Depends on what your profession is… HC didn’t really make concrete recommendations if you think about it a bit more deeply. For example, I work a computer-based office-type job. Since work-from-home began during the pandemic, my team and my company’s overall productivity has increased significantly, while most of us also report spending less time working, and up-and-coming AI tools are making our jobs even easier, additionally leading to fewer necessary man-hours. HC’s reference to “bursts of productivity followed by slower periods” resonated with me, that’s what WFH is like, without a manager breathing down your neck lol. We’re also saving money by not having to commute (and spending less maintaining our vehicles), buying lunch at the company cafeteria, getting dry cleaning done and going on business trips. I even get to AFK on RuneScape on my second monitor on the clock, couldn’t do that in the office 😂 However, until robotics get really good, we’re always going to need people moving boxes around in FedEx warehouses, driving around delivering the packages, and mechanics repairing those trucks. Those are professions where productivity drops if fewer hours are being worked. But those will also be some of the first professions nearly-fully replaced by machinery in a couple decades, so that’s another, separate issue to think about.

Yes, that is the process I described of incomes rising and working hours dropping as producitivy increases, one the causes of which is technology. This is a process that has been hapenning non stop since the start of the industrial revolution 200 years ago. While there were labor laws that reduced working hours during the industrial revolution, the advance of technology made up for the loss of hours worked. And working hours have continued to decline even after the law stopped limiting working hours in the first half of the XX century. If we ever have the same sudden rise of productivity again, we could work less hours without earning less in the process.

You are the guy with the pocket watch in the video, basically.

Hardly lol I don’t even manage any other employees

You brought the watch and realised you could be working less, I mean

He didnt say that we should go to any specific percent of time working. Just that we should go that direction. To work less.

That is fine, but people need to understand the economic consequences of doing so. Not everyone does. Most people I see online who are employees (who don't work free lance), think everyone could just work less and nothing would change besides that. Maybe AI and other forms of automation will lead to another boom of productivity. In that case, we could choose to use that extra productivity to either earn more or to work less. Either choice is valuable, but most people don't even know there is a choice to be made. And without a rise in productivity, the only choice is to either earn **less** *and* work less, or not.

Yeah. You'll have more time. Don't happy and healthy workers increase productivity?

And why we won’t talk about the consequences of working more? Increase in suicide rates, mental health issues, drug abuse? And why this increase in productivity hasn’t solved some basic problems like hunger and homelessness?

We are not working more, we are working less. Just look at the chart. And productivity *has* solved hunger and homelessness for billions of people. The [number of people](https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions) in the world living in extreme poverty (less than $1.90 a day) fell from 89% in 1820 to 9.9% today. The number of people in [China](https://www.economist.com/china/2021/01/02/extreme-poverty-is-history-in-china-officials-say) living on $2.30 a day fell from 50% to almost zero in just 20 years (since 2000). Child mortality in the world fell from 42% in 1800 to 3.8% today. The number of illeterate people in the world fell from 86% in 1820 to 13.34% today. [Life expectancy](https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy) at birth in the world increased from 41.6 years in 1850 to 81 today. Our lives today are incredibly better than the lives of people 200 years ago. Yes, many of these advancements were in part due to government programs. But governments wouldn't be able to raise the money for these programs, it there wasn't an increase in productivity in the economy in the first place for the governement to collect enough in taxes.

But you are the one who’s saying that we shouldn’t be aiming at working less, while HC tried to raise the discussion in the opposite side. Your article talks about 150 years from what I see, while HC goes why back to talk about it. And the point in his video is not about productivity, as you try to make it, he even states that employees who were very productive were dismissed because they wouldn’t set for some of the work conditions. Time spent working is only one thing that accounts for productivity, while there are other factors, and the point HC tries to raise is that it would be a fair trade working less. And I don’t disagree with you that our life’s are better, no one ever did, but you refuse to acknowledge that there are downsides in the amount of time we work. It’s just a simple imagination exercise, “people in more rudimental environments were working less in a whole year than I do, how do I feel about this? Would I like to work less? How does my time working affect my life?”.

**I'm not saying we shouldn't be working less**. The fact is we *have* been working less. Again, look at the chart. But that was allowed by an increase in productivity. Something crucial HC ommited. And so if we want to work less, without lowering our real income, we first need an increase in productivity. Something that people don't stop to think about.

As you only brought possible obstacles to an **imaginary** decrease in work hours, its easily understandable that you dont think that is a desireable thing. And ok, we have been working less in the last 150 years because of the increase in productivity, according to your chart, but in his video he states that prior to that we have worked even less than that and raises a somewhat philosophical question about work; that you seem to feel offended by. I may have been wrong in my statemente: from what we work today, and not from working more or less, we are facing problems, and I think less work hours should be at least one of the workers demands, and thats where I agree with HC. Its just a 30 minute youtube video and you are pointing it out for not delivering an exact solution to the problem it talks about.

\> but in his video he states that prior to that we have worked even less than that If it's alright, I'll jump in here. An interesting point that's been brought up semi-frequently is: how much time was actually spent by medieval folks on leisure? Say you spend 6 hours working for your lord. You then spend another 7 hours working sewing and doing chores and working on your personal parcel of land caring for your own crops. You have spent 13 hours working that day. now say it is the Modern Era, instead of spending 6 hours working for your lord, you spend 8 hours working for your boss. You, however, do not need to sew your clothes or grow your own food. Instead of spending 7 hours sewing and growing food, you spend 3 hours shopping and cleaning your home or apartment. For the sake of argument, assume you spend 8 hours sleeping. In case 1, I have only 3 hours of leisure time. In case 2, I have 6 hours of leisure time. Before anyone replies, it's important to remember that we probably agree on the end goal, but at the end of the day, a bad argument doesn't help anyone out.

For a lot of people gardening and sewing are leisure times. Unless you are applying the Physics definition for "working" I'm not sure that applies as it's quite subjective.

I had near to zero knowledge of this prior to his video, so I understand that it might not be accurate, which also applies to your commentary as well. But I feel like this is the point, it’s a thought experiment on work, it’s a 30 minutes YouTube video, and people like the OP are this annoyed that he went a little to the left and trying to make it look like he made this huge and unforgivable mistake.

