You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? Now with 3x more gears...

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I like when people can get more time off.

Why the fata do we work so much, anyway? Like, in the 70s and 80s and before I get it. No computers. Waiting around for mail to send things. Driving around to customers' and clients' places more. With all our tech now we can get so much done. It's so lame it doesn't equate to more time off. Still putting in our 40 hours like sheep instead of enjoying the fruits of our collective increased efficiency.

The employer may want to cut your pay because technology is doing half of your work for you.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I like when people can get more time off.

Why the fata do we work so much, anyway? Like, in the 70s and 80s and before I get it. No computers. Waiting around for mail to send things. Driving around to customers' and clients' places more. With all our tech now we can get so much done. It's so lame it doesn't equate to more time off. Still putting in our 40 hours like sheep instead of enjoying the fruits of our collective increased efficiency.

As a society if we lived a 70s standards of living a huge percentage of people could work part time.

But 1 car families, bungalow houses, casserole for dinner (not eating out much if ever), camping in a tent for vacations, no cell phones/internet/cable bill

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If you drive a diesel, it's far worse. Nox emissions are about 0.125g/km for a modern pickup. That's 12.5 per 100km of driving vs 1.86 per hour for the mower. So ban diesel pickups if you are that concerned about Nox. And if you are actually concerned, ban mods and fine them heavily, because they emit far more. Even "clean diesels' emit far more Nox than a mower.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...a-big-business

I’m with you on severe penalties for emissions violaters and I’m on team get rid of trucks and clown campers but that won’t fly.

One thing with Nox regulations is that they look at economically viable alternatives. There are use cases for Diesel engines that currently aren’t substitutable and some of the tech is slowly becoming more economic. This is why they do fleet based Nox criteria a cross different categories and are slowly lower emissions standards across the fleet and individual categories within fleets.

So they are lowering emissions.

Lawn mowers and leaf blowers have economic substitutions at least at the non-acreage sized lots we find in cities. Therefore based on the philosophy of how Nox is managed at the industrial level in Canada we should no longer sell gas powered garden equipment.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think this is true. Worker-boss relationship in office jobs are equivalent to teenager-parent relationship. The younger generation is ahead and uses technology to their advantage.

The boss asks when you can get something done and you tell him it's complex and will take some time, maybe a couple days. You already have scripts and templates that you can set up and complete in an hour or two and bugger off the rest. The boss gets it in a day and a half instead of two and he's happy because you were fast.

Girlysports is the manager now in this scenario.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

As a society if we lived a 70s standards of living a huge percentage of people could work part time.

But 1 car families, bungalow houses, casserole for dinner (not eating out much if ever), camping in a tent for vacations, no cell phones/internet/cable bill

Why stop there? Why the 1970s? It’d be way cheaper to live 1870s style. 600 sq foot wooden shack, no tv, eat what you grow or kill, no car at all.

Oh right because welcome to society and evolving lifestyles.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Why stop there? Why the 1970s? It’d be way cheaper to live 1870s style. 600 sq foot wooden shack, no tv, eat what you grow or kill, no car at all.

Oh right because welcome to society and evolving lifestyles.

Love that “live like you’re in the 70s” was a serious solution to the problem of “increases in efficiency just mean more work for the same pay when it should mean less work.”

“Gosh guys, if you just did as much work as they did in the 70s, they’ll pay you half as much! You’re welcome!”

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

As a society if we lived a 70s standards of living a huge percentage of people could work part time.

But 1 car families, bungalow houses, casserole for dinner (not eating out much if ever), camping in a tent for vacations, no cell phones/internet/cable bill

Less avocado toast

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Why stop there? Why the 1970s? It’d be way cheaper to live 1870s style. 600 sq foot wooden shack, no tv, eat what you grow or kill, no car at all.

Oh right because welcome to society and evolving lifestyles.

The complaint is that society has chosen to pursue ever more consumption, much of which as been eaten by housing price increase, rather than everyone working less and consuming at a constant amount.

We chose to increase the cost of leisure rather than the amount of leisure.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Why stop there? Why the 1970s? It’d be way cheaper to live 1870s style. 600 sq foot wooden shack, no tv, eat what you grow or kill, no car at all.

