[caseysoftware]

We are translating these into the option of increased quality of life. The fact that people spend 2-3 hours/day watching TV, YouTube, and screwing around online in general is a demonstration that most people do have a higher quality of life.

Or to put it another way, most people don't have to work 16+ hours/day just to stay alive.

What people choose to spend that time doing is up to them. Most will use it to watch TV/Netflix/etc while a much smaller number will work on skills and things to make their lives better.

[Dylan16807]

> Or to put it another way, most people don't have to work 16+ hours/day just to stay alive.

They almost never had to, so that's a pretty lousy bar to use.

If you're working a ton of hours in a low wage job, there's a good chance you can't get a stable home if you cut back to a reasonable amount of hours. In a situation like that it's not "optional", even if you wouldn't actually die.

Even if you have a solid 40 hours a week job, and you get paid well enough that you'd be happy cutting back to 32 hours a week, it's very hard to arrange something like that. It's only optional if you have an especially good negotiation position or you're lucky, not if you're a normal worker.

> a much smaller number will work on skills and things to make their lives better

It's pretty awful to expect someone that's already working far more than full time to spend even more time practicing work skills on top of that. Anyone that can do so is amazing, but anyone that doesn't do so should not be blamed.

Edit: To the dead reply to this: No one with an ounce of self respect is going to incentivize leisure? Even if you have no humanity in you, and don't think people deserve a single free hour in the week, it's less efficient to work people until they're worn out. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face because the poors don't "deserve" it. People don't get depressed because they lack 100+ hours of labor to slog through in a week. The ennui of feeling no purpose kicks in a hell of a lot lower than that.

[throwaway0887]

> They almost never had to, so that's a pretty lousy bar to use.

That's a pretty naive thing to say IMO. Humans almost always had to work that much, especially after agriculture was invented.

[caseysoftware]

> They almost never had to, so that's a pretty lousy bar to use.

If you limit your perspective to the last ~120 years, you are correct. I did not.

[Dylan16807]

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/07/22/modern-american-me...

There were a couple periods where the norm for many was horribly long factory hours. But in the long view it was definitely not normal to work 16 hour days, year round, with modern minimal break lengths.

[viklove]

You're completely missing the point and using this as an opportunity to call wage laborers lazy. Nice.

As automation becomes more pervasive, billionaires and VCs are not the only ones who should be benefitting from it. Wage laborers should also get rewards from that, meaning higher wages, and no need to work 40+ hour weeks. We should be working on improving QOL for all people, not just wealthy asset holders.

But sure, just call them lazy so you can feel good about yourself when you keep treading all over them.

[dmos62]

I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you saying that automation and reduced manpower requirement is reasonably trickling down to the working class or that it isn't?