• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    290
    ·
    2 months ago

    In 1884 trade unions were demanding that work days be reduced from the typical 10-12 hours (6 days a week) down to a maximum of 8 hours. They set a deadline of May 1, 1886. When that deadline wasn’t met, they held a peaceful protest in Chicago. On May 3rd, angry striking workers pushed toward some gates to confront strikebreakers / scabs. The police fired on the strikers, killing 6. The next day, there was a rally at Haymarket Square. At night, the police came in force to try to disperse the crowd. Someone threw a bomb at the police, killing one of them and severely wounding others. The police fired on the crowd, and some protesters fired back. At least 4 people were killed and at least 70 injured.

    The result of all this, including the unfair trials, executions, pardons, etc. was a lot of attention to the 8-hour workday movement.

    In 1890, the unions planned for another strike with the goal being the 8-hour work day. This time, with the help of the second Communist International, it went worldwide. The riot in Haymarket Square in Chicago on May 1 became a rallying cry for workers worldwide, and ever since then that has been the International Workers Day. But, in the US, the fact it was associated with communism was too scary, so the US celebration of Labour was moved to Sept 1st. Instead of International Workers Day, on May 1 the US celebrates (I kid you not) “Loyalty Day” and “Law Day” – extremely rich given that the thing that kicked it off was a time when there was a bloody confrontation between cops and labour.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

    A couple of decades later in the 1910s, as unions continued to push for an 8-hour work day, Henry Ford went with the 8-hour day in his factories, and that was so influential that it eventually became the norm.

    The 5 day work week came after the 8 hour day. It was partially the result of Henry Ford deciding that it was more beneficial to give his workers 2 days off. It was also influenced by a cotton mill employing both Jewish and Christian workers arranging work schedules so each group could have its sabbath off. Once Ford made that rule, unions pushed extremely hard to make it a standard thing, but again, it took decades. It wasn’t until 1940 that the Fair Labor Standards Act in the US made a 40 hour work week mandatory.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend

    The point of all this?

    The 40-hour work week was never “designed”. People fought and died to make it a reality.

    People, mostly in unions, frequently communists, fought and died to gradually reduce the number of hours that workers were expected to work. In the mid 1800s the expectation was 6 days a week, 10-12 hours a day. It took decades of fighting to get that down to 6 days of only 8 hours. It took decades more fighting to get it down to 5 days a week rather than 6 or 5.5. It was never something that was “designed”. It was something that took decades of battle.

    White families in the US after WWII were the first to really benefit from a law which had gone into place just before the US entered the war. Those families benefited from decades of work from labour unions and communists to get the work week down to only 40 hours. Then, the economic boom the US received from being the only major country to come out of WWII with its infrastructure essentially untouched meant that for the first time, maybe ever, working-class families were living relatively comfortable lives. The man in the family went to work for the legal maximum 40 hours, and still earned enough to support a whole family without his wife needing to work outside the home.

    What has happened since then isn’t that the “designed” system failed. It’s that the post-war economic boom ended as other countries recovered. It’s that the labour unions got weak, and the capitalists started squeezing again. The 40-hour work week is still theoretically the law of the land. It’s just that take-home pay has been stalled for decades as the cost of living has gone up.

    Don’t get me wrong, workers today still live better than the workers did in the mid 1800s when a work week was something like 60-80 hours. But, because labour unions got weak, and communism was demonized, there was nobody to oppose the owners of capital as they found new ways to squeeze their employees. So, even with a 40 hour week, things have been getting worse.

    The history of the 40 hour week is also important because it shows what’s going to be needed if people want to work less than 40 hours. People are going to need strong unions. They’re going to need to go on strike. They’re going to need to get hurt and maybe killed by the cops who will side with the bosses. And, once enough blood has been spilled, maybe there will be reforms. Complaining about it on social media and thinking that we just need to “design” a new mutually beneficial arrangement is missing the whole point.

  • Zachariah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    119
    ·
    2 months ago

    And even that was a compromise from just working until you drop. People organized and died for the 40-hour workweek.

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah then women entered the workforce and employers were like, “yayyy! Now we have doubled the labor pool. We can pay people half as much by not increasing real wages for 40 years.”

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is exactly why I liked Elizabeth Warren, she seemed to be the only politician talking about the major issue with tracking “family income” as opposed to individual incomes…

      I’ve been single for the last decade, at this point I know it is permanent. I will never have a second income. I do not enjoy living in someone else’s garage as I near 40 years old… Whatever OPs image has to say, I still feel like a complete failure as societal expectations of an “adult” are pretty much everything I don’t have.

