The dream of less work

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

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.

Wasn't that exactly my point? - it arises as barter trade systems fail.

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.

I don't see why people should be forced to assume historical circumstances never change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presen...ical_analysis)
In many cases, two parents work because they want to. Because they chose to have children, which are hugely expensive, not to mention how even someone financially worse off than the '1950ies[sic]' equivalent has access to so much they never did, has a greater life expectancy and better prospects of gain. Also, I don't see how it's something to complain about; do you honestly believe that one parent should be forced to stay at home and not be allowed to work if they wanted to?

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.

That's a failure to understand economics.
That's convenience; the alternative is soviet-style queueing up while everything is handed out. The same argument can be made for anything that someone owns; are you honestly believing that people should not be allowed to have their own things? If so, then nobody would ever do ANY work, because there would be no motivation to if they weren't allowed to use the result (or, indeed, if everything was handed to them on a plate); and nothing would get done.

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?

Nobody wants to be dependent. Nobody wants to be forced into a communist situation. People value their independence, freedom of choice, and ability to express themselves. Attempting to take that away will always fail.

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).

...That's just MORE sexist. Admiring the 1950s doesn't mean your mindset has to be stuck there.
Argument from authority aside, what makes you think your experience is representative? I never do any unpaid overtime; as yes, I do work despite your previous insult towards me in another thread by claiming I 'wanted to be' as if I didn't do anything.

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.

People get older; people live longer.
If someone hasn't made their own preparations, they have to accept what there is. If there were fewer people in the world, they wouldn't NEED to.
In case you hadn't noticed, it's a recession.