Hacker News Reader

Comment by zitterbewegung | Hacker News Reader

It’s strange that we even work more or even at the same amount of time as 100 years ago.

We have systems that increase worker productivity and even software by itself for the most part should be decreasing the amount of work to be done since it’s supposedly a large force multiplier for productivity.

Economists predicted we would be working less (but they are bad at predicting most things) so while there might be a few more jobs why should work hours have stayed constant? I’m not even saying we have bs jobs either.

View on HN

//It’s strange that we even work more or even at the same amount of time as 100 years ago.

We don’t. A hundred years the average man was putting in 7 to 7 shifts on the factory or the farm. Physically exhausting, dangerous and painful labor that required your physical presence and likely left you too exhausted for anything else.

Today you and I are click clacking our keyboards in a safe and air conditioned environment, likely can fuck off for hours with out anyone noticing etc.

The idea that we work “the same” as even two generations ago is preposterous.

Add to that our much improved relative standard of living (even lower classes are much better off than their long ago counter parts), and it’s clear we’re working less for what we get.

On top of that, most of those farmers were earning subsistence wages and could be ruined by one bad harvest.

Much like the anti-vax movement, the average American seems in complete denial of how things really were a hundred years ago. Prior to unions, work looked completely different - EVERYONE has benefitted from the change unions brought about.

It's easy to tell yourself that sort of thing would never happen in a country like this when you weren't a direct witness to people (including children) literally being worked to death in a factory.

Yeah, I'm glad The Jungle was required reading in my high school history class.

> EVERYONE has benefitted from the change unions brought about

The unions brought us the congés payés in France in 1936. Think about the guilt. While the Germans where manufacturing bombs day and night in Germany, we were on the frigging beach.

Thank you, unions, we got invaded because of your irresponsibility. Also half of France had congés payés in 1935. Unions only brought the to sectors who couldn’t afford it.

> Prior to unions, work looked completely different

Average working hours were dropping for decades before Labor Unions became popular in the 1930s driven by the productivity gains referenced elsewhere in the thread. The trend continued unabated other than an increase during WWII even after Union membership peaked in 1980 and dropped for 30 years. It doesn’t seem that Labor Unions were the cause of this improvement trend.

1. https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours

That seems to be a US centric view (and the US is different when it comes to unions from continental Europe, for example).

>Average working hours were dropping for decades before Labor Unions became popular in the 1930s driven by the productivity gains referenced elsewhere in the thread. The trend continued unabated other than an increase during WWII even after Union membership peaked in 1980 and dropped for 30 years. It doesn’t seem that Labor Unions were the cause of this improvement trend.

Huh? The first labor union in the US was created in 1768. Unions were WELL established in the US in the 1930s. Did you think corporate owners were willingly giving back the time gained through productivity to workers? You need only look to China where they've had even greater productivity gains over the last 20 years and people are still literally living at their place of work and clocking in 12+ hour days every day of the week.

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0113/the-history...

Indeed. I would also add the climate-change cult to the list. They forget how bad things were just 100 years ago.

We are in the mess we are in to a large degree because of the historical emissions.

There is much less pollution now, life expectancy has never been higher, deaths from natural disasters have never been lower, etc, etc.

Only a pathological pessimist would describe today’s world a mess compared to what it was 100 years ago.

> Only a pathological pessimist would describe today’s world a mess compared to what it was 100 years ago.

The problem is the future outlook, not the status quo. Climate change effects on the Northern Hemisphere (i.e. continental USA, most of Europe) haven't really become visible yet, at least not for up until the last 5-ish years that have all blown past records for extreme adversary weather events.

In addition to that comes the migration issue that will be caused by climate change. Our societies are already struggling keeping up with people fleeing from war and poverty in the South - give Africa 10-20 more years of climate change and droughts, and then the situation will be dire. Alone up to 2050 (so, in the next 26 years), predictions go for 86 million people having to flee from Africa [1] - and half of Europe fell to the far right with barely 5 million refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and other wars. We're nowhere near prepared to deal with the future.

[1] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1263402/umfra...

If we really do care, we cannot have people living in Northern Europe, America and Canada. It is criminal to insist to live under conditions humans cannot survive without heating.

I suggest mass migration to Africa.

The problem is not heating or cooling for humans, we have technology for that (and solar power to provide power for it).

The problem is growing the crops to feed these people, which is getting harder and harder every year due to the combination of Western donations out-competing local farms and especially the rise of desertification - in 2012, it was estimated that two thirds of the land area of the entirety of Africa that's still viable for farming would be gone by 2030 [1].

[1] https://www.un.org/africarenewal/web-features/desertificatio...

During the industrial revolution yes, but if you go back further in time we still have it relatively bad

Those of us who survive childbirth and childhood probably do work longer hours than some of our ancestors.