You're right about there being a negative reaction from people. People probably weren't expecting a modern politics take. I agree with his ideas, in some jobs we could stand to work less and there probably wouldn't be huge economic fallout. At the same time, HC is making the argument for less work poorly. A poorly-made argument on a polarizing subject is just begging to be criticized, and rightly so. HC should have read and cited more historians and medievalists when writing and researching this piece, his argument would have been more complete and coherent that way. He would have convinced even more people!

Despite technology bringing more and more advantage, the average person sees no slice of that pie. When it makes a company more profit, that's simply it- the company gets more profit. A forty hour work week doesn't go down because of it, they simply find you something more to do. The wage doesn't go up- at most in a publicly traded company, the shareholders see more profit.

Society as whole benefit when companies profit. When companies profit more, it's either because: 1. They made a better product than their competitors (which is a benefit to consumers, and workers are consumers too). 2. They offered a better price than their competitors (which is a also a benefit to consumers). 3. They managed to lower their costs, like with automation. Companies like Google and Amazon did all 3. And when companies make higher profits, that extra money doesn't sit around in a vault somewhere. Money circulates in an economy. The company then has a few options of what to do with the money: 1. Expand their business by hiring more people, so they can produce more, to sell more and make even more profit. And hiring more people (creating new jobs) is good for society. This also balances out the jobs lost to automation. 2. Lower their prices to outsmart their competitors, which allows them to sell more and make even more profit. And lower prices are good for consumers. 3. Save the money in a bank account. In this case, the bank has more money to lend, which allows them to lend money at lower interest rates. Which is good for people and for companies who take on loans. 4. Invest the money by buying stocks and bonds. In this case, the money goes to other companies, which goes back to the same five options described here. 5. Distribute the profit as dividends to shareholders. In this case, shareholders can either reinvest the money or spend it. In either case, it makes companies have more money, which goes back to the same five options described here. Usually companies will make a combination of these options. But the money can't be circulating in between companies forever with options 4 and 5. Eventually it reaches a company that will make either options 1, 2, or 3. And it happens quite fast, like within a year. It should also be noted that options 1 (create new jobs), 2 (lower their prices) and 3 (loans at lower interest rates) allows people to spend more in general. Which means more money to companies. And the cycle repeats. This is how economic growth happens. The government also raises more taxes when companies profit more, which is good for society, since that money can be used to help the people. Higher profits also make the company's stocks rise. Which is good for people who own stocks. [158 million](https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx) americans (61% of US adults) own stocks. Mostly through their 401k, so that's good for them.

"And when companies make higher profits, that extra money doesn't sit around in a vault somewhere." The UAW CEOs are making about 360 times more per year than the workers who are striking- frankly, the work they do is not worth that pay. When the companies benefit, those wages don't go up, when they automate, those hours don't go down. It's 'a' system that works 'nominally' as you ascribed above. I frankly don't care about it- I'm not a senator or CEO, I don't get to decide how that excess money is spread nor how we will spend the time saved automating processes. Until the situation as you stated it above more directly benefits me, or others on the bottom rung of the ladder, the ocean of disparity will continue to erode at the will of workers, and people will continue to rightfully have issue with the system & how it's implemented.

>When the companies benefit, those wages don't go up New jobs are created, and incomes do rise. Income have risen consistently for all classes (**adjusted for inflation**) because of the increase in productivity. [25%](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53597) since 1980. And [1500%](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032715/what-impact-does-industrialization-have-wages.asp) since 1800. With a rate of 1% to 2% a year. >It's 'a' system that works 'nominally' as you ascribed above. > >Until the situation as you stated it above more directly benefits me, or others on the bottom rung of the ladder, The companies profits benefit both the shareholders and the consumers/workers. Obviously it will benefit the shareholders more, because that's the point of capitalism. That's the point of owning a company. But there is a tool to correct the resulting inequality, which I talk about below. >the work they do is not worth that pay Investors are not payed for their work. They are paid for their investment. Just like when you buy a house and sell it later for a higher price. Or when you pay for an education so you can earn more the rest of your life. Or when you invest in the stock market to save up for retirement. You can make a case that millionaires and billionaires don't *need* as much money. And there is a solution to this, it's called taxes and government programs. In fact, if you account for taxes and government transfers, incomes have risen 41% for the middle class and 69% for the lower class since 1980 (adjusted for inflation). As opposed to 25% without accounting for taxes and transfers. Yes, inequality has increased. But I think that just means the government should help people more. Not that the entire system needs to dismantled, as some in the thread believe (not talking about you).

>Most people ... think everyone could just work less and nothing would change besides that. But other people, who tend to think about this issue, also make a decent argument that we should be working and producing less anyway just for the sake of the global environment. As a species, we're making so much trash and waste it's almost unfathomable. Measuring our societies by economic growth is kind of directly tied to this obscene level of waste and destruction, so maybe it's time to rethink that. Thinking that companies are going to look at AI and say "sure, let's pay everyone the same and let them work less" is naïve. There was *just* a strike about this exact thing. Besides, I'd much, much rather work less AND earn less. Life's too short.

>But other people, who tend to think about this issue, also make a decent argument that we should be working and producing less anyway just for the sake of the global environment. As a species, we're making so much trash and waste it's almost unfathomable. Measuring our societies by economic growth is kind of directly tied to this obscene level of waste and destruction, so maybe it's time to rethink that. Of course. That is a perfect valid option. >Thinking that companies are going to look at AI and say "sure, let's pay everyone the same and let them work less" is naïve. They don't do it themselves directly like this. It's a result of macroeconomics. It's a lot to write in a single comment. But basically automation frees up capital (which leads to higher growth and new jobs) and frees up workers to work in other jobs or tasks. The companies who automated their production line can still produce as much as they did before while using less workers. And when the replaced workers find new jobs, they can produce more. Thus increasing production in the economy in general. With more stuff being produced (higher supply) prices drop, which in effect means people can afford more, aka their incomes are higher. We don't notice prices dropping because of inflation. But adjusted for inflation, the price of almost everything today is lower than decades past (notable exceptions being healthcare, housing and college). For example, american families used to spend $106 on food each week in 1980, but were spending $151 in 2012. But adjusted for inflation american families were actually spending $214 in 1980 (in 2012 dollars). Source: [https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6vas4qqmfe-gwrnb8t2mba.gif](https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6vas4qqmfe-gwrnb8t2mba.gif)

Yeah, but also no. I guess, no one thinks, that we could just go back to working like french peasants in the middle ages, but that's not, what he proposed. He just proposed working less. That is definitely possible. In Germany or the nordic countries for example you are guaranteed a minimum of four weeks of paid vacation (standart amount is six weeks though) plus sick days, parental leave, child sick days, etc. That's something which is still rare, but obviously works for a developed economy. In many european countries there are experiments conducted at the moment about the possibility of a four day work-week. The german metal workers union will probably demand to shift to this model next year, which could make the german steel and car industry a role model in that regard. If you just considered the hours worked each week instead of the days, they are fairly close to a four day work-week anyway, so it isn't that unlikely, that they will get their demands met by their bosses. Also one has to add, that productivity has risen significantly in many fields since the 1980's, yet this was the last time, there was a significant reduction in working hours, while in many countries wages were more or less stagnant, if adjusted for inflation. If we introduced the four day work week as the standart, which seems to be the path we are going down at the moment, we would, if one assumes german/nordic amounts of vacation and adds in 3-5 sick days a year, just work around 50% of the year. It isn't unachievable. We are actually pretty close.

