Current Events > Germany's largest union escalates fight for 28 hour workweek

(+) Yeah! (+)

German labor party uprising. What could go wrong?
---

RE_expert44 posted...

German labor party uprising. What could go wrong?

"oh no! the billionaires might not be able to afford another summer home!"
---

averagejoel posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

German labor party uprising. What could go wrong?

"oh no! the billionaires might not be able to afford another summer home!"

........

No.
---

averagejoel posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

German labor party uprising. What could go wrong?

"oh no! the billionaires might not be able to afford another summer home!"

Do you not get the reference?
---

NES4EVER posted...

averagejoel posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

German labor party uprising. What could go wrong?

"oh no! the billionaires might not be able to afford another summer home!"

........

No.

that's essentially the only possible reading of your post unless you're under the mistaken impression that the nazis were a leftist labour party
---

Volkswagen_Bros posted...

I don't know how people who work 40 hrs., 5 days a week maintain their sanity.

Alcohol, sex, drugs, television, other distractions.

Link HT posted...

Drasilor posted...

Lol the brainwashing on this kid.

We laugh but it's actually pretty sad. People these days BRAG about not having any free time.

It's sad because at one point people DO realize it's a waste of time but by then it's too late. Not a single person wishes they had worked more hours on their deathbed. Nobody.

Agreed.

I work 60 hour minimum weeks too in the health industry and have no idea what @daftpunk_mk5 is talking about.

People are overworked for pay that's becoming increasingly difficult to improve on especially in this current administration.

The hands on staff are worked to the bone while the support staff has to jump through hoops to keep up with an ever changing field.

If he wants to work his ass to death I'm not gonna knock it. He surely doesn't speak for the field in any capacity and he's only advocating to continue a trend that's already recognized as a problem within our field.
---

averagejoel posted...

NES4EVER posted...

averagejoel posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

German labor party uprising. What could go wrong?

"oh no! the billionaires might not be able to afford another summer home!"

........

No.

that's essentially the only possible reading of your post unless you're under the mistaken impression that the nazis were a leftist labour party

OH, you're one of those guys who plays stupid when it comes to the fact that the nazis gained popular support by drumming up support from laborers out of work after the economic collapse of WW1.

Nobody said they were leftist, BTW, but labor isn't a leftist term. TRUMP's platform was like 50% labor.
---

Wow that's like not even having a job, how lazy

chaos knight posted...

At some point, you have to start empathizing for business owners though. Proposals like this would just kill their bottom line, there is no way that productivity would increase enough to justify cutting that many hours out of the average work week.

Nope. The 40 hour work week became a thing because companies found that it was more productive and better for their bottom line than 50 or 60 hr work weeks.
---

TomNook20 posted...

chaos knight posted...

At some point, you have to start empathizing for business owners though. Proposals like this would just kill their bottom line, there is no way that productivity would increase enough to justify cutting that many hours out of the average work week.

Nope. The 40 hour work week became a thing because companies found that it was more productive and better for their bottom line than 50 or 60 hr work weeks.

You can't claim that reducing from 50 to 40 means that a reduction from 40 to 28 will necessarily produce a net economic benefit for anyone.
---

TomNook20 posted...

chaos knight posted...

At some point, you have to start empathizing for business owners though. Proposals like this would just kill their bottom line, there is no way that productivity would increase enough to justify cutting that many hours out of the average work week.

Nope. The 40 hour work week became a thing because companies found that it was more productive and better for their bottom line than 50 or 60 hr work weeks.

I mean, that's also assuming that we don't use automation to take care of the brunt of the meanial jobs and utilize those bodies and minds in other positions.

Instead of having one employee work 40 hours a week they suddenly have two working 28 each. Do the math to get the total hours as close as possible. Some people have to work two jobs at 14-16 hours each instead of 20 hours at two jobs now.

We're barely scratching the surface still but I assure you all evidence favors this. The only justification for being opposed to working less hours is "working is manly!"
---

Americans say so much stupid outlandish shit I feel like the entire country has a fucking mental illness
---

s0nicfan posted...

You can't claim that reducing from 50 to 40 means that a reduction from 40 to 28 will necessarily produce a net economic benefit for anyone.

I didn't say that.
His post was in response to one saying studies have shown a 30 hr week is better for everyone. Saying we can't do that because any reduction in hours would kill bottom lines is false and is historically inaccurate.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

Link HT posted...

