We’ve been led into a culture that has been engineered to leave us tired, hungry for indulgence, willing to pay a lot for convenience and entertainment, and most importantly, vaguely dissatisfied with our lives so that we continue wanting things we don’t have.
[...]
[T]he 8-hour workday is too profitable for big business, not because of the amount of work people get done in eight hours (the average office worker gets less than three hours of actual work done in 8 hours) but because it makes for such a purchase-happy public. Keeping free time scarce means people pay a lot more for convenience, gratification, and any other relief they can buy. It keeps them watching television, and its commercials. It keeps them unambitious outside of work.
I think there's definitely a bit of a "moustache twirling boogeyman" tone to that, and to a few other parts of the article, but if I were to reword it in my most charitable interpretation it could...
I think there's definitely a bit of a "moustache twirling boogeyman" tone to that, and to a few other parts of the article, but if I were to reword it in my most charitable interpretation it could be something like "large corporations as a group benefit from the current culture, and its impact not just on their own employees but on society as a whole; that gives them an active disincentive to question the status quo".
Questions about work, productivity, and working hours always strike a chord with me. Since my first office job for a large corporation, I've harboured a suspicion that the 40 hour week is something of a shared delusion - the number of people here reporting under 75% of their time (sometimes way under) being spent on actual work does something to reinforce that. Obviously deeply ingrained habits die hard, and there's an inherent conservatism to any organisation that's grown successful under a given set of rules. Worrying about a productivity drop is valid, but so far it's looking, if anything, like the opposite is happening [1][2].
The idea that an exhausted population is a freely-spending population is one that does make intuitive sense to me, and something that I definitely notice in myself. I don't think there's any great conspiracy going on, but I can envisage companies independently realising this and resisting change because of it. Given some of the overt anti-union behaviour we see, for example, it would be far from unprecedented.
That's totally fair - in terms of how and why that schedule persists so widely, my honest answer would have to be "I don't know". One extreme would be to say that it's just coincidence, not at all...
That's totally fair - in terms of how and why that schedule persists so widely, my honest answer would have to be "I don't know".
One extreme would be to say that it's just coincidence, not at all planned as the author suggests, and that the only value in a piece like this is raising awareness of something we might otherwise not have examined. The other would be to say that the economy as a whole depends on free spending and growth, not just on impulses but on luxuries and conveniences too, and that companies in general believe that shaking this foundation too severely would catch them all in the ensuing recession.
I imagine that the truth lies somewhere in between. Promoting consumerism is perhaps one facet of why we work 40 hour weeks, but probably not the only, or even the main one. But it does have that negative effect on a lot of us, regardless of intent.
I find it interesting that the (successful) French movement for a 35 hour week suggested it was for job creation - the implication being that 40+ hours still needed doing, but that they should be shared between more people. I find it even more interesting that the job creation didn't happen, suggesting that the work didn't fill the hours in the first place.
As to the catalyst for change, I think it's already happening in quiet ways: remote and flexible work patterns depend much more on the employee to set their own schedule, and if they're doing a satisfactory amount of work in less than 40 hours then everyone is happy and no one is any the wiser. Microsoft, among others, has had good results trialling the four day week. France has had the 35 hour week for many years.
I wouldn't be surprised if few in the US are willing to put their head above the parapet on this one simply because they expect to be shouted down as lazy if they do, and they don't want to risk drawing attention to what they have lest it be taken away.
Ironically, research suggests that a reduced workweek is both beneficial for worker output and business cost. Examples of this are the six hour workday and the four day workweek but are not...
I'm curious about industries that don't directly benefit from this kind of culture, and if reduced hours would be an easier pill to swallow for those kinds of companies. If a spark of change were to happen somewhere... I wonder where the best catalyst would be?
Ironically, research suggests that a reduced workweek is both beneficial for worker output and business cost. Examples of this are the six hour workday and the four day workweek but are not limited to the length of the work day itself... looking at how many hours are actually spent by workers on various tasks it's clear that the amount of productive time in a day is limited and it's not just because unproductive tasks (or at least less productive) eat up time, the amount of time an individual can concentrate on a single task seems to also be limited.