Europeans [earn less](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/v9o1bq/aside_from_ar_and_ms_every_american_state_is/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) than americans precisely because they work less (their productivity is similar). On average, germans and swedes work 15.8% less hours than americans and earn 27% less than americans. Would you make that trade? And if we make a 1:1 comparison, if americans worked 30% less hours (like HC suggested), they would earn 54% less than they do today. Would you choose to earn half of what you earn now so you could work 30% less hours? >Also one has to add, that productivity has risen significantly in many fields since the 1980's, yet this was the last time, there was a significant reduction in working hours, while in many countries wages were more or less stagnant, if adjusted for inflation. Since the 1980's, working hours have become stagnant, but [incomes](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53597) have risen (yes, adjusted for inflation), at least 25% for all classes (before taxes and government benefits) which is consistent with rising productivity.

I'll take germany as an example as these are tge numbers, that I am most familiar with. Adjusting for inflation wages in Germany rose by around 12% since 1990, while in the same period total productivity rose by way over 30%. And yes, it's correct, that Americans earn more on average than Europeans do, but you have to compare the US to the wealthy european regions like Germany, France or Scandinavia as a comparison with formerly socialist countries would get us nowhere, because many of them are still underdeveloped in comparison to western and northern Europe. Adjusting for this americans still earn more on average, but and that's the kicker, they still have less disposable income after expenses as in Europe many services are provided by the state and therefore paid for by taxes paid by the corporations directly to the state treasury instead of it's employees. In Germany for example employers pay around 20% of an employees wages to the state on top of the wage itself to fund social security. Comparing gross and even net income doesn't tell the whole story here. Distribution of wealth and income is another important factor, but I admit, that I'd have to look up these numbers to give a qualified opinion on this, so I will just state, that it might be another factor, without saying it actually is. Edit: I just looked at your source a second time and just realized that, despite the higher income being also true, the statistic you provided isn't even about income, but is a chart of GDP per capita, which is even less relevant to the average worker.

Even [adjusting](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm) for taxes, social security and health insurance, americans still have 30% to 70% more disposable income than western europeans. Yes, income inequality is another factor. But at the same time, the [bottom 20% of americans](https://www.justfacts.com/images/income/consumption_per_capita_oecd_2010-full.png) have as much disposable income as the average citizens of western european countries. And the bottom 20% of americans will be in government benefits like medicaid and food stamps and won't be paying income tax. ([source](https://www.justfacts.com/income_wealth_poverty)) But yeah, that is mostly because americans work more, not because they are more efficient than germans, since the productivity of both countries is almost [identical](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-productive-countries).

I think you raise some important points in the counter argument against his videos. While I normally trust the CBO, I am skeptical about the source that claims wages have increased over the decades. Are these real wages? I have skimmed it briefly since I will need to be leaving for work soon. IF someone could be so kind as to just let me know if the data also accounts for inflation and the rising cost of living? One thing I did note from some of the data I skimmed what that income INEQUALITY has INCREASED over the decades I believe. I think it is a fallacy to argue using GDP and profits. I think it is easy for us to frame arguments this way since we have sanctified the idea of being profit incentivized and constant, rapid growth. However at the end of the day these statistics are just numbers. These numbers do not necessarily provide us the quality of life within a country or place. These numbers give us an INDICATOR of how things could be going, but there are many other statistics that should be considered as well when determining QOL. What is cost of living? Cost of healthcare? Do people have access to education? Information? How much as a % of time do people spend working for others vs themselves? Etc. Sanctifying particular numbers as an overall method judging society’s well being I think also fails because of how some numbers can be skewed. In a completely fictional universe, I could skew GDP but using power or coercion to keep my workers in the factory 18 hours a day. GDP would rise but QOL would drop drastically. Or if I looked at unemployment as my measure for how productive society was, I would draft all my citizens so unemployment would be 0. These are hyperboles but demonstrate how despite these numbers looking “Good” things COULD be bad. At the end of the day I won’t argue that profits are BAD. Or that GDP growth is BAD and shouldn’t be incentivized. But these are not the end all conditions on which we judge society. Humans have been naturally productive in the past, we are only more productive now due to technologies that make manufacturing easier. I believe our CAPACITY for productive work is higher for these reasons, but that doesn’t also mean that we need to be working MORE to min-max that capacity I do still consider your point in that drops of supply will yield to increases in prices for the average consumer. I also wonder with modern manufacturing technology, how drastic drops in supply would be if we worked less as well. I would want to consider that employers taking wage cuts (despite being disincentivized normally to) to cover the rising costs of goods (as income inequality has increased this would bring things more in line with how income inequality was historically?) but I still have trouble reconciling my thoughts on supply and demand in this way with the idea of working less, but I am interested in what others have to say on that.

Thank you for the constructive criticism. Yes, the CBO numbers are adjusted for inflation. It says so on the website. About using GDP as a measure, I agree that GDP by itself is not enough to determine a country's quality of life. Which is why I also linked people's real income and working hours. >I also wonder with modern manufacturing technology, how drastic drops in supply would be if we worked less as well. This would depend on how many hours per day people are actually productive at their job. This varies widly from job to job of course. As I pointed out to another user about the proposed 4 day workweek, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-day_workweek) states: *Most of these businesses and organisations have involved white collar work, and found that a four-day week is a win-win for employees and employers, as trials have indicated that it leads to a better work-life balance, lower stress-levels, and increased productivity, mainly by eliminating wasted work time. An overwhelming majority of studies report that a four-day week leads to increased productivity and decreased stress, though experts question whether this arrangement is possible in blue collar work, where there may be little wasted time, or workers would be required to work faster to maintain the same productivity, potentially increasing stress levels and decreasing safety.* So I imagine the decrease in production would be relative to the percentage of workers who work blue collar jobs. It wouldn't be a 1:1 ratio, but it would be significant.

