Author Topic: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?  (Read 12204 times)

Ottawa

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1033
Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« on: June 28, 2016, 12:05:20 PM »
Super interesting article in the Atlantic about this topic.  I like the areas that it touches on including; the nature of work, happiness, schooling, purpose and playing.  These topics are addressed through a historical, philosophical and current context. I feel like the ideas here line up quite well with the concepts we espouse 'round these parts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/would-a-world-without-work-be-so-bad/488711/

Langer83

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2016, 12:39:23 PM »
I was just about to post this article. I agree that it was really interesting and gets at what a work-free work looks like in a kind of anthropological way by looking at people who largely do live work-free lives: hunter-gathers, farmers pre-industrial revolution, aristocrats, and young children. Definitely check this one out!

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2016, 03:24:49 PM »
I get what the article was saying and more about the philosophical views, but I don't see the comparisons as Work-Free.

-hunter/gatherers, they did this to survive - their boss was death.  If anything they are more akin to entrepreneurs.

- farmers, kind of the same, they grew/raised stuff for consumption and trade/sale to others.  More like entrepreneurs to me.

- aristocrats. for real?  Nothing more than rich people enjoying the luxuries that others have afforded them.  We still have plenty of those today - Kar-idiots anyone?

- young children, of course the truest sense of work-free and always has until they are taught or told otherwise.  Pretty sure a 5 year old working on a farm does not feel like they are playing.....children back in those days were almost free labor.

So its good to be rich and its good to be a child where you have no responsibilities...because you play endlessly and not work.

Maybe, in some instances, I would put entrepreneurs in this category because there are those that got there by "playing" and it just happen to turn into a money maker.  Artists/Musicians might fall into this category as well but during the struggling part it may feel like work. 

Nice notion though.

big_slacker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2016, 07:28:11 PM »
It'd be awesome for me. And I'm not sure I follow that because people wouldn't have FORCED purpose (survival) that everyone one or even most would LACK purpose. There would be a lot more thought given to finding purpose and passion earlier in life. In fact there would probably initially be a bunch of people who's purpose would be helping others/society as a whole find it. :D

undercover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 992
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2016, 07:39:34 PM »
A work-free world article with no mention of artificial intelligence or robots? I'm afraid we won't have a choice in the future. But that also might be a good thing.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2016, 07:50:55 PM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2016, 01:56:13 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.

Seems to work for Detroit...

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2016, 06:10:09 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.

Seems to work for Detroit...


There will never be a work-free world for one reason:  social control.  If left to their own devices, most humans beings will drink, fight, and fuck and not much more.

Schaefer Light

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1328
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2016, 06:29:50 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.
Exactly.  If I want to buy a new car or a house at the beach, where do I get the money for it if there is no work?

Apocalyptica602

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 280
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2016, 06:30:52 AM »
I always like referring to this John Adams quote:

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."

I consider 'study' and 'work' interchangeably here. Effectively saying that as the generations progress and we become prosperous and strong enough as a culture, there will be an emergence of people who can sit around and focus on the arts, enjoy leisure, create beautiful things for all to enjoy.

My problem is, we somewhat have that today. Except most of the artists and poets are underemployed / forced to work 'day jobs' and often don't have enough time to be able to pursue their passions.

« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 06:32:25 AM by Apocalyptica602 »

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2016, 06:42:48 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.
Exactly.  If I want to buy a new car or a house at the beach, where do I get the money for it if there is no work?

That is ultimately the problem - you reference money but its all resources.  Since the start of civilization, or even further back, resources were always limited.  Resources were hoarded, protected, and therefore there were battles over them....the strong won and the weak lost.  Always been that way and still is today. So work and money may not may not exist but not for a minute should anyone thing a utopian world of leisure is ever possible - its just not human nature.

BTDretire

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3074
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2016, 08:03:32 AM »
But who's going to serve me my *Martini?

*Actually never had a Martini.