Drasilor posted...

Lol the brainwashing on this kid.

We laugh but it's actually pretty sad. People these days BRAG about not having any free time.

It's sad because at one point people DO realize it's a waste of time but by then it's too late. Not a single person wishes they had worked more hours on their deathbed. Nobody.

Agreed.

I work 60 hour minimum weeks too in the health industry and have no idea what @daftpunk_mk5 is talking about.

People are overworked for pay that's becoming increasingly difficult to improve on especially in this current administration.

The hands on staff are worked to the bone while the support staff has to jump through hoops to keep up with an ever changing field.

If he wants to work his ass to death I'm not gonna knock it. He surely doesn't speak for the field in any capacity and he's only advocating to continue a trend that's already recognized as a problem within our field.

No I'm not saying we all need to work 60-80hr weeks, I'm just giving perspective and saying that 28 hours is nothing. 40 is a luxury and is fine for people who have more of a job than a vocation. Hardworking or ambitious people should put in more. But any less, unless you already put in the work in the past, you shouldnt expect to be treated as a full time employee and deserve a lower quality of living. For a union to try to make 28hrs the norm is an utter joke.
---

TomNook20 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

You can't claim that reducing from 50 to 40 means that a reduction from 40 to 28 will necessarily produce a net economic benefit for anyone.

I didn't say that.
His post was in response to one saying studies have shown a 30 hr week is better for everyone. Saying we can't do that because any reduction in hours would kill bottom lines is false and is historically inaccurate.

Historically speaking countries that have gone below 40 have had massive shifts in economic growth and a fundamental change in their primary sources of GDP, though. France is a good example, where particularly stringent labor laws have caused many companies to pull out production entirely, causing a greater portion of their income to come from tourism which traditionally stagnates a country until tourism falls at which point it basically collapses.
---

Nice, 12 more hours a week to sit around and play video games!
---

s0nicfan posted...

Historically speaking countries that have gone below 40 have had massive shifts in economic growth and a fundamental change in their primary sources of GDP, though. France is a good example, where particularly stringent labor laws have caused many companies to pull out production entirely, causing a greater portion of their income to come from tourism which traditionally stagnates a country until tourism falls at which point it basically collapses.

Greece has long work weeks by comparison to many european countries and look how they're doing.
Trying to explain a nation's economic struggles or triumphs solely by the number of hours they work a week is a fools errand.
---

TomNook20 posted...

Greece has long work weeks

Those people barely work at all. Over half of the country is on welfare. Their only industry is tourism.
---

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Link HT posted...

Drasilor posted...

Lol the brainwashing on this kid.

We laugh but it's actually pretty sad. People these days BRAG about not having any free time.

It's sad because at one point people DO realize it's a waste of time but by then it's too late. Not a single person wishes they had worked more hours on their deathbed. Nobody.

Agreed.

I work 60 hour minimum weeks too in the health industry and have no idea what @daftpunk_mk5 is talking about.

People are overworked for pay that's becoming increasingly difficult to improve on especially in this current administration.

The hands on staff are worked to the bone while the support staff has to jump through hoops to keep up with an ever changing field.

If he wants to work his ass to death I'm not gonna knock it. He surely doesn't speak for the field in any capacity and he's only advocating to continue a trend that's already recognized as a problem within our field.

No I'm not saying we all need to work 60-80hr weeks, I'm just giving perspective and saying that 28 hours is nothing. 40 is a luxury and is fine for people who have more of a job than a vocation. Hardworking or ambitious people should put in more. But any less, unless you already put in the work in the past, you shouldnt expect to be treated as a full time employee and deserve a lower quality of living. For a union to try to make 28hrs the norm is an utter joke.

I truly get where you are coming from but that doesn't have to change. People can still opt to work more. Changing to 28 gives people working dead-end jobs more opportunity to pursue an artistic career on the side. Or have a wayyy easier time taking extra classes. More time just living in general. I can't honestly see why people are so opposed to progressing as a society in terms of efficiency and quality of life.

Ambitious people who want to work for a business can keep on doing that. Those who want to own their own, work in a field that's hard to break into (but that we all still rely on) can pursue that.

Lets use acting. Are you a fan of movies and TV? Why would you advocate for it to be harder for screenwriters and actors to actually pursue those? 12 hours is A LOT of time and this would be a way to stop draining people so they have more time and effort.

