Is hard work a thing of the past?

[Gray Lensman]

LOL, no... it's more along the lines of this:

"we showed that we are united and that we, young people, are unstoppable."
"you say that you love your children above all else and yet you are stealing their very future right before their eyes"
"the eyes of all future generations are upon you. and if you choose to fail us we will never forgive you."

I was also thinking of the tweet: “A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.”

some people, I would say not unreasonably, made fun of her for the world not ending. of course, technically, she didn't SAY that the world would end several months ago. but the implication is that we've already crossed the point of no return and that we could be on an unreversible voyage towards climate change destruction.

I think of Greta Thunberg reminds me of Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" and Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb". both of these guys were predicting the end of the world in these truly outlandish terms... and the world is still here! overpopulation presents a very real problem. human activity has led to climate change. but I'm not entirely sure that these are behaviors that can be stopped without effectively repealing the Industrial Revolution... which, let's face it, NOBODY wants to do.

[off topic speculation]
I haven't kept up with any of Thunberg's responses towards Hamas. my opinion of Hamas is somewhat biased by interacting with Christians who were exiled from the region... so, my general takeaway is that if Israeli government represents the dirty and corrupt cops of Los Angeles... Hamas would be like the Crips or the Bloods. yes, depending on WHO you are and how they treat you... ONE of these groups might look better than the other. however, in the grand scheme of things, they're both pretty awful. I'm convinced that Hamas KNEW that Israeli retaliation efforts to hunt them down would lead to thousands of people getting killed. I believe that Hamas was gambling that this would strengthen their numbers and help them prepare for larger operations in the future. of course, if things have gotten so ugly that Iran is having second thoughts about supporting them... they could end up like the Greek Communists after Stalin refused to openly support them... Hamas my well rot on the vine for the next few years... only to get replaced by something else.

One of the reasons I have been so critical of Israel's response is this. When your enemy wants you to do something...it's probably a good idea to NOT do it, rather than go in full bore trying to do it even harder.

[Totoro Man]

Women in America, especially married women, did not really start working in large numbers until the men fought in WW II and somebody had to keep the country going. Then you had the whole "Rosie the Riveter" thing, but when the men came back they expected women to stay at home again and cook and clean for them. The statistics are all online.

sure. sure. so, now the sexism is men coming back from a war and wanting their old jobs back. they should have stayed unemployed for the sake of women!

please come up with a replacement for the 40-hour work week and demonstrate how it is superior.

on second thought: just tell us what sort of work schedule YOU would like to have.

[numberthirty]

So the 44/40 hour work week passed in 1938.
What percentage of women was working back then, compared to now?



2019, it was 55%.

So how did your link correct what I said in any way?

For starters...

The five-day, 40-hour workweek became part of American labor law partly due to Henry Ford. In 1926, the founder of the Ford Motor Company took his six-day-a-week operation down to five days per week, with no changes in employee compensation. He believed doing so would make his workers more productive—and more inclined to spend money during their downtime. With days off, people would have more time for leisure activities and shopping, spending their earnings, perhaps, on vehicles.

No way around that 1926 was before 1938.

Past that...

With days off, people would have more time for leisure activities and shopping, spending their earnings, perhaps, on vehicles

It was the same reason that Ford attempted to pay his workers enough to be able to afford the car that they were building.

To potentially drive sales of his product.

If anyone had a wife who was at home or not was all but a non-issue.

[Zelena]

Working is a value, for sure… Why should “Hard working” be a value?

With the apparition of machines, there was the dream that people could work less and enjoy life… That’s not really what happened.

There are people who work hard: nurses, garbage collectors, the ones who work on roads… There are people who work less hard but in the stress, people who work long hours… The situation is very diverse.

And there are people on TV, who smile and seem to enjoy very much their work: entertainers, performers, actors… They are the ones who are few and far between but they are for all to see.

The idea is not work hard, but to work in the best possible conditions and particularly for the aging workers which has been recently a debate in my country. Old people cannot do the same job as when they were young.

[CaptainEurope]

For starters...



No way around that 1926 was before 1938.

Past that...



It was the same reason that Ford attempted to pay his workers enough to be able to afford the car that they were building.

To potentially drive sales of his product.

