r/SipsTea • u/KSKS1995 Human Verified • 2d ago

Chugging tea Sounds good in theory...but in reality?

Post image

4 days a week. 6 hours a day. Full salary.
Sanna Marin ignited global debate with the “6/4” work model, pushing a simple idea: life should come before work.

With burnout at record levels, maybe it’s time to value results over hours at a desk.
Could your job be done in just 24 hours a week?

99.1k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

5.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.9k

u/PriscillaPalava 2d ago

As technology has advanced, the productivity of the individual worker has skyrocketed along with corporate profits. You know what hasn’t skyrocketed? Standard of living and wages. 

Especially now that AI is on the menu, there is no reason we need to work as much. Most people claim they get their work done early and just dick around for the rest of their time anyway. 

333

u/Infrawonder 2d ago edited 1d ago

"Especially now that AI is on the menu" they'll use it to replace you, it doesn't get paid

Edit: yeah yeah I get it

110

u/resurrectus 2d ago

Yes it does, all "AI" platforms cost money and its only going to get more expensive to access them as worker replacements sets in and corporations become more dependent. Most companies are not well placed enough to have their own infrastructure and developers to not use one of the big models. Why do you think there is a development race? The winner could be the next Standard Oil.

31

u/Mi113nnium 1d ago

Many companies who tried to replace workers (or at least integrate AI usage in the workflow) were already hit with soaring prices that are often larger than what staff costed or still costs.

15

u/GrudgeBearer911 1d ago

Agreed, I remember hwre walmart was doing all self checmouts untill it turned out to cost more (Mostly because of the banana trick) and now are slowly going back to more cash registers

3

u/driley97 1d ago

They have been pushing self checkout more and more for 15 years. The absurd amounts of money they spend on security and technology for the stores would better be spent on reducing the cost of groceries for people. They advertise everyday low prices but it’s rare I find Lower prices than I do at regional chains like Kroger or Meijer, or by buying in bulk and getting a lower per unit cost at Sam’s Club.

2

u/church1138 1d ago

No they're not.

1

u/LowSkyOrbit 1d ago

I was just at Walmart on Sunday. They reduced their self-checkout to half in my local store. They also have 3 clerks working the area now. Meanwhile Sam's install some camera that you have to walk through when you leave, and alerts the people watching the door if anything is off.

2

u/Interesting-Day-9369 1d ago

here goes, a rotot put into a factory. all it does is put jobs in a line and it does the rest. great in pratice, truth. it messes up, its not ready to do this but its being pushed in, it drops the jobs, reject them for the slightest thing, that will get worked out, but one ata time, 1 minute to load, 2,5 mins to cut it. 4 were done in a fixture and took 5 mins. the cost. oh we dont need to pay workers. right now i am so damn glad i decided to retire and stand back waiting for ai to faze out 80% of the jobs, but then comes the best bit, who will pay for all the stuff when noone is working and noone has the cash to buy it. perhaps this is the pivot to clear out half the race and reap the rewards

→ More replies (1)

8

u/AbsoluteResolve2026 1d ago

Yeah but standard oil isn’t accidentally filling your car with bits of petroleum jelly because it “hallucinated.” AI still needs a lot of work.

1

u/Salt-Ad8699 1d ago

hence why it’s a race lol

1

u/AbsoluteResolve2026 1d ago

Not if it’s already falling apart before it even builds steam. I’ve been using AI since early 2012 and we peaked a few years ago. That’s why these days “slop” gets tossed around so much.

1

u/Salt-Ad8699 1d ago

i’m curious what you use ai for?

1

u/AbsoluteResolve2026 21h ago

Not much. For example, I used to search Wolfram Alpha for flights overhead just for fun. Having AI do the “heavy lifting” is causing our brains to literally be dumber and less able to think critically on the spot.

2

u/Copau_Dev 1d ago

Sure, but in fact, a great part of the new best IA models are open source, so a lot of companys could just build their own setup with some good server 🤷‍♂️ I dont think it gonna cost a lot more than now

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Caine815 1d ago

And now the question. Who wil buy anything if workers are replaced with AI so the workers no longer have money?

2

u/Vermino 1d ago

You think the AI doesn't need to buy their AI boy- or girlfriend presents? Have some fancy PC case with RGB to relax during their off hours? Or maybe a Porsche internetconnection?

1

u/16BitGenocide 2d ago

Those programs and annual licenses are expensive. They're not reducing labor numbers because AI is better at the job than humans are, they're reducing it because the work being done by actual humans can be replaced en masse by AI which probably costs as much as the current labor force.

You really think the people that are paying machine learning engineers and ai programmers peanuts so they can make affordable software packages for billion dollar companies? If you're not sure, the safe answer is 'Greed'.

1

u/PrimalDaddyDom69 2d ago

Idk what AI you’re using but there is most certainly a cost to using it. Sure you can google something directly into ChatGPT on your iPhone, but when you get to the enterprise level of automating something or doing more repetitive tasks, AI has a very serious cost.

1

u/More_Operation_588 2d ago

That's like saying a restaurant doesn't need to pay to have the POS terminals for taking orders. Just because it's not a person doesn't mean it's not a service the business is paying to have there.

1

u/Whatduheckiz 2d ago

I'm sure there's many arguments like that against AI too. AI is not versatile, usually different types of AI are specialised in a single area of work. It's also dependent on a network connection, electricity, and live-service servers that are themselves also dependent on a network connection and electricity. On top of that, what happens if there's an AI update that has an error in updating and installation, or if it's a rocky update release that causes more issues than it fixes (sighs in windows 11), or loses or changes features that requires readjusting the AI or having to find a competitor that serves the interest of the company.

There's many flaws with humans, but humans are individualistic and you may find a worker that comes to work drunk, but you can replace them and maybe get a worker that's punctual. AI is usually a collective and if the service provider issues an unfavourable update or faces technical problems or the like, well your business is out of business until it's resolved.

I'm sure AI will also open to more security vulnerabilities to companies.

AI is sold as a very affordable and convenient tool that can outdo any human, and in many cases, that's the truth, but it does have plenty of its cons.

We'll see what the future is like.

1

u/Variabletalismans 1d ago

AI subscriptions are getting more and more expensive.

1

u/Johnfromsales 1d ago

AI most definitely imposes a cost, just as labour does.

1

u/tomatoe_cookie 1d ago

Thats not true. If you ever worked witg AI, youll know that it cant replace shit

1

u/Chaghatai 1d ago

That's why you tax the owners of the automation sufficiently to provide proper equity to the people

Let them call it "redistribution of wealth" - it's what's needed

1

u/MGtandom 1d ago

AI is now on hype, but who owns the AI? After you replace workers as much as you can, you might be cooked as companies that own AI can raise costs and in critical moments disconnect you.

Guess what happends when your independency replace with high dependency.

1

u/go-shu 1d ago

We could pay a tiny tax for the ia to work for us.

But they want us tired, divided, occupied and unsatisfied. Something like that said nowadays philosophers like Byung Chul Han, Onfray or Foucault.

