Hacker News Reader

Comment by SuddsMcDuff | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it should be assumed that less time at work is necessarily preferable. What will people do with all their additional spare time? Sure, they might spend their days learning art, history, philosophy. They might take up writing poetry, painting or learning the piano. Or, they might vegetate in front of the TV, take up drinking as a hobby, argue with strangers online and slowly decay into existential nihilism.

The devil will make work for idle hands.

View on HN

That's their choice. That's their life to do with as they wish.

One can just as well "vegetate" as an employee to a boss; indeed, we know that the nature of the current work setup is such that many come home drained from work all day, sit in front of the TV, take up drinking as a hobby, argue with strangers online (see me, now), decay into nihilism, etc, all the same.

The purpose of life isn't to work; the purpose of life is the other things, the fun and play.

It's true there are innumerable variables at play here. The nature of the work is a huge factor as well. It's probably futile to try and come up with a general rule of thumb. It could be that people already have too much spare time on their hands which is not being filled with meaningful endeavour. It's also undoubtedly the case that many peoples working hours are not filled with meaningful endeavour either.

Thank you for telling me the purpose of life in a very matter-of-fact way. I think you would find a lot of people who would find your assertion extremely debatable. To be frank, I pity anyone who thinks the purpose of their life is to have fun.

Well, the devil doesn't exist, but I think I get your allusion.

If you go back a century, people in Britain, Europe, USA, Australia etc were probably working 70 hours a week.

If you asked a random selection of people in those countries now if they think we should all move back to that figure as a standard work week -- you know, to save society from itself -- I'm guessing you wouldn't get a lot of support.

That's true of course, and I'm not saying that more work is necessarily more desirable any more than I'm saying that less work is necessarily desirable. My point is that the premise of the article assumes that spending less time at work is automatically better, and I would challenge that premise.

Why? (Serious question.)

It seems to me that the common (Western) standard of ~ 40 hours a week is something we inherited a generation or two ago, and consequently is considered to be normal, average, ideal, expected, realistic, fair, reasonable, etc.

As noted, societies have previously had very different norms which have been changed without societal collapse.

Applying the scientific method to the ~40-hour assumption is something we should, as rational actors, embrace. What few experiments conducted so far suggest at least some positive outcomes, but more importantly indicate more experiments are worthwhile.

Personally, submitting to 5 x 8 hours a week, 11 months a year, repeat until I'm too old to continue (or indeed to anything else) just because that's what dad did, isn't a compelling case.

Yes, we should be working 10 or 12 hour days, you never know when the devil will leap in.

What we really need to do is enforce the separation of church and state and keep the religious arguments out of political debate.

It's not a religious argument by any means. It's a common idiom which means that "if people don't have anything to do with their time, they are more likely to get involved in trouble and criminality." (see https://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/devil+finds+wo...).

but it does come from the religious / patriarchal mind set of a bygone era. I would put it to you that the devil find work for idle hands who have no money.

If this was true then why aren't the prisons full of retirees? - because they have money and so can afford to occupy their time.

It's time to remove these trite sayings from the public discourse imho they add nothing to an argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com