Live data from Hacker News

The Abolition of Work (2002)

theanarchistlibrary.org

151–160 of 236 posts

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sustain yourself just means not die in your text. But there's more to it than that. Most people won't do the $50/month food unless forced. The Soylent-junkies maybe, so if you're some robotic Western software dev whose sole purpose in life is placed in its optimization to be "productive" in a corporatist society. Food is a central cultural part of billions of people's lives, provides joy and is a critical component i…

Fair enough, but even including all those extras that stil puts the cost at maybe $150/month? That assumes cooking for oneself, not buying a lot of meat or other expensive products etc. On that budget, you will probably not eat worse that a median human.

That's probably true, yes.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find people who argue scarcity more often than not don't have actual numbers to back it up. Amongst human beings biggest necessities, what are actually scarce? Scarcity in the economic sense just means there are material limits to the things people want. It's not a synonym for "rarity." > Food? Not at all, tons and tons are thrown out daily. The places that are throwing out food also have charities and food banks…

The person to whom you are responding spoke of necessities, you speak of scarcity as the fact of demand exceeding supply. Clearly the crux of your disagreement is what is involved in a good life and society. The argument against your view is that human desire is not fixed, but expands with the development of every new frontier of consumption. The more we can produce, the more we want. Should we let that process run i…

> The argument against your view is that human desire is not fixed, but expands with the development of every new frontier of consumption. The more we can produce, the more we want. Should we let that process run indefinitely?

The problem is that we are not inherently given the opportunity to make that decision for other people. It's one thing to speak theoretically about this process of exogenous desires forming anew with every novel discovery. It's quite another thing to tell people "no more inventions or creative labor, society is wealthy enough."

> The costs are multiple. We organise society around the productivist maximisation of output, requiring us all to work at a dizzying pace despite the dramatic increase of productivity per hour of labour over time. We compensate for the modest time we have to ourselves, 'leisure', through a lifestyle of extreme consumption. One of the underlying reasons that we want to consume more, is as a marker that we are the kinds of people capable of high consumption. Having a nice house, clothes and car, going on nice holidays, validates our social status and esteem, or worse, feeds our pride and envy. We organise the whole of human life and society around production to satisfy our ape-brain psychology, to feed our bottomless status-seeking. It's a huge collective action problem, and we would all be better off if we jointly committed to working less, and shifted away from private consumption to public goods that can be shared in common.

I agree with (almost) all of this and if you are serious about the above, I humbly suggest investigating the connection between time preference and interest rates.

> There are also important questions about where spiralling levels of consumption run-up against natural resource and ecological limits, and the fact current rates of western consumption depend on cheap labour in the global south that won't last indefinitely - and in the case of China relies on a historically unprecedented reallocation of national income away from its citizens, and towards gargantuan capital investment at home and abroad.

I agree that this is problematic at best and likely to be catastrophic.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A mugger tells me to hand over my watch or get shot. Choice or not choice? Choice, of course.

So taxation is voluntary? You'll upset a lot of libertarians with that attitude!

Libertarians use "voluntary" to refer to a situation absent coercion. Taxation is prima facie coercive so we would just debate semantics if I went that route.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#154
post #19

This argument has a lot of big words, but in the end, we humans run up against the hard wall of reality in a world of scarce resources. To say that the nearly all misery arises from how we currently work is laughable. Let me know when winter stops being cold and food falls from heaven onto our dinner tables.

What resource is scarce? We can’t give everyone an iPhone or a McMansion, but we could probably feed everyone.

I'd say you're completely right, but there are a couple of caveats.

1) Most people would not be content with just the basics. We like shiny new stuff like iPhones or fancy clothes or nice food

2) Even if there was no scarcity of anything, our distribution systems (Globally) are pretty poor. I doubt we could flip a switch and begin distributing resources to everywhere in the world that needs them.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#155
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many things we consider "automatic" require complex maintenance and upkeep, and inappropriate automation can actually increase the net amount of work needed to be done. It often coincides with a loss of ownership. If you can't make your own value, and you're letting something else make it for you, you might save yourself labor, but you're giving up your ability to create that value. Yes, the system as a whole will pr…

I am trying to not delve into a 20 pages presentation, but I have gone though and through these themes for most of my professional life. The question whether we can really go to 100% of automation is moot if we can go to 99%. Either way it means that full employment is unnecessary and leads to the creation of bullshit jobs. > I think the solution is for more people to learn how to set up their own automation and to a…

> if a city wanted to make automated cars a reality in their streets, there are tons of accommodations they could do: from radio beacons to official maps, standards on how to signal construction work, purposefully designed roads...

Sorry, but that sounds hilarious. If "a city wanted", it's still people who would need to ensure "to signal construction work". And people don't care. And for other stuff, people would need to pay for it with their taxes. I'm sorry, but as an outsider, I would say the roads (usual roads!) in the US are in "perfect" condition only in California. In other states, it's the usual asphalt-with-cracks, which will turn into a hole when a heavy truck rides it thru the rainy/snow season.

Heck, majority of the world has problems with trash on the streets, and cities can't neither teach their people to not litter, nor clean up timely after them.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#156
The vision is correct; I disagree with the phrasing and tactic.

Instead of focusing in a negative "Abolish work"; lets do it from a positive standpoint: Shelter for everyone, Healthy eating made free, Education accessible to all... If we take away the main reasons the average person has to work for as an obligation, we can leverage a society detached from obligatory labor.

I've always thought about it from the workplace analogy. When we hire people, we make sure they are better prepared than our market competition. We provide them with a desk, computers, printers, access to food and beverage, access to tuition related to the job they will be making, and many stuff the employee doesn't have to pay for. How and why could we think society-wide should be different? Governments should start thinking of their citizens as employees.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So taxation is voluntary? You'll upset a lot of libertarians with that attitude!

Libertarians use "voluntary" to refer to a situation absent coercion. Taxation is prima facie coercive so we would just debate semantics if I went that route.

You just said that "hand over your watch or get shot" is choice. So then is "hand over your tax or go to prison", yes?

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarians use "voluntary" to refer to a situation absent coercion. Taxation is prima facie coercive so we would just debate semantics if I went that route.

You just said that "hand over your watch or get shot" is choice. So then is "hand over your tax or go to prison", yes?

I said that libertarians use "voluntary" to refer to a situation that doesn't involve coercion. I did not say that a coerced individual had no choice in the matter. Why would anyone bother to coerce someone who had no choices?

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#159
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In rich countries, less than 1% of the population work on agriculture. We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work. The fact that starvation is possible in a rich country is by design. It is not a necessary fact of the economy.

> In rich countries, less than 1% of the population work on agriculture. We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work. Modern agriculture depends on the technology that is created by the other 40-70% of the population that works. Additionally you have to compensate the people in agriculture with something for their labor. > The fact that starvation is possible in a rich countr…

40-70% is a wide range. How did you get that number?

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In rich countries, less than 1% of the population work on agriculture. We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work. Modern agriculture depends on the technology that is created by the other 40-70% of the population that works. Additionally you have to compensate the people in agriculture with something for their labor. > The fact that starvation is possible in a rich countr…

40-70% is a wide range. How did you get that number?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio

Iceland is 81.8% and South Africa is 41.7%, according to the table on the page.

Post reply on HN