4 ms·

I recently read an interesting book called Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy. It was written in 1887 but could have been written yesterday. https://en.wikipe

I recently read an interesting book called Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy. It was written in 1887 but could have been written yesterday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward It was basically about a guy who accidentally travels forward in time (sort of like idiocracy) except he finds himself in an American Socialist Utopia. It was a really good book in general but there was one idea in particular that the author had, which seems pertinent here. Essentially in this utopia everyone gets the same pay check and the opportunity to work. Instead of getting paid more money for a demanding job you get "paid" in less hours. Meaning, all jobs start out at, say 40 hours per week. A job that doesn't get any applicants would decrease the number of hours it demands and correspondingly, the number of open positions would increase. Eventually an unappealing job would decline to a number of hours where someone would be willing to do it. For example, that coal mining job that nobody wants to do? Well it pays the same as every other job but you only need to do it for 4 hours a week. You can work more of course if you want but you get the same paycheck. The rest of that time you can do whatever you want, spend time with your family or do art or whatever. Also, in For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs by Robert A. Heinlein there are some very interesting ideas about American social economics, including a social credit system. Which I believe is a pretty old fashioned idea that we have almost completely forgot about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#Economic_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_o... This constant back and forth about work hours and minimum wage and the inexorable pull towards wage slavery makes me think its time to explore some completely lateral options.

myth_buster 11y ago
Humans have incredible propensity to acclimatize to the environment. That's the only reasoning I could arrive at when I was poor and saw people around willing to do the most mundane back breaking work than to seek other forms of employment. The lever that is used in society today is desperation as opposed to higher pay per hr in the "Looking Backward" case. The sanitation worker doesn't enjoy their work and no amount of lower hours may compel them to be scarred by the experience. On the other hand desperation and hunger forces them to take what ever job they could salvage. Most of them would would get used to it while some would work their way out.
- justncase80 11y ago
  I believe convincing people to do "bad jobs" by means of desperation is named Wage Slavery. Besides being immoral and degrading, its pretty inefficient. On the other hand, some jobs that need to be done plain out unpleasant. How do you convince someone to do it? In the Looking Backwards scenario the incentive to do one of the "bad jobs" isn't being paid more per hour, everyone is paid the same, its working less hours which I think is subtly different.
  - anon4 11y ago
    Less hours at the same pay is more money per hour. But there is a subtle difference - cleaning toilets for 2 hours is much different mentally than cleaning toilets for 8 hours. And you can then go look after dogs at the shelter for 4 more hours and get two paychecks.
    - justncase80 11y ago
      Yes, its more money per hour of work but its not more money per week in this system.
  - boona 11y ago
    Everyone needs to pitch in, you need to serve humanity so that it provides you with the things you need. If the only thing you can do to do your part is sanitation work, then sanitation work it shall be. That is, until you find new ways to serve others. Slavery is something altogether different, and you really have to be in a position of privilege to conflate the two. The history of slavery is an incredibly dark one. Out of respect to those who've suffered under it's cruelty, I don't think it's right to use that word in this context. Doing your part is not slavery.
    - justncase80 11y ago
      Yes agreed, in any social system everyone needs to work (if able) in order for society to thrive. Wage slavery is a very specific term that I didn't just make up and I believe it accurately describes what you were talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
sokoloff 11y ago
Would there be any prohibition against working two (or three or four) 4-hour per week jobs?
- justncase80 11y ago
  No prohibition certainly, but you would receive the same pay. In the book the author supposed that this would lead more people to spend their time participating in artistic activities.
  - dennisgorelik 11y ago
    Would you still receive the same pay if you work 0 jobs?
    - justncase80 11y ago
      Generally no, you gotta do some job. The caveats being people who are sick or handicapped and people who are retired. I believe the author also said retirement age was something like 45. Also, he went to some lengths to explain the importance of reinforcement through cultural values.
zem 11y ago
Heinlein's "Beyond This Horizon" also had an interesting mix of ideas, including a scheme where jobs paid based on a three-factor formula (skill required, benefit to society, and unpleasantness of job). It has always struck me as one of the biggest injustices of the current setup that low-skilled but highly unpleasant/dangerous jobs are able to be so badly paid.
pc2g4d 11y ago
In theory this is possible now, right? Why don't employers compete in this way? Is there some insurance/tax/other reason that employers so strongly prefer full-time employees?
- justncase80 11y ago
  Well it would require a pretty massive shift in economic systems. It's against the interests of employers in the current system as I understand it. You should read the book, it has a lot more context and gives a much fuller explanation than I can right now :)
mjklin 11y ago
In Canada there was even a Social Credit Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Social_Credit_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Social_Credit_Party

