21–30 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Forced" doesn't seem like exactly the right word.
I wouldn't go to work if I didn't have to. It can feel like prison some days. Forced is the right word.
Hyperbole like this makes it difficult to take his arguments seriously, even if he makes some good points about the changing nature of work. Really, barbaric? Having set work hours in a steady job with regular pay in a safe workplace with benefits usually included, including paid vacation? It's such a dramatic leap forward from the way most humans in history--and many still today--have had to scrimp for survival, wor…
Really, barbaric? Having set work hours in a steady job with regular pay in a safe workplace with benefits usually included, including paid vacation? I don't think it's hard to see that as barbaric. Think of it as "I am forced to be away from my loved ones for most of the daylight hours and most days of the year excluding these permitted 'holiday' periods".
As opposed to what, though? Hunter-gatherers may or may not have had a lot more leisure time, depending on who you ask, but they didn't hunt and gather together in family groups all the time, and while many people use their words to sing the praises of this time period their actions suggest they don't really want that, since they could still have it if they wanted it enough. Not to mention many of these hunting trips often spanned multiple days from what I gather. I suppose militaries had a lot of cohesion, as long as you don't mind defining "loved ones" as "my squadmates". Family farms still generally would end up with the family cut in half between the women and men, assuming the men even stayed together. Etc.
I can't off the top of my head think of a time period where there wasn't a large portion of the population separated from at least half their family for long periods of time.
The current situation isn't perfect, but let's be precise about what we're comparing it to, and when exactly it supposedly existed and was widespread.
What a load of shit. All the more clear as I'm traveling in a 3rd world country where people actually have to deal with difficult working conditions. I see people in their mid 70's doing long days of physical labor on a farm for dollars a day. Ask them how barbaric the 9-5 desk job is. As the other commenter mentioned, hyperbole like this only ever damages a cause. I think there are probably better ways to do work an…
However, I just don't think his idea will ever scale to the general populace, though. He says, "people with internet brains are capable of doing huge amounts of work, quickly and from anywhere. " Yeah, probably a few. I think his opinion might be biased because he's an artist who has commercial success (he's essentially made it as a business owner/entrepreneur, which we know not everyone is capable of).
Anecdotal evidence: I'm currently working in an office where there's no way people around here could function without the same daily routine, without micro-management, without hard deadlines, etc. Yet, the company still manages to exist and be profitable.
He does make some other good points, if you can look past the flamboyant/hyperbolic sound bites: * “Always have an actual skill as a back-up, that’s very good advice.” * More part-time jobs/partial employment
Hyperbole like this makes it difficult to take his arguments seriously, even if he makes some good points about the changing nature of work. Really, barbaric? Having set work hours in a steady job with regular pay in a safe workplace with benefits usually included, including paid vacation? It's such a dramatic leap forward from the way most humans in history--and many still today--have had to scrimp for survival, wor…
We should have never left our hunter-gatherer lifestyle. :)
Hyperbole like this makes it difficult to take his arguments seriously, even if he makes some good points about the changing nature of work. Really, barbaric? Having set work hours in a steady job with regular pay in a safe workplace with benefits usually included, including paid vacation? It's such a dramatic leap forward from the way most humans in history--and many still today--have had to scrimp for survival, wor…
I think his ego gets in the way of his argument. I was thinking about how melodramatic he sounded about all of this, and then I got to the picture of him standing cruciform under a spotlight, and all I could do was roll my eyes.
Hyperbole like this makes it difficult to take his arguments seriously, even if he makes some good points about the changing nature of work. Really, barbaric? Having set work hours in a steady job with regular pay in a safe workplace with benefits usually included, including paid vacation? It's such a dramatic leap forward from the way most humans in history--and many still today--have had to scrimp for survival, wor…
Chained to a desk from 9-5 is inhuman if the work is not intrinsically motivating . From quality of life perspective I'm not sure if it's much better than generic hunter gathering. The fact that it's materialistically much better than scraping living by in some hellhole does not validate the concept. The fact that it's a safer and a healthier work environment than some other does not mean it could not be better. Sadl…
To expect most, or even many, jobs to be motivating or inspiring or even enjoyable is unrealistic. And to be fair, many people would love it if the worst thing about their job was that it was merely tedious. But in any case, the work exists and has to be done.
Automation might provide an escape from some bad jobs, but the purpose of automation is to allow companies to extract profits from labor without compensation, not to free people up to improve their lives. People will likely simply go unemployed in that case, or be forced to find work in the diminishing labor market that remains.
UBI might also help by decoupling the need to survive from the desire to work, but there will probably be some intersection of jobs that are both bad and infeasible to automate, and someone will still have to do that.
The 3rd world countries have it worse argument is a fallacy, the existence of a worse condition does not negate the negatives of another and we should be smart enough to address issues with both and improve issues with both simultaneously.
Having said that, I'm not sure the structure he describes sounds any better to me. At this point, I just wonder why work is still at the center of our lives. It seems possible to me with today's technology to organize a society in a way where we finally redistribute back the gains of automation and optimisation made in the last 200 years. I would love a society where you're free to work as little or as much as you want. Or where everyone is a part time worker. You can get two jobs if you want to work more. I don't have the answer to how it would all work, but I'd love to see a discourse about the possibility.