Why is it that, "I will create more jobs than anyone else..."...
...seems to be so popular, that politicians from all sides use it. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals, conservatives, middle-of-the-roaders...EVERYONE...
...promises to create more jobs. In effect, promising to create more work for everyone!
And at every rally, when the promise to create more work for people is made...
...the people cheer.
How is it that no politicians ever promise to create more leisure time...create more free time? Ya know...create more time to...
...spend with family and friends, tend to the garden, clean the house, mow our lawns, listen to music, read more books, write more books or poems, pursue more education, bowl, play golf or tennis, sew, paint, knit...or just lie in a hammock doing nothing more important than drawing two trees in toward each other.
Are we nuts?
Our technology has provided billions upon billions of willing, very productive mechanical slaves to do the work that needs doing...
...yet we are still acting as though every human has got to work or the world will fall apart.
What in the hell is wrong with us?
...promises to create more jobs. In effect, promising to create more work for everyone!
And at every rally, when the promise to create more work for people is made...
...the people cheer.
How is it that no politicians ever promise to create more leisure time...create more free time? Ya know...create more time to...
...spend with family and friends, tend to the garden, clean the house, mow our lawns, listen to music, read more books, write more books or poems, pursue more education, bowl, play golf or tennis, sew, paint, knit...or just lie in a hammock doing nothing more important than drawing two trees in toward each other.
Are we nuts?
Our technology has provided billions upon billions of willing, very productive mechanical slaves to do the work that needs doing...
...yet we are still acting as though every human has got to work or the world will fall apart.
What in the hell is wrong with us?
Comments (60)
All work and no play makes Frank a dull boy....
Buuuuuuut,
All play and no $$$ makes Frank a homeless, hungry, cold boy with a cardboard sign at the intersection.
Besides, I like to work. I think Marx was right, that having a job where you feel ownership and pride and satisfaction is an essential part of being a fulfilled human being.
Why not just come to the realization that we have MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone...and just find a more efficient system to distribute the bounty...one that doesn't involve being forced to work.
The people who want to work will be able to work...and the people who do not want to work (who are mostly very inefficient and harm productivity by being forced to work)...can do whatever they would rather be doing.
Read what I wrote above. Why are we so wedded to the idea that people must work...in order to have the stuff they need for a reasonable life?
Me...I'm like you. I like to work. I'm 83...and I don't have to work, but I do. Not a lot...just two days a week...and the money I make pays for a few things. (Since I work at a golf course, it also provides the free golf I crave as a perk.)
We've got more than enough for everyone, Artemis.
Why not just distribute it better...and without the requirement to work. Leave the work to those who want to work. They do a better job of it. And they will be paid better for their work...so that they can have more than just adequate.
To work is more a privilege and a right, and more a responsibility and a duty in America, than it was ever was in the now defunct communist countries during communist era, where it was the LAW that everyone must work, unless disabled. You had the right and the responsibility to work. If you were put out, the gov found you a job in a few days. IN America the same thing, but not by the LAW, but by the pressure of public MORALS.
I agree with that, and I agree that in an ideal society all basic needs would be provided for. Of course, we'd still need to ensure that people work, or else we wouldn't have much of the abundance we do have...
But you asked why people right now cheer for politicians promising jobs, and the answer is mostly that people know that society right now does not provide for people who don't want to work.
Now, a more interesting phenomenon is that a significant portion of Americans have been led to believe that they don't want handouts and want to work hard for every crust of bread the elites will condescend to toss in their direction... Brainwashing if I've ever seen it.
But how, exactly, do we distribute it better? We'd need a system that accounts for people's needs and desires, and also presumably for their willingness to work, since someone still has to do all the work and distribution.
A market economy happens to solve these issues, a well regulated market economy can even do so without a lot of terrible outcomes.
Just saying "there is enough for everybody" doesn't cut it, unfortunately.
Shouldn't people decide for themselves what is enough, though?
Quoting Frank Apisa
It's an interesting idea, but I think certain consequences need to be considered.
It makes large groups of people completely dependent on their government, and this would have a great impact on the amount of power that government has over those people. What happens when a government starts to leverage that power? What happens to these people when circumstances change and the money to finance them is no longer available?
Being complete dead-weight to a society makes those people extremely vulnerable.
You want good process; jobs are just growth.
Less priviatised life, more schools of arrangement.
Job centres, Training and then job, no wait times, no grades. The mind is more capable.