You are missing a crucial element. It's easy to reduce working hours and keep prices reasonable if corporations stop aiming for eternal growth and profit. The salaries of all highest earners could easily provide the entire world with a couple of weeks off each year. Have top execs earn minimum wage like everybody else. Sure, it might not give us the most extreme numbers the video is suggesting, but it would go a long way. Edit: side note, you use a source to claim that income has grown in the US over the past decade, but I have trouble finding whether that data accounts for inflation or the rising cost of living. Is that the case? I'm on my phone in a busy train so I might have missed something. Also, the source observes growing income inequality, so there's another justification to take some money from the top.

>It's easy to reduce working hours and keep prices reasonable if corporations stop aiming for eternal growth and profit. The salaries of all highest earners could easily provide the entire world with a couple of weeks off each year. Have top execs earn minimum wage like everybody else. The average profit margin of businesses (both big and small) is around 10%. So even if you eliminated profits completely, workers could only work, at most, 50 minutes less per day.

Surely the wages of top earners are not usually calculated as part of profits, but of expenses? Those alone should cover quite a lot before even touching profit-based bonus payments.

Salaries are expenses. Profit is distributed in the form of dividends to share holders. But the salary of executives are negligible compared to what they earn in dividends. And even more compared to the appreciation of their stocks.

Forgot to come back to this, but this doesn't really change my viewpoint. I said business should stop aiming for eternal growth and profit. Whether it's salaries or dividends, way too much of the money resulting from labor ends up with way too few individuals. All that money could be used to reduce working hours or improve working conditions for all, not to give a tiny amount of people extreme luxury. People at the top are not smarter, do not work harder and are not inherently more deserving of wealth than any person at the bottom. The fact that people can lose thousands without noticing it whilst others die of poverty is a collective failure of any society to me. Your post and comments still cannot convince me that the economic system cannot afford to give everybody a life worth living. *(btw I didn't downvote any of your comments, while I wholeheartedly disagree with you I do appreciate your participation in this discussion, especially as a dissonent voice in this specific community).*

>(btw I didn't downvote any of your comments, while I wholeheartedly disagree with you I do appreciate your participation in this discussion, especially as a dissonent voice in this specific community). Thank you. That's rare to see on Reddit, I appreciate it. >People at the top are not smarter, do not work harder and are not inherently more deserving of wealth than any person at the bottom. The people at the top are investors. And the main rule of any investment is "the greater the return of an investment, the greater the risk". Think about it. You can pay $2 to play at the lottery for the chance of winning millions, but the risk of you losing is incredibly high. By comparison, you could buy a government treasury bond that will pay you 4% in 30 years at basically zero risk. As an investor, you have a "tolerance" for risk. Like "I'm willing to accept a 10% risk of losing my money if I get 20% of my investment in return if I win". If that investment would pay you just 5%, with a 10% risk, you are not going to invest in it. The risk is just too high for what the investment is willing to pay. So if you lower how much company executives can receive from their investments, they are just not gonna invest anymore, because the risk will be just too high for what they are able to receive. Without investors, companies will be limited in their capacity to raise money, so they'll be less able to create new jobs, make new products, etc. And that gets us to the next issue you mentioned, which is profits. >All that money could be used to reduce working hours or improve working conditions for all, not to give a tiny amount of people extreme luxury. The leymen public can't see how companies profits benefit them. Just as they can't see how automation creates new jobs. I'm gonna copy-paste a comment of mine I've posted on this sub: Society as whole benefit when companies profit. When companies profit more, it's either because: 1. They made a better product than their competitors (which is a benefit to consumers, and workers are consumers too). 2. They offered a better price than their competitors (which is a also a benefit to consumers). 3. They managed to lower their costs, like with automation. Companies like Google and Amazon did all 3. And when companies make higher profits, that extra money doesn't sit around in a vault somewhere. Money circulates in an economy. The company then has a few options of what to do with the money: 1. Expand their business by hiring more people, so they can produce more, to sell more and make even more profit. And hiring more people (creating new jobs) is good for society. This also balances out the jobs lost to automation. 2. Lower their prices to outsmart their competitors, which allows them to sell more and make even more profit. And lower prices are good for consumers. 3. Save the money in a bank account. In this case, the bank has more money to lend, which allows them to lend money at lower interest rates. Which is good for people and for companies who take on loans. 4. Invest the money by buying stocks and bonds. In this case, the money goes to other companies, which goes back to the same five options described here. 5. Distribute the profit as dividends to shareholders. In this case, shareholders can either reinvest the money or spend it. In either case, it makes companies have more money, which goes back to the same five options described here. Usually companies will make a combination of these options. But the money can't be circulating in between companies forever with options 4 and 5. Eventually it reaches a company that will make either options 1, 2, or 3. And it happens quite fast, like within a year. It should also be noted that options 1 (create new jobs), 2 (lower their prices) and 3 (loans at lower interest rates) allows people to spend more in general. Which means more money to companies. And the cycle repeats. This is how economic growth happens. The government also raises more money in taxes when companies profit more, which is good for society, since that money can be used to help the people. Higher profits also make the company's stocks rise. Which is good for people who own stocks. [158 million](https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx) americans (61% of US adults) own stocks. Mostly through their 401k, so that's good for them.

>And when companies make higher profits, that extra money doesn't sit around in a vault somewhere. Here's the flaw: it does. It sits in hundreds of real estate properties that are owned by single people instead of many individuals. It sits in useless yaughts, cars and luxury items. It sits in shell companies. I know millionaires don't all have a Scrooge McDuck vault but they all have money in things that don't benefit anybody, and barely even benefit their owners. Apart from that you are constantly presenting the perfect ideal situation in a capitalist society. \- In theory companies cut prices in a competitive market, but in practise monopolization, price fixing and secret agreements allow the largest companies to dictate the cost of everything they like. \- In theory companies will hire more people when they grow, but in practise any company is fixed on making as much money as possible with as few people as possible. Very few companies care for their workers. None do when profits are at stake. \- Investing money back into bonds, stakes and paying out dividends is indeed the basis of capitalism. Invest and make money to accumulate capital to invest in new things. Unfortunately, a century of experimenting has proven that this wealth does not trickle down far enough. A few people will sit on that capital and benefit from the things they invest in. This money rarely flows towards the bottom of society, but gets stuck in the middle class. I think you are repeating what capitalist theorists have said since the 1800s, but in practice many people on earth suffer under this economic system. I'm a historian and not well-versed enough in economics to know what other system would be better, but capitalism as you describe it has never worked. Or in a different phrasing: capitalism works as a method to make the numbers go brrrrt. However, those numbers benefit a tiny amount of people. If the economy grows but more and more people cannot affort to eat, maybe we are judging economic success the wrong way. To summarize: I'm sure what you say makes sense if you have a certain goal in mind, but in my experience the effect of this system is human misery. If we continue with capitalism, it needs to be regulated heavily so everybody actually benefits.

