|
Let's get together and talk about how much work sucks. I know there are some people who enjoy what they do or have cool workmates, and that's great. But for most people, I imagine, work is the bullshit you have to get through to get to your day off where maybe you can do something fun. So if most people don't like work, shouldn't we change something? I'm not exactly sure how to direct the discussion so I'll just pose some questions and throw my two cents in. - What is the moral value of work, if any exists? Is there some kind of character-building aspect of work that is unavailable with any other activity? Work in this case I will narrow to activities performed in the pursuit of monetary benefit. In other words, your 9-to-5 or whatever. If character building is gained from doing things you don't want to because it is necessary or beneficial, then can't mowing the yard or changing your oil be character building? Or exercise? Or taking a class? Sounds like a joke, but wouldn't there be other activities to have a sense of accomplishment or "getting the job done" other than ringing up people's groceries? - What is it about the culture/society that the idea of diminishing the need for work isn't discussed often today, even when guys from like a hundred years ago were saying it was technically possible in their time? - What would a world with more leisure time for everyone really look like? This is something that I thought about recently. I don't mind working weekends because I don't go out much. Part of the reason I don't like going out much on weekends is that everyone is out on the weekends because it's their day off. Now imagine everyone with every day of the week to do whatever they wanted. I have this vision of everything that you wanna do would be near impossible. You want to go rafting? Where would you find a river not jammed with people? Wanna go to the movies? Better buy your tickets the week before and get to the theater 2 hours before showtime. I even thought that maybe there is something to exclusivity, and tangentially, work and the pursuit of money. But I think that kind of thinking is selfish, and maybe even a product of social conditioning. What do you guys think? - Do you enjoy your work? What specifically do you love or hate about it? Would you quit if you hit the lotto? I have never had a job where I couldn't wait to get there in the morning? I am definitely in the crowd of people who go to work because it pays the bills. I think it's weird when people say that if they were suddenly millionaires they would keep working. It's either they have no identity outside of their job or they have no dreams.
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I work an absolute poo poo job that I'd leave with all of 9 seconds notice if something remotely better came along, but if I came into money I'd eventually keep working. I'd go back to school and get a degree then go do something I actually enjoy. Or if I was really rich maybe set up a foundation and help run that. I think that's a great idea, and something I would think about doing too. But I would say that work that is something you enjoy or are passionate about is different than selling your labor for wages. Cicero posted:Let me play amateur psychologist, and suggest that what work does is create the expectation, in general, that you don't get something for nothing. That getting what you want from the world requires effort, sacrifice, and compromise on your part. I think the reason why people who do not work (people mooching off their parents indefinitely, or living off trust funds) can be so spoiled in their attitude with others is precisely that they're used to getting the basic necessities of life for free, so they automatically expect the same thing interpersonally (that others should treat them well with no effort on their part). I think that the people who need work to teach them that effort, sacrifice, and compromise form the foundation of human relationships and society are probably the people who aren't learning the lesson now anyways. If someone wouldn't use their free time, at least in part, to better themselves, they also are probably a drain on the workplace. But yea, I see where you're coming from. The idea of earning you keep. This sounds like it could steer us towards minimum basic income discussion. I think there is a thread somewhere in the back about it. There is a bit of overlap between the two, I admit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:You might enjoy an old essay on the subject, OP. I know of it, but I never actually got around to reading it haha. I was kinda referencing Russell and Fuller when saying guys from a hundred years ago thought they had the technology to abolish work then. Is it worth a read, or does it contain the arguments I expect? computer parts posted:A lot of people like having a schedule or routine. I've been on multi week vacations before and after about 8-10 days you get the feeling of "this is okay, but I just want to be back home (read: doing my normal routine)". It's also not just a "I want to be physically home" thing because I've done the "summer break playing video games/watching Netflix" thing before and it just tires me out. I have definitely felt the same after a few days off. I sometimes even think work would be easier if there were no vacation days. Vacation's can seem like a tease to me haha. But there are other ways to feel productive and useful. Service to others comes to mind. Volunteering at the food bank or Habitat for Humanity. Dreylad posted:For anyone who likes to read about idleness and work, there's a couple of good periodicals on the subject: The Idler and The New Escapologist. I checked out these links. Thanks for them. The Idler at least seems like it has a few good reads online. The New Escapologist seems cool, but it looks like you have to order a magazine. If I were in London, the Idler Cafe would be on my list