Why do we assume everyone should be working? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#91

Post by yetihehe » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:21 AM UTC

SchemaLoad wrote: post #77

yetihehe wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40 is probably the most optimal way to extract the most value out of the most people. If only some worked less, there would probably be bigger HR overhead, like you say, plus those individuals would be less communicable. In reality, those companies who extract the most value from their workers are able to outcompete others, so the system stays. If company would pay less to workers (for less time used, half of "normal…

I feel like we should be doing something like requiring paying overtime for over 30 hours a week. The complication here is countries are competing with each other as well as internally. That said, most jobs are local, so cheap construction workers or child care workers overseas don't compete with local ones. This combined with doing something about housing prices seems like it could work.

> so cheap construction workers or child care workers overseas don't compete with local ones.

That's also why building homes is so costly. Transporting non-local materials costs more than making them near. Then you need to support builders, plumbers, electricians...

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#92

Post by lucumo » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:22 AM UTC

pmcarlton wrote: post #47

I've never heard a really good refutation of Bertrand Russell's "In Praise of Idleness" (1935) where he asks this same question. It just seems to be cultural baggage. In his day, it was exemplified by the attitude of "why do the poor need leisure time", "idle hands are the devil's playthings", etc, and today is exemplified in some of these comments — "I don't want to give my tax money to X" where subsidizing X doesn'…

> "I don't want to give my tax money to X" where subsidizing X doesn't hurt that person,

Taxes themselves are the hurt. You're ignoring that the taxes are collected from that person and that they could be spend on something that person would want more.

We need taxes, don't get me wrong, but it's entirely reasonable for people to have an opinion on what's done with the money they worked for.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#93

Post by sscaryterry » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:37 AM UTC

317070 wrote: post #88

sscaryterry wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure its saying living loan (could be grant in this context) or assistance and not "pay to stay alive".

"Loon" is Dutch for wage. A loan would be "lening", even though "loon" and loan sound exactly the same.

> not "pay to stay alive"

Focus on this part. (Edit: I consider the choice of words either clumsy or insensitive)

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#94

Post by cuoder » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:39 AM UTC

The definition of 'work' itself is pretty arbitrary. Someone writing for fun could end up being 'work' if it inspires some large change in the world. And someone doing lots of labor could barely move the needle.

In that sense, not everyone (who is eligible to work or looks like they are working) is working in the first place.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#95

Post by MattPalmer1086 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:48 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #84

dwb wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socialists want to seize the means of production in order to democratise it and move towards communism, which is exactly a post-scarcity post-state destruction of the [capitalist] economy. It is entirely compatible with giving everyone AI and a replicator - the free association of producers and all that. Marx would disagree that you can skip the state part on your way to communism, sure, and I think he’s probably rig…

> in order to democratise it Don't believe that even for a second. > move towards communism Has never happened, and I don't believe it ever will. We have better chances of collapsing capitalism from within.

> We have better chances of collapsing capitalism from within.

Isn't that what Marx says? Capitalism is unstable and collapses from within. He identifies socialism as the next stage (seizing the means of production) that then leads to communism (fully distributed ownership and no real state).

We may of course disagree that these stages are what would actually happen. So far when the state seizes the means of production, it becomes highly authoritarian and doesn't want to relinqish power and move towards actual communism.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#96

Post by peder » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:54 AM UTC

sublinear wrote: post #13

How is this not the exact same stance that the far right has on immigrants and criminals? Exclusion is a greedy short-term strategy. Are you also against public schools? I mean surely, the conclusion of your reasoning is that a lot of those students aren't going to participate in the labor market. Why bother?

That’s not a right-wing thought BTW. Publoc schools in Germany for instance are highly exclusionary.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#97

Post by matheusmoreira » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:56 AM UTC

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #95

matheusmoreira wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in order to democratise it Don't believe that even for a second. > move towards communism Has never happened, and I don't believe it ever will. We have better chances of collapsing capitalism from within.

> We have better chances of collapsing capitalism from within. Isn't that what Marx says? Capitalism is unstable and collapses from within. He identifies socialism as the next stage (seizing the means of production) that then leads to communism (fully distributed ownership and no real state). We may of course disagree that these stages are what would actually happen. So far when the state seizes the means of producti…

It's possible that Marx was right about that specifically, and that capitalism will destroy itself naturally through sheer technological innovation by automating everything to the point economics becomes irrelevant.

I'm deeply suspicious of any socialist or communist who desires to implement a socialist state, however. His prophecy must come true naturally, it cannot be forced via government mandates.

Socialists want to get rid of capitalism as the economic model and then transition to post scarcity. I want to keep capitalism until it destroys itself by making everything abundant and automated.

There is no need to "seize" anything. We merely need personal manufacturing technology.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#98

Post by MattPalmer1086 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 8:03 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #97

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have better chances of collapsing capitalism from within. Isn't that what Marx says? Capitalism is unstable and collapses from within. He identifies socialism as the next stage (seizing the means of production) that then leads to communism (fully distributed ownership and no real state). We may of course disagree that these stages are what would actually happen. So far when the state seizes the means of producti…

It's possible that Marx was right about that specifically, and that capitalism will destroy itself naturally through sheer technological innovation by automating everything to the point economics becomes irrelevant. I'm deeply suspicious of any socialist or communist who desires to implement a socialist state, however. His prophecy must come true naturally, it cannot be forced via government mandates. Socialists want…

Personal manufacturing tech isnt something he envisaged I guess!

Still need food, water, energy and raw materials though. Some kind of collective action seems needed, however that is arranged politically.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#99

Post by 317070 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 8:09 AM UTC

sscaryterry wrote: post #93

317070 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Loon" is Dutch for wage. A loan would be "lening", even though "loon" and loan sound exactly the same.

> not "pay to stay alive" Focus on this part. (Edit: I consider the choice of words either clumsy or insensitive)

Because without an income people tend to not live for very long and that idea makes people uncomfortable? I had not considered that.

"Wage to live on" is perhaps a more euphonic translation then.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#100

Post by 317070 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 8:13 AM UTC

hamper653 wrote: post #90

317070 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Do note that in the US (and loads of countries) people save for their own retirement, whereas in Belgium the government pays the retirement in a "workers today pay retirees today" system.

Are you also counting workers on vacation? On a weekend? At home after their shift?

If those workers receive pay from somebody else than their employer to do that, one might count them, but I don't know any countries where they do. I don't think there are economic metrics that take weekends into account when defining regular employment.

I'm not sure what you're aiming at with this question.