Hacker News Reader

Comment by village-idiot | Hacker News Reader

One of the great surprises in the 20th century is that per worker productivity has risen massively, but we still work an unnecessary 40 hours a week. Realistically 15-18 hours would probably be enough to maintain early to mid 20th century output, and 30 hours would actually increase output a bit.

In my opinion we as a society are addicted to work.

View on HN

>In my opinion we as a society are addicted to work.

We're not addicted to it, we're forced to do it or we go into homelessness and have an extremely hard time getting out of it. Homelessness has to exist in this system or people have nothing to be afraid of by not working. I don't think any of us are born just to endlessly work until we're 70, at least in this way. We're giving our entire lives away to someone else for profit.

Some work doesn't happen any faster despite worker productivity. The 40 hour work week isn't determined by the output, but rather by the income the worker receives. People are free to work 15-18 hours a week, but they don't.

>People are free to work 15-18 hours a week, but they don't.

I'm forced to work 40 hours per week no matter what I'm getting paid or I get fired, not sure how this is a 'choice'.

Exactly my point. You make the choice to engage at a job that doesn't allow flexibility. There's more than one job out there.

In most cases, the employer establishes the hours worked. Working fewer hours would have to be negotiated with the employer.

>People are free to work 15-18 hours a week, but they don't.

Not if you live in the US and want health insurance.

There's another supporting argument to my point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com