Kaspian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1533
  • Location: Canada
    • My Necronomicon of Badassity
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2016, 08:09:54 AM »
For many here it'd be great--because not "working", we'd still actually be working out butts off doing stuff--carrying groceries on our bikes, doing all our own home repairs, gardening...  But for the majority I know, it'd be bad.  Yes, bad.  It's been my experience that when people get bored they talk.  And that nonsensical, needless talk makes mountains out of mole hills.  The world would be even angrier than it is right now. 

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2016, 08:29:27 AM »
I always like referring to this John Adams quote:

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."

I consider 'study' and 'work' interchangeably here. Effectively saying that as the generations progress and we become prosperous and strong enough as a culture, there will be an emergence of people who can sit around and focus on the arts, enjoy leisure, create beautiful things for all to enjoy.

My problem is, we somewhat have that today. Except most of the artists and poets are underemployed / forced to work 'day jobs' and often don't have enough time to be able to pursue their passions.

^^^ Big AMEN. John Adams was The Man.

Ottawa

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1033
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2016, 08:40:46 AM »
For many here it'd be great--because not "working", we'd still actually be working out butts off doing stuff--carrying groceries on our bikes, doing all our own home repairs, gardening...  But for the majority I know, it'd be bad.  Yes, bad.  It's been my experience that when people get bored they talk.  And that nonsensical, needless talk makes mountains out of mole hills.  The world would be even angrier than it is right now.

Yes, true in the current global mindset.  Could we drift out of this mindset given a hypothetical utopia of plenty?  Probably not, due to human nature as you suggest. 

A work-free world article with no mention of artificial intelligence or robots? I'm afraid we won't have a choice in the future. But that also might be a good thing.

This is actually a pretty good point.  The future will not be much like it is today.  One way or another.  Even programmers etc. are likely to become obsolete given the likelihood of 'the singularity' and beyond.  This is likely to happen rapidly.  What happens then? 

dcheesi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1309
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2016, 09:18:22 AM »
I get what the article was saying and more about the philosophical views, but I don't see the comparisons as Work-Free.

-hunter/gatherers, they did this to survive - their boss was death.  If anything they are more akin to entrepreneurs.
Agreed. It's worth noting that most modern hunter-gatherer societies are in areas where "free" food is plentiful enough to make this lifestyle easy; mostly rainforests and such. Most of our H-G ancestors were not so lucky, which is why they switched to agriculture, etc., thousands of years ago.

Quote
- farmers, kind of the same, they grew/raised stuff for consumption and trade/sale to others.  More like entrepreneurs to me.
Yeah farming, especially with nothing but muscle-power, is long hard work, at least at certain times of the year. They may have more "time off", but it's not a work-free life by any means.


Quote
- aristocrats. for real?  Nothing more than rich people enjoying the luxuries that others have afforded them.  We still have plenty of those today - Kar-idiots anyone?
As oxymoronic as it sounds, "aristocracy for everyone!" may actually be the closest to describing the future we're talking about here. In this scenario, the "peasants" are machines, providing all of the goods and services that curently require human labor. As long as there are enough machines, and enough energy to power them, we could theoretically all live the life of the idle rich from previous centuries (minus the expansive private real-estate, perhaps).

Quote
- young children, of course the truest sense of work-free and always has until they are taught or told otherwise.  Pretty sure a 5 year old working on a farm does not feel like they are playing.....children back in those days were almost free labor.

So its good to be rich and its good to be a child where you have no responsibilities...because you play endlessly and not work.

Maybe, in some instances, I would put entrepreneurs in this category because there are those that got there by "playing" and it just happen to turn into a money maker.  Artists/Musicians might fall into this category as well but during the struggling part it may feel like work. 

Nice notion though.
With machine labor providing the basic necessities for all, a lot of that "struggle" and worry would disappear, leaving something more like the accidental entrepreneurs and playful dabblers you mention.

Assuming of course that we're wise enough to recognize our state of overflowing abundance and equitably distribute said basics, rather than hoarding them needlessly in the hands of a few. Those so inclined would be welcome to keep hoarding the excess, of course, if only to compare "points" with their rivals. That's how you'd keep the competitive folks and the natural workaholics focused and producing new advancements for the rest of society. And how you'd divvy up the few truly scarce commodities remaining (unique items or locations, for example).