Sure, we could say "fuck those people they don't deserve it, even if they have the best content we've ever seen, if they won't achieve X amount of effort we don't want their work".

But why. Like, literally why? What real reason is there to advocate for forcing people to continue to work 40 hours weeks in this day and age?

Because the effort and luck needed to form an idea that you can appeal to the masses so they understand it would be too much work.

Too many people don't want meaniful progress that actually benefits society as a whole. Some due to ignorance, some due to greed. That my friend is the sad truth of it.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

I truly get where you are coming from but that doesn't have to change. People can still opt to work more. Changing to 28 gives people working dead-end jobs more opportunity to pursue an artistic career on the side. Or have a wayyy easier time taking extra classes. More time just living in general. I can't honestly see why people are so opposed to progressing as a society in terms of efficiency and quality of life.

Wait... are you assuming that a shift from 40 to 28 hours is going to have no impact on wages?
---

s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

I truly get where you are coming from but that doesn't have to change. People can still opt to work more. Changing to 28 gives people working dead-end jobs more opportunity to pursue an artistic career on the side. Or have a wayyy easier time taking extra classes. More time just living in general. I can't honestly see why people are so opposed to progressing as a society in terms of efficiency and quality of life.

Wait... are you assuming that a shift from 40 to 28 hours is going to have no impact on wages?

No. I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
---

So what exactly does it mean to change the amount of hours in a work week? Like we have a 40 hour work week, so if, say, it was changed to a 30 hour week do our wages get adjusted? Or what exactly is the idea behind this concept?

Zeeak4444 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

I truly get where you are coming from but that doesn't have to change. People can still opt to work more. Changing to 28 gives people working dead-end jobs more opportunity to pursue an artistic career on the side. Or have a wayyy easier time taking extra classes. More time just living in general. I can't honestly see why people are so opposed to progressing as a society in terms of efficiency and quality of life.

Wait... are you assuming that a shift from 40 to 28 hours is going to have no impact on wages?

No. I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

Because saying people are going to have more time for hobbies working 28 hours instead of 40 implies they're making enough money to support themselves after the 30% pay cut that comes with the 30% reduction in hours. The vast majority of people aren't going to have more time... they're going to have more jobs.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

I truly get where you are coming from but that doesn't have to change. People can still opt to work more. Changing to 28 gives people working dead-end jobs more opportunity to pursue an artistic career on the side. Or have a wayyy easier time taking extra classes. More time just living in general. I can't honestly see why people are so opposed to progressing as a society in terms of efficiency and quality of life.

Wait... are you assuming that a shift from 40 to 28 hours is going to have no impact on wages?

No. I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

Because saying people are going to have more time for hobbies working 28 hours instead of 40 implies they're making enough money to support themselves after a 30% pay cut. The vast majority of people aren't going to have more time... they're going to have more jobs.

Unless you supplement it.

To clarify, I am not talking in the context of the OP. I'm talking in the context of my conversation with Daftpunk. Before we continue I just had to make sure you're aware of that.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

I truly get where you are coming from but that doesn't have to change. People can still opt to work more. Changing to 28 gives people working dead-end jobs more opportunity to pursue an artistic career on the side. Or have a wayyy easier time taking extra classes. More time just living in general. I can't honestly see why people are so opposed to progressing as a society in terms of efficiency and quality of life.

Wait... are you assuming that a shift from 40 to 28 hours is going to have no impact on wages?

No. I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

Because saying people are going to have more time for hobbies working 28 hours instead of 40 implies they're making enough money to support themselves after a 30% pay cut. The vast majority of people aren't going to have more time... they're going to have more jobs.

Unless you supplement it.

To clarify, I am not talking in the context of the OP. I'm talking in the context of my conversation with Daftpunk. Before we continue I just had to make sure you're aware of that.

Daftpunk's point, as far as I can tell, was that people working 28 hours deserve sub-standard living. Who "deserves" what aside, I don't think you had previously mentioned supplementing income, which is a much larger topic. If the only way to make 28 hour work weeks function is by ALSO implementing UBI, then you can't also make the argument that the economics of the nation wouldn't be affected using studies that only look at changes in hours, because now you're talking about also making massive changes to the tax structure to support that kind of change.
---

MonsterZed posted...

So what exactly does it mean to change the amount of hours in a work week? Like we have a 40 hour work week, so if, say, it was changed to a 30 hour week do our wages get adjusted? Or what exactly is the idea behind this concept?

