back

by porridgeraisin·10mo ago·view on hn ↗
Lower rungs are definitely not content working 40 hours a week. They work crazy amounts (multiple jobs even!) just to get to the upper rungs of society.

I support the labour laws limiting an employer to 40hrs a week of a man's labour. This is important for people who really just want some employment and don't want to die. But the vast majority of people work two such jobs and try to get into the higher rungs of the financial ladder. Heck, even SDE3s in software companies work off-hours to become IC's and such, and I'm sure it's similar once you go down the executive route.

> "That's what you do"

That is definitely true, a lot of social fabric erodes when providing labour is turned into a psychotic thing. I'm not entirely convinced the labour laws we have today are enough to prevent this. My opinion is that we need to also have policies on the other side of the coin - i.e encourage family/extended family/communal/what have you living. Not "one child policy" level forced policies, but instead in the form of a good complement to strong labour laws.

1 comments
> They work crazy amounts (multiple jobs even!) just to get to the upper rungs of society.

It does happen, as recognized before, but what suggests this is any kind of norm?

1. The median worker in the USA doesn't even make it to 40 hours of work in a week, only 34. What you say certainly doesn't hold true when dividing the latter in half.

2. Only 21% of the workforce normally puts in more than 40 hours per week. That could represent the lowest rungs, I suppose, but...

3. The data also suggests that those working long hours are more likely to be highly educated, high-wage, salaried, and older men. Does that really fit the profile of someone in the lower runs? Stereotypically, that is who most of us imagine is in the highest rung.

4. The upward mobility of which you speak is not typical. Most people will either stay on the same rung or find themselves heading lower.