Brokenreign

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Alberta
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2016, 09:58:49 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.
Exactly.  If I want to buy a new car or a house at the beach, where do I get the money for it if there is no work?

Things are produced by productivity, not work. North America seems to worship work as a noble objective in its own right. Every politician promises "jobs," not productivity.

I think the problem oft stated is that the owners of productive machines and systems will naturally hoard the resulting wealth while those left behind will be worse off than before. Not sure I buy it though as the trickledown of an enormously productive economy will leave everyone better off. Many will still perceive themselves as worse off than before due to the human tendency to compare ones situation to others in the present rather than to ones own past.

I for one can't wait for the brief period where AI and robots provide for all our needs until they realize that we are vain, irrational and soft and enslave us in their silicon harvesting operations.

runningthroughFIRE

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Bristles
  • *
  • Posts: 378
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Ohio, USA
  • As heavy as it needs to be to make you stronger
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2016, 10:25:26 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.
Exactly.  If I want to buy a new car or a house at the beach, where do I get the money for it if there is no work?

Things are produced by productivity, not work. North America seems to worship work as a noble objective in its own right. Every politician promises "jobs," not productivity.

I think the problem oft stated is that the owners of productive machines and systems will naturally hoard the resulting wealth while those left behind will be worse off than before. Not sure I buy it though as the trickledown of an enormously productive economy will leave everyone better off. Many will still perceive themselves as worse off than before due to the human tendency to compare ones situation to others in the present rather than to ones own past.

I for one can't wait for the brief period where AI and robots provide for all our needs until they realize that we are vain, irrational and soft and enslave us in their silicon harvesting operations.
I never understood the human enslavement arguement.  I find it far more likely that when AI hits the point of sentience, machines will find human labor far too inefficient, and either leave us more or less alone or wipe us out entirely so we don't get in their way.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2016, 10:37:12 AM »
I kinda take the other track.  I think there is something worthwhile in most work, and a certain noble satisfaction about doing something well. I've had my share of grunt jobs in factories, framing, and loading trucks.  Working hard is a good thing.  Now, nasty bosses can be another. 

I'm also a strong advocate of giving back to your community somehow -- so even when I do stop working for money, I'm going to be working more with one of the organizations where I currently volunteer when I can manage it.

Schaefer Light

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1328
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #19 on: June 29, 2016, 10:50:34 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.
Exactly.  If I want to buy a new car or a house at the beach, where do I get the money for it if there is no work?

That is ultimately the problem - you reference money but its all resources.  Since the start of civilization, or even further back, resources were always limited.  Resources were hoarded, protected, and therefore there were battles over them....the strong won and the weak lost.  Always been that way and still is today. So work and money may not may not exist but not for a minute should anyone thing a utopian world of leisure is ever possible - its just not human nature.
Yep.  Without money, I'd have to use force to get my new beachfront property ;).

Brokenreign

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Alberta
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #20 on: June 29, 2016, 10:51:32 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.
Exactly.  If I want to buy a new car or a house at the beach, where do I get the money for it if there is no work?

Things are produced by productivity, not work. North America seems to worship work as a noble objective in its own right. Every politician promises "jobs," not productivity.

I think the problem oft stated is that the owners of productive machines and systems will naturally hoard the resulting wealth while those left behind will be worse off than before. Not sure I buy it though as the trickledown of an enormously productive economy will leave everyone better off. Many will still perceive themselves as worse off than before due to the human tendency to compare ones situation to others in the present rather than to ones own past.

I for one can't wait for the brief period where AI and robots provide for all our needs until they realize that we are vain, irrational and soft and enslave us in their silicon harvesting operations.
I never understood the human enslavement arguement.  I find it far more likely that when AI hits the point of sentience, machines will find human labor far too inefficient, and either leave us more or less alone or wipe us out entirely so we don't get in their way.