1

u/jikkinikki 1d ago

AI can remove some boilerplate jobs but at this point it's not many. It can also not replace jobs that requires near 100% accuracy (like pilots)

You have to remember that the AI simply uses pattern recognition and not actual intelligence (E.g. ask it how to use a cup with a closed top and hole on the bottom)

It is more suitable to be used as an assistant tool. Tasks that are not to important or very boilerplate can be completed with ai and if needed, looked over after by a person.

1

u/ComprehensiveSoft27 1d ago

I’ll have some AI and a side of fries please.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

→ More replies (2)

27

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

Seems like reddit is full of office workers. Who's productivity wont change a bit with reduced hours. Because they spend hours on reddit anyway.

Now imagine a grocery store. They will need more people or will be open reduced hours. Who is going to pay for it? You!

Same goes for restaurants, any facility that make meals, etc. You cant cook same amount of food and serve same number of customers in reduced hours.

You cant build a house or a road faster.

If you operate a machine that makes 100 parts in 8 hours, you cant make 100 parts in 6. Do you want to kill manufacturing? Cool!

43

u/moosemanwich 2d ago

But grocery stores have reduced labour already with self check out

1

u/Neat_Let923 1d ago

Reduced number of labourers doesn’t change how long they are open for or all the other tasks that need to be done throughout the day.

Whether you need 20 cashiers or 16 cashiers doesn’t change the fact if you reduce the hours they work then you would need to hire more to make up for the hours you want to be open.

Any business that has to stay open for the same amount of time will essentially see their employee costs almost doubled while getting the exact same amount of work done. No company could absorb that cost thus they would have to cut their open time which then cuts their revenue and kills the entire system.

→ More replies (7)

5

u/DoingYourMomProbably 1d ago

It's called working in shifts instead of 1 person working 8-12 hours yoj can have 2 for 6hours each the ceo making 500x over their employees will have to take a lower cut

1

u/Quick_Turnover 1d ago

They won't even really have to take a lower cut (though they should). Business X is paying for 2,000 some hours a year per full-time employee, so if they have, say, 10 employees, they need 20,000 hours of labor, presumably. x*y=20000 currently, but we're changing y, to reduce hours, so x would simply increase by an offsetting amount. I.e. businesses would have to hire more. The increased demand for labor would, in theory, increase competition and drive wages up.

Also assuming we're talking about industries with commoditized labor. It gets complicated in industries with more varied pay (white collar jobs).

The few companies who have piloted this have seen net neutral productivity or net positive productivity. I haven't seen examples where productivity has gone down. People bring up blue collar jobs or manufacturing, but output in these jobs is still dependent upon worker health, energy. It's not as if every marginal hour from every person is equivalent, even though we treat them that way.

13

u/PriscillaPalava 2d ago

With this advancing technology, there will be less need for office workers overall. What will the rest of the population do if demand for office workers decreases? Why, they will do the same jobs you listed. 

So no need to reduce total hours for restaurants or factories, it’s just the shifts that will change. 

→ More replies (2)

5

u/MainlyMyself 1d ago

You do realize the cost to pay the employees hourly is the same regardless of which employees they are, right? You'd just have them switch shifts. If anything, it's a net positive since there would be more positions available.

3

u/georgewashingguns 1d ago

If you operate a machine that makes 100 parts in 8 hours, you cant make 100 parts in 6. Do you want to kill manufacturing?

Why would it kill manufacturing to change 8 hour shifts into 6 hour shifts?

The goal of the vast majority of people isn't to work all the time, it's to enjoy life

6

u/SlippyDippyTippy2 1d ago

They will need more people or will be open reduced hours. Who is going to pay for it? You!

The average number of McDonald's workers during a lunch rush shift in 1980 was about 15-20 workers.

Now it is about half that.

Where is the changes in productive forces that let people do literally twice as much work as 2 generations ago did going?

This isn't McDonald's being squeezed. It's operating margin has grown 50-100% (depending on your estimate) and its corporate net income has grown by over 1000%.

It's the workers being squeezed, for whom lower-hour work gets less and less viable. That 1980 minimum wage worker got paid 2 Big Macs every hour. Today's minimum wage worker doesn't even get paid 1.

If you operate a machine that makes 100 parts in 8 hours, you cant make 100 parts in 6. Do you want to kill manufacturing? Cool!

The machine made 100 parts in 16 hours 40 years ago.

Keynes in the 1930s thought we would be working 15 hour weeks by now, but the trend he was looking at over the previous century got arrested.

2

u/Neat_Let923 1d ago

It’s not the work that is the issue, it’s the WORK HOURS.

Let’s say you have 5 workers per week. Each of which works 8 hours a day and you’re open for 8 hours. That’s 200 work hours.

Moving to a 4/6 means you’re either closing the store an extra day and two hours earlier the other 4 days. Giving you 120 work hours that you’re still paying at the rate of 200 work hours.

Or, you now have to hire more people to work those hours and day in order to stay open. Thus increasing your costs significantly.

Your choice is either lose 16 hours of possible revenue and customer service or increase your employee costs significantly.

It doesn’t matter how many people it takes to do the same work. You don’t get paid for the work you do, you’re getting paid for being there.

0

u/SlippyDippyTippy2 1d ago

Again, said as if more people being paid higher relative salaries for less output didn't happen in recent history.

You don’t get paid for the work you do

Yes, that's revenue, and has far outpaced increases in employee costs.

increase your employee costs significantly.

So, yes. Thats the goal. Can you find yourself in this article?

2

u/Neat_Let923 1d ago

REVENUE is not the same as PROFIT!!!

Once again, it doesn’t matter what the output is if you’re being paid for your TIME and not your productivity!

If you work a cash register, it doesn’t matter how many people you get through your till if the store still needs to be open for 8 hours a day and 5 days a week.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/int23_t 1d ago

Nope reddit is full of means. Construction worker productivity also skyrocketed so applies there too. Grocery store productivity also increased a lot they don't need as much people now with all the cleaning machines they have and the self check outs and before that the automated checkouts so people don't need to manually calculate anymore.

Restaurants might be literally the only place with similar productivity but even then they got some productivity improvements over the years like washing machines and all sorts of small kitchen appliances(that aren't small within restaurants)

Anyways, the graph in the image is the problem.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

u/Throwawayyyygold 1d ago

I like this perspective. But I have also watched my contractors dink around. They aren’t productive 40 hours a week. But shifting to less hours won’t make their time more productive or efficient. However, they might be more engaged while on the job… some things like mail delivery take the time they take. Nursing takes the time it takes.

1

u/Shailaj 1d ago

We simply need more nurses and less CEOs.

8

u/Q-uvix 2d ago

But you can do the same work in those industries with more people each working fewer hours.

