Reddit r/antiwork

[GuitarStv]

We had used cars, no cell phones...

Whenever I hear someone complaining about cell phones I know they are heavily drinking the divide and conquer Koolaid.

Cell phones are a necessity of modern life, not a luxury.  There are a lot of jobs you can't get if you don't have a cell phone. They are useful for all kinds of things like paying bills, filing paperwork, storing and organizing documents, avoiding traffic, finding the best gas prices, and more.

You could make the argument that people should have a $40/month plan not $100/month or a used $250 phone instead of the newest $1000+ phone.  I would agree with that opinion. To say that someone should have a flip phone or no cell phone altogether is short-sighted and out of touch with modern life.

Eh, I think this is a bit much. I've never had anything other than a flip phone, and I have never had any trouble finding jobs, paying bills, or any of that other stuff. I've definitely never been asked about my phone situation in a job interview. The most backlash I've ever had would be someone thinking it's weird, and then I just tell them I'm low technology for ethical reasons. It's really no different than me not eating meat for ethical reasons or not buying other stuff because the companies use slave labor or whatever. I think the actual number of people who "need" a smartphone is extremely low and people mostly use that as an excuse to feed their addiction.

I've never owned a cellphone.  Been employed for my whole adult life.  They're nice to have for convenience . . . but what are they supposed to be a necessity for?

[Sibley]

We had used cars, no cell phones...

Whenever I hear someone complaining about cell phones I know they are heavily drinking the divide and conquer Koolaid.

Cell phones are a necessity of modern life, not a luxury.  There are a lot of jobs you can't get if you don't have a cell phone. They are useful for all kinds of things like paying bills, filing paperwork, storing and organizing documents, avoiding traffic, finding the best gas prices, and more.

You could make the argument that people should have a $40/month plan not $100/month or a used $250 phone instead of the newest $1000+ phone.  I would agree with that opinion. To say that someone should have a flip phone or no cell phone altogether is short-sighted and out of touch with modern life.

Eh, I think this is a bit much. I've never had anything other than a flip phone, and I have never had any trouble finding jobs, paying bills, or any of that other stuff. I've definitely never been asked about my phone situation in a job interview. The most backlash I've ever had would be someone thinking it's weird, and then I just tell them I'm low technology for ethical reasons. It's really no different than me not eating meat for ethical reasons or not buying other stuff because the companies use slave labor or whatever. I think the actual number of people who "need" a smartphone is extremely low and people mostly use that as an excuse to feed their addiction.

I've never owned a cellphone.  Been employed for my whole adult life.  They're nice to have for convenience . . . but what are they supposed to be a necessity for?

I hate to say it, but you do realize that you guys are incredibly privileged? Because you are. I'm not tied to my phone like many people are, but you know, it's my primary phone. That's how I know when to pick people up at the airport. It's how I know where the heck I'm going. There are people who don't have computers and the phone is their computer. More than that, it's how some communication happens for work. Sure, I could be on the computer instead to use the app, but then that means that I'm tied to the work computer all the time. But if I don't get that occasional message about where to show up because the schedule changed, that's going to impact how I'm perceived at work.

If you have enough money, are high up enough on the ladder, are privileged enough, then yeah, you can get by without a cell phone. But please recognize that it is because you are privileged, and recognize that not everyone has the money and status to essentially thumb their nose at social norms and not have problems as a result.

[Zikoris]

I hate to say it, but you do realize that you guys are incredibly privileged? Because you are. I'm not tied to my phone like many people are, but you know, it's my primary phone. That's how I know when to pick people up at the airport. It's how I know where the heck I'm going. There are people who don't have computers and the phone is their computer. More than that, it's how some communication happens for work. Sure, I could be on the computer instead to use the app, but then that means that I'm tied to the work computer all the time. But if I don't get that occasional message about where to show up because the schedule changed, that's going to impact how I'm perceived at work.

If you have enough money, are high up enough on the ladder, are privileged enough, then yeah, you can get by without a cell phone. But please recognize that it is because you are privileged, and recognize that not everyone has the money and status to essentially thumb their nose at social norms and not have problems as a result.

Well, it's fascinating to know that apparently being a receptionist is a very high-status, high-paid, highly-privileged position, as were the two prior office clerk jobs that involved mostly making coffee and doing dishes, and of course the one before that where I packed boxes in a warehouse, etc etc, going back to farm labor. Yep, so high, high up the ladder with my flip phone.

[GuitarStv]

We had used cars, no cell phones...

Whenever I hear someone complaining about cell phones I know they are heavily drinking the divide and conquer Koolaid.

Cell phones are a necessity of modern life, not a luxury.  There are a lot of jobs you can't get if you don't have a cell phone. They are useful for all kinds of things like paying bills, filing paperwork, storing and organizing documents, avoiding traffic, finding the best gas prices, and more.

You could make the argument that people should have a $40/month plan not $100/month or a used $250 phone instead of the newest $1000+ phone.  I would agree with that opinion. To say that someone should have a flip phone or no cell phone altogether is short-sighted and out of touch with modern life.

Eh, I think this is a bit much. I've never had anything other than a flip phone, and I have never had any trouble finding jobs, paying bills, or any of that other stuff. I've definitely never been asked about my phone situation in a job interview. The most backlash I've ever had would be someone thinking it's weird, and then I just tell them I'm low technology for ethical reasons. It's really no different than me not eating meat for ethical reasons or not buying other stuff because the companies use slave labor or whatever. I think the actual number of people who "need" a smartphone is extremely low and people mostly use that as an excuse to feed their addiction.

I've never owned a cellphone.  Been employed for my whole adult life.  They're nice to have for convenience . . . but what are they supposed to be a necessity for?

I hate to say it, but you do realize that you guys are incredibly privileged? Because you are. I'm not tied to my phone like many people are, but you know, it's my primary phone. That's how I know when to pick people up at the airport. It's how I know where the heck I'm going. There are people who don't have computers and the phone is their computer. More than that, it's how some communication happens for work. Sure, I could be on the computer instead to use the app, but then that means that I'm tied to the work computer all the time. But if I don't get that occasional message about where to show up because the schedule changed, that's going to impact how I'm perceived at work.

If you have enough money, are high up enough on the ladder, are privileged enough, then yeah, you can get by without a cell phone. But please recognize that it is because you are privileged, and recognize that not everyone has the money and status to essentially thumb their nose at social norms and not have problems as a result.

Won't argue that I'm privleged now - I definitely am!  Combination of hard work, genetic lottery, and a lot of luck has led to me having an awesome job.  But I had plenty of crappy jobs before this one.  The ones that required a phone for the job provided a company phone.

If you're buying your own office equipment you're working as a private contractor.

[FIRE Artist]

I hate to say it, but you do realize that you guys are incredibly privileged? Because you are. I'm not tied to my phone like many people are, but you know, it's my primary phone. That's how I know when to pick people up at the airport. It's how I know where the heck I'm going. There are people who don't have computers and the phone is their computer. More than that, it's how some communication happens for work. Sure, I could be on the computer instead to use the app, but then that means that I'm tied to the work computer all the time. But if I don't get that occasional message about where to show up because the schedule changed, that's going to impact how I'm perceived at work.

If you have enough money, are high up enough on the ladder, are privileged enough, then yeah, you can get by without a cell phone. But please recognize that it is because you are privileged, and recognize that not everyone has the money and status to essentially thumb their nose at social norms and not have problems as a result.

Well, it's fascinating to know that apparently being a receptionist is a very high-status, high-paid, highly-privileged position, as were the two prior office clerk jobs that involved mostly making coffee and doing dishes, and of course the one before that where I packed boxes in a warehouse, etc etc, going back to farm labor. Yep, so high, high up the ladder with my flip phone.

You were described as privileged, there was not statement of status or pay.  I’m pretty sure your job looks like a dream gig to the woman holding down multiple minimum wage gigs trying to cobble together a living wage.  She needs a phone that she can receive texts on to get her directions to her next cleaning job, ‘cause she can’t answer the phone in a client’s house while she is supposed to be working.  And that doesn’t even mention the additional need for communication if she has kids.  No one is paying for her to have a business phone, she can’t give out a desk line to her kid’s daycare, she can’t do her banking at her work computer.   

It is all relative.  Your position in this world allows you to lead a life of voluntary simplicity that is not shared by many, many people. 

[sonofsven]

We had used cars, no cell phones...

Whenever I hear someone complaining about cell phones I know they are heavily drinking the divide and conquer Koolaid.

Cell phones are a necessity of modern life, not a luxury.  There are a lot of jobs you can't get if you don't have a cell phone. They are useful for all kinds of things like paying bills, filing paperwork, storing and organizing documents, avoiding traffic, finding the best gas prices, and more.

