Shorten the work week: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 10:46, 5 April 2025

When people talk about shortening the work week, it's typical to imagine some future sci-fi society. But actually the idea has been viable for decades already.

This whole past century is full of mechanization & automation designed specifically to get more done using less labor. It's just that instead of using it to work less, it's been used to produce more discussion i.e. more goods & services, per capita. In other words, economic growth. Increased production was good at some point in history, to improve quality of life - but that reached diminishing returns, while environmental impacts continued to increase. And ultimately, quality of life would be higher if people didn't have to work so much..

To shorten the work week, we have to be upfront about exactly what we should produce less of.

In other words: Lower the cost of living, by getting rid of some inherent inefficiencies in the system (the type of inefficiencies that benefit no one except rich lobbyists).

How:

Reduce production WITHOUT sacrificing anyone's basic needs (or anything else that matters).

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==History==
+When people talk about shortening the work week, it's typical to imagine some future sci-fi society. But actually the idea has been '''viable''' for decades '''already'''.
-Throughout this past century, there's been plenty of mechanization & automation{{x|and more recently, A.I. - but that's a whole other discussion}}: increase the efficiency of a job -- make it take less labor to do the same amount of work.&nbsp; But instead of people ''working less'', <!--businesses chose-->the {{t2|market|"market", as in, the "invisible hand of the economy", or basically just a lot of businesses doing what they do to maximize profits}} decided to just ''produce more''{{x|i.e. more goods and more services, per capita. The increased production counterbalances the increased efficiencies, so people on average don't work any less than before.}}.&nbsp; Of course, in moderation this can be a very good thing - but we've long reached a point where it's harming the environment, with diminishing returns on quality of life. In fact, quality of life could be a lot higher if people didn't need to work as much.
-==What to cut==
+* This whole past century is full of mechanization & automation designed specifically to get more done using less labor. It's just that instead of using it to '''work less''', it's been used to {{t2|''produce more''|i.e. more goods & services, per capita. In other words, economic growth.{{pbr}}Increased production was good at some point in history, to improve quality of life - but that reached diminishing returns, while environmental impacts continued to increase. And ultimately, quality of life would be higher if people didn't have to work so much.}}.
-To have a world with a shorter work week, we need to be honest about what things we could '''produce less of'''.
-* '''[[We can still have nice things, just not replace them so often]]'''.
-<!--** {{rb|Note: This applies to rich countries a lot more than poor countries.}}-->
-* Also we must be honest about '''[[bullshit jobs|what work we don't actually need done]]'''.
-Then, to put this into practice in real life, we would need radical economic changes. [[/Economics|''Discuss the ways that it could work'']].
+To shorten the work week, we have to be upfront about exactly what we should '''produce less of.'''
+* ''In other words'': Lower the cost of living, by getting rid of some inherent inefficiencies in the system {{light|(the type of inefficiencies that benefit no one except rich lobbyists)}}.
+<big>How:</big>
+* [[reduce production without causing shortages|'''Reduce production WITHOUT sacrificing anyone's basic needs''' (or anything else that matters)]].
+<!-- TALK: also mention [[bullshit jobs]] somewhere here? -->