I refuse to agree that it is "relatively bad" because I am happy that I live in a medically advanced civilisation with low childhood mortality and high life expectancies.

I guess if you only look at the upsides it's not such a bad place.

Likewise, I guess if you only look at the downsides it's not such a great place.

idk, the medically advanced civilization means my parents are paying 5k a month for my grandma's retirement house, essentially draining all their savings. Is this progress or were multi generation house better ? What's sure is that my parent's 90sqm house they're paying for the last 20 years and will pay for the next 15 years isn't big enough for that

My grandparents afforded 4 kids on a single paycheck, I can barely sustain myself and my gf while having a job in one of the best paying sector. They retired at 60, while working 35 hours per week, at that rate I won't legally be able to retire before 70+ and I'm working 42 hours per week

I could go on and on and on

How big was their house? 3 of my 4 grandparents grew up in multi-generational houses, all of their parents were very working class, and yes they "afforded" raising kids and housing their elderly. Their houses were not bigger than 100 sqm though. All shared rooms, and there was typically 1 bathroom for the entire household. Clothes were hand me downs and meals were only what they could afford, so the meat in their diet was mostly weird low quality stuff. They shared bath water! The lifestyle described is 100% still attainable today. It is your parent's choice not to have grandparents in the house - in line with societal standards today, but certainly not impossible.

In the tech bubble maybe, but in the real world certainly not. In the golden age you had that as a fancy factory worker, now you have that if you're well paid in a well paid industry

Real wages completely flattened since the 70s, and even declined in some western countries, while working hours and retirement age both increased. No one in 2024 supports a family and buys a new home/car on a factory salary, I can't even afford any of that while being in the top 20% earners in Germany, given the average cost per sqm and the current mortgage settings, I could afford a 50sqm house with a 30 years mortgage...

// can't even afford any of that while being in the top 20% earners in Germany

I ask this as a sincere question - according to Google, 50% of germans live in a home they own, and obviously some Germans are having kids (although the birth rate is horrendous)

Who are the people that are buying home and having kids? Are these activities limited to the 1%?

Couples with high income, inheritance, people who live on credit and debt, &c.

Not many can afford a new house with a single income, let alone to support a family with kids, maybe not 1% earners but definitely around 10%. A friend of mine has kids, they spend 60% of their household income on the flat they rent (2 salaries, both a good 20% above average for the city), that's before the car, heating, electricity, kids spendings, food, &c. and they're already one hour away from the city center by train

There isn't much up for debate I'm afraid:

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ifomkf25BuW...

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?id=QDEN628BI...

https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/416207/average-annual-wag...

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlo-Jaeger/publicatio...

https://www.move.org/app/uploads/2020/04/Home-price-changes-...

The idea that in 1924 people were working 84-hour weeks (including Sunday!) is preposterous. For example Ford introduced the 8-hour day at its factories in 1914.

You were responding to somebody talking about farm labor, by talking about industrial labor. I'm not gonna pick a side here, but to say that what you each present as fact is not in conflict.

They're saying that the person above was misrepresenting average working hours by choosing the farming industry to make their comparison.

He’s not wrong, though hh. The claim made was true 150-175 years ago, but not 100.

The actual origin of kindergarten were 4 years old running the streets alone - while BOTH parents worked 12 hours a day in a factory. Maybe excluding Sunday, I am not sure now. Industrial revolution was brutal on people.

Ford could introduce 8 hours long day only because 8 hours a day was far from norm at that time.

if you go back another 100 years to 1824 then yes you have a truly awful system. The "infernal mills" of England were fed by cotton exported from Southern slave plantations. Most people took Sunday off but 12-hour days were common. This period was absolutely not seen as normal or acceptable by the people living through it and gave rise to massive social unrest as well as the socialist movement. It is immortalized in fictional works like "Oliver Twist" and "Les Miserables" which show widespread concern for the shocking plight of the urban poor at that time. By 1924 material conditions had improved vastly, industrial action and labor movements worldwide had won legal concessions, and 12-hour days were much more rare. Ford's 8-hour day was less than the average but not radically so.

The argument has another side, equally preposterous: That because of the increased productivity we should all be wealthy, working a few hours a day to do the "same" work, or being rewarded proportionally more (of course, inflation adjusted) for working more than that.

It's preposterous because relative wages have stagnated relative to productivity boons, but oh man has standard of living increased as you say. A person would have to work lifetimes to get an iPhone-equivalent luxury (if it existed) back then. Now basically anyone working (and a bunch not) have them.

Can we trade iPhones and TVs for retiring at 40, with healthcare, housing, and food for life?

I mean, if you work in tech (high wages), live somewhere not america (free healthcare), are willing to live somewhere not ostentatious, the answer is almost certainly yes.

There is a whole movement around it called FIRE.