Our inteference capacity over the world, would allow Government stimulus to add workers, though it is logically strict and the odds are against us, probably wiser to sort out a newer system.
But...if you think having life be easier and more pleasure for those who would prefer it...is something to scorn...show it as much contempt as you want.
We come a long way, technologically.
We should not have to work anywhere near as hard as we used to have to work.
But back in the 1950's...the norm was for only one person (usually the father was the provider) in the family to work...and that person earned enough for shelter, medical needs, education, transportation, food, clothing and all other needs...plus small vacations and even some savings for later years.
Today...after the introduction of billions of slave machines...both parents work...sometimes with more than one job...and basic needs are barely met.
During my lifetime, normal work went from 45 hours during 5 1/2 days a week...to 40 hours 5 days a week. That was back in the 1950's.
We should be working 2 days a week...10 hours now.
This all sucks.
It requires some adjustment in thinking.
This is a PHILOSOPHY forum.
Let's discuss the philosophical implications.
Absolutely. But I argue that one of the choices should be, "Not work as much as we are almost forced to work now."
I suspect a lot of people will choose that option. And we will still have plenty if we plan correctly.
Quoting Tzeentch
What you are saying is: There are philosophical implications that must be considered.
I agree.
It has indeed, Anthony.
The Protestant Work Ethic has us in its vices...and will not give up its grip even a bit.
For many...even considering making life more pleasurable...with less toil and more leisure...is uncomfortable.
We gotta get over that.
No one forces one to work. I don't see people choosing for the "work less, have less" voluntarily very often, though.
No one forces you to lie.
But in both cases, someone might well make your life unpleasant to unbearable if you don't.
And the way things are now...YES...people ARE forced to work.
It depends on what you mean with "we" and "everyone".
Quoting Frank Apisa
No, they're not. People just feel that way because they really like the benefits that working (or more specifically, money) brings.
So...have you seen any good movies lately.
Or read any good books.
I've been at this a long time, Tz. Started in Abuzz, the New York Times/Boston Globe forum...the best I've ever been in.,
One thing I've learned over the years is...when you are in a discussion with someone who asks what you mean by words like "we" and "everyone"...best to just change the subject.
If you want to just fuck around...no problem. There are times when I want to do that...and I do. You have every right to do it if you choose.
But right now, if YOU do...go do it with someone else.
If you actually want to discuss, though, I am more than happy to accommodate.
I apologize. I did not mean to scorn you. I just quoted an old song by Ray Charles, and I used your name instead of the one, "Jack", which was used in the song. A creative effort. But I see now how damaging it must have been. So I apologize to you. Sorry.
This is true. The sad thing is it is not an unfortunate coincidence that we are forced to work so much. It is by design.
We don’t need much to be happy. Shelter, food, love, fun. We could have all that working 10 hours a week, if education was focused on teaching us how to get that. Instead education is focused on indoctrinating us into being pawns of a system that enslaves us through money and that progressively destroys the planet. Education doesn’t help us taking care of ourselves or being happy, it teaches us to become obedient and productive and dependent slaves who do not question the status quo. The powers that be do not want our freedom and happiness, they want our enslavement. That’s why things are the way they are.
The real powers aren’t the presidents, they are those who control money. Those who control the central banks, who can issue money out of thin air, while everyone else is struggling for it. People kill one another over money, kill themselves over money, make wars over money, struggle constantly for money, while there are some individuals out there who can create it out of thin air, while lending it with interest. We are kept in a constant state of debt. There is more debt than money in circulation, it can never be repaid! That keeps people struggling constantly, struggling while going nowhere, just struggling within a system that wants them to struggle. Why is it that pretty much all countries are in debt? Debt to whom? Debt to the central banks. They are the ones truly ruling us. The ones who rule the presidents.
The presidential candidates who want to change this system do not get elected. If they do manage to get elected, they are demonized constantly by the media who too are controlled by the same powers, and usually they end up being assassinated. That’s what we’re up against. Deep down you know that if the presidents were the ones truly in control and working for our best interest, things wouldn’t be that way. Despite all the people struggling for positive change, things don’t turn positive because on the other side there is a strong force working against us, against our happiness and against our freedom. That’s why we have to work so much just to be worse off than in the past. This isn’t some unfortunate circumstance, this is wanted, this is by design. And those who are responsible want us to stay asleep, struggling within a box against one another while they are free to enslave us more and more. We are their pawns, their slaves, and we will be slaves and things will continue to get worse as long as people don’t wake up to what’s going on.