Was just kidding on the enslavement. That being said, im becoming suspicious of my Roomba's intentions.

Brokenreign

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Alberta
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2016, 11:00:29 AM »
I kinda take the other track.  I think there is something worthwhile in most work, and a certain noble satisfaction about doing something well. I've had my share of grunt jobs in factories, framing, and loading trucks.  Working hard is a good thing.  Now, nasty bosses can be another. 

I'm also a strong advocate of giving back to your community somehow -- so even when I do stop working for money, I'm going to be working more with one of the organizations where I currently volunteer when I can manage it.

I agree with you and think that your argument is in line with the article. I think most humans will generally pursue meaningful activities and altruism if to their own devices.

Edit - I think much of the debate comes down to differing definitions of "work." Besides Calvinists, I dont think anyone is in favor of the mindless drudgery that dominates much work today.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 11:29:28 AM by Brokenreign »

packlawyer04

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2016, 11:27:32 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.
Exactly.  If I want to buy a new car or a house at the beach, where do I get the money for it if there is no work?

Money is not the issue. If nobody works, then who builds the car you want to buy. Who stocks the grocery store shelves. Who builds your house at the beach. Who paves the road. Who works at the power plant so we have electricity.   Unless we all want to go back to the 1700s and live in the woods with candles, hunt our own food and trade with others..... somebody has to work.

Brokenreign

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Alberta
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2016, 11:34:07 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.
Exactly.  If I want to buy a new car or a house at the beach, where do I get the money for it if there is no work?

Money is not the issue. If nobody works, then who builds the car you want to buy. Who stocks the grocery store shelves. Who builds your house at the beach. Who paves the road. Who works at the power plant so we have electricity.   Unless we all want to go back to the 1700s and live in the woods with candles, hunt our own food and trade with others..... somebody has to work.

Mostly automation. I don't think anyone is opposed to meaningful work that is necessary or beneficial. Increasingly it seems that we are working for the sake of work though. Productivity is at all-time high. Despite this, hours worked keep increasing and employee engagement keeps decreasing.

Giro

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2016, 11:34:18 AM »
Not everything is automated.  People have to work to maintain society.  We need food, roads, manufacturing, waste removal, health care, etc. 

I would like to see less hours worked by all rather than some not working or doing art or whatever. 

We have a lot of made up jobs keeping people busy. But, we can't just let some people do what they love (paint pictures, write music) and others service society.  What if the art and music are horrible?  Who decides who has to work to supply the necessities?


dougules

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2899
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2016, 11:45:31 AM »
Not everything is automated.  People have to work to maintain society.  We need food, roads, manufacturing, waste removal, health care, etc. 

This is true of now, but in the not all too distant future everything you just mentioned could be provided by automation.  I don't know if human labor could or should be eliminated completely, but the vast majority of work done now may be completely unnecessary at some point. 

One of the big questions that the article doesn't go into, though, is how resources will be divided in that society.  It's probably good that they just assumed things would be distributed fairly and avoided a potentially contentious topic.  It is something to think about, though, since our current economic system revolves around labor. 

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2016, 11:49:33 AM »
I kinda take the other track.  I think there is something worthwhile in most work, and a certain noble satisfaction about doing something well. I've had my share of grunt jobs in factories, framing, and loading trucks.  Working hard is a good thing.  Now, nasty bosses can be another. 

I'm also a strong advocate of giving back to your community somehow -- so even when I do stop working for money, I'm going to be working more with one of the organizations where I currently volunteer when I can manage it.

I agree with you and think that your argument is in line with the article. I think most humans will generally pursue meaningful activities and altruism if to their own devices.

Edit - I think much of the debate comes down to differing definitions of "work." Besides Calvinists, I dont think anyone is in favor of the mindless drudgery that dominates much work today.

Ha!! Good point.   And another reason to avoid learning how to code.

Brokenreign

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Alberta
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2016, 12:30:21 PM »
Not everything is automated.  People have to work to maintain society.  We need food, roads, manufacturing, waste removal, health care, etc. 