myth_buster 11y ago

Humans have incredible propensity to acclimatize to the environment. That's the only reasoning I could arrive at when I was poor and saw people around willing to do the most mundane back breaking work than to seek other forms of employment. The lever that is used in society today is desperation as opposed to higher pay per hr in the "Looking Backward" case. The sanitation worker doesn't enjoy their work and no amount of lower hours may compel them to be scarred by the experience. On the other hand desperation and hunger forces them to take what ever job they could salvage. Most of them would would get used to it while some would work their way out.

justncase80 11y ago
I believe convincing people to do "bad jobs" by means of desperation is named Wage Slavery. Besides being immoral and degrading, its pretty inefficient. On the other hand, some jobs that need to be done plain out unpleasant. How do you convince someone to do it? In the Looking Backwards scenario the incentive to do one of the "bad jobs" isn't being paid more per hour, everyone is paid the same, its working less hours which I think is subtly different.
- anon4 11y ago
  Less hours at the same pay is more money per hour. But there is a subtle difference - cleaning toilets for 2 hours is much different mentally than cleaning toilets for 8 hours. And you can then go look after dogs at the shelter for 4 more hours and get two paychecks.
  - justncase80 11y ago
    Yes, its more money per hour of work but its not more money per week in this system.
- boona 11y ago
  Everyone needs to pitch in, you need to serve humanity so that it provides you with the things you need. If the only thing you can do to do your part is sanitation work, then sanitation work it shall be. That is, until you find new ways to serve others. Slavery is something altogether different, and you really have to be in a position of privilege to conflate the two. The history of slavery is an incredibly dark one. Out of respect to those who've suffered under it's cruelty, I don't think it's right to use that word in this context. Doing your part is not slavery.
  - justncase80 11y ago
    Yes agreed, in any social system everyone needs to work (if able) in order for society to thrive. Wage slavery is a very specific term that I didn't just make up and I believe it accurately describes what you were talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

sokoloff 11y ago

Would there be any prohibition against working two (or three or four) 4-hour per week jobs?

justncase80 11y ago
No prohibition certainly, but you would receive the same pay. In the book the author supposed that this would lead more people to spend their time participating in artistic activities.
- dennisgorelik 11y ago
  Would you still receive the same pay if you work 0 jobs?
  - justncase80 11y ago
    Generally no, you gotta do some job. The caveats being people who are sick or handicapped and people who are retired. I believe the author also said retirement age was something like 45. Also, he went to some lengths to explain the importance of reinforcement through cultural values.

zem 11y ago

Heinlein's "Beyond This Horizon" also had an interesting mix of ideas, including a scheme where jobs paid based on a three-factor formula (skill required, benefit to society, and unpleasantness of job). It has always struck me as one of the biggest injustices of the current setup that low-skilled but highly unpleasant/dangerous jobs are able to be so badly paid.

pc2g4d 11y ago

In theory this is possible now, right? Why don't employers compete in this way? Is there some insurance/tax/other reason that employers so strongly prefer full-time employees?

justncase80 11y ago
Well it would require a pretty massive shift in economic systems. It's against the interests of employers in the current system as I understand it. You should read the book, it has a lot more context and gives a much fuller explanation than I can right now :)

mjklin 11y ago

In Canada there was even a Social Credit Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Social_Credit_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Social_Credit_Party