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.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

You mean you think people should be entitled to sit at home and claim money from people who DO work?
Here, you only get benefits if you apply for jobs, and I completely support that, even as it is there are far too many chavs who have neither intention or action to apply for jobs, yet still live at the taxpayer's expense more or less permanently.

I'm sure that anyone with a job would oppose it too. Since there's already 30 min mandatory break that is't paid, that's a huge reduction in income (and in Sweden, tax levels are stupidly high anyway).

What I mean is that there must be alternatives. More people could share the same jobs, it would at least mean less working hours. And ofcourse the revenues from the work should be divided much more equally among the population and not be allowed to slip into the pockets of capitalists share holders and similar who get an unproportionally big peace of the cake.

The benefits from technological development and mechanisation should be used to create wealth that is distributed among people, and used to reduse working hours and create more leisure (and other forms of prosperity). As it is now most money and resources are gobbled up by all sorts of company owners and share holders and their henchmen (politicians, ceo:s and similar). They actually steel the life and time of people.

About Swedish tax levels: We do have high taxes in Sweden, but we also use at least some of the tax money for social purposes. Because of that we do not yet have the alarming high rate of social problems that one can see in the US and also in the UK. Sweden is still somewhat more equal. For references on that you can read Wilson and Pickets excellent book "The Spirit level".

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

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.

Unfortunately many people are so caught up in the capitalist system, and have been so used (or misused) by employers and others, that they have not always had the possibility to make their preparations. It is better that the society (in the end we all) does an effort to ease each others burdens instead of increasing them, as we currently do just to feed a few capitalists who want to live high life on the revenues of others work.

[Isard]

You have to work longer because we're living longer.


Retirement needs to move up to 70 since everybody's living to be 80 and 90, and its only going to rise.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Niri Te

No, Iron, only those of us who are both SMART, and SOBER, EH?
Niri Te

I think there's two different tiers of "smart" going on here. There's the smart you need to survive as a soldier in the field... and then there's the far more powerful and more technical smarts you need to make the first lot obsolete. Because, in truth, DARPA wants to replace you(r job).

And personally, I can't really see how cutting the military's budget 50% can hurt the U.S., considering you're technology is two steps ahead of everyone else's, and your military large enough to fight several wars simultaneously. You don't need all of that.

Originally Posted by Human No More

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.

"The choices you made 40-50 years ago didn't pan out? Tough!"
I'm half-expecting you to recommend that the severely poor die quickly so as to decrease the surplus population.

[Human No More]

iron_jones: STOP making posts solely to aggravate people.
Niri Te: Stop feeding the troll; you're just giving him the attention he wants. Stop going on and on and on and on and on about the army and yourself in every single post no matter how unrelated.

[Niri Te]

Originally Posted by Clarke

I think there's two different tiers of "smart" going on here. There's the smart you need to survive as a soldier in the field... and then there's the far more powerful and more technical smarts you need to make the first lot obsolete. Because, in truth, DARPA wants to replace you(r job).

And personally, I can't really see how cutting the military's budget 50% can hurt the U.S., considering you're technology is two steps ahead of everyone else's, and your military large enough to fight several wars simultaneously. You don't need all of that.


"The choices you made 40-50 years ago didn't pan out? Tough!"
I'm half-expecting you to recommend that the severely poor die quickly so as to decrease the surplus population.

I agree with what you say about DARPA 100 percent Clarke. The military now is getting to the point to where if you don't have a college degree, they can't use you. The days of a Judge telling a Juvenile Delinquent that they had a choice, the Army, or Jail dissapeared when the Vietnam War ended.
My job would NOT be eliminated for quite a while though, I was a ground Attack Pilot, it WILL morph in the near future however, and as a matter of fact already has started.
There are MANY pilots who kiss their mates goodbye and are told, "Have a nice day at the war dear" as they make their way to a heated or air conditioned room with satellite uplinks on it's roof, to fly Predators. Their only fear is, "I hope that they have something good for chow.
That is WHY many of the computerized "war games" get the assistance of the military when they are being developed, we WANT a generation of "Nintendo Warriors".
For those of us who went in during Vietnam however, we have no worries, most of the "old guard" in the U.S. Congress are combat veterans themselves, and we will go to the grave with the Government's end of the agreement that we took when we raised our right hands fulfilled.
Niri Te

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

What I mean is that there must be alternatives. More people could share the same jobs, it would at least mean less working hours.

It also means less pay. If someone could only do half their hours, they'd just take a second job to make up for the huge chunk of their income that was just stolen from them. Since a company would likely pay two people doing less work LESS than one person doing both people's work (due to doubled training, provision, doubled loss of employee time due to mandatory breaks, etc), someone would still earn a lot less with two jobs paying at the same rate than they would now with one even before the wasted time/money from additional travel comes into the equation.

