3 ms·

So, you still haven’t made your case for your original claim. You’re ignoring my argument I think because it’s not reductive enough for you to see. And you just

So, you still haven’t made your case for your original claim. You’re ignoring my argument I think because it’s not reductive enough for you to see. And you just sent a paragraph about a single example among several examples which I specifically disclaimed as exemplary and highly visible as if that somehow is negated by your hypotheticals. You are following that up by, I guess, trying to convince me that I should ignore my experiences in favor of your reductive arguments that are based largely on definitions that I don’t agree on in the first place. What are we even doing here? What you experience internally is not evidence of what “the real world” is actually like. You may very well have an amazing work ethic and view your jobs as strictly transactional (and that’s irrespective of enjoyment which is reductive of the many reasons people want to do their jobs). Honestly, I believe that about you. But that internal view is far from universal regardless of work ethic. I understand you’ve convinced yourself that the UBI and other hypotheticals are proof but they’re only proof if you’re already subscribed to those reductive views. “Wants” don’t work that way and if they did we’d be able to reduce them further and say that people do want to do their jobs evidenced by the fact that they do them.

James_K 2y ago
> I understand you’ve convinced yourself that the UBI and other hypotheticals are proof but they’re only proof if you’re already subscribed to those reductive views Far from reductive, my theory is fully explanatory. People have a certain way they would like to spend their time (what they want to do) then for every step you take away from that, you need to compensate them with something (usually money). Obviously in the real world there is the threat of starvation when you don't work, so factoring that in a lot of people will be forced to accept a lower premium for their time. > What you experience internally is not evidence of what “the real world” This is not an internal experience. I interact with many people on a daily basis. They work in many places. Stocking store shelves, sales, secretaries, janitors, etc. These people all would rather be doing something else, but work because they are paid. Likewise many people do take joy in those same jobs, but if I ask them, there are other things they would rather be doing. The issue is that those things don't pay. It is my assertion that almost all jobs are like this. People sacrificing their time and enjoyment for money, which may then bring them more enjoyment in the future. > people do want to do their jobs evidenced by the fact that they do them My point is that people don't want the job, they want the money the job provides. If you gave them the money, they would start working a different job that they like better. The same way I don't really want to eat healthy, but I do because I like being fit. If I could be lean and eat like a pig, I would certainly do it. People will often do things they don't want to in exchange for rewards. This is the distinction between work and pleasure. Things you want to do vs. things you do for the reward. Then there are some things which are a mix. Where you are moderately happy doing them and so you don't need as much of a reward to be convinced to take that action. If we're going do discuss justifying original points, perhaps you should address yours: "I wouldn’t accept an employee or a boss who thought this [the exchanged of labour for money] was a reasonable definition of a job." Can you at least see my objection? Someone who thinks a job aught to be pleasurable is breaking down the boundary between work and pleasure. This can very easily lead to abuse, where someone believes they are entitled to their employees' work and the employees should be thankful for being exploited.
- cgriswald 2y ago
  Listen, your argument follows from your premises, but your premises are flawed. Your argument is reductive because it requires the assumption that people only want one thing (specifically in this case: to do a thing other than their job). Of course it follows that they're doing something they don't want to be doing when you only allow them to want one thing. It's not reasonable to take someone saying, "I'd rather be parasailing..." to mean, "I don't want to do this work." Those are not equivalent statements. For starters, one is relative and the other is absolute. Even if that weren't the case, people can want more than one thing and even conflicting things. If I say, "I want to fly like Superman" you can't then conclude that everything in my life that I'm doing is something I don't want to be doing since I'm not flying like Superman at any moment. It's reductive and the only thing it fully explains is the highly reductive space it constructs. > If we're going do discuss justifying original points, perhaps you should address yours: "I wouldn’t accept an employee or a boss who thought this [the exchanged of labour for money] was a reasonable definition of a job." I've already justified it. In my experience, which I understand is not your experience, an employee with this attitude is more likely to not have a good work ethic. You then made up a bunch of stuff about what I mean by that, but I just mean they're less likely to do a good job. A boss with this attitude is more likely to feel entitled to my labor and make unreasonable demands, including but not limited to trying to require me to do things I don't want to do (i.e., that I haven't agreed to do as part of accepting a job). > Can you at least see my objection? Someone who thinks a job aught to be pleasurable is breaking down the boundary between work and pleasure. This can very easily lead to abuse, where someone believes they are entitled to their employees' work and the employees should be thankful for being exploited. There was never a moment when I couldn't see your objection. I just think the opposite is more likely, but this view is really just your opinion and not actually related to your original statement, except in terms of its explanatory power for why you want to believe the world works a certain way. It's wholly unclear to me why a boss acting badly means all employees everywhere should have a wall between work and pleasure. That seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Should we all just do jobs we hate so this doesn't happen? A boss can certainly try to exploit his employees by using their non-monetary interests against them. But the boss that thinks transactionally is more likely to do it! On the flip side, any employee can have a good work ethic, but... Suppose you have a transactional employee and an employee who wants to be there. Suppose also you have a machine that requires maintenance and it is such that it is difficult to see whether that maintenance has been done. If the maintenance isn't done, you won't know until (say) two years later when the machine breaks down and requires relatively expensive repairs. Are you going to assign the employee that has said to you this is just transactional? What is his incentive to even do the maintenance? Yes, either employee can get away without doing the maintenance. But which one do you think is more likely to shirk the responsibility? Which one is more likely to not be around to face consequences if they don't do the work? So, yes, I see what you are saying. But I'm not even a little bit convinced. I don't want to deal with people as employees, bosses, partners, contractors, clients, etc who view work this way, because 'the real world' just doesn't work that way and people who think it does, again in my experience are generally more likely to be a problem than others.

