Hacker News Reader

Comment by OkayPhysicist | Hacker News Reader

If the length of our work week followed productivity, the workweek would be at 13 hours today. Your claim is completely and utterly baseless.

View on HN

You can easily work 13 hours a week if you are willing to enjoy early 20th century living standards! The gains from productivity are distributed between extra leisure time and extra material benefits.

Ah yes, the 20th century standard of owning a home with land and providing for a family of 8, easily affordable on 13 hrs per week.

In the middle of nowhere with no car or household appliances or health care where half of your food comes out of your garden, of course you can afford that.

You could also afford to live in a fire trap tenement house with your family of 8 in two bedrooms, although said houses are now illegal so you probably can't physically do that anymore.

When has providing for a family of eight been the norm in america? I assume you're thinking something like two kids plus all four grandparents living under one roof? That's never been the norm.

Most of the 1600s and 1700s for New England. Quebec for longer, possibly the end of unit 1800s. That’s average number of children per woman, not an extended family. 1800s Ireland, which was probably poorer than the US has been since 1600 had similar fertility.

I still wouldn't say that is the norm, since the infant mortality rate was ~40%. And, if you're producing a baby every 2 years, by the time you're on your 8th baby, your first-borns, should they have lived, would be nearly able-bodied adults with the ability to also work a bit to help support the household or going out and getting married.

And landlords. Productivity improvements get baked into the price of land.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com