5 ms·

In Praise of Idleness (1932)

84 points by hemapani 11y ago

capisce 11y ago
I love this essay by Bertrand Russell. It's just a shame it remains a utopia for the typical person.
- perfunctory 11y ago
  probably for a typical person (whatever that means) but definitely not for a typical HN reader.
howeyc 11y ago
I always like the idea Bertrand Russel raised where if a company realizes it needs half its staff that it would be best to instead reduce all staff to half-hours worked then previous. Not sure if this is the essay or not. Sorry for the off-topic if it's not this essay. Too bad with the current additional requirements on employers it's not that simple (health insurance, social security, etc...). Plus the fact that I'm sure some people would prefer not to have 3 places of employment to fill X-hours per week of pay and would rather have 1 employer (simplicity, less commuting, etc). Still, a nice idea in theory. Maybe if most work was able to be done remotely, and work was done on a contract basis?
- anaphor 11y ago
  I think the point was that once technology reaches a certain point where it's easy and efficient to do things we need (like produce clothes and food) then it's better to reduce everyone's hours by half or so (and keep paying them a living wage) rather than producing tons of useless crap and making everyone work 50 hours a week.
  - trimtab 11y ago
    Perhaps, but the organization that is providing the work is still likely to want to make, sell and profit from as much crap as it can along with all the other crap makers.
- Al-Khwarizmi 11y ago
  Implement basic income and universal healthcare, via taxes. Remove pensions for retirement and unemployment (obsoleted by basic income). With this, and taking into account that a minimum wage is not needed with basic income either, you take away all the overheads of hiring a worker. Want to hire someone to work 1 hour a day for $30? Fine, as long as they agree. You then pay taxes for your earnings, and not for hiring people.
  - mamon 11y ago
    Main problem with introducing basic income is that you are effectively punishing hard-working people for their effort (with taxes) and reward people that don't want to work with the free money. Unless you have millions of slaves or immigrants (or, futuristically thinking, robots) at your disposal this will make your country go bankrupt very quickly. Which is a common problem with socialism, but made exponentially worse.
    - drcube 11y ago
      Basic income is for everyone, workers and the unemployed, rich and poor alike. Or at least it should be. Every dollar you earn should be a bonus, on top of basic income, or else like you said, you create disincentives to work. If you're referring to the "fairness" of the distributed tax burden, that's a problem with or without basic income.
      - anon4 11y ago
        Lots of people care very strongly about personal property, including the money they earn and don't want the state to take what they earn and give it to "useless freeloaders". I think that, if you're advocating for what amounts to asking everyone to carry the entire world together including the people who can't "carry their own weight", you need to unapologetically sell a philosophy of why it's good to help others. You can't wave away "fairness" for people whose mental process is "I have mine, you have yours, I'll only give you from mine if you give me from yours at equal or greater value".
      - mamon 11y ago
arstin 11y ago
This is a great essay. And obviously pertinent!
tuix 11y ago
Some interesting comments from the past: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9015092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9015092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1396167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1396167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1187681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1187681
saintx 11y ago
Although it's a pleasant read, it doesn't take into account opportunity cost. Everything I do every day requires me not to do something else. There are valuable jobs that aren't urgent that never get done until I automate my way out of my current role. Russell always did treat economics as a zero sum game, when in reality it's quite expansive. There are also jobs that need doing today and are physically possible to do, but nobody is doing them because we haven't invented them or realized they are possible yet. The Romans could have employed scientists to photograph the surface of Pluto. Physics haven't fundamentally changed since then. Only our understanding of what is possible has changed. A thousand years from now, people will marvel at all the jobs we in the early 21st century could have been doing to advance the quality of life for people around the world (and indeed all life on Earth), had we only known those things were possible.

84 points by hemapani 11y ago

capisce 11y ago

I love this essay by Bertrand Russell. It's just a shame it remains a utopia for the typical person.

perfunctory 11y ago
probably for a typical person (whatever that means) but definitely not for a typical HN reader.

howeyc 11y ago

I always like the idea Bertrand Russel raised where if a company realizes it needs half its staff that it would be best to instead reduce all staff to half-hours worked then previous. Not sure if this is the essay or not. Sorry for the off-topic if it's not this essay. Too bad with the current additional requirements on employers it's not that simple (health insurance, social security, etc...). Plus the fact that I'm sure some people would prefer not to have 3 places of employment to fill X-hours per week of pay and would rather have 1 employer (simplicity, less commuting, etc). Still, a nice idea in theory. Maybe if most work was able to be done remotely, and work was done on a contract basis?

anaphor 11y ago
I think the point was that once technology reaches a certain point where it's easy and efficient to do things we need (like produce clothes and food) then it's better to reduce everyone's hours by half or so (and keep paying them a living wage) rather than producing tons of useless crap and making everyone work 50 hours a week.
- trimtab 11y ago
  Perhaps, but the organization that is providing the work is still likely to want to make, sell and profit from as much crap as it can along with all the other crap makers.
Al-Khwarizmi 11y ago
Implement basic income and universal healthcare, via taxes. Remove pensions for retirement and unemployment (obsoleted by basic income). With this, and taking into account that a minimum wage is not needed with basic income either, you take away all the overheads of hiring a worker. Want to hire someone to work 1 hour a day for $30? Fine, as long as they agree. You then pay taxes for your earnings, and not for hiring people.
- mamon 11y ago
  Main problem with introducing basic income is that you are effectively punishing hard-working people for their effort (with taxes) and reward people that don't want to work with the free money. Unless you have millions of slaves or immigrants (or, futuristically thinking, robots) at your disposal this will make your country go bankrupt very quickly. Which is a common problem with socialism, but made exponentially worse.
  - drcube 11y ago
    Basic income is for everyone, workers and the unemployed, rich and poor alike. Or at least it should be. Every dollar you earn should be a bonus, on top of basic income, or else like you said, you create disincentives to work. If you're referring to the "fairness" of the distributed tax burden, that's a problem with or without basic income.
    - anon4 11y ago
      Lots of people care very strongly about personal property, including the money they earn and don't want the state to take what they earn and give it to "useless freeloaders". I think that, if you're advocating for what amounts to asking everyone to carry the entire world together including the people who can't "carry their own weight", you need to unapologetically sell a philosophy of why it's good to help others. You can't wave away "fairness" for people whose mental process is "I have mine, you have yours, I'll only give you from mine if you give me from yours at equal or greater value".
    - mamon 11y ago

arstin 11y ago

This is a great essay. And obviously pertinent!

tuix 11y ago

Some interesting comments from the past: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9015092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9015092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1396167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1396167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1187681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1187681

saintx 11y ago

Although it's a pleasant read, it doesn't take into account opportunity cost. Everything I do every day requires me not to do something else. There are valuable jobs that aren't urgent that never get done until I automate my way out of my current role. Russell always did treat economics as a zero sum game, when in reality it's quite expansive. There are also jobs that need doing today and are physically possible to do, but nobody is doing them because we haven't invented them or realized they are possible yet. The Romans could have employed scientists to photograph the surface of Pluto. Physics haven't fundamentally changed since then. Only our understanding of what is possible has changed. A thousand years from now, people will marvel at all the jobs we in the early 21st century could have been doing to advance the quality of life for people around the world (and indeed all life on Earth), had we only known those things were possible.