If anyone had a wife who was at home or not was all but a non-issue.

But it is not today. Historical facts exist. We're really talking past each other here.

[Catlady in training]

Women in America, especially married women, did not really start working in large numbers until the men fought in WW II and somebody had to keep the country going. Then you had the whole "Rosie the Riveter" thing, but when the men came back they expected women to stay at home again and cook and clean for them. The statistics are all online.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_...e#19th_century

Women have worked at agricultural tasks since ancient times, and continue to do so around the world. The Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries changed the nature of work in Europe and other countries of the Western world. Working for a wage, and eventually a salary, became part of urban life. Initially, women were to be found doing even the hardest physical labor, including working as "hurriers" hauling heavy coal carts through mine shafts in Great Britain, a job that also employed many children. This ended after government intervention and the passing of the Mines and Collieries Act 1842, an early attempt at regulating the workplace.

During the 19th century, an increasing number of women in Western countries took jobs in factories, such as textile mills, or on assembly lines for machinery or other goods. Women also worked as "hawkers" of produce, flowers, and other market goods, and bred small animals in the working-class areas of London. Piecework, which involved needlework (weaving, embroidery, winding wool or silk) that paid by the piece completed, was the most common employment for women in 19th century Great Britain. It was poorly paid, and involved long hours, up to 14 hours per day to earn enough wages to survive. Working-class women were usually involved in some form of paid employment, as it provided some insurance against the possibility that their husband might become too ill or injured to support the family. During the era before workers' compensation for disability or illness, the loss of a husband's wages could result in the entire family being sent to a Victorian workhouse to pay debts.

Inequality in wages was to be expected for women. In 1906, the government found that the average weekly factory wage for a woman ranged from 11s 3d to 18s 8d, whereas a man's average weekly wage was around 25s 9d. Employers stated they preferred to hire women, because they could be "more easily induced to undergo severe bodily fatigue than men". Childminding was another necessary expense for many women working in factories. Pregnant women worked up until the day they gave birth and returned to work as soon as they were physically able. In 1891, a law was passed requiring women to take four weeks away from factory work after giving birth, but many women could not afford this unpaid leave, and the law was unenforceable.

The 1870 US Census was the first United States Census to count "females engaged in each occupation" and provides an intriguing snapshot of women's history. It reveals that, contrary to popular belief, not all American women of the 19th century were either idle in their middle-class homes or working in sweatshops. Women were 15% of the total work force (1.8 million out of 12.5). They made up one-third of factory "operatives", but teaching and the occupations of dressmaking, millinery, and tailoring played a larger role. Two-thirds of teachers were women. Women could also be found in such unexpected places as iron and steel works (495), mines (46), sawmills (35), oil wells and refineries (40), gas works (4), and charcoal kilns (5) and held such surprising jobs as ship rigger (16), teamster (196), turpentine laborer (185), brass founder/worker (102), shingle and lathe maker (84), stock-herder (45), gun and locksmith (33), and hunter and trapper (2). Formal classification may grossly under-estimate female labor force participation via self-employment or family employment with studies suggesting participation may have always been high.

The idea that women didn't have to work before the 20th century is quite sexist and arrogant, IMO. The world is not only middle-class USA. Women worked long before 40-hour work week was a thing, back when it was common to work up to 14 hours, 6 days a week. And of course, on top of that they still had to work in their households, because that work doesn't just do itself.
And even women who stayed at home had it much harder before all of the automation that we now take for granted like washing machines. Compare to that, we all have it much better now.


Regarding the shortening of the 40-hour week, I'm all for it if it proves sustainable, but I'm afraid it will not help much with people being burned out, because I think that that is a result not only of people working hard, but also of all the pressure that we now put on ourselves even in our free time. I have seen an argument that if we work less, there is going to be more pressure on the media and the entertainment sector to keep us occupied all the time. I don't think that is going to be necessary because we shouldn't expect to be engaged all the time. It seems like we forgot how to relax and just do nothing. People now need to have some sort of activity and be "on" all the time, which is IMO as much damaging as having to work long hours. And even when we watch something, our attention span is shortening as if we can't just do one thing at a time. I'm afraid that until we learn how to properly relax*, people are going to continue being burned out.

