9 ms·

Hmm. This seems like a pretty textbook case of Stockholm syndrome, if applied to society and expectations. Do they have to work? Nope. If they live leaner, the

by kefka 10y ago

Hmm. This seems like a pretty textbook case of Stockholm syndrome, if applied to society and expectations. Do they have to work? Nope. If they live leaner, they needen't work another day in the rest of their lives. If they have hobbies, they can master those instead. They could be the best at them. But instead, "society" says they have to work to have a worth. That's puritanical garbage that we need to nip at the bud. We're coming of an age, where machines can increasingly provide more and more, and we are still addicted to human labor and that connection of self-worth.

morgante 10y ago
Or maybe some people actually enjoy their work and find it fulfilling.
- kefka 10y ago
  Of course you're going to find someone who wants to work. In those cases, the money is second to the actual stuff being done. It's most likely a hobby or something that they enjoy greatly, and probably would do for free. Most people aren't like that. Their hobbies don't coincide with "acceptable business practices". And frankly, awesome. There's plenty of things to do that are enriching for all, and that have no discernible business value. As for me, I wouldn't do the job I currently do now (systems engineer for a network operations). I'd much rather work in research and development discovering new things, or new ways to do things. I already do that in my spare time. But making money in my position is required, so I do things to survive, and fill in time of my hobbies. That would change, and bloody quick if I ever ran across fuck-you money.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    So then you would work ... you'd just do a different kind of work. Most of us are the same way. I think this is ultimately the point being made.
    - kefka 10y ago
      Nope. Not even close. With hobbies, I can start and stop them as I choose. My livelihood is not bound to the requirement that I do X to get money $Y. If I want to do the hobby of "drink whiskey and watch all of netflix", so be it. If I want to take up surfing, awesome. Or if I want to dabble in the arts, there's noone to stop me. My hobbies would bounce around as to what's interesting, fun, or neat stuff to do. Right now, what stops me, is that I am working class. I have to work in order to live. 40 hours a week is "theirs", and I have the rest of time to eat, sleep, and do whatever else. (Edit: and wow, the stockholm syndrome is strong. So many people, trying to reclassify what work is and isn't. And then saying, oh yeah doing something is work. We're not talking work in the physics sense here, but in the capitalistic sense of "if you no workey, you no eaty and no livey".)
      - morgante 10y ago
        Nothing you just said contradicts the point being made. Most people have to work on things they don't necessarily find fulfilling. That doesn't mean certain wealthy people don't find hobbies which also happen to make them money.
      - omginternets 10y ago
        Hmm, no I think you're playing with words. I understand that you wouldn't work to make money, but you would still work in the sense of undertaking an effortful activity. So again, you would work, albeit not for money. Lest you continue with the (frankly rude) accusations, this is precisely what I would do as well. I just disagree with the notion that these hobbies don't constitute work (in the sense of 'not rest/leisure'). For all your railing against puritan work ethic, you have a very puritanical definition of work.
        kefka 10y ago
        Seriously? You're arguing that hobbies and doing what you want is "really work"? The idea of Work, in a Capitalistic sense, is activities you do for someone else, that make money for them above and beyond what you are paid for, and that you are compulsed to do with the threat of "no money, no food, no home". With what I am talking about, I can change freely to whatever I wish to do, right now. I have no specter hanging over me threatening "no access and utilization of basic resources". If I want to chill and do nothing, I do precisely that. If I want to develop stuffs with electronics, I can do that as well. And when I'm bored, I can walk away with not a care. Try that in a "corporate setting". And my "frankly rude accusations" match up pretty well with the original stockholm situation itself. In the end, if you don't "play nice" with capitalism, it threatens to end you as well, albeit slower than what the bank robbers wanted to do. And yet, so many people bounce to capitalism's defence. Hence, Stockholm Syndrome.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Sure, I agree that most people aren't doing work that they would do for free. I don't think that's true for most wealthy people. By and large, every wealthy person I know is working on things they find deeply interesting and challenging. The problem is with people (who have to work to live) assuming that people who don't have to work to live are working in the same kind of roles just due to some social pressure.
