|
computer parts posted:You've never said "I don't want to do x because it's too hard"? Never ever in your life? Not because you didn't have time or money to do it, but because it wouldn't be worth the effort you put in? You're basically saying there are things people don't do because they don't want to do them. Presumably, given unlimited time, you'd try to find stuff that you actually do want to accomplish, and failures wouldn't be the end of the world because you'd have enough time to try something else. Yeah, some people just really aren't cut out for managing their own projects and they'll never be any good at it, but that's not really an argument for why paid employment is inherently valuable to individuals or why more free time wouldn't be a good thing for everyone. All that said, I admit that I'm pretty biased. I tend to feel most productive and fulfilled when I have a lot of free time or when my schedule is highly flexible, and "work" (in the sense of employment) rarely makes me feel much of anything. I ditched my job a few years ago to freelance and I haven't looked back since. I have no problem admitting that this probably isn't true for most people, but at the same time I doubt that I'm particularly unique. Edit- I guess what I'm getting at is that leaving something unfinished shouldn't be seen as a personal failure. Most people work jobs that are effectively treadmills anyway, so I don't know why non-work related projects have to be finished to be meaningful. I think there's at least as much personal value in building half a shed as there is in showing up to work every day to take people's lunch orders. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Oct 23, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You're basically saying there are things people don't do because they don't want to do them. Presumably, given unlimited time, you'd try to find stuff that you actually do want to accomplish, and failures wouldn't be the end of the world because you'd have enough time to try something else. Yeah, some people just really aren't cut out for managing their own projects and they'll never be any good at it, but that's not really an argument for why paid employment is inherently valuable to individuals or why more free time wouldn't be a good thing for everyone. More free time for most everyone (i.e., except the rich people) in the current status quo would be a good thing, I don't know where anyone's arguing that. I'm actually not arguing about whether paid employment is valuable either, despite me saying earlier how some people need structure in their life. What I'm saying right now is that the stereotype of "Dad starts a huge project, realizes he's in a big mess halfway through" is going to be true even if Dad didn't have to work for a living, and that it will be a factor in some non-trivial part of society (perhaps not a majority, but at least a significant minority). Actually, a good way to check this would be to look at retired people - they're currently capped by income but there's a lot of cheap hobbies you can do so you can check if failing to finish a project is common or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Talking about adults working to "build character" strikes me as exceptionally condescending. Sure, whatever, maybe flipping burgers as your first job really does teach you something useful, but beyond that it reeks of just world nonsense that we tell ourselves to feel better about the fact that some people will spend their whole lives doing menial work for very little pay. Really now, learning to be willing to work for what you want is in no way comparable to being treated like an expendable resource in return for the opportunity to barely get by. Everything I've seen suggests that the latter doesn't build character - it destroys character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Really now, learning to be willing to work for what you want is in no way comparable to being treated like an expendable resource in return for the opportunity to barely get by. Everything I've seen suggests that the latter doesn't build character - it destroys character. How does one effectively separate the two in a society of waged labour, though? Anyone who's had to do an unpaid internship knows the precise rhetoric built up around it: it's "more valuable" than getting paid, you'll learn so much, everyone else had to pay their dues, etc. This is total ideological nonsense that's used to justify massive amounts of unpaid labour and exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:More free time for most everyone (i.e., except the rich people) in the current status quo would be a good thing, I don't know where anyone's arguing that. I'm actually not arguing about whether paid employment is valuable either, despite me saying earlier how some people need structure in their life. How do you see this point relating to the wider discussion about the value of work? quote:Actually, a good way to check this would be to look at retired people - they're currently capped by income but there's a lot of cheap hobbies you can do so you can check if failing to finish a project is common or not. Does it really make sense to compare somebody who is 20 or 30 with somebody who is over 60? People tend to be much more driven when they are younger so I'm not sure that somebody's behaviour in their golden years is a great way of predicting how people would behave if they had more free time in your youth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
