4 ms·

I think you're absolutely spot on with this. I'm going through a period of change in my personal life at the moment, and I'm definitely going to keep this in mi

I think you're absolutely spot on with this. I'm going through a period of change in my personal life at the moment, and I'm definitely going to keep this in mind, so thank you. One thing I would take issue with is conflating an app with societal change, though. The latter is much much harder. I think that in developed countries we have lost our way a bit. Work-life balance, to me, would mean that I work hard, and play hard, but that fundamentally work would fit around life. At the moment, life fits around work, for me, and for everyone I know, including those that are really quite well off. And I don't think we are individually choosing this state. Some higher power is, Moloch, I guess.

nostrademons 10y ago
Oh, I think we absolutely are individually choosing this state. It's just that we're responding to incentives that are basically emergent behavior resulting from the choices of everyone else. You always have the choice to ignore incentives; that's why they are incentives and not compulsion. But ignoring an incentive means that you accept not getting the benefits that are offered by that incentive. A lot of people forget that they can do this. You don't have to optimize your life to pick up every little goody that comes your way; you always have the option to say "Yes, that's nice, but I care about other stuff more."
- stegosaurus 10y ago
  There's a very steep reward curve, though. It's not like, a 10% incentive. It's hundreds of percentage points. Very rough numbers here: Generic person might be able to earn $50K working 40 hour weeks in their most optimal career (one that uses their skills). Same person might also be able to earn $25K working 20 hour weeks doing a similar thing. They could also earn minimum wage with a rota that isn't really under their control much. But the real 'work-life balance' option, the one in which the tables are turned and someone decides to 'schedule' work for 8pm on a Saturday or whatever because it's free in the diary? As far as I can tell this just sort of doesn't exist. I mean you could do piecemeal bits and bobs for neighbours, maybe. But a sustainable source of money sufficient to eat and heat, pay for a roof? An example would be a 24 hour supermarket. The employees could bid to fill slots and the rate they'd charge to cover periods. But it's not set up that way because the capital owners hold all the cards and it'd be less optimal for them. What you get instead, is 'come to work 6pm thursday or you are fired, kthx'.
- premasagar 10y ago
  I agree. There is always a choice, although the shift may be difficult or unsettling, and some people will feel freer to make a change than others. I think one huge component of this is location. A little while back, I moved with my family from the city to the countryside (the foothills of central Portugal), where there is a growing community of migrants from western cities, living around and alongside the local villagers, who are mostly small-scale subsistence farmers. People call us the Neo Rurals. Land and living costs are way less than where we came from, which means I can afford to work three days a week, rather than the 5 out of 7 days I was working before. I am fortunate to be able to work remotely (I'm a freelance JavaScript programmer) and to have come from an existing network (the wonderful Brighton, UK). Somehow projects arrive when I just need them (get in touch if you're looking for someone). But people here to do all sorts of work, and often grow food and generate their electricity to lower the base costs. The door is open. Neighbours' children come by because they want to play. Many people home-educate / unschool. And we do pretty well as a community amusing ourselves, learning from and helping each other. Uprooting is difficult, but I have never looked back. And it does come with some "hardships", but most of those are really joys.
notduncansmith 10y ago
Doesn't basic income take care of that? The idea being that once companies have to compete with the entire world (as opposed to a few other companies) for your time and attention, flexible hours (and many other changes to the relationship between employees and companies) will become the default.
- stegosaurus 10y ago
  I hope so. I try to live in that way, and I try to encourage those around me to live in that way (refusing imbalanced employment conditions). I think if enough people did, we could start to help each other, rather than relying on capital and private property so much. Basic income is one sort of stepping stone towards that. Ultimately I think the ideal is people actually having real choices, not the huge bias we have towards salaried employment at the moment. If life were an MMO, then salaried employment would be the cookie cutter build, hourly work would be the odd hybrid, and otherwise you've decided to not bother with your talent tree, and you're just gimping yourself. Can we tweak the rules of the game a bit, or are they just emergent?
  - notduncansmith 10y ago
    We totally can change the rules. We made them up. Most modern modern value systems are rooted in the scarcity mindset - the idea that there isn't enough (of whatever) to go around. The people that created those systems weren't bad, their ideas are just outdated. Now that technology has changed the calculus, and there IS enough to go around, it's just a matter of overcoming the momentum of the old value systems. You're right, basic income is a bridge measure. It demonstrates abundance for the skeptics, and shows us what pretty much full autonomy for every member of a society could look like. I'm not sure what comes after that, but if you've read Manna, the Australia Project as described at the end seems to have a lot of desirable qualities. It's a short read, and well worth reading (and has been on HN a few times, I think). Obviously we're not quite there, but it's not hard to envision if enough smart people were free to work on the various elements of that future, unrestricted by manufactured pressure to pursue more immediately-profitable endeavors.