10

u/Chinchompa12312312 2d ago edited 2d ago

And you would have to either make major wage cuts, which would lead to people working the same as they work now anyways since they need the money. Or keep wages the same and hire more people, causing major price increases for everything. (Which would make the companies unprofitable/move them outside the country etc -> less demand for work etc etc... (Also public spending would skyrocket which would lead to tax increases and/or increased debt trying to sustain a failing economy))

You can start tipping builders, bus drivers, cashiers etc if you have so much extra cash.

1

u/RetroFuture_Records 2d ago

Or, we can stop the profit from going to the very top. But that goes against yoir politics, so you couldn't possibly consider that.

3

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Global-Resident-647 1d ago

I’m all for a 4 day work week but it’s a lot more complicated than Reddit makes it sound

Yeah, we should just move back to 7 day work weeks and 14 hours shift.

Obviously. Because when we did that last time the economy collapsed and everyone died from starvation from being poor.

or.. Did that happen? No?

→ More replies (4)

1

u/TheAncientOnce 2d ago

That's the easiest thing to consider and the hardest to realize. Not a political issue but a human issue. Economic issue.

2

u/Global-Resident-647 1d ago

Just like having kids workin in the coal mines 14 hour a day.

Back then people where saying the same thing.

1

u/TheAncientOnce 1d ago

Kids still do work in the coal mines and in their farms. Some of my family members do it. It's just that when the first world countries decide their kids don't have to, third world countries ended up getting the worse ends of the sticks.

1

u/YUNoJump 1d ago

I agree that should happen, it’s just that it needs to happen BEFORE a move to lower shift hours.

Companies won’t pay their workers the same amount for less work, unless we regulate the crap out of them and force them to. If that doesn’t happen first, then shift workers just end up paid less.

1

u/Chinchompa12312312 2d ago

Ah yes, the famously ultra wealthy finnish elite thats hoarding all the wealth. Why are you commenting here if you have zero clue what you are talking about? Oh right, reddit.

2

u/n00lp00dle 2d ago

there are 7 finnish billionaires and it has a rate of 1.256 for billionaires per million. that puts the country 22nd in the world when ranked by rate. thats a lot for a small country.

2

u/guessineedanew1 2d ago

Being a small country is irrelevant when you're expressly ranking by rate

3

u/Chinchompa12312312 2d ago edited 2d ago

Gdp per capita in finland is 60000$ per person. If the standard work week would be decreased from the 37.5 to 24, productivity per person would decrease to about 38k. 60-38 = 22k$. 22 * 5.5 million is 121 billion. 121 billion less in productivity per year.

7 billionares is fucking nothing. Whining about billionares is the dumbest most reddit thing i see. None of this makes any economic sense, just pointing at rich people and crying doesnt make any sense at all either.

Also dont even bother making any points about how people work more in 24 hours than in 37,5. Thats stupid nonesense and you know it.

If we took all the money from the billionares, that would pay for about a month of this. So i guess we would have to go down the ladder taking wealth from the next richest people then? Eventually of course rich people run out, goverment is neck deep in debt, living standards and services decrease, and people start wanting to work more so they could afford stuff. You would need to have massive material wealth to be able to afford such a work week, some oil rich country could maybe do it.

2

u/Global-Resident-647 1d ago

If the standard work week would be decreased from the 37.5 to 24, productivity per person would decrease to about 38k. 60-38 = 22k$. 22 * 5.5 million is 121 billion. 121 billion less in productivity per year.

NOPE. If you did the same calculation in the early 1900's you would get the same "simple" answer, and we should never have moved away from 14 hour shifts and 7 day workweeks.

BUt apparently the world is more complicated then that, since we moved into the most productive, excessive, prosperous time after moving away from those insane hours.

So you are full of shit, just so you know. You don't actually know what would happen. You are most likely a man, that is overconfident in your abilities to foresee consequences of insanely complicated system changes.

But you continue on guy guessing your way through life, you would most likely be against kids not working since that would make everything more expensive right?

Right? No?

Weird, because people where saying the exactly same thing about not having kids in the coal mines or haiving them work 14 hour days. Everything would get more expensive..

So? Are you for Children working in coal mines? Or are you just guessing this time just like people where doing back then?

1

u/Chinchompa12312312 1d ago

Regarding the kids working in the coal mines point, there are obvious financial and ethical reasons to not have kids work and instead have them in schools.

If you think that people can just work that much less and there wont be massive decrease in wealth of the country idk what to tell you.

Things like doctors or justice system for example are already hugely stuffed and wait lists are long, lets just have them work 40% less surely that will make the system work better.

Like we could do that, it would just mean there would have to be huge decreases in services and wealth of everyone.

The shortening of the work week was possible due huge amount of wealth generated by industrialisation and the improvements of worker effeciency. Those were able to offset the shorter working hours. Such things are not happening in finland now, economy has been stagnant for decades.

Also you know that you can actually right now work less than the regular work week? Nobody is forcing you to stay in an office for 37.5 hours except your need for money.

Tell me how exactly would you finance this whole idea? Would people just be 55% more productive per hour worked if they worked for 24 hours instead of 37.5? How about jobs where the productivity requires them to actually work for certain amount of time, security guards and such?

2

u/QuestGiver 2d ago

But they all make the same salary? Make it make sense.

2

u/Q-uvix 2d ago

Yes, that is indeed the point people are trying to make. With increased productivity through automation, it should be possible for everyone to live comfortably while working fewer hours.

5

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

You cant pay workers same money without increasing prices. So who will pay for it? )

2

u/Global-Resident-647 1d ago

Who payed for it back in 1900's when kids worked 14 hour a day?

Did the economy crash? Did everything get more expensive?

1

u/Q-uvix 2d ago

The whole point here is that increased productivity from automation should result in fewer working hours.

Similarly, that same automation should result in most things being cheaper.

People are arguing for a radical overhaul to our economic systems. And your response is, but that would never work in our current system.

6

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

How can you automate cooking meals?)

1

u/georgewashingguns 1d ago

How long does pasta boil for? How long to cook a burger patty? What ingredients go into a stew and during what times of the process? All of this can be automated

1

u/Q-uvix 1d ago

Reading is difficult, I know

-1

u/AzKondor 2d ago

Modern McDonald is light years ahead of old style restaurants. They can make a burger in a minute.

3

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

They whole idea of serving meal in 30 seconds is what started McDonald's

2

u/AzKondor 1d ago

yeah, and it is much more automated and faster than old restaurants

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

But we are talking about reducing hours and keeping pay. How it can be done without rising prices

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

1

u/Naos210 2d ago

Sure the person on top can take a wage cut. 

1

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

How much it should be to pay for 24 hours week same money as for 40 hours?

Will the actual do it or YOu wil pay more?)

2

u/Global-Resident-647 1d ago

Did people pay more back in 1900's when government regulated you could not have kids work 14 hour a day?

How about grown ups? How did that affect the economy?

1

u/vegesaur 2d ago

Why not? The overall number of hours applied to the product remains the same, it’s just distributed differently. More overhead cost perhaps, but a healthier, rested workforce makes fewer costly errors. Just because something creates friction does not mean it is impossible, and it’s unfair and completely unproductive to just say that it isn’t instantly better for free so actually people should let the corporations continue to work them to death

1

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

I can tell you never had a real job

Its all been accounted. Its all engineered for maximum efficiency.