I'm a bit confused as to whether we're regarding work as literally just effort-for-pay, or are including substantially work-like pursuits (volunteering at a soup kitchen, writing a blog just for fun, gardening, etc.). When people talk about how work is character-building, I think they're usually talking about productive effort in general, not solely anything that produces income. Nobody (well, almost nobody) thinks of stay-at-home moms as lazy idlers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I'm a bit confused as to whether we're regarding work as literally just effort-for-pay, or are including substantially work-like pursuits (volunteering at a soup kitchen, writing a blog just for fun, gardening, etc.). When people talk about how work is character-building, I think they're usually talking about productive effort in general, not solely anything that produces income. Nobody (well, almost nobody) thinks of stay-at-home moms as lazy idlers. Now that I actually work with homeless people, I understand how truly useless many kinds of volunteering are. Those jobs could be done more efficiently by staff, but volunteers are used with the hope that they will donate money or spread the word about the program, leading to donations. If you come down and ladle out soup you ain't poo poo. Not really apropos of anything, just thought I'd mention it. I think that people who do productive work of any kind outside of what they are ordered to do by a boss are rare. (Also why most businesses fail)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I'm a bit confused as to whether we're regarding work as literally just effort-for-pay, or are including substantially work-like pursuits (volunteering at a soup kitchen, writing a blog just for fun, gardening, etc.). When people talk about how work is character-building, I think they're usually talking about productive effort in general, not solely anything that produces income. Nobody (well, almost nobody) thinks of stay-at-home moms as lazy idlers. The OP said quote:Work in this case I will narrow to activities performed in the pursuit of monetary benefit. So it would probably be counter-productive to assume all kinds of other meanings of work in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Well, for a little bit more on the building character aspect of paid work, I'm in a skilled trade and got promoted to supervisor of one of three departments at work earlier this year. I am a pretty introverted and scatterbrained person and would never, ever have taken on workflow and people managing responsibilities if I wasn't being paid to do it. It's a lot of deliberate effort to try and not suck at managing, but it's actually working and I've been getting more comfortable, and much better at things that I generally really don't like doing. So in that aspect, work that can push you out of your comfort zone and get you to improve yourself can build character, and the money aspect is a pretty good carrot to keep going even if its something you find difficult. "Building character" through forcing yourself to put up with stupid bullshit until you stop caring is completely different and all too common though. I think good work is valuable for most people, but I also think a lot of companies try just try and mentally beat people down until they stop complaining, and I don't know the solution for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Solenna posted:Well, for a little bit more on the building character aspect of paid work, I'm in a skilled trade and got promoted to supervisor of one of three departments at work earlier this year. I am a pretty introverted and scatterbrained person and would never, ever have taken on workflow and people managing responsibilities if I wasn't being paid to do it. It's a lot of deliberate effort to try and not suck at managing, but it's actually working and I've been getting more comfortable, and much better at things that I generally really don't like doing. So in that aspect, work that can push you out of your comfort zone and get you to improve yourself can build character, and the money aspect is a pretty good carrot to keep going even if its something you find difficult. You expressed this very well. I sort of feel the same way about higher education versus simply trying to teach yourself something. Unless you're insanely, insanely self-motivated, it helps to have a purpose behind whatever you're doing besides "it caught my fancy for a while." Doing things you don't want to do, and being able to persevere through setbacks and frustration (which, let's face it, most people will avoid if there's no reason not to) can and will teach you many useful things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Solenna posted:"Building character" through forcing yourself to put up with stupid bullshit until you stop caring is completely different and all too common though. I think good work is valuable for most people, but I also think a lot of companies try just try and mentally beat people down until they stop complaining, and I don't know the solution for that. There probably isn't one. I was struggling a little bit with how to respond to this, because I think the core of the issue is that there just aren't enough "good" jobs to go around, there never will be, and the bad jobs will always either beat you down or drive you into total apathy because what other reasonable response is there to spending eight or more hours of your day doing work that you don't care about? It's great that you find your job challenging and rewarding, but something like two thirds of US employees are unsatisfied with their jobs in one respect or another. That's a problem that there's not really a solution for, because the bad work needs to be done and it's never going to be engaging or personally satisfying. I think this is why a lot of us in this thread are being careful to distinguish between work and employment/wage labor. Good work is definitely valuable, but for a lot of (maybe most?) people being employed just means showing up somewhere, doing the same thing day in and day out, and getting a paycheck at the end of the week. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I spam that Russell essay at every opportunity, work is a scam. However! Everyone who is dissatisfied with work should try doing something very hard but meaningful that improves people's lives. You may just be flatlining emotionally for want of a challenge. Just as soon as I can not starve or lose the roof over my head, I'd be down for that. I'd love to be working a CSA project somewhere doing farm-to-table food education... but it doesn't pay the bills, and I've gotta eat too. Habitat for Humanity work on the weekends was good back when I had a job that let me do it, but again, paying the bills had to take precedence. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Just as soon as I can not starve or lose the roof over my head, I'd be down for that. I'd love to be working a CSA project somewhere doing farm-to-table food education... but it doesn't pay the bills, and I've gotta eat too. Habitat for Humanity work on the weekends was good back when I had a job that let me do it, but again, paying the bills had to take precedence. That's how it is and that's why I spent last year nagging my supervisor constantly pointing out that our company was expecting people to work full time with difficult kids, to have 4 year degrees, and commute every day to a tech center from wherever it is they can find affordable housing, for $12/hour. More people would do important and fulfilling work if the pay wasn't literally moving them backwards in life. This year they rolled out some fairly significant pay increases but it doesn't change the above factors that much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
This year I went from doing something I love, pastry work, to doing something I tolerate, being an IT Janitor. My hourly more than doubled, and my weekly workload dropped by at least 50%.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:There probably isn't one. I was struggling a little bit with how to respond to this, because I think the core of the issue is that there just aren't enough "good" jobs to go around, there never will be, and the bad jobs will always either beat you down or drive you into total apathy because what other reasonable response is there to spending eight or more hours of your day doing work that you don't care about? It's great that you find your job challenging and rewarding, but something like two thirds of US employees are unsatisfied with their jobs in one respect or another. That's a problem that there's not really a solution for, because the bad work needs to be done and it's never going to be engaging or personally satisfying. I don't see why we couldn't reorganize lovely jobs to be a lot less unpleasant. Let's imagine a quintessentially terrible job like working at a fast-food restaurant. While working at a place that like will probably always be something of a chore it is very easy to imagine changes that would make it a significantly better workplace. Better pay, workplace benefits, increased mechanization to cut down on unpleasant busywork, giving workers more autonomy to set their own hours, reducing or abolishing the division between workers and managers, etc. could probably all lead to a much less stressful and depressing workplace for the actual workers. There are, of course, some social, political and economic barriers to implementing these kinds of changes. But there's nothing that actually makes them impossible. The fact that we make these jobs so lovely is a decision made collectively by society, not some kind of natural law. If restaurant work as seen as dignified, well compensated and "middle class" work and it was compensated accordingly and given the same respect in society that other middle class occupations have then I don't think it would be see as a significantly worse occupation than, say, being an accountant or a technician or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
A good example would be factory work. It was originally a kill-you-to-death place where poors (especially women and children) worked. Then all of a sudden something happened and manufacturing work became the engine that created the middle class in America and Europe. If only we could study what happened there and recreate it in the service industry. My guess is that it was a combination of deregulation and government subsidy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If restaurant work as seen as dignified, well compensated and "middle class" work and it was compensated accordingly and given the same respect in society that other middle class occupations have then I don't think it would be see as a significantly worse occupation than, say, being an accountant or a technician or something. I think it's questionable how far these jobs could be improved before they just end up being replaced by automated solutions. A lot of work in the service and retail industries is considered bad in part because it involves rote, menial tasks. There's also the bigger issue that improving the working environment doesn't necessarily improve the job, so we're back to the idea that there's no real personal value in the work beyond financial compensation. Getting that financial compensation can be made less arduous, but that doesn't mean workers are getting more out of their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I think it's questionable how far these jobs could be improved before they just end up being replaced by automated solutions. A lot of work in the service and retail industries is considered bad in part because it involves rote, menial tasks. There's also the bigger issue that improving the working environment doesn't necessarily improve the job, so we're back to the idea that there's no real personal value in the work beyond financial compensation. Getting that financial compensation can be made less arduous, but that doesn't mean workers are getting more out of their jobs. I think he does have a point that, in addition to the drudgery and low pay, a significant part of what makes low wage work so unpleasant is the attendant sneering/social abuse workers in those positions endure fairly regularly. Not to play into the hands of those on the right that love to bleat about the "dignity of work" (usually as cover for cutting benefits for, say, single mothers on welfare), but working a fast food counter would likely suck less if people didn't treat those doing it as losers/burnouts deserving nothing but contempt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