  - jasode 10y ago
    >Of course you're going to find someone who wants to work. In those cases, the money is second to the actual stuff being done. It's most likely a hobby or something that they enjoy greatly, and probably would do for free. Yes, that's the type of people the article is talking about. A good example is somebody like Apple's Jony Ive with a net worth of ~$130 million[1]. He doesn't have to work another day in his life, and yet he still does. And he's not just working every day remotely from home in some ceremonial role. He still goes to the Apple office and is actively engaged with leading the design teams. His "hobby" seems to be designing materials into products millions of consumers will like. He happens to express that hobby at the Apple office instead of his hoe garage. If you walked up to him and told him he's only continuing to work because he's brainwashed from Puritanical Stockholm Syndrome, I think'd he'd rightfully feel insulted. We can acknowledge that you wouldn't do systems network engineering if you didn't have to work for money but that's not Jony Ive's situation. For him, hobby==work. [1]http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/11/03/does-apples-jony-ive-have-the-worlds-best-job/#7b0397561800 http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/11/03/does-ap...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Sure, some may, but how many of them find it so fulfilling that they would do it without pay? That's why it's called "compensation"--it compensates you for the time you spend when you would rather do something else.
omginternets 10y ago
There's a difference between grueling labor and fulfilling labor. Far be it from me to preach puritanism, but endeavoring to build something is very fulfilling by nature. Hard work for hard work's sake (or divine reward or whatever) is silly, but I think you're throwing out the baby with the bath water.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >There's a difference between grueling labor and fulfilling labor. Perhaps, but what's fulfils one's life is in no way necessary to be labor -- which, especially in its modern form (9-5, desk work, meetings etc), is a highly constructed cultural artifact as opposed to anything inherent in how people as a species need.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  Many people find being part of a team that build something great or useful to be fulfilling and take pride in their work even if they're only a small replaceable part of the process. The blue collar profession related subreddits are a pretty good example of this. Pretty much all lower level software development is no more remarkable than working on an assembly line. Code I've written helped streamline testing for a tiny bit of code that's a tiny part of a single piece of software that's part of a massive software hardware system that can be used make it harder to slip an IED under a dead camel without anyone noticing. Is that really any less important than the guy checking bearing tolerances before shipping the bearings to the manufacturer of the machine used roll the threads on the bolts that will affix to the airplane the hardware the software system uses? We're all just a tiny part of a bigger machine on some level.
raverbashing 10y ago
"Work" in this sense is like exercise. It's a physiological/psychological need to be involved in some activity with a purpose, connect with people, etc
ecocentrik 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_S...
chiefalchemist 10y ago
In the West work is a proxy for purpose, value and citizen. But, as you said, that's about to change. Drastically. An unprecedented disruption. So then what? And if not, then what?
- harryh 10y ago
  Machines have been automating away jobs for centuries. What's unprecedented about what's happening (or about to happen) now? I don't see it.
  - kross 10y ago
    Scale.
    - harryh 10y ago
      Basically everyone used to be a farmer. Now almost no one is (in the US at least). That's not scale?
      - kross 10y ago
        That was a (relatively speaking) slow change. Upcoming automation as I see it will displace large numbers of jobs in multiple sectors in a matter of years not decades.
