5 ms·

The idea that "work" is somehow good and noble is outdated, and serves only to trap workers into undesirable situations for the profit of the capitalist class.

by glesica 12y ago

The idea that "work" is somehow good and noble is outdated, and serves only to trap workers into undesirable situations for the profit of the capitalist class. Work isn't noble, it's just something we do so that we can do other stuff (and eat). So preserving work in the face of massive changes in the economy would be an incredibly unfortunate thing to do. Why not simply allocate social resources such that people who are not needed for work simply don't have to work? Allow them to have food, and shelter, and healthcare, and let them explore whatever it is that brings them happiness, without having to worry about spending their days performing some menial task because someone has decided that they must "work" for their meals.

cantankerous 12y ago
This. We are already living in a post-scarcity world, but we keep pretending that we aren't. Eventually the number of unemployed people will be so large that we won't be able to ignore the problem of excess labor.
- chii 12y ago
  what evidence do you have that we are in a post scarcity world? Petroleum is running out, lots of places are being desertified, and arable land is shrinking, leading to places with food shortages. Until the day a very cheap, completely renewable (or effectively infinite) source of energy is found (such as cold fusion, or vacuum energy), there will be no post-scarcity.
  - falcor84 12y ago
    citation-needed for all the above claims. Peak oil predictions have been made since the 1880s. Technology and better ecological understanding keep providing us with better methods to fight against desertification. Food production capabilities are growing exponentially. etc. I think that the major evidence for our post scarcity world is that, in developed countries, a small fraction of the population is actually involved in agriculture and manufacturing (and that percentage is shrinking). To quote Gibson "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed". EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_secto...
petercooper 12y ago
Why not simply allocate social resources such that people who are not needed for work simply don't have to work? There's been quite some hand wringing over this issue in the UK in recent years with people on long term sickness welfare or other long term welfare programs. The populist view is that these people "should" be working and don't "deserve" to be subsidized full time because they haven't "contributed" to the system. But if they are genuinely of as little use to the workforce as it seems, does such a stigma to not working really make any sense?
- chii 12y ago
  > But if they are genuinely of as little use to the workforce as it seems, does such a stigma to not working really make any sense? in the natural world, if they are genuinely of as little use, they "should die", for the resources to keep them alive is more than the "profit" that they can generate. This is becoming more and more true with more and more automation - the cost of resources to keep somebody alive is getting to a point where their contributions don't really cover it. I dont know if there is a real solution to this problem.
  - rblatz 12y ago
    The issue (well there are lots of issues but this one is pertinent to this discussion) with that line of thinking is when people in general become so inefficient compared to machines that it's more efficient and profitable to get rid of the people entirely since machines are so much more efficient.
  - FD3SA 12y ago
    And yet, in the natural world, you will find that taking their lives will be quite difficult, and will reveal the forgotten strength they possess which the modern industrial economy does not value: survival. It is easy to get caught up in hypotheticals, and forget that we are all primates in rags scrambling to survive.
alexqgb 12y ago
Work can be ennobling, morally beneficial, etc. but instances in which this is actually the case tend to be few and far between. The ones that do exist invariably grant the worker a high degree of autonomy and decent living wage. If good jobs like these are available to everyone then sure, denigrate the people who are reluctant to work for a living. But as long as most work is shit work for shit managers done for shit wages, then insisting that people work for a living on moral grounds is, in fact, the antithesis of morality.
blumkvist 12y ago
We tried that. It ended in disaster. People thinking like this really makes me furious. This is such a narcisistic thinking, that I feel disgusted. Human beings are driven by incentives. From drinking a glass of water, to writing a book it is all incentive based. If you have your basic needs covered, you have no incentives. When you make policy, you have to think about the lowest common denominator, not the select few top speciments. It is extremely vain and naive to think removing incentives to educate yourself and work will end in anything other than disaster. Apart from that, the model you describe fosters enormous corruption at every level of society. From the factory workers who go drunk to work and steal, because when everyone is a principal, noone is a principal, to the political leaders who engage in atrocities to keep and grow their power. PLEASE stop trying to make communism happen. It has destroyed so many lives already.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  If you have your basic needs covered, you have no incentives. Self-betterment is an incentive. Betterment of everyone else is an incentive. The idea that people must be forced to work to make money or else they won't do anything else is a capitalist ideal, NOT absolute fact. Wouldn't it be nice if people could actually do things that interest them instead of worrying about putting food on the table?
  - blumkvist 12y ago
    Self-betterment is an incentive for you and maybe the people you are friends with.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      It is an incentive for some amount of people - the larger question, how many, has insufficient data for a meaningful answer. This mechanism of entitlements and requirements and such enshrined by capitalism is deeply engrained, but it is not above challenge.
  - ehvatum 12y ago
    Living in Norway taught me that faceless charity embitters and dissatisfies most recipients. Far from considering how to better themselves, too many internalize their implied uselessness, while blindly groping for someone or something to blame. An obvious path to self worth is then to view oneself as intelligent for taking from the hard working sheeple too dumb or deluded to win. Charity to help someone achieve their goals is very different from payouts for having no aspirations or abilities.