And ofcourse the revenues from the work should be divided much more equally among the population and not be allowed to slip into the pockets of capitalists share holders and similar who get an unproportionally big peace of the cake.

In other words, you want to remove motivation to succeed? If there's no possibility of becoming successful, nobody will work. Everyone will become perpetual benefit claimants, or else get by only doing the bare minimum and stifling innovation and growth, which itself drives unemployment up, driving up government spending as wastage, driving up taxes.
Give someone a choice between two jobs doing the same type of work, paying the same amount; if one requires them to do the bare minimum and the other is highly demanding, unless the work is the person's favourite thing in the world, or else highly interesting or linked to a cause the person feels strongly about, almost everyone will choose the former, and with good reason.

The benefits from technological development and mechanisation should be used to create wealth that is distributed among people, and used to reduse working hours and create more leisure (and other forms of prosperity).

I don't think you understand economics. Wealth isn't created like that; simply moved - you can't just print free money to hand out. Zimbabwe 'creates' wealth by printing money with nothing to back it and no meaningful economic activity, which is literally not worth the paper it is printed on. The Weimar Republic did the same, the former is in state of economic ruin and the same practice drove the latter into one.

As it is now most money and resources are gobbled up by all sorts of company owners and share holders and their henchmen (politicians, ceo:s and similar). They actually steel the life and time of people.

Entrepreneurship is what causes jobs to exist. It's what causes unprofitable or inviable ventures to fail and successful ones to thrive and grow. Government tends to do the opposite by pouring billions into sunk costs. By all means, that has a place, such as essential services that would be prohibitively expensive otherwise, but more often than not, they are simply subsidised, whether by direct aid or tax relief than nationalised, because private industry will always be capable of running things more efficiently by its very nature; all that is needed is for controls to be placed where appropriate to guarantee standards, and then let market forces do their job.

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Unfortunately many people are so caught up in the capitalist system, and have been so used (or misused) by employers and others, that they have not always had the possibility to make their preparations. It is better that the society (in the end we all) does an effort to ease each others burdens instead of increasing them, as we currently do just to feed a few capitalists who want to live high life on the revenues of others work.

You have to put oil and petrol in a car and periodically check everything is within normal parameters for it to keep working; it won't maintain itself. Most people realise that; but some people just don't realise that the same goes for their finances. Nobody is going to do it for them unless they pay them to. If pension schemes were private, it is likely people would see a lot more return from them for the investment; but people who didn't think they would need it would miss out. governments rightly don't want that to happen, but the money has to come from somewhere; they do not want to be perceived as taking too much money to feed into an impending demographic collapse; neither do they want to be seen as doing nothing. It's the same as provision of any other service: If you think it's enough, fine and good for you - if not, pay for it yourself - doing so will provide better return than if the extra was taken away and used for the same ends without consent in any case. What one person finds sufficient will be another person's excessive and yet another's insufficient.

[Niri Te]

Originally Posted by Human No More

iron_jones: STOP making posts solely to aggravate people.
Niri Te: Stop feeding the troll; you're just giving him the attention he wants. Stop going on and on and on and on and on about the army and yourself in every single post no matter how unrelated.

I wasn't ignoring you HNM, I was typing my reply to Clarke as you were posting this.
Niri Te

[Human No More]

It's no problem - just learn when a post is intended to get a response out of you (and often you specifically - trolls tend to learn who responds easily and keep on subjects that will guarantee an easy response), all they want is for someone to respond and take it seriously, to be bothered by it. The best bet is not to acknowledge the post - if it really bothers you or is outright breaking rules, use the report function. It's just one thing that has to be learned by experience, one of the facts of the internet.

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by Human No More

iron_jones: STOP making posts solely to aggravate people.

That post was in no way meant to aggravate anyone. You can't be serious.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

It also means less pay. If someone could only do half their hours, they'd just take a second job to make up for the huge chunk of their income that was just stolen from them. Since a company would likely pay two people doing less work LESS than one person doing both people's work (due to doubled training, provision, doubled loss of employee time due to mandatory breaks, etc), someone would still earn a lot less with two jobs paying at the same rate than they would now with one even before the wasted time/money from additional travel comes into the equation. .

Noone would ofcourse be forced to work less, but if they like they could. And by reallocating resources those who work less still will be able to earn the same salary. The cost for that is, seen in a broader societal persective, compensated by a healthier and more productive workforce. Experiments have actually shown that people who work 6 hours many times are more productive than people that are working eight hours.
And the pay that the workers receive could be regulated by rules and laws so the company is not tempted to pay less.

Originally Posted by Human No More

In other words, you want to remove motivation to succeed?
Money is not always the motivation. Interest, meaningfulness and other things can be equally important for doing a good job. Sometimes, especially when it comes to creative work, more money takes away some of the initiative and motivation.

If you want people to perform better, you reward them, right? Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show. Incentivize them. … But that’s not happening here. You’ve got an incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity, and it does just the opposite. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.”