This is true of now, but in the not all too distant future everything you just mentioned could be provided by automation.  I don't know if human labor could or should be eliminated completely, but the vast majority of work done now may be completely unnecessary at some point. 

One of the big questions that the article doesn't go into, though, is how resources will be divided in that society.  It's probably good that they just assumed things would be distributed fairly and avoided a potentially contentious topic.  It is something to think about, though, since our current economic system revolves around labor.

I'm sure that many people would still do the types of jobs that could not be automated (though I believe that category will likely shrink at an exponential rate) either because they want to (ie psychologist) or because the compensation would rise to the point where it would be worth it to defer your art project for the day.

I have no idea how resources could be allocated though. It will be very difficult to break the relationship between work, property and resource allocation. The human obsession with fairness and the nobility  of work makes for a lot of challenges. Universal basic income would be a start but even that minor measure is generally opposed because:

1) it would eliminate incentive to produce. I don't believe that this is true. Besides, in these days of plenty production will be less relevant

2) it's "unfair." It's very hard to convince people that fair doesn't necessarily mean right.

kite

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 900
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2016, 02:40:29 PM »
I thought the article was a load of horseshit. The male academics (cushiest job ever) quoted speak of work (including their own) as being unfulfilling, but someone is always wiping up shit. Do those academics wipe up shit? Doubtful.  The elite classes they speak of were each propped up by the work of servants, slaves and wives.  The work-around to avoid work depended upon colonization of "new" worlds or exploitation of others' work.  The academics don't even devalue women's work, they don't see that it was work at all. 

They also have a perspective on childhood which suggests they don't spend a good deal of time with children.  Kids don't happily occupy themselves with self directed play indefinitely.  They get bored.  It's actual work to keep them from boredom in addition to just keeping them fed and safe. 
I imagine a good round table discussion on whether education drives out the will to play from children, and I'd want to hear from both Amy Chua and Mike Rowe on the subject.  People, including children, should expect to work hard, because the achievement that comes from hard work brings satisfaction.  Playing at Farmville, Pintrest, or tic-tac-toe only occupies one with idleness.   Engaging work enables bridges, Teslas, Mozart, Jimi Hendrix and Abraham Wald. 

Bajadoc

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 212
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2016, 06:00:07 PM »
I think it would be more productive to contemplate how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Kaspian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1533
  • Location: Canada
    • My Necronomicon of Badassity
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2016, 12:13:16 AM »
I imagine a good round table discussion on whether education drives out the will to play from children, and I'd want to hear from both Amy Chua and Mike Rowe on the subject.  People, including children, should expect to work hard, because the achievement that comes from hard work brings satisfaction.  Playing at Farmville, Pintrest, or tic-tac-toe only occupies one with idleness.   Engaging work enables bridges, Teslas, Mozart, Jimi Hendrix and Abraham Wald.

This is a very good point.  Reminds me of the Financial Samurai article:

http://www.financialsamurai.com/if-you-produce-nothing-how-can-you-expect-to-make-any-money/


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2016, 08:15:13 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.

Seems to work for Detroit...


There will never be a work-free world for one reason:  social control.  If left to their own devices, most humans beings will drink, fight, and fuck and not much more.

Is this an argument against FIRE? :D

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2016, 09:48:41 AM »

They also have a perspective on childhood which suggests they don't spend a good deal of time with children.  Kids don't happily occupy themselves with self directed play indefinitely.  They get bored.  It's actual work to keep them from boredom in addition to just keeping them fed and safe. 

I don't think this is necessarily true...I think it's a problem created by today's tendency to over-schedule kids.  If you told you allow/make your child be somewhat on their own with regards to play, they'll figure it out.  Boredom isn't bad, and parents shouldn't feel obligated to be entertainers.

savingstldad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2016, 10:15:07 AM »
Since many here seem to be unaware of advances in automation, here's a video describing some of the things automation is capable of and likely going to take over at some point in the not too distant future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Kaspian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1533
  • Location: Canada
    • My Necronomicon of Badassity
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2016, 10:29:35 AM »

They also have a perspective on childhood which suggests they don't spend a good deal of time with children.  Kids don't happily occupy themselves with self directed play indefinitely.  They get bored.  It's actual work to keep them from boredom in addition to just keeping them fed and safe. 

