• cloudshouter@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 day ago

    You didn’t mention unpaid lunch time, making sure you get there before clock in, any phone calls or emails that happen after hours, taking kids to daycare, and all the little things that you wouldn’t be doing if it wasn’t for your job. I guess that comes out of the “8 hours of sleep” time.

    • WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 day ago

      I was going for the gist, not an exhaustive detailing of what most of us already know and/or doesn’t apply to everyone’s particular jobs. Nonetheless, you are absolutely correct in that there’s a LOT unaccounted for in OP’s generalization.

      • mirshafie@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        OP created their post 100 years ago when this sentiment was much more radical. The fact that we failed to move our positions further in one hundred years is kinda on us.

        I think we need an international strike to reduce working hours (with retained compensation) from 8→6 hours. Could be a good test run for more radical change.

        • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          People also often lived much closer to their work so commuting was just walking down the street a short ways. It wasn’t until cars became common that the sprawl and long commutes started.

          • Mirshe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Somewhat, yes - reliable public transit was also still incredibly common into WWII (and beyond in some major metros). Even if your job was downtown and you were living outside the core, you could reliably expect bus or train service within a block or two of your house, and a reliable enough network with enough stops to let you walk to your office or whatever with fair ease.

        • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          22 hours ago

          It’s actually gotten worse in the last 100 years. See, back then, most women would do unpaid household labour, and men would work. So your typical married household does 40 hours of work a week.

          Nowadays, we have (some) gender equality, which means everyone works 40 hours a week. So your typical married household does 80 hours of paid work a week, PLUS the unpaid work that still needs to be done!

          If we want to get back to doing the same work as a society as in 1926, we need to legally mandate a 4 hour workday. Anything less is a regression in workers’ rights.

          • mirshafie@europe.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            19 hours ago

            This is a very important point. We doubled the amount of labor, but the wealth of households stayed flat.

          • SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            It’s actually gotten worse in the last 100 years. See, back then, most women would do unpaid household labour, and men would work

            This might have been true for someone in a relatively well off class position, but for the majority of working class people 100 years ago, the women also worked. Especially in things like service and textiles.

            It wasn’t until the post-war economic boom with soldiers coming home and taking advantage of the GI Bill, did the “traditional” setup of women being stay-at-home mothers while the man worked, become normative. At least among white families.