I remember reading the 6th paragraph as a teenager, it’s still good: “First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two different bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e. of advertising.”
> Throughout Europe, though not in America, there is a third class of men, more respected than either of the classes of workers. These are men who, through ownership of land, are able to make others pay for the privilege of being allowed to exist and to work. These landowners are idle, and I might, therefore, be expected to praise them. Unfortunately, their idleness is rendered possible only by the industry of others; indeed their desire for comfortable idleness is historically the source of the whole gospel of work. The last thing they have ever wished is that others should follow their example.
A century later, still no four-hour workday. Yet our productivity has increased many times.
If the story of AI productivity is true, why are we not seeing the same pay, for fewer hours, with the same output?
Edit: see this quote for context. Wow.
> This is the morality of the Slave State, applied in circumstances totally unlike those in which it arose. No wonder the result has been disastrous. Let us take an illustration. Suppose that at a given moment a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins as before. But the world does not need twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world everybody concerned in the manufacture of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?
1) workers are paid by the hour. If you only work them 4 hrs they make half as much. Their expenses don't decrease, they're pissed.
You could double their hourly wage so all gains from this efficiency go to labor. Wonderful! But then this leads to issue 2
2) a less altruistic competitor will copy your efficiency gain, and instead of distributing to labor with 2x wages, they'll cut the price since each pin costs less. Now customers will buy their pins, not yours. You go belly up and your leisure workers go from 4 hrs a day to 0.
3) let's say all companies are altruistic. Awesome everyone's making 2x per hour and working half as less. Let's say everyone takes up painting. Utopia! But then some workers decide instead of painting they get a second job. Now they're making more and have edge on critical resourcing like housing. The painting ones notice and say "hey! I can't afford a house anymore" and go take up a second job as well. Then we are back to where we started, working 40 hr weeks, just everything is 2x as expensive.
I don't know the solutions, i just think it's worth thinking thru real world implications of proposals outlined here. Its like a giant prisoner's dilemma - it only really seems to work if everyone cooperates and doesn't defect
Great read. In a similar (but not identical) vein, I have been reading "Leisure: The Basis of Culture" (1952) by Josef Pieper, which discusses the concept of "total work" - where every activity of the modern worker's day is either work, or in service of work. Even "leisure" activities are pondered in terms of how maximally leisurely they are, and how much they refresh the worker to prepare for the work week again.
"Leisure" is different from "idleness", as Pieper expands upon early in the book. I'm still only partway through the book, and am not sure I fully understand this difference yet, but I think Bertrand Russell's article shared here is a helpful piece that might get me there.
Leisure, it seems, is a more enlightened and intentional state than idleness, and one is permitted to conduct work-like activities while in a leisurely state, from what I understand. But then this seems to break down as leisure is supposed to be defined as independent of the concept of work. If two individuals are doing the same task, and it appears from the outside to be work, but one is doing it with a "leisurely" state of mind, then is only one of them actually doing work? It appears to be the case, from my reading so far.
I remember reading the 6th paragraph as a teenager, it’s still good: “First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two different bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e. of advertising.”
Great quote. Thank you!
> Throughout Europe, though not in America, there is a third class of men, more respected than either of the classes of workers. These are men who, through ownership of land, are able to make others pay for the privilege of being allowed to exist and to work. These landowners are idle, and I might, therefore, be expected to praise them. Unfortunately, their idleness is rendered possible only by the industry of others; indeed their desire for comfortable idleness is historically the source of the whole gospel of work. The last thing they have ever wished is that others should follow their example.
Ahhh, how times have changed indeed!
A century later, still no four-hour workday. Yet our productivity has increased many times.
If the story of AI productivity is true, why are we not seeing the same pay, for fewer hours, with the same output?
Edit: see this quote for context. Wow.
> This is the morality of the Slave State, applied in circumstances totally unlike those in which it arose. No wonder the result has been disastrous. Let us take an illustration. Suppose that at a given moment a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins as before. But the world does not need twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world everybody concerned in the manufacture of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?
In the real world there's at least three issues
1) workers are paid by the hour. If you only work them 4 hrs they make half as much. Their expenses don't decrease, they're pissed.
You could double their hourly wage so all gains from this efficiency go to labor. Wonderful! But then this leads to issue 2
2) a less altruistic competitor will copy your efficiency gain, and instead of distributing to labor with 2x wages, they'll cut the price since each pin costs less. Now customers will buy their pins, not yours. You go belly up and your leisure workers go from 4 hrs a day to 0.
3) let's say all companies are altruistic. Awesome everyone's making 2x per hour and working half as less. Let's say everyone takes up painting. Utopia! But then some workers decide instead of painting they get a second job. Now they're making more and have edge on critical resourcing like housing. The painting ones notice and say "hey! I can't afford a house anymore" and go take up a second job as well. Then we are back to where we started, working 40 hr weeks, just everything is 2x as expensive.
I don't know the solutions, i just think it's worth thinking thru real world implications of proposals outlined here. Its like a giant prisoner's dilemma - it only really seems to work if everyone cooperates and doesn't defect
[dead]
Earlier discussions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10310846 – Oct 2015 (24 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10876730 – Jan 2016 (25 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21509144 – Nov 2019 (82 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29338666 – Nov 2021 (173 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40257677 – May 2024 (108 comments)
Great read. In a similar (but not identical) vein, I have been reading "Leisure: The Basis of Culture" (1952) by Josef Pieper, which discusses the concept of "total work" - where every activity of the modern worker's day is either work, or in service of work. Even "leisure" activities are pondered in terms of how maximally leisurely they are, and how much they refresh the worker to prepare for the work week again.
"Leisure" is different from "idleness", as Pieper expands upon early in the book. I'm still only partway through the book, and am not sure I fully understand this difference yet, but I think Bertrand Russell's article shared here is a helpful piece that might get me there.
Leisure, it seems, is a more enlightened and intentional state than idleness, and one is permitted to conduct work-like activities while in a leisurely state, from what I understand. But then this seems to break down as leisure is supposed to be defined as independent of the concept of work. If two individuals are doing the same task, and it appears from the outside to be work, but one is doing it with a "leisurely" state of mind, then is only one of them actually doing work? It appears to be the case, from my reading so far.
I was first introduced to the concept of "total work" by Andrew Taggart's excellent article "The Secret to Office Happiness Isn't Working Less - it's Caring Less" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170810035800/https://qz.com/10...).
Are there any other related works on the concepts of "total work", "leisure", or "idleness" that people would recommend here?
If one wants to go deeper, and more radical, may I recommend Bob Black's "The Abolition of Work": https://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/abolitionofwork.ht...
I read the first few paragraphs and it still hasn't gotten to the point..
Definitely still an interesting read almost 100 years later.
I remember my Dad giving me this to read when I was about 14, just the thing for a teen who was getting snowed under with school work!
I wonder if passively consuming online/offline content is considered idling!
I am so good at this!
Thank you for this!