I heard that back in the days, people used to just go when their work was done on the farms and there was no concept of 9-5 (these days seem 24 hours work). There used to be a lot of holidays. Is that true? If it is, then given the abundance in technology, why our work hours increased and why do we have such weird lives that we live to work?

    • Naive@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      I did not get any work yet but yeah, my main quest is knowledge to prove myself wrong

  • thejml@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Companies need to make line go up. You could increase productivity by using more tech (computers, tools, etc), but you can also do it by working longer. So the people in charge said “why not both?!” And here we are.

    I feel like some of it also is “work until you’re done” still. Hourly jobs pay per hour. But salary jobs typically pay you for work accomplishments, not time. Unfortunately I feel like a lot of tech improvements and processes have oversold their productivity improvements… example: AI will make you go code 10x as fast! So managers hear that (typically upper management, not middle/lower management who actually see it) and thus expect people to instantly do 10x the work. So you now have to bust your ass off working longer hours to meet that expectation. Good middle management will push back and reset expectations, but often the damage is done when they can half their work force with the assumption that they’re going to be so much more productive now that this new magical tool is in place.

    • kboos1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      A group of about 30 middle managers pushed back on policies and processes that were killing the business, hurting employee moral and eroding customer confidence. They were told “no and that they were the problem and needed to do better”. Next meeting was, hey look at this new AI chatbot that will make everything much faster, like AI is going to fix everything.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      I feel like looking at work at merely profit maximization is missing a big part of the picture.

      There’s a big part of it that’s social positioning within an organization. I’ve worked more than a few jobs that could have been part time or been eliminated entirely, thereby saving the company money, but there is social value of being a manager that employs +1 people, so those jobs stayed.

      There is a massive amount of weirdness going on at companies that is entirely unrelated to the balance sheet and wouldn’t be out of a place in a Byzantine Court.

    • Naive@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      The corporate culture is also quite insane and dehumanizing. This motivates me to be poor than to earn these fellows.

        • Naive@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          And I don’t expect humans to follow those solutions. Humans want miserableness in their life.

          • the_q@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            29 days ago

            I think they don’t want miserableness and that’s the problem. We’ve become slaves to our comforts and the idea of losing them even if a better outcome is possible is too big an ask for people who suck at long view thinking.

  • disregardable@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Farms had a lot more work than just 9-5. Labor unions fought very hard, and many paid with their lives, to get work hours restricted to 9-5.

    • novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Not true. For most of human existence we worked on average like 4h a day. More on harvest and sowing season, practically nothing during the rest of the year.

      And before agriculture, we didn’t really work like that. You did stuff all day, mixed in with a lot of socializing and resting. But no one had a job and people didn’t need to spend x amount of time doing y.

      So not sure what you mean by this. The idea that humans live to work is exclusively a product of the Industrial Revolution.

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Yeah, but the trade off was that you were bound to the land and social hierarchy was much more rigidly enforced. Your pay was mostly in food and accommodations unless you were in a trade, nobility, or the clergy.

    Why do people work more? Because in an industrial setting, the methods of compensation and employer responsibilities are vastly different. Employers are incentivized to treat labor as any other good and will try to lower that cost where possible. In contrast, if you’re a form of bondage, your employer is more likely to treat you like capital.

      • Maeve@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Slavery, wage slavery, tying private, ever-less-and-worse healthcare to private middlemen like employers, insurance companies, PBMs, petrolroducts, SaaS, no ownership, overpriced, shoddy housing, car culture, both overpriced, both dependent on private middlemen insurance companies, extractive exploitation of global South and Asia, that’s also brutal, endless war, abolishing slavery in name but not in practice, 🐂 💩 jobs, inability to wfh when practical, degrading and privatising education, AI to take over creativity and fun rather than back-breaking labor and mind-numbing paper-shuffling,…

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    I heard that back in the days, people used to just go when their work was done on the farms and there was no concept of 9-5 (these days seem 24 hours work).

    Yup. In the ancient world, ascetics and monks would practice “having daily schedules” alongside various other harsh forms of penitence, like self-flagellation. One of the ancient Greek authors (Plato?) spoke about it unfavourably even in that context.

    The flip side of that, is that if your animals or crops need something now, they need it now. There’s no maximum hours or work-life balance, either. Still, it’s fair to say most people that have experienced that much prefer it, if you put aside how uncomfortable the work itself is.

    Because it’s kind of crazy, it’s also worth mentioning that people slept twice in a day, with some time spent up during the night.

    There used to be a lot of holidays. Is that true?

    Kind of.

    Confining ourselves to Europe, there were a lot of public holidays in ancient Rome, and to a lesser extent lots of religious days and festivals in medieval Europe. The medieval holy days were more about fasting or similar than time off of work, though. And, in Rome, there were no weekends yet, so holidays basically served the same role.

    Plus, most holidays were optional in both, so a deeply poor person or a slave with a tough master might work fairly continuously.

    If it is, then given the abundance in technology, why our work hours increased and why do we have such weird lives that we live to work?

    When industialisation came in, 12 hour days were fairly standard. Arguably, working hours have gone down.