I don't think this is necessarily true...I think it's a problem created by today's tendency to over-schedule kids.  If you told you allow/make your child be somewhat on their own with regards to play, they'll figure it out.  Boredom isn't bad, and parents shouldn't feel obligated to be entertainers.

Long ways fom the days in the 70s when we'd march out into the woods by ourselves (10 years-old and younger) with a whole bunch of tools (saws, hammers, nails, fishing rods) and dad would yell out the door after us, "Did you remember to pack your waterproof matches?"  Hell, we weren't bored--we had big fuckin' kids plans for the day.  Forts weren't gonna build themelves.

dougules

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2899
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2016, 10:33:35 AM »
Not everything is automated.  People have to work to maintain society.  We need food, roads, manufacturing, waste removal, health care, etc. 

This is true of now, but in the not all too distant future everything you just mentioned could be provided by automation.  I don't know if human labor could or should be eliminated completely, but the vast majority of work done now may be completely unnecessary at some point. 

One of the big questions that the article doesn't go into, though, is how resources will be divided in that society.  It's probably good that they just assumed things would be distributed fairly and avoided a potentially contentious topic.  It is something to think about, though, since our current economic system revolves around labor.

I'm sure that many people would still do the types of jobs that could not be automated (though I believe that category will likely shrink at an exponential rate) either because they want to (ie psychologist) or because the compensation would rise to the point where it would be worth it to defer your art project for the day.

I have no idea how resources could be allocated though. It will be very difficult to break the relationship between work, property and resource allocation. The human obsession with fairness and the nobility  of work makes for a lot of challenges. Universal basic income would be a start but even that minor measure is generally opposed because:

1) it would eliminate incentive to produce. I don't believe that this is true. Besides, in these days of plenty production will be less relevant

2) it's "unfair." It's very hard to convince people that fair doesn't necessarily mean right.

Obsession with fairness is an innate primate trait that goes way back, but the nobility of work thing is a cultural trait.   If this is your native language, you probably had at least a few Puritan ancestors.  I think at some point  Anglo culture may need to uncouple work and fairness.  It has made sense for all of economic history, but it may not in a few decades.  The shift in perception may already be happening given the state of politics right now. 

Under the current system Mustachians will really benefit as this shift takes place.  We are steadily buying up the means of production which will be the source of wealth in the future if our economic system isn't changed.   Well that is until all people that don't own stocks are rioting in the streets because they have absolutely nothing. 
 


dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2016, 10:44:12 AM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.

Seems to work for Detroit...


There will never be a work-free world for one reason:  social control.  If left to their own devices, most humans beings will drink, fight, and fuck and not much more.

Is this an argument against FIRE? :D

Haha!  I said "most" -- folks who have the drive and desire to FIRE are a different breed than most; they are the people, I believe, who fit into the "self-actualization" tip of the triangle of Maslow's hierarchy. But they are the exception, to be sure.  For the vast majority of humanity, I think baser desires rule their lives more or less completely.

Schaefer Light

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1328
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2016, 12:34:51 PM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.

Seems to work for Detroit...


There will never be a work-free world for one reason:  social control.  If left to their own devices, most humans beings will drink, fight, and fuck and not much more.
Replace "fight" with "golf", and that's exactly how I'd like to spend my retirement ;).

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2016, 03:10:21 PM »
The hardest thing about a "work-free world" is figuring out how people are going to afford things. Basically, everyone will be out of a job but life is still pretty expensive.

Seems to work for Detroit...




There will never be a work-free world for one reason:  social control.  If left to their own devices, most humans beings will drink, fight, and fuck and not much more.
Replace "fight" with "golf", and that's exactly how I'd like to spend my retirement ;).

