Nov 30, 2023Liked by Maxwell Tabarrok, Connor Tabarrok
Agree completely. I would even step back and say that HC is misunderstanding the nature of work. Work is our term for productive activity. His argument thus is a celebration of peasants not being as productive. Today, I can work a temp low skilled job and make 20 times what a peasant could ever hope for. Or I can invest in an education and skills and work 60 hours a week and create immense value not just for my family, but for other human beings.
Thus I can somewhat choose how productive I want to be based upon how much work and effort I want to invest.
Great elaboration of HC’s latest video! Comparing medieval leisure and work with modern leisure and work is definitely not apples to apples.
The main takeaway from the video was that we have plenty of capacity as a civilization to work less. HC assumes we lack the ambition to do so, collectively. But I think with the shift to remote work and more flexible “hybrid” schedules we’re actually seeing more and more leisure time, which is great. If one is fortunate enough to have such a job, anyways.
One point that we didn't touch on but which I think is understated is the effect that greater access to global markets has on people's working preferences. When trade was hyper-local, there was a much smaller selection of goods for people to buy, so it was easier to "cap out" and have no reason to work more once your needs were met, you might be able to afford an extra loaf of bread, but once you're full the value of that loaf diminishes. Now though, we have access to such specialized and global markets that when we work an extra hour or two, it translates into luxuries like access to year-round citrus fruits, seeing new movies, a complex hours long videogame, etc.
I think that as we've begun to fold these fruits of the global market into our expectations of daily life, we lose sight of *why* we are working those extra hours in the first place. It's because the stuff we get in return is awesome!
It all goes back to reframing our view of progress and economic grown in terms of human "capabilities." As I have written, economic growth is a growth in capability, not just in profession, education level, but also of products and services one can buy and enjoy. As we climb higher, the standards for what is considered a "need" is raised, as are the expectations.
This is a really sharp observation. The basic problem with the "return to the past" premise is that it wants all the perceived positives without the negative tradeoffs. In other words, expanding the frontier curve, which is exactly what forward-looking growth does
So essentially many people prefer to exchange leisure time for modern luxuries- which seems very much the case. Priorities probably shift as people get older though
The Industrial Revolution has pretty much ended famine in every area of the world it has spread to, hasn't it? And under "tyrannical landlords" you seem to be including a system where a landlord can evict you, and a system where you are the serf of your landlord. The current system isn't perfect, but it's not serfdom.
You seem to be forgetting huge impactful famines from modern societies like the Holodomor in Ukraine or the Great Hunger in Ireland that had huge geopolitical consequences.
I'm not referring to the current system I'm talking about post Industrial societies where urban squalor in tenement housing and abuse by landlords was rampant if not torturous by our current standards.
Not to mention that during the industrial revolution these 'landlords' were engaged in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Indeed they were. Famines are far less frequent, despite a much large population. Landlord can evict you, but they cannot torture you, force you to work, and even eviction must follow a raft of legal procedures.
That 'raft of legal procedures' in industrializing societies didn't exist and abuse was wide spread. How is paying rent any different that forcing you to work?
It also could be argued that large cash crop monoculture farming made blights and famines more frequent.
"How is paying rent any different that forcing you to work" I can live with someone else, I cannot be someone else.
"It also could be argued that large cash crop monoculture farming made blights and famines more frequent." What? The data says the opposite, across the board. We are producing more food than ever before and famine is far less common.
I don't understand your point about rent-vs-compelled labor.
Asking for a rent in money either compels you to hand over money raised by laboring or selling an asset. Most renters are laborers therefore you are making them pay you from money they made laboring. It is not identical but has large similarities.
I wasn't contesting increase in production but frequency of famine/disease. Cash crop farming and modern farming practices are very different than what a medieval peasant would practice in a lords or local garden. Occurrences like the Irish Potato Blight or extinction of the Gros Michel banana are examples of how mono-culture farming produces dangerous man-made disasters.
I mean if you don't pay a debt you are not just politely escorted from your home. You are evicted or arrested or forced into homelessness which in most industrializing societies was criminalized.
Failing to pay rent does imply some degree of torture albeit at he hands of the state.
The service being provided is to not be turned into a criminal.