My bad.
Things have got to change.
We have got to be working much, much less...and enjoying leisure time a lot more. ESPECIALLY here in America...where we are driven by the work ethic more than almost anywhere else.
I just hope we pull it off peacefully...rather than be pushed into a destructive revolution of some kind. I want to see some politicians actually speaking up the problem.
None around at the moment that I can see.
I don't, but perhaps you are correct.
I could suggest:
Why not try answering my question, but preferencing your response with something like, "Assuming that by 'we' you mean _____" and "Assuming that by 'everyone' you mean_____?"
But whether I mean just Americans when I use "we" and just Americans when I use "everyone"...
...or if I mean "all humans on the planet" when I use "we" and "every human on the planet" when I use everyone...
...what real difference would it make to my question?
On a global scale we humans collectively now have the capability to produce MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone on the planet to have plenty (more than just enough to stay alive)...without everyone working anywhere near as hard as many of us (all we humans) are now working.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Well, is that true?
I suppose it comes down to what you think is an acceptable standard of living, but are there enough cars for everyone to own one? Are there enough houses for everyone to live in something that can be considered decent? What about health care and social security?
A redistribution of resources on the scale that you suggest would involve a lot of people, mostly in modern countries, to make a large sacrifice in regards to their standard of living.
Do you think people should be forced to make such a sacrifice, or would it be on a voluntary basis only?
If the suggestion that our technological advances has set the stage for ALL humans to work less and enjoy more leisure (with needs and wants being met)...if that bothers you...so be it.
If you think the totality of our needs and wants requires that everyone continue to work the kinds of hours most still work...while receiving such a small part of the total product of the work as their reward...
...that is your right. And if there are enough people who take that attitude...nothing will change. The system will stay and humans will continue to toil and "more leisure" will not come to pass.
The only word I can think of as adequate to describe that kind of thinking, though, is a word I try seldom to use. The word is STUPID.
But as Albert Einstein once said, "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
If you're not interested in discussing with people who have a contrasting opinion, why post something like this on a discussion forum?
YOU just are unwilling to think outside the box, Tz.
Surely you can see that we are inundated with billions of willing, productive mechanical slaves...slaves that our technological evolution has gotten for us.
Good grief, man...with this influx of slaves...MOST OF US should be working much less.
That is the absurdity I am calling to your attention.
We have got to come up with a way to use this blessing...rather than turn it into a catastrophe.
Why are so many people efforting to create MORE WORK...MORE JOBS...rather than devising a way to break away from the notion that one HAS to work in order to live?
Think outside the box.
More leisure time does not mean less work...for those who want to work. It simply means that the "work" can be directed toward other things than just as a means to "earning a living."
I'll get into that more at some point.
Because being jobless is a very immediate concern to which promises of a future utopia bring little reprieve.
I'm also not against thinking outside of the box, but I think ideas like this lack a realistic analysis of the requirements and implications.
For one, you seem to assume mechanical labor is free. It is not. I'd suggest looking into the production process of high-end robotics.
The amount of resources it would take to swap the human labor base for robots would be astronomical. And what about the energy requirements to power it all? Not to mention that robots require labor to operate. They have to be designed, constructed, programmed, maintained, etc.
These ideas of utopia always seem more like a prologue to dystopia to me.
Yes, I can see that. You share that with many people...unfortunately for the world.
In any case, I am not advocating for a Utopia. A world of more leisure will not be any closer to a Utopia than what we have now...BUT IT WILL BE A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE HAVE MORE LEISURE TIME.
And I think that is a good thing.
Well, negativity/depression is an appropriate response to observation of a "sinking ship"; attachment to negativity or positivity can be equally deranging to the psyche, there is a reason for each. A good example is depression anent the changing climate. Apparently there are those who think it inappropriate to be depressed while the weather around them changes drastically each season from the norm (it rains all winter now where I live...used to be snow...drives me f'n nuts); how it isn't depressing could only be that one never goes outside. Getting into the depths of what causes climate change (or excessive work for the market society, in this case) might even require a little depressive realism to gauge what is actually going on.
Anyway, I may try to share a mind here on the line of debunking the myth of "earning/making a living." It looks to be a point of departure. Clearly this saying is an analog. What's it an analog of? What is made? What is earned? Living could never occur if there weren't a power antecedent to what our species claims to be a provider of through its systems, standards and inventions.