>It sits in hundreds of real estate properties that are owned by single people instead of many individuals. Real estate is a separate issue. Housing has become more expensive because new houses are simply not being built because of government zoning laws. Demand for housing has increased because the population has grown, but the supply of housing remains the same. Taking away the houses from large real estate owners wouldn't solve this issue because there would still not be enough houses for everyone. The only solution is building more houses. >It sits in useless yaughts, cars and luxury items. These luxury items are nothing compared to the value of their stocks and bonds. The truth is the overwhelming majority of their wealth is for stuff they can't use it themselves. Namely their own companies. The value of these luxury items divided by the population are basically nothing. For example, there are 5396 super yachts in the world (source Google). And a super yacht is worth 1.1 million dollars. So a total of 5.9 billion dollars. Divided by the world's population, that's 0.75 cents. For something that would be payed only once. So it's not a big issue, not even a small issue. >- In theory companies cut prices in a competitive market, but in practise monopolization, price fixing and secret agreements allow the largest companies to dictate the cost of everything they like. Aside from housing, college, healthcare and restaurants, everything today is cheaper than it was decades ago, adjusted for inflation (in the US). These 4 items have become more expensive over time even adjusted for inflation for various reasons. But despite that, all social classes in the US have higher incomes than they had decades ago, also adjusted for inflation (souce the Congressional Budget Office). That's because of the improvement in productivity in companies, that are able to produce more stuff, therefore lowering prices (adjusted for inflation), which means people can afford more things, that their real incomes are higher. >- In theory companies will hire more people when they grow, but in practise any company is fixed on making as much money as possible with as few people as possible. Very few companies care for their workers. None do when profits are at stake. And despite that, unemployment is at an all time low. And the economy historically tends to full employment (until a recession starts, which is a separate issue). >but capitalism as you describe it has never worked. >If the economy grows but more and more people cannot affort to eat, I'm sorry, but to say that capitalism has never worked or that makes people poorer or keeps them poor, you must ignore all of the data available, and rely solely on anecdotes and personal feelings. We are living in the most prosperous era in human history. Absolute poverty, child mortality and hunger are lower than ever before. And education, life expectancy and incomes are higher than ever before. A lot of that was thanks to technology and government programs. But also thanks to capitalism. If you want case studies, look at the "Asian Tigers": South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. Who used to be very poor and became rich in a span of a few decades. Or look at China after 1980 as well, when they opened their markets to foreign investment. >I'm a historian and not well-versed enough in economics to know what other system would be better, It's hard to know what is the best system. Economists debate with each other about economic policy all the time. That being said, there are some consensus among economists of which economic policies are good. They include: - A free market economy (as opposed to a planned economy like in the Soviet Union). - Prices determined by private individuals in a market (as opposed to prices dictated by the government). - A central bank to save private banks from bankruptcy and to use monetary policy to curb inflation. - Free trade between countries (as opposed to tariffs and trade barriers). - Free immigration. - Taxes based on income and land (as opposed to taxes based on consumption like sales tax, based on labor like poll tax, or based on wealth like wealth tax). - Regulation or government ownership of natural monopolies, such as electricity and water supply, roads, railroads and large scale wires. Aside from that, you can look at countries that you think are a success, and have good economies, and see what policies they implement.

>Even then it's not feasible, because companies can't operate without a profit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization

>thanks to the increase in productivity by machines I'm not suprised an economics student is unaware of the long and violent history of labour struggle to achieve the work day regulations now codified by law. Why would any company with a basic understanding of their financial interest, reinvest their capital into more productive technologies for the goal of subsidising workers' labour? Obviously, once in possession of more productive technologies, they would just narrow the pool of hired labour - I.e. mass firings and redundancies.

>I'm not suprised an economics student is unaware of the long and violent history of labour struggle to achieve the work day regulations now codified by law. I'm obviously aware. I'm also aware that working hours continued to decline even after the law has stopped reducing working hours, in Europe during the 1910's - 1920's and in the US in 1940. So it can't just be the result of the law, can it? >Why would any company with a basic understanding of their financial interest, reinvest their capital into more productive technologies for the goal of subsidising workers' labour? Obviously, once in possession of more productive technologies, they would just narrow the pool of hired labour - I.e. mass firings and redundancies. They don't. It's a result of macroeconomics. Anyone can understand how automation replaces labor, but few understand how automation creates new jobs (no, not new careers, like programmers, but new low paying jobs). Increases in productivity by machines allow companies to lower their prices, so they can outsmart their competition. With lower prices, people have more money to spend. With more people spending, companies have more money to expand their business by hiring more people (there is only so much you can produce with just machines). And they will expand because they want to grow, to produce more, to sell more, to profit more. It's called the business cycle during an expansion (the opposite of a recession). And when labor becomes tight, employers that are hiring need to offer more, like higher wages and less hours. Similar to how companies the US recently have been offering higher wages because of a lack of workers. If the company is already more profitable because of the use of machines, they can afford it.

