4 ms·

This seems to be a manifestation of the growing "anti work" movement. I'm wondering if we, in the face of growing inequality, will have a worker's uprising in t

This seems to be a manifestation of the growing "anti work" movement. I'm wondering if we, in the face of growing inequality, will have a worker's uprising in the somewhat near future, such as a renewed form of communism. Throughout history the power/wealth distribution seems to ebb and flow and perhaps it's time for a correction.

throwaway4aday 5y ago
To my mind, it's only anti-work as in it's opposed to the current way we structure employment. We still use systems that were designed to manage manual labour and I think we've known for a long time that this is a bad fit for knowledge work or work that has been highly automated. It breeds a culture of "looking busy" which is a detriment to both the employee and employer. I think we desperately need new paradigms that are better suited to these types of work.
imtringued 5y ago
There is no anti work movement. Ignore the shirker. What I predict is that aggregate demand isn't going up exponentially anymore because of the aging population. Why is that a problem? Because productivity is growing exponentially as well. The economists of the early 20th century expected that we will simply work less as the robots do more. The problem with the protestant work ethic is that there is no need for more and more work. If you work a fixed 40 hour work week and your output is growing exponentially your consumption has to grow exponentially as well. This isn't happening so either people spend an increasing amount of money on limited housing or they do increasingly less productive work in the service sector. Lots of people compete for "limited" full time jobs that keep an entire human busy. E.g. 10 people consume as much as 8 people can produce. The obvious solution would be a 32 hour work week but instead 8 people work 40 hours and 2 people work 0 hours. The first 8 will become increasingly competitive to avoid becoming the bottom 2. Of course this is overly simplified. Some people actually consume everything they produce and therefore shouldn't be bound by work hour restrictions. The hustle culture is just the boring result of a prisoners dilemma.

throwaway4aday 5y ago

To my mind, it's only anti-work as in it's opposed to the current way we structure employment. We still use systems that were designed to manage manual labour and I think we've known for a long time that this is a bad fit for knowledge work or work that has been highly automated. It breeds a culture of "looking busy" which is a detriment to both the employee and employer. I think we desperately need new paradigms that are better suited to these types of work.

imtringued 5y ago

There is no anti work movement. Ignore the shirker. What I predict is that aggregate demand isn't going up exponentially anymore because of the aging population. Why is that a problem? Because productivity is growing exponentially as well. The economists of the early 20th century expected that we will simply work less as the robots do more. The problem with the protestant work ethic is that there is no need for more and more work. If you work a fixed 40 hour work week and your output is growing exponentially your consumption has to grow exponentially as well. This isn't happening so either people spend an increasing amount of money on limited housing or they do increasingly less productive work in the service sector. Lots of people compete for "limited" full time jobs that keep an entire human busy. E.g. 10 people consume as much as 8 people can produce. The obvious solution would be a 32 hour work week but instead 8 people work 40 hours and 2 people work 0 hours. The first 8 will become increasingly competitive to avoid becoming the bottom 2. Of course this is overly simplified. Some people actually consume everything they produce and therefore shouldn't be bound by work hour restrictions. The hustle culture is just the boring result of a prisoners dilemma.