[alexpotato]

My dad was a stock broker in the late 1970s and remembers when most of trading was 100% manual and firms actually had "runners" who would take stock certificates back and forth between trading firms.

He has this great quote about when computers came out:

"We were told 'computers will save you so much time on work tasks that you won't even know what to do with your free time'. I spent the next 30 years working the same number of hours. "

[throw0101a]

> He has this great quote about when computers came out: "We were told 'computers will save you so much time on work tasks that you won't even know what to do with your free time'. I spent the next 30 years working the same number of hours. "

From about one hundred years ago:

> Now it is true that the needs of human beings may seem to be insatiable. But they fall into two classes --those needs which are absolute in the sense that we feel them whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be, and those which are relative in the sense that we feel them only if their satisfaction lifts us above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows. Needs of the second class, those which satisfy the desire for superiority, may indeed be insatiable; for the higher the general level, the higher still are they. But this is not so true of the absolute needs-a point may soon be reached, much sooner perhaps than we are all of us aware of, when these needs are satisfied in the sense that we prefer to devote our further energies to non-economic purposes.

[…]

> For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter-to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us!

* John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" (1930)

* http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf

An essay putting forward / hypothesizing four reasons on why the above did not happen (We haven't spread the wealth around enough; People actually love working; There's no limit to human desires; Leisure is expensive):

* https://www.vox.com/2014/11/20/7254877/keynes-work-leisure

[manmal]

In some European countries, you can actually go on welfare and never work again. It takes some tricks because the state doesn’t like it; and maybe you‘ll want to do some undeclared side jobs for 15h a week and you’ll be comfortable.

I don’t know how such people can live with themselves. But apparently, if you’re immune to the second factor, it is possible, nowadays, to work 15h or less, without any wealth, and lead a good life.

The only thing threatening this status quo is corporations and rich people pulling their wealth into other states; and related, being net importers. I don’t understand why the EU is allowing this to happen. They should grow some teeth finally.

[simulator5g]

Oh sure, you get free stuff indefinitely if you abuse the system. You sound like that tiktok post about the "infinite free money glitch" that is check fraud.

[rhubarbtree]

Interestingly, this is how a lot of rich people make their money. They do something bad and then get the state to bail them out. For example, bankers trading recklessly, taking the bonuses and then leaving govt to sort out the mess, effectively back-paying their bonuses.

Another example is privatisation in the UK: scrap all investment, load the company with debt, leave the consumer and govt to sort out the mess.

So the rich do it too, just on a much grander scale.

[rexpop]

> The net of law is spread so wide, \ No sinner from its sweep may hide. \ Its meshes are so fine and strong, \ They take in every child of wrong. \ O wondrous web of mystery! \ Big fish alone escape from thee!

-- James Jeffrey Roche (1847 - 1908)

[manmal]

And? Try doing that 200y ago. There was no system to exploit. The system exists because progress has made it possible.

[tasuki]

> it is possible, nowadays, to work 15h or less, without any wealth, and lead a good life.

This is possible even without welfare.

Some friends of mine choose to do this: live in a shared flat, no car, no kids, it's easily doable. They live a good live and are happy.

(Let me add that I'm forty)

[yladiz]

Which European countries?

[Ekaros]

"Good" life might be bit questionable. But Finland at least it is possible. Existence will be meagre without other cashflows in cash. Might even be okay if you can make proper amount of cash.

[manmal]

I did mention that some side job is required for a good life. 15h certainly enough. Once AGI is here that might be our future.

[FullMetalBitch]

Spain for example: https://imv.seg-social.es/

[testing22321]

Australia no problem. Most liberal welfare in the world

[stephen_g]

Unemployment (JobSeeker payment) is actually pretty brutal here, we have a thing called ‘mutual obligation requirements’ where you have to go to meetings with (very ineffective but extremely profitable) private job service providers who force you to apply for enough jobs per week (no matter if they’re relevant or not).

Decades ago there was what I have read was an extremely effective Government department called the ’Commonwealth Employment Services’ but that was disbanded and contracts handed to private firms for excuses like “efficiency” that (surprise) didn’t end up panning out.

[November_Echo]

> Australia no problem. Most liberal welfare in the world

Jobseeker is a maximum of $26k per year, but for most people it's going to be around $21k [1]. What else are you using supplement that because that feels like it would be close to the poverty line.

1: https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-much-jobseeker-paym...

[stephen_g]

It’s not close to the poverty line, it’s well under it (remember this is AUD not USD) and has been for decades!

[testing22321]

Live 4 people in a share house and surf all day.

[xiaoyu2006]

Human had all the industrialization and stuff, yet we work 5 days / week now.

[polisaez]

I was looking for facts to disprove your point, but it seems we actually work more than our ancestors.

Medieval folks and hunter-gatherers had plenty of time off. It wasn't until the industrial revolution that we started extending our workweek.

Here's a nice summary of how the workweek looked like, from the AskHistorians subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rf0lb/comme...

[Gigachad]

I think the FIRE movement is a response to how absurd this is, but it feels kind of wrong that you have to front load all of the saving for your whole life in the first 30 years.

I'd love to work 3 days a week now and be paid a livable amount, rather than grind 5 days a week, getting paid more than I need so I can retire fast. But tech companies don't want you for 3 days a week, its 5 or nothing for most of them.

