3 ms·

It's not a complete avoidance. Rather, i'm just advocating that we don't build the idea of less work on the shoulders of people who work more. That seems to me

It's not a complete avoidance. Rather, i'm just advocating that we don't build the idea of less work on the shoulders of people who work more. That seems to me to almost codify the need for some people working more, and that seems a slippery slope for _some_ people getting good work-life balances and others not. My argument is that we _all_ should qualify for a work-life balance. Not depend on some people not getting a good work-life balance.

jokoon 5y ago
Unless there is an universal income, and unless entry jobs can be better paid with 20 hours, that's how it is going to be. Employers have this mentality of workers either work 40 hours or are not hired, it's all-or-nothing. So if workers CONSENT to do all the work and get all the money, it's only fair that a fraction of that money is sent to those who have no work and no money. Workers have a better chance of negotiating their work time than the unemployed. And if they can't because they will be replaced by somebody else who will work 40 hours, then it's a political problem that needs fixing. But meanwhile, I'd rather get welfare than suffer at work. It's not like capitalist society has a sense of "community", so I don't feel like there is a need to participate.
zemvpferreira 5y ago
I agree that the original commenter's last paragraph was a bit unnecessary, but let's not kid ourselves either: if everyone put in a solid 2 hours a day doing good, essential work all good, essential work would be done in 6 months. Most of our time at work is spent doing things which are either pointless or downright damaging.
- lijogdfljk 5y ago
  I can .. somewhat agree with that. Not to disagree with your general direction though, but i don't honestly think i could boil what i do down into 2 hours. On paper? possibly. In practice i spend far more time thinking about problems, taking breaks from problems, etc - than i do actually writing the solutions. But i'm not claiming i'm any good heh, just that it often takes me hours and hours. Your assertion is generally correct i think in efficiency sake. Ie when i put in 14h days, i'm exponentially paying a higher tax on my efficiency by putting in extra hours - i'm over worked and tired, i'm far from my best. But i still think i can more work done in those 14h than i do in 8, or especially 4/etc.
  - zemvpferreira 5y ago
    Moreso I'd say your hours might be very good and productive but you are counterbalanced by 10 other people doing absolute shit jobs. How many people work as prison guards watching over people on harmless drug offenses in the US? How many soldiers are stationed or fighting in pointless wars? How many loggers work in the Amazon, or how many poachers? I'd much prefer they take some of your work instead.

jokoon 5y ago

Unless there is an universal income, and unless entry jobs can be better paid with 20 hours, that's how it is going to be. Employers have this mentality of workers either work 40 hours or are not hired, it's all-or-nothing. So if workers CONSENT to do all the work and get all the money, it's only fair that a fraction of that money is sent to those who have no work and no money. Workers have a better chance of negotiating their work time than the unemployed. And if they can't because they will be replaced by somebody else who will work 40 hours, then it's a political problem that needs fixing. But meanwhile, I'd rather get welfare than suffer at work. It's not like capitalist society has a sense of "community", so I don't feel like there is a need to participate.

zemvpferreira 5y ago

I agree that the original commenter's last paragraph was a bit unnecessary, but let's not kid ourselves either: if everyone put in a solid 2 hours a day doing good, essential work all good, essential work would be done in 6 months. Most of our time at work is spent doing things which are either pointless or downright damaging.

lijogdfljk 5y ago
I can .. somewhat agree with that. Not to disagree with your general direction though, but i don't honestly think i could boil what i do down into 2 hours. On paper? possibly. In practice i spend far more time thinking about problems, taking breaks from problems, etc - than i do actually writing the solutions. But i'm not claiming i'm any good heh, just that it often takes me hours and hours. Your assertion is generally correct i think in efficiency sake. Ie when i put in 14h days, i'm exponentially paying a higher tax on my efficiency by putting in extra hours - i'm over worked and tired, i'm far from my best. But i still think i can more work done in those 14h than i do in 8, or especially 4/etc.
- zemvpferreira 5y ago
  Moreso I'd say your hours might be very good and productive but you are counterbalanced by 10 other people doing absolute shit jobs. How many people work as prison guards watching over people on harmless drug offenses in the US? How many soldiers are stationed or fighting in pointless wars? How many loggers work in the Amazon, or how many poachers? I'd much prefer they take some of your work instead.