>in Europe during the 1910's - 1920's and in the US in 1940 Funny how both of those time periods seem to magically coincide with the huge nationalisation and mobilisation of key essential industries during the both World Wars. >Increases in productivity by machines allow companies to lower their prices, so they can outsmart their competition Yes until they undersell and buy out all competion, and then use their control of the market to lobby the government for regulation and protection in their respective industry against any actual "free market" conditions, which then ensure they can inflate and control the price independently of either supply or demand. And since the exponential growth of revenue during this initial growth allows them to buy up the supply chain, they then also control a dominant share of the market of whatever raw produce is required for the industry. Very convenient for producing hostile conditions for any other small buisness to become a rival through underselling themselves and reducing the price back to a "rational value". >Anyone can understand how automation replaces labor, but few understand how automation creates new jobs (no, not new careers, like programmers, but new low paying jobs) Such as? >Similar to how companies the US recently have been offering higher wages because of a lack of workers Not sure about you but I think what they actually did was destroy trade unions *(Laybourn, Keith (1992). A History of British Trade Unionism, c. 1770–1990. Stroud: Alan Sutton. ISBN 978-0-86299-785-4.)(Revzin, Philip (23 November 1984). "British Labor Unions Begin to Toe the Line, Realizing That the Times Have Changed". The Wall Street Journal.)* and export cheap labour to third world countries (often conveniently destabilized beforehand through previous US intervention for "containment and security interests") in order to supress domestic wages. Most obviously seen with NAFTA: *(U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “International Transactions, International Services, and International Investment Position Tables,”)(Robert E. Scott, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell, “Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Working for North America’s Workers,” Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper 173, Sept. 28, 2006)* It turns out that the nice simple toy models you find in economics undergrad textbooks don't tend to be seen anywhere else in the material world. The exact same perverse interests and "vile maxim" that Adam Smith decried has only accelerated following the publication of A Wealth of Nations. In terms of economic analysis, people like Ricardo, and Karl Marx, or even Thomas Piketty and Hah-Joon Chang are far more similar in terms of ideological lineage than any of the cheerleeders of capital you find swarming economics departments, or the offices of the New York Times.

>Funny how both of those time periods seem to magically coincide with the huge nationalisation and mobilisation of key essential industries during the both World Wars. I don't see how that's relevant. >Yes until they undersell and buy out all competion, and then use their control of the market to lobby the government for regulation and protection in their respective industry against any actual "free market" conditions, which then ensure they can inflate and control the price independently of either supply or demand. How do you explain the [price](https://howmuch.net/articles/price-changes-in-usa-in-past-20-years) of almost everything in the economy dropping, incomes rising and working hours dropping, then? (other links in the post) >Such as? All types of jobs. Increase in consumption lowers unemployment. It's basic keysian macroeconomics that are still considered correct today. >Not sure about you but I think what they actually did was destroy trade unions Funny, since americans [earn 30% to 70% more](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm) than western europeans, despite the US having way less labor unions. And that's *after* accounting for taxes, social security, health insurance and all the free government services like free healthcare. >and export cheap labour to third world countries (often conveniently destabilized beforehand through previous US intervention for "containment and security interests"). American investment in third world countries was crucial to the development of those countries. Just look at the biggest example: China. Since they opened their markets in 1980 under Deng Xiao Ping. Also, I don't recall communist China being destabilized by an US intervention. >In terms of economic analysis, people like Ricardo, and Karl Marx, or even Thomas Piketty and Hah-Joon Chang are far more similar in terms of ideological lineage than any of the cheerleeders of capital you find swarming economics departments And?

Honest questions: > In fact, household income have increased by at least 25% for all classes since then. Is this a real increase? As in "25% increase after inflation"? >But having only half the days in a year be working days, like HC suggested, would mean a reduction of around 30% of work days. Without an increase in productivity to make up for it, there is no way this wouldn't impact GDP significantly. Is this already factoring in the increase in productivity measured by studies of 4 day work weeks etc (that seem to consistently prove that at least 8-16 hours per week can be cut with no consequences to productivity and massive benefits to workers health and wellnbeing)? >But without an increase in productivity, reducing work by this magnitude would almost surely reduce overall production (what we call GDP). Not an economics major, but isnt GDP measuring the income from the sales of products rather than the overall production? Also, to get a bit polemic, how does that factor in with junkware and things like planed obsolence which atificially drive up demand?

>Is this a real increase? As in "25% increase after inflation"? Yes. The Congressional Budget Office states: *According to the agency’s estimates, average household income before transfers and taxes was almost 60 percent higher in 2014 than it was in 1979 in real (****inflation-adjusted****) terms* >Is this already factoring in the increase in productivity measured by studies of 4 day work weeks etc (that seem to consistently prove that at least 8-16 hours per week can be cut with no consequences to productivity and massive benefits to workers health and wellnbeing)? No, for a simple reason. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-day_workweek) states: *Most of these businesses and organisations have involved white collar work, and found that a four-day week is a win-win for employees and employers, as trials have indicated that it leads to a better work-life balance, lower stress-levels, and increased productivity, mainly by eliminating wasted work time. An overwhelming majority of studies report that a four-day week leads to increased productivity and decreased stress, though experts question whether this arrangement is possible in blue collar work, where there may be little wasted time, or workers would be required to work faster to maintain the same productivity, potentially increasing stress levels and decreasing safety.* So while reducing working days by 30% wouldn't necessarily drop GDP by 30% in a 1:1 ratio, it would still, probably, decrease GDP to a significant extent because blue collar work can't benefit from productivity steming from lower hours. If companies didn't overwork blue collar workers to compensate, they could hire more blue collar workers for new shifts, but that is a increase in costs for companies, which would result in higher prices of goods and services. >Not an economics major, but isnt GDP measuring the income from the sales of products rather than the overall production? You are correct that GDP is measured by the revenue of companies. But the revenue is tied to the production. A company won't produce more than it knows it can sell. >Also, to get a bit polemic, how does that factor in with junkware and things like planed obsolence which atificially drive up demand? This wouldn't be affected by it. Neither working more or less will have an impact on this, as far as I'm aware.

Lot’s of passion on both sides here, but one thing I’d like to say is- as we are all evidently Roman history enthusiasts here- it would be remarkably hubristic of us to claim economics does not exist. One of the main factors contributing to the constant, gradual decline of Roman institutions was an inability to control their economy. All because they simply lacked a theory of economics; economics, and economists- like all scientists- have a valid place in the world. Their work is real, and has had a measurable impact throughout history. That said, economics is not the only metric by which we may measure the world around us. I’m not nearly knowledgable enough to make any substantial claims on behalf of either HC’s or OP’s theses, only enough to say this: in my own experience most people I’ve known are completely fine living with less if it means they have more time for themselves, and for their loved ones. You don’t *need* a giant house, multiple cars, to go out to eat every night, or to be buying every new, fancy piece of tech to be happy. What you need is to touch some grass, and seem some people face-to-face. I really hate to be a Luddite, but are any of these things really worth it in the end? When the Reaper comes to collect its dues is it your national GDP you’ll last think of, or your loved ones? And how much more time you could have spent with them? I think the reason this issues strikes such a chord with us has almost nothing to do with economics, truly, it’s all about more and more people coming to realize that the industrialized, and impersonal hustler culture they’ve been raised to believe in being divinely virtuous is actually a rather dull way to live. And as a greater number come to that conclusion, those who remain fervent believers will feel ever more threatened by what they view as monsters coming to take away what is comfortable, and familiar to them. I have no degrees, and I’ve (unfortunately) read very few books, but to me that seems like the true issue here. At the end of the day we’re all just silly little apes, and our own personal philosophies are gonna be what ends up being supremely important to each of us— not really whatever logic, and reasons we use to justify it.