All things being equal I assume that most (though not all) people would assume complicated and "interesting" jobs to simple and ones. So to an extent it might be true that some jobs are going to be inherently more engaging. However, I think that a lot of our enjoyment or lack of enjoyment is intimately tied up in more nebulous personal factors: how much autonomy do you have in your job, what kind of indignities are you forced to submit to, what is your relationship with the other people in your place of employment, how much social prestige (or stigma) is attached to your occupation, etc. Giving people some ability to control their own schedule, giving them more pay, replacing some of the worst jobs with automation and trying to reduce or remove the idea that some jobs are inherently un dignified would probably make a lot of stereotypically awful jobs less unpleasant. Some work is always going to be dull but I don't think it has to be absolute hell. Saying that lovely jobs are inevitable obscures the huge extent to which we could improve lots of people's job experiences right now,provided we were willing as a society t make those changes. It would entail some major restructuring of the economy but that is more a political issue than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Giving people some ability to control their own schedule, giving them more pay, replacing some of the worst jobs with automation and trying to reduce or remove the idea that some jobs are inherently un dignified would probably make a lot of stereotypically awful jobs less unpleasant. Some work is always going to be dull but I don't think it has to be absolute hell. "The worst jobs" tend to be "anything that involves interacting with the general public," especially in a fast-food or generic retail position, so I doubt we can mechanize away the worst jobs. I worked at a Subway, and while chopping veggies and washing dishes weren't my favourite things, I'd happily do it all day if it meant avoiding that one rear end in a top hat customer that has the magical power to make your life seem like a living hell (oddly enough, there always seems to be at least one of these per shift).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Yeah when I was working retail I'd stock shelves all day in peace (it was soothing in an odd way to shut my brain off and work) but most of the time I was pretending to be busy to avoid the wrath of floor managers while also having to ask them if there was something that needed to be done. Probably a lot of that was a lack of structure and bad managing but one lovely person could also put a nice dent in my day. As for the main topic, work for the sake of work has no value for I'd guess 95% of people. There are some people who just have no aim and others who work just to have something to do but I'd wager if you instituted something like a minimum income just for living you'd see a lot less people working 40+ hour weeks and more people doing whatever they actually enjoy doing. You'd have others that enjoy their jobs and want to keep coming in but those truly fulfilling jobs are few for most people I'd wager. I know if I didn't have to worry so much about putting a roof over my head I'd probably try to learn another language or something along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Giving people some ability to control their own schedule, giving them more pay, replacing some of the worst jobs with automation and trying to reduce or remove the idea that some jobs are inherently un dignified would probably make a lot of stereotypically awful jobs less unpleasant. Some work is always going to be dull but I don't think it has to be absolute hell. How much can we really improve these jobs, though? I might just be lacking in creativity, but I'm a loss for ways that we can make every existing fast food job into a solid middle-class position. McDonalds isn't going to want to pay its cashiers middle class salaries and I doubt it would even be possible for them to operate that way. If they automate as many jobs as possible and leave only those positions that absolutely have to be held by a human being, where do all those people who lost their jobs go now that we're retooling the entire economy to turn bottom rung service and retail jobs into higher paying work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
I'm a huge fan of George Orwell, the consequence of having read 1984 at far too young an age, and for my money his two best books (hard to choose, admittedly) are Down and Out in Paris and London and The Road to Wigan Pier, both of which deal in large part with the conditions of the working class/the poor in the interwar period. There's several passages in Down and Out that I think is relevant to this discussion, that come from his reflections on his time working as a plongeur in Paris kitchens:quote:A plongeur is a slave, and a wasted slave, doing stupid and largely unnecessary work. He is kept at work, ultimately, because of a vague feeling that he would be dangerous if he had leisure. And educated people, who should be on his side, acquiesce in the process, because they know nothing about him and consequently are afraid of him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