by glesica 12y ago

cantankerous 12y ago

This. We are already living in a post-scarcity world, but we keep pretending that we aren't. Eventually the number of unemployed people will be so large that we won't be able to ignore the problem of excess labor.

chii 12y ago
what evidence do you have that we are in a post scarcity world? Petroleum is running out, lots of places are being desertified, and arable land is shrinking, leading to places with food shortages. Until the day a very cheap, completely renewable (or effectively infinite) source of energy is found (such as cold fusion, or vacuum energy), there will be no post-scarcity.
- falcor84 12y ago
  citation-needed for all the above claims. Peak oil predictions have been made since the 1880s. Technology and better ecological understanding keep providing us with better methods to fight against desertification. Food production capabilities are growing exponentially. etc. I think that the major evidence for our post scarcity world is that, in developed countries, a small fraction of the population is actually involved in agriculture and manufacturing (and that percentage is shrinking). To quote Gibson "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed". EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_secto...

petercooper 12y ago

Why not simply allocate social resources such that people who are not needed for work simply don't have to work? There's been quite some hand wringing over this issue in the UK in recent years with people on long term sickness welfare or other long term welfare programs. The populist view is that these people "should" be working and don't "deserve" to be subsidized full time because they haven't "contributed" to the system. But if they are genuinely of as little use to the workforce as it seems, does such a stigma to not working really make any sense?

chii 12y ago
> But if they are genuinely of as little use to the workforce as it seems, does such a stigma to not working really make any sense? in the natural world, if they are genuinely of as little use, they "should die", for the resources to keep them alive is more than the "profit" that they can generate. This is becoming more and more true with more and more automation - the cost of resources to keep somebody alive is getting to a point where their contributions don't really cover it. I dont know if there is a real solution to this problem.
- rblatz 12y ago
  The issue (well there are lots of issues but this one is pertinent to this discussion) with that line of thinking is when people in general become so inefficient compared to machines that it's more efficient and profitable to get rid of the people entirely since machines are so much more efficient.
- FD3SA 12y ago
  And yet, in the natural world, you will find that taking their lives will be quite difficult, and will reveal the forgotten strength they possess which the modern industrial economy does not value: survival. It is easy to get caught up in hypotheticals, and forget that we are all primates in rags scrambling to survive.

alexqgb 12y ago

Work can be ennobling, morally beneficial, etc. but instances in which this is actually the case tend to be few and far between. The ones that do exist invariably grant the worker a high degree of autonomy and decent living wage. If good jobs like these are available to everyone then sure, denigrate the people who are reluctant to work for a living. But as long as most work is shit work for shit managers done for shit wages, then insisting that people work for a living on moral grounds is, in fact, the antithesis of morality.

blumkvist 12y ago

We tried that. It ended in disaster. People thinking like this really makes me furious. This is such a narcisistic thinking, that I feel disgusted. Human beings are driven by incentives. From drinking a glass of water, to writing a book it is all incentive based. If you have your basic needs covered, you have no incentives. When you make policy, you have to think about the lowest common denominator, not the select few top speciments. It is extremely vain and naive to think removing incentives to educate yourself and work will end in anything other than disaster. Apart from that, the model you describe fosters enormous corruption at every level of society. From the factory workers who go drunk to work and steal, because when everyone is a principal, noone is a principal, to the political leaders who engage in atrocities to keep and grow their power. PLEASE stop trying to make communism happen. It has destroyed so many lives already.

Karunamon 12y ago
If you have your basic needs covered, you have no incentives. Self-betterment is an incentive. Betterment of everyone else is an incentive. The idea that people must be forced to work to make money or else they won't do anything else is a capitalist ideal, NOT absolute fact. Wouldn't it be nice if people could actually do things that interest them instead of worrying about putting food on the table?
- blumkvist 12y ago
  Self-betterment is an incentive for you and maybe the people you are friends with.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    It is an incentive for some amount of people - the larger question, how many, has insufficient data for a meaningful answer. This mechanism of entitlements and requirements and such enshrined by capitalism is deeply engrained, but it is not above challenge.
- ehvatum 12y ago
  Living in Norway taught me that faceless charity embitters and dissatisfies most recipients. Far from considering how to better themselves, too many internalize their implied uselessness, while blindly groping for someone or something to blame. An obvious path to self worth is then to view oneself as intelligent for taking from the hard working sheeple too dumb or deluded to win. Charity to help someone achieve their goals is very different from payouts for having no aspirations or abilities.