Work

[ARC150]

This is a great topic - I would like to re-rail the discourse back to it by humbly stepping over some of the tangential comments made in the last few posts (apologies).

Thus, I propose the hypothesis that work in the form of some money earning occupation, far from being a benefit, is actually quite the hindrance for human development. While we spend our years wasting away in some office or store, or other profession, we could be "working" on something more personally fulfilling, and something of great importance for all humanity.

As to the idea of a "hindrance for human development:"
This depends on whether we are considering the human as an individual, or the humankind.

If the latter (as, I imagine, is the intended implication) - I think allowing everyone the leisure of pursuing "something more personally fulfilling" would not yield a significant increase in "something of great importance for all humanity," for most people are not so inclined to such pursuits. If given unlimited resources, many would seek nothing more than an excersize in the Pleasure Principle. Are there those who would better humanity if relieved of the necessity to work-to-survive? Yes, but not enough to make a significant difference.

There is more to say, but lengthy posts can be...aggravating.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

it really can be hard work to get on welfare???

where in the world is it easy???

 

[Dän]

where in the world is it easy???

Right here in Australia - you do nothing and you get rewarded, you work hard and long and you get taxed the shit out of.

 

[speed]

This is a great topic - I would like to re-rail the discourse back to it by humbly stepping over some of the tangential comments made in the last few posts (apologies).

As to the idea of a "hindrance for human development:"
This depends on whether we are considering the human as an individual, or the humankind.

If the latter (as, I imagine, is the intended implication) - I think allowing everyone the leisure of pursuing "something more personally fulfilling" would not yield a significant increase in "something of great importance for all humanity," for most people are not so inclined to such pursuits. If given unlimited resources, many would seek nothing more than an excersize in the Pleasure Principle. Are there those who would better humanity if relieved of the necessity to work-to-survive? Yes, but not enough to make a significant difference.

There is more to say, but lengthy posts can be...aggravating.

However, as I have argued in later posts, for those with the necessary intelligence--be they creators of art, or scientists--then yes, I do think seperation from work will lead to higher development. This is always the way it works. However, as you have stated, for 90% of the population with no talents or aims, they would perhaps sit home all day watching T.V. etc.

Yet, in the U.S., only 42% of the population works. That does seem small doesnt it. I was shocked when I found that out; and most likely those 58% that dont work in some capacity, probably arent adding much to higher human development.

 

[MURAI]

Yes, like how you said the best work comes when the person themselves have the drive to do so than doing it as a job requirement. But can't it be done in one's spare time anyway? It doesnt always have to be credited and funded by the State especially if it's not something costly.

 

[ARC150]

However, as I have argued in later posts, for those with the necessary intelligence--be they creators of art, or scientists--then yes, I do think seperation from work will lead to higher development. This is always the way it works. However, as you have stated, for 90% of the population with no talents or aims, they would perhaps sit home all day watching T.V. etc.

Yet, in the U.S., only 42% of the population works. That does seem small doesnt it. I was shocked when I found that out; and most likely those 58% that dont work in some capacity, probably arent adding much to higher human development.

Dig. I think, for the most part, we may be of the same vision here. As to the 42% statistic - I am a little puzzled. I assume that this number includes children and the elderly for we do not have a 58% unemployment rate (by definition); from where does this statistic come?

 

[speed]

Dig. I think, for the most part, we may be of the same vision here. As to the 42% statistic - I am a little puzzled. I assume that this number includes children and the elderly for we do not have a 58% unemployment rate (by definition); from where does this statistic come?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 134 million americans employed in non-farm occupations last month and there are almost 300 million persons in the country. There is a really detailed document that lists all the subsections I had last year from a grad-economics class, but I dont feel like searching BLS and census data to retrieve it. I am pretty sure the adult working population was close to 60% and higher for men.

 

[OfManAndMetal]

Right here in Australia - you do nothing and you get rewarded, you work hard and long and you get taxed the shit out of.

how are you rewarded... .... and your taxed to hell here in America too

 

[DeviousDVO]

I work in a factory for a large corporation and what I'm seeing every day is this : the harder the work is that you do , the less money they pay you and vice-versa . I bust my ass every single day I'm there and I make peanuts compared to the ones who do absolutely nothing . If I had my way pay rates would be based on how hard you work and the difficulty of your job . I'm sure it's like that somewhere (at least I hope so) , but the big bosses where I work will never see it that way because they're too busy enjoying the money we're making for them to notice . Time for me to do something on my own , I think . BTW - I'm sure this has been said before , but whatever - I didn't feel like reading this whole friggin' thread .

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Right here in Australia - you do nothing and you get rewarded, you work hard and long and you get taxed the shit out of.

it's like that here, it's just initially harder to get on welllfare

 

[Shiny McShining Rodriguez]

I just thought I might add that a lot of people work their arses off for things they don't really need, like a wardrobe of clothes they never wear or a new mobile phone every 6 months, a top of the range car or a fridge full of food they will likely throw away.