There is this, https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si... which is pretty similar. And yes, I am well aware not everyone can achieve this. Families are expensive, eating out with friends is expensive, not everyone makes $X per year.

But still, some people live on as little as possible and invest in their retirement aggressively. I have some friends who are into this, they drive that same shitty car from college, live with roommates, cook everything at home, etc. They are content living with that knowing they are investing for retirement in their 40s.

> Can we trade iPhones and TVs for retiring at 40, with healthcare, housing, and food for life?

No, because we don’t have enough people younger than 40 to support half the population being retired, let alone the productivity loss from the absence of later career workers, nor the loss of capital and tax income from those age groups. The only alternative would be autonomous robots and they require the skill and capital those age groups provide and autonomous robots are way harder than iPhones and TVs!

Well yes - if you are willing to adopt a standard of living from 100 years ago, then you can probably easily afford it with modest savings at age 40 or even less. I'm talking multi-generation homes in a not-very-urban area, maybe a car, and you have to fix a bunch of stuff yourself.

If you wish to retire on the median standard of living from 2024, well, that's gonna cost median wages from 2024. If you want to retire on your standard of living, well, you'll need 40 years of your income to last you till 80. That's hard to do.

The median standard of living nowadays is lightyears ahead of the median standard of living from 100, 200, etc years ago. That's almost all productivity increases spread around to all of us.

iPhone is irrelevant. Relevant issues are homelessness rates, affordability of healthcare or education, pensions in an old age.

I hope it was clear that an iphone was just an example. But your examples are better. Healthcare and education is more accessible and better than it was in the 1920s or 30s by a long shot. It's not even comparable.

And very few people had pensions back then either. The standard 401k is like a money printer compared to options back then. There certainly were times when pensions were more widespread. But I don't think if you zoom out to 50-100-200 year timelines, that healthcare, education, and retirement security are even comparable.

> We don’t. A hundred years the average man was putting in 7 to 7 shifts on the factory or the farm. Physically exhausting, dangerous and painful labor that required your physical presence and likely left you too exhausted for anything else.

Historically, that is an anomaly that only started with the industrial age [1].

[1] https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...

This as been debunked countless of time, besides the dark ages of the industrial revolution people actually worked less than our 40-50 hours per weeks, every week of the year, from 20 to 65+

I am confident that if you were given the option of toiling like someone had to do 100+ years ago, you'd run back crying to your 42 hours a week German tech sector job after like an hour.

I can't help but notice that you're basically broadcasting signs of depression all over this thread. It's like "the answer is: everything is horrible and worse than even, what was the question?" I don't mean to pick on that but do you know this about yourself?

Everything isn't worse and horrible, it's just that the value proposition shifted so much that it's not worth the effort, you have to run faster and faster to maintain the mirage. You get a deluge of cheap bells and whistles gadgets while the fundamentals keep getting further and further.

The social contract holds when you know your kids will have a better life than you did, when you notice you don't even have your grandparents standards you know it's fucked

But you are not trying to produce a fixed amount of goods. You are trying to compete with your peers for a limited supply of goods. Some of these things are artificially constrained (housing), and some of these things are hard or impossible to scale and thereby subject to Baumol's cost disease (surgeons, teachers/tutors, etc.)

So long as 2 people are chasing 1 house, or worse, one oncology appointment for their child, you will have people working themselves to the bone to outcompete their peers. We could, of course, allow building more homes and improve the supply of healthcare, but that might mean people wouldn't work as hard, which would mean less surplus wealth for capital owners and state actors to enjoy.

>But you are not trying to produce a fixed amount of goods

At some point we should, for the most part of what we consume, instead of ever expanding into BS things we don't need (like "smart fridges") and burning down things we do need (time, which we aren't getting back, and is spend working and paying for such bullshit).

Absolutely! All I really want is a warm, insulated home where my kids can run and bike around with other kids, and decent access to education and health care. A 70sqm flat in a car-free city would do the trick. We definitely need less crap in our lives, and more time with the people we love.

Because humans don’t care about absolute wealth they care about relative wealth. As long as someone else is working more there’s going to be pressure to keep up with them.

I assume 'absolute wealth' means some amount (or not) of property, assets, that one's content with? Not like I'll be happy with 100k in the bank no matter how much anyone else has - because that just doesn't make sense, it's inherently relative; to care about the absolute value we have to mean real goods.

So then I think it's just plainly not true? I think most people even want particular things, not to have the same or more things as others. To the extent that it's clichéd parenting, or associated with derogatory remarks like 'social climber', 'keeping up with the Jones', etc.

Certainly Instagram and 'influencer' culture in general acts against that, but it's not hard to find people eschewing it either.