I think this is under the assumption that people have salaried pay, rather than hourly
---

averagejoel posted...

MonsterZed posted...

So what exactly does it mean to change the amount of hours in a work week? Like we have a 40 hour work week, so if, say, it was changed to a 30 hour week do our wages get adjusted? Or what exactly is the idea behind this concept?

I think this is under the assumption that people have salaried pay, rather than hourly

So in other words:

Salaried employee makes $50k/year at 40 hours/week and they're trying to change it so they make the same at 30 hours/week?

s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

I truly get where you are coming from but that doesn't have to change. People can still opt to work more. Changing to 28 gives people working dead-end jobs more opportunity to pursue an artistic career on the side. Or have a wayyy easier time taking extra classes. More time just living in general. I can't honestly see why people are so opposed to progressing as a society in terms of efficiency and quality of life.

Wait... are you assuming that a shift from 40 to 28 hours is going to have no impact on wages?

No. I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

Because saying people are going to have more time for hobbies working 28 hours instead of 40 implies they're making enough money to support themselves after a 30% pay cut. The vast majority of people aren't going to have more time... they're going to have more jobs.

Unless you supplement it.

To clarify, I am not talking in the context of the OP. I'm talking in the context of my conversation with Daftpunk. Before we continue I just had to make sure you're aware of that.

Daftpunk's point, as far as I can tell, was that people working 28 hours deserve sub-standard living. Who "deserves" what aside, I don't think you had previously mentioned supplementing income, which is a much larger topic. If the only way to make 28 hour work weeks function is by ALSO implementing UBI, then you can't also make the argument that the economics of the nation wouldn't be affected using studies that only look at changes in hours, because now you're talking about also making massive changes to the tax structure to support that kind of change.

I was implying UBI. That much seemed obvious.

The conversation as I interpreted it was on the merits of working extra hours in general.

The topic of discussion is "laziness". Or, to be more precise, why we should have to work more hours if we don't have to.

The issue is everything else you posted was already covered in my previous posts. Follow along the conversation because I never implied half the shit you're saying I did.
---

Unless your previous posts were on alts, you sure as shit didn't cover it. The "why work more hours if we don't have to" is an issue of "will it collapse the economy" because keeping everyone from becoming jobless is why you have to.
---

MonsterZed posted...

So in other words:

Salaried employee makes $50k/year at 40 hours/week and they're trying to change it so they make the same at 30 hours/week?

I don't know if that's what they're trying to do, but a livable wage at 30 hours a week is a huge step in the right direction

Zeeak4444 posted...

I was implying UBI. That much seemed obvious.

I don't know what your view on UBI is, but the simple fact that it has so much support from the right-libertarian types should be setting off alarm bells. I recommend reading this piece:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/universal-basic-income-is-a-neoliberal-plot-to-make-you-poorer/
---

s0nicfan posted...

Unless your previous posts were on alts, you sure as shit didn't cover it. The "why work more hours if we don't have to" is an issue of "will it collapse the economy" because keeping everyone from becoming jobless is why you have to.

I guess if you leave out the conversations to be had on automation, regulation, appealing to the masses, and functionality.

You know, things mentioned specifically in anticipation of someone frothing at the mouth because the thought of these discussions alone incite their anger.
---

averagejoel posted...

I don't know if that's what they're trying to do, but a livable wage at 30 hours a week is a huge step in the right direction

I'm all for that hell yeah!!! lol

averagejoel posted...

MonsterZed posted...

So in other words:

Salaried employee makes $50k/year at 40 hours/week and they're trying to change it so they make the same at 30 hours/week?

I don't know if that's what they're trying to do, but a livable wage at 30 hours a week is a huge step in the right direction

Zeeak4444 posted...

I was implying UBI. That much seemed obvious.

I don't know what your view on UBI is, but the simple fact that it has so much support from the right-libertarian types should be setting off alarm bells. I recommend reading this piece:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/universal-basic-income-is-a-neoliberal-plot-to-make-you-poorer/

Don't worry, I use the term out of convenience.

What I would be talking about would be a complete reform. Far more massive than instituting UBI.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Unless your previous posts were on alts, you sure as shit didn't cover it. The "why work more hours if we don't have to" is an issue of "will it collapse the economy" because keeping everyone from becoming jobless is why you have to.