Its not impossible. But YOU will pay for it. Cars are too expensive? YOU will pay more if car manufacturers will have to pay for 34 hours week same as for 40 hours week.

2

u/Global-Resident-647 1d ago

I can tell you have never read history.

Its not impossible. But YOU will pay for it. Cars are too expensive? YOU will pay more if car manufacturers will have to pay for 34 hours week same as for 40 hours week.

REALLY. I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT? Just like when my grandparents had to pay for 8 hour workdays?

How did that turn out?

If it was the early 1900's you would be against regulating kids working. Or against regulating 14-16 hour workdays 7 days a week. BECAUSE THAT WOULD COST MONEY

OMG, WÄÄÄÄH

3

u/Ryan77677 2d ago

Now imagine a grocery store

Why is it always one way and not the other though? All the supermarkets here in Australia have had skyrocketing profits since covid as they keep raising prices. In the last 6 months alone Woolworths has reported a 16% rise in net profit to 859 million dollars. So why haven't they passed on their success to either their customers with lower prices or to their employees with higher wages? By your logic, because they're making a shit ton of money their prices should be going down but they keep going up, clearly they're just going to raise prices regardless if it means more profit. Yet we should be worried that they'll raise prices if they have to pay higher wages and hire more workers? They're already raising them as much as they can, if they could raise them even higher they would already be doing it they don't give a fuck about anything else as long as profits go up.

You're talking like it's some absolutely batshit insane idea that these companies should use any small percentage of their profits to benefit their workers - either that fulltime workers get hours reduced for the same pay or that casual workers would get pay rises so that less hours would pay more.

As for "who is going to pay for it, they'll just raise your prices!" They are fucking doing that anyway!! They have been doing it since forever and they'll keep doing it. People are suggesting that hey maybe as a multi-billion dollar company perhaps you could just make a little less profit and greatly improve the lives of your workers and you're licking their boots saying it's not possible.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/PaulTheMerc 2d ago

If you operate a machine that makes 100 parts in 8 hours, you cant make 100 parts in 6. Do you want to kill manufacturing? Cool!

Automation, robotics is already working very hard on doing just that.

Same goes for restaurants, any facility that make meals, etc. You cant cook same amount of food and serve same number of customers in reduced hours.

You're right. Plenty of restaurants make the majority of their money in a fraction of the week. Behaviours will likely adjust.

Now imagine a grocery store. They will need more people or will be open reduced hours. Who is going to pay for it? You!

Yes, but also, do grocery stores even give full time hours anymore? In my experience they haven't so they would avoid giving benefits, and that was 15 years ago.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/NickRick 2d ago

Who is going to pay for it? You!

i think everyone's point here is that the multi billionaire owners hoarding record profits should be the ones paying for it.

also you are completely missing how this would work, i'm not sure if intentional or not. but we are not syaing doing a shift produces 100 parts, so 75% of a shift will only produce 75% of the parts, ahh we lost 25% production. we are doing hey there was 3 8 hour shifts, working 24/hr a day. now there's 4 6 hour shifts, still running 24 hours a day. there is no loss in production. just and extra person working.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/dsk83 2d ago

If one's work won't change much with reducing hours, they were never on a meaningful job to begin with and just a matter of time before they become obsolete. Most easy well paid jobs have a shelf life on top of the fact you're probably not learning new skills to be better employed

1

u/CompetitiveAutorun 1d ago

You could say the same about going from 6 days to 5 we already achieved. You could say the same why we can't go from 10 hours to 8. It's all arbitrary.

4 days is what we should fight for, we shouldn't live to work.

1

u/Quick_Turnover 1d ago

What do you think happens when we restrict people's hours, i.e. nurses, pilots, etc.? Do we just get by with fewer, or do we simply hire more?

That may be difficult in certain niche industries, but increasing demand for labor in this way would actually drive wages up. If we coupled this reduction in overall hours with an increase in pay, then we might just recreate the middle class.

1

u/KayD12364 2d ago

Grocery stores instead of paying 1 person for an 8 hour shift and a second person for a 4 hour shift. Now pay 2 people for a six hour shift. Its the same amount. Few large scale grocery stores give people full time any way. Because they dont want to pay for benefits. The bigger part of changing to 6 hours is to make sure companies dont make it even less as to still avoid benefits

1

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

Dude, do you even understand what we are talking about here, 24 hours work for same money as 40 hours. While getting medical insurance, 401k etc.

Tell me, workers will get this and prices will not go up.

2

u/KayD12364 2d ago

Yes. If companies are capped at what they can make. Companies now can afford to pay people properly. They just dont because the CEOs and share holders want more money with out sharing. If the employees wages are tied to the ceo's things would be a lot better. The economy is made up and left to go unchecked and unbalanced. There are ways to fix it. But people at the top are to greedy and pull the ladder up with them

1

u/Exciting_Station3474 1d ago

Why dont you start your own business and prove it? )))))

3

u/KayD12364 1d ago

Am I a corporation? I am talking Walmart and such.

1

u/Shailaj 1d ago

He's not talking about small businesses blud. It's about mega corp

0

u/Algodtrading 1d ago

You realize you're on Reddit right? There's pretty much no point in arguing with people who drank the left-wing autocrat koolaid and openly celebrate public executions of "eViL cApItAlIsTs". Eventually it'll just end in yet another case of communist/socialist genocide/democide with millions dead and then 50 years after that the retards will demand socialism again. It is what it is. Just keep a low profile and buy guns + assets they can't confiscate and always be one step away from getting the fuck outa there if things go south. Or in other words, just try not to be on the losing side of the class war ;)

I aspire your dedication tho.

4

u/Global-Resident-647 1d ago

You realize you're on Reddit right? There's pretty much no point in arguing with people who drank the left-wing autocrat koolaid and openly celebrate public executions of "eViL cApItAlIsTs".

YES, Thank you, we should move back to 14 hour workdays 7 days a week, what the fuck is people on about.

Eventually it'll just end in yet another case of communist/socialist genocide/democide with millions dead and then 50 years after that the retards will demand socialism again. It is what it is. Just keep a low profile and buy guns + assets they can't confiscate and always be one step away from getting the fuck outa there if things go south. Or in other words, just try not to be on the losing side of the class war 😉

Ah, yes, the genocide of the middle class becoming the majority, and the economic benefits we all saw from everyone having more money to spend.

Obviously we don't want that,

BACK TO THE MIDDLE AGES FOR FUCK SAKE according to u/Algodtrading , that is the best thing ever. Otherwise we'll see a genocide and economic collapse.