You could make the argument that people should have a $40/month plan not $100/month or a used $250 phone instead of the newest $1000+ phone.  I would agree with that opinion. To say that someone should have a flip phone or no cell phone altogether is short-sighted and out of touch with modern life.

Eh, I think this is a bit much. I've never had anything other than a flip phone, and I have never had any trouble finding jobs, paying bills, or any of that other stuff. I've definitely never been asked about my phone situation in a job interview. The most backlash I've ever had would be someone thinking it's weird, and then I just tell them I'm low technology for ethical reasons. It's really no different than me not eating meat for ethical reasons or not buying other stuff because the companies use slave labor or whatever. I think the actual number of people who "need" a smartphone is extremely low and people mostly use that as an excuse to feed their addiction.

I've never owned a cellphone.  Been employed for my whole adult life.  They're nice to have for convenience . . . but what are they supposed to be a necessity for?

I upgraded to a smart phone a few years ago because I sometimes need access to documents at a job site (contracts,specs, etc) that is just a muddy pit for awhile.
I held out with the sturdy flip phone as long as I could, and in the old days it was something that I would check back in my home office later, but I had to admit that I was slowing down the job by not keeping up with technology and the ability to have instant access.
So while I could have continued doing things the slow old way it wasn't optimal. Sometimes change can bring improvements in communication. If you never have to communicate with anyone else in any way but in person or in an office setting I guess you don't need a cell phone.

[Zikoris]

I hate to say it, but you do realize that you guys are incredibly privileged? Because you are. I'm not tied to my phone like many people are, but you know, it's my primary phone. That's how I know when to pick people up at the airport. It's how I know where the heck I'm going. There are people who don't have computers and the phone is their computer. More than that, it's how some communication happens for work. Sure, I could be on the computer instead to use the app, but then that means that I'm tied to the work computer all the time. But if I don't get that occasional message about where to show up because the schedule changed, that's going to impact how I'm perceived at work.

If you have enough money, are high up enough on the ladder, are privileged enough, then yeah, you can get by without a cell phone. But please recognize that it is because you are privileged, and recognize that not everyone has the money and status to essentially thumb their nose at social norms and not have problems as a result.

Well, it's fascinating to know that apparently being a receptionist is a very high-status, high-paid, highly-privileged position, as were the two prior office clerk jobs that involved mostly making coffee and doing dishes, and of course the one before that where I packed boxes in a warehouse, etc etc, going back to farm labor. Yep, so high, high up the ladder with my flip phone.

You were described as privileged, there was not statement of status or pay.  I’m pretty sure your job looks like a dream gig to the woman holding down multiple minimum wage gigs trying to cobble together a living wage.  She needs a phone that she can receive texts on to get her directions to her next cleaning job, ‘cause she can’t answer the phone in a client’s house while she is supposed to be working.  And that doesn’t even mention the additional need for communication if she has kids.  No one is paying for her to have a business phone, she can’t give out a desk line to her kid’s daycare, she can’t do her banking at her work computer.   

It is all relative.  Your position in this world allows you to lead a life of voluntary simplicity that is not shared by many, many people.

Money and status were definitely mentioned: "If you have enough money, are high up enough on the ladder, are privileged enough, then yeah, you can get by without a cell phone. But please recognize that it is because you are privileged, and recognize that not everyone has the money and status to essentially thumb their nose at social norms and not have problems as a result."

You do realize flip phones can receive texts just fine, right? My current tech setup, for reference, is a $50 flip phone and a $200 Chromebook, both bought new many years ago and functioning with no issues. That's substantially less than most people pay for just a smartphone, and I also get a decent home computer.

Also, the barrier to entry is extremely low for becoming a receptionist. It's an extremely accessible option for pretty much anyone who wants to pursue that type of work. A lot of receptionist jobs practically just require a warm body.

[js82]

I get their frustration. I don't think they always get their own frustration.

Here's what I see the majority of posts understanding:  1.Wealth inequality is a problem. 2. It has gotten worse in the last 4 decades. 3. Young peoples prospects are worse than their parents. 4. Our society has an unhealthy relationship with our work where we believe jobs are important because jobs are important. 

I agree with all of these.

The problem is, the majority of their posts are "I quit" porn about how they told the manager at Arby's to fuck off.  Yes, their manager may be an ass and may deserve to fuck off, but that isn't going to solve the problem for why 70% of jobs in the us are basically unnecessary and solely exist to keep you too busy to think.

Agreed.  While there are often valid points brought up, that subreddit as a whole doesn't really live up to its name - it's dominated by people complaining about how terrible their boss is.  Most posts seem to take the form of "My boss did this thing that was really stupid and unreasonable and I (want to/already did) quit".  I don't doubt that there are a lot of terrible bosses out there, but the material all starts to sound the same pretty quickly.

[iris lily]

A big factor for previous generations was the lack of good investment options available to everyday people. As far as I can tell, the options for an average Joe wanting to invest but not having a pile of money already were 1. buying individual stocks through a broker or 2. buying garbage high-fee mutual funds through the bank. Now a person can open a low-fee investment account online in about five minutes, often with no minimum balance.

The other big factor was a lack of information. If you wanted to learn the nuts and bolts of building wealth way back then, you'd better have had some rich friends to learn from.

Oh come now, I am old, old  enough to be on Medicare and I remember when mutual funds came into being in my young adulthood. My parents sold a couple of family farms and put money in mutual funds. They had plenty of money by the time they died. They were middle class people.

People don’t accumulate assets because they don’t work to accumulate assets.

[eyesonthehorizon]

A big factor for previous generations was the lack of good investment options available to everyday people. As far as I can tell, the options for an average Joe wanting to invest but not having a pile of money already were 1. buying individual stocks through a broker or 2. buying garbage high-fee mutual funds through the bank. Now a person can open a low-fee investment account online in about five minutes, often with no minimum balance.

The other big factor was a lack of information. If you wanted to learn the nuts and bolts of building wealth way back then, you'd better have had some rich friends to learn from.

Oh come now, I am old, old  enough to be on Medicare and I remember when mutual funds came into being in my young adulthood. My parents sold a couple of family farms and put money in mutual funds. They had plenty of money by the time they died. They were middle class people.

People don’t accumulate assets because they don’t work to accumulate assets.

Mutual funds were a thing in the thirties & did have very high expenses, so I assume you meant index funds, which came along in the mid-70s as a response to those high expenses - the expense ratio we're used to today is around a tenth of that revolutionary new "low" rate.

Access to either still required enough money to pay a broker, often handsomely, for each transaction, on top of the minimum investment principal - which in your family's case involved having "a couple of family farms" to sell in the first place. I don't intend to mock you, but do you not hear how that's almost a punchline unto itself, in its non-universality?

In the mid-70s about two thirds of homes were owned by occupants, so a third of homes were rentals, & many homeowning families were multigenerational households with several non-homeowning adults. Of the minority of adults who owned any real estate to start with, most owned only their primary residence, generally unable to be sold for investment capital. Those who could hold additional properties that weren't providing either shelter or needed income were already those of substantial privilege. Middle-class earnings maybe, but inheriting substantive wealth, on the upper end of a much larger, more-robust middle class than exists today. About ten years ago two thirds of Americans stood to inherit nothing whatsoever (or debt.)

Real estate was the primary route to saving & growing wealth for most who achieved it. Yet again, women couldn't even get credit without a husband's signature. People of color were pressed hard & overcharged to access real estate without inheriting it; the Fair Housing Act came on the scene in 1968 but enforcement was laughable then & remains dodgy. The experiences of a white male-headed household with land they didn't have to live on, whose neighbors they compared themselves to were probably largely other similar people, can't be generalized to everyone.

Access to market investments is much, much easier today, but there's also been a proliferation of dead-end gig work compounded with poor financial guidance around debt both for the young & for their parents coming out of boom times when less vigilance was needed & a few early life mistakes were recoverable. Many start life with enough debt or hand-to-mouth poverty that they lack the luxury of time to strategize how to seek a better wage before taking on two or more jobs to make ends meet, sometimes before they're out of high school (where courseloads & necessary hours of study have expanded enormously.) Expectations among young white women & both men & women of color are much higher than they used to be; they are educated & want to participate in the economy as fully as white men always have, meaning there's far more qualified competition for a shrinking pool of good jobs, against a backdrop of increasing corporate monopoly making independent businesses unprofitable. Meanwhile, full-time work at federal minimum wage, pretax & with no expenses, can just barely purchase four credit hours of tuition per month at average price. Real estate near enough to good jobs to be worth living on is increasingly out of reach with those sorts of debt loads & investment properties are increasingly concentrated in major property management companies.

