4 ms·

Workers in the beginning of the 20th century worked 70 hour 6-7 days weeks, now in many countries we are down to 35h / 5 days. In the next 10 years we will get

by xpto123 12y ago

Workers in the beginning of the 20th century worked 70 hour 6-7 days weeks, now in many countries we are down to 35h / 5 days. In the next 10 years we will get to 30 or less, we are at a threshold of the 4 day work week that's why its taking longer to cut down on the work hours. The 4 day work week will imply social changes, and therefore the resistance but it will come in the next 20 years. The author understands that its a slow process and it takes time, but congratulations on talking about a taboo. Concerning the value of jobs, in the Philippines, go to a restaurant: one guy comes and set the dishes, the other the glasses, the other takes the order, etc. The root cause for this is I believe overpopulation unprecedented in the history of mankind. Not to defend lawyers, but who would solve disputes? Everybody bashes lawyers, but the day an employer tries to make you sign an indemnity paper that is less than you have right, you are glad that there is a lawyer there to defend you.

jahaja 12y ago
I don't think those rationalisations hold ups. The facts of workforce expansion and productivity & efficiency gains can't simply be shrugged off by "overpopulation". This is intentional political policy, nothing else.
- kissickas 12y ago
  So you agree with this statement?: > The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s). I was with him until there... I'd like to believe things like that and blame it all on the "evil politicians," but I'm really not sure the "ruling class" is that organized. Then, at the end of the article, he says something that seems much more reasonable to me, although contradictory: > Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. So I'm not sure what exactly he's trying to say is the cause.
  - shkkmo 12y ago
    I believe he is implying that the goal, "keep the general population employed/occupied to prevent unrest" is consciously held by some 'oligarchs'. However, the systems which accomplish that goal have emerged via trial and error and were not consciously designed by the 'oligarchs'. The 'oligarchs' watch the broad trends and have supported changes to the system that supported their goal and have hindered changes to the system that do no support their goal on a case by case basis. I suspect the 'oligarchs' striving for the above goal is not a 'conspiracy' among the elite so much as a shared cultural belief in stability.
    - wavefunction 12y ago
      Of course, one oligarch's stability is another working man's stagnation...
  - jahaja 12y ago
    As always the written word is open for interpretations and that statement is no exception. What I read from that statement, and knowing a bit about the author's background and sharing much of the same political ideas myself, is that it's in the interest of the ruling class that people do not have much time on their hands to actually start enjoying not working. Unemployment, and retirement for some, would clearly be more managable if friends and family were not working so much. Just to discover a way of life that's not centered around working. I also think that a working class with more time on their hands would inevitably become more organised with increased class conciousness as a side-effect. So basically the idea is that less working time may be a "slipperly slope" that goes against the interests of the ruling class both in the short-term and even more so in the long-term. The second statement is, as I understand it, that this is not driven by some organised unit of capitalist but rather by the idea that the higher classes are more aware of what is in their interests that no central organisation is needed.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    A group collectively realizing something and individually acting to prevent it, and those individual actions aligning, doesn't require much pre-existing organization (or even much after-the-fact organization, though if they are aware of each other, you'd expect some organizations as they also recognize the alignment of interests.) So since organization isn't really necessary for the proposition at issue, I don't see your disbelief in the organization of the "ruling class" as even relevant to the issue, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is justified.
snarfy 12y ago
You need a lawyer because the laws are so complicated. The laws were made complicated by lawyers. I would much rather have a few simple laws, worded in plain English much like the first ten amendments, so that I could represent myself in legal matters.
- nthj 12y ago
  This may be roughly equivalent to saying, “I would rather have a programming language that describes what I want in plain english, so I can program myself without hiring a programmer to do it for me.“ Even the first ten amendments, "simple" as they are, have mountains of debate and legalese surrounding them.
crdoconnor 12y ago
>Workers in the beginning of the 20th century worked 70 hour 6-7 days weeks, now in many countries we are down to 35h / 5 days. In the next 10 years we will get to 30 or less, we are at a threshold of the 4 day work week that's why its taking longer to cut down on the work hours. Go back to the 1970s and a lot of people were saying exactly this ^^^ word for word. Instead we started working longer hours. The 'dream' never happened.
- Chinjut 12y ago
  Right. For the dream to happen, we have to actively push for it, instead of just assuming it will happen on its own. There are plenty of powerful forces with incentives to maintain the status quo.

