We can do what we want to. We decide. If we want that, that’s what we get. The only ones who don’t want that are the land/production system owners and the system of capitalism.
There is nothing inherently “normal” or “natural” or “good” about the system under which we toil and slave, except you would be hard pressed to believe it when you speak to people because they are so deeply indoctrinated in that mode of thinking that they will fight to keep it. For some fucking reason.
We’d have to double to triple the workforce in logistics and construction and other necessary sectors. A reduction in work hours necessarily means a reduction in standard of living - even with CEO wages factored in - because the overhead of necessities grows compared to societal achievements. We need the same amount of food delivered and the same amount of houses built, but now it takes two to three times as many people to do it. The same applies to doctors or teachers, so the additional workforce would come from other segments - which finally means reduction in standard of living for the average citizen.
This assumes steady productive output. In some sectors, this assumption is wrong, but I think it’s a fair assumption for logistics and construction.
Putting all essential jobs together (health, education, construction, logistics, agriculture, food retail, utilities, public administration, plus the required manufacturing and IT infrastructure) is already 50-55% of the workforce. In order for everyone to halve their workday, we’d all have to exclusively work only for the status quo. Which means no watches, no smartphones, no TV, no cinema, no museums, no parks.
A reduction of work hours would be nice, no question. But we also have to remember that the work goes somewhere and time/energy/resource efficiency matters on a fundamental biological level. We have to be a productive part of society for it to function, and while this is usually co-opted by capitalists to extract money, it remains a fact of life.
E: We’re already having healthcare only because we’re exploiting healthcare workers to the maximum. Even at the current status quo, treating them fairly would just not work. We’re already in a state of broken equilibrium between what we need and what we want. The healthcare workforce would have to double only for them to have a 40h work week.
And then there’s people with three jobs who still can’t make ends meet. I propose we make the 40h week work for everyone first before we reduce further.
the additional workforce would come from other segments - which finally means reduction in standard of living for the average citizen.
This is a great point, one also addressed by Kropotkin in The Conquest of Bread. However, you’re assuming all labor meaningfully contributes to our standard of living and produces “societal achievements”. I’m not so sure about that, I have yet to see any benefit from e.g. the advertising industry.
As Kropotkin and Graeber both argue, capitalism breeds many bullshit jobs that help capital accumulation but don’t actually contribute to a better society. Transferring those workers to necessary jobs alone would allow us to work less without a meaningful loss in standard of living.
Will that get us to 4/10/10? Probably not, but I like to be a little aspirational. If you only demand a workable 40h workweek that’s all you’re getting, if that. Any further demand will simply be met with “but we already gave you what you wanted you ungrateful peasant!” :)
‘…while this is usually co-opted by capitalists to extract money’. You just solved your own problem. Fairer taxes means more money for healthcare, social services, logistical services and essential services.
Under your proposal, we continue with ever-increasing productivity with ever-decreasing living standards until all the wealth is concentrated in one cunt’s wallet.
Also, you’re going to quickly find we’ll soon beg for the ability to maintain the status quo once climate change really gets going. Which capitalism has caused, by the way. Both the problem and final solution, fittingly enough.
My proposal is based on fair prices to begin with. I’m saying we as humanity don’t have enough work capacity to sustain ourselves if we don’t contribute a certain minimum because of necessities. I’m not simping for capitalism, I’m saying there’s a lower limit of work hours a day we need to contribute to even exist.
We probably need closer to 10hrs of sleep (e.g.).
I think a 24 hr workweek is pretty ideal, distributed as one prefers (3x8 up to 6x4), so 4hrs work per day not counting Sundays.
4/10/10 is what we should strive for in the current age I think.
We can do what we want to. We decide. If we want that, that’s what we get. The only ones who don’t want that are the land/production system owners and the system of capitalism.
There is nothing inherently “normal” or “natural” or “good” about the system under which we toil and slave, except you would be hard pressed to believe it when you speak to people because they are so deeply indoctrinated in that mode of thinking that they will fight to keep it. For some fucking reason.
We’d have to double to triple the workforce in logistics and construction and other necessary sectors. A reduction in work hours necessarily means a reduction in standard of living - even with CEO wages factored in - because the overhead of necessities grows compared to societal achievements. We need the same amount of food delivered and the same amount of houses built, but now it takes two to three times as many people to do it. The same applies to doctors or teachers, so the additional workforce would come from other segments - which finally means reduction in standard of living for the average citizen.
This assumes steady productive output. In some sectors, this assumption is wrong, but I think it’s a fair assumption for logistics and construction.
Putting all essential jobs together (health, education, construction, logistics, agriculture, food retail, utilities, public administration, plus the required manufacturing and IT infrastructure) is already 50-55% of the workforce. In order for everyone to halve their workday, we’d all have to exclusively work only for the status quo. Which means no watches, no smartphones, no TV, no cinema, no museums, no parks.
A reduction of work hours would be nice, no question. But we also have to remember that the work goes somewhere and time/energy/resource efficiency matters on a fundamental biological level. We have to be a productive part of society for it to function, and while this is usually co-opted by capitalists to extract money, it remains a fact of life.
E: We’re already having healthcare only because we’re exploiting healthcare workers to the maximum. Even at the current status quo, treating them fairly would just not work. We’re already in a state of broken equilibrium between what we need and what we want. The healthcare workforce would have to double only for them to have a 40h work week.
And then there’s people with three jobs who still can’t make ends meet. I propose we make the 40h week work for everyone first before we reduce further.
This is a great point, one also addressed by Kropotkin in The Conquest of Bread. However, you’re assuming all labor meaningfully contributes to our standard of living and produces “societal achievements”. I’m not so sure about that, I have yet to see any benefit from e.g. the advertising industry.
As Kropotkin and Graeber both argue, capitalism breeds many bullshit jobs that help capital accumulation but don’t actually contribute to a better society. Transferring those workers to necessary jobs alone would allow us to work less without a meaningful loss in standard of living.
Will that get us to 4/10/10? Probably not, but I like to be a little aspirational. If you only demand a workable 40h workweek that’s all you’re getting, if that. Any further demand will simply be met with “but we already gave you what you wanted you ungrateful peasant!” :)
‘…while this is usually co-opted by capitalists to extract money’. You just solved your own problem. Fairer taxes means more money for healthcare, social services, logistical services and essential services.
Under your proposal, we continue with ever-increasing productivity with ever-decreasing living standards until all the wealth is concentrated in one cunt’s wallet.
Also, you’re going to quickly find we’ll soon beg for the ability to maintain the status quo once climate change really gets going. Which capitalism has caused, by the way. Both the problem and final solution, fittingly enough.
My proposal is based on fair prices to begin with. I’m saying we as humanity don’t have enough work capacity to sustain ourselves if we don’t contribute a certain minimum because of necessities. I’m not simping for capitalism, I’m saying there’s a lower limit of work hours a day we need to contribute to even exist.