I think most of us humans have a talent or a passion but in nearly all cases it is undiscovered or unexplored because it gets pushed to the side in favor of wage slavery to survive. If people were free to explore their curiosities and passions with free education and being given the resources to achieve, we would see a much more fulfilled citizenry and humanity would likely progress much faster as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I think it's questionable how far these jobs could be improved before they just end up being replaced by automated solutions. A lot of work in the service and retail industries is considered bad in part because it involves rote, menial tasks. There's also the bigger issue that improving the working environment doesn't necessarily improve the job, so we're back to the idea that there's no real personal value in the work beyond financial compensation. Getting that financial compensation can be made less arduous, but that doesn't mean workers are getting more out of their jobs. In the restaurant industry specifically, It's the simple fact that even in the highest end places, there just isn't that much money to go around. People either don't value food that highly, or simply can't afford to eat places that raise their prices to pay better wages because they aren't getting any more money themselves in their job. I'm curious how the $15 minimum wage works out in places that are trying it, because I think it will open up a lot more opportunities for the low-income workers to both create more business by patronizing other shops and allow them more freedom to quit a bad job rather than slave away because they can't afford even the minimal disruption of switching jobs. Otherwise, there are a ton of people who are amazingly passionate about the business. They just either burn out and wreck themselves keeping up to the absurd working conditions or get out because they can't afford to stay in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Isn't Chili's pretty automated these days? I can't remember the last time I went to one if ever but I seem to remember a lot of hubbub about them automating the cooking/hostess work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
It honestly depends on the person. I have talked a t length about this on SA but I am lifer ditch-digger and am 100% OK with that because people need my services and my perverse sense of accomplishment comes from helping people get useless poo poo. When I was unemployed for months on end, it was the closest of suicide idealization I've ever come. And I have poo poo to do. Tons. I have poo poo that has been planning for decades to do and I didn't do any of it because I was too paralyzed with hating myself for not contributing to society and living off of my savings and goodwill. I had nothing to wake up for, not even to volunteer. However, now that I am heavily employed - I want to finally do things. My free time is suddenly insanely valuable and I use it as such, and I take much bigger pleasure in things when I have a deadline. It's my antidepressant, considering I can't afford drugs. It keeps my brain basically 'happy' for lack of a better word. To quote Mr. McCormik from South Park: "Weekends are meaningless when you are unemployed." My only issue with my lifestyle is other people have issues with it. A lot of people look down at me for willingly being a cog and would probably prefer I never get paid at all. Not surprising, I work way, way more hours than most of these people for a quarter of their pay. Something that can immediately help with America's attitude towards labor is uncoupling health insurance from employment. For a lot of people, if you aren't working, you don't deserve to see a doctor. Besides a 'loving poors/my taxes' attitude - I think that entirely stems from a weird, oppressive education system that encourages a worldview of Creators vs. Parasites and no grey areas. I should know, I am a product of it - not working literally sadbrains me and makes me feel like A Bad American That Don't Deserve Anything Good. That can't be healthy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Depends on your job. I have worked in a factory, standing for 8 hours in the same place doing literally three to five repeating motions with my hand (controlling springs). When you went through a literal metric ton of metal springs and just in time they are removed a forklift brings a nother fresh ton, killing the tiny feeling of accomplishment you might feel. Clocks run backwards. There's no distraction because it is a factory with moving and dangerous things. You slowly lose your mind, every minute. I have worked in a factory where I carried around heavy poo poo, leaving home at 5am and coming back at 6, falling into the bed too tired to do anything. I have also worked in project management with loooong days and tight schedules, with people life depending on your lovely, uninformed decisions and the constant pressure that never lets you go except when doing drugs. In the first two cases it's hardship, either physical or in the sense of repitiveness and boredom. If it wasn't for the money, I would have quit. I couldn't care less about the result. In the other case, it is also hard. The stress is terrible especially if you haven't learned how to deal with it. But it's not so much about the money. You are throwing yourself into the thing, you identify with the result. It can be fun and it's terrifying. So here there's value much bedyond the financial stuff. Therefore it is my belief that only looking at the financial compensation does not fix the issues with labour. It sometimes feels like the American ethos is about hard work, but hard work for money. If you don't earn money, your self image is damaged. In Germany I feel like this is a bit different. Money is nice and all, but you work hard for the results. For example everyone knows cooks or workers work hard, nobody really thinks CEOs get more money because they work or worked harder. Economically, of all the things financial compensation can be related to, intensity of effort is pretty far down the list. For the price of labour, it doesn't really matter much how hard the McDonald's dude works or how much the work sucks. So