Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 204 posts

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#161

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #157
bjourne wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My job is completely detached from the processes and people that ensure there is food on my table. There is no slack to pick up because there is no contribution. Most software developers are in the exact same position. There is no "contributing" in programming casino sites, optimizing trading algorithms to make fat cats richer, or developing aaa games. Society would be better off if we didn't work.

Programming casino sites has value because people choose to spend the money that they earn gambling. Society decides which tasks have value and which don’t by whether consumers spend money on the work product produced by those tasks. Now, society’s way of working this out isn’t perfect, but how else should we determine which jobs are adding value and which are not?

I reject the idea that money determines what has worth. Because believing so leads to absurd conclusions. Like dealing drugs being more valuable than taking care of sick people, or pills against male pattern baldness being more valuable than aids medicines for sub-Saharan Africans, or Jeff Bezos being a million times more valuable than me. In fact, the very idea that money is what decides worth is what got us into this mess in the first place.

You ask how we should decide what jobs has "value" and which hasn't. Well, if it isn't obvious that a job has "value" then perhaps it has no value?

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#162

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #158
bjourne wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Workfree societies have existed so it is incorrect to claim that work is required for society to exist. For example, the free software community exists and is workfree. However, it seems you and many others are incapable to rationally reason about these issues since you implied that "people with this particular anti-work view" (i.e. me) just wants to be the ones doing the exploiting. It's plain as day that a massive…

The free software community is not ‘work free’. Many free software developers work for organisations who have chosen to share their work freely because their revenue stream comes from support or hosting. There are free software projects where hobbyists build things to scratch a personal itch, but most of these people are contributing their free time and have another job. You keep repeating the point that ‘a massive n…

Yes, free software is workfree as tasks are executed without there being monetary gain. Time is not traded for money. Read my other comments in this thread for examples on (worse than) useless jobs.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#163

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #159
d1sxeyes wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. If you can’t hunt or grow vegetables, you should perform some other task that society thinks is valuable, and share your part of collective responsibility that way. Exploitation is already a big enough issue without u…

> No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. I didn't write anything even resembling that. If that is your interpretation then continuing the discussion with you is meaningless.

OK, happy to strike that line and we can stop putting words in each other’s mouths.

What’s your opinion about the rest of my argument?

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#164

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #162
d1sxeyes wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free software community is not ‘work free’. Many free software developers work for organisations who have chosen to share their work freely because their revenue stream comes from support or hosting. There are free software projects where hobbyists build things to scratch a personal itch, but most of these people are contributing their free time and have another job. You keep repeating the point that ‘a massive n…

Yes, free software is workfree as tasks are executed without there being monetary gain. Time is not traded for money. Read my other comments in this thread for examples on (worse than) useless jobs.

> Time is not traded for money.

I dispute that. Many contributors to free software are doing so in exchange for money, either directly by being paid by their employer or allowing ‘sponsored features’, or indirectly by soliciting donations or through monetising their software through support contracts etc.

I agree there are hobbyists who do give their time without expecting any financial return, but the free software community does include a significant proportion of people who are paid directly or indirectly for the time they spend on any particular project.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#165

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #160
d1sxeyes wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most volunteer fire fighters have other jobs. https://www.quora.com/I-dont-understand-volunteer-firefighte...

That doesn't answer my question, does it?

In the most literal sense no, but I think it does address your point.

Honestly it’s an odd example to pick because there are paid firefighters too - why would you need to pay firefighters if enough people are willing to do it for free?

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#166

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #161
d1sxeyes wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming casino sites has value because people choose to spend the money that they earn gambling. Society decides which tasks have value and which don’t by whether consumers spend money on the work product produced by those tasks. Now, society’s way of working this out isn’t perfect, but how else should we determine which jobs are adding value and which are not?

I reject the idea that money determines what has worth. Because believing so leads to absurd conclusions. Like dealing drugs being more valuable than taking care of sick people, or pills against male pattern baldness being more valuable than aids medicines for sub-Saharan Africans, or Jeff Bezos being a million times more valuable than me. In fact, the very idea that money is what decides worth is what got us into th…

Obvious to whom, and how do you define ‘value’?

I’m not being difficult here, these are tough questions.

Allowing the market to decide value is the option we currently have, and seems to be the fairest so far.

I am sure that it is not optimal, and it has flaws, but no one has yet convinced me that there is a better model.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#167

Post by dnadler »

bjourne wrote: post #151
dnadler wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what most people are saying is that if you're not working to feed yourself, then someone else is . And further, it's not fair to ask society to pick up the slack for people who could contribute, but choose not to. In other words: by saying you shouldn't starve for refusing to work, aren't you also saying that someone else should grow your food for you for free?

My job is completely detached from the processes and people that ensure there is food on my table. There is no slack to pick up because there is no contribution. Most software developers are in the exact same position. There is no "contributing" in programming casino sites, optimizing trading algorithms to make fat cats richer, or developing aaa games. Society would be better off if we didn't work.

I would counter by saying that entertainment is actually valuable. Gambling and playing games are things that people choose to spend their time and money doing because they are fun. (Obviously taking advantages of addiction is immoral, but that’s a whole other bag of worms).

As for optimizing trading algos, the counter is that making markets more efficient is also valuable to society at large, and that is what most quants would say they are doing.

As you pointed out in some other comments, there are certainly issues with the current system. Though, I don’t think the conclusion is for people to stop working entirely. If that were the case all of these “useless” jobs would go away and we would then ask farmers to give us food in exchange for nothing at all?

I think what might be better is offering more incentives for people to work in industries that make a real positive impact on the world. And in lieu of that, people who feel they aren’t contributing in a meaningful way can try to seek out more meaningful work. And we as a society should support *that*.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#168

Post by mlac »

dajoh wrote: post #100
ethagknight wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, forced upon you by whom? if you move somewhere where no one else can force you to work (maybe the wilderness?), then what forces you to work?

Just because you're in the woods does not mean you can ignore the law. Where do I find this mythical wilderness where no laws apply to me?

Alaska. You can move out there by yourself, do whatever the hell you want (as long as its by yourself and doesn’t impact others), and no one will notice or care.

Or you can be a hermit.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#169

Post by joquarky »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #91
zivkovicp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harsh words, but true. +1 The best thing for most people to realise is that "life's not fair, deal with it".

A convenient philosophy for those who gain an advantage from the unfairness.

Exactly. I have had several opportunities in life to get a significant advancement in income, but it would have meant doing something unethical, so I passed.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#170

Post by NoPicklez »

bjourne wrote: post #153
NoPicklez wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. You might have invented electricity or the computer through ingenuity, but who is going to build the infrastructure that supports it? Who is going to build the poles in your suburb to get the electricity to you? Who is going to build the telecommunications infrastructure and maintain it such that if it breaks there is someone there to fix it?

How come volunteer fire departments exist?

How come paid fire fighters exist then, if others are willing to do it for free?
Post reply on HN