        coldtea 10y ago
        Besides, a transition that happened two times in the past so that people still needed for jobs (farmers -> factory workers, factories -> services) is by no means necessary to continue happening indefinitely.
        purplelobster 10y ago
        Exactly. services -> art, entertainment, pewdiepie, e-sports? Of course there might be new occupations around the corner, but given that most of every material and cultural need is already satisfied, except for eternal life, I don't see what occupations billions of people could transition to that people or businesses would pay money for.
dominotw 10y ago
>We're coming of an age, where machines can increasingly provide more and more, and we are still addicted to human labor and that connection of self-worth. Is the feeling that you are withering away if you are not progressing in life merely a "society" thing though?
- coldtea 10y ago
  Yes. And cultural at that. Lots of cultures don't have that pressure.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    > Lots of cultures don't have that pressure. Any specific ones that you have in mind?
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Progressing in life and progressing in something that capitalism deems "valuable" are two different things, though. My photography has greatly improved, but nobody gives a crap. Still, I feel I've progressed, and that's fulfilling in itself.
module0000 10y ago
> But instead, "society" says they have to work to have a worth I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predator, and not our prior evolutionary human-like variations. It's not "society" that says you have to work, but your DNA. Example... do you notice the drive among the powerful/wealthy individuals, governments, and corporations - to get to space and colonize our solar system and beyond? That drive does not exist if we sit on our laurels. Those are the people pushing the species forward - it would be simple to do nothing, and for them to sip very expensive coffee and entertain themselves until their life expired. > We're coming of an age, where machines can increasingly provide more and more, and we are still addicted to human labor and that connection of self-worth. This isn't about "human" labor, it's about working in general. Perhaps your occupation is designing, improving, or repairing these machines you speak of. That is work, and has a noticeable impact - opposed to camping, hiking, sipping coffee, and existing for the sake of existing. tldr; if/when a society meltdown occurs, I don't want you on my team.
- branchless 10y ago
  I don't agree with this. The vast majority of govts around the world are facilitating inequality. In the last decade how many amazingly intelligent people who could have furthered the whole world have missed out? We'll never know, but I bet it's a lot. Most heads of govt are megalomaniacs. I agree we have a drive to improve but our current system is a long way from efficient by design.
- kefka 10y ago
  > I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predator, and not our prior evolutionary human-like variations. It's not "society" that says you have to work, but your DNA. Whereas most anthropological and genetic studies indicate that homo sapiens did not "win", but instead we mated with them and joined the disparate species. > Example... do you notice the drive among the powerful/wealthy individuals, governments, and corporations - to get to space and colonize our solar system and beyond? That drive does not exist if we sit on our laurels. Those are the people pushing the species forward - it would be simple to do nothing, and for them to sip very expensive coffee and entertain themselves until their life expired. Sigh. And here we go, with moralizing capitalistic thought with expansion and growth. You pack in the assumption that capitalism pushes society forward and will continue to do so. I also seem to remember the Wright bros story. They patented the aeropane in the US, whereas it was free to use elsewhere. They locked down the industry so it was their way or no way. Eventually, the US military had to step in, due to WWI, and end their protections. In the end, capitalism is great at looking that it furthers science and the arts. But the bad sides are that it: 1. retards cooperation between different entities 2. pits person against person 3. encourages to maximize money against all other means > tldr; if/when a society meltdown occurs, I don't want you on my team. Don't worry. You wouldn't be on my "team" anyways. It'd be your loss, given I know many things, including many arts and sciences from the SCA.

