3 ms·

Absolutely, and being an oil driller, an iPhone manufacturer assembler, a McDonald cashier, a dishwasher, a house cleaner, etc. all seem like terrible ways to f

Absolutely, and being an oil driller, an iPhone manufacturer assembler, a McDonald cashier, a dishwasher, a house cleaner, etc. all seem like terrible ways to fulfill that need for purpose if you ask me. If you look at the Maslow pyramid of need, the first two are why most people work currently. Those are physiological and safety. To even begin to get the others is a luxury, which not everyone can afford today. You first need a surplus of produce and services that are required to your physiological and safety needs, before you can start to focus on the others. Here's the pyramid for reference: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow-hierachy-of-needs-min.jpg https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow-hierachy-of-needs-mi... You can see the last three are love and belonging. Which requires free time to fulfill, time off work, which you can spend with friends, familly, at social events, etc. Esteem, which is what you're talking about, and requires that you are doing something with prestige and recognition, that feels challenging to you and accomplishing when done. Generally, for this, you will need money and time again. Such as being able to afford education, classes, lessons, equipment, etc. Finally, self-actualization requires the most luxury, but also discipline, to perfect your endeavours in a creative and innovative way. Now, it's also important to keep in mind, this pyramid has no scientific basis. And a lot of psychologists critique it by pointing out that often times, what you need is defined by how you were raised and what society's culture dictates. Wikipedia says: > The needs and drives of those in individualistic societies tend to be more self-centered than those in collectivist societies, focusing on improvement of the self, with self-actualization being the apex of self-improvement. In collectivist societies, the needs of acceptance and community will outweigh the needs for freedom and individuality. Also, Maslow only studied a limited number of people, which could all be considered high achiever. It's not clear that everyone truly cares to accomplish as much, and needs to fill any sort of contribution to society. > Maslow studied what he called the master race of people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy."[5]:236 Maslow studied the healthiest 1% of the college student population.

philwelch 8y ago
> Absolutely, and being an oil driller, an iPhone manufacturer assembler, a McDonald cashier, a dishwasher, a house cleaner, etc. all seem like terrible ways to fulfill that need for purpose if you ask me. This is straight-up classism. Working class people can and do take pride and satisfaction in working for a living instead of living on the dole, and there’s nothing unnatural or wrong about that.
- didibus 8y ago
  > Working class people can and do take pride and satisfaction in working for a living instead of living on the dole Right on, and if you have too, you should. But these things aren't equal. And now you're just moving the goal post. First, "living on the dole" has a bad connotation. You are already setting social norms as you say it. Implying that it would be shameful to do so. This plays into the idea that people's needs for esteem is driven by societal norms. And this is one part of the social progress that might need to happen. Second, as it stands, those two options don't afford you the same produce and sercices. Working still raises your standard of living higher but what if it didn't, and in fact, paid less? That is the hypothetical I am talking about. Third, you've moved the goal post. Because this isn't about the choice between not working and working a bad job. I'm talking about the choice between not working, or working towards a good job. And which one would feel more rewarding? Now personally, if "living on the dole" as you say was providing me with all the safety and physiological produce and sercices I need, I'd probably choose it over working. And all my "work" would be philanthropic use of my time on things I find rewarding to work on. Lastly, who knows? I don't. And I'm just saying, these kind of thoughts and conversations is what we need to have more of. But the reality is that, it doesn't make sense to have people do things that aren't needed. So as we need less and less from others, we're still gonna need to find something so everyone has a fulfilling happy and long life. I mean, hopefully.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > First, "living on the dole" has a bad connotation. You are already setting social norms as you say it. Implying that it would be shameful to do so. This plays into the idea that people's needs for esteem is driven by societal norms. It's not an arbitrary "social norm", it's a human near-universal, at least to some degree, to stigmatize freeloading and value at least some sort of productive activity. After 30 seconds of reflection you can probably figure out why, and after a further 30 seconds of reflection you can also figure out how these attitudes are already engrained at a deeply emotional level for many. > Second, as it stands, those two options don't afford you the same produce and sercices. Working still raises your standard of living higher but what if it didn't, and in fact, paid less? That is the hypothetical I am talking about. It's not really a hypothetical--lots of people are in either a welfare trap or a disability trap where they are capable of working and would actually like to work, but doing so would jeopardize their eligibility for benefits, and they can subsist off the benefits more reliably than they could subsist off of their work. These people are almost universally incredibly unhappy with the situation. Furthermore, if you look at other situations--retirement, winning the lottery--where there is no economic need to keep working in order to earn an income, there are still high levels of depression, suicide, and drug abuse that soon follow. This is one of the reasons that people at the top of social hierarchies--executives, politicians, judges--very, very rarely retire once they reach a "normal" retirement age. If you're powerful enough, you can reduce the scope of your actual job to the point that you can still do it. At that point, the main barrier is retaining the capacity to work. > Third, you've moved the goal post. Because this isn't about the choice between not working and working a bad job. I'm talking about the choice between not working, or working towards a good job. And which one would feel more rewarding? Let's look at the jobs you pointed out as "bad jobs": > an oil driller, an iPhone manufacturer assembler, a McDonald cashier, a dishwasher, a house cleaner, etc. First off, your choice of "bad jobs" alone comes from a place of arrogant upper-middle-class ignorance, because those jobs don't really have much to do with each other. Oil rig workers have good pay--averaging around six figures, actually--and long career paths with lots of opportunities for advancement (https://money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/news/economy/oil_workers/index.htm https://money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/news/economy/oil_workers/in...) (https://www.jobsite.co.uk/worklife/work-oil-rig-18734/ https://www.jobsite.co.uk/worklife/work-oil-rig-18734/). Oil rig work is an entire sector of the economy you obviously know nothing about if you're comparing it with washing dishes in a restaurant or cashiering at McDonalds. Just like factory work, farm work, and construction work--nobody thinks its fun, but the people who do that work take pride in it, and are right to do so. > But the reality is that, it doesn't make sense to have people do things that aren't needed. There is also no shortage of things that are needed.