* and I mean in a way that is suitable for everyone individually, not emulating someone else from instagram and putting additional pressure on ourselves when that is just not working.

[Totoro Man]

But it is not today. Historical facts exist. We're really talking past each other here.

this is not the first time you have ignored arguments and evidence provided by other people. it will probably not be the last, either.

people have pointed out that the 40-hour work week was brought about without regard to sexism several times.

since you OBVIOUSLY can't prove that your false assertion is true you then effectively say "I'm talking about right now!"

in regard to burnout: a lot of people are suffering huge amounts of stress from things that are not work-related. stress is cumulative in nature.

if you're not getting enough sleep because you're playing video games all the time and only sleeping 5 hours a night. that will generate burnout and stress even if you're only working 27-to-32 hours a week. I see certain coworkers constantly taking naps on their breaks because they're staying up until 2 o'clock in the morning every night playing video games instead of getting enough sleep.

I know veterans who pointed out that the reason there were higher levels of PTSD and attrition in Gulf War 2 is because a lot of people were "relaxing" and "distracting" themselves instead of getting enough sleep. if people are trying to sustain themselves on less than 5 hours of sleep a night... after about a month of that they occupy a severely inhibited mental state. it's not too different than if they showed up to work drunk. a chronic lack of sleep will burn you out just as much as working long hours. in some ways, working manual labor for long hours might be less stressful in the long run... because you're body is more likely to compel you to sleep it off.

as catlady-in-training pointed out.... if people don't give themselves any emotional or intellectual downtime to recover... they're going to burn out faster even if they have a reduced number of working hours.

you could be a stay-at-home caregiver raising a newborn and feeling burnt out even if you're not a wage laborer...

my problem with your whole line of argument is that you're simplistically disavowing the 40-hour work week as sexist and outdated and blaming all societal ills on people being overworked... and there's simply no evidence that this is always true.

this thread is not an example of people talking "past each other". this thread is an example of you refusing evidence and doubling down on your utterly false and non-historical assertion.

after all, you're the same person that showed us a propaganda graph from the Biden administration and then seriously argued that Biden had created more jobs for America in 18 months than Obama and Clinton had done across 96 months. after all, a graph generated by the Biden adminstration to make their administration look more successful than any of their predecessors for the last 40-years can't possibly be dishonest or misleading! "look at the graph!"

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6073403

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6075099
"look at the graph!!!"

we're not talking past each other. you have effectively said:
"I've already made up my mind... so, don't try confusing me with the facts."

[Mister Mets]

sure. sure. so, now the sexism is men coming back from a war and wanting their old jobs back. they should have stayed unemployed for the sake of women!

please come up with a replacement for the 40-hour work week and demonstrate how it is superior.

on second thought: just tell us what sort of work schedule YOU would like to have.

In fairness, the people who think a 40 hour workweek is excessive seem willing to suggest alternatives, like working four days a week instead of five, working less hours per day or switching to a system where you're paid by how much you produce (with the understanding that the typical hours worked should be less than 40 hours a week.)

The main mistake was in the assumption that the norm of a 9 to 5 was worse than what came before. And that's a different argument than what we should do going forward.

[Mister Mets]

In an interview, venture capitalist and political consultant Bradley Tusk had an interesting point on the conflict here. His view is that some people want irreconcilable things: they want a healthy work-life balance and the trappings of success that come after working ridiculously hard.

I think this is instructive.

It gets to weird impressions.

Some people want to be really successful, and aren't willing to put in the work.

There are some others who are satisfied at a particular level, and that confuses some of their colleagues who wonder why they don't want more.

[Catlady in training]

There are some others who are satisfied at a particular level, and that confuses some of their colleagues who wonder why they don't want more.

*raised hand* Me, me! Seriously, it is sometimes hard to find a balance between doing your job well enough so that you feel satisfied with yourself but not that well so others will try to take advantage and give you more work or try to push you into "career advancement" you don't want.

Also, it is very frustrating that many still think that a woman has to want one of three things: have children, make career, or both. Nope, some of us just want to live our lives and don't care about either of those, thank you very much.