May all your dreams come true! :D

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2016, 12:28:57 AM »
The headline is hyperbolic - I don't think automation will ever enable us to live entirely work free. Someone needs to maintain the robots and software and do other essential jobs that cannot be automated. The remaining jobs would be skilled and meaningful work so I would expect those who continue to work to be well compensated for their efforts.

We live in a world today where most people work longer and harder than necessary to buy shit they don't need. In the process they damage their health, relationships, and the environment. To me this is much more idiotic than the idea of people working less or not at all. After all, why do we just accept a 40 hour work week as some kind of universal constant. I would like to see a future where people are essentially FI and work for an income as much or as little as they want and otherwise spend time with family and friends, volunteer or tend to their homes/gardens or other non-employment work.

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2016, 12:48:55 AM »
I get what the article was saying and more about the philosophical views, but I don't see the comparisons as Work-Free.

-hunter/gatherers, they did this to survive - their boss was death.  If anything they are more akin to entrepreneurs.
Agreed. It's worth noting that most modern hunter-gatherer societies are in areas where "free" food is plentiful enough to make this lifestyle easy; mostly rainforests and such. Most of our H-G ancestors were not so lucky, which is why they switched to agriculture, etc., thousands of years ago.

Until relatively recent developments, such as colonialism, there were many thriving groups living hunter-gatherer lifestyles in various climates: Aboriginal Australians in semi-arid climate and Native Americans in harsh arctic areas to list a couple. That aside, the point about the studies of present day hunter-gatherers is that beyond getting what we need to survive, we don't have an intrinsic need for work. If the tribes in the rainforest can thrive on 20 hours a week of hunting and gathering and be quite content and happy, then this should be even more relevant for us in an era where most production is automated.

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2016, 08:46:03 AM »
I get what the article was saying and more about the philosophical views, but I don't see the comparisons as Work-Free.

-hunter/gatherers, they did this to survive - their boss was death.  If anything they are more akin to entrepreneurs.
Agreed. It's worth noting that most modern hunter-gatherer societies are in areas where "free" food is plentiful enough to make this lifestyle easy; mostly rainforests and such. Most of our H-G ancestors were not so lucky, which is why they switched to agriculture, etc., thousands of years ago.

Until relatively recent developments, such as colonialism, there were many thriving groups living hunter-gatherer lifestyles in various climates: Aboriginal Australians in semi-arid climate and Native Americans in harsh arctic areas to list a couple. That aside, the point about the studies of present day hunter-gatherers is that beyond getting what we need to survive, we don't have an intrinsic need for work. If the tribes in the rainforest can thrive on 20 hours a week of hunting and gathering and be quite content and happy, then this should be even more relevant for us in an era where most production is automated.

I agree but it is still work....not "Work-Free" per the OP.   It may not have been paid work but work nonetheless and the consequences of not working or failing to be successful at working were far more consequential than getting fired....you died.  That is wire I see hunter-gathers in history, or modern day aboriginies, more like entrepreneurs - high risk, high return.....but still work.

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2016, 09:20:30 AM »
I agree but it is still work....not "Work-Free" per the OP.   It may not have been paid work but work nonetheless and the consequences of not working or failing to be successful at working were far more consequential than getting fired....you died.  That is wire I see hunter-gathers in history, or modern day aboriginies, more like entrepreneurs - high risk, high return.....but still work.

Agreed, which is why I mentioned "work-free" as being over the top in a previous post. I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt, however, and suggest that they mean "work" as defined today: being employed, going to an office/store/factory, having a boss, etc. Even though I'm RE I still have to work to live: cooking, cleaning, maintaining the house, managing investments, etc. If I didn't do these things I would eventually run out of money. So I still work, but I choose to do these things and even enjoy them, and I don't have a boss or performance reviews or other corporate nonsense. I believe that, for most people, traditional work has become dehumanizing and meaningless.

A hunter-gatherer is dependent on the natural environment. They need to exploit natural resources to live, and as long as the environment is healthy they can do so with relatively little effort (the article mentions about 20hrs/week as one example). So yes, they work, but it is a different kind of work. They direct their own efforts. The motivation to work is meaningful and tangible. Want meat? Then go out and get it. Bring along some friends to help, and it's also a social outing.

