[_heimdall]

I don't think its about capitalism, people have repeatedly shown we simply just don't like idle time over the long run.

Plenty of people could already work less today if they just spent less. Historically any of the last big productivity booms could have similarly let people work less, but here we are.

If AI actually comes about and if AGI replaces humans at most cognitive labor, we'll find some way to keep ourselves busy even if the jobs ultimately are as useless as the pet rock or the Jump to Conclusions Mat (Office Space reference for anyone who hasn't seen it).

[chongli]

I don’t think it’s that simple. Productivity gains are rarely universal. Much of the past century’s worth of advancement into automation and computing technology has generated enormous productivity gains in manufacturing, communication, and finance industries but had little or no benefit for a lot of human capital-intensive sectors such as service and education.

It still takes basically the same amount of labour hours to give a haircut today as it did in the late 19th century. An elementary school teacher today can still not handle more than a few tens up to maybe a hundred students at the extreme limit. Yet the hairdressing and education industries must still compete — on the labour market — with the industries showing the largest productivity gains. This has the effect of raising wages in these productivity-stagnant industries and increasing the cost of these services for everyone, driving inflation.

Inflation is the real time-killer, not a fear of idleness. The cost of living has gone up for everyone — rather dramatically, in nominal terms — without even taking housing costs into account.

[_heimdall]

Productivity gains aren't universal, agreed there for sure, though we have long since moved past needing to optimize productivity for the basics. Collectively we're addicted to trading our time and effort for gadgets, convenience, and status symbols.

I'm not saying those are bad things, people can do whatever they want with their own time and effort. It just seems obvious to me that we aren't interested in working less over any meaningful period of time, if that was a goal we could have reached it a long time ago by defining a lower bar for when we have "enough."

[AlecSchueler]

> idle time

But they're not talking about idle time, they're talking about quality time with loved ones.

> Plenty of people could already work less today if they just spent less.

But spending for leisure is often a part of that quality time. The idea is being able to work less AND maintain the same lifestyle.

[_heimdall]

> But they're not talking about idle time, they're talking about quality time with loved ones.

I totally agree there, I wasn't trying to imply that "idle time" is a bad thing, in this context I simply meant its time not filled by obligations allowing them to choose what they do.

> But spending for leisure is often a part of that quality time.

I expect that varies a lot by person and situation. Some of the most enjoyable experiences I've had involved little or no cost; having a camp fire with friends, going on a hike, working outside in the garden, etc.

[AlecSchueler]

> I wasn't trying to imply that "idle time" is a bad thing

I you, I just mean what they're talking about is also not idle time as it's active time. If they were replacing work with sitting around at home, watching TV or whatever, then it would be idle time and drive them crazy no doubt. But spending time actively with their family is quite different, and would give satisfaction in a way that work does.

> I expect that varies a lot by person and situation.

Indeed. Spending isn't an inherent part of leisure. But it can be a part of it, and important part for some people. Telling them they could have more free time if they just gave up their passions or hobbies which cost money isn't likely to lead anywhere.

[smokel]

It's slightly more complicated than that. If people work less, they make less money, and that means they can't buy a house, to name just one example. Housing is not getting any cheaper for a myriad of reasons. The same goes for healthcare, and even for drinking beer.

People could work less, but it's a group effort. As long as some narcissistic idiots who want more instead of less are in charge, this is not going to change easily.

[smartmic]

Yes, and now we have come full circle back to capitalism. As soon as a gap forms between capital and untapped resources, the capitalist engine keeps running: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is difficult or impossible to break out of this on a large scale.

[pineaux]

The poor dont necessarily get poorer. That is not a given in capitalism. But at some point capitalism will converge to feudalism, at that point, the poor will become slaves.

And if not needed, culled. For being "unproductive" or "unattractive" or generally "worthless".

That's my cynical take.

As long as the rich can be reigned in in a way, the poor will not necessarily become poorer.

[shafyy]

In neoliberal capitalism they do, though. Because companies can maximize profits without internalizing external costs (such as health care, social welfare, environmental costs).