6 ms·

True, 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 tha

True, 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 7y ago
Why 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 7y ago
  Leisure + stress = worries
- LeifCarrotson 7y 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 7y ago
The 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.

bilbo0s 7y ago

Why 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 7y ago
Leisure + stress = worries
LeifCarrotson 7y 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 7y ago

The 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.