> a Senate committee report stated that by 2000 the workweek would be down to
just 14 hours, with at least seven weeks off a year.
This is the heart of the matter. And the real question is why has this not happened yet! Depending on your political paradigm -
1. Government simply has shirked their duty to be gradually lowering the standard of full time employment. In fact, they've even let these laws erode through "exempt" positions, etc.
2. The Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy creates an ever-growing housing bubble that eats up people's surplus income, giving people no security, and keeping them on the rent treadmill.
BI is essentially just throwing fuel on this fire. The desire for the idea is understandable - everyone thinks of what they could accomplish if they could quit their job, and the #1 impediment to doing that is the rent they pay every month.
Unfortunately, the only sustainable lifestyle that BI can pay for is to move to the sticks, where land can be bought outright or a dwelling rented for less than the BI. For anyone who wants to stay in a populated area, it's a fantasy - any in-demand real estate market will adjust to eat up the additional surplus. Rather than a nice gradient between the two worlds, it will further cement the divide between rural poverty and urban rat racers.
If we want a world where people can casually move in and out of employment (such technical/memetic pollination is likely necessary to encourage natural tinkering rather than ignorant idleness), then we've really got to fix the underlying economic/regulatory issues.
It hasn't happened yet because we've decided we didn't want it, in favor of a much "better" (for some economic definitions of the word) quality of life. Even in 1970, only 19% of US homes owned dishwashers. In the 1960's the majority of homes didn't own a washer/dryer, didn't have air conditioners, about a quarter of homes didn't have a telephone. We were just barely seeing the beginnings of "fast fashion" as opposed to something like "you five outfits, three for work, one for play, one for Sundays, and that's it"
A quarter of people's income was spent on food in the 60's. What do you spend your income on now? Internet/cable, phone plan, bars and restaurants, movies, education? We spend money on stuff they didn't even dream of in the 60's! If you really wanted to cut all that out, and preserve a 1960's lifestyle, yeah, you could probably do that on a 14 hour work week.
Urban areas were less popular, so that saves on rent. I'd cook the vast majority of meals from scratch, at home, rarely buy clothes, and do my own vehicle maintenance. I likely had a TV, but I didn't pay a monthly subscription for it. My home had electricity, but there wasn't all that much to use it. I'd read the paper a lot. Basically, as a middle class denizen of 1965 (ish) I'd live like a very frugal, or poor, citizen of 2016. And that's why most of us don't work 14 hour weeks.
(fwiw those weren't necessarily mutually-exclusive "options", but different ways of decomposing the problem)
I don't really buy it. The capital costs of dwelling amenities aren't what has driven up the price of housing so much, and the interest on that price is what drives monthly rent, dominating monthly expenses.
The variable expenses end up so high because the alternative doesn't get one ahead much. Why live that frugal lifestyle when doing so nets comparatively little? When you're caught in the time==money trap, it's worth it to pay $20/day to have dinner taken care of. When you don't spend the time picking out and customizing a decent computer/phone, fixing its problems by getting a new one every year seems reasonable. That's the treadmill.
Obviously I'm fine with people explicitly choosing this. I just see many people defaulting into this lifestyle due to economic trends, which are really hidden policy decisions masquerading as inevitabilities.
Dwelling expenses have increased in large part because more people want to live in the same places, like I mentioned in my previous comment. In the last 50 years we've gained another 130 million people and a larger percentage of the population wants to live in urban centers than ever before. You want to live in an apartment on the Upper East Side in the 60's? $90: http://www.6sqft.com/new-york-in-the-60s-apartment-hunting-j...
With inflation, that $90 is $725, which won't get you a closet in Brooklyn these days. However, it will get you a cute little house, in downtown Lubbock, TX: http://lubbock.craigslist.org/apa/5559051429.html
This doesn't have anything to do with inflation or the Federal Reserve. This is just competition for the available space.
Stay on the treadmill or get off of it, it doesn't matter. My point is that we work the same number of hours, not because of hidden policy decisions, or "the man" keeping us down, or what the Federal Reserve decides, but because we like it! You could have a very similar lifestyle to someone living in the 60's and only work ~14 a week if you wanted to, right now! You'd have to make some adjustments, with TV no longer transmitted by radio waves and all, and the population/city problem mentioned earlier, but it's definitely possible, even if you're raising a family, especially for a software engineer. We just really like the treadmill...
Sorry, yes, I know that. However, what I was trying to say was that they didn't dream of the extent/specific implementation of what we do with those things today.
In 1965, the percentage of people with bachelor's degrees was the same as the percentage with master's degrees today. Obviously, people didn't go out to eat nearly as much, and they saw relatively few movies. The entire household shared a phone, and, even for a private line, the total bill was something like $40/month in today's dollars.
So yeah, my point was that we have a crazy luxurious lifestyle, in comparison, to 50 years ago, in the extent and way that we use these things.
My employer has flat-out told me that I could not work fewer hours per week, even with a similar pay decrease. They need the work done, and they feel they need me that many hours per week to do it.