[mattlondon]

Well many places allow you to do 80% time (at least in the UK)... but you get 80% pay, 80% bonus, 80% holiday accrual etc too.

And from experience it seems that 80% people need to try damn hard to actually keep it at 80% and not get sucked into doing more to "keep up".

[aranelsurion]

IDK about UK but in Germany it’s the law that employees can request 80% work at 80% pay and can’t be denied except for significant operational reasons and such.

As you said, it can be a double edged sword to be the 80% worker in the otherwise 100% team.

[sobani]

> it seems we actually work more than our ancestors.

Only if you count the hours worked for the local lord and forget about all other mandatory work like:

- growing your own food

- cooking/prepping said food (44 hours per week)

- maintenance

- spinning, weaving and sewing clothes

https://acoup.blog/2025/09/05/collections-life-work-death-an...

https://acoup.blog/2025/10/10/collections-life-work-death-an...

[dml2135]

I get your point, but people still have chores to do today. Ultimately, there is a big difference between doing work for yourself, and doing work for someone else for a wage.

In one instance you keep the value you are creating, in the other it goes to your employer.

Given the choice between the two I would much prefer to work for myself, as a matter of dignity.

[knownjorbist]

I don't think this is an accurate picture for a number of reasons, first and foremost that these people regularly died from trivially preventable reasons. That luxury today takes a lot of effort from a lot of people.

I'm pretty sure most of white collar HN crowd isn't being ground into dust. It'd be cool to work less though!

[yladiz]

Well yeah we didn’t have antibiotics and other knowledge we have now. But that doesn’t change the fact people worked less in the past.

[kelseyfrog]

But we have iPhone.

[dyauspitr]

People waited around a lot before, and since the baseline speed for everything was slower, no one had an edge. Now everything is fast and instantaneous and that’s available to everyone. It’s part of the reason why our lives are so stressful now. I remember my parents working and their work had significantly less stress on a day-to-day basis. Everything was at a nice relaxed human pace. They would be responsible for one excel sheet’s worth of work per week, which we can now do in an hour or two.

[kevinsmith51]

Environment doesn't impose stress on us. Our reaction to it does. Learn to control that response, can use it to your advantage when you choose to let it in.

[davemp]

I’m pretty certain there are physiological limits that you can’t just muscle through and stress _can_ be an indicator that you’re reaching said limits.

[kevinsmith51]

Yeah, didn't mean it as just need to "muscle through". Just sharing the framing that has helped me.

[Gigachad]

There are certainly some environments that do. The data is clear that things like loud traffic noise increases stress.

[dyauspitr]

That’s all well and good, but I kind of live for things outside of my career (even though I have a good one).

[hellojeanpierre]

We worked 6 days a week before, Germany got to 5 days only in 1967 after years of strikes.

[bawis]

Is there any English source for more information about the years of strikes you mentioned?

[krapp]

People work 5 days a week because of protracted violent strikes by unions and socialist revolutionaries forcing governments to recognize labor rights. Prior to that the norm was working 7 days a week, sunup to sundown, with only Christmas off, from adolescence until you died.

[11101010010001]

SEs would rather play many player versions of the prisoner's dilemma than unionize.

[lofties]

You're right. We need to bring back protracted violent strikes by unions and socialists!

[babelfish]

When rights are equal, force wins. This is true for either the worker or the employer. Hence why employers frequently employed private firms to commit said violence on unions.

[zasz]

You know the ones bringing most of the violence were the state and private goons hired by capitalists, right?

[zeroonetwothree]

Not really true but it’s a nice story

[krapp]

It's a nice story and it's true.

Weekends, sick days, vacation days, being paid in legal tender and not company scrip, maternity leave, safety regulations, disabled affordance, banning child labor, civil rights and womens' rights (while they lasted) and the minimum wage. All due to socialist activism and a non-zero amount of violence.

[kakacik]

Hold your socialist jihad propaganda a bit off, sundays were definitely off days for festivities, visiting church etc. Definitely all over Europe, its still frowned upon in many places to do any amount of ie house work during sundays.

[cucumber3732842]

Banning child labor is literally the "I'm helping" meme but for government.

Child went away mostly on its own (as did labor by the disabled) because industrialization made all that non-competitive compared to a normal adult operating some machine. Then, once child labor was relegated to a few niches of limited overall economic importance the government showed up and banned it to win a few brownie points from some jerks.

Child labor isn't a success of some socialists 100yr ago. It's a success of some propagandists 100yr ago.

[Willish42]

Computers feel like a pretty good analogy for how AI will affect the workforce.

I suspect productivity will massively increase, the complexity and cognitive load of our work will similarly multiply, and yet we'll still being doing the now-more-complex work in some capacity for a similar number of hours.

[m463]

sounds like the promise of nuclear power...

"Too cheap to meter"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

[alexpotato]

This became true for long distance phone calls.

They used to charge you by the minute but now it's easier to just charge you a flat charge per month.

[paulddraper]

Because human nature it to want more, more than wanting idleness.

[engineer_22]

Weird to be downvoted for obviously correct analysis...

[paulddraper]

Never underestimate people’s desire to blame the environment.

[sharpshadow]

It is the fundamental requirement of capitalism to convert every increase in productivity into profit rather than into time.

In a communist society where the people own the means of production collectively the measure of wealth would not be money but disposable free time.

[redrove]

So the theory goes. Can you point out one place where this is working out?