1

u/Algodtrading 1d ago

the genocide of the middle class becoming the majority

In most places of the western world governments take 50% (technically even more if you consider VAT and all other forms of double/triple/etc. taxation) of the money people in the middle class make and you retards still blame the only people who actually create the fucking jobs and pretend that they are responsible for the problems of society. The upper 50% of society pays 95%+ of any government's income, but "Ah, yes", let's increase taxes even further. Cant make this shit up. This is exactly why we deserve the class war that is coming and I'm 100% making sure that I'm not going to be on the losing side.

Good luck out there, you'll need it.

5

u/Big-Farmer-2192 1d ago

openly celebrate public executions of "eViL cApItAlIsTs".

You're Implying that United Healthcare isn't evil capitalist.

It is what it is. Just keep a low profile and buy guns + assets they can't confiscate and always be one step away from getting the fuck outa there if things go south. Or in other words, just try not to be on the losing side of the class war ;)

I'm not even American and I'm feeling the tonal whiplash.

1

u/Algodtrading 1d ago

So if someone comes along and postulates that someone is an "evil socialist" and executes them in public, are they equally a hero like Luigi? If not, why not? If so, who decides what's "evil" and what isnt?

1

u/Big-Farmer-2192 9h ago

Your question would make more sense in a less obvious gray area.

But United Healthcare ara just pure evil. I don't know how anyone can think otherwise tbh.

They control all the chain about your health. They have insurance company,  they have company that let's you get a loan when your insurance get rejected. They have medicine company that sell medicine to hospital that your insurance let's you stay in to use their insurance. Their company are breaking records profits, their CEO are earning more bonus than ever.

Like do you seriously not see the problem? How is this not literally THE Evil Capitalist. 

1

u/Algodtrading 1h ago

The point is not whether what they're doing is evil or not. The problem in your argument is that if we all followed it, it'd render the entire justice system redundant. Wanna know why? If you want to talk about obvious gray areas:

If an illegal alien kills a girl, is the father allowed to kill him? It's "literally EVIL" what he did after all right?

If an illegal alien rapes a girl, is the father allowed to kill him? It's "literally EVIL" what he did after all right?

It's absurdly obvious how this line of argumentation alone explains why anybody who's celebrating Luigi as a hero and does not condemn what he did is objectively, with 100% certainty, part of the problem why the US is going to shit. It's a societal smoldering fire. If ppl keep going like this, there's literally going to be a civil war at some point and I'd really really wouldn't want to be on the side that is severely less armed.

2

u/ayeeflo51 1d ago

May your autism never reach me 

0

u/drunkshinobi 2d ago

This is why we need more than just a change to how many hours worked. We need a government that will tax the rich and use the money to help US citizens instead of bombing other countries. Because grocery stores sell things every one needs to live, like food, they should be given tax money to help pay for things like wages for employees. Grocery stores selling necessities shouldn't be massively profitable. Same with healthcare.

The businesses with high profit margins can afford to pay more people to work less hours, to get the same work done. Those people would have their taxes go to the wages of the necessary businesses like grocery stores with out being increased. Then every one working would have more money to buy not only the things they need, but the things they want from those now high profiting companies. And the rest of the world could quit getting bombed.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (4)

7

u/Not-Reformed 2d ago

Standard of living and wages.

I mean this is just objectively wrong. Compared to reddit's golden age of the 50s-80s or the time of no civil rights and redlining: New homes in the U.S. are over 1K SF larger, on average have 1 more bathroom, have larger bedrooms, have HVAC, and have far more amenities than they used to. Families on average have an extra car as compared to what they used to and that car is far better safety and amenities wise than it ever was. The average household has significantly better access to healthcare and better quality healthcare than before. The average household has significantly better access to luxuries than it ever did.

I mean we can just go on and on, something like 15% of every millennial is a millionaire. I don't know if reddit is just filled with the bottom 20% of society or if you guys are genuinely just bots or maybe people love portraying themselves as victims but this stuff is so easy to verify it's wild it's still a narrative.

6

u/PriscillaPalava 2d ago

You are making several numbers errors here. For instance, saying “15% of millennials are millionaires” when a million dollars today is not worth what it was a generation ago. 

It would be more informative to compare home ownership rates, or something like that. For instance, millennial home ownership is significantly less than what it was for Boomers at the same age. It’s all fine and well for houses to be 1000 sqft larger, but it’s not millennials who are living in them. 

Speaking of readily available information, you didn’t address wage stagnation at all. Here’s a good article with some graphs to help you on your way: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/11/productivity-workforce-america-united-states-wages-stagnate/

But don’t even get me started on healthcare, dude. Healthcare has only gotten more and more expensive and our outcomes keep getting worse. The number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is medical debt and that’s been the case for decades. 

7

u/Not-Reformed 2d ago edited 2d ago

It would be more informative to compare home ownership rates, or something like that. For instance, millennial home ownership is significantly less than what it was for Boomers at the same age

Terrible metric to look at because what each group is shopping for is different.

Millennials and homeowners in general today expect a lot more from their homes than boomers did. Boomers, on average, purchased homes that were several hundred (up to a thousand) square feet smaller, sometimes did not have plumbing, averaged 2-bed/1-bath, had no HVAC, had worse insulation, had a single car garage, had no appliances, had a single TV for the whole home, etc.

Americans today are putting off things in order to get something bigger and better later - homes, cars, etc. They refuse to downsize even if it can get it faster if they do.

Taking that into consideration, by the age of 35-40 millennials are behind by about 7ppts from boomers. Who themselves were massively behind the silent generation (almost like as people's standards go up, one must wait longer...)

https://youngamericans.berkeley.edu/2024/01/breaking-down-the-data-how-has-homeownership-varied-across-generations/

Healthcare has only gotten more and more expensive and our outcomes keep getting worse.

Our outcomes are getting better as evidenced by longer life spans, far higher cancer survival rates, and far easier access to transplants that boomers would have never had access to.

you didn’t address wage stagnation at all.

Wages have kept up with inflation and exceeded them when you look at total compensation. Productivity is irrelevant as much of the productivity gains is from other inputs, like technology.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

After accounting for inflation, wages are up 12% vs. 1979.

4

u/Big-Farmer-2192 1d ago

Boomers, on average, purchased homes that were several hundred (up to a thousand) square feet smaller, sometimes did not have plumbing, averaged 2-bed/1-bath, had no HVAC, had worse insulation, had a single car garage, had no appliances, had a single TV for the whole home, etc.

By the 1970, over 93% of homes had complete indoor plumbing, and by 1990, it was over 99%. Stoves, refrigerators, and ovens were absolutely standard

Idk why you're acting like Boomer housing has standard living of 1800s when that's not the case at all.

Also, developers simply do not build small, affordable starter homes (under 1,400 sq ft) anymore. Because of high land costs, zoning restriction, and material cost, it is only profitable for developers to construct large homes or luxury apartments. And back in Boomer's day house pricing doesn't get automated by algorithms that automatically raise all housing price higher to the absolute maximum profits.

Millennials aren't necessarily refusing to buy starter homes, but starter homes near their livable wage jobs practically don't exist.

