6 ms·

The standard of living we all enjoy today is due to billions of people doing things they consider work and not "antiwork". If we can live in a world like ours

The standard of living we all enjoy today is due to billions of people doing things they consider work and not "antiwork". If we can live in a world like ours where everyone is doing "antiwork" instead of work, that would certainly be better. But it's not at all clear from this article how such a world would function. Many of the actions necessary for clean water, plentiful food, good shelter, etc. (as they are provided today) are actions that no one would do "out of love, fun, interest, talent, enthusiasm, inspiration".

kaybe 12y ago
> Antiwork is also a rejection of what we regard as pointless or immoral work. This might include any form of forced or subtly coerced labour, work that serves no positive purpose (in the opinion of those doing the work), work that has harmful consequences (physical, psychological, environmental), etc. Work for clean water, plentiful food etc is not pointless, so I think it doesn't qualify.
- calinet6 12y ago
  But there are parts of that work, and parts of other work, that seem pointless on the surface, but in fact have a very specific and necessary part of the system ensuring the end goal. Someone might just be a paper pusher, literally organizing papers, something that seems entirely pointless busy work—but someone needs to do that organization, within the context of the system, to ensure its function. People should know their function and how it impacts the end result that their organization achieves, but it is not guaranteed to be full of meaning and glory. There is something noble, and virtuous about it, still. It is a contribution to a system which enables the function of society, which by all measures improves as a result, on average. Why not call it virtue?
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    I think if you just went and explained to people the very reason why their jobs are actually important, many would find virtue in them. Being a part of a chain required for something you think is important also feels important.
transfire 12y ago
You are correct in so far as you are correct ;) The flip side however is the large quantity of jobs that are not really useful but are simply created for a variety of ignoble reasons. Worst among them is the creation of jobs for the purpose of improving "employment rates". Nearly as bad is the proliferation of bureaucracies --typically the creation of paper trails and overseers to monitor other paper trials and overseers. The "work ethic" can lead to perverse incentives, to "make work" where none is really necessary.
- swatow 12y ago
  Can you give examples of this kind of job, other than those created directly by the government?
  - sheepmullet 12y ago
    "Can you give examples of this kind of job, other than those created directly by the government?" Plenty of "useless jobs" exist. It comes back to the classic agency problem. What is best for the market/company/shareholders is often not what is best for the employees working at the companies.
    - swatow 12y ago
      I don't understand your point. Can you give a specific example of where you think the "classic agency problem" results in useless jobs?
      - sitkack 12y ago
        The IRS and the TSA come to mind.
      - dropit_sphere 12y ago
        Marketing, litigation, interviews, credentialing, auditing, sales...all of these are useful for the company, but don't help society at all. "But society can't benefit from a company that goes under from ignorant customers/lawsuits/incompetent employees/fraud." Then perhaps society should stop doing those things to companies. These jobs are necessary because, of course, it won't. That's the agency problem.
icebraining 12y ago
How many people are actually working on distributing clean water, growing food for nourishment and making shelters, relative to the size of the workforce? The point of the article isn't that we could never work ("work will doubtless always be necessary"), but against the glorification of work and the condemnation of those who choose to do only the necessary.
enraged_camel 12y ago
But the types of work people do these days are increasingly unconnected to the production of goods and services. In fact, you could argue that a lot that work is in fact anti-productive because it introduces unnecessary extra steps and crippling bureaucratic overhead to production.
- monort 12y ago
  If you can see unproductive work, then you should start competition and win the market. (Or realize, that it wasn't that unproductive).
  - arthurjj 12y ago
    That only works in situations with a competitive free market without any barriers to entry. So pretty much never
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Market creates a lot of unproductive jobs by itself. Take sales and marketing. Most of it nowadays is zero-sum - you work to undo the work of your competitors. That's why there is so many jobs of this kind - being a zero-sum game, you can throw ever increasing amount of work and resources at such job for zero marginal value, because everyone of your competitors does the same.
ritchiea 12y ago
Not to mention how much of the standard of living we enjoy today is based on enslaved people doing work they are not paid for (and if you think I'm just talking about centuries ago, think about Dubai and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery).
sitkack 12y ago
Those infrastructure level things are supplied by less than 5% of the workforce. So yes, 95% of the rest, when just considering basic needs, are superfluous. I would be stoked to analyze, maintain and create clean water systems used by the rest of humanity. How many Roman Aqueducts are still functioning? Capitalism and bullshit jobs are not the only way to sustain a virbrant human race.
raverbashing 12y ago
Exactly As much as I'd like to work in a antiwork position, it's very complicated society-wise (especially due to the fact that there aren't that many jobs) Relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRVdiHu1VCc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRVdiHu1VCc
littletimmy 12y ago
We've heard this form of thinking before. The standard of living we all enjoy is due to the slave labor of the negro. Without blacks, how would we cultivate our land? How would the economy of the South function? It wasn't a good argument then and it is not a good argument now. People shouldn't have to work to make your shitty society work.