Oh right because welcome to society and evolving lifestyles.

I wasn't suggesting that as a plan (at all, actually). I take regular nice vacations, drive a vehicle that is filled with semi-conductors, and enjoy my smartphone.

Society as a whole has spent the productivity increases on higher standards of living, not on more leisure time.

As a whole we can consume the same amount of goods and services as we produce. There is no "free lunch" where we spend the productivity gains twice

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by GGG

Girlysports is the manager now in this scenario.

Both! i'm in the middle

[calf]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

The employer may want to cut your pay because technology is doing half of your work for you.

No way. You don't get paid for how long it takes you to do something. You get paid (and rewarded) for finding ways to do it faster and better. The key is to keep finding new things to do with your ingenuity so you don't automate yourself out of a job

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think this is true. Worker-boss relationship in office jobs are equivalent to teenager-parent relationship. The younger generation is ahead and uses technology to their advantage.

The boss asks when you can get something done and you tell him it's complex and will take some time, maybe a couple days. You already have scripts and templates that you can set up and complete in an hour or two and bugger off the rest. The boss gets it in a day and a half instead of two and he's happy because you were fast.

I don’t know about the last part. There are a lot of other interactions between team members and if someone told me a simple task was complex and needed days to complete, I’d question it, especially if that person becomes the bottleneck in completing my own tasks.

That said, some managers can be pretty oblivious, so someone underperforming or padding their time for rudimentary tasks, is likely to continue doing that. We have a guy who is like that, but the manager thinks this guy is the bee’s knees. Gets through his probation period just coasting, watching youtube, and daydreaming all day (in the office). Management doesn’t know any better, and didn’t bother to consult the people that work with him, so now we’re stuck with this guy that we have to come in to the office to keep on track.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by calf

No way. You don't get paid for how long it takes you to do something. You get paid (and rewarded) for finding ways to do it faster and better. The key is to keep finding new things to do with your ingenuity so you don't automate yourself out of a job

Iggy_oi always tells us you should be paid more just for being there longer. Now I’m confused!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Why stop there? Why the 1970s? It’d be way cheaper to live 1870s style. 600 sq foot wooden shack, no tv, eat what you grow or kill, no car at all.

Oh right because welcome to society and evolving lifestyles.

The point is that our gains in productivity have benefitted us in dramatically higher material standards of living. Which answers the question posed of why we haven’t chosen to turn those productivity gains into more free time.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The point is that our gains in productivity have benefitted us in dramatically higher material standards of living. Which answers the question posed of why we haven’t chosen to turn those productivity gains into more free time.

I think there are hardcore diminishing returns on our extra luxuries, though. Like, electricity, running water, family vehicle, 1000sf bungalow...those were all giant steps up. Granite counter tops, two sinks in the master bedroom, renovations every 20 years, massaging seats in my car...they don't add a whole lot, but they're expensive.

I believe the bigger issue is most of us don't have the option of working less than a standard five-day week. My family would happily take a 40% pay cut, ditch a car, not fly anywhere for vacation and camp in a tent if it meant we could work three days a week, but those options don't seem to exist. Or even if - as younger people getting started - we could have worked five days a week and then start tapering it back as our financial foundation improves. From what I see out there, it's generally a full-time job or a menial part-time job. There will be exceptions, but there aren't many reasonable/professional employment options for somebody content to make less and work less.

So, you can find yourself in a position of working more and making more money. You can shovel a bunch away for retirement if you want to get out of the workforce ASAP, but while you're in it and working your balls off, you may as well spend any excess on luxuries to make the five-day grind more palatable, which is what it seems like everybody does. Basically, we're trapped in the five-day work week, so we're all trying to make the best of it.

All of that is to say, on an individual level, we don't really have the choice/option to turn productivity gains into more free time.

[Cappy]

The question is who decided that material gains outweighed more free time.

Most of European nations have high levels of free time - but this was a path chosen before productivity gains from tech advances.