From The Everlasting Mercy by John Masefield 1911
The lines are from a very long poem. It would have been a lot of work for me to write it. I came across the quote on the flyleaf for WORLDS OF PAIN, LIFE IN THE WORKING CLASS FAMILY by Lillian Rubin, a classic in its field published in 1976.
The headlong drive for endless production that must go on, no matter what, is wrecking our world. I quite agree that we not only could, we SHOULD be producing less -- less oil (much, much less), far, far fewer cars, plastic disposables, huge houses for 2 or 3 people, fewer highways, fewer huge office buildings, and so on.
But if we did what we should be doing (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) more labor will be required, not less. For instance, far fewer cars and far less gasoline means people will have to spend more of their own energy to get around short distances. Rather than driving a mile to the grocery store for a small bag of groceries, they will have to hoof it or bike it, thus using more time and more of their personal supply of calories.
Rather than driving 10 miles to work, parking in a huge lot or ramp, they might have to walk 4 blocks to catch a bus, then maybe another 3 or 4 blocks from the bus to their job. There are people who view such prospects with horror.
Capitalism is predicated upon exploitation of other people's labor for profit. More jobs for everyone means more profit producing jobs, more profit, and more disequilibrium in distribution of resources. If capitalism were abolished in a revolution (which I heartily hope for) then labor could be for human need and not for profit. But there would still need to be a lot of ordinary human labor to feed everyone, keep everybody warm, housed, clothed, bathed, and adequately amused and mentally stimulated.
I will respond with as much depth as I can muster for your argument.
If one has to walk more in order to help with the environment...then those who can "walk more" should walk more.
When I drive to a supermarket or department store...I always park as far away from the entrance as possible. I enjoy walking...enjoy it a lot.
I'm 83 now, and I probably do less walking than I should to keep in shape. I use a cart on the golf course, mostly because it is one of my perks.
But even in my late 70's I would walk 50 or more blocks in The Big Apple...dodging pedestrian traffic and walking at as brisk a pace as possible.
'Deserving' is a rather empty concept, but lets put that aside for now.
The arguments you put forward over the course of this thread were;
- There are enough resources for everyone.
- Robotics solve all our problems.
My three main arguments against this are:
- Resources are scarce. You didn't stipulate what standard of living you'd imagine everyone would have, but cars, houses, health care, social security, etc. It doesn't go without saying that there is enough of these for everybody to just get for free.
- The redistribution of resources you advocate would be massive. Would this have to be done by people voluntarily or should they be forced?
- The idea that mechanical labor can simply replace human labor without issues arising is too hasty. What about the immense resources and energy required for such a transition? What about all the labor and energy required for keeping a complete robotic workforce in operating condition?
You can find longer versions of these arguments in my other comments on this thread.
Oh, didn't have an argument. Just thoughts. I believe in sharing a mind, not drawing conclusions beforehand. If I post again in your thread, it will follow your lead.
It helps to ask simple, general questions like "what is the purpose of work?" Leisure? In an age where work really isn't related to survival any more than it is entertainment...there are a slew of perplexities to churn up the muck if we really have an interest in understanding these things at the root. I don't take for granted many things which others seem to.
You are not especially adept at paraphrasing, Tz. These two distortions are particularly terrible attempts. I doubt I ever used the comment, "There are enough resources for everyone"...and if I did and you can point to it, I will withdraw it and apologize to you. I doubt you could do that, however.
Your second comment is so far away from anything I have ever said anywhere, I am embarrassed to have to deal with it.
In fact, I won't.
Now...how about you go back...pick out something I have actually said...tell me why you disagree with it...and we can have a discussion about it.
If you are just going to create straw-men and then argue against your own straw-men...you are going to win. Your straw-men are incredibly fragile.
If we discuss things rather than do that, though, we will both win.
Ball in your court.
My two areas of relative expertise are mathematics (classical complex analysis) and climbing. Regarding the latter, I have seen the American Alpine Club shift its priorities over the years, from preserving history and sponsoring Himalayan expeditions to raising money to give to youngsters so they can go play on the rock. And some of those young climbers avoid medical insurance, assuming a GoFundMe account will pay for their injuries. More supported leisure time. I compare this with the environment sixty years ago, when a friend who was living day to day, a "dirtbag" climber, rose on his own merits over the years to become a California billionaire.
