Cobie Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Economist Juliet Shor found that in 14th century England, a peasant might put in no more than 150 days a year. And the day often included time for an afternoon snooze. The tempo of life was slow even leisurely; the pace of work relaxed. Link to post Share on other sites
emma-can Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Well I mean It is 700 years later Link to post Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Working more, earning less, unless they happen to be self-employed. Even then, the ones who have no imagination and are tunnel-visioned, probably won't make it. Link to post Share on other sites
ChillaKilla Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 We can't afford that any more Link to post Share on other sites
Polygon Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Yyyyyup. Example: The so-called "entry-level" jobs these days want 1-3 years of prior experience, so in the case of engineering jobs, only the super-star that did 4 internships, 3 relevant clubs, sucked up to the professor enough to do research during undergrad, and knew a guy in management will not have a hard time getting the position they're aiming for (yes, I'm salty...or just jaded...whatever). I don't know... it just seems like society's asking more and more of us, for less and less in return. What is the average student or worker now was probably the higher-end student/worker then. Everything's just more competitive. Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Welcome to corporate capitalism. Link to post Share on other sites
Joe the Stoic Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Yes, people are working more and earning less. This is why creating jobs doesn't necessarily help the economy, as many people get second jobs because their first job is shit. They can work upwards of 60 hours a week, and a massive level of laborer exhaustion will hamper the quality of work and thus the national economy. Link to post Share on other sites
Luftschlosseule Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 You probably want to read up the economic changes that occured after the invention of the lightbulb. Link to post Share on other sites
Puck Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 In general, yes. But it's different in different countries. Americans work the most (50-60 hours a week average with only 2 weeks vacation). There are places in Europe who still stick to the 40hr week with 1 month vacation (these things vary country to country though). I also agree about the whole "capitalism did it," it's not just on the corporate side. They certainly should shoulder a lot of the explanation, but the public also got wrapped up in stuff. We have more stuff today than any other time in history (cars, computers, phone, bla bla bla) and they are all expensive. American's love keeping up with the Jones' Link to post Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Yeah, but there's no escaping the fact that most Americans who "want a job" really want to just be low-paid wage slaves who don't need to use their brains. Those types don't last long in the construction industry. Link to post Share on other sites
Puck Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Current economists are even thinking that if factories come back to America, it might not bring jobs back. Robots can do so much more with much lower maintenance. So even if factories come back (which it looks like some companies are thinking of opening more in the US) they may only hire like 100 people, and those people will be engineers, not blue collar workers like most people think/hope. On the plus side, yay engineers Link to post Share on other sites
sindi Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 4 hours ago, emma-can said: Well I mean It is 700 years later Do you mean, that because it's so much later now, we are obviously supposed to work more? How does that make sense - shouldn't it be the other way around, now that we have all the technology to help us? And yeah, we even work way more nowadays than hunter gatherers did (or do, for the few hunter gatherers still out there). Often when people are making a point about how terrible life was in the past, they tend to say that you had to work so hard all the time, which is the opposite of true... Link to post Share on other sites
emma-can Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Just now, sindi said: Do you mean, that because it's so much later now, we are obviously supposed to work more? How does that make sense - shouldn't it be the other way around, now that we have all the technology to help us? And yeah, we even work way more nowadays than hunter gatherers did (or do, for the few hunter gatherers still out there). Often when people are making a point about how terrible life was in the past, they tend to say that you had to work so hard all the time, which is the opposite of true... It's 700 years later and we had an industrial revolution so the western world does not have a feudal, agriculture-based society that allows us to only work 150/365 days Link to post Share on other sites
sindi Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Just now, emma-can said: It's 700 years later and we had an industrial revolution so the western world does not have a feudal, agriculture-based society that allows us to only work 150/365 days But what logic states, that in the society of today, we should naturally work more? Automation and technology should logically decrease the amount that we have to work, not the other way around... Link to post Share on other sites
emma-can Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 15 minutes ago, sindi said: But what logic states, that in the society of today, we should naturally work more? Automation and technology should logically decrease the amount that we have to work, not the other way around... Not necessarily. Society's arguably gotten more complex and there are more types of jobs to keep society running. When trains were invented we needed people to run the trains and train stations, maintain the tracks. When computers were invented, we needed customer service to help people with computer problems, people to make new software, people to regulate websites. Just to give a few examples. Link to post Share on other sites
