Live data from Hacker News

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

newstatesman.com

231–240 of 278 posts

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

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I gotta wonder, why are the bystanders more mad than the alleged "victims" themselves? Do you realize how screwed up this is? Can you clarify, cause I'm not sure what issue you're addressing? Am I a "bystander" in this, or an "alleged victim"? As a "bystander," you think, therefore, that I am not poor/in poverty? What gave you that idea?

Being single mom has often nothing to do with privilege but rather choices in life, at least if you are divorced... I think that was the point.

I disagree. The main point, at last my initial point, was that there are people in situations in life -- however they got to those situations -- that absolutely cannot afford that kind of "sloth" lifestyle.

And, sociologically speaking, sometimes single motherhood is connected to privilege, or a lack thereof.

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

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I identify with his post. I always had a rebellious streak when it comes to people judging me. In return, I don’t judge other people myself. It also saves a lot of energy :) That’s how I don’t feel guilty. I am not doing anything and you can do whatever you want in life too. I find it tough to achieve though. I am currently at 4 days per week but would like to be at 3.5 days, that’s my optimum (lower than 3 days and…

If you need the workplace to 'exercise your mind' then I don't know what to tell you... all your free time gained this way is useless then if you don't know how to spend it.

One needs to work to survive. The benefit of work for me is to exercise my mind. Other forms are available but do not aid survival. So assuming everything else is equal, I should use work to exercise my mind.

The issue with work is that it is constrained to one thing (web dev in my case). I can use my free time to do whatever (relax or other exercises such as meditation).

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

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I identify with his post. I always had a rebellious streak when it comes to people judging me. In return, I don’t judge other people myself. It also saves a lot of energy :) That’s how I don’t feel guilty. I am not doing anything and you can do whatever you want in life too. I find it tough to achieve though. I am currently at 4 days per week but would like to be at 3.5 days, that’s my optimum (lower than 3 days and…

> lower than 3 days and I will go insane of not exercising my mind It's not like paid work is the only place where you can exercise your mind

I agree but I find it the most practical place. If I can’t exercise my mind, then there’s nothing for me at work other than obtaining an income (no SF salary here so no financial independence possible).

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

#234
The core issue here is Democracy and Human greed. Why would a majority vote for a 15h working week for everyone, when they could vote for a zero hour working week for themselves and a 60h working weak for some poor beleaguered minority? That's what we have today: employment rates are around 50%, the rest opt out and vote republican. Republicans cut things used by working people and throw money indiscriminately at pensioners and the rich (2 groups exempt from having to work).

This is the exact same issue with UBI. The universality of it undermines support.

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

#235
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's fascinating how good Mike Judge is at 'nailing' a variety of experiences.

Office Space is pitch-perfect, but then he went and created Silicon Valley and King of the Hill too. I can't personally confirm that King of the Hill is accurate, but I've heard it is. Silicon Valley just nails it though, and it is far more specific than the Office Space type stuff.

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

#236
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…

This.

We need our tax laws geared to increasing the velocity of money.

I believe that with the growing global middle class we actually do need to print money faster than we are, because we don’t want to be in a situation where people think that not spending is more valuable than spending. Wealth is not zero sum, and these new families need to partake.

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

#237

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…

Ignoring the obvious "citation needed" for the $20k, think about what that money is spent on. There is some pretty nice stuff among that list, like public roads or schools.

Budget / number of americans

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

#238
post #212
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The day I drove into Mexico it was a huge shock to see so many people around just enjoying their time - paying with their younger relatives on the beach, playing guitar, singing and dancing. My fascination and disbelief at the amount of leisure time everyone has continued for two years through all of Latin America, and then for another three years when I drove right around Africa. Having come from years grinding at a…

West way of life is expensive that is why we have to grind at a desk job. What do we pay for with that grind: low violent crime rates, good roads so lower amount of traffic deaths, better health care. Being poor or sick in Latin America or Africa sucks.

> Being poor or sick in Latin America or Africa sucks.

Speaking of the US, being poor and sick here also sucks but differently. You won't die of malaria. Instead, you will spend the rest of your days scraping pennies to pay for an outrageous medical bill because you don't belong to the class of people with good employer-provided health insurance.

Good roads and cars exist in Latin America and Africa as well of course.

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

#239

Why a partisan article is being discussed here? Really. This is material affiliated to the Labour Party in the U.K. which is associated to the International Socialist. Why is it a subject here?

It's true, Bertrand Russell had a leaning towards communist libertarianism (anarchism), but is it any worse than so many articles discussed here that originate in large corporations, that are associated with capitalism? Even people dedicated to maintaining the status quo (conservatives?) are partisan. I'm not sure that the Labour Party of the UK really counts as socialist these days, it's social democrat at most.

I think you're conflating right and left with authoritarianism / anarchism. Anarchism can be left wing (anarcho-syndacalism) or right wing (anarcho-capitalism). And capitalism is not the opposite of anarchy, capitalism is definitely a form of anarchy.

Capitalism can be defined as `an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit`. Capitalism and free markets can't work if a strong government keep interfering, disrupting supply and demand and stealing profits - which is clearly visible in all the economic crisis we've seen in our recent history.

The opposite of anarchism is authoritarianism, which can be left wing (socialism or communism with publicly owned goods) or right wing (fascism, nazism - which comes from national socialism).

Now, large corporations benefits greatly from authoritarianism, because a strong central government is a single point of failure that can be lobbied and corrupted. Why do you think middle class individuals pay half of their paychecks in taxes while big corporations pay nothing with fiscal loopholes? Therefore, I think it's rational to assume that the environment in a large corporation is going to be leaning towards authoritarianism and promoting authoritarianism. You can also add the fact that universities are increasingly left leaning and people in large corporations (and big tech in particular) tend to have higher level of education. Of course, it's not great PR for the companies and it's not an easy sell on people, so they will need to masquerade their authoritarianism by saying appealing to people's emotions and saying that taxes need to be paid to "redistribute wealth to poor people" or to "protect our country from $external_threat". The two party system serves as a way to illude people they have a choice and so that they can blame bad things on the other party. Those of us who are lead on by nurturing emotions or economically comfortable enough to donate money will lean towards Democrats and believing the victimhood of minorities. Those of us who are poor or wants a smaller state will edge towards Republicans. The percentage of libertarians is so small, it's not even funny. In reality, both Republicans and Democrats just kept increasing their spending and their power - and there is no sign of stopping. The USA are the largest employer in the world.

Because of these factors, I believe people and articles from large corporations will tend to have a left-leaning bias, which fits perfectly well with this left leaning article and it's not its opposite.

Ultimately, I agree with your analysis of the labour party: I can't think of any "left wing" party in the western world which is left wing economically - and this is because socialism has been proven not too work over and over. The only meaningful difference between left wing and right wing parties nowadays is in the direction in which they edge (more taxes / less taxes) and where they stand on personal freedom issues (freedom of speech, gay marriage, etc).

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

#240
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…

Single moms are not victims, especially now days. They are dumb people that made bad choices cause they know society will bail them out. Birth control is so readily available there are practically people throwing it at young women on the street corners for free, this is barely an exaggeration. Its crazy for any woman to become a single mom these days unless they are like 13yo in which case they are what a real victim looks like.

Divorcees don't count cause they get child support/alimony. Oh she married a dead beat... once again dumb choices.

Post reply on HN