by kefka 10y ago

morgante 10y ago

Or maybe some people actually enjoy their work and find it fulfilling.

kefka 10y ago
Of course you're going to find someone who wants to work. In those cases, the money is second to the actual stuff being done. It's most likely a hobby or something that they enjoy greatly, and probably would do for free. Most people aren't like that. Their hobbies don't coincide with "acceptable business practices". And frankly, awesome. There's plenty of things to do that are enriching for all, and that have no discernible business value. As for me, I wouldn't do the job I currently do now (systems engineer for a network operations). I'd much rather work in research and development discovering new things, or new ways to do things. I already do that in my spare time. But making money in my position is required, so I do things to survive, and fill in time of my hobbies. That would change, and bloody quick if I ever ran across fuck-you money.
- omginternets 10y ago
  So then you would work ... you'd just do a different kind of work. Most of us are the same way. I think this is ultimately the point being made.
  - kefka 10y ago
    Nope. Not even close. With hobbies, I can start and stop them as I choose. My livelihood is not bound to the requirement that I do X to get money $Y. If I want to do the hobby of "drink whiskey and watch all of netflix", so be it. If I want to take up surfing, awesome. Or if I want to dabble in the arts, there's noone to stop me. My hobbies would bounce around as to what's interesting, fun, or neat stuff to do. Right now, what stops me, is that I am working class. I have to work in order to live. 40 hours a week is "theirs", and I have the rest of time to eat, sleep, and do whatever else. (Edit: and wow, the stockholm syndrome is strong. So many people, trying to reclassify what work is and isn't. And then saying, oh yeah doing something is work. We're not talking work in the physics sense here, but in the capitalistic sense of "if you no workey, you no eaty and no livey".)
    - morgante 10y ago
      Nothing you just said contradicts the point being made. Most people have to work on things they don't necessarily find fulfilling. That doesn't mean certain wealthy people don't find hobbies which also happen to make them money.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      Hmm, no I think you're playing with words. I understand that you wouldn't work to make money, but you would still work in the sense of undertaking an effortful activity. So again, you would work, albeit not for money. Lest you continue with the (frankly rude) accusations, this is precisely what I would do as well. I just disagree with the notion that these hobbies don't constitute work (in the sense of 'not rest/leisure'). For all your railing against puritan work ethic, you have a very puritanical definition of work.
      - kefka 10y ago
        Seriously? You're arguing that hobbies and doing what you want is "really work"? The idea of Work, in a Capitalistic sense, is activities you do for someone else, that make money for them above and beyond what you are paid for, and that you are compulsed to do with the threat of "no money, no food, no home". With what I am talking about, I can change freely to whatever I wish to do, right now. I have no specter hanging over me threatening "no access and utilization of basic resources". If I want to chill and do nothing, I do precisely that. If I want to develop stuffs with electronics, I can do that as well. And when I'm bored, I can walk away with not a care. Try that in a "corporate setting". And my "frankly rude accusations" match up pretty well with the original stockholm situation itself. In the end, if you don't "play nice" with capitalism, it threatens to end you as well, albeit slower than what the bank robbers wanted to do. And yet, so many people bounce to capitalism's defence. Hence, Stockholm Syndrome.
- morgante 10y ago
  Sure, I agree that most people aren't doing work that they would do for free. I don't think that's true for most wealthy people. By and large, every wealthy person I know is working on things they find deeply interesting and challenging. The problem is with people (who have to work to live) assuming that people who don't have to work to live are working in the same kind of roles just due to some social pressure.
- jasode 10y ago
  >Of course you're going to find someone who wants to work. In those cases, the money is second to the actual stuff being done. It's most likely a hobby or something that they enjoy greatly, and probably would do for free. Yes, that's the type of people the article is talking about. A good example is somebody like Apple's Jony Ive with a net worth of ~$130 million[1]. He doesn't have to work another day in his life, and yet he still does. And he's not just working every day remotely from home in some ceremonial role. He still goes to the Apple office and is actively engaged with leading the design teams. His "hobby" seems to be designing materials into products millions of consumers will like. He happens to express that hobby at the Apple office instead of his hoe garage. If you walked up to him and told him he's only continuing to work because he's brainwashed from Puritanical Stockholm Syndrome, I think'd he'd rightfully feel insulted. We can acknowledge that you wouldn't do systems network engineering if you didn't have to work for money but that's not Jony Ive's situation. For him, hobby==work. [1]http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/11/03/does-apples-jony-ive-have-the-worlds-best-job/#7b0397561800 http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/11/03/does-ap...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 10y ago
Sure, some may, but how many of them find it so fulfilling that they would do it without pay? That's why it's called "compensation"--it compensates you for the time you spend when you would rather do something else.

omginternets 10y ago

There's a difference between grueling labor and fulfilling labor. Far be it from me to preach puritanism, but endeavoring to build something is very fulfilling by nature. Hard work for hard work's sake (or divine reward or whatever) is silly, but I think you're throwing out the baby with the bath water.

coldtea 10y ago
>There's a difference between grueling labor and fulfilling labor. Perhaps, but what's fulfils one's life is in no way necessary to be labor -- which, especially in its modern form (9-5, desk work, meetings etc), is a highly constructed cultural artifact as opposed to anything inherent in how people as a species need.
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
Many people find being part of a team that build something great or useful to be fulfilling and take pride in their work even if they're only a small replaceable part of the process. The blue collar profession related subreddits are a pretty good example of this. Pretty much all lower level software development is no more remarkable than working on an assembly line. Code I've written helped streamline testing for a tiny bit of code that's a tiny part of a single piece of software that's part of a massive software hardware system that can be used make it harder to slip an IED under a dead camel without anyone noticing. Is that really any less important than the guy checking bearing tolerances before shipping the bearings to the manufacturer of the machine used roll the threads on the bolts that will affix to the airplane the hardware the software system uses? We're all just a tiny part of a bigger machine on some level.

raverbashing 10y ago

"Work" in this sense is like exercise. It's a physiological/psychological need to be involved in some activity with a purpose, connect with people, etc

ecocentrik 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_S...