I guess if you leave out the conversations to be had on automation, regulation, appealing to the masses, and functionality.

You know, things mentioned specifically in anticipation of someone frothing at the mouth because the thought of these discussions alone incite their anger.

But we're talking about regulations being proposed by Germany today. If the crux of your argument is "in some future utopia where automation makes it so nations can give everyone a UBI and working is a luxury for those that enjoy it" then sure, I completely 100% agree that'd be great. What does that have to do with the topic itself and the reality of the current situation?
---

@s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Unless your previous posts were on alts, you sure as shit didn't cover it. The "why work more hours if we don't have to" is an issue of "will it collapse the economy" because keeping everyone from becoming jobless is why you have to.

I guess if you leave out the conversations to be had on automation, regulation, appealing to the masses, and functionality.

You know, things mentioned specifically in anticipation of someone frothing at the mouth because the thought of these discussions alone incite their anger.

But we're talking about regulations being proposed by Germany today. If the crux of your argument is "in some future utopia where automation makes it so nations can give everyone a UBI and working is a luxury for those that enjoy it" then sure, I completely 100% agree that'd be great. What does that have to do with the topic itself and the reality of the current situation?

YOU are talking about that.

I was having a completely different conversation you inserted yourself into.

I'm talking about having the fucking discussion happen in this country period. Let's talk about deciding to pursue automation further and utilize it to reform the nation in a massive overhaul.

It's not some utopia paradise bullshit drama you just made it out to be. It's an easy conversation to be discussed in depth if we could come to the table in the first place but we can't, as I said earlier, due to ignorance in some case and greed in others.

Those two are the majority but there are other reasons we don't have the discussion of course. One of which is that people can't even consider it without foaming at the mouth and trying to dictate the conversation THEY jumped into just because they want to reinforce the illusion of it being a foolish conversation in general.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

@s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Unless your previous posts were on alts, you sure as shit didn't cover it. The "why work more hours if we don't have to" is an issue of "will it collapse the economy" because keeping everyone from becoming jobless is why you have to.

I guess if you leave out the conversations to be had on automation, regulation, appealing to the masses, and functionality.

You know, things mentioned specifically in anticipation of someone frothing at the mouth because the thought of these discussions alone incite their anger.

But we're talking about regulations being proposed by Germany today. If the crux of your argument is "in some future utopia where automation makes it so nations can give everyone a UBI and working is a luxury for those that enjoy it" then sure, I completely 100% agree that'd be great. What does that have to do with the topic itself and the reality of the current situation?

YOU are talking about that.

I'm talking about having the fucking discussion in this country period to pursue automation further and utilize it to reform the nation in a massive overhaul.

It's not some utopia paradise bullshit drama you just made it out to be. It's an easy conversation to be discussed in depth if we could come to the table in the first place but we can't, as I said earlier, due to ignorance in some case and greed in others.

Those two are the majority but there are other reasons we don't have the discussion of course. One of which is that people can't even consider it without foaming at the mouth and trying to dictate the conversation THEY jumped into just because they want to reinforce the illusion of it being a foolish conversation in general.

It absolutely is. How much do you actually know about autonomy?
---

Imagine literally being proud for working 40-60 hrs per week. Just because you are adapt to it doesn't mean it's ideal. That barely leaves any room for cooking, exercising, side gigs, and relaxing
---

I mean on one side it sounds awesome, but on the other I like my money.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

@s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Unless your previous posts were on alts, you sure as shit didn't cover it. The "why work more hours if we don't have to" is an issue of "will it collapse the economy" because keeping everyone from becoming jobless is why you have to.

I guess if you leave out the conversations to be had on automation, regulation, appealing to the masses, and functionality.

You know, things mentioned specifically in anticipation of someone frothing at the mouth because the thought of these discussions alone incite their anger.

But we're talking about regulations being proposed by Germany today. If the crux of your argument is "in some future utopia where automation makes it so nations can give everyone a UBI and working is a luxury for those that enjoy it" then sure, I completely 100% agree that'd be great. What does that have to do with the topic itself and the reality of the current situation?

YOU are talking about that.

I'm talking about having the fucking discussion in this country period to pursue automation further and utilize it to reform the nation in a massive overhaul.

It's not some utopia paradise bullshit drama you just made it out to be. It's an easy conversation to be discussed in depth if we could come to the table in the first place but we can't, as I said earlier, due to ignorance in some case and greed in others.