YOUR family displaying merit & success simultaneously does not bespeak a lack of merit in the unsuccessful; in psychology that's called the fundamental attribution error.

I've been told my whole life how exceptional & impressive I am, with all the overwork, credentials, & scores to prove it, but in the end the deciding factor in my favorable position today was luck: meeting the right person at the right time to get out of the same sort of dead-end job most my similarly-impressive peers had, into one with potential, after a lifetime of relative privileges including middle-class white still-married homeowning parents who could cosign (though not pay) my student debt & put value on my having access to books & education enough to fit in enough with the already-successful. I've seen too many of my intellectual, moral, & skill superiors struggle as hard as I did & founder anyway to assume it was guaranteed. (I've also seen too many rich idiots make otherwise life-ruining mistakes which others raced to pay for on their behalf, either because they are family, or because rich clients are cash cows.) Starting circumstances have largely dictated outcomes. While my anecdotal experience is limited, the hard empirical analysis out there on class mobility in the US corroborates this impression. Wealth was entrenched by race, is entrenched by capital, & is working to further cement itself generationally through education & extracurriculars on an ever-slicker melting iceberg; the recent discussions of the "9.9%" are good reading on this.

No amount of wisdom lets you make make good choices with resources you can't access in the first place.

[jim555]

While you had no ETFs you did have mutual funds in the 1980s.  Not all funds were high loads.  Vanguard was around and had plenty of low cost stock funds.  Brokers would try to push 8.5% load funds to the ill informed, but anyone with half a brain would go to the low cost funds.

[OtherJen]

While you had no ETFs you did have mutual funds in the 1980s.  Not all funds were high loads.  Vanguard was around and had plenty of low cost stock funds.  Brokers would try to push 8.5% load funds to the ill informed, but anyone with half a brain would go to the low cost funds.

I dislike equating "ill-informed" with lacking "half a brain."

"Ignorant due to lack of exposure or experience" is not synonymous with "stupid." In the 70s and 80s, my dad paid into a pension fund set up by his union. Due to lack of education, my mom didn't have access to the kinds of employment that offered a 401K until well into the 1990s. Both of my parents were brought up in lower-working class or poor households headed by immigrant laborers who either died or were disabled when mom and dad were teenagers. Sure, mom started putting money into her 401K and opened a Roth IRA once she was aware that she could do so, but before that, no one in their circles was talking about these things—when I was younger, our relatives and my parents' friends were all in similar situations. Brokerages were for rich people, and none of us had access to the Internet. My father considered the Internet to be a waste of time and money until 1999, when I moved back home to finish school and needed access for my school work (to be honest, he continued to consider it a waste of time and money and resented its intrusion into his household until a few years ago).

[iris lily]

A big factor for previous generations was the lack of good investment options available to everyday people. As far as I can tell, the options for an average Joe wanting to invest but not having a pile of money already were 1. buying individual stocks through a broker or 2. buying garbage high-fee mutual funds through the bank. Now a person can open a low-fee investment account online in about five minutes, often with no minimum balance.

The other big factor was a lack of information. If you wanted to learn the nuts and bolts of building wealth way back then, you'd better have had some rich friends to learn from.

Oh come now, I am old, old  enough to be on Medicare and I remember when mutual funds came into being in my young adulthood. My parents sold a couple of family farms and put money in mutual funds. They had plenty of money by the time they died. They were middle class people.

People don’t accumulate assets because they don’t work to accumulate assets.

Mutual funds were a thing in the thirties & did have very high expenses, so I assume you meant index funds, which came along in the mid-70s as a response to those high expenses - the expense ratio we're used to today is around a tenth of that revolutionary new "low" rate.

Access to either still required enough money to pay a broker, often handsomely, for each transaction, on top of the minimum investment principal - which in your family's case involved having "a couple of family farms" to sell in the first place. I don't intend to mock you, but do you not hear how that's almost a punchline unto itself, in its non-universality?

In the mid-70s about two thirds of homes were owned by occupants, so a third of homes were rentals, & many homeowning families were multigenerational households with several non-homeowning adults. Of the minority of adults who owned any real estate to start with, most owned only their primary residence, generally unable to be sold for investment capital. Those who could hold additional properties that weren't providing either shelter or needed income were already those of substantial privilege. Middle-class earnings maybe, but inheriting substantive wealth, on the upper end of a much larger, more-robust middle class than exists today. About ten years ago two thirds of Americans stood to inherit nothing whatsoever (or debt.)

Real estate was the primary route to saving & growing wealth for most who achieved it. Yet again, women couldn't even get credit without a husband's signature. People of color were pressed hard & overcharged to access real estate without inheriting it; the Fair Housing Act came on the scene in 1968 but enforcement was laughable then & remains dodgy. The experiences of a white male-headed household with land they didn't have to live on, whose neighbors they compared themselves to were probably largely other similar people, can't be generalized to everyone.

Access to market investments is much, much easier today, but there's also been a proliferation of dead-end gig work compounded with poor financial guidance around debt both for the young & for their parents coming out of boom times when less vigilance was needed & a few early life mistakes were recoverable. Many start life with enough debt or hand-to-mouth poverty that they lack the luxury of time to strategize how to seek a better wage before taking on two or more jobs to make ends meet, sometimes before they're out of high school (where courseloads & necessary hours of study have expanded enormously.) Expectations among young white women & both men & women of color are much higher than they used to be; they are educated & want to participate in the economy as fully as white men always have, meaning there's far more qualified competition for a shrinking pool of good jobs, against a backdrop of increasing corporate monopoly making independent businesses unprofitable. Meanwhile, full-time work at federal minimum wage, pretax & with no expenses, can just barely purchase four credit hours of tuition per month at average price. Real estate near enough to good jobs to be worth living on is increasingly out of reach with those sorts of debt loads & investment properties are increasingly concentrated in major property management companies.

YOUR family displaying merit & success simultaneously does not bespeak a lack of merit in the unsuccessful; in psychology that's called the fundamental attribution error.

I've been told my whole life how exceptional & impressive I am, with all the overwork, credentials, & scores to prove it, but in the end the deciding factor in my favorable position today was luck: meeting the right person at the right time to get out of the same sort of dead-end job most my similarly-impressive peers had, into one with potential, after a lifetime of relative privileges including middle-class white still-married homeowning parents who could cosign (though not pay) my student debt & put value on my having access to books & education enough to fit in enough with the already-successful. I've seen too many of my intellectual, moral, & skill superiors struggle as hard as I did & founder anyway to assume it was guaranteed. (I've also seen too many rich idiots make otherwise life-ruining mistakes which others raced to pay for on their behalf, either because they are family, or because rich clients are cash cows.) Starting circumstances have largely dictated outcomes. While my anecdotal experience is limited, the hard empirical analysis out there on class mobility in the US corroborates this impression. Wealth was entrenched by race, is entrenched by capital, & is working to further cement itself generationally through education & extracurriculars on an ever-slicker melting iceberg; the recent discussions of the "9.9%" are good reading on this.

No amount of wisdom lets you make make good choices with resources you can't access in the first place.

Maybe it was index funds they bought if that is what makes sense for the times, but I could swear it was mutual funds they invested in.

[jim555]

While you had no ETFs you did have mutual funds in the 1980s.  Not all funds were high loads.  Vanguard was around and had plenty of low cost stock funds.  Brokers would try to push 8.5% load funds to the ill informed, but anyone with half a brain would go to the low cost funds.

I dislike equating "ill-informed" with lacking "half a brain."

"Ignorant due to lack of exposure or experience" is not synonymous with "stupid." In the 70s and 80s, my dad paid into a pension fund set up by his union. Due to lack of education, my mom didn't have access to the kinds of employment that offered a 401K until well into the 1990s. Both of my parents were brought up in lower-working class or poor households headed by immigrant laborers who either died or were disabled when mom and dad were teenagers. Sure, mom started putting money into her 401K and opened a Roth IRA once she was aware that she could do so, but before that, no one in their circles was talking about these things—when I was younger, our relatives and my parents' friends were all in similar situations. Brokerages were for rich people, and none of us had access to the Internet. My father considered the Internet to be a waste of time and money until 1999, when I moved back home to finish school and needed access for my school work (to be honest, he continued to consider it a waste of time and money and resented its intrusion into his household until a few years ago).

I lived through it as a lower class person in the 80s.  Public libraries had the info, the Barron's, S&P chart books, magazines, books.  People are lazy and don't put in the work, so they end up paying for dumb stuff like full load funds and full commission brokers.  We had FNN (now CNBC) Financial News Network on UHF TV in the 1980s.