chiefalchemist 10y ago

In the West work is a proxy for purpose, value and citizen. But, as you said, that's about to change. Drastically. An unprecedented disruption. So then what? And if not, then what?

harryh 10y ago
Machines have been automating away jobs for centuries. What's unprecedented about what's happening (or about to happen) now? I don't see it.
- kross 10y ago
  Scale.
  - harryh 10y ago
    Basically everyone used to be a farmer. Now almost no one is (in the US at least). That's not scale?
    - kross 10y ago
      That was a (relatively speaking) slow change. Upcoming automation as I see it will displace large numbers of jobs in multiple sectors in a matter of years not decades.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        Besides, a transition that happened two times in the past so that people still needed for jobs (farmers -> factory workers, factories -> services) is by no means necessary to continue happening indefinitely.
        purplelobster 10y ago
        Exactly. services -> art, entertainment, pewdiepie, e-sports? Of course there might be new occupations around the corner, but given that most of every material and cultural need is already satisfied, except for eternal life, I don't see what occupations billions of people could transition to that people or businesses would pay money for.

dominotw 10y ago

>We're coming of an age, where machines can increasingly provide more and more, and we are still addicted to human labor and that connection of self-worth. Is the feeling that you are withering away if you are not progressing in life merely a "society" thing though?

coldtea 10y ago
Yes. And cultural at that. Lots of cultures don't have that pressure.
- dominotw 10y ago
  > Lots of cultures don't have that pressure. Any specific ones that you have in mind?
StavrosK 10y ago
Progressing in life and progressing in something that capitalism deems "valuable" are two different things, though. My photography has greatly improved, but nobody gives a crap. Still, I feel I've progressed, and that's fulfilling in itself.

module0000 10y ago

> But instead, "society" says they have to work to have a worth I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predator, and not our prior evolutionary human-like variations. It's not "society" that says you have to work, but your DNA. Example... do you notice the drive among the powerful/wealthy individuals, governments, and corporations - to get to space and colonize our solar system and beyond? That drive does not exist if we sit on our laurels. Those are the people pushing the species forward - it would be simple to do nothing, and for them to sip very expensive coffee and entertain themselves until their life expired. > We're coming of an age, where machines can increasingly provide more and more, and we are still addicted to human labor and that connection of self-worth. This isn't about "human" labor, it's about working in general. Perhaps your occupation is designing, improving, or repairing these machines you speak of. That is work, and has a noticeable impact - opposed to camping, hiking, sipping coffee, and existing for the sake of existing. tldr; if/when a society meltdown occurs, I don't want you on my team.

branchless 10y ago
I don't agree with this. The vast majority of govts around the world are facilitating inequality. In the last decade how many amazingly intelligent people who could have furthered the whole world have missed out? We'll never know, but I bet it's a lot. Most heads of govt are megalomaniacs. I agree we have a drive to improve but our current system is a long way from efficient by design.
kefka 10y ago
> I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predator, and not our prior evolutionary human-like variations. It's not "society" that says you have to work, but your DNA. Whereas most anthropological and genetic studies indicate that homo sapiens did not "win", but instead we mated with them and joined the disparate species. > Example... do you notice the drive among the powerful/wealthy individuals, governments, and corporations - to get to space and colonize our solar system and beyond? That drive does not exist if we sit on our laurels. Those are the people pushing the species forward - it would be simple to do nothing, and for them to sip very expensive coffee and entertain themselves until their life expired. Sigh. And here we go, with moralizing capitalistic thought with expansion and growth. You pack in the assumption that capitalism pushes society forward and will continue to do so. I also seem to remember the Wright bros story. They patented the aeropane in the US, whereas it was free to use elsewhere. They locked down the industry so it was their way or no way. Eventually, the US military had to step in, due to WWI, and end their protections. In the end, capitalism is great at looking that it furthers science and the arts. But the bad sides are that it: 1. retards cooperation between different entities 2. pits person against person 3. encourages to maximize money against all other means > tldr; if/when a society meltdown occurs, I don't want you on my team. Don't worry. You wouldn't be on my "team" anyways. It'd be your loss, given I know many things, including many arts and sciences from the SCA.