[useridgoeshere]

In an interview, venture capitalist and political consultant Bradley Tusk had an interesting point on the conflict here. His view is that some people want irreconcilable things: they want a healthy work-life balance and the trappings of success that come after working ridiculously hard.

I think this is instructive.

It gets to weird impressions.

Some people want to be really successful, and aren't willing to put in the work.

There are some others who are satisfied at a particular level, and that confuses some of their colleagues who wonder why they don't want more.

Is this a new thing? Hasn’t this always been true?

However, I think that there are a ton of people who put in the work, but because they lack access and connections, don’t get ahead. Laziness isn’t the main reason entrepreneurs fail. It’s because they don’t have the capital and knowledge resources they need.

[godisawesome]

In an interview, venture capitalist and political consultant Bradley Tusk had an interesting point on the conflict here. His view is that some people want irreconcilable things: they want a healthy work-life balance and the trappings of success that come after working ridiculously hard.

I think this is instructive.

It gets to weird impressions.

Some people want to be really successful, and aren't willing to put in the work.

There are some others who are satisfied at a particular level, and that confuses some of their colleagues who wonder why they don't want more.

Is this a new thing? Hasn’t this always been true?

However, I think that there are a ton of people who put in the work, but because they lack access and connections, don’t get ahead. Laziness isn’t the main reason entrepreneurs fail. It’s because they don’t have the capital and knowledge resources they need.

The whole reason Get Rich Quick Scams and Industries exist is people realizing that Hard Work is often only a negligible requirement for monetary success, and sometimes even unnecessary; would-be entrepreneurs need to start out with money before they actually apply work to it, and the way investors work is generally to actually avoid work entirely themselves, just read a spreadsheet a few minutes, and put money where the spreadsheet tells you to go.

Someone can be slaving away in a 9-5 job and working overtime in most service industries, objectively handling more stress and expending more energy and making exponentially less than some stock bro from the upper middle class who just joined the right fraternity and got a cushy , easy job his degree has nothing to do with where he mostly just wastes time then goes out to drink with his boss because the networking is more important than any effort.

Being "successful" still has more to do with who you know and what money you start out with "being willing to put in the work."

Meanwhile, that old "work smarter, not harder" adage is often proven true even for people for whom accumulating wealth isn't the goal, but self-validation is. Teachers who learn how to use new study materials can often save themselves a lot of energy and time focusing on refining some of their lessons instead of getting buried in paperwork.

[DanMad1977]

I am running a business for 16 years now, and I have an 55 hour week, 6 days. In summertime its 60-70 hour week.

That is no problem for me, I have a family and work out 4 days a week, after work. Money is good. I never tire because I sleep 8 hours a night, play no video games and exercise a lot. My wife is my back up, she cares about my food and laundry etc.

Its all a matter of motivation or fear. If you are motivated enough you can do everything (you need a plan, not to burn out and have the ability to be organized). I fear of being broke, so I work hard and try to work smart (I can do better hard than smart, god knows why)

The downside is, I can't get sick. maybe I will die someday at my workplace because I go there with a flu or something. I broke my hand, next day I was at work, my employ broke a toenail and called in sick (overdoing it here a bit, but you get the point)

I never had an employ who could keep up with me. They tire out in 4 day week with 25-30 hours and call in sick every few weeks. I was always angry about that and couldn't understand. today I know why that is. There is no motivation without a purpose. They work for the money, and the money comes in doesnt matter if they are good at their job or not. And if I fire them, they will find another one of these "jobs".

What a dull life, they lead. Is mine better? I don't know, but I at least are motivated. I try to motivated the guys too, but its hard. They want more money, okay I gave them more money, they worked harder for 2 weeks, than back to normal. So, money it isn't.

[Mister Mets]

The whole reason Get Rich Quick Scams and Industries exist is people realizing that Hard Work is often only a negligible requirement for monetary success, and sometimes even unnecessary; would-be entrepreneurs need to start out with money before they actually apply work to it, and the way investors work is generally to actually avoid work entirely themselves, just read a spreadsheet a few minutes, and put money where the spreadsheet tells you to go.