James_K 2y ago

> I understand you’ve convinced yourself that the UBI and other hypotheticals are proof but they’re only proof if you’re already subscribed to those reductive views Far from reductive, my theory is fully explanatory. People have a certain way they would like to spend their time (what they want to do) then for every step you take away from that, you need to compensate them with something (usually money). Obviously in the real world there is the threat of starvation when you don't work, so factoring that in a lot of people will be forced to accept a lower premium for their time. > What you experience internally is not evidence of what “the real world” This is not an internal experience. I interact with many people on a daily basis. They work in many places. Stocking store shelves, sales, secretaries, janitors, etc. These people all would rather be doing something else, but work because they are paid. Likewise many people do take joy in those same jobs, but if I ask them, there are other things they would rather be doing. The issue is that those things don't pay. It is my assertion that almost all jobs are like this. People sacrificing their time and enjoyment for money, which may then bring them more enjoyment in the future. > people do want to do their jobs evidenced by the fact that they do them My point is that people don't want the job, they want the money the job provides. If you gave them the money, they would start working a different job that they like better. The same way I don't really want to eat healthy, but I do because I like being fit. If I could be lean and eat like a pig, I would certainly do it. People will often do things they don't want to in exchange for rewards. This is the distinction between work and pleasure. Things you want to do vs. things you do for the reward. Then there are some things which are a mix. Where you are moderately happy doing them and so you don't need as much of a reward to be convinced to take that action. If we're going do discuss justifying original points, perhaps you should address yours: "I wouldn’t accept an employee or a boss who thought this [the exchanged of labour for money] was a reasonable definition of a job." Can you at least see my objection? Someone who thinks a job aught to be pleasurable is breaking down the boundary between work and pleasure. This can very easily lead to abuse, where someone believes they are entitled to their employees' work and the employees should be thankful for being exploited.

cgriswald 2y ago
Listen, your argument follows from your premises, but your premises are flawed. Your argument is reductive because it requires the assumption that people only want one thing (specifically in this case: to do a thing other than their job). Of course it follows that they're doing something they don't want to be doing when you only allow them to want one thing. It's not reasonable to take someone saying, "I'd rather be parasailing..." to mean, "I don't want to do this work." Those are not equivalent statements. For starters, one is relative and the other is absolute. Even if that weren't the case, people can want more than one thing and even conflicting things. If I say, "I want to fly like Superman" you can't then conclude that everything in my life that I'm doing is something I don't want to be doing since I'm not flying like Superman at any moment. It's reductive and the only thing it fully explains is the highly reductive space it constructs. > If we're going do discuss justifying original points, perhaps you should address yours: "I wouldn’t accept an employee or a boss who thought this [the exchanged of labour for money] was a reasonable definition of a job." I've already justified it. In my experience, which I understand is not your experience, an employee with this attitude is more likely to not have a good work ethic. You then made up a bunch of stuff about what I mean by that, but I just mean they're less likely to do a good job. A boss with this attitude is more likely to feel entitled to my labor and make unreasonable demands, including but not limited to trying to require me to do things I don't want to do (i.e., that I haven't agreed to do as part of accepting a job). > Can you at least see my objection? Someone who thinks a job aught to be pleasurable is breaking down the boundary between work and pleasure. This can very easily lead to abuse, where someone believes they are entitled to their employees' work and the employees should be thankful for being exploited. There was never a moment when I couldn't see your objection. I just think the opposite is more likely, but this view is really just your opinion and not actually related to your original statement, except in terms of its explanatory power for why you want to believe the world works a certain way. It's wholly unclear to me why a boss acting badly means all employees everywhere should have a wall between work and pleasure. That seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Should we all just do jobs we hate so this doesn't happen? A boss can certainly try to exploit his employees by using their non-monetary interests against them. But the boss that thinks transactionally is more likely to do it! On the flip side, any employee can have a good work ethic, but... Suppose you have a transactional employee and an employee who wants to be there. Suppose also you have a machine that requires maintenance and it is such that it is difficult to see whether that maintenance has been done. If the maintenance isn't done, you won't know until (say) two years later when the machine breaks down and requires relatively expensive repairs. Are you going to assign the employee that has said to you this is just transactional? What is his incentive to even do the maintenance? Yes, either employee can get away without doing the maintenance. But which one do you think is more likely to shirk the responsibility? Which one is more likely to not be around to face consequences if they don't do the work? So, yes, I see what you are saying. But I'm not even a little bit convinced. I don't want to deal with people as employees, bosses, partners, contractors, clients, etc who view work this way, because 'the real world' just doesn't work that way and people who think it does, again in my experience are generally more likely to be a problem than others.