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

Why do we assume everyone should be working?

wilsoniumite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 123 posts

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#21

Post by yoz-y »

yetihehe wrote: post #9

Because we got used to the idea that who is not working, is consuming resources made by those working and putting in effort. Then those putting in effort say "if I could get resources without putting in effort, why should I put the effort?". > ere is a very simple statement which may sound a bit mean: it is entirely feasible that giving a job to a “stupid” person, regardless of how much we try and train them, might c…

It’s not even a hypothetical. That’s what was happening (at least towards the end) during socialism in Eastern Europe. Since everybody had to have a job, the over-employment produced a lot of slackers.

Same thing was also happening in Gulags.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#22

Post by firasd »

In some ways a lot of 'work' may already be seen as an indirect form of UBI. Like if an American employee is making $60/yr sending a few emails per day, probably 50 years ago they'd have to do a very different type of job to make the same kinda money. So maybe economic growth over the decades is being absorbed into 'more chill' jobs

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#23

Post by ElProlactin »

anon48293 wrote: post #10

It might be a net loss to the economy, true. But to me it’s about you trying to contribute. I don’t want to give my hard earned tax money to some lazy dude not working and smoking weed all day. But if said guy worked as many hours as I did, just not profitably but through a sponsored job, I’d be fine with sponsoring him with my money. Because he’s still contributing. He is still adding value, even if not as much as s…

> I don’t want to give my hard earned tax money to some lazy dude not working and smoking weed all day.

Since this sounds very American, I'll assume you're American.

In which case the good news is you don't have to worry about that. More of your hard-earned tax money will go to bombing poor people overseas than will ever go to supporting the weed habit of the lazy poor in your own country.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#24

Post by yoz-y »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #16
yetihehe wrote: post #9

Because we got used to the idea that who is not working, is consuming resources made by those working and putting in effort. Then those putting in effort say "if I could get resources without putting in effort, why should I put the effort?". > ere is a very simple statement which may sound a bit mean: it is entirely feasible that giving a job to a “stupid” person, regardless of how much we try and train them, might c…

The dream society would be where we all just work less hours. Everyone can get a job but doesn't have to burn every workable hour of their life.

This, for some reason makes too much sense. So much so that I’m curious if there is some sort of world wide conspiracy to not do this.

If more people were employed during less time, we would also need more administration.

Not to mention that there are at least two sectors where there can never be enough employees: medicine and education.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#25

Post by sublinear »

firasd wrote: post #22

In some ways a lot of 'work' may already be seen as an indirect form of UBI. Like if an American employee is making $60/yr sending a few emails per day, probably 50 years ago they'd have to do a very different type of job to make the same kinda money. So maybe economic growth over the decades is being absorbed into 'more chill' jobs

What makes you think that those emails are trivial amounts of work?

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#26

Post by blooalien »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #16
yetihehe wrote: post #9

Because we got used to the idea that who is not working, is consuming resources made by those working and putting in effort. Then those putting in effort say "if I could get resources without putting in effort, why should I put the effort?". > ere is a very simple statement which may sound a bit mean: it is entirely feasible that giving a job to a “stupid” person, regardless of how much we try and train them, might c…

The dream society would be where we all just work less hours. Everyone can get a job but doesn't have to burn every workable hour of their life.

> The dream society would be where we all just work less hours. Everyone can get a job but doesn't have to burn every workable hour of their life.

That's not the world our Overlords want for us. They want us to literally work ourselves to death making them richer than Gods as cheaply as possible, and then fall over into a convenient nearby pit and bury ourselves for their convenience.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#27

Post by dingdongditchme »

anon48293 wrote: post #10

It might be a net loss to the economy, true. But to me it’s about you trying to contribute. I don’t want to give my hard earned tax money to some lazy dude not working and smoking weed all day. But if said guy worked as many hours as I did, just not profitably but through a sponsored job, I’d be fine with sponsoring him with my money. Because he’s still contributing. He is still adding value, even if not as much as s…

I'm happy to give some lazy dude smoking weed all day my tax money.

1. Working gives me satisfaction and money.

2. A lot more people are doing worse things with my tax money.

3. I don't envy that lifestyle in the slightest... if somebody chooses it: ok. Most of the times i pity the fool who thinks such an existence is fulfilling. The ones I know who had the lifestyle in the past were deeply unsatisfied iirc.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#29

Post by skybrian »

We don't assume everyone should be working. Some categories everyone accepts shouldn't be working: children, students, retirees, new parents, the sick, and the disabled.

There's a widespread assumption that you should eventually save enough money to retire, which divides life into phases: working and retired. That's one reason behind feeling like you should accumulate more money: not so you can buy more stuff, but because you're not done building your retirement fund yet.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#30

Post by SchemaLoad »

yoz-y wrote: post #24
SchemaLoad wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dream society would be where we all just work less hours. Everyone can get a job but doesn't have to burn every workable hour of their life.

This, for some reason makes too much sense. So much so that I’m curious if there is some sort of world wide conspiracy to not do this. If more people were employed during less time, we would also need more administration. Not to mention that there are at least two sectors where there can never be enough employees: medicine and education.

I think the simplest answer that probably accounts for most of it is just that employees all have overhead, 20 people working full time is more efficient than 40 people working half time. Less HR work, less moving context between people, less office space, less laptops, etc.

So I can see how naturally the system has prioritised this way of working, but despite the efficiency I think we need to do something to normalise 20-30 hours as full time. Give people less iphones and more hours in their life.

Post reply on HN