nostrademons 10y ago

Oh, I think we absolutely are individually choosing this state. It's just that we're responding to incentives that are basically emergent behavior resulting from the choices of everyone else. You always have the choice to ignore incentives; that's why they are incentives and not compulsion. But ignoring an incentive means that you accept not getting the benefits that are offered by that incentive. A lot of people forget that they can do this. You don't have to optimize your life to pick up every little goody that comes your way; you always have the option to say "Yes, that's nice, but I care about other stuff more."

stegosaurus 10y ago
There's a very steep reward curve, though. It's not like, a 10% incentive. It's hundreds of percentage points. Very rough numbers here: Generic person might be able to earn $50K working 40 hour weeks in their most optimal career (one that uses their skills). Same person might also be able to earn $25K working 20 hour weeks doing a similar thing. They could also earn minimum wage with a rota that isn't really under their control much. But the real 'work-life balance' option, the one in which the tables are turned and someone decides to 'schedule' work for 8pm on a Saturday or whatever because it's free in the diary? As far as I can tell this just sort of doesn't exist. I mean you could do piecemeal bits and bobs for neighbours, maybe. But a sustainable source of money sufficient to eat and heat, pay for a roof? An example would be a 24 hour supermarket. The employees could bid to fill slots and the rate they'd charge to cover periods. But it's not set up that way because the capital owners hold all the cards and it'd be less optimal for them. What you get instead, is 'come to work 6pm thursday or you are fired, kthx'.
premasagar 10y ago
I agree. There is always a choice, although the shift may be difficult or unsettling, and some people will feel freer to make a change than others. I think one huge component of this is location. A little while back, I moved with my family from the city to the countryside (the foothills of central Portugal), where there is a growing community of migrants from western cities, living around and alongside the local villagers, who are mostly small-scale subsistence farmers. People call us the Neo Rurals. Land and living costs are way less than where we came from, which means I can afford to work three days a week, rather than the 5 out of 7 days I was working before. I am fortunate to be able to work remotely (I'm a freelance JavaScript programmer) and to have come from an existing network (the wonderful Brighton, UK). Somehow projects arrive when I just need them (get in touch if you're looking for someone). But people here to do all sorts of work, and often grow food and generate their electricity to lower the base costs. The door is open. Neighbours' children come by because they want to play. Many people home-educate / unschool. And we do pretty well as a community amusing ourselves, learning from and helping each other. Uprooting is difficult, but I have never looked back. And it does come with some "hardships", but most of those are really joys.

notduncansmith 10y ago

Doesn't basic income take care of that? The idea being that once companies have to compete with the entire world (as opposed to a few other companies) for your time and attention, flexible hours (and many other changes to the relationship between employees and companies) will become the default.

stegosaurus 10y ago
I hope so. I try to live in that way, and I try to encourage those around me to live in that way (refusing imbalanced employment conditions). I think if enough people did, we could start to help each other, rather than relying on capital and private property so much. Basic income is one sort of stepping stone towards that. Ultimately I think the ideal is people actually having real choices, not the huge bias we have towards salaried employment at the moment. If life were an MMO, then salaried employment would be the cookie cutter build, hourly work would be the odd hybrid, and otherwise you've decided to not bother with your talent tree, and you're just gimping yourself. Can we tweak the rules of the game a bit, or are they just emergent?
- notduncansmith 10y ago
  We totally can change the rules. We made them up. Most modern modern value systems are rooted in the scarcity mindset - the idea that there isn't enough (of whatever) to go around. The people that created those systems weren't bad, their ideas are just outdated. Now that technology has changed the calculus, and there IS enough to go around, it's just a matter of overcoming the momentum of the old value systems. You're right, basic income is a bridge measure. It demonstrates abundance for the skeptics, and shows us what pretty much full autonomy for every member of a society could look like. I'm not sure what comes after that, but if you've read Manna, the Australia Project as described at the end seems to have a lot of desirable qualities. It's a short read, and well worth reading (and has been on HN a few times, I think). Obviously we're not quite there, but it's not hard to envision if enough smart people were free to work on the various elements of that future, unrestricted by manufactured pressure to pursue more immediately-profitable endeavors.