Hacker News Reader

Comment by fallingfrog | Hacker News Reader

Come on! We live in a world which is specifically designed to make us unhappy. I mean most of us don't even have the option to be less materialistic; most jobs that pay enough that you could spend less time at work don't give you the option of doing so. So the only freedom left to people is the freedom to choose how their money is spent. Human relations are constantly being squeezed out and replaced with business deals. And I keep seeing these articles blaming the victims. Folks, this is not some unintended side effect of capitalism- this is the way the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be happy.

View on HN

Is that true?

Take a look at e.g. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS#. In most places, people are working less hours, and they have significantly higher standards of living in many ways.

Especially in software development, there are enormous opportunities to work however you like for as many hours as you like. Sure, if you want a mid six-figure salary and try to keep up with the Jones' in SF you'll need to sacrifice some leisure and relationships, but that's not universally true. If your preference is to enjoy meaningful relationships and leisure time outside of work, and you have STEM skills, this is a great time to be alive.

I chose to work four days a week, and it's been an overwhelmingly good decision. Combined with living somewhere with an extremely low cost of living (I live in a nice flat and have a nice car for $1k/mo) and not liking owning too many material possessions, it's been a fantastic decision.

The alternative would be to spend another day a week working for money I literally have no need for and cannot use. I don't want to trade time during my thirties for time during my sixties, either, since time in my thirties is much more useful, as I am better able to do things with it.

Was the employer initially interested in hiring 5 days a week for 4?

Hmm, if I'm parsing your sentence correctly, yes, I used to work 5 days a week, I requested it be changed to 4 (with a 20% reduction in pay), and they agreed. I can also go back to 5 days if I want, since they've indicated they would prefer that, but I strongly feel that a 5-day work week isn't a good fit for me right now.

Sorry s/for/or in my original post.

I've been thinking about whether is reduction in the workweek is politically or culturally possible, even if it is economically motivated. I sort of came to the conclusion that people turning 5 days jobs into 4 would be necessary on the cultural front. Glad to hear of someone that actually did it!

I work at a small manufacturing facility, while living in a relatively low COL area. The pay is not exceptional, but enough to clear all expenses, have some fun and save 15%. I am given the choice almost every week (crunch periods and other workers plans sometimes take priority) of working either 4 ~10 hour shifts or 5 ~8's. I find it extremely useful and pleasant, and would gladly keep my current job (6:30-2:30|4:30) over one that paid $4-5 more per hour that had a fixed 9-5 M-F schedule.

Having an optional 3 day weekend allows a lot of possibility for longer recreational trips, large projects, dedicating one day to errands and totally freeing the other two, etc. On the other side of the equation, having a wide open afternoon + evening every weekday is great too.

It may seem like I'm just preaching to the choir on this one, but I'm also trying to simply raise awareness of what an excellent benefit it is. Realistically, could businesses in other fields adopt this? It's a great way to keep employees happy (saving turnover expenses) and doesn't alter their paycheck.

[edit] Since you are working less in exchange for the 20% cut, I realize not every business can do this since paying more people for fewer hours has diminishing returns. Giving the option of 4 10's or 5 8's, though, is still the same hours + work done. Why do we not see this offered more?

> most jobs that pay enough that you could spend less time at work don't give you the option of doing so.

In most countries outside of the West jobs pay much less and you'll be forced to work much more to merely survive. Want to trade with them?

> Folks, this is not some unintended side effect of capitalism- this is the way the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be happy.

So an economic system where private enterprises produce goods and services based on what they believe will make profit (and not through coercion) and where you, the consumer, as a result have more options to choose from is somehow designed to make you unhappy?

What would make you happy? "Democratic Socialism"? Would you prefer to work in forced labour camp? Because that's how Socialism inevitably ends every single time. Even in case of the poster child of Socialism, Venezuela, which recently passed a forced labour law.

I often wonder if anyone who believe that the freedom to sell your goods and services is a bad thing can be rationalized with. Where do you even start with someone who disagrees with free trade? I mean their stance is basically that slavery (to the state) is a good thing. That's such a philosophical starting point based on intrinsic values, where do you start?

Doesn't a disagreement with free trade mean that you think products from other countries should be taxed? If thats the case than local goods have a completive advantage in price, thats a good thing for a community isn't it?

