• @thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    614 days ago

    Sure, I agree with that. However, we also need to consider what a “net decrease in productivity” actually means for the population as a whole, and whether it’s something we want to accept as a trade-off for more free time. Briefly, we can collectively choose to work four, three, or even two days a week, despite seeing a decrease in overall productivity. However, a decrease in productivity means that stuff like clothes, transport, food, IT services, and pretty much everything you can think of that someone has to produce becomes more scarce.

    You basically need to answer the question of “would you prefer two days off per week with current access to goods and services, or have more days off with reduced access to goods and services”. Of course, there may come along technological innovations that change this in some ways, and there are studies showing that a lot of people can be sufficiently productive on a four-day work week. On a society level, I still think the point stands as an overall tradeoff we need to consider when talking about whether we should reduce the work-week.

    My point is that it’s not just a “capitalists are bad, and we’re owed more free time” thing. If we produce less, then goods and services become scarcer for everyone. I would say the distribution of wealth in society, and how it’s shifted the past 20-50 years is more concerning than the fact that we’re working the same hours as we were 20-50 years ago.

    • @skisnow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      114 days ago

      Most jobs I’ve ever had haven’t been about creating anything used directly by a normal person, they’ve been about optimizing things in ways that squeeze maximum profit for billionaires. I don’t think I’m alone, especially in the developed world.

    • @Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      114 days ago

      However, a decrease in productivity means that stuff like clothes, transport, food, IT services, and pretty much everything you can think of that someone has to produce becomes more scarce.

      Would not having 30 dresses make you unhappier, if you have time to spend doing things you enjoy instead of consumption being the only thing you have to show for all the time you spend at work?

      How much transportation is actually what we need for living and how much is induced by being forced to go to work?

      Food has the amazing ability to just grow with limited human intervention, so there is no reason to assume a reduction in food availability. Also with more free time people could tend to a small garden for some of their food more easily.

      IT services… You are on a platform run by volunteers in their free time. More free time would mean more of such services available.

      Capitalism has outpaced “intrinsic” consumption since at least a hundred years in the industrialized nations. Most consumption is induced by advertisment and social pressure manipulating us to consume more, so we work more, so we consume more, so the rich can extract more wealth in every cycle for themselves. You cannot separate wealth distribution, scarcity and work time from each other.

      For the average people i’d wager the available goods and services wouldn’t change much, as the people who make goods and services exclusive to the super rich like yachts would be producing other goods instead.

    • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      114 days ago

      Briefly, we can collectively choose to work four, three, or even two days a week, despite seeing a decrease in overall productivity.

      Or we can collectively choose to never shorten the work week while productivity continues to outpace wages forever. Which is what republicans and centrist democrats both want.

      • @thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        314 days ago

        You seem to agree with my last point, which was that

        the distribution of wealth in society, and how it’s shifted the past 20-50 years is more concerning

        That is: The major problem we have today is that the increase in production we’ve seen the past 20-50 years has primarily benefited the wealthy. This needs to change. Once we have decent wealth distribution, we can make an informed decision on whether we want to reduce our total productivity in order to have more free time.

        • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          014 days ago

          Once we have decent wealth distribution, we can make an informed decision on whether we want to reduce our total productivity in order to have more free time.

          And since that will have its own set of prerequisites that centrists will work with republicans to block, we’ll keep on as we are, with productivity outpacing wages forever.