4 ms·

It's weird, the industrial revolution definitely reduced the amount we work. Two day weekends and forty-hour work weeks were not possible before the rise of ma

by mason55 12y ago

It's weird, the industrial revolution definitely reduced the amount we work. Two day weekends and forty-hour work weeks were not possible before the rise of machines (and also unions). For some reason we stopped striving to work less once we reached our current state and it's been like that for almost 100 years now.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> It's weird, the industrial revolution definitely reduced the amount we work. Two day weekends and forty-hour work weeks were not possible before the rise of machines (and also unions). Actually, long year-round work weeks generally weren't possible before the industrial revolution; the industrial revolution made them possible, which was among the problems facing the concentrated industrial labor force that led to the rise of unions, which then led to limited working hours.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  And lots of work used to be seasonal.
bryanlarsen 12y ago
We are substantially reducing the number of hours we work as a society. Most of the reduction has come as an increase in retirement length (because we're living longer), but some of it has come because people are entering the workforce later (due to post-secondary schooling). Since 2007 there has also been a massive increase in the number of working age people who have dropped out of the work force.
- leaveyou 12y ago
  I'm not sure I get your logic. During the last 50-100 years: the population was continuously growing, the percent of employed population was continuously growing (women entered workforce like never before), the retirement age was always growing together with life expectancy. Do you really think all that growth is negated by "some percent of population entered workforce ~4 years later" and "some percent of people got fired since 2007" ? edit: I no longer bet you are an employer.
- leaveyou 12y ago
  If you live longer but you retire at the same age or more, there is no reduction of work. It's just longer retirement but nothing even close to "substantially reducing the number of hours we work".
  - SapphireSun 12y ago
    I'm not sure I follow? I get that it would be preferable to reduce the number of hours per day worked, but a drop in total hours as a fraction of a lifetime is still a good accomplishment so long as some of that extra time is healthy time.
    - leaveyou 12y ago
      Don't mix absolute hours of work with the ratio of hours of work relative to hours of retirement. The parent comment tried to argue that the former is decreasing because the latter is decreasing which is false. You point that the latter is decreasing and say "at least somenthing is decreasing, yay" but that is not relevant for what I and the parent comment argues about.
- prawn 12y ago
  In Australia, a later retirement age is to be phased in. It will go from 65 to 70 by 2035. Living longer and working longer.
- Amezarak 12y ago
  According to the Social Security Administration, life expectancy at 65 in 1940 was another 12.7 years for the average man. In 1990 it was 15.3.[1] This makes me skeptical of arguments that boil down to "but retirement is longer" - sure, but not by a whole lot. Women got a little bit better of a bump - five years. Additionally, life expectancy is correlated with wealth, and life expectancy trends in the US are not positive among all groups. [1] http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
gabriel34 12y ago
That men always worked more then today's men is a common misconception. The Industrial Revolution 80 hour week was a local (if not global) peak in the time series. Unfortunately data is sketchy, but there are accounts of 9 hour workdays and dust till dawn workdays with breaks. In contrast at 80+ hours of work you would not even see the sun. In the winter more so to a point that it is true even without weekends and breaks. Further reading: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_w...
leaveyou 12y ago
I tell you why "we" stopped striving to work less. The industrial revolution and the productivity it brought with it, allowed more people to get richer faster than ever before and that is a good thing but this led to a snowball effect: more and more people than ever were and are professionally chasing the richness and the surplus of wealth that is generated by the increase in productivity, innovation or work hours is directed predominantly to this class of people and they have no incentive to slow down the rhythm of economy. No matter how much you work or how much more productive you get, there will always be someone to pocket the surplus.

by mason55 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> It's weird, the industrial revolution definitely reduced the amount we work. Two day weekends and forty-hour work weeks were not possible before the rise of machines (and also unions). Actually, long year-round work weeks generally weren't possible before the industrial revolution; the industrial revolution made them possible, which was among the problems facing the concentrated industrial labor force that led to the rise of unions, which then led to limited working hours.

jacquesm 12y ago
And lots of work used to be seasonal.

bryanlarsen 12y ago

We are substantially reducing the number of hours we work as a society. Most of the reduction has come as an increase in retirement length (because we're living longer), but some of it has come because people are entering the workforce later (due to post-secondary schooling). Since 2007 there has also been a massive increase in the number of working age people who have dropped out of the work force.

leaveyou 12y ago
I'm not sure I get your logic. During the last 50-100 years: the population was continuously growing, the percent of employed population was continuously growing (women entered workforce like never before), the retirement age was always growing together with life expectancy. Do you really think all that growth is negated by "some percent of population entered workforce ~4 years later" and "some percent of people got fired since 2007" ? edit: I no longer bet you are an employer.
leaveyou 12y ago
If you live longer but you retire at the same age or more, there is no reduction of work. It's just longer retirement but nothing even close to "substantially reducing the number of hours we work".
- SapphireSun 12y ago
  I'm not sure I follow? I get that it would be preferable to reduce the number of hours per day worked, but a drop in total hours as a fraction of a lifetime is still a good accomplishment so long as some of that extra time is healthy time.
  - leaveyou 12y ago
    Don't mix absolute hours of work with the ratio of hours of work relative to hours of retirement. The parent comment tried to argue that the former is decreasing because the latter is decreasing which is false. You point that the latter is decreasing and say "at least somenthing is decreasing, yay" but that is not relevant for what I and the parent comment argues about.
prawn 12y ago
In Australia, a later retirement age is to be phased in. It will go from 65 to 70 by 2035. Living longer and working longer.
Amezarak 12y ago
According to the Social Security Administration, life expectancy at 65 in 1940 was another 12.7 years for the average man. In 1990 it was 15.3.[1] This makes me skeptical of arguments that boil down to "but retirement is longer" - sure, but not by a whole lot. Women got a little bit better of a bump - five years. Additionally, life expectancy is correlated with wealth, and life expectancy trends in the US are not positive among all groups. [1] http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

gabriel34 12y ago

That men always worked more then today's men is a common misconception. The Industrial Revolution 80 hour week was a local (if not global) peak in the time series. Unfortunately data is sketchy, but there are accounts of 9 hour workdays and dust till dawn workdays with breaks. In contrast at 80+ hours of work you would not even see the sun. In the winter more so to a point that it is true even without weekends and breaks. Further reading: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_w...

leaveyou 12y ago

I tell you why "we" stopped striving to work less. The industrial revolution and the productivity it brought with it, allowed more people to get richer faster than ever before and that is a good thing but this led to a snowball effect: more and more people than ever were and are professionally chasing the richness and the surplus of wealth that is generated by the increase in productivity, innovation or work hours is directed predominantly to this class of people and they have no incentive to slow down the rhythm of economy. No matter how much you work or how much more productive you get, there will always be someone to pocket the surplus.