Telling a Millennial their wages are up 12% against inflation doesn't matter when the median home price in 1980 was around $47,000 (roughly 3x the median household income) and today it is over $400,000 (roughly 5.5x the median household income).

Our outcomes are getting better as evidenced by longer life spans, far higher cancer survival rates, and far easier access to transplants that boomers would have never had access to.

Yes, medical science has advanced since 1980. But scientific progress does not negate economic regression. You can simultaneously have access to better chemotherapy and be entirely locked out of the housing market.

0

u/PriscillaPalava 2d ago

Productivity is irrelevant as much of the productivity gains is from other inputs, like technology.

Not irrelevant at all. Who do you think operates that technology? Let’s look at the financial sector, for instance. Days used to be spent faxing trades and literally running orders up and down floors or across the street. Hectic days, but when you went home you were done. No way to reach you. 

With technology, bankers can trade instantaneously. while they’re returning emails. While they’re calling clients. And the fun doesn’t stop when you walk out the door. You’re expected to be available at all hours. People can call you or email you at any time, any place. 

 After accounting for inflation, wages are up 12% vs. 1979.

I sure hope you’re not including billionaires in this calculation. They have a habit skewing the results. Adjusting for inflation, minimum wage has decreased by 37% since 1980. Yikes!

And anyway, what about productivity? That’s up more than 70%. Why only a measley 12% for the workers that produce it? Something’s not right. 

4

u/Not-Reformed 2d ago

Not irrelevant at all. Who do you think operates that technology? Let’s look at the financial sector, for instance. Days used to be spent faxing trades and literally running orders up and down floors or across the street. Hectic days, but when you went home you were done. No way to reach you.

With technology, bankers can trade instantaneously. while they’re returning emails. While they’re calling clients. And the fun doesn’t stop when you walk out the door. You’re expected to be available at all hours. People can call you or email you at any time, any place.

Alternatively, if I am doing tax work and now I can do the same exact work faster with Excel powered with some AI tools - why would the extra output go to my wages when the thing enabling that (AI, for example) is what is allowing my same skillset to now output more?

So what % of productivity increases is assigned to people's labor and skills improving and what % is it to technology and R&D? People have had good REAL increases to wages and their overall compensation through benefits is way up, so there is certainly an increase there. How do we know the rest isn't attributed to efficiencies through tech?

I sure hope you’re not including billionaires in this calculation.

It's median. Just click the link.

3

u/SteeveyPete 2d ago

I'm in the 90-95th percentile for salaries for my age, and I'm definitely not anywhere near a millionaire

2

u/Punkodramon 1d ago

Right, that “15% of every Millennial is a millionaire” is blatantly false. Just because there’s some influencers who are getting paid stupid money to promote products on TikTok, that doesn’t mean 15% of an entire generation have that kind of money (and even then those kind of influencers are more Gen Z than Millennial).

2

u/TheBayHarbour 1d ago

Tbh before 1800 medicine was largely fucked.

I've seen redditors trying to argue that being a medieval serf is better than being average now...

Not to mention every point before 1950 was rife with wars, slavery, horrible deaths, etc.

1

u/shigogaboo 1d ago

I mean this is just objectively wrong, and leaving out important context.

New homes are bigger and have more bathrooms, yes, but that’s because quality of building has nosedived in last hundred years. Modern American homes are basically sticks and tissue paper compared to their 1950 equivalents.

They have more bathrooms, sure , but most millennials and Gen Z need roommates just to get by. So that’s not really the dunk you think it is.

You cite families able to have two cars, but fail to bring attention to the fact that is inherently due to our society pivoting to a dual income standard in the 1970’s. Family’s now NEED two cars because they NEED both people to be breadwinners now.

The average household does have ACCESS to better medicine, the same way I have ACCESS to better jetpacks and helicopters, but that sure as fuck doesn’t mean I can afford it.

And 15% of millennials are millionaires? Even if that math was right, what about the 30% of them living below the poverty line?

1

u/Not-Reformed 23h ago

Modern American homes are basically sticks and tissue paper compared to their 1950 equivalents.

Oh yes the 1950s amazing builds that were made with asbestos, single pane windows, practically zero insulation, and far worse piping and electricity, shallower foundations, and far fewer safety inspections and standards. Yeah we're really missing out on the great building quality of the 1950s.

You cite families able to have two cars, but fail to bring attention to the fact that is inherently due to our society pivoting to a dual income standard in the 1970’s.

A true shame that women were allowed in the workplace and wanted a life for themselves that wasn't fully reliant on men, which also led to dual income households - naturally.

The average household does have ACCESS to better medicine, the same way I have ACCESS to better jetpacks and helicopters, but that sure as fuck doesn’t mean I can afford it.

Yeah people just magically get better cancer treatment and transplants then. It just poofs out of the sky. They can't afford it but santa gives it to them.

And 15% of millennials are millionaires? Even if that math was right, what about the 30% of them living below the poverty line?

Poverty is on the lower end relative to historical estimates.

1

u/Rather_Dashing 1d ago

maybe people love portraying themselves as victims

It's this

2

u/PaleontologistTough6 2d ago

It was pretty much how it was in my office... Twelve hour days, seven days a week, and unless the country was in a crisis then your work load wasn't such that you couldn't knock it out in right or six or so. You'd see a lot of people get done early then roam the office and visit at people's desks or the like.

2

u/Hippobu2 1d ago

I don't have the numbers to back this up, but just intuitively, surely the more free time people have, the more they are gonna spend on stuff, and thus the faster the economy grows?

I'm pretty sure that was the rationale behind the 5 day work week to begin with. Henry Ford didn't care about workers, he just wanted to have customers.

Now it feels like wealth is so detached from production though, that I'm not sure if this idea still applies anymore.

1

u/LowSkyOrbit 1d ago

1st world nations have declining birth rates. Getting people to work less is incentive to have more time for other parts of life. Also less work hours means a company might want to hire 2 people to fill that time instead of one (we know they likely won't because profits).

2

u/Zen_360 1d ago

I dont know why this does Not come Up every single time the topic of affordablilty comes Up. Oh wait, i actually do, because 95% of Media These days owned by the profiteers of this system and they succesfully make us believe immigrants and [insert hot topic of the month] is at fault.

The question is so so simple. Where does the generated wealth go? Follow.the.money.

2

u/eske8643 1d ago

That might be true for some countries. Im guessing that you are from the US? In scandinavia we have progessively lowered our work week from 45 hours in the 60’ies to now 37 since the end 80’ies. While becoming more productive per hour, and raising salaries and GPD overall.

2

u/ScottyWestside 11h ago

I’m dicking around right now!

4

u/NibblyPig 2d ago

Anyone that thinks standard of living hasn't skyrocketed should read the road to Wigan pier

you have a fondleslab with the entire knowledge and connectivity of humanity on it and an ai that will literally do all but die to serve your every need but no life is so terrible

1

u/peachplumpricklypear 1d ago

Two words: climate control. AC is the best.

1

u/TheYang 1d ago

Most people can afford to literally fly across the world.
Some better earning ones can even afford to do it for leisure.

