Live data from Hacker News

Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

newstatesman.com

181–190 of 278 posts

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#181
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly recommend to watch the clip from the movie Office Space (only 54 sec long) [1] The guy with the moustache is a blue collar worker and the other one is white collar worker (actually in Tech/IT) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lmW2tZP2kU

That’s gotta be one of my favourite movies of all time. This and the printer killing scene are hilarious.

Amusing that so much of that movie is still relatable 20 years later to a whole new generation of workers. Except maybe the scene where he kicks down the cubicle, if I need to be in an office give me a cubicle or something lol

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#182
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core of it stands that 'urban populations have become mainly passive'. Perhaps I'd consider revising to replace passive with consumers. So, we've been taught and continually urged to spend our idle hours consuming. So, it isn't a surprise to me that most folks don't know any other way to spend their time.

Consumption usually costs money and increases money velocity, which leads to a better economy. So it's a bit different than "idleness."

A better economy... Please define "better".

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#183

>we also need to challenge the cultural ethic that teaches us to value ourselves in proportion to our capacity for “economically productive” labour. Human beings are more than just workers. We need to learn how to value idleness. I think much more than valueing idleness it's also a massive indictement of the system we live in. The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work…

I have a different perspective. I see work as the way we contribute to society, how we help others with things that are important for them . In return, other people work on things that benefit me . This is how we can live in wealth and peace unimaginable to most of history. This is a fantastic historic achievement, and I want to keep it going. I do agree that we are much more than just workers, of course. But that fe…

There are a large fraction of Americans who don’t have that leisure though. They’re forced to work long and arduous hours at meaningless jobs for low wages, because they can’t survive otherwise. Hard to see yourself as someone who is valued beyond their economic output in those cases.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#184
It's always seemed strange to me that the average work week, decreasing steadily for quite some period of time, seems to have stagnated around 40 hour work-weeks for decades, despite the massive increases in productivity leveraged by technological advances.

Personally I decided long ago that I simply don't care enough about money to try & advance upwards into high paying positions that would eat upwards of 60 hours a week, and possibly much more w/ off-time emails, phone calls, texts, etc. Instead I have a 40-hour work week, occasional emergencies where I of course do a little extra. I'm paid well for it, and have turned down every overture of advancement because I neither want the extra stress nor do I want to leave behind meaningful work in place of important-but-not-enjoyable work I'd have to do if I moved up a level. Instead I get to perform mission-critical work solving interesting problems, and get home early enough to have a nice family dinner, talk to my kids about their day, get beat by those same kids in Fortnite, and pursue multiple hobbies. Not only do I get ample vacation time, I don't work in a place that frowns upon actually using it.

I don't see why everyone couldn't have jobs that allow for this sort of lifestyle.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#185
post #181
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s gotta be one of my favourite movies of all time. This and the printer killing scene are hilarious.

Amusing that so much of that movie is still relatable 20 years later to a whole new generation of workers. Except maybe the scene where he kicks down the cubicle, if I need to be in an office give me a cubicle or something lol

Yes. I'm genuinely surprised how timeless this is.

You watch it today, in 2020, and it's shocking that it was made 20 years ago. This tells me that Judge and the other writers managed to latch on to some very timeless things.

Not sure what they are, but they nailed it.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#186
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not that hard to achieve ... from minimum wage jobs through decades of professional career. i highly doubt somebody on a minimum wage job can choose to work only 4 days a week.

highly agree > I frequently take many months off between jobs, sometimes a year or more. Definitely speaking from a place of privilege. Single moms living in poverty don't have the luxury to care for her mental health. She probably can't take even a few days off, voluntarily, much rather months or years. Let me ask you (caymanjim), in the months and years you take off, how do you subsist? The average American has, wh…

This sentiment expresses something I'm starting to see a lot in our discourse. I call it "third-party outrage", where you (bystander) get mad because you think some "aggressor" did something bad to some hypothetical "victim".

What cracks me up is that oftentimes, the victims don't even care or don't get nearly as mad as the bystandars. Same story with tech workers getting mad about how Amazon pays their employees. Is there any real harm being done here?

So I gotta wonder, why are the bystanders more mad than the alleged "victims" themselves? Do you realize how screwed up this is?

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#187
post #170

I'm a huge fan of sloth. I frequently take many months off between jobs, sometimes a year or more. I refuse to work more than 40 hours a week except for genuine emergencies (things like outages; being behind schedule never counts), and I'm close to drawing the line at four days a week. I always take at least three weeks off a year, and that's in a bad year. I take "mental health days" often and with no guilt. If you…

What does your spouse say about your effectively freed time? Your kids?

I bet they appreciate the attention.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#188

>we also need to challenge the cultural ethic that teaches us to value ourselves in proportion to our capacity for “economically productive” labour. Human beings are more than just workers. We need to learn how to value idleness. I think much more than valueing idleness it's also a massive indictement of the system we live in. The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work…

I have a different perspective. I see work as the way we contribute to society, how we help others with things that are important for them . In return, other people work on things that benefit me . This is how we can live in wealth and peace unimaginable to most of history. This is a fantastic historic achievement, and I want to keep it going. I do agree that we are much more than just workers, of course. But that fe…

I'm in my late 20s and used to believe something like this, but I've become quite cynical. I think that modern work is just about capturing wealth and passing it onto the wealthy, so they can have more control over their time and can enjoy the fruits of our labours.

I think people conflate the above with "wanting to contribute to society and benefit others" because you're not usually willing to pay for things that don't benefit you. However we all know there's a massive section of capitalism that's built on manipulating people to buy things they don't need or will actually do them harm, and there's also a huge section that benefits from desperation and will use it's political weight to increase said desperation if possible.

Of course in principle it's possible to have a company that balances a healthy profit with a useful and beneficial product, but in practice a vast majority of companies will abuse its customers and employees as much as legally permissible if it increases the incomes of the upper echelons. At least that's my view.

So nowadays I just do my job to get my stagnant wage, so that I can pay my extortionate rent.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#189
post #4

> ... we have realised that it is worth taking an economic hit in order to preserve health. Have we realized this? I think you'd find a sizable chunk of the country that disagrees. And I also think it's still too soon to say. > That, after all, is what money is for. Money that we don't have. We can keep conjuring money out of thin air if we want, but the effects of infinitely deepening debt seem negative in every cas…

what the pandemic is making more obvious is that money is getting stuck in idle and infirm hands. further, money is being injected into the wrong hands in the economy. we need money being injected closer to productive hands (like essential workers) rather than the current centralized system giving it to far-removed capital holders, those who prefer rent-seeking and other non-productive ways of stalling the velocity o…

Unfortunately, this is by design.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#190

I get upset when I read essays like this that don't mention the role that the government plays in creating drudgery and destroying leisure. A good way to highlight this is to point out that in the US, the government at all levels spends about $20K/person/year. If that money was just redistributed to individuals, we would actually be living in the leisure-filled world predicted in the early part of the century. Instea…

Any chance we could get you to work out the updated figure in the Iraq/US/Free Market Onion article? It was under USD 4'000 in 2004, but I'd guess that number would be higher now.

https://www.theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-le...

Post reply on HN