this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
1617 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

77715 readers
3807 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less,

It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In response to better technology that reduced the need for work hours.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

no, in response to human beings needing rest. the need for work hours was drastically reduced since, but nothing changed. corporations don't care, they just want you to work until you die, no matter how much you contribute none of them is gonna say "you know what, that's enough, maybe you should work less". wage theft keeps getting worse.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, but that's not because technology doesn't reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

no? no one argued tech doesn't reduce the need for working hours. read it again.

[–] mriormro@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That wasn't technology. It was the literal spilling of blood of workers and organizers fighting and dying for those rights.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And you think they just did it because?

They obviously thought they deserved it, because... technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

no, they deserve it regardless.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Which has nothing to do with whether technology reduces the need for working hours, which is what I was arguing.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How do you think we got the 40hr work week?

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Stop after your first 4 words and you'd be correct but all your other words are just your imagination and you trying to rationalize what you've already said.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Obviously I'm trying to rationalize what I already said, that's how an argument works.

I am arguing that better technology reduces the need for working hours.

That's it.