Political Memes

The rise of steam power during the industrial revolution didn't just result in people working fewer hours. Workers were much more productive than before, but they didn't automatically get shorter work weeks.

Getting an 8-hour work day required the workers to form powerful unions and go on strike. Those strikes were broken up by private security and cops. People were killed. But, eventually, decades later, the rich people with power were forced to negotiate and 8 hour days were the norm.

I have known individual workers who had skills that were in high demand which gave them leverage. They negotiated deals like 4 day work weeks, or 30 hour work weeks because they could.

But, for the average worker to get a shorter work week, it's going to take collective action. It's probably also going to require that blood be spilled. Unless people are angry enough to getting beaten or maybe killed, nothing's going to change. Step 1 is joining a union.

A lot of that extra hours is because of planned obsolescence. If products lasted longer, if products were repairable, less would need to be manufactured. If less needed to be manufactured, the less work we need to do.

Because the American workforce in general are a bunch of morons. I remember when I was a corporate guy everyone would walk around with their heads down and when you would ask someone you were friendly with how are you their immediate response would be "so busy so so busy." They would ask how I was and I would say "well I'm not busy like you and I'm happy I'm not busy like you." And they would look at me like hush how dare you say that if I'm even seen next to you saying that I could be fired.

Just imagine if America decoupled healthcare from your job and people actually had the ability to choose where they really wanted to hang their hat for their daily billionaire chores. I think the workforce would dramatically change and there would be a lot of happier people. But since America was founded on Puritan values I don't think happy is part of the lexicon when it comes to work.

Sixty hours a week? Tell me you're Ametican without telling me that you are American.

The system is built on eternal growth. Slowing down is not an option.

There was a lot of progress until quite recently. Current retirees saw truly mind boggling changes during their lives. My mother (born in the 1940s) grew up in a house with no electricity and no running water. Now she's retired and she can browse facebook on her mobile phone. My "father in law" bought his first house when he was in his twenties, paying cash with money saved from his first job. Their generation was not exploited and abused the way young people are today. They got to work less and less and managed to retire comfortably. Then political class broke their contract with voters and next generations are significantly worse off than previous ones (less intelligent as well) but a lot of people are still living comfortably enough not to complain. The way people participate in politics also changed. Polarization won over organization. Young people try to fight but without proper structures and strategy it quickly turns into violent lashing out and nothing is achieved. Is it going to change? Probably not. People in charge will keep exploiting divisions among us to further dismantle the system.

The 40-hour workweek was standardized by socialists in the early 1900s. 8 hours for work, 8 hours for sleep, and 8 hours for whatever else you wanted to do during the day. Obviously, that's been exploited. I work 68 hours a week and still can't afford health insurance, and my job doesn't offer it.

That's the neat part: you don't! You need to work a lot and barely survive so rich people can get richer and have more power and status, silly.

And we only live once. And our lives fucking suck because of a greedy few. Our short time alive is being wasted so some piece of shit can make billions or conquer 20 countries or any other pathologically despicable goal like that. And I mean pathological. These people are not sane, and society glorifies their mental illness.

I've been arguing this for years. I'm 10x minimum more efficient since I got into IT almost 2 decades ago, there is no end in site, no slowdown. Just more work work work. So much shit is instant and only takes a few moments when it's not. No way we need to work this much.

Why do rich people get to replace human workers with robots and then tell humans they should get a job if they want to live

"Get a job"

"I would, but you're the one who provides jobs and you won't provide them"

In a better world, we’d be paid much more for less work. No loss of jobs to AI, company would just keep on employees to cover for others to take long vacations. CEO and executive team won’t make 300x more then their average employee

Because the rich can't stand it if their wealth doesn't grow. Their piece of the pie can grow because the entire pie is growing or by taking a bigger piece. These days the pie doesn't grow like they want so they're taking more of everybody else. That means you have to work more for less.

It’s meant to make dollars, not sense.

We are social animals. When the herd exhibits general acceptance it triggers something in our brains to do the same. It is why billionaires are funding data centers to flood social media with the opinions and leans they want the public to have.

I can’t remember the researcher name, but among the many studies on this topic there have been a swath done in public waiting rooms with confederates (the name given to actors working for researchers). This is a reproduced experiment.

Waiting room. Smoke starts to trickle out of the ventilation system. How long til someone leaves? Turns out, it’s more likely for the room to clear faster if the confederate gets up sooner and leaves. Then the standard cascade effect happens as the herd takes the hint and everyone leaves. In some cases, it gets to the point where the room becomes hazy and people don’t leave til the confederate initiates.