Agree completely. I would even step back and say that HC is misunderstanding the nature of work. Work is our term for productive activity. His argument thus is a celebration of peasants not being as productive. Today, I can work a temp low skilled job and make 20 times what a peasant could ever hope for. Or I can invest in an education and skills and work 60 hours a week and create immense value not just for my family, but for other human beings.
Thus I can somewhat choose how productive I want to be based upon how much work and effort I want to invest.
Great elaboration of HC’s latest video! Comparing medieval leisure and work with modern leisure and work is definitely not apples to apples.
The main takeaway from the video was that we have plenty of capacity as a civilization to work less. HC assumes we lack the ambition to do so, collectively. But I think with the shift to remote work and more flexible “hybrid” schedules we’re actually seeing more and more leisure time, which is great. If one is fortunate enough to have such a job, anyways.
One point that we didn't touch on but which I think is understated is the effect that greater access to global markets has on people's working preferences. When trade was hyper-local, there was a much smaller selection of goods for people to buy, so it was easier to "cap out" and have no reason to work more once your needs were met, you might be able to afford an extra loaf of bread, but once you're full the value of that loaf diminishes. Now though, we have access to such specialized and global markets that when we work an extra hour or two, it translates into luxuries like access to year-round citrus fruits, seeing new movies, a complex hours long videogame, etc.
I think that as we've begun to fold these fruits of the global market into our expectations of daily life, we lose sight of *why* we are working those extra hours in the first place. It's because the stuff we get in return is awesome!
It all goes back to reframing our view of progress and economic grown in terms of human "capabilities." As I have written, economic growth is a growth in capability, not just in profession, education level, but also of products and services one can buy and enjoy. As we climb higher, the standards for what is considered a "need" is raised, as are the expectations.
This is a really sharp observation. The basic problem with the "return to the past" premise is that it wants all the perceived positives without the negative tradeoffs. In other words, expanding the frontier curve, which is exactly what forward-looking growth does
So essentially many people prefer to exchange leisure time for modern luxuries- which seems very much the case. Priorities probably shift as people get older though
Sure pre-industrial societies suffered famine and tyrannical landlords, but neither of these were alleviated by the industrial revolution.
The Industrial Revolution has pretty much ended famine in every area of the world it has spread to, hasn't it? And under "tyrannical landlords" you seem to be including a system where a landlord can evict you, and a system where you are the serf of your landlord. The current system isn't perfect, but it's not serfdom.
You seem to be forgetting huge impactful famines from modern societies like the Holodomor in Ukraine or the Great Hunger in Ireland that had huge geopolitical consequences.
I'm not referring to the current system I'm talking about post Industrial societies where urban squalor in tenement housing and abuse by landlords was rampant if not torturous by our current standards.
Not to mention that during the industrial revolution these 'landlords' were engaged in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Indeed they were. Famines are far less frequent, despite a much large population. Landlord can evict you, but they cannot torture you, force you to work, and even eviction must follow a raft of legal procedures.
That 'raft of legal procedures' in industrializing societies didn't exist and abuse was wide spread. How is paying rent any different that forcing you to work?
It also could be argued that large cash crop monoculture farming made blights and famines more frequent.
"How is paying rent any different that forcing you to work" I can live with someone else, I cannot be someone else.
"It also could be argued that large cash crop monoculture farming made blights and famines more frequent." What? The data says the opposite, across the board. We are producing more food than ever before and famine is far less common.
I don't understand your point about rent-vs-compelled labor.
Asking for a rent in money either compels you to hand over money raised by laboring or selling an asset. Most renters are laborers therefore you are making them pay you from money they made laboring. It is not identical but has large similarities.
I wasn't contesting increase in production but frequency of famine/disease. Cash crop farming and modern farming practices are very different than what a medieval peasant would practice in a lords or local garden. Occurrences like the Irish Potato Blight or extinction of the Gros Michel banana are examples of how mono-culture farming produces dangerous man-made disasters.
Compelled labor=I will kill or torture you if you don't work.
Rent=Pay me for the services I am provide, if not, please live somewhere else.
I mean if you don't pay a debt you are not just politely escorted from your home. You are evicted or arrested or forced into homelessness which in most industrializing societies was criminalized.
Failing to pay rent does imply some degree of torture albeit at he hands of the state.
The service being provided is to not be turned into a criminal.
Are there any prospective reforms that are likely to make work chiller and extend leisure time without crushing productivity?
If people are only really productive for 6 hours in a day maybe we should reduce work hours.