The dream of less work

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

You can't exchange food you grew for it, you have to find an intermediary who can sell it, who will of course not do it for free, the very reason barter failed and currency was developed to solve its inherent problems.

Recommended reading: Debt: The First 5,000 Years - David Graeber - Google Books
Pure barter economies never existed, so no one lived in these and then invented money. What usually happens is that within a group of people that have a social connection (tribe, town, clan, island,...) there is a more free exchange of goods and services. People contribute if they have something to contribute and they are given in times of need. If this is done more formally, tokens of remembrance can be exchanged that remind someone of bein "in debt" to someone else because of such unilateral exchanges. From that source, money can develop when the social relationships are getting worse, which happens if the size of the group gets bigger or other reasons destroy trust. Barter economies did exist between such groups, e.g. one town or clan or island or whatever exchanging goods with foreigners. In that case, there is an uncertainty if a unilateral exchange would ever be rewarded, so the deal has to be made final and no debt should arise.
But that is just a technicality here - no matter if the "currency" is fame, tokens, "I owe you"s, money or gold - some have different properties than others but that connects to the topic at hand only on a secondary level.

I think the idea of calling it a 'dream' is because it was misundersood. There is never going to be 'no work' without proper AI and post-scarcity resources, but work today is better and easier - you won't get lung infections from working in a coal mine, or lose an arm in a factory or farm accident; and you get more for your time thanks both to higher pay rates (remember that back then, the middle class did not exist) and greater availability of items and methods that were previously rare or hard to produce/perform.

Sigh. I can just say that this is incorrect if you take the 1950ies and 60ies as a reference point as the OP did.
For once, it is rather well shown, that the factual wages (corrected for inflation) dropped since then, that work time is now higher and that in a family of four, in most cases 2 parents have to work at least part time. There was a "peak" when it comes to the existence of a middle class, of low work hours and high income and that was in the 1950ies and 1960ies. Incidentially this was also when the taxes for the rich were the highest in the US and elsewhere.

Compared to the early industrial age, it certainly is true that many people do enjoy less work and more safety and pay than the industrial workers of that time. Farmers were a bit different, they had a better status than wage workers and there were a lot of farmers. Interestingly going back a bit further to a preindustrial age, the amount of work drops, which is part of why there was some resistance against the industrial revolution. As much as I dislike the christian church, it provided medieval craftsmen and farmers with over 100 work-free days in a year (Sundays, Holidays, special services,ceremonies, festivals...).

The promise was clear though - less work and more leisure time. While it may be true in respect of physical manual labour, it is not true for time, which is what is the essence of life itself. And it is true, that certainly we could today work only 10 hours if the technological advances would be used for that goal. But instead they were used to increase profits and produce more stuff and waste.
A simple example, the washing machine. Lets say it takes a man 100 hours to build one. If he builds that and shares it among 5 families living in a house, each family has to "pay" 20 work hours for that machine and they can from then on save work when washing clothes. Now new technology comes along and with some good tools and a CNC cutter that guy can make the machine in 20 hours. Now what could happen is, that he does the same as before, in which case each family would only have to spend 4 hours for their share to use that machine. What happens in a consumerist economy is that instead that man works 100 hours just as before, produces 5 washing machines, each family gets one and still has to "pay" 20 work hours to get it. The result is more washing machines, a bit of comfort because one can use the machine at any random time without asking anyone. In addition each family can feel more "independent" and of course to some degree there is an issue with wear and tear of the machines, but here we get into planned obsolescence and the quality of manufacturing which goes too far.

This is "Jevons paradox" applied to work.

The interesting debate now would be WHY this happens. Is it greedy capitalists who pull the strings on that (some evidence points to something like that) - is it "human nature", is it consumerism, is it maybe the concept of money or of lending money only against an interest, demaninf perpetual growth?

Originally Posted by Sempu

Niri Te, I really admire you for walking your talk. The original utopian dream was that technology would give us more free time; I'm practically old enough to remember it when it was still real.

Thanks for providing these links, Sempu.
And yes - I am also close to an age where I can remember this. When I was little, only my dad had to work in an office for rather regular work hours. When I was 15, he did the same but with unpaid overtime while my mom started to have a fulltime job as well. And no, that is not meant sexist - I would not care if it would be the other way around (which would as a possibility truely be womens equality) but the point is that both of them together had to work more and more.
Governments are now even pushing the limit of pension times up because people get older. What now - I thought we could surely afford to have more free time at least when we are older and enjoy these longer lives instead of working them away. Despite of that, unemployment is rampant - if the problem really would be that there is too much work to be done, that would not be the case. So something else drives the combination of unemployment and increased work hours for those that have employment.