I think that's the whole point that any amount of work that is obligatory to survive is too much. Showing a person who opposes work in current mainstream culture will only end up with mixture of laughter, indignation and branding him as lazy. It's very similar to the reaction you'd get few decades ago if you showed a black man who thinks he's people. Evereybody in our culture was brainwashed with supposed virtues of…
> In the future, anti-work in the style of "where's my robot that does all work I don't freely choose to do" Maybe someday. This was one of the common optimistic promises of the space age (along with "power too cheap to meter") that the 70s smothered like a wet blanket.
This promise is already overdue as much as global warming action.
Well if they don’t have a job at all and/or their passion does not bring in an income from said passion then I don’t know how they will put food on the table. My point was that this person conveyed themselves as a 30 year old dog walker who sleeps on the job and wants to work less hours. But if they could follow their passion they would want to teach. But this person was not making any strides in achieving this at al…
There's enough food to go around. We no longer need to base the foundation of survival on subsistence farming. Like 1% of the population is literally "putting food on the table", i.e. farming. The remaining 99% are doing things of questionable utility, like art, religion, philosphy... Only a hypercapitalist would not understand how anyone could exist without a "job". What does "making strides" towards philosophy even…
Academic Philosophy is definitely not like that. The amount of effort it takes to even keep on top of new papers being published (within whatever subfield you happen to specialise in) is extraordinary.
>The market decides how hard you are expected to work That's like saying house prices in San Francisco are set by how much people are willing to pay. It's true but hides the real problem which is housing is unaffordable for many in that area.
> That's like saying house prices in San Francisco are set by how much people are willing to pay. They literally are. > It's true but hides the real problem which is housing is unaffordable for many in that area. Area has finite amount of estate. The only "solution" is to create ghettos of human hives which lead to classes of problems on their own.
> The only "solution" is to create ghettos
There's a list of reasonable things they haven't tried yet.
It doesn’t hide anything. If the price is too high then something is wrong. In your case it’s restraint on supply and in labor the problem is people who don’t know the value of what they have and never put any consideration into making themselves difficult to push around. They jump into precarious financial circumstances, but expensive things and pump out babies and when it comes time to negotiate they have zero leve…
Harsh words, but true. +1 The best thing for most people to realise is that "life's not fair, deal with it".
Sounds dangerously close to "life's not fair, keep your mouth closed and do nothing about it".
Doesn't matter. Fox News selected this guy for a reason.
Fox News actually didn't select her - the mod team elected her as the best representative. Think about that.
I think what really happened was that r/antiwork started out as being more of a philosophical sub for people who wanted to explore the utopian but unrealistic vision of people not having to work at all. Then, later, it grew to host this larger movement of frustrated workers needing reform. The mod Doreen I believe originally founded the sub, but now is not a good representative of the larger movement. Fox News is of course happy to take advantage of that, to make the movement look bad
People are herd animals so for most (including me) living in the wilderness is not an option. But to participate in society I have to pay the "entrance fee" - to subject myself to work. As a species, we can do better.
Well, I agree we can do better, especially in terms of the fairness of distribution of wealth, but frankly yes, to take part in a society, you either need to 'pay the entrance fee' or have it waived for you. We generally 'waive' the fee for children, the elderly, and the disabled, but ultimately, right at the very sharp end, some folks HAVE to work so the others have food. So those of us who are not growing food need…
The entire thing was a disaster, start to finish. If you're going on Fox News, at least clean your room, put on something other than a sweatshirt, and come PREPARED. You have to know that Fox is going to ask you horribly loaded questions that aim to make you seem like the biggest fool on earth. But the funny part is, they didn't even do that. The questions asked pretty much amounted to "What are your aspirations?" an…
Doesn't matter. Fox News selected this guy for a reason.
The working theory is the mods, including this one, were paid off to be a total disaster to try prevent the movement gaining further traction. Everyone in the subreddit voted no to a media appearance. That mod decided otherwise with a second interview with another mod not yet aired.
There was no vote in the sub, that was on r/wallstreetbets earlier this year. That's actually how this should have been handled, but instead it was all mod-driven.
People are herd animals so for most (including me) living in the wilderness is not an option. But to participate in society I have to pay the "entrance fee" - to subject myself to work. As a species, we can do better.
Well, I agree we can do better, especially in terms of the fairness of distribution of wealth, but frankly yes, to take part in a society, you either need to 'pay the entrance fee' or have it waived for you. We generally 'waive' the fee for children, the elderly, and the disabled, but ultimately, right at the very sharp end, some folks HAVE to work so the others have food. So those of us who are not growing food need…
But why should I have to pay the entrance fee and why should I have to work? Unless you believe axiomatically that everyone "should" work there is no rational reason why everyone should work. Hunter gatherers didn't work. They hunted, gathered food, took care of the children and whatnot but they decidedly did not work. But now, thousands of years later, we're devoting most of waking hours to work. That's not progress. And all for no good reason. All those developers optimizing ctr rates for ads or building casino sites for gambling addicts, are not adding anything of value to society. They are making it worse. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's so much pointless work out there that is just work for work's own sake.
Then why do we keep hearing about how no one can hire anyone?
It's a narrative that is pushed so that they feel like they don't have to change anything. It's not the hirer being abusive or bad, it's the market which has no available talent.
Sure, I'm just saying if they could just ignore unions by outsourcing or using robots, why bother complaining at all?