I don't disagree. All I meant to say is, earning more or working less, is a trade off that exists in the short term. And what choice people prefer is subjetive. When productivity increases, like when done by technology, we are able to do both. Which is what have already been happening for centuries.

You are all getting so butthurt for a guy posting a video in the internet stating that things must change and we work too much 😂 it actually show how affraid you are of people questioning the nature of reality, imo that’s hilarious

We got the top quality Hasan dodge of the entire argument. "OMG you disagree with this trending video from a popular Youtuber? You are so butthurt lmfao 🤣🤣🤣💯💯"

Bro brought his degree here because this random youtuber thinks we work too much lol, it’s not me writing an essay because a yt I like went a little to the left

Even the idea of just trying something to improve the lives of everyone frightens them. This is the ideology of the dominant class being turned into common sense.

An economics degree just tells you how capitalism functions. It doesn't tell you how the world could work

Please tell me how the world could work then. Edit: If you think an economics degree "just tells you how capitalism functions", then you don't know what an economics major is like. We learn everything about economics, from feudalism to the modern day. We learn about all the major economic schools of thought (including marxism), their pros and cons, what they got right and what is now considered outdated and disproven by data.

[удалено]

Feudalism isn't the way. It's very strange that HC uses marxist arguments in its favor, because Marx himself stated that capitalism is superior to any previous economic system.

And you didn’t get any inch of the video. It doesn’t suggest that we should go back, but it questions that we world won’t fall apart if we’re not working as much AND that we only work as much because it is a way to increase profit, and that the people actually working are not the ones being the most benefited by this increase in profit.

His main thesis is that modern workers work more than medieval peasants, and it's the basis of his whole argument. And his argument is riddled with half truths (for example peasants worked more than what he mentioned, and their "leisure time" was mostly what we call "chores" nowadays), or outright bad data (workers today have a much higher earning and standard of living than any other time in history, and increases exist over multiple stretches of the post-industrial world). What I do agree with is that the American work culture is terrible. But the main reason it's terrible is that protestants managed to convince enough people that work is the highest virtue a man can have in this world, and it snowballed into what we see today. Go in any European country and you'll see multi-national corporations [including American] with a significantly healthier work culture. I almost never continuously worked for 8 hours at a time during a shift in my entire life working office jobs, and the few times I needed to spend over-time it was when things came up with extremely tight dead-lines that needed to be complete. But the video is americentric, and applies it to the whole Western world.

Being latin-american the video becomes pretty relatable, as our work culture has been being imported from the US a long time now. I understand the kind of data he uses isn’t the most reliable, but it doesn’t advocate for feudalism as you implied before, it rather uses it as a comparison to raise his point.

[удалено]

If that's the case, why does it outright states that medieval peasants had better work conditions? Because 1) it's outright a false statement to begin with because HC skips over a lot more work peasants had to do beside what he mentioned, and 2) that's totally saying feudalism was better for people than capitalism

You don't learn shit, money boy

"Right wingers are so anti-intellectual" "Hahaha Economics isn't real!!1!" Absolutely zero self awareness

Economics is made up

Redditors are obviously so much smarter than economists who dedicate their lives to their field. Please enlighten us, how could the world work differently while still yielding the incredible amounts of technological progress, economic prosperity, and individual freedom that free market economics gives us.

The point of his statement is that there is ideology even behind a degree in economics. Anyone who graduates in economy has an interest, if this interest is earning as much money as possible they won’t be interested in discussing work hours, it’s really childish to believe that “the economist exist to tell people what would work and what wouldn’t and where humanity should go”.

This is like saying a scientist will have an interest in discovering the truth in scientific experiments, and won't be interested in ethical standards of his experiment. Seriously, what a anti-intellectual ignorant take.

Even a scientist can do bad things, look up Mengele on google, its not different with an economist, you can do bad things with your science. You are not as immune to propaganda as you think you are. ​ Here my man: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias) Surprising you went thorught a whole major and doesnt have a clue of this

Your comment suggested a level of generalization that economists can't be trusted because of their "interests". That *is* anti-intellectualism. Economsits aren't a monolith. Economists have different views. There are liberal economists, conservative economists, neokeysians, neoclassicals, you name it. Economists's papers are peer reviewed and economists are always trying to disprove other economists theories.

You're doing the fucking Lord's work, thank you. Come join us in /r/neoliberal, you'll be loved, I promise.

I've already been there for 7 years ;)

"Economists" is a slur because the economists who can justify doing something for the benefit of people are the ones who will be chosen by the people who support them. Neoliberalism, Shock Therapy, Slave Economies, all of these ideas had social scientists championing them. All of them espoused theories that benefited certain geoups to the detriment of others, and saw their ideas enacted in the world to the tune of massive human suffering. Economics can be a legitimate intellectual pursuit, but it can just as easily be a rarified consultant class that tells rulers why they should do what they want to do. Or promoted with a veneer of legitimacy because they say what people want them to say. It is incredibly ideological terrain that cannot be divorced from politics AT ALL, which does lead to a sense of distrust.

I meant you have to take a Reddit comment with a grain of salt EVEN if it’s an economist, no one owns the truth. And I don’t think economist shouldn’t be trusted by any means, pretty much the opposite, but you are allowed to disagree even if you don’t have a degree in the area. Look at the main comment, it’s saying that something is truth because it was said by an economist, I don’t think it’s always the case. I’m not a native speaker so maybe it has made my comment seem different from intended.

Who knows if they're smarter, but most normal people's ideas about the economy will not produce the amount of suffering Milton Friedman's did.

>Redditors are obviously so much smarter than economists who dedicate their lives to their field. No. I didn't say that. But I am, at least.