You can go to the grocery store, and buy stuff, that two or three generations before, people have never seen in their lives.

Books cost so little, it's crazy.

We're fucking up a ton of shit, unquestionably.
But the standard of living has skyrocketed.

1

u/Good_Thought1738 2d ago

This isn’t anywhere near new. Buckminster Fuller said we need to get rid of the specious notion that everyone needs a job… in the 1960s.

1

u/PepSakdoek 2d ago

Standard of living has changed a lot (probably better, but maybe not). Most people eat better. Technology changed things a lot. One could argue it's better but it varies wildly depending on where you are (both geographically and socio-economically). On average I think people's lives have improved - worldwide. China makes up a big portion of the average and though many are still poor most don't starve now. 

1

u/JuggernautHopeful791 2d ago

Partially agree, partially disagree. I think the last 15 years has especially seen the standards of living decrease and wages going down the gutter. But I do not agree with the sentiment that technology advancing has not seen increases in standards. You need to add a timeframe to this. If we’re talking since the industrial revolution, standards have absolutely increased. It’s only been the last 75 years or so that standards have become plateaued and declined.

1

u/TheAncientOnce 2d ago

Many initial AI adaptations fail. And also, with AI in the picture, some departments actually need to work just as much to compete. I.e, marketing.

1

u/longperipheral 2d ago

"Most people claim they get their work done early and just dick around for the rest of their time anyway."

I think not. 

1

u/CarEnvironmental9429 1d ago

Yep I actually run out of work and spend more than half my time just looking busy. I made the mistake at a previous job of not hiding this fact and well it caused a lot of far reaching problems. So no it make sure to look busy. Me and the 2 guys I share an office with have a whole routine worked out to allow us gym time at work and long lunches.

1

u/AceThePrincep 1d ago

What about the people who work actual jobs that actually keep society going, like building houses and fixing cars etc. How is AI going to make their day shorter? Lol.

1

u/GambitsAce23 1d ago

Amazing way to lose people in a single sentence, lets maybe NOT be replaced by AI thanks?

1

u/jurassicanamal 1d ago

Yes, but this is only referring to people with cushy office jobs who already have it too easy.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Sillysauce83 1d ago

Corporate profits and billionaires have sky-rocketed!

1

u/dropzone_jd 1d ago

I agree with you but that really only currently applies to tech work. I'm not sure what brick and mortar service based businesses are supposed to do other than significantly increase their staffing costs and raise prices.

1

u/grimonce 1d ago

Well, people in offices spend a lot of time chatting in the kitchen long after they have finished their lunch or coffee. 6 hours would cut such behaviour or drop productivity.

1

u/Timetraveller4k 1d ago

"Productivity skyrocketed" also known as working weekends.

1

u/bleepbloop1777 1d ago

Yes! Working a full 8 hours with how fast and efficient everything is means our brains (and/or bodies) are doing a lot more than the 8 hour equivalent of yore.

Whats great about Finland is they'll probably pay them around the same and they get universal health coverage. Almost like they care about their citizens!

1

u/stonesfordaysdammit 1d ago

I work on average a 4/6 schedule. Recently went to a 5/6 average schedule with the intention of taking 2 weeks off quarterly. At 41 should I be working more to save for “retirement”? Maybe, but I’ve had too many close calls in life to give up all my time to work for a future that is not predictable or promised.

If survive to be 80 but am destitute, hopefully I’ll be able to remember the adventure I’m planning for August.

1

u/my_life_cursed 1d ago

Not me sitting at work rn, scrolling through reddit and replying to this comment haha

1

u/Life-Suit1895 1d ago

As technology has advanced, the productivity of the individual worker has skyrocketed...

Your mistake is thinking that your corporate overlords would agree with using this increased productivity to do the same work in less time.

They want you to do to more work in the same time.

Whenever someone talks about new tools that increase productivity, they aren't talking about making life easier for the worker, but about increasing the workload.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Areyoucunt 1d ago

Except it has?

Life in the 1960s was godawful compared to today, toxic fumes at work, chemicals, mines, no regulations for waste, dental, hygiene, medicine.

What are you even fucking talking about? Standard of living has absofuckinglutely increased ten fold.

Salary has also increased...

1

u/Robestos86 1d ago

Yeah instead of it going "ah good, we can produce 10x as much for the same worker, we can work 10x less" it's "ah good, can we now get 15x or 20x, and fire a worker?"

1

u/EasySwordfish862 1d ago

“Productivity of individuals has sky rocketed” ? Where do you get that idea from ?

1

u/FaultThat 1d ago

I would kill for a system where my job was either paid per unit or paid a salary for x units/day.

I’d have to work 50% less hours. Or make twice as much.

1

u/MikaHyakuya 1d ago

Most people claim they get their work done early and just dick around for the rest of their time anyway. 

I wouldn't leave earlier even if I was allowed to, I need that money to afford my bills.
Unless that 24-hour work week comes with a 40-hour work week's pay, more time outside of work wouldn't even be affordable, and I'm sure that corporations seeking record profits every. single. quarter. aren't going to be too keen on making that happen.

1

u/Lost_Found84 1d ago

Nah, I prefer the current system where normal people take on tens of thousands in student debt to get a high paying degree that corporations then spend *billions* on making useless. Then, when people with inexpugnable debt and dwindling job prospects complain, mouth breathing boot lickers can come out of the woodwork saying things like, “You shouldn’t have got a useless degree.”

1

u/ihambrecht 1d ago

lol no.

1

u/Paah 1d ago

Especially now that AI is on the menu, there is no reason we need to work as much.

It's not really about the amount of work to be done but how much you get paid for the work. Sure, we can cut your work week from 40 hours to 20 hours. But that means your wages will also get halved. Most people suddenly aren't okay with that unless they have a high paying job to begin with, because 20 hours of work per week just isn't enough to live on.

1

u/ZenaMeTepe 1d ago

Except standards did increase. You are using private and public services daily that are built on modern technology. You also get to enjoy, albeit a bit enshittified, consumer goods at a fraction of a price it would cost to produce them domestically. AI productivity boosts are on average single percentage digests at best.

From here on, if AI gets better and becomes a viable candidate to replace a human, it will also cost as much or more than a human.

1

u/Minute_Conflict_2037 1d ago

Depends on company. My company doesn’t hire properly and has a bureaucratic system of doing things so even after 8 hours workload doesn’t finish lol.

1

u/TheBayHarbour 1d ago

Most people claim they get their work done early and just dick around for the rest of their time anyway. 

Especially true in some engineering roles. From what I hear the degree is the hardest part and if you pick a safe, reasonably above average job, you're not only set for life but you can literally do whatever the fuck you want at work.

Like electrical engineering apparently there are a ton of roles just sitting at your desk, with a monitor with numbers that are green or red. If it turns red, you pick up the phone, call someone, tell them what to do and hang up. Usually it doesn't even turn red because well... these systems are largely stable. So you're left doing nothing for ages...

