3 ms·
> The way we consider ‘work’ has changed. Working for remuneration is necessary to exist. This wasn’t so a hundred years ago...’work’ is the new normal. Is that
by Kalium 6y ago
> The way we consider ‘work’ has changed. Working for remuneration is necessary to exist. This wasn’t so a hundred years ago...’work’ is the new normal. Is that necessarily a good thing?
In the history I am familiar with, in many places working for remuneration was typical, common, and even expected a century ago. In most cases a person either worked for remuneration to provide for themselves or another provided for them.
Is there some way in which my understanding could stand to be improved?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoI suspect that jelliclesfarm is referring to subsistence agriculture. It's not "work for remuneration". It is still work, though, of the most backbreaking kind, and the work is still necessary to exist. I'm with you: I know of nothing 100 or more years ago where work wasn't necessary to continue to exist (except among the wealthy, of course).