Ok, so do it. Get some like-minded people who want to live free of industrial society and go hunter-gather in a national park, or the deep Amazon rainforest or some other out of the way place.
Or we could restructure society a little bit so we don't have to work as much, freeing up time for us to explore our ideas and thus improving the economy in the long run. Authors like this take things to their logical extreme as a form of rhetoric when what they really want is to get you to think about the necessity of work on a deeper level than what you've read in your economics 101 textbook.
The Abolition of Work (2002)
81–90 of 236 posts
Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. For a large number of people not working is likely to directly lead to literally death. For most people it is not a choice at all.
In rich countries, less than 1% of the population work on agriculture. We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work. The fact that starvation is possible in a rich country is by design. It is not a necessary fact of the economy.
Only if nobody wanted anything else but food. Which is nonsense. People want lots of things besides food. And clothing, and shelter. And sanitation, and medical care, and...
What you are calling "rich" countries are countries in which people have way, way more options--where their lives are a lot more than just bare subsistence. And history shows that the vast majority of people want all those options; they don't want to live a bare subsistence life. (If you do, how are you even posting here? The Internet is not possible in a bare subsistence world.) And providing all the things needed for all those options requires lots of work.
Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
In rich countries, less than 1% of the population work on agriculture. We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work. The fact that starvation is possible in a rich country is by design. It is not a necessary fact of the economy.
While that is an incredible number, have you factored in any workers for agricultural supplies and equipment, or for processing, distribution, or preparation?
Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)
#84"Both Plato and Xenophon attribute to Socrates and obviously share with him an awareness of the destructive effects of work on the worker as a citizen and a human being."
This is pretty rich since all three of these ancient Greeks were only able to live their nice lives of contemplation and philosophy because of slave labor.
Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
In rich countries, less than 1% of the population work on agriculture. We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work. The fact that starvation is possible in a rich country is by design. It is not a necessary fact of the economy.
> We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work. Only if nobody wanted anything else but food. Which is nonsense. People want lots of things besides food. And clothing, and shelter. And sanitation, and medical care, and... What you are calling "rich" countries are countries in which people have way, way more options--where their lives are a lot more than just bare subsistence.…
Society is designed in a way where non-working people are shamed and considered parasites and anomalies. If we want to transition to a non-working society, this has to change, or the fear of losing one job's to a machine will stall automation.
We have subway drivers despite the tech to automate this job has existed since the 1960s.
Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)
#86> Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world This is utter nonsense. Many people enjoy their work immensely. To take a HN hero I'll bet Steve Jobs enjoyed changing the world via his work and through that loved his work. I'll be Steven Spielberg loves (loved?) his work. Further, short of AGI, there will always be work. Let's imagine no one had to work anymore. What would we all do? We certainly wouldn't…
> Many people enjoy their work immensely.
You didn't counter the statement. Even if work is the source of most misery, that says nothing about people who enjoy their work.
Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)
#87Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that is an incredible number, have you factored in any workers for agricultural supplies and equipment, or for processing, distribution, or preparation?
If you count the whole field of agriculture, which would include most supplies producers and processing, you reach ~2% of the population (in France, I took my country as a reference, as I know it is a net exporter of food). I don't consider preparation to be necessary because if the food is free, I can wash the potatoes myself or even make my own bread.
Who provides the water? who provides the rest of the inputs for bread?
There are a lot of things that need to be done to provide a basic standard of living, even if 1% of the society are slaves who labor in the fields for the benefit of the other 99%.
Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)
#89>Such is “work.” Play is just the opposite. Play is always voluntary. What might otherwise be play is work if it’s forced. This is axiomatic. Work and play are both voluntary to different degrees. You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. You can also survive without playing, but again, your existence will also likely be miserable. Play is something we prefer to do voluntarily…
> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. That entirely depends on your socio-economic class. I know a lot of rich kids that do no work but live very easy, pleasant lives. > They have a choice, but the choice is unpleasant. That is not the same as no choice. A mugger tells me to hand over my watch or get shot. Choice or not choice?
Choice, of course.
Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)
#90This argument has a lot of big words, but in the end, we humans run up against the hard wall of reality in a world of scarce resources. To say that the nearly all misery arises from how we currently work is laughable. Let me know when winter stops being cold and food falls from heaven onto our dinner tables.
I find people who argue scarcity more often than not don't have actual numbers to back it up. Amongst human beings biggest necessities, what are actually scarce? Food? Not at all, tons and tons are thrown out daily. Housing? Well there's enough of that for everyone we just don't know how, and don't want to, distribute it. Clothing? Even though people burn through clothing almost as quickly as food, it is produced in…
Scarcity in the economic sense just means there are material limits to the things people want. It's not a synonym for "rarity."
> Food? Not at all, tons and tons are thrown out daily.
The places that are throwing out food also have charities and food banks so that few people actually starve to death. People who starve to death are in parts of the world with poorly functioning distribution systems. The people in those parts of the world who have food don't throw it out, they lock it up so they can give it to their friends.
> Housing? Well there's enough of that for everyone we just don't know how, and don't want to, distribute it.
This is a good point and there are homeless people in cities with vacant housing.
> Clothing? Even though people burn through clothing almost as quickly as food, it is produced in surplus so much that we invented fashion.
Crucially, there are very few naked people but the things people want to wear are still of limited supply.
> Classical economics has no explanation for this modern surplus of production.
Its literally called "capitalism"; People with means of production make profit by producing commodities and this incentivizes other people to invest their surplus in additional capital and compete to produce more commodities. This expansion of production drives the marginal rate of profit down which causes people to invest in producing other things; the capital and products are thereby multiplied over and over and the result is a system that makes these basic things extremely plentiful and low cost.
> What necessity exactly is scarce in 2020?
Human labor, time, space, raw materials, and products that are the output of specific processes that cannot be commodified in this way (art, haute couture, and antiques are examples)