for me it's obvious that society should not bind the respect for hard work to money as much as America does and this also goes for the leftist crowd, thinking that if person X gets more money from person Y, we wouldn't have problem Z. Boner Slam fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Boner Slam posted:So for me it's obvious that society should not bind the respect for hard work to money as much as America does and this also goes for the leftist crowd, thinking that if person X gets more money from person Y, we wouldn't have problem Z. Leftists believe that income inequality itself is a feedback into the system that ties income and employment circumstance to self worth. Do you believe that income inequality has no causative association with sociological outcomes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Arri posted:I think most of us humans have a talent or a passion but in nearly all cases it is undiscovered or unexplored because it gets pushed to the side in favor of wage slavery to survive. If people were free to explore their curiosities and passions with free education and being given the resources to achieve, we would see a much more fulfilled citizenry and humanity would likely progress much faster as well. What makes you think that most people wouldn't just spend their days posting on GBS? Or is there something about those types of activities that you equate with "progress"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Fulfillment is going to look different for different people. Trying to judge and shape how people find fulfillment makes you literally Hitler.Armani posted:I should know, I am a product of it - not working literally sadbrains me and makes me feel like A Bad American That Don't Deserve Anything Good. That can't be healthy. It's totally normal and the man counts on it. And the man loves whenever possible to extend that sense of shame and inferiority to the class of job that people who regard themselves as middle class can see as beneath them. This country's too full of people poisoned with selfishness-as-virtue to get over craving an underclass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Fulfillment is going to look different for different people. Trying to judge and shape how people find fulfillment makes you literally Hitler. He didn't say "fulfillment." He said "progress."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
There would be a non-zero number of people who would spend most of their time on selfish leisurely pursuits. But I don't think the workplace would miss anyone that would want to sit around and browse gbs all day. If anything, the absence of people who did not want to work in the workplace could increase productivity. There are people right now living in various states of unemployment/underemployment, and society seems to progress just fine without them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:What makes you think that most people wouldn't just spend their days posting on GBS? Or is there something about those types of activities that you equate with "progress"? Research on this subject is lacking but it's my opinion and experience that people who're content to spend all day jerking off and watching TV for years on end are pretty profoundly depressed or otherwise mentally ill in some way, not typical. Healthy human beings want to do things, they don't need to be forced off the couch with the threat of starvation or homelessness Torka fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
Following on from that it probably doesn't make much sense to organise society around spiting the relatively small percentage of sad people who feel completely fulfilled by video games and masturbation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
What do the people seeking self-fulfillment have to offer to the portion of humanity who is doing all the work that is not fulfilling?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
on the left posted:What do the people seeking self-fulfillment have to offer to the portion of humanity who is doing all the work that is not fulfilling? Why should they be concerned with what they have to "offer" them at all? Why should you be concerned, as long as there is enough to go around? If nobody needs to work, unpleasant jobs will pay a great deal more then they do today, or they won't be done. If they need to be done, the pay has to increase until someone is up for it. I'd happily do sewer work if it would pay me the kind of money I'd need to go on nice vacations every year. European style, not our "oh a weekend here" nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
on the left posted:What do the people seeking self-fulfillment have to offer to the portion of humanity who is doing all the work that is not fulfilling? I don't know, that's probably why we should end inherited wealth. No more handouts from the government, rich kids!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Why should they be concerned with what they have to "offer" them at all? Why should you be concerned, as long as there is enough to go around? Describe a world in which nobody needs to work, yet which still has unpleasant jobs that need to be done. Or any jobs, for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Describe a world in which nobody needs to work, yet which still has unpleasant jobs that need to be done. Or any jobs, for that matter. You mean one that provides a minimum income for all citizens? It's pretty self-explanatory. People can provide for themselves through the mincome, and would only "need" to work if they wanted more material goods and luxuries. And even then, only so much as they desired. Automation would be a net good for society (as less and less jobs would be required to run it effeciently), instead of just a job killing sword of Damocles over the heads of the working class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 19:44
|
|