[stetrain]

You can't shift productivity by 10X and expect the rest of the supply/demand equilibrium to stay the same, with you working 10% of the time and sipping drinks on the beach while retaining the same job opportunities and expected salaries.

There will be increased competition for job openings, reductions in real wages, or increased expectations of productivity. Probably some combination of all three.

[colechristensen]

No, but you could cut everybody to 30 hour workweeks and hire more people.

Once it becomes the norm even for a small section of the economy it will spread.

People are more productive in an absolute sense working fewer hours anyway.

It just takes a union, an ambitious company, or a state to force that 30 hour workweek to show some success with better talent attraction and retention and better corporate results to start a trend.

It is possible for everybody to get a piece of the pie.

[toomuchtodo]

Strongly agree. Reduce the work week today to 4 days 32 hours, the US already generates $5T in profits per year. That is time taken from workers from the one life they get. If corporations want to be more productive, take your best shot with LLMs. If it works, great, we keep reducing the work week. If it doesn't work, well, take it up with who sold you the magic beans.

We are already productive enough to have a shorter work week and more leisure, anyone saying no has specific incentives to not support it (either via financial gain from the capital accumulation funnel or work bound to their identity).

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=4+day+week

(we get there eventually with structural demographics, it’ll just take longer)

[digitaltrees]

Yes, in theory but if working more confers an advantage then work expectations will stay the same and will show up as higher productivity. So the real question is how will that productivity be distributed. Right now it's being concentrated into shareholders value rather than wages.

[jokethrowaway]

It is not.

Eventually a new startup will replace your large inefficient employer with people working 10% of their time.

[toomuchtodo]

So tax them as much as needed, or require state ownership of some amount. Startups, and company entities in general, exist because a jurisdiction allows them to, or allows them to accept payments, control accounts with financial resources, pay vendors and workers, and operate within a commercial framework. That is a privilege, not a right. The rules are a shared agreement and delusion, the rules can change at any time.

[kvam]

Actually participating in commerce is considered a pillar in defining a liberal democracy, in the words of John Locke, so I would say that is a right.

[toomuchtodo]

It’s certainly an opinion, but not law, and laws can always change.

[vkou]

It would be one thing if those increases in productivity were improving my QOL as a consumer of produced goods, through cost reductions or increases in quality, but I'm not seeing any of that.

All that seems to be happening is that these productivity gains roll up as profits for the owner class.

What's the point of all that, to me?

[colechristensen]

It's easier to enter the owner class. It's easier for you to do a startup where you're not the expert in everything. It's easier for you to rely less on buying things when you can make them yourself.

The moat of the owner class is lower because now information is everywhere and it's less possible to hide behind trade secrets and implementation effort.

[vkou]

> It's easier to enter the owner class.

Based on what? The macroeconomics don't work out that way. IF productivity goes up, but consumption does not, that means that it's harder to enter the owner class, because fewer productive enterprises (owned by non-working people) are supplying a larger share of customer demand.

This may make a difference on the margins for people in the software bubble. But for the other 8 billion people on the planet, they aren't all going to become owners in your brave new world, unless consumer demand goes to the moon to soak up all that productivity. It's not doing that. Prices aren't dropping. Quality isn't increasing.

If you think I'm wrong - is there a cross-economy explosion of small one-person businesses that I'm somehow not seeing? Are gigacorps across the board all losing market share? Because on the macro scale I see nothing but further consolidation.

[colechristensen]

>Based on what?

Based on the far lower bar to get a product out the door.

[vkou]

Which is only relevant if one of the following two things happens:

1. Consumption goes up. (It's not going up. 40 hours at your job buys you less shit today than it did 3 years ago.)

2. Mega-corps start losing marketshare and revenue to this avalanche of new one-to-two-person businesses. (They aren't. Their revenues are climbing, which implies that consolidation is what's happening, not diversification.)

Your theory does not match reality.

[carlosjobim]

New markets are created all the time, as new products and services become viable. So one-to-two-person businesses don't necessarily compete with larger businesses for the same customers. And that's why both can have rising revenue.