The vast majority of jobs in NA will not allow you to take more time. Most jobs cannot be part-time or .8 time

[CliffFletcher]

I agree that more flexible work models would enable us to better tailor our work/life balance to our preferences.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think there are hardcore diminishing returns on our extra luxuries, though. Like, electricity, running water, family vehicle, 1000sf bungalow...those were all giant steps up. Granite counter tops, two sinks in the master bedroom, renovations every 20 years, massaging seats in my car...they don't add a whole lot, but they're expensive.

I believe the bigger issue is most of us don't have the option of working less than a standard five-day week. My family would happily take a 40% pay cut, ditch a car, not fly anywhere for vacation and camp in a tent if it meant we could work three days a week, but those options don't seem to exist. Or even if - as younger people getting started - we could have worked five days a week and then start tapering it back as our financial foundation improves. From what I see out there, it's generally a full-time job or a menial part-time job. There will be exceptions, but there aren't many reasonable/professional employment options for somebody content to make less and work less.

So, you can find yourself in a position of working more and making more money. You can shovel a bunch away for retirement if you want to get out of the workforce ASAP, but while you're in it and working your balls off, you may as well spend any excess on luxuries to make the five-day grind more palatable, which is what it seems like everybody does. Basically, we're trapped in the five-day work week, so we're all trying to make the best of it.

All of that is to say, on an individual level, we don't really have the choice/option to turn productivity gains into more free time.

All true, however as the world ran towards increased globalization I think that it meant that productivity of a country / society was ever more important or you squander / trade your standard of living to those countries / societies that are willing to put in the work.

It's easy for Sliver to sit here in Lake Bonavista, one of the nicest communities in Calgary, which is one of the nicest most liveable cities on Earth and in Canada, one of the safest highest standard living countries on Earth, and now make claims of 'hey why are we doing this?'. You're already on top of the life mountain, so easy for you to say but the reality is that for many societies productivity and work are essential to chasing what we have. I wonder your assessment if you were in these other people's shoes.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by mr.coffee

It's easy for Sliver to sit here in Lake Bonavista, one of the nicest communities in SE Calgary

ftfy

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

All true, however as the world ran towards increased globalization I think that it meant that productivity of a country / society was ever more important or you squander / trade your standard of living to those countries / societies that are willing to put in the work.

It's easy for Sliver to sit here in Lake Bonavista, one of the nicest communities in Calgary, which is one of the nicest most liveable cities on Earth and in Canada, one of the safest highest standard living countries on Earth, and now make claims of 'hey why are we doing this?'. You're already on top of the life mountain, so easy for you to say but the reality is that for many societies productivity and work are essential to chasing what we have. I wonder your assessment if you were in these other people's shoes.

Very true.

It just would be nice to have the option taper back the work schedule, or work more if you choose. Even from the perspective of, "I've got mine," so maybe somebody else needs to get theirs. Ever work in one of those companies where you get a few boomers on top just hanging on and raking in the cash while a ton of younger people could benefit by them getting the fata out of the way so others have an opportunity to rise? I've seen it and it's really annoying. Like, how much is enough?

You're also right on the society as a whole thing. If we stop working, how long before we fall back relative to the rest of the world. Huge risk to taking our hand off the wheel.

Basically, I just wish there was some sort of utopia where we could all work less and spend our limited time here doing things we enjoy more.

I recently hired a guy to help me at my work - I'd like to take more time off and I know I'll make less as a result. Nothing I'd like to buy more than free time, but I don't want to be the only one benefitting from a better work/life balance on the backs of my staff. To combat that some, I'm increasing my bonus structure for all my staff this year. Also changed our schedule to 4.5 days per week. Some people are working 9, 9, 9, 9, 4 and some are doing 8, 8, 8, 8, 4...either way is fine with me depending on what people want.

IDK, man, there has to be a way to get us all more free time. I'm fataing around to try to figure out something where I am, but the solutions aren't easy to come by I'm finding. I also have to be mindful of my customers' needs. Our products typically are business to business, so I can't let other people down and have it affect their livelihood because we want more patio time or to take off earlier in the day to go camping. That's not fair, either.