h is a user on social.coop. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse.
h @h

The eight-hour day is an anachronism when at current levels of productivity most people should be working only three. It was an achievement more than a hundred years ago when Uruguay made it the law in 1915, but it's not a great thing to not make any progress in a hundred years.

The show must move on.

Β· 66 Β· 74

@h whenever folks talk about this i can't help but wonder how many disabled people could hold a job if employers had healthier, more realistic expectations for everyone across the board.

@ghost i don't subscribe to the workerist ideology. Workerism is basic christianism at its root, a primitive mandate to make people work for kings and lords. It's inhuman especially now that machines can do so much of the work. It's especially inhuman when capitalists *AND* workerist workers enforce this primitive ideology on people who can't be workers. I find it immoral and disgusting, really. People who weren't afforded the same chances by biology should never be held to the same standard

@ghost @h I know I probably could have a job if the average work day was closer to 4 hours (or even 6 hours) a day, and maybe not 5 days a week, but maybe 3? Some of the reasons for "longer" work days do make sense. It's more the matter of work weeks. If "3 hours/day" means "15 hours/week" then many would be happy splitting that a lot of different ways.

@JigmeDatse @ghost I feel your pain. The point I'm trying to make is that one size does not fit all, and that productivity increases of the digital age has not been translated into flexibility for people who need it.

These days it's fixed at 8 for ideological reasons, not a rational, economical, or moral reason.

@h I think we genuinely agree. I just was making a bit of a finer point, as others have (though maybe more specifically). I know that rarely do I really get *more* done, in a longer work day. At least once the length gets beyond a certain length. If I'm *lucky* I manage to "better distribute" it. But that's pretty rare. Mostly it ends up being sitting blankly and being annoyingly unproductive. But since I don't get paid, I can just bugger off at any point.

@JigmeDatse I agree that we agree πŸ˜ƒ

@h Let's limit the work week to a four hour day and raise munimum wage to $1000/hour for MAXIMUM FAIRNESS.


I agree, but I think some exceptions would have to be made in the medical field. We're absolutely overworked & hard limits on things like double & triple shifts would be most welcome. However, handing patients off to different staff every few hours would be a disaster. We'd need to find the happy medium.

@Farrell That seems relatively easy to solve, if you work in pairs.

Not to forget that there are yet part time workers in health care. Seems to work already for the system. The problems in majority effect the part time workers themselves because they often work longer or have to be more efficient than their full time colleagues. This would be out ruled when working hours would be reduced in general.

@h I'm pretty happy with my 30 hour week (5 days, 6 hours each).

If I could earn a (weekly) living in five 3-hour days, I'd probably compress it to three 5-hour days instead, and have the rest for myself.

@zatnosk That's cool, as some other people have pointed out, different work demands different spans of attention.
Personally, I'm happy to work 16-hour days, it takes me 3 hours to load all the information needed to "get in the zone", and 1 hour to unwind and document. But that's not something I can do every week.
The point is that, if the benefits of increased productivity were evenly distributed, no one who has the ability to work should be forced by need to work more than 3 hours on average

@zatnosk Some ideologies appear to be pathologically incapable to learn the difference between positive freedom (the freedom to do something) and negative freedom (the freedom from having to do something).

Some like myself believe that a better world would be one where most people are at liberty of working as much as they want, without being forced by need to work unhealthy shifts, or deplorable conditions, or jobs they abhor, or against their own well-being, or against their will in any way.

@zatnosk That is, I'm as much for positive freedoms of absolutely everybody, as I am for negative freedoms of absolutely everybody.

Some pretend-libertarians of the voluntary unpersuasion and other vulgar libertarians can only hold one type of freedom in their heads at once.
The same goes for some variants of uniformist Marxists and other socialists who are at odds with Karl Marx, whose whole point was that workers should be free from being chained to a job mandated by an overlord.

@h this seems especially stupid when you consider that many modern jobs are of creative kind, take programmers.
I've noticed that I know how much I can do during the day and I just adjust my tempo to that.

@charlag Yeah, why not assume that the absolute worst case scenario of the stupidest idea that fits in your worldview is what I'm thinking without asking for clarification? (j/k)

On a more serious note, I'm a knowledge worker, a programmer, and art aficionado and I agree 100% with you.

I've ellaborated further in the toots pasted below, I'm sure you will agree with most of it.



@h most of the time 8h isn't enough time for me to finish my work. I have hundreds of hours of complex technical work to get done. reducing the length of the work day isn't going to change the amount of work that i need to get done.

@xj9 @h
You don't get it xj, socialists have figured out the amount of time you must work for you, you don't need to think about it yourself anymore.
@xj9 @h
No you don't understand, you don't need freedom, you must work only 3 hours a day for your own good

@h that would be nice but for now I'd settle for just 8 tbh

@corndog It's not everybody's cup of tea, but many of us will do the work that's needed so that everybody benefits.