5 ms·

should we really aspire to being a useless lump? I firmly believe that there is great personal value to be found in the work of creation and digging an ever dee

should we really aspire to being a useless lump? I firmly believe that there is great personal value to be found in the work of creation and digging an ever deeper groove. if someone is taking your passion and making money so that they can be a useless lump - that's really fine. its sad if they ruin your work because they don't care or know better. and of course its ultimately critical to cultivate relationship and build families - so its not _everything_. life without work is pretty empty

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nine_zeros 3y ago
> life without work is pretty empty But grinding away for a manager ain't it either.
- bdw5204 3y ago
  The solution that Jefferson and Lincoln (among other American Founders) envisioned was that everybody would eventually be self-employed even if they started their career as an employee to gain experience and save up capital. Working for somebody else means they get the better end of the deal (i.e. you probably won't have a job for long if they aren't making a profit off of you) so of course universal self-employment is the only way to have an economy where people get compensated fairly for the value of their work. Unfortunately, the generation of politicians after Lincoln allowed the capitalists who took advantage of Lincoln's "free labor" system to pull the ladder up behind them then the next generation (the "Progressives") decided big business was "inevitable" and just needed to be regulated so it didn't become a monopoly that cheated consumers. The generation after that allowed the workers to form unions which could bargain for something resembling what they were worth which worked fairly well for a generation until it was dismantled as the "solution" to an inflation crisis caused by US foreign policy and US environmental policy (I'm referring to the 1970s inflation crisis, not the current one that has the same causes). Tech is one of the few places in the American economy where the true American Dream of financial independence and self employment is still accessible even if you weren't born a millionaire and you don't win a Powerball or Mega Millions jackpot. But there is a fair question of how much longer it will be until FAANG and/or government regulation to "rein in Big Tech" pulls that ladder up like all of the previous ladders have been pulled up by big business and/or its allies in big government who pretend to be its enemies.
  - gowld 3y ago
    If every transaction was one-sided than it doesn't matter whether you are an employee or entrepreneur. Trade happens because it's mutually beneficial.
    - bdw5204 3y ago
      I never implied that transactions are one-sided. Accepting employment is beneficial to the employee, in our current economy. If you attempt to start your own business without sufficient capital (in the form of savings, outside investment or loans), you will go bankrupt before you can turn a profit because it costs money to live and because there are startup costs for a new business that must be paid before you turn a profit. But if you accept employment at the market rate (which is always less than the amount of wealth your labor creates or you probably won't be able to find an employer), you are typically paid within a few weeks with few or no upfront costs which matters if you aren't already financially independent.
  - ilovetux 3y ago
    > The generation after that allowed the workers to form unions That is a very interesting way of describing that process. Lives were lost in that battle.
    - bdw5204 3y ago
      The main reason why the Wagner Act was passed into US federal law as part of FDR's New Deal was because FDR believed the Great Depression had been caused by low wages. Specifically, lack of purchasing power on the part of working people due to low wages was and is widely considered a major cause of the Depression. Allowing unions rather than suppressing them by state force or allowing corporations to suppress them by private force was seen as a way to stabilize the economy and increase the profitability of corporations by driving up wages which would actually help business because consumers would actually be able to afford their products.
bluefirebrand 3y ago
Life without work is only empty if you've been raised on a protestant "work gives life meaning" attitude and you can't envision any other way. There are monks living in mountain monasteries who spend their whole lives in quiet reflection, doing basic chores and making basic meals, and they believe they live the richest lives possible. I'm not saying we should all be monks, but this idea that work is the only way to live a fulfilling life is very narrow, and very much cultural.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  The point is that we need something to do, to feel useful. Sitting on a beach all day every day would get pretty dull, even if it is a common dream life. I don't think this is particularly cultural. Most people who survived history did so through work so their children lived, or through raising children to be survivors. That's worth considering, instead of just blaming culture.
  - bluefirebrand 3y ago
    I think "we need to feel useful" is absolutely a cultural thing, or at least how we define what "useful" is cultural. Again, the monks believe they live rich lives without being "useful" by North American standards, that's certainly a cultural thing. In North America our culture strongly believes a person's value is linked to their usefulness. That's not up for debate really. I mean you can try to argue it's not, but honestly look around. Look at what value we place on people who are homeless, addicts, crippled, blind, deaf, or hell, even someone who is just unemployed. We look down on them heavily. We judge them as having lower value because they are less useful. Even look at the original comment and the disdain for "useless lumps" This attitude doesn't exist everywhere. Don't try and say it's not cultural.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > Don't try and say it's not cultural. You seem to have only one counterexample: monks. Why would you assume that their highly unusual replacement of this by devotion to God is the less cultural option?
Vrondi 3y ago
This is a brilliant example of someone who is so indoctrinated that they don't even realize it.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nine_zeros 3y ago

