I remember reading this short piece some time ago. Its critique of the 40 Hour Work Week discomfited me less than intended but only because I work longer by choice, and from obsession. The last two paragraphs...
- The perfect customer is dissatisfied but hopeful, uninterested in serious personal development, highly habituated to the television, working full-time, earning a fair amount, indulging during their free time, and somehow just getting by.
- ...They’ve been working for decades to create millions of ideal consumers, and they have succeeded. Unless you’re a real anomaly, your lifestyle has already been designed.
... provoked a self-satisfied rejection of their assertion that, upon reflection, felt a little too reflexive to be entirely unjustified.
My gut feeling is that Hubski's population is at least at little anomalous. Are we?
waves hands wooooo big business is programming yooooouuu it's the source of all your problems wooooo No it's not. You are the reason for your problems. Your lack of self-discipline is the reason you buy expensive coffees. Your lack of self-discipline is the reason you don't exercise when you get home from work. The author's premise is so shaky I can't believe it's taken seriously. The premise is essentially, "work sucks and that makes you buy shit because you're depressed." Well, yes, that's true, if you're a person who is placated by mindless consumerism, but that's not big business. That's YOU. This article engages in the same illogical, lazy thinking that drives conspiracy theories. It accepts a hypothesis that is easy to digest to explain complex phenomena without analyzing any other explanations.
Just my two cents, I think part of the problem he's addressing is that modern living is set up so it's easy to "buy shit because you're depressed" instead of having some sort of meaningful experience. So yes, it's your choice to buy a bunch of new clothes instead of going on a kayaking trip, but you make that choice because those opportunities aren't given equal weight.
Thanks for posting such a great article! My career has had a number of roles, positions and organisations over the years, involving day-to-day (ie 9-5), or 24/7 shifting, or a combo when events arise. Over the last 3 years though, as much as there'll be something mission-critical every few months, the majority of the time has been much as the article described: Mon-Fri working, not much free time in the arvos, weekends more precious than platinum, and most of it spent catching up on domestic duties, prepping for the coming week, then scratching-head wondering how Friday night became Sunday evening. What struck a real chord is the point about unnecessary purchases, or as I'd say, buying shit. I'd be self aware of doing so, yet find myself doing it almost subconsciously on a daily basis, then weekly, monthly, etc. And it'd be crap, like going to a supermarket for snacks, takeaway lunches, or crap on evilBay I convinced myself I needed. As much as I'd be aware of it, I'd then wonder where my money would go, and have the rich-week/poor-week every fortnight. I changed role again recently and have now gone to 10hr shifts (6-4pm earlies, 2-Midnight lates) and on a 5 On/4 Off roster. This is only the second week, and already I'm spending less on shit (expensive coffees, energy drinks, snacks) during the day, I'm doing more exercise by walking home, spending less on transport, making lunch/dinner in batches, and at the end of the block I get time to recover, do a domestic blitz, and then have 2-3 days of pure weekend relaxation. Which is great considering how many projects I have (and come up) at any given time.
This hinges on the assumptions that humans are programmable though. That we are born a 'blank slate'. But consider the opposite, that maybe there are some fundamental traits that could be called human nature? If that were the case, I'd think it a much simpler explanation that people just like owning stuff, than there being a vast conspiracy designed to trick you.
Amen. It is well known that certain imagery is instinctive to some animals. For example, some baby birds will cower at the silhouette of a hawk, even when they have never seen a hawk before. There is no doubt that we are predisposed to certain behaviors. Occam's razor is conveniently ignored by these types.
I've read this article before, it's definitely one of his better ones. Personally I have a habit of keeping a lot going on that competes with my work, and the wholesome activities described. I do feel that the 40-hour work week is one size that doesn't fit all very well. Some people seem to enjoy just one pursuit, and when that matches their career, they are often quite happy and successful, however retirement poses a challenge. I wonder about the people that work 40 hours to no real pleasure, and then consume. It seems to be a large part of the population. These people could likely benefit from more leisure and social activity. IMO a 4-day workweek would probably suit most people like this that I know. I think most of them would join some sort of activity, like a sports team, yoga, club, etc., and this interaction would build stronger communities. Actually, when my parents were young, my grandmothers did not go to work, nor did most of the other women in the neighborhood. This mix of a 40-hour week and a non-work week in a family probably increased the health of communities overall. It's interesting to think what effect my grandmother's perspective might have had on household consumption. Consumption has so many costs.
I would find it interesting if this article explored how a consuming culture is engineered. I'm not quite sure I buy that there is a Capital T They enforcing a cultural standard as a business strategy. My gut feeling is this culture emerged organically, contrary to this title. That said, I agree that mindlessly consuming is spiritually unsatisfying and the forty-hour workweek ends up reinforcing in part those impulses.
I would agree that certainly did emerge organically, just as some theorise that the entire cultural phenomenon of excess and parasitic proto-bourgeois classes emerged organically in the shift to a sedentary and agricultural society which required grain storage. But certainly some things are designed. Like Gruen and Jerde designed, respectively, old-world ambling shopping environments and fast-paced, stimulating shopping environments based on the transfer of natural environments into architectural choices. The design is to elicit a reaction; in the case of those architectures, respectively a comfortable, reassured affinity with the environment or an excited, heightened engagement with it. Yet the goal in a retail environment is the same, to leverage a response in the shopper which will increase their spending. In fact, contrary to the article, over time, working hours have decreased. Pre-WWII US work week was 60 hours (now avg. 33), Netherlands is aiming for 21. Of course the aim of any civilised organism is to reduce all 'necessary work' to zero and replace it with leisure. Any other goal is insanity, surely? Agreed. The 'They' most people cite is just us with a different shirt on.