        • techt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Is this not a good-faith suggestion? If you’re going to disagree at least explain your downvote. I had roommates post-thirty and it improved my living situation drastically.

          • Pika@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I expect they probably have the same ideology I have, that this statement is very simple minded and throws very big well “you could just marry someone rich” vibes

            Like yes the comment is genuine but it isn’t reflecting on the fact that what the person is commenting on is the fact that societal expectations is that households required 2 income sources, which is polar opposite of what the society was built on where you used to be able to build a house and have a comfortable living with one income Source in the house, and now you can have two income sources in the house and still struggle to make ends meet. (hence the ideology of a minimum household wage instead of a min wage per individual)

            Take my grandfather for example his house is currently equated at 300,000, he paid 14,000 when he bought it, this was with a stay-at-home wife and a household of four kids. My grandfather was a teacher, so on a teacher’s salary he was able to afford that house and support his kids and his wife all with him being the only one who worked in the house. I believe that’s the point that the commenter was trying to get at and it’s likely why other people down voted that response. “Just get a roommate” doesn’t address the actual issue at hand, it’s a temporary solution to a hard set problem.

            But that is just how I see it,

            • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              300k on a 14k house? That’s chicken shit lol God I feel bad saying that but I feel worse saying my Nana got 1.5 mil on her 15k house. Somebody can do that math but I just ate dinner, I don’t have any room to eat shit too.

          • SoJB@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            the working class should have better living conditions, especially in modern times where worker productivity is multiple times higher than post-WW2 technology allowed even after accounting for the higher tech level required for modern society

            why not simply lower your living conditions?

            Ironic how the one arguing in bad faith is the one complaining about it.

      • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        It is why I supported Warren, too. The concept is pro family, pro worker and pro business. It is terrible it is out of reach for so many families.

    • jdnewmil@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      I view college as training for dealing with deadlines and some logic practice (e.g. this essay isn’t coherent; math exam next Wednesday). I never see people come through the door ready to go… it takes a few weeks before even the most basic tasks can be delegated. Their writing still sucks 90% of the time, and their math is usually shaky (lucky we have automated many steps with computers.)

      I agree that the pace at which all this goes is exhausting and more breaks are needed, but the third world is still full of people working overtime to overtake these “professional” jobs that colleges purport to prep workers for. Don’t go to an overpriced Ivy League school and take on debt and expect a 20h week… go to a govt sponsored school and be prepared to compete with the remote workers working for the company that is undercutting your employer. Welcome to globalization.

  • ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    2 months ago

    We have to be in the office 5 days a week. My boss who is a boomer/late gen X gets annoyed when people aren’t “butts in their seats 9-5”. I’m a Xellenial and really don’t care when my guys are in as long as they get things done. I keep telling him the more rigid he is with time, the more likely we are to lose good people. We’re already on thin ice with 5 days in office and have been losing people. It’s a constant fight that I have to shield them as much as possible from.

    • Xaphanos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Xellenial - I like that. I’m also an in-betweener - Boomer and X. It’s also called Generation Jones.

      Do you feel part of either, part of both, or completely not fitting in with either?

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Part of both. My work ethic is closer to that of X, but I very much understand the millennial approach to things. They way I’ve heard that sub-generation defined is “analog childhood, digital adulthood”

  • LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    2 months ago

    I really needed this. I live alone and work full time and have chronic illnesses. I struggle to keep up with everything and it drives me absolutely crazy. Idk how people can keep their homes so clean and still have time for themselves.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      hey, married people without chronic illnesses can barely manage as two people and sometimes with outside help. idk where you get the idea people have time for themselves. pretty much no one i know does.

      you have a lot to sort through and you shouldn’t be hindering yourself by being hard on yourself or comparing yourself to some imagined perfection outside.

      small chunks, one thing at a time. if you don’t have time for something don’t worry about it. work on your peace of mind and wellbeing first. getting rid of some dust bunnies won’t do much good if it costs you your mental health.

      • LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Thank you for the encouraging words. It means a lot. My very messy home is a source of distress in regards to my mental health, unfortunately. I managed to get a couple tasks done yesterday and feel a little better about it. I still have so much to do. It also doesn’t help that my pets love to tear things out as soon as I put them away. Little shits are so sneaky.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          these are mostly tips for procrastinating but could apply:

          prioritize according to urgency: do you have something to wear for tomorrow? do you have clean plates/cups to eat and drink? if one task needs attention first, that should be the only thing you care about. don’t think about both at the same time.

          and for that one task: if you can fragment it into small chunks and worry about only one chunk at a time that could help. you don’t need to do the whole laundry, you just need a couple white undergarments washed today.

