4 ms·

I think these programs are very positive. One thing that worries me today is the reductive way we talk about work often. On the one hand there's the "just give

I think these programs are very positive. One thing that worries me today is the reductive way we talk about work often. On the one hand there's the "just give them cash, let the market figure it out" aspect that just reduces work to a commodity, on the other there's the 'all work is terrible' mentality. Oddly enough both have a sort of similar disregard for work in a way. There's really a lack of discussion about the meaning-giving and social aspect of work and how to actively design work in communities. I wonder whether the parallel decline of both traditional labor and religious groups had a strong impact on the perception of work because those were the two main camps resisting that reductive mentality.

Hizonner 4y ago
If you don't want work to be treated as a commodity, then you need to stop coupling it tightly to how you make your living (the problem being that we're not yet quite technologically ready to do that...). If work is so "meaning-giving and social", then people will presumably do it even if they don't have to do it to eat, and even if the boss isn't breathing down their necks.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  I sort of disagree with that. Work can provide meaning if its entirely voluntary, but for many people the fact that it's necessary, sustaining and vital is part of what makes work meaningful. An important aspect of the value of work is that if you didn't do your work, there's real consequences to that. Otherwise very quickly you go from work to something that is more like a game or a hobby in nature. And while games and hobbies are great, they don't really fulfill the same need. On the boss part I agree of course, but that's an orthogonal issue.
  - Hizonner 4y ago
    So, the problem with that is that, if we ever did get to the point where work was not technologically necessary, I don't think I would want to be told "work or starve" in order to provide you with a feeling that your work was meaningful. I don't have a lot of truck with that concept of "meaning". I guess you can get past commodification in the narrow sense with enough market and social restructuring, but I can't see how you can get what you're asking for here without forcing everybody else to work for no good reason other than to support your preference. Not an immediate problem, of course...

Hizonner 4y ago

If you don't want work to be treated as a commodity, then you need to stop coupling it tightly to how you make your living (the problem being that we're not yet quite technologically ready to do that...). If work is so "meaning-giving and social", then people will presumably do it even if they don't have to do it to eat, and even if the boss isn't breathing down their necks.

Barrin92 4y ago
I sort of disagree with that. Work can provide meaning if its entirely voluntary, but for many people the fact that it's necessary, sustaining and vital is part of what makes work meaningful. An important aspect of the value of work is that if you didn't do your work, there's real consequences to that. Otherwise very quickly you go from work to something that is more like a game or a hobby in nature. And while games and hobbies are great, they don't really fulfill the same need. On the boss part I agree of course, but that's an orthogonal issue.
- Hizonner 4y ago
  So, the problem with that is that, if we ever did get to the point where work was not technologically necessary, I don't think I would want to be told "work or starve" in order to provide you with a feeling that your work was meaningful. I don't have a lot of truck with that concept of "meaning". I guess you can get past commodification in the narrow sense with enough market and social restructuring, but I can't see how you can get what you're asking for here without forcing everybody else to work for no good reason other than to support your preference. Not an immediate problem, of course...