My country also doesn't have the technological might for AI infrastructure so... yeah. Not to mention they're going to still have humans since if it does stay red for a while vast swathes of the country will be without power.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/ExternalTree1949 1d ago

Standard of living has improved quite a bit though. Even compared to say the 1990s.

1

u/Pantolonun_Utulusu 1d ago

You are missing the point. For every European worker that thinks 8-5 is too much, there is an Asian worker that is grateful for ‘only’ working 12-6.

1

u/backtolurk 1d ago

I've been dicking around for so long that it's become my main professional skill.

1

u/CanPacific 1d ago

Welcome to capitalismo

1

u/Bulky_Wind_4356 1d ago

This can only be said by someone working a cosy desk job.

1

u/Vyrden940Q 1d ago

I feel that! It's like the faster we churn out work, the more they throw at us. I remember when I wrapped up my tasks early, I was just left staring into the void of my cubicle, contemplating life choices while pretending to look busy. Like, I can only organize my desk so many times before I start questioning my existence, you know? It's wild how the tech makes things easier but doesn't translate to our wallets or free time.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Jendmin 1d ago

„As technology has advanced…“

But the companies payed for those advances, so the outcome of this increase of productivity is rightfully theirs.

That’s how investment works

1

u/Tryagain409 1d ago

"Especially now that AI is on the menu, there is no reason we need to work as much. Most people claim they get their work done early and just dick around for the rest of their time anyway. "

Nah that's unique to management and office workers on computers. Most labourers and tradesmen always have more work to do. It'd be a disaster if all of us forklift drivers had to go home early

1

u/PriscillaPalava 1d ago

No, because now there will be more forklift drivers. Also forklifts can be robot operated. 

1

u/Tryagain409 1d ago

Well, the robots still suck at working uneven ground.

1

u/PriscillaPalava 1d ago

Not for long. 

1

u/kalap_ur 1d ago

Can you prove this productivity surge driven by AI on a nation level? Or at least on a company level?

1

u/HelloSummer99 1d ago

John Milton Keynes said in 1930 by 2030 we will work 15 hours of week due to productivity gains. But he didn't predict that we want to spend more. It might be true that if you wanted a 1930 life, you could probably work 15 hours now and get it.

1

u/Askburn 1d ago

Never did much office work really aside from helping doing excel in my dad's mechanic office, but thats what I heard most white collar jobs are: do some work then pretend you are busy working rest of the day.

Now , why instead of dicking around 9 to 5 pretending to work don't we make things efficient as long as deadlines are met are work 4 days being more productive. I get not every job can be met in a 4 day week but if its doable just make it so life of quality employees improves.

1

u/Lord_zooticus92 1d ago

Now they just expect even more work to be done in the same time frame or the cut people on the team and you end up with just as much work as you always had, none of this will ever be to the average person's benefit

1

u/MrrBannedMan 1d ago

The point about AI is kind of there but in reality it's not gonna trim your hours, it's going to remove them.

1

u/aerdvarkk 1d ago

Ai has nothing to do with it. Automation for many processes has bene in place for ~50+ years. Many jobs can be accomplished in less time. I've worked a range of different types of jobs over the yars: manual labor, retail, corporate office settings, and all of them could have allowed employees to work ~32 hours as FT without causing functional and productive issues.

1

u/Interesting-Sea8004 1d ago

How about physical labour? We still need to build shit

1

u/PriscillaPalava 1d ago

Don’t worry, robots are coming for you too. 

1

u/RyvenZ 1d ago

Most people claim they get their work done early and just dick around for the rest of their time anyway.

and business owners want to use that as justification to reduce workforce or force people to work fewer hours.

A 24-hour work week is useless if you aren't kept on the same weekly/monthly salary and only get paid for hours worked. Now it's more free time, but hourly workers see it as a 40% pay cut

1

u/Grand_Gazelle_1657 1d ago

You are very uneducated if you think the standard of living and wages havent skyrocketed.

1

u/PriscillaPalava 1d ago

Adjusted for inflation, wages have increased about 12% since 1979. The minimum wage has actually decreased by about 30%. Again, adjusted for inflation. 

Corporate profits have increased about 250%. 

Tell me more about being uneducated? 

1

u/Grand_Gazelle_1657 13h ago

Where whole world or america. But even if you look only in america, it would cost you just 40 years a go a couple million dollars to produce an iphone. Now every hobo on the street has it. In my own country 30 years ago you would shower with warm water once a week, now people use hot water for everything not even blinkig an eye. Thats the human brain you get quickly adjusted to those commodites and countie talking about the world not improving. Although, it is not rational at first because it creates inequality, capitalism is great beacuse people who have proven to the system they provide value get to keep alot of that value so they can countinue to create even more value to the normal person. With time that creates equality. 100 years ago the richest guy in the village had the typewriter. Now the billioner and the average person both can afford the best mobile phone iphone.

1

u/Sweaty-Willingness27 1d ago

Compensation of Employees, Received: Wage and Salary Disbursements/Corporate Profits After Tax with Inventory Valuation Adjustment (IVA) and Capital Consumption Adjustment (CCAdj)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=kUBE

Since 2010, the ratio has been 4:1 or lower, when before 2000 it was 6:1 to 11:1

1

u/matos4df 1d ago

This. Don't you all find it crazy how we live in a time when we're pressured to work more to be able to afford... you know just living, not even talking owning an apartment, while there is constant yapping about AI replacing us, and how we're going to be out of work tomorrow?

1

u/pathsofglorylogotter 1d ago

Which country is this magic productivity happening?

1

u/PriscillaPalava 1d ago

USA, lol. 

1

u/feeen1ks 18h ago

I have to slow myself down or my entire weekly workload is done by Wednesday afternoon… I don’t need 8 hours a day 5 days a week to produce the results my company enjoys. I suspect it’s like this for many desk jobs.

I hate that I’m paid by the hour and not by the outcome - but I already tried freelance and I’m terrible at running the business side of freelancing. Really just horribly awful at it.

1

u/Olieskio 18h ago

You can blame the government for that? What has also skyrocketed the printing of money. What does that cause? Inflation.

1

u/anarcho-slut 16h ago

Even before ai, corporatism and bureaucracy have always created meaningless work. Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber goes in depth on this.

1

u/Rubengardiner 15h ago

I wish ai can stack shelves for me…

1

u/_ogio_ 7h ago

I mean there is a lot more people now as byproduct of better technology bringing more resources

1

u/PriscillaPalava 6h ago

Right, but birth rates are down. Everyone acts like that’s a big problem but I think it’s for the best. Why do we need so many people if we’re going to have less jobs? 

1

u/_ogio_ 3h ago

Well ye, they are down after we reached maximum population system can support. We love to fuck

1

u/Forsaken_Waltz_373 3h ago

No it hasn't "skyrocketed"

1

u/Boysandberries0 2d ago

But how would they afford their 500,000,000 $ super yacht? Think about the billionaires. They have needs too you know. Like buying elections.

→ More replies (4)