[OtherJen]

While you had no ETFs you did have mutual funds in the 1980s.  Not all funds were high loads.  Vanguard was around and had plenty of low cost stock funds.  Brokers would try to push 8.5% load funds to the ill informed, but anyone with half a brain would go to the low cost funds.

I dislike equating "ill-informed" with lacking "half a brain."

"Ignorant due to lack of exposure or experience" is not synonymous with "stupid." In the 70s and 80s, my dad paid into a pension fund set up by his union. Due to lack of education, my mom didn't have access to the kinds of employment that offered a 401K until well into the 1990s. Both of my parents were brought up in lower-working class or poor households headed by immigrant laborers who either died or were disabled when mom and dad were teenagers. Sure, mom started putting money into her 401K and opened a Roth IRA once she was aware that she could do so, but before that, no one in their circles was talking about these things—when I was younger, our relatives and my parents' friends were all in similar situations. Brokerages were for rich people, and none of us had access to the Internet. My father considered the Internet to be a waste of time and money until 1999, when I moved back home to finish school and needed access for my school work (to be honest, he continued to consider it a waste of time and money and resented its intrusion into his household until a few years ago).

I lived through it as a lower class person in the 80s.  Public libraries had the info, the Barron's, S&P chart books, magazines, books.  People are lazy and don't put in the work, so they end up paying for dumb stuff like full load funds and full commission brokers.  We had FNN (now CNBC) Financial News Network on UHF TV in the 1980s.

Okay. My dad was working 70-80 hour weeks as a union laborer and my mom was taking care of me and an autoimmune disease, but sure, they were lazy. Good for you for not being lazy.

[jim555]

Okay. My dad was working 70-80 hour weeks as a union laborer and my mom was taking care of me and an autoimmune disease, but sure, they were lazy. Good for you for not being lazy.

Sounds like excuses to me.  Where there is a will there is a way.

[OtherJen]

Okay. My dad was working 70-80 hour weeks as a union laborer and my mom was taking care of me and an autoimmune disease, but sure, they were lazy. Good for you for not being lazy.

Sounds like excuses to me.  Where there is a will there is a way.

Sure, I'll tell them that they were just lazy.

[ixtap]

Okay. My dad was working 70-80 hour weeks as a union laborer and my mom was taking care of me and an autoimmune disease, but sure, they were lazy. Good for you for not being lazy.

Sounds like excuses to me.  Where there is a will there is a way.

Sure, I'll tell them that they were just lazy.

I mean, if your Dad hadn't been working 80 hours a week, he could have gone to the library to browse those publications or visited someone one of the markets actually covered by FNN. /sarcasm

[jim555]

I mean, if your Dad hadn't been working 80 hours a week, he could have gone to the library to browse those publications or visited someone one of the markets actually covered by FNN. /sarcasm

Seriously, the info wasn't hidden in a closet and unknowable.  A minimal effort is all it would take.

[OtherJen]

Okay. My dad was working 70-80 hour weeks as a union laborer and my mom was taking care of me and an autoimmune disease, but sure, they were lazy. Good for you for not being lazy.

Sounds like excuses to me.  Where there is a will there is a way.

Sure, I'll tell them that they were just lazy.

I mean, if your Dad hadn't been working 80 hours a week, he could have gone to the library to browse those publications or visited someone one of the markets actually covered by FNN. /sarcasm

Yep! Sometimes he worked every day, including double shifts, for 2 weeks straight. For some of that period, he came home to take over childcare while mom went to her evening shift in food service (at least until she got too sick to work for several years). Such lazy freeloaders.

[TomTX]

Okay. My dad was working 70-80 hour weeks as a union laborer and my mom was taking care of me and an autoimmune disease, but sure, they were lazy. Good for you for not being lazy.

Sounds like excuses to me.  Where there is a will there is a way.

This really makes you sound like a judgemental, insensitive asshole.

Was that what you intended to convey?

[TomTX]

A big factor for previous generations was the lack of good investment options available to everyday people. As far as I can tell, the options for an average Joe wanting to invest but not having a pile of money already were 1. buying individual stocks through a broker or 2. buying garbage high-fee mutual funds through the bank. Now a person can open a low-fee investment account online in about five minutes, often with no minimum balance.

The other big factor was a lack of information. If you wanted to learn the nuts and bolts of building wealth way back then, you'd better have had some rich friends to learn from.

Oh come now, I am old, old  enough to be on Medicare and I remember when mutual funds came into being in my young adulthood. My parents sold a couple of family farms and put money in mutual funds. They had plenty of money by the time they died. They were middle class people.

People don’t accumulate assets because they don’t work to accumulate assets.

Shit, if I and spouse had "a couple of family farms" I could have retired long ago.

Serious example of "born on 3rd base and think they hit a home run".

That said, I was born on 1st base myself since I started out my work life with a STEM degree and not that much debt.

[jim555]

Okay. My dad was working 70-80 hour weeks as a union laborer and my mom was taking care of me and an autoimmune disease, but sure, they were lazy. Good for you for not being lazy.

Sounds like excuses to me.  Where there is a will there is a way.

This really makes you sound like a judgemental, insensitive asshole.


Was that what you intended to convey?

Yep. going for the full a-hole here.  People make decisions like using a full load fund when they don't have to.  Who's fault is that?  Brokers have to eat I guess, and fools and money are soon parted.

[OtherJen]

Okay. My dad was working 70-80 hour weeks as a union laborer and my mom was taking care of me and an autoimmune disease, but sure, they were lazy. Good for you for not being lazy.

Sounds like excuses to me.  Where there is a will there is a way.

This really makes you sound like a judgemental, insensitive asshole.


Was that what you intended to convey?

Yep. going for the full a-hole here.

At least you're upfront about it.

[jim555]

Probably didn't even read the Prospectus that details all the expenses, again lazy.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Every time this topic comes up,  I think of what someone said from a previous thread awhile back. Both hard work and luck play a part in almost every success story. When looking at a societal level,  it's more helpful to look at it and advise from a "what can be done to improve and level out the luck/ privilege" part.  When looking at it from a personal level,  it's more helpful to look at it from a "what can be done through hard work" perspective.

 I would likely advise anyone I knew who was struggling with bills and things to stay as far away from antiwork as possible,  as encouraging them to feed information into their brains of how screwed they are and the like is rarely going to help them from a personal level. They need to be given information on how to improve themselves - good information of course. That doesn't mean the issues aren't there. They can and should be looked at and addressed from a societal level. I've known way too many people who could improve themselves and their family's situation who are certainly not in the upper class to want the message of we're all screwed except trust fund babies to be the guiding advice for anyone. I want the people I care about to know they can help themselves through frugality and minimalism because that's actually going to help if implemented.

[iris lily]

While you had no ETFs you did have mutual funds in the 1980s.  Not all funds were high loads.  Vanguard was around and had plenty of low cost stock funds.  Brokers would try to push 8.5% load funds to the ill informed, but anyone with half a brain would go to the low cost funds.

I dislike equating "ill-informed" with lacking "half a brain."

"Ignorant due to lack of exposure or experience" is not synonymous with "stupid." In the 70s and 80s, my dad paid into a pension fund set up by his union. Due to lack of education, my mom didn't have access to the kinds of employment that offered a 401K until well into the 1990s. Both of my parents were brought up in lower-working class or poor households headed by immigrant laborers who either died or were disabled when mom and dad were teenagers. Sure, mom started putting money into her 401K and opened a Roth IRA once she was aware that she could do so, but before that, no one in their circles was talking about these things—when I was younger, our relatives and my parents' friends were all in similar situations. Brokerages were for rich people, and none of us had access to the Internet. My father considered the Internet to be a waste of time and money until 1999, when I moved back home to finish school and needed access for my school work (to be honest, he continued to consider it a waste of time and money and resented its intrusion into his household until a few years ago).

I lived through it as a lower class person in the 80s.  Public libraries had the info, the Barron's, S&P chart books, magazines, books.  People are lazy and don't put in the work, so they end up paying for dumb stuff like full load funds and full commission brokers.  We had FNN (now CNBC) Financial News Network on UHF TV in the 1980s.

But with even full load funds, money could be made by dollar-cost-averaging with a slow-and-steady-wins-the-race approach.

I worked in public libraries for decades, and I remember the men who would stand around the periodicals desk on the morning Value Line was received in the mail and put out on the shelves. Thise guys were informing themselves.

[rocks_and_space]

I'm going to reply to the original topic here as I find it interesting - a lot more interesting than some of the troll droppings being left behind recently.

In my view, there is a fundamental problem with work. John Maynard Keynes (love him or hate him) thought we would all be working for pay 15 hours a week by now. As a fledgling financial independence nerd, I'd like that number to be lower - ideally zero.

