3 ms·

When I read articles like this, it feels like people in the 1st world live in another planet. Who works 9 hours a day to avoid boredom?

krapp 13y ago
It seems just as odd to most of the first world as well.
- privong 13y ago
  > It seems just as odd to most of the first world as well. I think it doesn't seem as odd as you might think. When people talk about the economy, they talk about putting everyone in jobs, not ensuring everyone is productive. It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's an important one. For many people, the metric of a good economy seems to be what fraction of the population work from 9-5, rather than how much people produce. To be fair, I am stretching the applicability of the original article farther than the author probably intended.
  - derefr 13y ago
    The distinction between these makes explicit what a "jobs program" does: increases employment, without increasing productivity.
alexjeffrey 13y ago
I think this is more targeted at people who don't push towards more aspirational work - e.g. staying in a 9-5 job as a web developer and paying the bills rather than developing a business and being ambitious. They may feel as though they are working hard and applying themselves, where they may be under-utilised and just using "hard work" as an excuse for not pushing themselves. In other words, the classic "work hard / work smart" contrast.
BjoernKW 13y ago
Well, considering what most people in the 1st world consider 'work' actually most people in the 1st world do. I'd say that we wouldn't even have that 1st world - 3rd world distinction any more - at least not for long - if most people in the 1st world finally stopped being lazy and actually thought about how to contribute meaningful work. Work for work's sake is what currently holds us back and absorbs more energy than anything else. The main objective of any mainstream economic policy is to achieve (near) full employment. Not because it makes sense economically but our twisted work ethic learned and internalized over hundreds of years tells us to.
malange 13y ago
Why?

krapp 13y ago

It seems just as odd to most of the first world as well.

privong 13y ago
> It seems just as odd to most of the first world as well. I think it doesn't seem as odd as you might think. When people talk about the economy, they talk about putting everyone in jobs, not ensuring everyone is productive. It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's an important one. For many people, the metric of a good economy seems to be what fraction of the population work from 9-5, rather than how much people produce. To be fair, I am stretching the applicability of the original article farther than the author probably intended.
- derefr 13y ago
  The distinction between these makes explicit what a "jobs program" does: increases employment, without increasing productivity.

alexjeffrey 13y ago

I think this is more targeted at people who don't push towards more aspirational work - e.g. staying in a 9-5 job as a web developer and paying the bills rather than developing a business and being ambitious. They may feel as though they are working hard and applying themselves, where they may be under-utilised and just using "hard work" as an excuse for not pushing themselves. In other words, the classic "work hard / work smart" contrast.

BjoernKW 13y ago

Well, considering what most people in the 1st world consider 'work' actually most people in the 1st world do. I'd say that we wouldn't even have that 1st world - 3rd world distinction any more - at least not for long - if most people in the 1st world finally stopped being lazy and actually thought about how to contribute meaningful work. Work for work's sake is what currently holds us back and absorbs more energy than anything else. The main objective of any mainstream economic policy is to achieve (near) full employment. Not because it makes sense economically but our twisted work ethic learned and internalized over hundreds of years tells us to.

malange 13y ago

Why?