Someone can be slaving away in a 9-5 job and working overtime in most service industries, objectively handling more stress and expending more energy and making exponentially less than some stock bro from the upper middle class who just joined the right fraternity and got a cushy , easy job his degree has nothing to do with where he mostly just wastes time then goes out to drink with his boss because the networking is more important than any effort.

Being "successful" still has more to do with who you know and what money you start out with "being willing to put in the work."

Meanwhile, that old "work smarter, not harder" adage is often proven true even for people for whom accumulating wealth isn't the goal, but self-validation is. Teachers who learn how to use new study materials can often save themselves a lot of energy and time focusing on refining some of their lessons instead of getting buried in paperwork.

Hard work is part of the reason for success, but obviously some people have lucky breaks and some people have bad timing (IE- if you worked hard to be the best candlemaker in the world just before the light bulb came along.)

With a lot of the "get rich quick" schemes, people seem to think they're entitled to the benefits of the privileged, but they don't recognize that it doesn't scale and the people with resources and connections are usually going to learn about great opportunities before average joes. If there was a real Nigerian prince willing to pay a lot of money to transfer money from one account to another, he'll probably be able to find someone rich able to help him out.

Is this a new thing? Hasn’t this always been true?

However, I think that there are a ton of people who put in the work, but because they lack access and connections, don’t get ahead. Laziness isn’t the main reason entrepreneurs fail. It’s because they don’t have the capital and knowledge resources they need.

I'm not sure how this compares to earlier eras.

Social media makes it easier to convey certain messages.

I will note that the question on hard work doesn't apply just to entrepreneurs.

There are expectations of hard work from employees who aren't entrepreneurs. And sometimes it can be toxic in a small business where the employer insists the others work hard, and doesn't compensate them fairly.

There are some instances where people are doing work they're told is important, and taken advantage of that way. I had an ex-gilfriend who worked at the UN, and thought that they used the prestige and sense of significance to justify low salaries and crappy hours. She has a better salary and work-life balance now working for Shell Oil, which is probably not ideal.

*raised hand* Me, me! Seriously, it is sometimes hard to find a balance between doing your job well enough so that you feel satisfied with yourself but not that well so others will try to take advantage and give you more work or try to push you into "career advancement" you don't want.

Also, it is very frustrating that many still think that a woman has to want one of three things: have children, make career, or both. Nope, some of us just want to live our lives and don't care about either of those, thank you very much.

However you want to find purpose is fine.

Some people just want to make enough money to support themselves. It's only a problem if they expect others to pay them to do nothing.

[Mister Mets]

I am running a business for 16 years now, and I have an 55 hour week, 6 days. In summertime its 60-70 hour week.

That is no problem for me, I have a family and work out 4 days a week, after work. Money is good. I never tire because I sleep 8 hours a night, play no video games and exercise a lot. My wife is my back up, she cares about my food and laundry etc.

Its all a matter of motivation or fear. If you are motivated enough you can do everything (you need a plan, not to burn out and have the ability to be organized). I fear of being broke, so I work hard and try to work smart (I can do better hard than smart, god knows why)

The downside is, I can't get sick. maybe I will die someday at my workplace because I go there with a flu or something. I broke my hand, next day I was at work, my employ broke a toenail and called in sick (overdoing it here a bit, but you get the point)

I never had an employ who could keep up with me. They tire out in 4 day week with 25-30 hours and call in sick every few weeks. I was always angry about that and couldn't understand. today I know why that is. There is no motivation without a purpose. They work for the money, and the money comes in doesnt matter if they are good at their job or not. And if I fire them, they will find another one of these "jobs".

What a dull life, they lead. Is mine better? I don't know, but I at least are motivated. I try to motivated the guys too, but its hard. They want more money, okay I gave them more money, they worked harder for 2 weeks, than back to normal. So, money it isn't.

It certainly makes sense that you're going to be more invested in your company than the people who work for you would be.

There may be potential differences with the labor situation in Germany, but I wonder if it there is an issue with misaligned incentives.

If people work harder, they could get paid more. Maybe instead of salary increases, it would be bonuses, so that there's a constant incentive.

Maybe there are ways for them to benefit from the company's success, like stock options.

There may be ways to offer other benefits, like paying people for results rather than time (obviously this doesn't always work- some jobs like security guards require people to be present.)