> life without work is pretty empty But grinding away for a manager ain't it either.

bdw5204 3y ago
The solution that Jefferson and Lincoln (among other American Founders) envisioned was that everybody would eventually be self-employed even if they started their career as an employee to gain experience and save up capital. Working for somebody else means they get the better end of the deal (i.e. you probably won't have a job for long if they aren't making a profit off of you) so of course universal self-employment is the only way to have an economy where people get compensated fairly for the value of their work. Unfortunately, the generation of politicians after Lincoln allowed the capitalists who took advantage of Lincoln's "free labor" system to pull the ladder up behind them then the next generation (the "Progressives") decided big business was "inevitable" and just needed to be regulated so it didn't become a monopoly that cheated consumers. The generation after that allowed the workers to form unions which could bargain for something resembling what they were worth which worked fairly well for a generation until it was dismantled as the "solution" to an inflation crisis caused by US foreign policy and US environmental policy (I'm referring to the 1970s inflation crisis, not the current one that has the same causes). Tech is one of the few places in the American economy where the true American Dream of financial independence and self employment is still accessible even if you weren't born a millionaire and you don't win a Powerball or Mega Millions jackpot. But there is a fair question of how much longer it will be until FAANG and/or government regulation to "rein in Big Tech" pulls that ladder up like all of the previous ladders have been pulled up by big business and/or its allies in big government who pretend to be its enemies.
- gowld 3y ago
  If every transaction was one-sided than it doesn't matter whether you are an employee or entrepreneur. Trade happens because it's mutually beneficial.
  - bdw5204 3y ago
    I never implied that transactions are one-sided. Accepting employment is beneficial to the employee, in our current economy. If you attempt to start your own business without sufficient capital (in the form of savings, outside investment or loans), you will go bankrupt before you can turn a profit because it costs money to live and because there are startup costs for a new business that must be paid before you turn a profit. But if you accept employment at the market rate (which is always less than the amount of wealth your labor creates or you probably won't be able to find an employer), you are typically paid within a few weeks with few or no upfront costs which matters if you aren't already financially independent.
- ilovetux 3y ago
  > The generation after that allowed the workers to form unions That is a very interesting way of describing that process. Lives were lost in that battle.
  - bdw5204 3y ago
    The main reason why the Wagner Act was passed into US federal law as part of FDR's New Deal was because FDR believed the Great Depression had been caused by low wages. Specifically, lack of purchasing power on the part of working people due to low wages was and is widely considered a major cause of the Depression. Allowing unions rather than suppressing them by state force or allowing corporations to suppress them by private force was seen as a way to stabilize the economy and increase the profitability of corporations by driving up wages which would actually help business because consumers would actually be able to afford their products.

bluefirebrand 3y ago

Life without work is only empty if you've been raised on a protestant "work gives life meaning" attitude and you can't envision any other way. There are monks living in mountain monasteries who spend their whole lives in quiet reflection, doing basic chores and making basic meals, and they believe they live the richest lives possible. I'm not saying we should all be monks, but this idea that work is the only way to live a fulfilling life is very narrow, and very much cultural.

robertlagrant 3y ago
The point is that we need something to do, to feel useful. Sitting on a beach all day every day would get pretty dull, even if it is a common dream life. I don't think this is particularly cultural. Most people who survived history did so through work so their children lived, or through raising children to be survivors. That's worth considering, instead of just blaming culture.
- bluefirebrand 3y ago
  I think "we need to feel useful" is absolutely a cultural thing, or at least how we define what "useful" is cultural. Again, the monks believe they live rich lives without being "useful" by North American standards, that's certainly a cultural thing. In North America our culture strongly believes a person's value is linked to their usefulness. That's not up for debate really. I mean you can try to argue it's not, but honestly look around. Look at what value we place on people who are homeless, addicts, crippled, blind, deaf, or hell, even someone who is just unemployed. We look down on them heavily. We judge them as having lower value because they are less useful. Even look at the original comment and the disdain for "useless lumps" This attitude doesn't exist everywhere. Don't try and say it's not cultural.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Don't try and say it's not cultural. You seem to have only one counterexample: monks. Why would you assume that their highly unusual replacement of this by devotion to God is the less cultural option?

Vrondi 3y ago

This is a brilliant example of someone who is so indoctrinated that they don't even realize it.