In theory, if they could find another person willing to work fewer hours per week (Hint: They can't), the 2 of us could halve our hours... But that's 2 developers to handle instead of one, which is harder for the managers.
So it's not just that we want a higher quality of life. There are other factors at play as well.
Yes, worker productivity is definitely nonlinear. But they would have less choice if that were the law (obviously getting rid of the exempt loophole). Or if you had enough saved up that your BATNA was to not work anywhere until you found a place with desirable hours.
11 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 31.3 ms ] threadThis is the heart of the matter. And the real question is why has this not happened yet! Depending on your political paradigm -
1. Government simply has shirked their duty to be gradually lowering the standard of full time employment. In fact, they've even let these laws erode through "exempt" positions, etc.
2. The Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy creates an ever-growing housing bubble that eats up people's surplus income, giving people no security, and keeping them on the rent treadmill.
BI is essentially just throwing fuel on this fire. The desire for the idea is understandable - everyone thinks of what they could accomplish if they could quit their job, and the #1 impediment to doing that is the rent they pay every month.
Unfortunately, the only sustainable lifestyle that BI can pay for is to move to the sticks, where land can be bought outright or a dwelling rented for less than the BI. For anyone who wants to stay in a populated area, it's a fantasy - any in-demand real estate market will adjust to eat up the additional surplus. Rather than a nice gradient between the two worlds, it will further cement the divide between rural poverty and urban rat racers.
If we want a world where people can casually move in and out of employment (such technical/memetic pollination is likely necessary to encourage natural tinkering rather than ignorant idleness), then we've really got to fix the underlying economic/regulatory issues.
It hasn't happened yet because we've decided we didn't want it, in favor of a much "better" (for some economic definitions of the word) quality of life. Even in 1970, only 19% of US homes owned dishwashers. In the 1960's the majority of homes didn't own a washer/dryer, didn't have air conditioners, about a quarter of homes didn't have a telephone. We were just barely seeing the beginnings of "fast fashion" as opposed to something like "you five outfits, three for work, one for play, one for Sundays, and that's it"
A quarter of people's income was spent on food in the 60's. What do you spend your income on now? Internet/cable, phone plan, bars and restaurants, movies, education? We spend money on stuff they didn't even dream of in the 60's! If you really wanted to cut all that out, and preserve a 1960's lifestyle, yeah, you could probably do that on a 14 hour work week.
Urban areas were less popular, so that saves on rent. I'd cook the vast majority of meals from scratch, at home, rarely buy clothes, and do my own vehicle maintenance. I likely had a TV, but I didn't pay a monthly subscription for it. My home had electricity, but there wasn't all that much to use it. I'd read the paper a lot. Basically, as a middle class denizen of 1965 (ish) I'd live like a very frugal, or poor, citizen of 2016. And that's why most of us don't work 14 hour weeks.
I don't really buy it. The capital costs of dwelling amenities aren't what has driven up the price of housing so much, and the interest on that price is what drives monthly rent, dominating monthly expenses.
The variable expenses end up so high because the alternative doesn't get one ahead much. Why live that frugal lifestyle when doing so nets comparatively little? When you're caught in the time==money trap, it's worth it to pay $20/day to have dinner taken care of. When you don't spend the time picking out and customizing a decent computer/phone, fixing its problems by getting a new one every year seems reasonable. That's the treadmill.
Obviously I'm fine with people explicitly choosing this. I just see many people defaulting into this lifestyle due to economic trends, which are really hidden policy decisions masquerading as inevitabilities.
With inflation, that $90 is $725, which won't get you a closet in Brooklyn these days. However, it will get you a cute little house, in downtown Lubbock, TX: http://lubbock.craigslist.org/apa/5559051429.html
This doesn't have anything to do with inflation or the Federal Reserve. This is just competition for the available space.
Stay on the treadmill or get off of it, it doesn't matter. My point is that we work the same number of hours, not because of hidden policy decisions, or "the man" keeping us down, or what the Federal Reserve decides, but because we like it! You could have a very similar lifestyle to someone living in the 60's and only work ~14 a week if you wanted to, right now! You'd have to make some adjustments, with TV no longer transmitted by radio waves and all, and the population/city problem mentioned earlier, but it's definitely possible, even if you're raising a family, especially for a software engineer. We just really like the treadmill...
Internet/cable is the only thing on that list people didn't have in the 60s.
In 1965, the percentage of people with bachelor's degrees was the same as the percentage with master's degrees today. Obviously, people didn't go out to eat nearly as much, and they saw relatively few movies. The entire household shared a phone, and, even for a private line, the total bill was something like $40/month in today's dollars.
So yeah, my point was that we have a crazy luxurious lifestyle, in comparison, to 50 years ago, in the extent and way that we use these things.
In theory, if they could find another person willing to work fewer hours per week (Hint: They can't), the 2 of us could halve our hours... But that's 2 developers to handle instead of one, which is harder for the managers.
So it's not just that we want a higher quality of life. There are other factors at play as well.
Is there a plan to adjust for cost of living? I have a feeling San Francisco alone would bankrupt the country!