Those two are the majority but there are other reasons we don't have the discussion of course. One of which is that people can't even consider it without foaming at the mouth and trying to dictate the conversation THEY jumped into just because they want to reinforce the illusion of it being a foolish conversation in general.

It absolutely is. How much do you actually know about autonomy?

Enough to have this conversation. How far do you wanna go into it?

I was commenting on working 60 hours myself and how I disagreed with daftpunk who's in the same industry and prided himself on those hours. We discussed what it would be like going that route if we could. We never went into the finer aspects of it because that wasn't what it was about.

You seem pretty condescending though I'll admit I have you followed because I enjoy watching you discuss stuff.

If you really wanna sit here and spend that much time going into all of this purely out of interest in the discussion I will be happy to do so with you (truly).

I'll be brutally honest when I say if you're looking to take some easy shots at me or mock me because you think I'm some idiot left winger who's just delusional in his fantasy then I'll come out relentlessly on why the biggest obsticle in this discussion in terms of general population is the ignorant right and the fear mongering you often take part in. If that's the case I'd truly prefer to politely walk away from this conversation and preserve my respect for you.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

Enough to have this conversation. How far do you wanna go into it?

I'm giving a talk at an international autonomy conference in 2018. I could go for hours if you really wanted to, but the short version is that the kind of automation you're talking about seems close on paper because it's extremely brittle and only works in VERY fixed conditions. Automation works in mass production because it's dumb... you program an arm to do the same thing forever in almost cleanroom conditions and it works perfectly. Doing autonomy with robustness is much further than it seems, especially to the level necessary to replace humans in dynamic environments. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the safety, regulatory, legal, and ethical issues that stand in the way of widespread adaptation.

EDIT: But just to be clear, I completely agree that priding yourself on working to death is silly, and 60 hours is nuts. I really truly want to get to the scenario you're describing, but the problem I have is it involves a lot of moving parts, and it would absolutely cripple economies if the wrong parts are put into motion at the wrong time.

EDIT X2: And I apologize if I seemed condescending. In truth my issue is I've grown tired of people (not you) talking about sweeping changes to society without really understanding the details of how it would work, and there are a LOT of people who take any criticism of those ideas as proof that the critic is some sort of monster that just hates people.
---

Volkswagen_Bros posted...

I don't know how people who work 40 hrs., 5 days a week maintain their sanity.

It's rough
---

s0nicfan posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Enough to have this conversation. How far do you wanna go into it?

I'm giving a talk at an international autonomy conference in 2018. I could go for hours if you really wanted to, but the short version is that the kind of automation you're talking about seems close on paper because it's extremely brittle and only works in VERY fixed conditions. Automation works in mass production because it's dumb... you program an arm to do the same thing forever in almost cleanroom conditions and it works perfectly. Doing autonomy with robustness is much further than it seems, especially to the level necessary to replace humans in dynamic environments. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the safety, regulatory, legal, and ethical issues that stand in the way of widespread adaptation.

EDIT: But just to be clear, I completely agree that priding yourself on working to death is silly, and 60 hours is nuts. I really truly want to get to the scenario you're describing, but the problem I have is it involves a lot of moving parts, and it would absolutely cripple economies if the wrong parts are put into motion at the wrong time.

EDIT X2: And I apologize if I seemed condescending. In truth my issue is I've grown tired of people (not you) talking about sweeping changes to society without really understanding the details of how it would work, and there are a LOT of people who take any criticism of those ideas as proof that the critic is some sort of monster that just hates people.

That makes so much damn sense. My apologies lol I completely understand where you are coming from now.

I wasn't thinking dynamic enviorments, you are completely right about it being far more feasible on paper. In truth I was thinking more data entry and things of that nature.

Trying to simplify it real quick I would envision taking X (we'll say 3 here as an example) down to Y (1) by implementing the automated data entry with one human verifying the accuracy. Far more complex to be sure but a baby step in the right direction.

My leaps largely came from my frustration that we as a society appear (but might not actually be) opposed to that type of progress at all. It's maddening to me.

I fully confess the (for terms of convenience) rights ignorance is only as frustrating as the lefts delusions though. Both jokes take it to the extremes lol.