sindi Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 minute ago, emma-can said: Not necessarily. Society's arguably gotten more complex and there are more types of jobs to keep society running. When trains were invented we needed people to run the trains and train stations, maintain the tracks. When computers were invented, we needed customer service to help people with computer problems, people to make new software, people to regulate websites. Just to give a few examples. But how come, that nowadays there's a huge problem with unemployment (in many places) and overworked people at the same time, if there simply is more work to be done nowadays? Link to post Share on other sites
emma-can Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 minute ago, sindi said: But how come, that nowadays there's a huge problem with unemployment (in many places) and overworked people at the same time, if there simply is more work to be done nowadays? I'm not an economist, I don't have all the answers 🙃 Link to post Share on other sites
emma-can Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Companies don't want to pay to hire more people to distribute the workload I guess? Link to post Share on other sites
sindi Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Just now, emma-can said: Companies don't want to pay to hire more people to distribute the workload I guess? Well, I think things are messed up nowadays, and there really isn't more work to do, just more greedy people having all the power. Link to post Share on other sites
Polygon Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 34 minutes ago, emma-can said: Not necessarily. Society's arguably gotten more complex and there are more types of jobs to keep society running. When trains were invented we needed people to run the trains and train stations, maintain the tracks. When computers were invented, we needed customer service to help people with computer problems, people to make new software, people to regulate websites. Just to give a few examples. Exactly. It's kind of analogous to Jevons Paradox. When a resource is used with greater efficiency + more technology is available, the rate of consumption actually goes up. So even though less has to be "used" to get more, that greater efficiency just makes consumption become more widespread. Link to post Share on other sites
Puck Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I think it's a mix of all these things. There are certainly plenty of greedy people, but not everyone is. There is also the reality that we are so much more demanding. Take, for example, the music industry (just because I bet that is one we are all resonably familiar with). Say, 30 years ago you could produce a CD every year or so and do a tour in that same time span and be a hit. Today, it's hard to see the same kind of success/notoriety unless you are constantly tweeting/communicating through social media, appearing on TV or radio, and producing music videos. It's way more work to reach the "game" of, say, the Beatles. Our culture demands more and if you can't give it it'll find someone who can. That applies to other industries; if you can't produce a new iPhone every year, we'll move on to another phone; if you can't fix my internet right when I call, I'll find someone who can; if you can't drive to pick me up within 5 minutes of me asking, I'll find someone who can Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 If most people worked half as much there'd be twice as many jobs #toologicalforthisworld Link to post Share on other sites
Chrysocolla Dawn Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 38 minutes ago, emma-can said: Companies don't want to pay to hire more people to distribute the workload I guess? Where I work, they've had a hiring freeze for the past 7 or so years. Our team used to have 40 people, and we're down to 17. The actual work being done hasn't changed, but we keep proving them right by getting our work done on time for fear of the consequences of failure. In the first month of this year, they've told us in a good dozen emails that we're cutting 1/3 more of the staff company-wide, but none of that is coming out of management. It makes you wonder who management is going to manage when they get rid of all their people who provide the actual product. Link to post Share on other sites
ThaHoward Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 39 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said: If most people worked half as much there'd be twice as many jobs #toologicalforthisworld But also twice as poor Link to post Share on other sites
sindi Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 By the way, I didn't mean to say, that every single individual with power and influence is greedy, but the system rewards and favors greediness, which forces even less than greedy individuals to act more or less greedy, if they want to survive the competition. Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 17 minutes ago, ThaHoward said: But also twice as poor Not if we were paid adequately (one can dream). Link to post Share on other sites
EricK Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 7 hours ago, Thea2 said: Economist Juliet Shor found that in 14th century England, a peasant might put in no more than 150 days a year. And the day often included time for an afternoon snooze. The tempo of life was slow even leisurely; the pace of work relaxed. The relevant statistic though, is how long would you have to work to have the same quality of life as the 14th Century peasant. eg, on average how many hours did they have to work each day in order to earn enough to feed themselves for one day? How long does a 21st Century "peasant" have to work to earn enough to feed themselves? I suspect the latter figure is much lower. Similarly for light and heat and clothing etc i.e. For each desire we have, we work fewer hours to fulfill it than a 14th Century peasant would. It's just that we have so many more desires, and manage to fulfill many more than any 14th Century peasant. Link to post Share on other sites
ThaHoward Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Indeed. Yes, we may work longer, but our quality of life is way higher. And the work we are doing aren't as backbreaking as these jobs usually were. Oh, and we live longer, and actually have more vacations and the possibility for them. Also, even if you don't work you will get enough subsidues that will put you off in a much better situation than any given "peasant" during middle ages. Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 [deleted] Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 There are two specific reasons people in Europe 700 years ago worked less hours: 1. The Catholic calendar included many saints days, during which work wasn't done 2. There wasn't any artificial light, so work hours had to comport to sun hours Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.