this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
270 points (77.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43915 readers
1347 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let's not be confused here. Specialization is what allows for free time. If everyone has to farm and hunt, that's all you'd do. Specialization is a good thing for humanity and diverse institutions and industries to arise.
Yes, but if we only have to work on our specializations for 16 hours a week each instead of 40+, we would have a lot more time for other good stuff, whether it's personal development, supporting other specialists, or just hanging out.
i've worked for 20h/w and 40h/w. i think 30/32 is a good balance
People are entitled to their preferences. They should also be entitled to overtime after some amount of hours per week that's lower than forty, I think whatever it takes to bring the rate of unemployment to practically zero.
Typically when unemployment is around 4 percent, that is everyone working that wants to work. The 4 percent is people between jobs and people that are kind of looking for work but not in a rush to work. It difficult to be under that number.
In other words we are often at a point where unemployment is at zero. 4 percent being zero.
I understand and kind of agree with the idea that there is some small amount of unemployment that is practically unavoidable, however, I'm not sure that 4% is it. Per the latest US employment report, we're at 3.8%. So, it seems like we should set the limbo bar lower than 4%.
That report also breaks down the unemployment rate by demographic and it seems to vary significantly between groups. To say that we are at full employment when blacks and hispanics have about 2% greater unemployment than whites and asians seems incorrect. The minimum practical unemployment rate for all of these groups should be the same. So, if we're going to adjust OT in order to help achieve full employment, we should be looking at the unemployment rate for the most unemployed race/gender group.
There are also of course problems with how unemployment is measured and calculated, but I suppose that's a little besides the point.
Regionally there will always be variances. Take Chicago and the loss of the auto industry. It took 25 (???) years for that to clean out. There was nothing to replace it rapidly so either people needed to move or they waited it out till new business evolved. Areas like that will skew the average higher. Maybe you could get an extra percentage nationally but I would say it is pretty close to zero at the moment.
Think about if you had a flat tire in your car. You go to get another tire to replace the one with a hole in it.
But the tire factory only manufactures 300 tires a day. Because they only have a handful of employees who feel like making tires and they only really want to work around 10 hours a week.
Now tires are pretty rare. And that means they are difficult to find. Also, rarity is a supply and demand thing, so now tires are also incredibly expensive. People want a lot of them, but the tire manufacturing plant doesnβt make enough.
Oh, and while you were inside the shop being surprised at the 22 month wait for your replacement tire, and the $3,500 price tag for just the single tire, the other 3 tires were stolen off your car in the parking lot.
Cause people donβt want to pay those prices, or wait that amount of time, which has lead to a massive car tire black market
People would use public transport a lot more. Resulting in much better infrastructure.
Why do we need tire factories working employees 40+ hours a week to make enough tires for everyone? Just hire enough workers so that they all have enough time for a life outside of work. Maybe with a little bit of central planning, we could also reduce the demand for tires by figuring out how to get people to drive less.
Central planning has not been a real benefit to countries that employ it heavily. You just need to look at China, Venezuela, USSR to see the results of current and past ones. It is pretty much a joke.
World War II is a working example of your hypothetical. The country (USA*) had to ration food, shoes, metal, paper, and rubber - so therefore even tires - to name a few. This all happened under capitalism. The country complied and to even make up for the loss of product women joined the workforce - i.e. Rosie the Riveter. I'm not trying to get into an argument but I wanted to point out your example already came and went and the country responded as it would under either economic system.
First of all, I will start with saying that this is a highly unlikely scenario, because modern technology already allows us way way more tires that we need with a fraction of the labor time we put. But let us assume not and entertain this a bit.
This is a perfect example where members of society will find themselves in a situation where there is a big need for tires that is not being met. Instead of hand wavingly complaining and hoping the government or corporations ramp up production, we remember we don't live under capitalism anymore. We are masters of our own destiny! society is now oriented around human need and wants, not profits! Our prime motivation for working is not to please capitalists in exchange for earning enough to live and a little more. It is to serve the interests of ourselves and our communities, and this is a prime example of a need of ourselves and communities.
So because we are unhappy with the state of tires, we decide to contribute more of the large amount of free time we have to produce more tires (and you only need a tiny fraction of humanity to do this. Consider how many people work in the tire industry right now). The fluidity afforded to us by having both free time and the control over production is a lot greater than you think. We do not even have to imagine this. Many historical civilizations did this already. We can only do better because technology grants us a million times the ability they had to produce.
Historical civilizations were not producing tires or any goods for that matter at industrial scales, so that comparison is useless. If you think that the only reason profit motives exist today is to "please capitalists", you need to do some more reading into how the industrial economy works.
We only got to producing more advanced things like tires because of how technology made things so much easier to produce with a fraction of the labor time. This is a continuing trend in history.
And yes I do think that society is oriented around profits (and pleasing capitalists, which happens by producing profits. I find it ironic that you chose this truism to argue against lmao). I hope you don't expect a response to that second part, because it is not argument and not worth responding to.
actually, hunter-gatherer communities 'work' significantly less time than we do in our corporate jobs. farming is a different story: here's one study: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190520115646.htm
You can read that study and see that it only represents one instance where hunter gathers were more efficient than farmers in the same region. You cant use that to say to our current system is less efficient. I hate pop science so much its unreal.
It's also pretty evident that we could not sustain the current population on preindustrial farming let alone hunter gathering.
How about this then?
https://www.ft.com/content/dd71dc3-4566-48e0-a1d9-3e8bd2b3f60f
reminds me of this project https://farm.bot/ .
but a project like this is so slow or nonexistant development ( i would argue: this is because we put all our hope and time into specialization.) this is only maintained by a few people. it doesn't compete or compare with the size and scale of modern industrial farms so nobody really cares and its not deemed to be important.
i suppose thats a good thing. its not worthwhile to persue agriculture anymore. food is cheap.
i'm more worried about paying my landlord.
They also have sky high infant mortality rates
That would then mean we would have to support the entire food supply on hunting rather than farming for this to be true, so basically 90% of the population would have to die
Are you thinking that OP is proposing we go back to hunting? I can guarantee that is not what was meant here.
He basically is, he states that I hunter gathering societies that much less work was done, but significantly more in farming societies as a response to another poster saying specialization and careers are a significant contributor to the free time we do have. If he's not suggesting a hunting society is better I don't know what the point of his comment is.
if only monke had toilet paper and modern comforts
I remember reading in The Mating Mind that since hunter gatherer societies long ago had more leisure time, they could spend it socializing, and growing their brain.
Yup. Hunter gatherers has a lot of free time. Honestly, I think it was pretty swell, except for lack of medical ability perhaps.
Yeah, OPs got the spirit but misses the point. We are being pressured to sell our time at a minimum of 40 hours every week. It's thanks to specialization (and the technology that developed from it) that this quantity of of time is grossly over-allocated. Trade and travel allowed people to create better products in less time, so people were no longer very literally working to live, day-in, day-out. Unfortunately wages are kept low, wealth is kept centralized and culture continues to place value on excess so that we're continually convinced that we "have" to work as many hours as we can find.
I don't understand what you think I missed. When I said "specialization", I meant the idea of just doing one thing and one thing only as a "career". This doesn't mean we shouldn't specialize or that people won't. But if I specialize in construction labor, with the extra time awarded to me I could also participate in design if I wanted.
There's no efficiency while we're supporting a welfare class of bourgeoisie.
heres what wikipedia has to say:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour
historically it seems to have been beneficial.. and led us to where we are currently.