Why the archive.org link @greg? The site is still around and the article is still up: https://www.raptitude.com/2010/07/your-lifestyle-has-already-been-designed/
The original site was down the other day when I came across the article, so I ended up reading it on archive. Saw it again today when I was clearing out my open tabs, figured it might get some...
The original site was down the other day when I came across the article, so I ended up reading it on archive. Saw it again today when I was clearing out my open tabs, figured it might get some interest here, and didn't think to re-check whether the site was up again. Feel free to edit the link!
Makes sense, thanks. I changed the link to the original source, but if it goes down again I will change it back to archive.org and leave it that way. :P
Makes sense, thanks. I changed the link to the original source, but if it goes down again I will change it back to archive.org and leave it that way. :P
[...]
I think there's definitely a bit of a "moustache twirling boogeyman" tone to that, and to a few other parts of the article, but if I were to reword it in my most charitable interpretation it could be something like "large corporations as a group benefit from the current culture, and its impact not just on their own employees but on society as a whole; that gives them an active disincentive to question the status quo".
Questions about work, productivity, and working hours always strike a chord with me. Since my first office job for a large corporation, I've harboured a suspicion that the 40 hour week is something of a shared delusion - the number of people here reporting under 75% of their time (sometimes way under) being spent on actual work does something to reinforce that. Obviously deeply ingrained habits die hard, and there's an inherent conservatism to any organisation that's grown successful under a given set of rules. Worrying about a productivity drop is valid, but so far it's looking, if anything, like the opposite is happening [1] [2].
The idea that an exhausted population is a freely-spending population is one that does make intuitive sense to me, and something that I definitely notice in myself. I don't think there's any great conspiracy going on, but I can envisage companies independently realising this and resisting change because of it. Given some of the overt anti-union behaviour we see, for example, it would be far from unprecedented.
That's totally fair - in terms of how and why that schedule persists so widely, my honest answer would have to be "I don't know".
One extreme would be to say that it's just coincidence, not at all planned as the author suggests, and that the only value in a piece like this is raising awareness of something we might otherwise not have examined. The other would be to say that the economy as a whole depends on free spending and growth, not just on impulses but on luxuries and conveniences too, and that companies in general believe that shaking this foundation too severely would catch them all in the ensuing recession.
I imagine that the truth lies somewhere in between. Promoting consumerism is perhaps one facet of why we work 40 hour weeks, but probably not the only, or even the main one. But it does have that negative effect on a lot of us, regardless of intent.
I find it interesting that the (successful) French movement for a 35 hour week suggested it was for job creation - the implication being that 40+ hours still needed doing, but that they should be shared between more people. I find it even more interesting that the job creation didn't happen, suggesting that the work didn't fill the hours in the first place.
As to the catalyst for change, I think it's already happening in quiet ways: remote and flexible work patterns depend much more on the employee to set their own schedule, and if they're doing a satisfactory amount of work in less than 40 hours then everyone is happy and no one is any the wiser. Microsoft, among others, has had good results trialling the four day week. France has had the 35 hour week for many years.
I wouldn't be surprised if few in the US are willing to put their head above the parapet on this one simply because they expect to be shouted down as lazy if they do, and they don't want to risk drawing attention to what they have lest it be taken away.
Thank you, I'd say the same right back to you! It's a really interesting topic and it's been great to have someone to dig at it with.
Ironically, research suggests that a reduced workweek is both beneficial for worker output and business cost. Examples of this are the six hour workday and the four day workweek but are not limited to the length of the work day itself... looking at how many hours are actually spent by workers on various tasks it's clear that the amount of productive time in a day is limited and it's not just because unproductive tasks (or at least less productive) eat up time, the amount of time an individual can concentrate on a single task seems to also be limited.
I feel like one of the things he doesn't mention is that the people in the places he visited make $34/day. They WISH they could be where he is now
Why the archive.org link @greg? The site is still around and the article is still up:
https://www.raptitude.com/2010/07/your-lifestyle-has-already-been-designed/
The original site was down the other day when I came across the article, so I ended up reading it on archive. Saw it again today when I was clearing out my open tabs, figured it might get some interest here, and didn't think to re-check whether the site was up again. Feel free to edit the link!
Makes sense, thanks. I changed the link to the original source, but if it goes down again I will change it back to archive.org and leave it that way. :P