I believe the purpose of life is to create possibility. If that’s true, there will never be an incentive to work less so long as there is more possibility to be created (assuming that people are living purposefully, and it seems to me that those that don’t are evolutionarily selected against)

What if there's a point where superintelligent AI is out there creating all the possibility?

Also, "creating possibility" sounds kind of like "self actualization" ie. the top of Maslow's hierarchy.

Your first question is a good one to which I don’t have an answer.

On the second: possibility applies at all levels of the hierarchy. Obtaining basic health increases possibility — it increases the ways you can navigate the world at a simple physical level, and “unlocks” The possibility of “higher levels” e.g. relationships, which unlock still higher levels of possibility.

I think the data are that we are working a bit less than we used to, it's rather that the norms and mental categories have shifted. For example 40hr work week is now a sort of norm, vs "sunrise to sunset."

The average workday is also much safer and less physically painful than it used to be.

There are two things I have in mind, and if I have time later I'll see if I can find them and update the post -- one chart of total working hours per worker, and one article, about how much added safety has or hasn't slowed down productivity growth (which inevitably has a lot of data in it about workplace injury and death over time).

Children also work much less than they used to.

I think that Keynes wasn't completely wrong in his prediction (...and maybe if AI really kicks off he will be more vindicated, just missed on the timing)

The things that make the maintenance of modern infrastructure easier themselves need maintenance.

There’s also a hedonic treadmill effect, where we start to expect the amenities that modern infrastructure affords and use them as a base for greater aspirations (ground travel is solved for the average person, now let’s solve air -> space -> etc)

Regardless of the facts, actually it does fall out from certain first principles: https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch

If someone else worked harder, they'd out-compete you, maybe conquer you. So we set a threshold and say, you can work 40-80-ish hours without going totally insane and dying. But there's no point working less than that, because someone else is ready to push the envelope. Even if the whole US agreed to just take it easy, I fear the other two superpowers (China and..... well Russia seems weak, maybe India?) would outdo us in GDP and it wouldn't be a great position politically to be in, since the US is my favorite superpower by a country mile.

It's unfortunate math.

> It's unfortunate math.

True, but only in the sense of "the math" itself being a big McNamara fallacy. Not only does GDP have some potential pitfalls, but "more people working harder" doesn't necessarily mean working toward success or future globe domination etc.

It's the same in Europe. We work on average way less than you do in US.

... and well, it's USA that is the superpower, not Europe.

Even looking at software salaries - in Germany/France 50k is a high salary for software engineer. In USA you wouldn't even look at it after being fresh out the uni.

An image is worth a thousand words: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/US_produ...

Work may have not decreased, but due to productivity an hour of work buys WAY more than it did 100 years ago. Our shelter is larger, climate-controlled, with plumbing and electricity. Our food has way more variety, quality, and year-round availability, carries fewer diseases, and can be stored in a giant cold box inside our homes for longer preservation. Our transportation is climate-controlled, faster, safer, and more convenient.

Everything we use our wages on has seen massive gains in quality. It’s just that instead of working less and being just as poor as we were in 1924, we work the same and buy the uber top level wealthy (in 1924 terms) version of everything.

> It’s strange that we even work more or even at the same amount of time as 100 years ago.

why is this strange?

if a candybar maker spends $0.75 to make a candybar and sell it for $1.00 and then they suddenly find they can make 2 for the same price, they're going to continue selling them individually for $1.00.

When you increase productivity like that you now have an effective increase in available resources, why would you assume there's only 1 place those effective resources can go?

There is more work to go around. Back in the day, the only work that was required was sustaining one's caloric intake via farming (not to even mention the sibling's point that that work was much more strenuous that today's). As civilization advances, more work is uncovered. It is akin to a form of Parkinson's Law (work expands to fill the time allotted), only in this case, the time allotted is the entire future history of humanity.

It’s by choice. Most people in the US could achieve 1920s standard of living by working for a fraction of standard career (say 10-20 years), and retiring early. Instead, people choose to work till old age, to be able to afford modern comforts and pleasures.

If you’re working half the time versus millions of comparably talented people full time: you will soon be out of a job (if employee) or a business (if employer).

Maybe those cconomists were already working less, which explains why their predictions were crap.

It's the Jevons paradox, but for labour.

If you want the same quality of life of 100 years ago you don’t need to work at all.

This is bizarrely incongruous with the news about living conditions experienced by people who are homeless, disabled, etc. Anyone who isn’t working is going to have a worse experience than almost anyone who was working a century ago - even coal miners got to sleep indoors!

Being unemployed does not result in homelessness unless you also join it with either a drug addition or an aversion to the requirements of unemployment/shelter programs.

And unemployed people don't have to go into the mines.

You’re assuming that those programs are well funded enough to have space available, it’s safe, and doesn’t come with the expectation of working. I don’t know where you live but that’s a long way from being universally true in the United States.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com