philwelch 8y ago

> Absolutely, and being an oil driller, an iPhone manufacturer assembler, a McDonald cashier, a dishwasher, a house cleaner, etc. all seem like terrible ways to fulfill that need for purpose if you ask me. This is straight-up classism. Working class people can and do take pride and satisfaction in working for a living instead of living on the dole, and there’s nothing unnatural or wrong about that.

didibus 8y ago
> Working class people can and do take pride and satisfaction in working for a living instead of living on the dole Right on, and if you have too, you should. But these things aren't equal. And now you're just moving the goal post. First, "living on the dole" has a bad connotation. You are already setting social norms as you say it. Implying that it would be shameful to do so. This plays into the idea that people's needs for esteem is driven by societal norms. And this is one part of the social progress that might need to happen. Second, as it stands, those two options don't afford you the same produce and sercices. Working still raises your standard of living higher but what if it didn't, and in fact, paid less? That is the hypothetical I am talking about. Third, you've moved the goal post. Because this isn't about the choice between not working and working a bad job. I'm talking about the choice between not working, or working towards a good job. And which one would feel more rewarding? Now personally, if "living on the dole" as you say was providing me with all the safety and physiological produce and sercices I need, I'd probably choose it over working. And all my "work" would be philanthropic use of my time on things I find rewarding to work on. Lastly, who knows? I don't. And I'm just saying, these kind of thoughts and conversations is what we need to have more of. But the reality is that, it doesn't make sense to have people do things that aren't needed. So as we need less and less from others, we're still gonna need to find something so everyone has a fulfilling happy and long life. I mean, hopefully.
- philwelch 8y ago
  > First, "living on the dole" has a bad connotation. You are already setting social norms as you say it. Implying that it would be shameful to do so. This plays into the idea that people's needs for esteem is driven by societal norms. It's not an arbitrary "social norm", it's a human near-universal, at least to some degree, to stigmatize freeloading and value at least some sort of productive activity. After 30 seconds of reflection you can probably figure out why, and after a further 30 seconds of reflection you can also figure out how these attitudes are already engrained at a deeply emotional level for many. > Second, as it stands, those two options don't afford you the same produce and sercices. Working still raises your standard of living higher but what if it didn't, and in fact, paid less? That is the hypothetical I am talking about. It's not really a hypothetical--lots of people are in either a welfare trap or a disability trap where they are capable of working and would actually like to work, but doing so would jeopardize their eligibility for benefits, and they can subsist off the benefits more reliably than they could subsist off of their work. These people are almost universally incredibly unhappy with the situation. Furthermore, if you look at other situations--retirement, winning the lottery--where there is no economic need to keep working in order to earn an income, there are still high levels of depression, suicide, and drug abuse that soon follow. This is one of the reasons that people at the top of social hierarchies--executives, politicians, judges--very, very rarely retire once they reach a "normal" retirement age. If you're powerful enough, you can reduce the scope of your actual job to the point that you can still do it. At that point, the main barrier is retaining the capacity to work. > Third, you've moved the goal post. Because this isn't about the choice between not working and working a bad job. I'm talking about the choice between not working, or working towards a good job. And which one would feel more rewarding? Let's look at the jobs you pointed out as "bad jobs": > an oil driller, an iPhone manufacturer assembler, a McDonald cashier, a dishwasher, a house cleaner, etc. First off, your choice of "bad jobs" alone comes from a place of arrogant upper-middle-class ignorance, because those jobs don't really have much to do with each other. Oil rig workers have good pay--averaging around six figures, actually--and long career paths with lots of opportunities for advancement (https://money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/news/economy/oil_workers/index.htm https://money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/news/economy/oil_workers/in...) (https://www.jobsite.co.uk/worklife/work-oil-rig-18734/ https://www.jobsite.co.uk/worklife/work-oil-rig-18734/). Oil rig work is an entire sector of the economy you obviously know nothing about if you're comparing it with washing dishes in a restaurant or cashiering at McDonalds. Just like factory work, farm work, and construction work--nobody thinks its fun, but the people who do that work take pride in it, and are right to do so. > But the reality is that, it doesn't make sense to have people do things that aren't needed. There is also no shortage of things that are needed.