The fundamental proposition of anti-work sentiment should be that the system of work right now is broken. Worker productivity has skyrocketed in the last several decades and wages have remained largely flat, especially for low wage earners. And as it's been argued in earlier posts, I agree that many of these jobs exist basically to occupy people's time in work that isn't meaningful or doesn't add any value to society. The best example I can think of is telemarketing or call centers. Many of these jobs actually drain value from society and transfer it to large corporations, many of them monopolies. Even for jobs with the same relative skill level, if you take the example of someone flipping burgers at a drive-thru, their productivity has changed dramatically due to advances in technology and supply chain logistics. Cold transport of goods is more readily available, fryers have digital timers for a half dozen batches of deep fried foods, and software carefully monitors the teenager who takes your order, making sure they meet the franchise's all-important metrics. Why are these workers taking home proportionally so much less of the revenue they generate for their employers? These jobs don't have the schedule flexibility or deliverable-based work models that plenty of high-paying jobs offer. They must physically, or digitally, be present at their job for the entire workday, so it's not like burger flipping got easier, or requires less education - the job is exactly the same, but the cost of living has kept going up. Why could you afford college on that job in the 70's, but not today?

When I think antiwork, I think of antitrust legislation, busting up the banks that broke our economy in 2008, putting the brakes on revolving doors that see lobbyists going to influential government positions, and making companies pay people and their taxes fairly. This isn't a comprehensive list.

That said - the movement is disappointing in regard to these aims. No, you can't have something for nothing, and there is a reasonable amount of that sentiment on r/antiwork. And no, your supervisor at a low-wage job isn't Scrooge McDucking through a pile of money. The subreddit doesn't seem to be a place for mature discussion on the real problems of modern capitalist economies, at least those that operate on Freedom Logic. But if that place should exist, shouldn't we be participating in it? I don't want to use someone else's perceived laziness, lack of 'character' or 'drive' or whatever, be my excuse for not understanding their situation and helping people find their way to happiness. Maybe that means learning the value of hard work. Maybe that means learning to want less. Maybe that means figuring out the real economic problems that exist today. Maybe that means doing the digging and really refuting some of the ideas they put forth. But I think what isn't helpful, is dismissing or insulting the movement completely and letting a few bad experiences (see: Fox News interview) spoil the whole thing.

[windytrail]

I'm going to reply to the original topic here as I find it interesting - a lot more interesting than some of the troll droppings being left behind recently.

In my view, there is a fundamental problem with work. John Maynard Keynes (love him or hate him) thought we would all be working for pay 15 hours a week by now. As a fledgling financial independence nerd, I'd like that number to be lower - ideally zero.

The fundamental proposition of anti-work sentiment should be that the system of work right now is broken. Worker productivity has skyrocketed in the last several decades and wages have remained largely flat, especially for low wage earners. And as it's been argued in earlier posts, I agree that many of these jobs exist basically to occupy people's time in work that isn't meaningful or doesn't add any value to society. The best example I can think of is telemarketing or call centers. Many of these jobs actually drain value from society and transfer it to large corporations, many of them monopolies. Even for jobs with the same relative skill level, if you take the example of someone flipping burgers at a drive-thru, their productivity has changed dramatically due to advances in technology and supply chain logistics. Cold transport of goods is more readily available, fryers have digital timers for a half dozen batches of deep fried foods, and software carefully monitors the teenager who takes your order, making sure they meet the franchise's all-important metrics. Why are these workers taking home proportionally so much less of the revenue they generate for their employers? These jobs don't have the schedule flexibility or deliverable-based work models that plenty of high-paying jobs offer. They must physically, or digitally, be present at their job for the entire workday, so it's not like burger flipping got easier, or requires less education - the job is exactly the same, but the cost of living has kept going up. Why could you afford college on that job in the 70's, but not today?

When I think antiwork, I think of antitrust legislation, busting up the banks that broke our economy in 2008, putting the brakes on revolving doors that see lobbyists going to influential government positions, and making companies pay people and their taxes fairly. This isn't a comprehensive list.

That said - the movement is disappointing in regard to these aims. No, you can't have something for nothing, and there is a reasonable amount of that sentiment on r/antiwork. And no, your supervisor at a low-wage job isn't Scrooge McDucking through a pile of money. The subreddit doesn't seem to be a place for mature discussion on the real problems of modern capitalist economies, at least those that operate on Freedom Logic. But if that place should exist, shouldn't we be participating in it? I don't want to use someone else's perceived laziness, lack of 'character' or 'drive' or whatever, be my excuse for not understanding their situation and helping people find their way to happiness. Maybe that means learning the value of hard work. Maybe that means learning to want less. Maybe that means figuring out the real economic problems that exist today. Maybe that means doing the digging and really refuting some of the ideas they put forth. But I think what isn't helpful, is dismissing or insulting the movement completely and letting a few bad experiences (see: Fox News interview) spoil the whole thing.

Of course it's fine to dream and we all have our dreams. You would like to see everyone working for pay zero hours a week. I would like to see a car-free society where everyone lives near their work and we have clean air and safe streets to play on. The question is: how do you help bring about the change you want to see?

One way is to volunteer for your cause, which may involve community organizing, advocating and/or lobbying your local government officials. Another way is to make a lot of money and give generously to the causes you believe in. Many believe a great way to bring about change is to lead by example and with dignity and watch as others will come to follow your ways.

One thing all of these approaches have in common is that they take effort and intent. There is so much inertia in the status quo that it will take a sustained effort of many, but this is no reason to despair. You can start doing things today to make change come true.

I don't know if the reddit Antiwork people have the same perspective about how to achieve the world they want to see. Do they have actionable philosophies or is it just complaining? There are certainly more productive and less productive ways to bring about change.

[wageslave23]

I'm going to reply to the original topic here as I find it interesting - a lot more interesting than some of the troll droppings being left behind recently.

In my view, there is a fundamental problem with work. John Maynard Keynes (love him or hate him) thought we would all be working for pay 15 hours a week by now. As a fledgling financial independence nerd, I'd like that number to be lower - ideally zero.

The fundamental proposition of anti-work sentiment should be that the system of work right now is broken. Worker productivity has skyrocketed in the last several decades and wages have remained largely flat, especially for low wage earners. And as it's been argued in earlier posts, I agree that many of these jobs exist basically to occupy people's time in work that isn't meaningful or doesn't add any value to society. The best example I can think of is telemarketing or call centers. Many of these jobs actually drain value from society and transfer it to large corporations, many of them monopolies. Even for jobs with the same relative skill level, if you take the example of someone flipping burgers at a drive-thru, their productivity has changed dramatically due to advances in technology and supply chain logistics. Cold transport of goods is more readily available, fryers have digital timers for a half dozen batches of deep fried foods, and software carefully monitors the teenager who takes your order, making sure they meet the franchise's all-important metrics. Why are these workers taking home proportionally so much less of the revenue they generate for their employers? These jobs don't have the schedule flexibility or deliverable-based work models that plenty of high-paying jobs offer. They must physically, or digitally, be present at their job for the entire workday, so it's not like burger flipping got easier, or requires less education - the job is exactly the same, but the cost of living has kept going up. Why could you afford college on that job in the 70's, but not today?

When I think antiwork, I think of antitrust legislation, busting up the banks that broke our economy in 2008, putting the brakes on revolving doors that see lobbyists going to influential government positions, and making companies pay people and their taxes fairly. This isn't a comprehensive list.

That said - the movement is disappointing in regard to these aims. No, you can't have something for nothing, and there is a reasonable amount of that sentiment on r/antiwork. And no, your supervisor at a low-wage job isn't Scrooge McDucking through a pile of money. The subreddit doesn't seem to be a place for mature discussion on the real problems of modern capitalist economies, at least those that operate on Freedom Logic. But if that place should exist, shouldn't we be participating in it? I don't want to use someone else's perceived laziness, lack of 'character' or 'drive' or whatever, be my excuse for not understanding their situation and helping people find their way to happiness. Maybe that means learning the value of hard work. Maybe that means learning to want less. Maybe that means figuring out the real economic problems that exist today. Maybe that means doing the digging and really refuting some of the ideas they put forth. But I think what isn't helpful, is dismissing or insulting the movement completely and letting a few bad experiences (see: Fox News interview) spoil the whole thing.

The question is who should benefit from the increased productivity?  To keep it simple, let's think of a farmer.  They used to have to till their fields by hand, spending lots of labor hours.  Along comes the farming revolution and machinery that greatly increases productivity.  Who should benefit from this technology?  The inventor of course, the maker of the equipment as well.  The farmer who takes the risk and/or sacrifice of saving up money or taking a large loan out in order to purchase the equipment in hopes of recouping the investment with increased productivity deserves the lion's share of the profits.  The hourly laborer who is still doing the same amount of work and did not have any innovation, risk, or sacrifice in attaining the new equipment?  I don't think so.  If anything he or she should be happy not to lose pay due to less demand for labor. 