of places to visit. Nevvy Z posted:This is true for some, but there are plenty of others who come into fortunes, spend them frivolously, and are left with next to nothing. I think that the fact that most of the people selling their labor are doing it at the expense of their health and well-being is the most compelling argument for the abolition of work. We know how cheap human labor is in the third world, but even in the first world with things like Presenteeism, it's insane how people are compelled to sacrifice their bodies for access to food and shelter. Reason posted:One thing that is curious question to me is how much work is actually necessary? On top of that how much work is actually meaningful? I am a process server and a legal courier, but the majority of my job could be and has been replaced by digital means. Morally that is also better because as the job becomes more digital less paper is used as mail between law firms. I was leaning towards the side of keeping the discussion casual and figuring there would be a general understanding of what is meant without having to set any parameters. That being said, you raise a good question. Off the top of my head, any kind of job that is basically a middleman seems unnecessary. Retail jobs, sports and talent agents, etc. The farmer example to me is work that has no middleman. He is providing for his family and possibly his community in the most basic way possible. We live in a large world, but how necessary are distributors and wholesalers if everyone works together in their local community? Lawman 0 posted:I'm flirting with becoming Baha'i so my attitude towards work has changed with it. I didn't know that about the Baha'i faith. That is interesting. I know of no other religion that doesn't praise asceticism to some extent. Is GIS work google image search? Like SEO stuff?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:GIS stands for Geographic Information Systems. Its central to datafying the world so we have information tied to spacial reference. Its really under appreciated and really important. GIS is about where system admins were about 15 years ago in terms of appropriate recognition but its really the technology which will transform the social sciences, city planning and just about any tech you can think of. To sum it, we have data now GIS makes all this data we're generating MEAN something. This is the first I am hearing about this. It sounds really cool. Some quick searching tells me that it is still kind of a new science because there are not many post-secondary programs about it. Are you working in the GIS field now RuanGacho? Edit: Looking more into this. If I hit the lotto, I am going to pursue a career in GIS haha. crack mayor fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Sales positions and other middlemen can (although don't necessarily) act as filters, feelers and buffers. Even a Best Buy TV salesperson can be useful if they can act as a buffer between the buyer and the manufacturer simply by saying "we've had a lot of returns on that model". At the sports/talent agent level, ignoring all the idiotic poo poo you're paying someone to do a better job of finding you a job than you can and arguing for/protecting you during negotiations. People with desirable skills and knowledge are often terrible at recognizing that value and convincing others of it. You bring up good points. But if middlemen type jobs are at best facilitators, I think it's a failing of at least the industry, if not capitalism as a whole. The basketball player may find value in a sports agent dealing with the front office or sponsors so that he can concentrate on his game. But if the Knicks or Adidas dealt with their athletes in an honest manner, would the agent be out of a job? Does the farm supply store in Agraria really give Old MacDonald a better deal on a tractor than if he just dealt with the tractor maker directly?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Saying the new athlete's "honest" value is low seems a bit ambiguous to me. I would think that any large sporting goods company has some kind of formula to project the potential revenue they will receive over the lifetime of a contract with any athlete, even accounting for injury possibilities and whatever else can happen. With that they can come up with a number. Whether that number is low is subjective. Yes, the agent can mediate negotiations and walk somebody through paperwork. But why is he necessary? If the athlete doesn't like it, he can talk to someone else. If the sponsor comes back with more money, than the initial valuation wasn't honest. For me, the agent is analogous to a wedding planner. Can a couple plan a ceremony and reception without a wedding planner? Yes. Can a wedding planner make things go a lot easier? Absolutely. Does that make the wedding planner necessary? No. Regarding the farmer example, you have a better grasp of the logistics and distribution stuff than I do. But just from what I can glean from your post, the wholesaler in this seems extraneous. Yes, it is convenient and probably good for business that the tractor maker doesn't have to maintain their on shipping and processing department just to get a tractor to a farmer in BFE. Costs are always calculated with profits in mind. So when the wholesaler buys the tractor manufacturers whole stock of tractors for the year, he gets some kind of bulk discount, with each tractor having a cost n. The wholesaler then has to sell each tractor at a cost of n+x, to account for maintaining their distribution network, overhead, etc. And still turn a profit. I think what it comes down to is that the pursuit of profit is incompatible with reducing or abolishing work because technological advances that allow a company to maintain current productivity while reducing man-hours and costs (and maybe even raising wages haha), is better put to use increasing output and just reducing