4 ms·

I do not think rational is the right word here. One way you can look at it either slave away and make few dollars more or do nothing and get about same outcome.

• pasbesoin 13y ago
  I've yet to read the OP, but there is also the question scope, both in geography and in time. If work produces a small margin of improvement for the worker (e.g. a small amount of disposable income, but nothing substantial nor, under the circumstances, making the difference between life and death). If work does this, but simultaneously produces substantially larger benefit and advantage for the employer. Well, then you as the worker may be engaging in and facilitating a runaway condition for yourself. The more you work, the more you advantage the "haves" who are employing and holding you in a "have not" position. I'm reminded of "War Games", which was rerunning the other night: "The only solution is not to play." Not everyone at the bottom of the economic pile is an undiscovered Will Hunting-esque economist. But there is a lot of "smart" that is conveyed universally through the human and societal dynamics. You don't need an advanced degree to know when you're getting screwed. And sometimes, it feels paramount to stop the screwing, even if it costs you.
• brg 13y ago
  "Rational" is an unfortunate choice of term, but it was the term the field of economics has used for quite some time. It is best to separate in your mind the idea of a rational actor and the colloquial connotations the term carries with it.