None of life is a single variable scenario, but it’s worth digging into the variables known to influence us as people.

Learned helplessness is another item I believe is more relevant today than at the time of the now illegal, though famous, experiments performed on dogs.

Everyone else is working these jobs, so it must be ok.

I would argue that you're not thinking about working hours at a high enough level. The notion that someone can tell you that the negotiation for labor exchange is hourly is just simplifying the negotiation. For example, I make $70 an hour after you calculate it annually, but I'm not an hourly employee. I also work from home, which is a net positive because I'm a more laborious worker when I do this which is a benefit to the employer, and it's a stress reducer for me, which is a benefit to me, the employee.

But there's a secondary aspect of this situation which is that I do not have someone else "watching" me and making sure I'm working all the time. That concept is antiquated. It isn't that there's X amount of hours of work to do in a day, it's that there's Y amount of labor that needs to be done, but we don't know what that Y variable is. We fundamentally understand the overarching goal - it might be something like, how can we increase efficiency? But it's a problem solving concept where we need to utilize time (labor) to think up strategies to how we can solve that problem while connecting objective information to those strategies so we can better understand how they can even be implemented.

After all, if I can increase my own efficiency by 5% but doing so requires 6 months of my time, that isn't going to have a payoff for many years and is likely not in the best interest of either myself or the business.

In addition, working more hours doesn't correlate to more work getting done. One man might push a boulder up a hill in 8 hours while another might be able to do it in 6, or even 4. Do you want to pay them both the same amount? Would you want to be paid the same amount if you were the man pushing the boulder in 4 hours as the man pushing in 8? Of course not.

And do you always receive additional reward each time your labor correlates to some kind of improvement? Well no, of course not. Sometimes you do, and sometimes you can go years without seeing anything outside of your salary. The reason is simply because life and human relationships and interactions are complicated and there's a lot more going on than you're going to give credit for.

I make a decent income, but I also have to prove my value to my company. What I do can be in no small part measured, so if I'm not producing value, the business won't want to keep me on the payroll, and if someone cheaper - thus, less credentialed/experienced - can do much of, or even all of the value I can provide, they will just swap me out for that person, and rightly so. Wouldn't you leave a company who's only paying you $40 an hour for work that another would pay you $70 for?

Most of the people complaining about why we still have to work so much isn't seeing the bigger picture, and likely works a shitty job where the average employee needs to be monitored and probably doesn't have the expertise to be doing anything that isn't more or less transactional (meaning, you are asked to specifically perform very informed tasks like on a conveyor line). This is just a byproduct of people without high-level modern skills complaining that they're sick of pushing boulders up hills all day every day.

I mean, I haven't pushed boulders up hills for 20 years.

It's starting to come to everyone. Wait a few years while the true sleeping giant, the people, start to churn inside while waking up.

The answer is because we haven't figured out how to organize society so that wealth and power don't consolidate.

And also if we did, it would be challenging to get there.

How Business Worked did a recent video Killing the Host which discusses why the ultra-wealthy engage in destructive behavior that kills the society they depend on.

Because the billionaires captured the government. AI is being used as a pretext to force many workers into a 996-style grind rather than freeing them. At the very worst, the techbros want to manufacture consent for eugenics, and reduce the population to 1 billion or less.

Propaganda. Effective propaganda.

Because capitalism, which is broken by design. The artifical scarcity is deliberate, just like the suffering.

As we all know, after the horse was replaced by the widespread adoption of motorized vehicles, it was free to roam the greenest plains with whichever herd they wanted, with the motorized vehicles serving them for a change, and all the feeding and stable infrastructure remaining in place to serve their needs.

People say they plan revolutions to eat the rich, but because they only ever inherently meant the rhetoric to serve themselves, they will only end up carrying out revolutions to eat themselves.

Something something capitalism

Maybe this isn't very "lemmy" but I think the bottleneck isn't really money, but the stuff you want.

In Australia the main problem with the "housing crisis" is that all efforts to resolve it are on the demand side, and very few on the supply side. Giving first home buyers grants and discounts is great, but that increases demand and increases the price. Removing some of the ridiculous tax benefits to owning multiple properties is great, and has reduced demand somewhat, but it hasn't solved the problem.

To really solve the housing crisis you need a house for everyone that aspires to own one.

In the last decade, having the people able to build the houses has been the real bottleneck. All of the able tradespeople are already building houses. We can't build a million more in a year just because everyone has the money to buy them.