However, even in a good economy like the present with plenty of jobs, many young people live in the "gig" world, moving from one temp job to another, with limited benefits. I see this in the academic world where tenure-track positions become adjunct appointments, with virtually no benefits.
So, I have mixed feelings on the issue. :chin:
I certainly agree with the thrust of your comment, "In an age where work really isn't related to survival,,,"...at least on an individual basis.
There is plenty of work that pretty much has to be done by humans. Humans do a better job at bartending than most machines, although some machines do help a human bartender with his job. Dealing out comfort and companionship to someone in need of both is almost certainly something humans will do better than machines.
And while there are machines capable of doing some physician and nursing jobs, the TLC of a human is hard to replicate.
No machine will ever make a hand-made silk tie.
But most jobs will be done by machines and will be done more productively than humans...including, at some near point, the making of machines to do those jobs.
The notion "that one must earn one's living" is at the heart of my thesis here...and seems to be getting short shrift...if that.
We'll see how things work out as more people stop by to comment...and others get a chance to revise the ones they've already made.
I'm glad to hear you are still playing golf at 83, and at 83 you deserve a perk or two, so keep on swinging the club and chasing the ball, even if on a cart. I don't play golf because I'm way too blind. The ball disappears as soon as it is struck.
But on to the point here...
I didn't understand what your objection was. I thought you were objecting to work. OK, then, you object to having to EARN a living.
Why do you object to the expectation that people ought to earn your living?
We waive the necessity of earning for those who can not do so; the very disabled, for instance, and the aged--people as aged as you and me. We give a living to those who can not earn it (which is meet, right, and salutary).
But as Masefield's poem says, and most economists too, livings do not grow on trees free for the taking. The resources of the earth--plant, animal, and mineral--do not give up their uses without a major effort. A lot of labor goes into making a copper pipe, from mining the ore to buying the pipe at Home Depot. One can have lettuce from one's own garden, but it won't plant itself, pick itself, wash itself off, and cover itself with dressing. Somebody has to labor to have fresh salad.
I am reading the latest of the Lisbeth Salander novels (The Girl Who Lived Twice)...and there is lots of talk about mountain climbing...especially Everest.
Your comments really struck home with me.
The reason I "object" to the "one must earn one's living"...is because it simply isi not necessary...and it is counterproductive.
People forced to work NEVER do as good a job as people who WANT to work.
We have enough people who WANT to work...and there are jobs being taken up by people who do not want to work...but are working because they have to.
Any, I don't so much "object" to it...I merely would like to see it changed to a more appropriate protocol for this day and age.
It is complicated. Mostly has to do with opinion.
If you think requiring work is a better way to operate...okay with me. If you think that humanity would not be better off with more leisure time...okay with me.
You may be right. I may be wrong.
Aristotle predicted this problem in the 4th bc century. The greeks invented toy steam engines and Aristotle predicted such things would put his slaves out of work. My problem with universal basic income is first, is people who view this as theft would get violent, and two the government could justify making a sort of pseudo religion since they are the ones dispensing the goods. All in all after X time i think universal basic income will happen, i just don't know if it will be 1 year or 500 years away.
I believe the solution is modernized significantly reduced zoning laws, Sub-blue laws and electric trike lanes. There are also various bartering apps being developed out there and atleast some of them use data mining and artificial intelligence to make them work. I can send you the article on one of these bartering apps if you would like.
I've been writing about Universal Basic Income for almost 4 decades now...from long before it became a popular thing.
Gonna happen, but like you, I'm not sure when.
It was more or less prophesied in Revelation (the book). Many attribute the bad economy is due to a lack of work ethic, but automation and globalization played a huge part. Like you said its a matter of X time.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
There you go.
But I'm done playing ring around the rosie.
Enjoy your bubble.
Not coming up on mine either.
Not sure what is going on, but I'll try to check on it and report back here.
That is what you wrote...and I told you I never said those things.
Not only did I never say them...I never intimated them.
But you apparently are not ethical enough to simply acknowledge that I did not say them...and apparently now think it inappropriate for me to mention that I did not say those things.
You apparently feel that asking you to quote me...and deal with what I actually wrote is playing "ring 'round the rosie."
Okay...I get that.
So go play with yourself...and leave serious discussions to adults.
If you decide to grow up...let me know and I will defend everything I actually have written.