As a current example, I am an accountant that works for a CPA firm.  If new software comes out that allows a single accountant to produce double the amount of tax returns, then the CPA firm will invest in that new software and reap the rewards of more productivity.  I as the accountant will work the same amount of hours and be paid the same as before because I am not doing anything differently.  And I wouldn't expect to earn more either because I had nothing to do with increasing my productivity.  On the other hand, if new tax laws are passed that makes my productivity less efficient, and the firm makes less profit, I don't expect them to decrease my pay.  They are paying me for my work, not based on their profitability.  Profitability is their risk/reward, not mine.

[Mr. Green]

I'm going to reply to the original topic here as I find it interesting - a lot more interesting than some of the troll droppings being left behind recently.

In my view, there is a fundamental problem with work. John Maynard Keynes (love him or hate him) thought we would all be working for pay 15 hours a week by now. As a fledgling financial independence nerd, I'd like that number to be lower - ideally zero.

The fundamental proposition of anti-work sentiment should be that the system of work right now is broken. Worker productivity has skyrocketed in the last several decades and wages have remained largely flat, especially for low wage earners. And as it's been argued in earlier posts, I agree that many of these jobs exist basically to occupy people's time in work that isn't meaningful or doesn't add any value to society. The best example I can think of is telemarketing or call centers. Many of these jobs actually drain value from society and transfer it to large corporations, many of them monopolies. Even for jobs with the same relative skill level, if you take the example of someone flipping burgers at a drive-thru, their productivity has changed dramatically due to advances in technology and supply chain logistics. Cold transport of goods is more readily available, fryers have digital timers for a half dozen batches of deep fried foods, and software carefully monitors the teenager who takes your order, making sure they meet the franchise's all-important metrics. Why are these workers taking home proportionally so much less of the revenue they generate for their employers? These jobs don't have the schedule flexibility or deliverable-based work models that plenty of high-paying jobs offer. They must physically, or digitally, be present at their job for the entire workday, so it's not like burger flipping got easier, or requires less education - the job is exactly the same, but the cost of living has kept going up. Why could you afford college on that job in the 70's, but not today?

When I think antiwork, I think of antitrust legislation, busting up the banks that broke our economy in 2008, putting the brakes on revolving doors that see lobbyists going to influential government positions, and making companies pay people and their taxes fairly. This isn't a comprehensive list.

That said - the movement is disappointing in regard to these aims. No, you can't have something for nothing, and there is a reasonable amount of that sentiment on r/antiwork. And no, your supervisor at a low-wage job isn't Scrooge McDucking through a pile of money. The subreddit doesn't seem to be a place for mature discussion on the real problems of modern capitalist economies, at least those that operate on Freedom Logic. But if that place should exist, shouldn't we be participating in it? I don't want to use someone else's perceived laziness, lack of 'character' or 'drive' or whatever, be my excuse for not understanding their situation and helping people find their way to happiness. Maybe that means learning the value of hard work. Maybe that means learning to want less. Maybe that means figuring out the real economic problems that exist today. Maybe that means doing the digging and really refuting some of the ideas they put forth. But I think what isn't helpful, is dismissing or insulting the movement completely and letting a few bad experiences (see: Fox News interview) spoil the whole thing.

The question is who should benefit from the increased productivity?  To keep it simple, let's think of a farmer.  They used to have to till their fields by hand, spending lots of labor hours.  Along comes the farming revolution and machinery that greatly increases productivity.  Who should benefit from this technology?  The inventor of course, the maker of the equipment as well.  The farmer who takes the risk and/or sacrifice of saving up money or taking a large loan out in order to purchase the equipment in hopes of recouping the investment with increased productivity deserves the lion's share of the profits.  The hourly laborer who is still doing the same amount of work and did not have any innovation, risk, or sacrifice in attaining the new equipment?  I don't think so.  If anything he or she should be happy not to lose pay due to less demand for labor. 

As a current example, I am an accountant that works for a CPA firm.  If new software comes out that allows a single accountant to produce double the amount of tax returns, then the CPA firm will invest in that new software and reap the rewards of more productivity.  I as the accountant will work the same amount of hours and be paid the same as before because I am not doing anything differently.  And I wouldn't expect to earn more either because I had nothing to do with increasing my productivity.  On the other hand, if new tax laws are passed that makes my productivity less efficient, and the firm makes less profit, I don't expect them to decrease my pay.  They are paying me for my work, not based on their profitability.  Profitability is their risk/reward, not mine.

The challenge is that there isn't enough legit labor to keep everyone fully employed  we already know a significant portion of the population work bullshit office jobs that only exist because of corporate inefficiencies (think Office Space). I would allow that it's quite possible that we could find enough labor if we were truly interested in that as a government. Infrastructure is end of life, national parks and public spaces are woefully understaffed and have not been expanded to accommodate population growth in the last 50 years. The problem is our governments aren't actually interested in putting people to work when prompting would be helpful. They just want to see that people are working with as little guidance as possible.  That's cool if you just want to get what we have now, but if you want a country that has well functioning systems, infrastructure, etc. that benefit the public, and ultimately the nation, guidance is required. I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone who has been efficiencied out of a job, or significant labor hour, to find replacement work that pays well. Not in the current system anyway.

[wageslave23]

I'm going to reply to the original topic here as I find it interesting - a lot more interesting than some of the troll droppings being left behind recently.

In my view, there is a fundamental problem with work. John Maynard Keynes (love him or hate him) thought we would all be working for pay 15 hours a week by now. As a fledgling financial independence nerd, I'd like that number to be lower - ideally zero.

The fundamental proposition of anti-work sentiment should be that the system of work right now is broken. Worker productivity has skyrocketed in the last several decades and wages have remained largely flat, especially for low wage earners. And as it's been argued in earlier posts, I agree that many of these jobs exist basically to occupy people's time in work that isn't meaningful or doesn't add any value to society. The best example I can think of is telemarketing or call centers. Many of these jobs actually drain value from society and transfer it to large corporations, many of them monopolies. Even for jobs with the same relative skill level, if you take the example of someone flipping burgers at a drive-thru, their productivity has changed dramatically due to advances in technology and supply chain logistics. Cold transport of goods is more readily available, fryers have digital timers for a half dozen batches of deep fried foods, and software carefully monitors the teenager who takes your order, making sure they meet the franchise's all-important metrics. Why are these workers taking home proportionally so much less of the revenue they generate for their employers? These jobs don't have the schedule flexibility or deliverable-based work models that plenty of high-paying jobs offer. They must physically, or digitally, be present at their job for the entire workday, so it's not like burger flipping got easier, or requires less education - the job is exactly the same, but the cost of living has kept going up. Why could you afford college on that job in the 70's, but not today?

When I think antiwork, I think of antitrust legislation, busting up the banks that broke our economy in 2008, putting the brakes on revolving doors that see lobbyists going to influential government positions, and making companies pay people and their taxes fairly. This isn't a comprehensive list.

That said - the movement is disappointing in regard to these aims. No, you can't have something for nothing, and there is a reasonable amount of that sentiment on r/antiwork. And no, your supervisor at a low-wage job isn't Scrooge McDucking through a pile of money. The subreddit doesn't seem to be a place for mature discussion on the real problems of modern capitalist economies, at least those that operate on Freedom Logic. But if that place should exist, shouldn't we be participating in it? I don't want to use someone else's perceived laziness, lack of 'character' or 'drive' or whatever, be my excuse for not understanding their situation and helping people find their way to happiness. Maybe that means learning the value of hard work. Maybe that means learning to want less. Maybe that means figuring out the real economic problems that exist today. Maybe that means doing the digging and really refuting some of the ideas they put forth. But I think what isn't helpful, is dismissing or insulting the movement completely and letting a few bad experiences (see: Fox News interview) spoil the whole thing.

The question is who should benefit from the increased productivity?  To keep it simple, let's think of a farmer.  They used to have to till their fields by hand, spending lots of labor hours.  Along comes the farming revolution and machinery that greatly increases productivity.  Who should benefit from this technology?  The inventor of course, the maker of the equipment as well.  The farmer who takes the risk and/or sacrifice of saving up money or taking a large loan out in order to purchase the equipment in hopes of recouping the investment with increased productivity deserves the lion's share of the profits.  The hourly laborer who is still doing the same amount of work and did not have any innovation, risk, or sacrifice in attaining the new equipment?  I don't think so.  If anything he or she should be happy not to lose pay due to less demand for labor. 