costs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Or to put it another way, in a world in which you can flip burgers with your mind while you watch TV there isn't much value to flipping burgers, but there would be value in doing something that makes full use of your remarkable ability. Ignoring the telekinesis, we do have the ability to flip burgers while watching tv. It's called automation. We do have a remarkable ability to automate simple tasks. Even complex jobs taken as whole, can be broken down into simple tasks in steps. We don't make full use of this remarkable ability because for some reason we have to keep everyone busy. Which in my mind sounds analogous to the idea of domesticated food animals. If we all of sudden decided to stop eating beef, poultry ,and pork, the animals that give us the meat don't just disappear. And since they have been bred to be fat and docile, their survival instincts are not in good shape. Even if they could take care of themselves, we would have millions of animals that need food and water milling about, waiting for the moon or whatever. I guess that's related to one of my previous questions. What does a world with little need for labor look like? Maybe it wouldn't be some alternate dimension paradise with people enjoying each others company and playing stringed instruments. Since curiosity and human relationships are not emphasized in modern work culture, a post-work world may be populated by a fair amount of drunk dudes standing around with their thumb up their rear end. I don't think that's an argument against reducing the work week though. It's an argument that what out current culture values is maybe not the best foundation for a fulfilling life. Beowulfs_Ghost posted:You could imagine an 18th century slave traders who, on the surface, had a very good work ethic and good character. They did their job well and were fair and honest with their customers. But that is sort of ruined by how they treated their "product". I like this example. I may steal it if I ever decide to go stupid and attempt a discussion like this in real life haha. Eripsa posted:I recommend the thread consider Arendt's discussion of work, labor, and action in The Human Condition: I tried to give this a read, but it's a bit dense. I'll give it another shot, but do you have any highlights you wanna share? computer parts posted:Because a lot of stuff requires significant setup time and materials (eg, "want to build a shed? Time to make sure you have all the tools and then spend an hour at Home Depot") and a lot of people are not in the mood for extended excursion into a project. Time and materials are the first problems to go in a post-scarcity world.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
So people should not pursue hobbies because they'll probably give up on them?computer parts posted:Like, I enjoy cooking but I won't do some recipes because it will take a long time and I'll probably gently caress it up anyway because its the first time I've done it. What even is this? I can't comprehend that as an impediment to doing something. Elaborate a bit more if you could.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Yes, I have. But you posted that in response to someone who said they couldn't understand how a person could get bored of self-directed activity. I guess it seemed to me like that was an argument against people having to work less and decide how to use their time. If you were just offering it up as an explanation, then ok.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Typo posted:Then I got another job, and consequently went back to school, I can absolutely say that even though the job was kinda boring it was a much better period of my life than those 10 weeks. Not to pile on, but the choice isn't just between wage labor or creative endeavors taken up for their own sake. Most people apply to a job with finances in mind. If finances were not a concern, you could apply to a job based on your interests, or proximity to your house, or whatever. And you could leave if the working conditions became poor. I also was unemployed recently, and I found it miserable because I felt like I couldn't do anything other than look for a job and stay at home. I didn't know how long it would be before I found another job, so I had to stretch my savings as much as I could. I think your suspicion is correct. Most people would work. But I think it's because we are socialized to believe that work is what validates your existence. People are taught to accept a day off here and there, and maybe a multi-day vacation once a year as the best they can get. I think if you can even fathom a life without work as the focus, you're probably better off than 90% of the world's population. Everyone else knows how disposable they are in the current system and acts accordingly. But just because that's the way it is doesn't mean that's the way it should be.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
I'm on lunch break at work thinking about work again. This might read a little ramble-y, but bear with me. Everyone enjoys having a weekend getaway with their lover. But is there a difference in the joyful experience between someone who has the money and time to fly their lady to Napa Valley whenever they like, and the guy who has to work overtime for months to save up enough to do it, and then have to coordinate his days off with the missus? Is the trip appreciated more by overtime guy, knowing the work he had to go through to arrange everything? Put another, more blunt way; do we have to know pain to truly know pleasure? That might sound dramatic, but I think that's actually the base question, and might also answer the question of the value of work. Does having to spend the majority of your time doing something you would rather not do give you a better appreciation of the time you do get to yourself?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 17:19
|
|