4 ms·

I think the important question is: are you okay with significantly lower wealth / quality of life, or are you saying "I don't want to work so hard (but somebody

I think the important question is: are you okay with significantly lower wealth / quality of life, or are you saying "I don't want to work so hard (but somebody else should, because I sure do like all the things we have in this society)"?

Tostino 4y ago
I don't think it's an either/or situation if we sit down and really think about it. If those employed in fields that are ostensibly rent-seeking were to do something that wasn't a net negative on the economy, maybe we'd be able to share the burden a little more fairly.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Yeah, but probably not. Very few people want a humble shelter and 2000kcal a day. Most want large apartments, entertainment, restaurants, travel, hotels, social media sites to discuss articles about 'workism' etc etc. And somebody has to build and run all those things so they can enjoy them. The hermits going to Alaska with an axe, a saw, and a dream to build a small cabin and live off the land and watch the bears catch salmon, those are certainly ready to make that trade. But your average Western academic talking about work-life-balance? I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility, but it'd be a first.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Those Alaska hermits who build their own cabins work damn hard to survive doing that.
  - magicalist 4y ago
    > But your average Western academic talking about work-life-balance Yes, the adjunct professor, famous for their work-life-balance.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Most want large apartments, entertainment, restaurants, travel, hotels, social media sites to discuss articles about 'workism' etc etc. And somebody has to build and run all those things so they can enjoy them. One solid income used to buy an entire house. Why can't I want to work less and still have a large apartment? And that's without even considering productivity gains. People can budget for entertainment without long work weeks. I don't demand much in terms of restaurants and travel and hotels, shrug. Websites are not expensive to run, and the cost of social media if directly paid for would be single digit dollars a month. Negligible in terms of someone's entire budget.
serverholic 4y ago
There are a lot of assumptions going into the framing of your question. Just to start, you’re assuming we are using our resources and human labor efficiently.
- luckylion 4y ago
  There's no reason to believe that we'd be more efficient if we worked less. People working part-time don't become more efficient, they just work less. Which is understandable, and that choice should be theirs to make -- if they accept that it has a direct impact on everything they get, and don't rely on others working more to compensate for them working less.
  - serverholic 4y ago
    Only if we keep everything the same. Then yes, you’re right. Surely you have more imagination than that.
retrac 4y ago
The ugly bit is that so many of us are engaged in work that is, at best, zero-sum economically. My sister got promoted into some mid-level compliance/oversight role (allegedly). They'd spend all day rewriting existing policies because the department has the budget for it and needs to spend it to justify it. She was paid very well but bailed as soon as she could. Personally, I'd rather work as a grocery store clerk or something. At least I can look at the nice clean space with people able to find what they want to buy and know it's of some value to humanity.
potta_coffee 4y ago
That argument is a bit of a canard. Wages haven't kept up with inflation for many years yet the rich are getting richer. And we're supposed to maintain our motivation to "benefit society" or whatever.

Tostino 4y ago

I don't think it's an either/or situation if we sit down and really think about it. If those employed in fields that are ostensibly rent-seeking were to do something that wasn't a net negative on the economy, maybe we'd be able to share the burden a little more fairly.

luckylion 4y ago
Yeah, but probably not. Very few people want a humble shelter and 2000kcal a day. Most want large apartments, entertainment, restaurants, travel, hotels, social media sites to discuss articles about 'workism' etc etc. And somebody has to build and run all those things so they can enjoy them. The hermits going to Alaska with an axe, a saw, and a dream to build a small cabin and live off the land and watch the bears catch salmon, those are certainly ready to make that trade. But your average Western academic talking about work-life-balance? I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility, but it'd be a first.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Those Alaska hermits who build their own cabins work damn hard to survive doing that.
- magicalist 4y ago
  > But your average Western academic talking about work-life-balance Yes, the adjunct professor, famous for their work-life-balance.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Most want large apartments, entertainment, restaurants, travel, hotels, social media sites to discuss articles about 'workism' etc etc. And somebody has to build and run all those things so they can enjoy them. One solid income used to buy an entire house. Why can't I want to work less and still have a large apartment? And that's without even considering productivity gains. People can budget for entertainment without long work weeks. I don't demand much in terms of restaurants and travel and hotels, shrug. Websites are not expensive to run, and the cost of social media if directly paid for would be single digit dollars a month. Negligible in terms of someone's entire budget.

serverholic 4y ago

There are a lot of assumptions going into the framing of your question. Just to start, you’re assuming we are using our resources and human labor efficiently.

luckylion 4y ago
There's no reason to believe that we'd be more efficient if we worked less. People working part-time don't become more efficient, they just work less. Which is understandable, and that choice should be theirs to make -- if they accept that it has a direct impact on everything they get, and don't rely on others working more to compensate for them working less.
- serverholic 4y ago
  Only if we keep everything the same. Then yes, you’re right. Surely you have more imagination than that.

retrac 4y ago

The ugly bit is that so many of us are engaged in work that is, at best, zero-sum economically. My sister got promoted into some mid-level compliance/oversight role (allegedly). They'd spend all day rewriting existing policies because the department has the budget for it and needs to spend it to justify it. She was paid very well but bailed as soon as she could. Personally, I'd rather work as a grocery store clerk or something. At least I can look at the nice clean space with people able to find what they want to buy and know it's of some value to humanity.

potta_coffee 4y ago

That argument is a bit of a canard. Wages haven't kept up with inflation for many years yet the rich are getting richer. And we're supposed to maintain our motivation to "benefit society" or whatever.