As a current example, I am an accountant that works for a CPA firm.  If new software comes out that allows a single accountant to produce double the amount of tax returns, then the CPA firm will invest in that new software and reap the rewards of more productivity.  I as the accountant will work the same amount of hours and be paid the same as before because I am not doing anything differently.  And I wouldn't expect to earn more either because I had nothing to do with increasing my productivity.  On the other hand, if new tax laws are passed that makes my productivity less efficient, and the firm makes less profit, I don't expect them to decrease my pay.  They are paying me for my work, not based on their profitability.  Profitability is their risk/reward, not mine.

The challenge is that there isn't enough legit labor to keep everyone fully employed  we already know a significant portion of the population work bullshit office jobs that only exist because of corporate inefficiencies (think Office Space). I would allow that it's quite possible that we could find enough labor if we were truly interested in that as a government. Infrastructure is end of life, national parks and public spaces are woefully understaffed and have not been expanded to accommodate population growth in the last 50 years. The problem is our governments aren't actually interested in putting people to work when prompting would be helpful. They just want to see that people are working with as little guidance as possible.  That's cool if you just want to get what we have now, but if you want a country that has well functioning systems, infrastructure, etc. that benefit the public, and ultimately the nation, guidance is required.

You and I may think that a particular job is pointless but I can assure you that businesses don't purposely pay people if they don't have to. That's why good businesses are more profitable because they are more efficient.  All companies are striving for that but most don't succeed.  I don't think the government sending consultants into businesses to help them decide which jobs are needed is going to be the answer. Telemarketers were mentioned by another poster as pointless.  But the companies paying them must think they are providing value otherwise they wouldn't be paying them.

[Mr. Green]

Also, it's a slippery slope in laying all the benefit of improved productivity at the feet of the creator. By that argument, every single one of us should all be paid peasant farmer wages from before the industrial revolution and the only people with money would be those that found concrete, asphalt and all the basic elements that we use in our lives today.

[Mr. Green]

And I spent six months of my life in my early 20s staring at a wall for 40 hours a week because of corporate fiefdoms and no internet access at work. A co-worker read a book. And people were well aware of what was going on. So I don't buy that companies don't pay people for no reason.

[Paul der Krake]

I'm a low skill worker who digs ditches. I dig 10 ditch units a day. It ain't much, but it's honest work.

One day my boss comes out to my ditch-digging field and says shovels are out, excavators are in. I had no hand in developing the technology, financing the excavator plant, running the production lines. But now, armed with the excavator, I dig 500 dtich units per day.

Do I have a moral claim to this increased productivity?

And I spent six months of my life in my early 20s staring at a wall for 40 hours a week because of corporate fiefdoms and no internet access at work. A co-worker read a book. And people were well aware of what was going on. So I don't buy that companies don't pay people for no reason.

Corporations are imperfect and made of imperfect people with competing incentives, which leads to inefficiencies. The overall trend, though, is clear.

[js82]

I mean, if your Dad hadn't been working 80 hours a week, he could have gone to the library to browse those publications or visited someone one of the markets actually covered by FNN. /sarcasm

Seriously, the info wasn't hidden in a closet and unknowable.  A minimal effort is all it would take.

One of the things about learning is that at the beginning... you don't know what you don't know.

Yes, some people are more curious about that than others, but you're being intellectually dishonest if you don't think that the situations people grew up in had a huge impact on their financial literacy (particularly because we mostly don't teach it in schools - which is a problem of its own)

My grandfather was an accountant.  He passed that financial know-how to my dad, who passed a lot of it to me.  While I'd like to give myself credit, there's no doubt that I had a huge advantage over others who didn't have parents who could teach them personal finance from an early age.  That's as much an indictment of a particular gap in our educational system as it is a criticism of your posts.

Every time this topic comes up,  I think of what someone said from a previous thread awhile back. Both hard work and luck play a part in almost every success story. When looking at a societal level,  it's more helpful to look at it and advise from a "what can be done to improve and level out the luck/ privilege" part.  When looking at it from a personal level,  it's more helpful to look at it from a "what can be done through hard work" perspective.

Exactly.  Our leaders absolutely should be fixing the failings of our system (see: lack of sufficient financial education in high school), while when coaching family members or peers that's not useful - it still comes down to "what can you do within this (flawed) system to improve your situation?""

[TomTX]

I'm a low skill worker who digs ditches. I dig 10 ditch units a day. It ain't much, but it's honest work.

One day my boss comes out to my ditch-digging field and says shovels are out, excavators are in. I had no hand in developing the technology, financing the excavator plant, running the production lines. But now, armed with the excavator, I dig 500 dtich units per day.

Do I have a moral claim to this increased productivity?

As one among many claims? Absolutely. Takes significant training/experience to run an excavator effectively, and your safety responsibility is far higher than shoveling.

[TomTX]

Exactly.  Our leaders absolutely should be fixing the failings of our system (see: lack of sufficient financial education in high school), while when coaching family members or peers that's not useful - it still comes down to "what can you do within this (flawed) system to improve your situation?""

Yep. My highly rated school district educated me about investing to a level somewhere between "jack" and "shit" - ie, not at all.

Even my parents taught me zero (though I found out later they had stocks!) - I had my investing education from my uncle and his books I read when we visited.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I'm going to reply to the original topic here as I find it interesting - a lot more interesting than some of the troll droppings being left behind recently.

In my view, there is a fundamental problem with work. John Maynard Keynes (love him or hate him) thought we would all be working for pay 15 hours a week by now. As a fledgling financial independence nerd, I'd like that number to be lower - ideally zero.

The fundamental proposition of anti-work sentiment should be that the system of work right now is broken. Worker productivity has skyrocketed in the last several decades and wages have remained largely flat, especially for low wage earners. And as it's been argued in earlier posts, I agree that many of these jobs exist basically to occupy people's time in work that isn't meaningful or doesn't add any value to society. The best example I can think of is telemarketing or call centers. Many of these jobs actually drain value from society and transfer it to large corporations, many of them monopolies. Even for jobs with the same relative skill level, if you take the example of someone flipping burgers at a drive-thru, their productivity has changed dramatically due to advances in technology and supply chain logistics. Cold transport of goods is more readily available, fryers have digital timers for a half dozen batches of deep fried foods, and software carefully monitors the teenager who takes your order, making sure they meet the franchise's all-important metrics. Why are these workers taking home proportionally so much less of the revenue they generate for their employers? These jobs don't have the schedule flexibility or deliverable-based work models that plenty of high-paying jobs offer. They must physically, or digitally, be present at their job for the entire workday, so it's not like burger flipping got easier, or requires less education - the job is exactly the same, but the cost of living has kept going up. Why could you afford college on that job in the 70's, but not today?

When I think antiwork, I think of antitrust legislation, busting up the banks that broke our economy in 2008, putting the brakes on revolving doors that see lobbyists going to influential government positions, and making companies pay people and their taxes fairly. This isn't a comprehensive list.

That said - the movement is disappointing in regard to these aims. No, you can't have something for nothing, and there is a reasonable amount of that sentiment on r/antiwork. And no, your supervisor at a low-wage job isn't Scrooge McDucking through a pile of money. The subreddit doesn't seem to be a place for mature discussion on the real problems of modern capitalist economies, at least those that operate on Freedom Logic. But if that place should exist, shouldn't we be participating in it? I don't want to use someone else's perceived laziness, lack of 'character' or 'drive' or whatever, be my excuse for not understanding their situation and helping people find their way to happiness. Maybe that means learning the value of hard work. Maybe that means learning to want less. Maybe that means figuring out the real economic problems that exist today. Maybe that means doing the digging and really refuting some of the ideas they put forth. But I think what isn't helpful, is dismissing or insulting the movement completely and letting a few bad experiences (see: Fox News interview) spoil the whole thing.

I think we're both in general agreement on the overall concepts. There are problems with the system, with how workers are treated, etc. The part we differ is that I do think we should dismiss a movement like this rather than trying to salvage it. Why?

Well, it's based on flawed premises. The FIRE movement and r/antiwork might both be in favor of not working. However, FIRE, at its best, promotes that through minimalism. r/antiwork has, at its core, the sentiment that minimalism isn't necessary or really a big deal at all.

I guess what gets me about the people who flock to that kind of site is that their ideas are in line with the ideas seen in a lot of memes that drive me nuts. The ones that criticize people for recommending them to go without Starbucks every day where they respond with "Oh, so I should deny myself the things I enjoy to save money.".....Yes....yes you should because you don't know what you actually enjoy. You think luxuries are necessities, and you're like a spoiled child. Note this is not talking about people who are truly struggling without many options - the single moms with 3 kids who are trying to keep their kids fed and work many minimum wage jobs. Those people, though, probably don't have the time or energy to often frequent threads like that, and from the people I know who parrot those sentiments, they are in positions to better themselves and would prefer to complain instead.

