Right, but a day off would reduce supply.

And 2 days off was not a system dictated by God, which we are obligated to keep in perpetuity (in fact, most religions dictate 1 day off, not 2).

So, we could, as a society, just choose to make a 32 hour workweek “full time”, and mandate overtime pay after that.

There’s no reason, even under capitalism that we must allow all of the productivity gains to accrue to the benefit of solely those at the top of an enormous pile of wealth.

In fact, I think if we choose to do that as a society, it will end horrifically.

▲

jlebar 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

> There’s no reason, even under capitalism that we must allow all of the productivity gains to accrue to the benefit of solely those at the top of an enormous pile of wealth.

I would question the premise that all or even most of the productivity gains of any past technological improvement have accrued to the benefit of solely those at the top of an enormous pile of wealth.

200 years ago 90% of Americans lived on farms. In the early 1900s, it was 40%. Today that number is 2%.

The economic surplus from that increase in productivity accrued to everyone in society, not just the wealthy. (The evidence for this is that we are all living at a higher standard of living today than we were in the early 1800s or 1900s.)

But certainly the positive supply shock was not great news for farmers, many of whom lost their jobs. In the case of AI, I'm asking us -- programmers -- not to make the mistake of saying "this is not a benefit for me, therefore it's not a benefit for society".

	▲	musicale a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I would question the premise that all or even most of the productivity gains of any past technological improvement have accrued to the benefit of solely those at the top of an enormous pile of wealth. "replacing workers with technology “explains 50 to 70%” of the increase in inequality from 1980 to about 2016." https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/21/1067563/automati...
	▲	komali2 8 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> The economic surplus from that increase in productivity accrued to everyone in society, not just the wealthy. Sure, a poor man with two dollars is richer than a poor man with one dollar. And yet the man handing out the dollars had 100$ in surplus when he was handing out 1s and now that he's handing out 2's he's got 1,000,000,000. Look at the wealth disparity. Even if quality of life has increased, it's not wrong for the people delivering that increased quality of life (workers) to also demand a requisite slice of the pie. In fact, I see no reason why the pie should be shared with wealthy non workers at all. Were they necessary for the increased quality of life? On top of that, it's a global economy. Expand beyond the USA and include in your analysis how life has changed in imperialized nations that now function as cheap labor sources for our factories that pollute the local environment while exploiting workers for absurdly low wages and bad working conditions.