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

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

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 278 posts

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

#71

Post by zozbot234 »

Xophmeister wrote: post #24

Why did Keynes believe that, say, a doubling of efficiency (through technology) would half work time for everyone? Sure it’s a solution to the equation, but so is what actually happened[1]: half the workforce gets laid off. This halves the costs, which facilitates price reduction and thus a competitive edge. Did Keynes believe that benevolence would win over profit? Don’t get me wrong, I wish it had, but that seems a…

> half the workforce gets laid off.

Technological progress has made labor productivity itself a lot more uneven and sharply unequal than it used to be when Keynes was writing. So the currently most marginal workers tend to be laid off first, especially given the increasing regulatory barriers that have made low-productivity positions unsustainable since then.

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

#72

Post by wiz21c »

brushfoot wrote: post #67

The article sets up a bit of a false dichotomy. It's partly inherent in using idleness as the alternative to economically productive work. Did Russell himself use that term (edit: yes :-))? I'm guessing it's supposed to be provocative, to make it stick. But I'd imagine that's part of the problem. Many people would balk, and I think rightly so, at the connotations. There's nothing positive about undirected free time o…

> There's nothing positive about undirected free time over a long period.

I could easily fill that time with dozens of ideas. But you see, I'm lucky enough to be a "creative" person. That is, I'm in love with the things I invent. The more I invent, the more passionnated I am. I can sustain an incredible level of activity just to achieve goals I create myself. But these goals are mostly non economic. So being able to just do my stuff without having to prove an economical value to it would be very much welcome.

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

#73

Post by dr_dshiv »

perfunctory wrote: post #57
ooobit2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why the only alternatives to capitalism that come to mind are always China and Gulags? Is there absolutely nothing else we can imagine? (Maybe if we had some more leisure we could become more imaginative)

Burning man. And temples/churches.

But yeah, those are the only places where markets are off-limits. If you try to make a totalizing system that forbids people the right to buy or sell (say, on your way to burning man or after church), you'd need gulags to control the social unrest. People like to buy stuff and sell stuff.

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

#74

Post by throwaway45349 »

sm4rk0 wrote: post #58
ooobit2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I believe that both capitalism and communism are broken because of broken brains of people who are "implementing" them. We need enlightened, self-organized people (no "leaders" or "representatives") as a starting point for any successful implementation of a Utopia (whatever -ism you like to call it). But no current system is going to support enlightenment of people because it would mean its end.

Self organizing doesn't work because everyone wants what's best for themselves. Every grassroots activity has figureheads and leaders. Hierarchy is literally older than civilisation and observed in most animal life.

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

#75

Post by heed »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #15
Barrin92 wrote: post #10

>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…

This. People are conditioned to non-productive, consumptive leisure. Some have hobbies and can find meaning in productive leisure, but for those who don't, after a while binging Netflix is just meaningless. Creating things is a very important way for humans to find meaning and to be in the Zone.

I’m not sure how I feel about this. On one hand I don’t think we should be overprescribing any particular path towards finding meaning in one’s life. On the other hand promoting other possible paths is probably a good thing.

Some people genuinely find “work” meaningful and purposeful and that should be okay if that’s what they value. If other things provide them meaning, that’s okay too.

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

#76

Post by zozbot234 »

tehjoker wrote: post #28
Xophmeister wrote: post #24

Why did Keynes believe that, say, a doubling of efficiency (through technology) would half work time for everyone? Sure it’s a solution to the equation, but so is what actually happened[1]: half the workforce gets laid off. This halves the costs, which facilitates price reduction and thus a competitive edge. Did Keynes believe that benevolence would win over profit? Don’t get me wrong, I wish it had, but that seems a…

If workers controlled the workplace, this is precisely what would happen. It's only because the people doing the work don't control the work that this seems fanciful.

"Worker-controlled workplaces" are rather common in some industries where capital intensity is especially low, such as legal services (with firms being organized as partnerships; indeed, capital intensity is the main obstacle to this kind of structure in other industries). And yet, top lawyers tend to work quite a bit more than the typical worker.

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

#77

Post by dr_dshiv »

Because efficiency can lead to leisure or layoffs, what will the future bring?

Capitalism suffers if half of workers are unemployed. Because it is actually in the market's best interest, we will develop social - political structures that enable improved efficiency and high employment (because more workers employed means more commerce and a bigger economy)

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

#78

Post by [deleted] »

marcusverus wrote: post #59
perfunctory wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work during the pandemic is staggering. The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; if they had more leisure, they would again enjoy pleasures in whic…

I'm not sure that this little nugget of wisdom has withstood the test of time. The average number of hours worked has fallen dramatically since the 30s[0] even as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed. [0] https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

[deleted]

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

#79

Post by baddox »

perfunctory wrote: post #31
Barrin92 wrote: post #10

>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…

> The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work during the pandemic is staggering. The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; if they had more leisure, they would again enjoy pleasures in whic…

Why do you associate those things specifically with urban life? Cinemas, televised sports, and listening to music are pretty broadly-enjoyed things. I don’t think they’re particularly “passive” either, but they’re certainly not uniquely urban.

When I think of unique opportunities in urban environments, I’m thinking more along the lines of nightlife, live sports, music, and theatre, boutique shopping, art galleries, etc. which I don’t consider to be particularly “passive” activities either.

Post reply on HN