Taken to its logical conclusion, from what I've seen, the end result of the r/antiwork movement is a bunch of people that want to not work and still do whatever the heck they want because rich people are mean. The end result of FIRE and specifically the MMM standards is how can we reduce our consumption - not waste as much money, save resources, and save the environment while we're at it. It's done without denying the importance of systemic changes (this community is pretty liberal by American standards), while emphasizing the right kinds of things that lead to being able to not work while still not wasting as many resources. I'll readily ridicule r/antiwork - they bring it on themselves and wholeheartedly deserve it. I'll direct people towards FIRE, MMM, and similar perspectives to actually improve their lives. I just don't see the reddit mindset helping anyone.

[dresden]

In 1990 after graduating college my starting salary was 27k, min wage was just increased from 3.35 to 3.80, starter homes in my area were about 140k and interest rates were 10%.   Saving up for a down-payment on a home was no small task and at least my impression is that credit was much tougher then.

I started out with no school loans after starting out with community college followed by a local commute to a university.  My education was around 15k total.

Comparisons are imperfect and complex, but I suspect things are much better on the lower end of the income spectrum - in addition to wages being significantly higher at the lower end earned income credit and aca are great equalizers.    Tax rates are generally lower across all income brackets.

According to social security site average wage in 1990 was 21,027.98 and for 2020 55,628.60 - that is a factor of 2.645 compared to minimum wage in my area which increased by a factor of 3.15.   A new college grad would need to make 70k to match my 27k salary in 1990 - I think starting new grad salaries might be a bit behind on average, but my impression is the top end of new college grads is doing a bit better (with better school, grades, etc.).

Housing is very cyclical, but at least the starter home we contracted for 140k is now in the low 400s vs 369 if it tracked with wages, but interest rates are also significantly lower.  Loans are easier to get.

It doesn't seem objectively worse to me, but there are so many factors to consider.

[LaineyAZ]

I think some of the other factors to consider are:
- switch from pension to self-funded retirement via 401(k)
- access to healthcare system is improved thanks to Affordable Care Act, but annual deductibles have risen dramatically
- apt. rentals are much higher, even for minimal housing like trailers
- child care costs are high, even when you can find it
- people are living longer and middle-aged people are finding themselves having to manage care for elderly dependents for many years, sometimes decades
- continued polarization of the U.S. populace along with government unwilling/unable to tackle serious issues like climate change which all fosters a Screw It attitude

Overall, a very frayed social safety net and a future that's not looking environmentally or economically promising is a drag on everything.  The resulting anti-work culture is not surprising.

[mathlete]

An observation I made while posting and lurking is that I think a lot of these r/antiwork types would/will be the same type of amoral bosses that they rail against.

I remember a topic that (like most things in the sub) just reposted a screen grab of the tweet. The sentiment was to lie about yourself on an application and in interviews, ad nauseum, including making up degrees if you have to.

Lying about a degree is pretty egregious IMO. And there is never any recognition that the people you're lying to aren't "capital", they're human beings, who like you, are working a job. If you're willing to start off a relationship with your coworkers (again, employees just like you) by manipulating them into believing you're something you're not, that's a pretty big character red flag IMO. Functionally, what this means if you get hired, is a bunch of other, more qualified people are going to have to work more to cover for your lack of competence. It means that maybe a more qualified person (again, an employee, not capital) was left out in the cold because you lied.

Someone willing to tell that big of a lie without regard for how they're screwing other people over will 100% do the same kind of thing when they are in a position of power. They will become the next generation of crappy bosses.

[NorthernIkigai]

I guess those that encourage lying about having degrees were r/antischoolwork before they graduated to r/antiwork…

(Yes, there are inequities in access to education, but I don’t think lying about your education is a valid way of solving that.)

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

An observation I made while posting and lurking is that I think a lot of these r/antiwork types would/will be the same type of amoral bosses that they rail against.

I remember a topic that (like most things in the sub) just reposted a screen grab of the tweet. The sentiment was to lie about yourself on an application and in interviews, ad nauseum, including making up degrees if you have to.

Lying about a degree is pretty egregious IMO. And there is never any recognition that the people you're lying to aren't "capital", they're human beings, who like you, are working a job. If you're willing to start off a relationship with your coworkers (again, employees just like you) by manipulating them into believing you're something you're not, that's a pretty big character red flag IMO. Functionally, what this means if you get hired, is a bunch of other, more qualified people are going to have to work more to cover for your lack of competence. It means that maybe a more qualified person (again, an employee, not capital) was left out in the cold because you lied.

Someone willing to tell that big of a lie without regard for how they're screwing other people over will 100% do the same kind of thing when they are in a position of power. They will become the next generation of crappy bosses.

This is a great example/articulation of how I feel about it. They see themselves as Robin Hood figures,  but it seems they are totally all about helping out themselves. The system is bad, so anything I can do to make things ok for me personally is fine,  consequences for others are irrelevant.

[rocks_and_space]

I think we're both in general agreement on the overall concepts. There are problems with the system, with how workers are treated, etc. The part we differ is that I do think we should dismiss a movement like this rather than trying to salvage it. Why?

Well, it's based on flawed premises. The FIRE movement and r/antiwork might both be in favor of not working. However, FIRE, at its best, promotes that through minimalism. r/antiwork has, at its core, the sentiment that minimalism isn't necessary or really a big deal at all.

I guess what gets me about the people who flock to that kind of site is that their ideas are in line with the ideas seen in a lot of memes that drive me nuts. The ones that criticize people for recommending them to go without Starbucks every day where they respond with "Oh, so I should deny myself the things I enjoy to save money.".....Yes....yes you should because you don't know what you actually enjoy. You think luxuries are necessities, and you're like a spoiled child. Note this is not talking about people who are truly struggling without many options - the single moms with 3 kids who are trying to keep their kids fed and work many minimum wage jobs. Those people, though, probably don't have the time or energy to often frequent threads like that, and from the people I know who parrot those sentiments, they are in positions to better themselves and would prefer to complain instead.

Taken to its logical conclusion, from what I've seen, the end result of the r/antiwork movement is a bunch of people that want to not work and still do whatever the heck they want because rich people are mean. The end result of FIRE and specifically the MMM standards is how can we reduce our consumption - not waste as much money, save resources, and save the environment while we're at it. It's done without denying the importance of systemic changes (this community is pretty liberal by American standards), while emphasizing the right kinds of things that lead to being able to not work while still not wasting as many resources. I'll readily ridicule r/antiwork - they bring it on themselves and wholeheartedly deserve it. I'll direct people towards FIRE, MMM, and similar perspectives to actually improve their lives. I just don't see the reddit mindset helping anyone.

All good points. I think I'm a bit more optimistic that there is some good in the general anti-work movement as a statement that labor is on its last legs in the current labor vs. capital situation, and I think there are people there that could be convinced that hard work has value, and decreasing pointless consumption has A LOT of value. I was probably leaning a bit too much into hyperbole when I said a zero-hour paid work week was ideal - it assumes everyone is going to want to put their time back into building a better society once you're able to decouple your income and spending/consumption (such as when you reach FI).

I can't fault you for dismissing it, and thanks for adding your perspective.

I'm a low skill worker who digs ditches. I dig 10 ditch units a day. It ain't much, but it's honest work.

One day my boss comes out to my ditch-digging field and says shovels are out, excavators are in. I had no hand in developing the technology, financing the excavator plant, running the production lines. But now, armed with the excavator, I dig 500 dtich units per day.

Do I have a moral claim to this increased productivity?

As one among many claims? Absolutely. Takes significant training/experience to run an excavator effectively, and your safety responsibility is far higher than shoveling.

To add to this, the capital that goes into building the plant, the excavators, the R&D costs - all those people are getting paid a wage or salary. So yes, those people are reaping benefits from the excavators' productivity in the form of salaries and bonuses. But the capital that's invested into the plant, the excavators themselves, etc. - why is the moral claim of that capital, or wealthy investors / investment firms, more valid than your own, as someone performing the labor? Does the investors' assumption of risk entitle them to hundreds of times the gains that you realize?

Staking a moral claim to productivity gain is a hard problem, partly because I don't think we could all agree on what constitutes a valid moral claim, or even what moral means in this context. The main problem I have is whether people have more of a claim to that productivity, or capital does, and it seems that capital is winning that fight more and more over my lifetime. Income disparity is getting worse, but looking at wealth disparity is incredible. It's logarithmic.