4 ms·

I think about this a lot. I think it has most to do with that people don't only care about absolute wealth, but also relative wealth - keeping up with the jones

I think about this a lot. I think it has most to do with that people don't only care about absolute wealth, but also relative wealth - keeping up with the joneses, if you will. As long as social status is connected to wealth, this will be a problem. Personally I advocate a gradual decrease in allowed work hours - 10 minutes shorter work day every year, or so. Although France has tried this and it doesn't really seem to work.

rjbwork 13y ago
I think 10 min/day/year is too quick of a timeline. Perhaps 20 minutes a week per year would do. In 12 years we're down 4 hours. In 60, we're down to half what we are now, which is about where we should be, IMO, and is a long enough time to get excessive automation in place.
6ren 13y ago
You can live cheaply, by opting out of the rat race. Though you do need to be pretty resourceful. e.g. http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/cottage_computer_programming.php http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/cottage_computer_programmi... It's just that most people don't want to, we are social animals and mostly define ourselves relative to the herd. A very different application of automation to the relative-wealth issue: http://partiallyclips.com/2003/09/25/dome-house/ http://partiallyclips.com/2003/09/25/dome-house/
- ISL 13y ago
  And sometimes, the herd tells the individual what to do.
larsonf 13y ago
I think you could compare this to sports or other game-like activities where success is by nature relative. There's no 'need' per se for athletes to practice 40 hours a week, but they do it in order to win. And the amount of time needed to win will almost always be right around the theoretical limit of how much a human can physically practice. There's an equilibrium in competitive practice that is very tough to regulate.

4 ms·

I think about this a lot. I think it has most to do with that people don't only care about absolute wealth, but also relative wealth - keeping up with the jones

by svantana 13y ago

rjbwork 13y ago
I think 10 min/day/year is too quick of a timeline. Perhaps 20 minutes a week per year would do. In 12 years we're down 4 hours. In 60, we're down to half what we are now, which is about where we should be, IMO, and is a long enough time to get excessive automation in place.
6ren 13y ago
You can live cheaply, by opting out of the rat race. Though you do need to be pretty resourceful. e.g. http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/cottage_computer_programming.php http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/cottage_computer_programmi... It's just that most people don't want to, we are social animals and mostly define ourselves relative to the herd. A very different application of automation to the relative-wealth issue: http://partiallyclips.com/2003/09/25/dome-house/ http://partiallyclips.com/2003/09/25/dome-house/
- ISL 13y ago
  And sometimes, the herd tells the individual what to do.
larsonf 13y ago
I think you could compare this to sports or other game-like activities where success is by nature relative. There's no 'need' per se for athletes to practice 40 hours a week, but they do it in order to win. And the amount of time needed to win will almost always be right around the theoretical limit of how much a human can physically practice. There's an equilibrium in competitive practice that is very tough to regulate.