          focusing on a small chunk could help minimize the size of the task in your mind and encourage you to get into it a bit more easily. usually starting is the hardest part so when you do a couple of clothing items, it feels insignificant, maybe almost silly not to finish it. i mean you’re there, the laundry is there. “might as well” is a pretty strong motivation; how you might trick yourself to get to that part is the challenge.

          some people use timers instead. like the five minute rule: commit to only do a task for five minutes. time it if it helps. again this should help minimize the task to just a five minute thing but once you’re doing something for five minutes it will often feel trivial not to finish it while you’re at it.

          another one is a two minute rule: you don’t even commit to doing the task itself. just commit to “get ready” for two minutes. that minimizes the task even more. getting the laundry basket ready, taking the hoover out of wherever you keep it and plugging it in, the simplest of things… once you’re there you might feel comfortable starting at that point.

          final thing, not about procrastinating but this might apply to your chronic illness:

          once i tried learning to play the guitar, and had these audio lessons to get started. they put my mind at ease because here’s how they opened:

          Lesson One — If it hurts, stop.

          sometimes it’s easy to blame ourselves for feeling tired or even hurting through a task… and feel pressure to push through, only to risk feeling worse or injury

      • LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Thank you. I’m getting therapy right now and one of my goals is to be able to manage things better. Hoping my therapist can help me out.

        I know people who have living conditions and habits far, FAR worse than mine, so I just think of them when I’m spiraling and feel a little better.

        • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Reasonable expectations and also downsizing. It took me a long time to realize your stuff ends up owning you, especially stuff you don’t need.

          It’s extra surfaces to clean, takes up space in your living area, and usually stops contributing to your mental well being.

          Stuff like original artwork, that works for me. I like going to starving artist sales and can usually find something to put on the wall.

  • phx@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ll add to this: it was also from an age where necessities were fairly readily available at basic income levels (in most cities) and through a lifetime you could get ahead and upgrade your house along the way while supporting a family on a single person’s income.

    Now you can have two people making a decent income and still have issues affording rent/mortgage. Necessities have gone up significantly while stuff like TVs have become cheaper but also shorter-lived.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      It comes from a very particular age.

      It was after WWII when the US was one of the few countries that hadn’t had its infrastructure destroyed by the war. It was also the late 1940s. In the 1930s the New Deal had shifted a lot of power from the rich capital owners to workers, but because of the waning years of the depression and then WWII, nobody had really seen the fruits of that work. Suddenly in the late 40s, the war ended, the US economy was in a huge boom because it was the only place in the world that could still make things, and workers had all kinds of hard-won protections.

      This was never going to be sustainable. Eventually the rest of the world was going to rebuild, which was going to result in more competition, and a relative weakening of the US economy. But, the post-war years also saw union power getting weaker and weaker. A significant part of that was that organized labour smelled a lot like communism, which was the scary enemy from the end of WWII to the 90s. So… no communism, no organized labour, nobody to push back on the rich as they consolidated power.

      Also, inflation isn’t really the issue, it’s that workers don’t have the power to demand that their wages go up as well. And, of course, with so many workers supporting an anti-union, pro-business party like the GOP, worker power is going to stay near zero.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Are TVs and things really shorter lived? I remember my parents having theirs forever, but I was like 8 years old. Everything felt like forever. That 21" TV that lasted most of my childhood was probably only about six or seven years old when they swapped it out for a bigger one.

      Meanwhile as an adult my TV still feels new because I remember paying for it, but it is already 7 years old. And I’m not thinking of replacing it yet.

      For computers I had a Spectrum +3 which felt like I had it for a lifetime, but looking at release dates for that and what I replaced it with, I must have used it for 5 years tops, and the same for the Amiga 1200 I replaced it with. Modern consoles have about a 7 year lifespan. They’re cheaper too, when you take inflation into account.

      Housing is fucked. Although I do think too many people have this weird idea that they need to live in big cities or popular areas. You can live in a smaller place. They have electricity, internet and food. You’ll survive.

      • 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Having seen a lot of failed tv/monitors I’d say they fail easier since we went lcd. The polarizing films get vinegar syndrome, and the LED lens start popping off from aging adhesive at around 10 years.

        Beyond that LEDs start failing because of excessive heat depending on the backlight settings in the same timeframe and when one or two have problems it usually cascades into full failure - or trips a check in the TVs software to turn off the backlight making the TV unusable anyway.

        Newer TVs usually have even more complexity and will likely fail quicker IMO.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’ll agree that a modern TV is unlikely to be economically repairable if it breaks. For the price of calling somebody out to look at it, you could have got a used (or even new) one that’s still better than what you had.