kaybe 12y ago

> Antiwork is also a rejection of what we regard as pointless or immoral work. This might include any form of forced or subtly coerced labour, work that serves no positive purpose (in the opinion of those doing the work), work that has harmful consequences (physical, psychological, environmental), etc. Work for clean water, plentiful food etc is not pointless, so I think it doesn't qualify.

calinet6 12y ago
But there are parts of that work, and parts of other work, that seem pointless on the surface, but in fact have a very specific and necessary part of the system ensuring the end goal. Someone might just be a paper pusher, literally organizing papers, something that seems entirely pointless busy work—but someone needs to do that organization, within the context of the system, to ensure its function. People should know their function and how it impacts the end result that their organization achieves, but it is not guaranteed to be full of meaning and glory. There is something noble, and virtuous about it, still. It is a contribution to a system which enables the function of society, which by all measures improves as a result, on average. Why not call it virtue?
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  I think if you just went and explained to people the very reason why their jobs are actually important, many would find virtue in them. Being a part of a chain required for something you think is important also feels important.

transfire 12y ago

You are correct in so far as you are correct ;) The flip side however is the large quantity of jobs that are not really useful but are simply created for a variety of ignoble reasons. Worst among them is the creation of jobs for the purpose of improving "employment rates". Nearly as bad is the proliferation of bureaucracies --typically the creation of paper trails and overseers to monitor other paper trials and overseers. The "work ethic" can lead to perverse incentives, to "make work" where none is really necessary.

swatow 12y ago
Can you give examples of this kind of job, other than those created directly by the government?
- sheepmullet 12y ago
  "Can you give examples of this kind of job, other than those created directly by the government?" Plenty of "useless jobs" exist. It comes back to the classic agency problem. What is best for the market/company/shareholders is often not what is best for the employees working at the companies.
  - swatow 12y ago
    I don't understand your point. Can you give a specific example of where you think the "classic agency problem" results in useless jobs?
    - sitkack 12y ago
      The IRS and the TSA come to mind.
    - dropit_sphere 12y ago
      Marketing, litigation, interviews, credentialing, auditing, sales...all of these are useful for the company, but don't help society at all. "But society can't benefit from a company that goes under from ignorant customers/lawsuits/incompetent employees/fraud." Then perhaps society should stop doing those things to companies. These jobs are necessary because, of course, it won't. That's the agency problem.

icebraining 12y ago

How many people are actually working on distributing clean water, growing food for nourishment and making shelters, relative to the size of the workforce? The point of the article isn't that we could never work ("work will doubtless always be necessary"), but against the glorification of work and the condemnation of those who choose to do only the necessary.

enraged_camel 12y ago

But the types of work people do these days are increasingly unconnected to the production of goods and services. In fact, you could argue that a lot that work is in fact anti-productive because it introduces unnecessary extra steps and crippling bureaucratic overhead to production.

monort 12y ago
If you can see unproductive work, then you should start competition and win the market. (Or realize, that it wasn't that unproductive).
- arthurjj 12y ago
  That only works in situations with a competitive free market without any barriers to entry. So pretty much never
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Market creates a lot of unproductive jobs by itself. Take sales and marketing. Most of it nowadays is zero-sum - you work to undo the work of your competitors. That's why there is so many jobs of this kind - being a zero-sum game, you can throw ever increasing amount of work and resources at such job for zero marginal value, because everyone of your competitors does the same.

ritchiea 12y ago

Not to mention how much of the standard of living we enjoy today is based on enslaved people doing work they are not paid for (and if you think I'm just talking about centuries ago, think about Dubai and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery).

sitkack 12y ago

Those infrastructure level things are supplied by less than 5% of the workforce. So yes, 95% of the rest, when just considering basic needs, are superfluous. I would be stoked to analyze, maintain and create clean water systems used by the rest of humanity. How many Roman Aqueducts are still functioning? Capitalism and bullshit jobs are not the only way to sustain a virbrant human race.

raverbashing 12y ago

Exactly As much as I'd like to work in a antiwork position, it's very complicated society-wise (especially due to the fact that there aren't that many jobs) Relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRVdiHu1VCc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRVdiHu1VCc

littletimmy 12y ago

We've heard this form of thinking before. The standard of living we all enjoy is due to the slave labor of the negro. Without blacks, how would we cultivate our land? How would the economy of the South function? It wasn't a good argument then and it is not a good argument now. People shouldn't have to work to make your shitty society work.