the concern would be that this new ability will actually increase competition and give us less than we had before

this is not something that can just be blamed on the "CEOs/execs/shareholders" of the world. it is evolutionary competition - unless we can ALL join forces to draw the line somewhere, someone will choose to defect from the agreement to "just work less", because doing so will make them succeed at the expense of others. even if everyone from one country agrees, the other competing country that defects and works 996 with agents will "win" and conquer the lazy country.

I wish I knew what to do to fix it, doesn't seem sustainable but I don't know how to make all of humanity cooperate without doing something even worse

▲

refactor_master 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If anything, China proves that 996 is not sustainable as it simply leads to involution and attrition. At best the populace benefits in a few hyper-focused industries such as take-out and e-commerce, but average life quality is still far behind "lazy countries".

	▲	cmuguythrow an hour ago \| parent [-]
		sadly life quality is not the thing that the competitive system is maximizing for, and thats one of the article's points. we compete to our own detriment, but to not compete is to become extinct

▲

chipsrafferty 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Did you just link to a rat website as if that is a good source?

▲

satvikpendem an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A rat website? What does this mean, I'm out of the loop with SSC?

▲

quantummagic an hour ago | parent [-]

It's a pejorative shorthand for "Rationalist".

▲

canyp 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

Why is "rationalist" suddenly a pejorative?

I am definitely out of the loop. I assume it is used pejoratively only by self-labelled idiots?

	▲	quantummagic 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I am not in the loop either. From what i've gleaned, it's more a rejection of the specific internet-based community that embraced such ideas in the early 2000's. But I can't speak on behalf of their beliefs or those of their detractors. Was just trying to help out on the term itself.

▲

cmuguythrow an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Good source for what? I'm just trying to point to a concept, an idea. There's no "facts" here, just speculation. If you disagree with the point there, why don't you just say what you think is true instead, I'm happy to discuss the ways in which the article is wrong

	▲	chipsrafferty an hour ago \| parent [-]
		unless we can ALL join forces to draw the line somewhere, someone will choose to defect from the agreement to "just work less", > We already did draw the line and we can redraw it. We drew the line very strongly at 40 hours, 4 days a week. That is the "official" expected hours for most salaried employees. because doing so will make them succeed at the expense of others. > This already happens. People making salary, 40 hours, that work 50, 60, etc. to get ahead of their coworkers in a career sense. Or people taking optional overtime to get ahead financially or people who work hourly working extra hours or people who have 2+ jobs or a side hustle. even if everyone from one country agrees, the other competing country that defects and works 996 with agents will "win" and conquer the lazy country. > Didn't realize Japan is imminently going to conquer the US because they work more hours.