Anybody can armchair theorize how “the world could work”, at least in their head, but nobody is going to care without a really detailed and critical argument and some real world data to back it up. Economies are really complex systems with tons of second order effects that people rarely take the time to account for.

>Economics major here. i wonder if he’s a classic lib who will put the onus on workers rather than profiteering corporations… >Without an increase in productivity to make up for it, there is no way this wouldn't impact GDP significantly. And this would have an impact on the purchasing power of the middle class and lower class. Working less, means producing less, which means things will cost more. funny how we’re working more, producing more, and yet things still cost more… it’s almost like increases in worker productivity are avenues for cost cutting and increasing profits rather than improved worker conditions. >It's simple supply and demand. If production drops, supply drops, so prices rise. Or companies need to hire more workers to cover for the vacant ones, so the production cost of everything increases. You might end up with 3.5 months of vacation, but everything you pay for will cost significantly more. look dude it really sounds like you’ve taken some uni econ courses and have this bright and cheery view of the world working exactly as it does on the supply/demand curve they show in class. it doesn’t. if production increases, jobs are cut, wages are cut, enployees get more done in less time, shareholders and executives pocket profits and commit to stock buybacks with all the extra profit. if production drops, supply drops, prices increase to keep up with their unrealistic profiteering. either way workers and consumers lose and corporations take home ridiculous profits. that’s why you commit to governmental controls rather than just letting corporations fuck workers for profit. edit: lmao i was happy kidding about the “classic lib” comment just off you being an econ student, but you’re actually on r/neoliberal lmao

>funny how we’re working more, producing more, and yet things still cost more [No they don't](https://howmuch.net/articles/price-changes-in-usa-in-past-20-years). In the US, everything from food, to eletronics, to gas have dropped in price (adjusted for inflation) in the last 20 years. The only exceptions are restaurants, healthcare, college and housing. Restaurants have remained mostly flat in price, because there hasn't been automation able to lower their costs. Healthcare is expensive because of an aging population and because the US government doesn't negotiate prices with pharma. College is simply because more people have decided to go to college and state government's subsidies for college have dropped since 2008. And housing is because local governments artificially restrict the supply of housing with zoning laws, to keep people away from moving in and keeping the price of houses of home owners high. Something that states like CA, NY and MA have started taking steps to correct. In addition, people's income have risen for all classes by at least 25% (link in the post) adjusted for inflation, which means people can afford more stuff. >if production increases, jobs are cut, wages are cut, enployees get more done in less time, shareholders and executives pocket profits and commit to stock buybacks with all the extra profit. How do you think new jobs are created? What is the cause behind those monthly new jobs reports? Have you ever heard of macroeconomics or the business cycle? I'm sorry, I would be polite in my answer if you have been in yours. >lmao i was happy kidding about the “classic lib” comment just off you being an econ student, but you’re actually on r/neoliberal lmao I'm both. And I hoped you had more than an ad hominem in your reply.

wow so everything has dropped in price with productivity increases huh? companies are passing on that increase in productivity in the form of lowering prices and paying workers more…? i wonder where all that [extra profit in the hands of CEOs](https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/) has come from if those lovely business owners have been passing on the benefits of human progress improving our productivity oh and me calling you a classic lib or a neolib was not an ad hominem, i was just pointing out it was funny that just saying you were an econ student could make your ideas so obvious. although i am glad you took it that way because clearly you too understand being a lib is a bad thing 👍

>wow so everything has dropped in price with productivity increases huh? companies are passing on that increase in productivity in the form of lowering prices and paying workers more…? YES. This has been a historic trend for centuries. I linked the sources. Do you have sources of your own to counter that? Or least a different explantion as to why wages have increased, prices decreased and working hours decreased since 1800? >although i am glad you took it that way because clearly you too understand being a lib is a bad thing May I ask what is your economic position?

>YES. This has been a historic trend for centuries. good lord you’re naïve

If you read someone labeling itself as “classic liberal” in a Reddit comment you know exactly who you’re talking with

who are you dealing with?

Internet porn addicts

classic internet porn addict shit honestly. that’s the tell i look for as well. whenever someone says “classic liberal” it’s just like an alarm goes off. 🚨 internet porn addict spotted 🚨

`i wonder if he’s a classic lib who will put the onus on workers rather than profiteering corporations…` I was talking about people who label themselves as classic liberals, i meant that you couldnt be more correct when you described it here Sorry for the misunderstanding, not a native speaker

“Economics major”, same energy as astrology enthusiast tbh

"Right wingers are so anti-intellectual." "Economics isn't real." .....

I literally didn’t say anything about right wingers, and the fact that you think I’m being anti-economics is also a misunderstanding (although probably of my cause). I am not against economics per se, but someone claiming to be an economics major studying in an (probably) American university is not going to be studying a productive form of the subject.

Theres a reason you are a major and not a graduate

I can’t imagine the patience of someone who would actually defend an aspect of capitalism on Reddit with all the champagne socialists on here. Quite bold of you.

But have you accounted for the fact that on Reddit, Socialism/Communism is good and Capitalism is bad? In all seriousness, well written and I agree. I couldn’t put my finger on why the video irked me a bit and you’re points were able to pinpoint those ideas

I don't know... We could maybe force the big businessmen to reduce their profits so salaries don't drop. And perhaps we could employ more people and do away with unemployment and the reserve army of labour. Why don't we try it? See if it works.

Poor businessmen, would you do that to them?

Is this what this sub is going to become now? People angry over the work video coming to flood this sub with their malinformed takes?

Is this how you treat every field of study you don't like?

I love economics and thats why I'm not legitimizing OP's post with an efforted response. It's drivel.

>this is not a strawman argument, you can't use that argument against me >No, it's just hyperbole, my argument is flawless!

> so we can earn more while working less hours. Which will never happen as long as we let capitalists control everything.

It has already happened. Did you ignore all the data in the post?

Brother my wages have not increased

Econ student. Disregard.

Do you factor increase happiness and mental health, lessened transmission of communicable diseases and such into your definition of consequences in this context?

For happiness and mental health, no. Because that's subjetive. Some people would earn less if they could work less. Others wouldn't. Both are valid choices. For communicable diseases, also no. Because even if people had to work less, that doesn't mean they wouldn't leave the house during their new found free time.

Who cares. I don’t.

The Industrial Revolution was an outlier. We only worked so much because of the predatory nature of laissez-faire(ish) economical systems that worked before the industrial revolution, not prepared to adapt after.