Hacker News Reader

Comment by Eridrus | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why we expect people to be paid the same for less work.

Given the benefits of a shorter work week accrue primarily to workers, why do we not advocate for giving them the flexibility to work fewer hours if they want to?

It's harder to make this argument in software, but in shift-based employment this should almost be a no brainer.

View on HN

I think it's important to note that full employment is a thing of the past and ultimately I would expect humanity to leave behind this idea that everyone needs to work. What did we come up with all this automation for? To enrich the few? Or to make work less and less of an issue for everyone? We are entering an age where more and more work is being done by robots. We either punish those who get replaced by machines or we craft a community in which people are empowered to enjoy life.

^ -- THIS totally! There's plenty of resources, and human ingenuity to make the poorest person in the world live life like mid-to-upper middle class in America does. Why can't everyone start out at THAT quality of living, and move up if they so choose... a safe home, place to go to school, etc?

I just read a short story called Manna about where U.S. workers were displaced by robots and automation, and the 10% lived in luxury, the rest were put in styrofoam living areas, given meals, but weren't allowed to leave the compound, much like a concentration camp, or prison.

Some people though through inheritance, etc were given 'tickets' to go live in the Australia project, which was where everyone got 1000 credits to spend as they like weekly in a catalog of things like clothes, etc.. They got housing and food provided at no cost. They could do whatever money wasn't really a thing, people worked if they wanted, did scientific research, etc...

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

What about the people who enjoy working? The dignity of receiving an honest wage for an honest day's work? The satisfaction for providing for their family? For some people, their work is the only thing that keeps them in shape. My father, when he was no longer able to find work, and now after looking for 10 years is too old, literally sits on the couch for 16 hours a day watching television and smoking cigarettes. He would do anything to work.

This thinking on here that we are doing humanity this huge service by automating all their pesky little maniacal jobs away is insane, and it needs to stop. There is more than one world view out there.

The concept that a job gives meaning and structure to life, builds character, etc." is not sustainable in the future.

Something about when Professors feel the need to curse to look cool throws me off the wrong way, dunno, call me old fashioned.

I am making myself familiar with Mr. James Livingston -- it's an argument that has been made many times before -- that there aren't enough jobs to go around, that the private sector doesn't really create all the jobs, and ends with some form of UBI. I have heard it a thousand times. I still remain unconvinced.

> I think it's important to note that full employment is a thing of the past

People working less because they do not need to work so long to finance their desires is one way to achieve that.

> What did we come up with all this automation for?

To drive down the cost of goods and services that no longer need a human component.

> I don't understand why we expect people to be paid the same for less work.

Because it's the only way to keep the ongoing and increasingly shaky fiction that "we need everybody to work" hanging together? Foolish patches on the status quo, like "pay people more for less work", are the only way forward until we adult up and realize that the welfare state is both inevitable and beneficial (even to the self-anointed "makers" so busily hoisting themselves up on their crosses).

"we need everybody to work"

Getting past this fiction is only the beginning. Many, many people find meaning in their lives through performing a task that others deem necessary. When nobody is necessary, the economy decouples from the people. We actually have examples of societies that operate like this right now: Eritrea [0] for one. The government of that country has decided it has no real use for most of its people. It makes business deals with foreign resource extraction companies directly. Many people live in abject poverty while the government enriches itself and does little/nothing to help them.

Assuming we do reach a state where we no longer sustain the fiction that we need people to work, the question becomes "How do the unnecessariat [1] justify their own existance to those who control capital?"

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea

[1] https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/

So ordinarily I'd just upvote this and move on, but that blog post under [1] is fantastic and deserves all the encouragement to read it that I can muster.

> shift-based employment this should almost be a no brainer

In the US at least they already do, but probably not for the reasons you'd expect. US companies only have to pay benefits for employees to work >= 40 hours/week. So 2 employees working 20 hours/week costs less than 1 employee working 40 hours/week. (Of course this is not beneficial to the employees.)

The US has the obvious issue where healthcare is tied to employment and working less hours is mandatory, not voluntary.

> I don't understand why we expect people to be paid the same for less work.

Because the "standard" work week is an artificial construct that has arbitrary definition. Also because this is a way to bridge the gap between accepting universal income and re-evaluating what is the role and importance of work/job in the society.

The problem is that the highest benefits of reduced work week is for worker having repeated stressful work which sadly are often work positions with relatively low pay. This means that for most of them, they cannot support a pay cut.

Going from 5k€ to 4k€ per month after tax is not the same thing as going from 2.5k€ to 2k€...

I am not aware of any European country where salaries are as high as 4-5k€ per months after tax.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?cou...

ROFL. You obviously have no clue what place you're quoting.

Monaco is a small rock < 1 sq mile that is a fiscal paradise and a home for billionaires.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco

I'm aware of what Monaco is, and you are right, it is small. It is a home for billionaires, as is the USA, India, and China, although the density both geographically and per capita is higher in Monaco. However, Monaco is responsive to the question, it's just not a response you like.

It's not part of the European union AND it's not a country.

The wiki article you cite states it is a European country, EU isn't the original question - "Monaco has an area of 2.02 km2 (0.78 sq mi) and a population of about 37,800; it is the second smallest and the most densely populated country in the world."

Yes and this is the problem, working less for less money is at the moment not a choice for all but a lucky few.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com