The problem with everyone working for the sake of making their lives "luxurious" rather than just comfortable at the basic level is that there is then increased demand for better luxury goods and economy becomes more centralised around putting a flat screen tv in every household, rather than having our best and brightest working on more gripping problems.

So (generally), you get low to middle-class workers in mediocre jobs working for the sake of these luxuries, who come home and bitch that they hate their job, they are stressed they wish they could get away from it... but they have to work to pay of their new SUV etc., etc.

If these people chose to work for the sake of being comfortable at the basic level and saved the rest of their money up in order to take more unpaid holiday time from work then they would probably be doing a benefit to society and the environment, as well as reducing their stress levels.

The above is an opinion that I picked up from an economist named Richard Deniss at a lecture last year (of course I describe it less eloquently or powerfully than he did but hopefully you get the drift). I think it is very interesting, yet probably something that would never be achievable in what for most of us are very lazy, self-absorbed societies.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

I work in a factory for a large corporation and what I'm seeing every day is this : the harder the work is that you do , the less money they pay you and vice-versa . I bust my ass every single day I'm there and I make peanuts compared to the ones who do absolutely nothing . If I had my way pay rates would be based on how hard you work and the difficulty of your job . I'm sure it's like that somewhere (at least I hope so) , but the big bosses where I work will never see it that way because they're too busy enjoying the money we're making for them to notice . Time for me to do something on my own , I think . BTW - I'm sure this has been said before , but whatever - I didn't feel like reading this whole friggin' thread .

yeah i too have gone through the grueling proccess of doing a min-wage job and it totally sux

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

I just thought I might add that a lot of people work their arses off for things they don't really need, like a wardrobe of clothes they never wear or a new mobile phone every 6 months, a top of the range car or a fridge full of food they will likely throw away.

The problem with everyone working for the sake of making their lives "luxurious" rather than just comfortable at the basic level is that there is then increased demand for better luxury goods and economy becomes more centralised around putting a flat screen tv in every household, rather than having our best and brightest working on more gripping problems.

So (generally), you get low to middle-class workers in mediocre jobs working for the sake of these luxuries, who come home and bitch that they hate their job, they are stressed they wish they could get away from it... but they have to work to pay of their new SUV etc., etc.

If these people chose to work for the sake of being comfortable at the basic level and saved the rest of their money up in order to take more unpaid holiday time from work then they would probably be doing a benefit to society and the environment, as well as reducing their stress levels.

The above is an opinion that I picked up from an economist named Richard Deniss at a lecture last year (of course I describe it less eloquently or powerfully than he did but hopefully you get the drift). I think it is very interesting, yet probably something that would never be achievable in what for most of us are very lazy, self-absorbed societies.

i don't know if this is so much of a problem anywhere else in the world but you pretty much described all of america, seriously it's an epidemic here

 

[Shiny McShining Rodriguez]

Well apparently it is beginning to happen (on a slightly different scale) in countries such as China and India that are experiencing huge economic growth and being infiltrated by western consumerist ideals. Which, with their huge populations is thought to be an even bigger threat to countries such as the USA than this trend has been within the country.

Because countries like China have such huge populations, and the trend is rising for people of those countries (particularly China at this point) to desire bigger, (less efficient) houses, cars and lifestyles in general, it is thought that the environmental effects alone of that over the next 10 years will be devestating.

I don't know how much truth there is to this theory, but many economists are concerned about it's impact.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Well apparently it is beginning to happen (on a slightly different scale) in countries such as China and India that are experiencing huge economic growth and being infiltrated by western consumerist ideals. Which, with their huge populations is thought to be an even bigger threat to countries such as the USA than this trend has been within the country.

Because countries like China have such huge populations, and the trend is rising for people of those countries (particularly China at this point) to desire bigger, (less efficient) houses, cars and lifestyles in general, it is thought that the environmental effects alone of that over the next 10 years will be devestating.

I don't know how much truth there is to this theory, but many economists are concerned about it's impact.

SCARY

 

[MURAI]

Well apparently it is beginning to happen (on a slightly different scale) in countries such as China and India that are experiencing huge economic growth and being infiltrated by western consumerist ideals. Which, with their huge populations is thought to be an even bigger threat to countries such as the USA than this trend has been within the country.

Because countries like China have such huge populations, and the trend is rising for people of those countries (particularly China at this point) to desire bigger, (less efficient) houses, cars and lifestyles in general, it is thought that the environmental effects alone of that over the next 10 years will be devestating.

I don't know how much truth there is to this theory, but many economists are concerned about it's impact.

Yes, China and India is following Japan in trying to achieve first world status like chasing ofter the Western ideal of modernization. They've been taken advantage of the West in the past for cheap labour, so now they want to be considered an equal. They'll probably argue that they deserve rights to wealth and mass consumption and it's hypocritical for the West to try to limit them from achieving it.