There is a huge discussion to be had at each step of the way. We would have to piviot and adapts constently and we would need to be fully invested as a nation due to the extreme measures needing to be taken for even the smallest of transitions but mainly I want to express that I'm advocating for having the conversation in further detail with the realization that we won't progress towards that place if we don't decide to work towards it now (so to speak).

Even saying it though I have to confess it is a fantasy in a lot of ways. To get our legislatiors to speak with corporations and come to an agreement on ensuring the populace is taken care of without damaging our economic standing, and then somehow articulating that to a nation who is at the height of paranoia in regards to what our governments doing.

Idk man. I think you're right TBH.

Edit: I'd also love to pick your brain sometime. I'm about to pass out here soon but I'm willing to bet I don't know jack shit compared to you lol.
---

I work 45 to 50 hours a week, 4 days a week.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

Edit: I'd also love to pick your brain sometime. I'm about to pass out here soon but I'm willing to bet I don't know jack shit compared to you lol.

Sure, lol. To provide a brief example, let's take your data entry example: Turning a 3 into a 1 is easy if it's all digital, but what if a message is dropped between computers? What if power goes out in one but not another. What if the data entry is from image processing... how will you tell a 3 isn't a poorly-interpreted 8? How many backups and redundant databases do you need to guarantee the data won't get lost? One of the biggest issues: If there's a bug, or someone files a complaint, can the computer explain WHY that particular 3 was turned into a 1 months to years after the change was made? You'd be shocked how much "explainability" alone prevents larger adoption of autonomous technologies. A person can easily explain or reconstruct their logic... a machine only has log files. Billions of lines of log files.
---

Complete agree on so much. The automation part specifically of weening it in. That was my idea with data entry, a complicated but feasible task for automation simply because in the (LARGE if we're talking about long term) scope of things it's something that's crucial but also attainable in the foreseeable future.

Don't get me wrong, the risks go on and on. I personally have answers for some of those questions (for instance I would put accountability on the human, especially for death) but realize that some of the questions themselves are completely subjective.

But IF we can implement whatever form piece by piece the gain will unquestionably outweigh the risk. From an ethical standpoint any death would be unacceptable. From a practical one the medication issue (and those like it) would be resolved by being one of the last forms of data entry to be implemented.

The ethical one is the key though. The conversation ends at "these could happen". It rarely gets spoken about to the masses in a way that actually inspires people to want to talk about how to solve those issues aside from the diehard passionate advocates (which I'm inclined to believe you belong to).

So with all that said we come to the conclusion. Fear is holding us back. Worse is that our spokesman don't articulate it well. I fully understand what fear of automation is but I also understand why it's not going to be a fear until we're actually having the preceding conversations take place.

People hear them speak and either get completely scared of AI overlords, losing their job, etc. while the other side mocks the idea because it just sounds like a fantasy that could never happen.
---

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

But any less, unless you already put in the work in the past, you shouldnt expect to be treated as a full time employee and deserve a lower quality of living

Shut the fuck up. This kind of attitude is why the American work force IS so overworked and messed up.
If you're the kind of person that likes to work constantly, fine. No one will fault you for it. But holding your ridiculous standard as if it should be the norm is disgustingly Puritanical.
---

FightingGames posted...

Imagine literally being proud for working 40-60 hrs per week. Just because you are adapt to it doesn't mean it's ideal. That barely leaves any room for cooking, exercising, side gigs, and relaxing

Why should your employer pay you more money for less hours?

You gonna pay more money for a smaller apartment or house? More money for less food?
---

darkjedilink posted...

FightingGames posted...

Imagine literally being proud for working 40-60 hrs per week. Just because you are adapt to it doesn't mean it's ideal. That barely leaves any room for cooking, exercising, side gigs, and relaxing

Why should your employer pay you more money for less hours?

You gonna pay more money for a smaller apartment or house? More money for less food?

Because the idea is that you work harder and more productively during that shorter time span, getting the same amount of tasks done. If your job is only paying you to be physically present, what's the point of working hard?
The whole debate isn't about lazy, incompetent workers getting more time to spend at home watching porn and Netflix. I feel like that's the point being missed by everyone against the idea of a shorter work week.

A given employee that legitimately works hard and does their job correctly will still work hard even with fewer hours. And because they have less time to do it, they'll work more efficiently.
The end result is the worker gets more free time to take care of personal life while keeping the same pay, while the business gets the same amount of work accomplished for it while also having happier workers and maybe even a bit less overhead and an added bonus.
---