          Where the good old days you had a local TV repair man, who could fix the few things that went wrong with them. And chances are most TVs then had the exact same faults. It wasn’t just a couple of circuit boards they no longer make that cost nearly the same as the whole TV.

          My TVs and monitors have always been fairly reliable. Only really had one fail before I wanted to upgrade it anyway, and that was a cheap Samsung monitor that was pushing 15 years old. A £40 used one from CEX was just as good. I don’t know if I’ve just been lucky, but I tend to stay away from the cheapo supermarket brands. If you’re buying the Deal of The Week from Aldi, where they get you a 65" TV for under £400 then you might have less luck.

          • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            15 years isn’t really that long. Older tvs could last decades. My grandparents are still using a TV they bought at least 30 years ago. My other set of grandparents have some tvs still functioning that are even older than that.

            • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              My dad bought a small electric fan in the 70s. It still works (he gave it to me.)

              I bought a taller fan in the 00s. The motor burned twice in 5 years and then I couldn’t find where to repair it anymore.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m in Canada. Even smaller cities are absolutely fucked for house prices or rent right now

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I had to laugh when somebody in my office found a house for £25,000 in the middle of my nearby city.

          “It’s a nice one too!” he said, pointing at the picture.

          I looked over his shoulder. “Mate, that’s the price for the parking space in front of it.”

          The property sites are a minefield though. The parking paces are obvious enough to people with eyes, but the amount of cheaper properties and then you see it’s for part ownership…

  • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    So true. People seem to have convinced themselves that 35/40 hour weeks was some kind of ideal or agreed amount of hours we all found to be the best balance of all things.

    Nope, it used to be 60, until people fought back and made them reduce the hours they’re forced to work for other people’s profit.

    The problem is, we stopped fighting back.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It was a measure enacted during wartimes to increase productivity, or at least that’s what they said, because it was never rolled back to pre-war even after the US was no longer engaged.

      Always beware what they try to slip through under the guise of patriotism and “unity.”

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    One thing I like about WFH is that I can do the chores and stuff during the day. Take a break every hour or two is healthy, and using that time to do laundry or dishes or a quick errand means I have a lot more time in the evening and on weekends

  • N0body@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 months ago

    Even worse, the entire concept of clocking in and out for ~8-hour shifts comes from factory jobs during the Industrial Revolution. Missing time meant that your station on the line wasn’t being manned and was holding up production. While obviously some fields still operate like that, many modern professions are task-oriented and being forced to be physically present for an entire shift is entirely unnecessary.

  • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    They also expected a lot less. One of the hardest parts of being a nurse in the modern day is having to be mentally “on” for 2x6h for 2-3 days straight (or just 12h straight if I don’t make it to lunch). I’m constantly having to evaluate and reevaluate every action I take and decide whether multiple different types of clinical alarms are actionable or not moment-to-moment. I actually LOVE getting a nursing assistant assignment for the night because it means I get to just clean things and people all night and not have to think (as much) about every possible medication and health condition and how all of them will interact. I would 100% just make beds and wipe butts all shift and give meds 1-2x if they’d let me. That honestly sounds so mentally zen to me.

  • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    Friendly reminder you work more now than your ancestors did before all the innovations we have now, and you get a much smaller slice of the pie for it.

  • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    I always wondered what would happen if we had a family wage, instead of a minimum wage. The social and economic implications are an interesting thought experiment.

    • Lesrid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve had thoughts along those lines. Like how everything I buy is just something my employer technically spent money on with the indirect expectation I am making purchases to keep myself relatively fit for work. But atomization is capitalism’s greatest strength, this economy runs on scapegoats and finger wagging.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    We’re seeing the race to the bottom that is inevitable under capitalism, unless there’s some form of outside intervention.

    When it was the norm for a single person in a household to work, wages had to be sufficient to support a household with a single source of income. Men almost always earned significantly more than women; it was assumed that a working woman was either supplementing income, or not taking care of a household, and it was assumed that a working man needed to care for a household. As women started to enter the workforce in greater numbers in the 50s and 60s, you see household incomes start inching higher; as incomes increase, prices increase to meet the available income. Rising prices leads to more women entering the workforce, because a single income is no longer sufficient to meet the requirements for a household. By the time you get to the late 80s, it’s nearly impossible to have a family on a single income. Now a two income household can barely afford to even have an apartment, much less have a family.

    Now you have people working a day job, and working gig jobs for secondary income, to ‘get ahead’. Eventually that will be the new normal, just what is necessary to keep up with prices.

    Without putting capitalism on a very short leash, this is only going to get worse.