Dan Pink on the surprising science of motivation | Video on TED.com

Originally Posted by Human No More

I don't think you understand economics. Wealth isn't created like that; simply moved - you can't just print free money to hand out. Zimbabwe 'creates' wealth by printing money with nothing to back it and no meaningful economic activity, which is literally not worth the paper it is printed on. The Weimar Republic did the same, the former is in state of economic ruin and the same practice drove the latter into one. .

You do not have to print out money, you have to distribute resources (which money is a representation of more equally among the population. That can be done by taxing the rich and redistribute their wealth. Also companies can be owned by the state, by all people together and the revenues be distributed in a fair way. Not impossible if one can fight of the selfish greedy capitalists.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Entrepreneurship is what causes jobs to exist.

You can also have jobs in a state owned, or collectively owned enterprises where the revenues are distributed between the workers and to the society in general. It is contraproductive to let the money be concentrated on a few rich people, it creates an unequal society with increased risks for conflicts and unhealth.

Originally Posted by Human No More

You have to put oil and petrol in a car and periodically check everything is within normal parameters for it to keep working; it won't maintain itself..

No, but people can still own the resources collectively and work less hours, and with more mechanization the amount of work could still decrease.
And the pensions should also be managed collectively to decrease the risk that a few individuals (owners of insurance companies and similar) gets rich on other peoples saved money.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Dan Pink on the surprising science of motivation | Video on TED.com

Cool, now I wonder how many hundred years it'll take us to switch over

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Noone would ofcourse be forced to work less, but if they like they could.

...Just like people can take a part time job today if they want to and can live with the lower income?

And by reallocating resources those who work less still will be able to earn the same salary.

Nope. See my previous post - just printing money to give out will cause economic problems.

And the pay that the workers receive could be regulated by rules and laws so the company is not tempted to pay less.

That's already done.

You do not have to print out money, you have to distribute resources (which money is a representation of more equally among the population. That can be done by taxing the rich and redistribute their wealth. Also companies can be owned by the state, by all people together and the revenues be distributed in a fair way. Not impossible if one can fight of the selfish greedy capitalists.

...then don't talk about 'creating wealth' in such a context.
If you overtax someone, they will go elsewhere, bringing all their investments, bank accounts and businesses with them, and more profit to Switzerland, various island nations, Monaco, etc. Indeed, if you go too far, people will have no motivation to get a better job or promotion if they are not making any more money but have more/harder work. That's why the USSR collapsed, because you got your food from the bread queue, your 2 toilet rolls per year, and got to use the village bath plug once per month no matter whether you worked your assigned job at People's Soviet tractor Factory enthusiastically with an eye towards efficiency and quality, or did the bare minimum while producing shoddy products by the same flawed old process and still got the same either way. Nobody went into advanced fields because there was no reason for them to; nobody is altrustic towards an authoritarian regime itself.

As I said before, state owned business is not viable. They tend to succumb to overbureaucracy, lack of cost-effectiveness, and become massive money-sinks thanks to their tendency to throw good money after bad. Paying the same amount of money to provision services or goods via private industry will prove superior every time on quantity/quality or return.

You can also have jobs in a state owned, or collectively owned enterprises where the revenues are distributed between the workers and to the society in general.

Most people would rather have freedom of choice, not to mention a more lucrative job, since the entire point of a proper business is that they can attract people by offering more money. Look at Cuba - everyone earned the same there, and professionals got completely screwed over in comparison, so it became something nobody wanted to do compared to something easy and unskilled.

It is contraproductive to let the money be concentrated on a few rich people, it creates an unequal society with increased risks for conflicts and unhealth.

[citation needed]
Without investment, nothing works. Including government; and therefore including statist micromanagement.

No, but people can still own the resources collectively and work less hours, and with more mechanization the amount of work could still decrease.

Who do you think pioneers such processes? That's right, entrepreneurs; who you just eliminated with such an idea. Authoritarian systems do not produce anything other than unskilled, unmotivated workers en masse, who are controlled by coercion rather than their own initiative.

And the pensions should also be managed collectively to decrease the risk that a few individuals (owners of insurance companies and similar) gets rich on other peoples saved money.

I don't think you understand economics. The point is that what is provided by government is less efficient, so the recipients of the fund make less money than they would having invested with a private company. There is not a set return per unit that is consistent across all funds. Better managed funds with better investments perform better and produce more return on capital across the board, for employees AND members. It's understandable not to leave everyone free to invest for their future themselves as some people would not and therefore become dependent on tax-funded welfare drawn from others, but by doing so, they are reducing the potential return of those that would do so themselves.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Human No More

If you overtax someone, they will go elsewhere, bringing all their investments, bank accounts and businesses with them. Indeed, if you go too far, people will have no motivation to get a better job or promotion if they are not making any more money but have more/harder work.

In that case, just boil the frog.