by xpto123 12y ago

jahaja 12y ago

I don't think those rationalisations hold ups. The facts of workforce expansion and productivity & efficiency gains can't simply be shrugged off by "overpopulation". This is intentional political policy, nothing else.

kissickas 12y ago
So you agree with this statement?: > The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s). I was with him until there... I'd like to believe things like that and blame it all on the "evil politicians," but I'm really not sure the "ruling class" is that organized. Then, at the end of the article, he says something that seems much more reasonable to me, although contradictory: > Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. So I'm not sure what exactly he's trying to say is the cause.
- shkkmo 12y ago
  I believe he is implying that the goal, "keep the general population employed/occupied to prevent unrest" is consciously held by some 'oligarchs'. However, the systems which accomplish that goal have emerged via trial and error and were not consciously designed by the 'oligarchs'. The 'oligarchs' watch the broad trends and have supported changes to the system that supported their goal and have hindered changes to the system that do no support their goal on a case by case basis. I suspect the 'oligarchs' striving for the above goal is not a 'conspiracy' among the elite so much as a shared cultural belief in stability.
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    Of course, one oligarch's stability is another working man's stagnation...
- jahaja 12y ago
  As always the written word is open for interpretations and that statement is no exception. What I read from that statement, and knowing a bit about the author's background and sharing much of the same political ideas myself, is that it's in the interest of the ruling class that people do not have much time on their hands to actually start enjoying not working. Unemployment, and retirement for some, would clearly be more managable if friends and family were not working so much. Just to discover a way of life that's not centered around working. I also think that a working class with more time on their hands would inevitably become more organised with increased class conciousness as a side-effect. So basically the idea is that less working time may be a "slipperly slope" that goes against the interests of the ruling class both in the short-term and even more so in the long-term. The second statement is, as I understand it, that this is not driven by some organised unit of capitalist but rather by the idea that the higher classes are more aware of what is in their interests that no central organisation is needed.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  A group collectively realizing something and individually acting to prevent it, and those individual actions aligning, doesn't require much pre-existing organization (or even much after-the-fact organization, though if they are aware of each other, you'd expect some organizations as they also recognize the alignment of interests.) So since organization isn't really necessary for the proposition at issue, I don't see your disbelief in the organization of the "ruling class" as even relevant to the issue, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is justified.

snarfy 12y ago

You need a lawyer because the laws are so complicated. The laws were made complicated by lawyers. I would much rather have a few simple laws, worded in plain English much like the first ten amendments, so that I could represent myself in legal matters.

nthj 12y ago
This may be roughly equivalent to saying, “I would rather have a programming language that describes what I want in plain english, so I can program myself without hiring a programmer to do it for me.“ Even the first ten amendments, "simple" as they are, have mountains of debate and legalese surrounding them.

crdoconnor 12y ago

>Workers in the beginning of the 20th century worked 70 hour 6-7 days weeks, now in many countries we are down to 35h / 5 days. In the next 10 years we will get to 30 or less, we are at a threshold of the 4 day work week that's why its taking longer to cut down on the work hours. Go back to the 1970s and a lot of people were saying exactly this ^^^ word for word. Instead we started working longer hours. The 'dream' never happened.

Chinjut 12y ago
Right. For the dream to happen, we have to actively push for it, instead of just assuming it will happen on its own. There are plenty of powerful forces with incentives to maintain the status quo.