3 ms·

I suppose what I'm really trying to get at is that these terms are simplified and only seem to mean anything in the context of someone who does some variant of

I suppose what I'm really trying to get at is that these terms are simplified and only seem to mean anything in the context of someone who does some variant of a full-time job or series of full-time contracts for decades. It assumes the front-loading of work punctuated with either long periods, or a complete (final) period, of mostly nothing. Imagine a theoretical person that inherits 10 million dollars. If they never take a full-time job and instead just do the odd thing here and there, paid, unpaid, doesn't really matter, are they retired? If you're a contractor and sometimes work and sometimes don't, are you continually coming into and going out of retirement?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Imagine a theoretical person that inherits 10 million dollars. If they never take a full-time job and instead just do the odd thing here and there, paid, unpaid, doesn't really matter, are they retired? No, they are probably just a capitalist, but part of the social support structure of capitalism is the fetishization of work and the fact that you don't talk about the non-laboring ruling class, just a spectrum of success of workers, some of whom have earned retirement through their work. > If you're a contractor and sometimes work and sometimes don't, are you continually coming into and going out of retirement? I would say no, if your expectation when you leave is that you will need to comenback to maintain your lifestyle. If you occasionally take a job for self-fulfillment, maybe.
- esotericn 8y ago
  > the fact that you don't talk about the non-laboring ruling class, just a spectrum of success of workers, some of whom have earned retirement through their work. I like to talk about them all the time. ;) Though I think we're seeing eye to eye here. Different groups see "work" in such different ways that I think the terminology of stuff like 'retirement' doesn't transfer well. Some people cannot see a life without work. Others do it for toys. Others do it as a status game. Others don't really do it at all. I guess you could call that the 'leisure class'. A theoretical human who has no need for food - are they fasting?

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Imagine a theoretical person that inherits 10 million dollars. If they never take a full-time job and instead just do the odd thing here and there, paid, unpaid, doesn't really matter, are they retired? No, they are probably just a capitalist, but part of the social support structure of capitalism is the fetishization of work and the fact that you don't talk about the non-laboring ruling class, just a spectrum of success of workers, some of whom have earned retirement through their work. > If you're a contractor and sometimes work and sometimes don't, are you continually coming into and going out of retirement? I would say no, if your expectation when you leave is that you will need to comenback to maintain your lifestyle. If you occasionally take a job for self-fulfillment, maybe.

esotericn 8y ago
> the fact that you don't talk about the non-laboring ruling class, just a spectrum of success of workers, some of whom have earned retirement through their work. I like to talk about them all the time. ;) Though I think we're seeing eye to eye here. Different groups see "work" in such different ways that I think the terminology of stuff like 'retirement' doesn't transfer well. Some people cannot see a life without work. Others do it for toys. Others do it as a status game. Others don't really do it at all. I guess you could call that the 'leisure class'. A theoretical human who has no need for food - are they fasting?