this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
1648 points (100.0% liked)

Work Reform

12728 readers
212 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 day ago (9 children)

Because people deserve more time to be people. Not everything has to serve the Holy Economy.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)