5 ms·
Leisure also is a luxury, not everyone could afford it when it is needed most
by leemailll 8y ago
Leisure also is a luxury, not everyone could afford it when it is needed most
- onionionio 8y agoIt's not a luxury. It's necessary. The fact that not everyone can afford it doesn't change that.
- Funes- 8y agoI'd say that the fact that not everyone can afford it makes it a luxury as well as a necessity. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
- pseudosudoer 8y agoTrue, but the article isn't trying to say that everyone _can_ have time for leisure, but rather everyone _should_ have time for leisure. An optimist may say that with the advent of automation people should have more time for leisure, where a pessimist may say that the poor will grow poorer.
- bilbo0s 8y agoWhy can't it be both? Sure the poor will grow more poor, and also have a lot more free time due to not having employment. That's not necessarily a good thing, but it does agitate for both the optimistic and pessimistic views being likely at once in the future.
- onemoresoop 8y agoLeisure + stress = worries
- LeifCarrotson 8y ago> have a lot more free time due to not having employment I assume you're advocating their support through some social safety net that provides them with basic necessities. Because currently, not having employment is a major loss in free time: you spend all your time trying to meet core needs like food, shelter, and clothing. Where an employed person can simply order take-out, hire a contractor to fix their house, and buy new clothes as required, an impoverished person will be scraping together safe food and trying to cook it to be palatable, sheltering in uncomfortable or unsafe places, and repairing clothes that are long since worn out. And if they do go to work, they earn a pittance that's insufficient to pay rent, much less afford luxuries like prepared food, home ownership, or durable clothing. Unless you're extremely optimistic about social services improving, the poor being poorer puts heavier burdens on their time, not lighter.
- Noos 8y agoThe problem is many jobs with high socialiability and variability as mentioned in the article are often very time demanding jobs that require constant coverage. There are also financial realities in that people are often expensive to add, train, and retain in order to enable enough leisure. Automation if anything makes this worse since people will often decrease to fill the need instead of hire more.
- wes-k 8y agoEh yes and no.. There's plenty of people who do part-time work just to make ends-meet that have a lot of leisure time. Work to live or live to work.
- corn_dog 8y ago"At either end of the social spectrum there lies a leisure class"
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- thatfrenchguy 8y agoOnly in the US where labor laws are garbage. The rest of the developed world has decent minimum wages and mandatory vacation days and holiday days.