Free trade is an advantage to these who have the capital to move around, and to the idea of consumerism because unnecessary goods can be cheaper.

I meant free market.

Some places being worse to live doesn't have any effect on his argument. There's a fairly wide range of states that can make a person unhappy.

Generally the places we call socialist are state capitalist, meaning the state owns the means of production.

The evolution from capitalism isn't to communism, it would be something new, something different. What we should want is a better system that is more fair to everyone and doesn't by its very purpose destroy the world.

I'm responding because I hate when people think that down-voting is a signal for disagreement, and because I think half of your second statement can be addressed.

State ownership of capital is the definition of socialism. In as much as anyone uses your term 'state capitalist', they use it to refer to the heavy-handed control of markets by government in places like China.

As to the departure from capitalism: when you depart from free markets without some seriously strong restraints to prevent further movement, you're always moving toward the same endpoint of non-choice and stagnation, but there are plenty of trajectories to get there. In the US, we enact well-meaning policy to protect our hallowed institutions or to protect the disadvantaged. The resulting distortions in knowledge conveyed by prices create arbitrage opportunities. Organizations/companies that can find and exploit those opportunities can grow powerful, and then they can sink in their talons to further distort and fossilize the market to their advantage. In the middle term, we have a different small group of people who get rich at others' expense, but it's a race to the bottom just like any other. Our confidence in preventing that decline is a finesse, just like in bridge: we're handing over control in the hope that we can both effect an intended change and regain control. That's a good trick for as long as you can keep it up.

Having said that, I think it's bizarre to say that any system's purpose is to destroy the world, even if that is the probable end state.

According to Wikipedia: "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;"[1]

"social ownership" refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.[2]

As far as the meaning of socialism, I'd see an evolution of capitalism leading to the employee/cooperative ownership with less government interference. It makes sense that the people doing the work have a say in the company they are a part of. There could be problems, there are always problem with any system. But a fairer situation for all workers seems overall more beneficial to society as a whole.

The issues you are describing in the US don't seem to be socialist, they are consequences of capitalism. As a process capitalism focuses on concentration of power, rent-seeking, limitation of competition (through corporate lobby). Basically what we have now is capitalism, there is no perfect ideal capitalism that we would be better with, and should move towards, we've already gone down that path and these are the consequences. This to me is the reason why we should be honestly talking about trying something else, something better.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership

> "social ownership" refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.[2]

In Capitalism you actually have the freedom to share the means of production. Go out there and convince a few people to form a company that is collectively owned. It can be done.

So why don't we then see formation of companies with employee ownership or cooperative ownership? Because it is a model that is far less effective in producing goods and services, thus in almost every case someone tried it it failed. (and many did try)

The only way this can work is by outlawing private enterprises as we know them today, because if private enterprises were allowed to exist besides these models then they would be guaranteed to crush these alternative organisation forms.

We have seen this happen every single time Socialism was implemented. Capitalists economies consistently crushed Socialist economies.

Therefore everyone that insists on implementing Socialism has to accept that it will mean that innovation and efficiency will significantly go down as a result, which also means that everyone will get poorer. (if you produce less or at higher costs per unit then this is bound to happen)

It also means that other societies that do not implement Socialism will have an advantage and over time we'll fall back in development significantly.

And then of course you somehow have to sell your population to accept that the government will take away their private property and redistribute it, if it is any kind of business.

So it's kind of a tough sell to anyone that thinks the whole thing through.

It is also immoral by the way. You have to steal private property from others and limit their freedoms just so your little collective has a shot at surviving in the market.

If it weren't so then you'd have already created the collective, because you could. No one is preventing you from doing it in a Capitalist economy.

If this was an issue with capitalism in general we wouldn't be discussing it this way, since the issue would date back at lease a century.

> If this was an issue with capitalism in general we wouldn't be discussing it this way, since the issue would date back at lease a century.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what "this" and "it" refer to, it's not exactly a new topic. Identity, ego, happiness, capitalism, consumerism, work, family, and their various relationships and conflicts have been discussed in ways nearly indistinguishable from how they are today since the dawn of the modern global economy (the 50s), and similar issues have been covered by Western writers since at least the 19th century (much farther back, depending on how much you want to stretch "similar").

The issue has been discussed for at least a century; as well as being directly discussed, its been a common and recurring theme of art and literature within and concerning the capitalist economies for more than a century.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com