    As to why we work on schedules now, you basically just have to in a complex, highly specialised society. If you’re using tools you made and maybe a couple your friend the blacksmith made, and using them to produce food and housing from “your own” land, sure, it just all has to get done sometime. If you’re having a formal meeting or vote and show up 2 days late, like is recorded becoming a problem in medieval republics, it’s a bit disruptive.

      • jtrek@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        The people who do work don’t keep the profits of work. People who “own” stuff do.

        You have a guy who “owns” a factory. He pays some dudes to make widgets, market widgets, sell widgets. They all get $10 a day. They sell $200 of widgets a day. The guy who owns the operation, who’s probably just sitting at home, keeps all those profits. Capitalism.

        The workers decide they want more rights. Get paid in real money. Sick time. 8 hour days. Owner says nah. Workers go on strike. Owner gets the police or the army to break the strike with violence. Arrest any leaders they survive. Historical context of capitalism.

        Also the guy who owns the factory, maybe he just got it because his grand dad was friends with the king or something. Maybe they killed some natives and the state said the land is yours now.

      • Vanth@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        Bingo. Sort of. It includes a lot, to go with the massive breadth that the question entails.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          27 days ago

          That suggests the problem is people don’t have any experience with capitalism, doesn’t it? Whatever it means to the person using the word, it’s always a system live in, or somewhat live in.

          • zbyte64@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            27 days ago

            The issue is the term is meaningless if it isn’t grounded in history. If it simply means “the system you live in” then it says nothing of how it came to be and what can come after.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              26 days ago

              Sure, but there’s no historical context there whatsoever, or even a present-day framing to narrow it down. The main thing it achieves, as a one-word response, is declaring a kind of tribal allegiance.

              If you’ve clearly defined you mean “any market-based system” or “a system which no longer has a landed aristocracy”, among the many other possibilities, then sure, it’s not worth being a pedant about the exact word used. (Although, any conversation is more likely to be productive if you just say what you mean, instead)

              • zbyte64@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                26 days ago

                Yes, using the word “capitalism” is a signifier, but I wouldn’t say it’s counterproductive. Based on a person’s response you can quickly conclude whether they have the historical context to understand the critique. Defining capitalism as “a market-based” system is ahistorical , markets existed before capitalism. It is very hard to surface the critique while also writing a wall of text that describes how capitalism came to be and how it was later moderated

    • blackn1ght@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Are there any other systems, or point in history, where a country’s population could live without working?

      • the_q@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Working in what context? There are native peoples all over the globe that work to live and not to enrich a single sociopath.

      • Vanth@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        I don’t know whether to assume this question is in good faith or not. Can you restate what you think the OP is asking? It’s not about whether there was ever a time when no work was needed.

        I’m not interested in wasting my time against a sealion debating capitalism.

        • blackn1ght@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          I’m not coming from a defence of capitalism. I’m just pointing out that people have had to work in some capacity to live all throughout history. People would still need to work to live under any system.

          • vapordays@leminal.space
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            29 days ago

            I’m just pointing out that people have had to work in some capacity to live all throughout history. People would still need to work to live under any system.

            Nobody said otherwise.

            … the title in OP asked, “why do we live to work, rather than work to live?”

            The response was “capitalism.”

            So: precisely under (not-capitalism)… we could “work to live,” rather than “live to work.”

          • valar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            29 days ago

            That’s true, but the point is in the current system we’re working a lot harder than necessary in order to benefit a few people at the top

  • tomi000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago
    1. Because living is more expensive now than before. In medieval times, you had a 30m² wooden house on your farm that you probably built yourself, no heater, no car, no brand clothes, no washing machine, no electricity at all, no water pipes, etc.

    2. Because when you work on a farm for yourself, you keep 100% of your work. When you work for a company, it keeps most of your work for itself and gives you some compensation in return that depends on a combination of “how much do you need for living” and “how easily could you find another job”.

  • Triumph@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Subsistence farming is a lot of work. Apart from that, the wealthy have always acquired their wealth by theft, usually from the less wealthy. So we’ve always been living to work, because the ruling class needs us to steal from.

  • remon@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Not quite sure what you’re taking about. The number of vacation days has been increasing over the last few decades while work hours have gone down. At least in most developed countries. Hell, even having the weekend off has only been around for a hundred years or so. I sure as shit wouldn’t want to go back to work on some medieval farm …

    • valar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      That medieval peasants worked around 150 days a year is still largely accepted as a valid estimate by academic economic historians

  • zxqwas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    The more productive we have become the greater the opportunity cost of not working has become.

    People generally tend to choose to work the same hours to afford more stuff.

    • Naive@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      I personally don’t like the productivity idea. We are not machines. We make ourselves great by our imperfections.

      • zxqwas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        That is not what productivity means. It means we make more stuff per hour worked, usually by letting machines do the repetitive or heavy work for us.

        • Naive@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          but why does it feel that people are more working than in past and the exhaustion and tiredness that I feel in people who do corporate jobs? I am not doing job yet but I may have to do it after I get graduated, so this thing is very concerning for me.