, and wages for those limited hours would likely rise, but the overall size of the productive economy would be horrifyingly reduced.

atmosx 13y ago
> If a 15 hour work week became mandatory, unemployment might drop, and wages for those limited hours would likely rise, but the overall size of the productive economy would be horrifyingly reduced. Nope. It's 3 hours per day, per worker. And when I saw worker I mean the lowest paid salary in an economy. So if you wanna keep an shop open 24/7 you might want to employ more workers or pay the long hours. I get you are in the IT sector which pays above the lowest established salary. However, my reasoning above, was about whoever choses to do so. Today you don't get that choice, you're either up or down. I'm with, doesn't cut for me... But I reckon that a society which doesn't give that choice to the 90% of it's population will have to face some level of social unrest. So since, we have the technology, and work equals food, we need to at least make sure that people have food with a minimal effort. ps. Think about a mother with 2 children that needs only to round up the house income. Three hours per day is good, while the husband could work for more...
im3w1l 13y ago
But if you work 25/8, then I have to, too, to stand any chance in zero sum games with you.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  The whole point of my comment is that it's not a zero sum game. Because most of us work eight hours a day means there is a lot more stuff to go around.
  - im3w1l 13y ago
    Agreed. But my point is not that it is a zero sum game. My point is that some things are zero sum games. And you will win those if you work harder.