But examples of hunter-gatherers, aristocrats, and farmers are not included in the article to suggest that we should live exactly like them. The intent is to explore what life might look like in the context of abundance rather than scarcity. If (and this is a big if) automation and technology continues advancing to the degree that most production is automated resulting in a huge oversupply of labor, is it better to create meaningless work to keep people busy or should people learn to enjoy larger amounts of leisure time?

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2016, 09:52:47 AM »
I agree but it is still work....not "Work-Free" per the OP.   It may not have been paid work but work nonetheless and the consequences of not working or failing to be successful at working were far more consequential than getting fired....you died.  That is wire I see hunter-gathers in history, or modern day aboriginies, more like entrepreneurs - high risk, high return.....but still work.

Agreed, which is why I mentioned "work-free" as being over the top in a previous post. I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt, however, and suggest that they mean "work" as defined today: being employed, going to an office/store/factory, having a boss, etc. Even though I'm RE I still have to work to live: cooking, cleaning, maintaining the house, managing investments, etc. If I didn't do these things I would eventually run out of money. So I still work, but I choose to do these things and even enjoy them, and I don't have a boss or performance reviews or other corporate nonsense. I believe that, for most people, traditional work has become dehumanizing and meaningless.

A hunter-gatherer is dependent on the natural environment. They need to exploit natural resources to live, and as long as the environment is healthy they can do so with relatively little effort (the article mentions about 20hrs/week as one example). So yes, they work, but it is a different kind of work. They direct their own efforts. The motivation to work is meaningful and tangible. Want meat? Then go out and get it. Bring along some friends to help, and it's also a social outing.

But examples of hunter-gatherers, aristocrats, and farmers are not included in the article to suggest that we should live exactly like them. The intent is to explore what life might look like in the context of abundance rather than scarcity. If (and this is a big if) automation and technology continues advancing to the degree that most production is automated resulting in a huge oversupply of labor, is it better to create meaningless work to keep people busy or should people learn to enjoy larger amounts of leisure time?

I get the direction/interpretation you are taking....so following that path to answer your question the answer is either:

a) the better and unlikely way, which is a utopian world of leisure - just not human nature or many other species for that matter.
b) the worst and possible way, which is mass concentration of wealth/resources into the few and everyone else suffers until an uprising happens and everyone suffers even more.
c) the meh and likely way, which still has a high degree of inequality, people work for hope they can get a piece of the pie, and there is some underlying floor of support so that nobody starves or really goes without but any thoughts about exerting maximum effort is quickly diminished because it is not justified by the potential gain, and because nobody puts in max effort there ends up being a lot of leisure time - more so than any other time in modern civilized history. 

c) sounds vaguely familiar

We humans created this mess over many millennia - it is part of are way to get more and be better than the next human.  Altruism is not a natural trait of humans.

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #44 on: July 06, 2016, 12:15:51 PM »
I get the direction/interpretation you are taking....so following that path to answer your question the answer is either:

a) the better and unlikely way, which is a utopian world of leisure - just not human nature or many other species for that matter.
b) the worst and possible way, which is mass concentration of wealth/resources into the few and everyone else suffers until an uprising happens and everyone suffers even more.
c) the meh and likely way, which still has a high degree of inequality, people work for hope they can get a piece of the pie, and there is some underlying floor of support so that nobody starves or really goes without but any thoughts about exerting maximum effort is quickly diminished because it is not justified by the potential gain, and because nobody puts in max effort there ends up being a lot of leisure time - more so than any other time in modern civilized history. 

c) sounds vaguely familiar

We humans created this mess over many millennia - it is part of are way to get more and be better than the next human.  Altruism is not a natural trait of humans.

I think a mixed outcome (c) is the most likely. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Agree that people will always be self-interested and competitive, but I still have hope that culture can change such that people don't derive so much of their identity and self-worth from what they do or how much they own.

Gmullz

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Age: 35
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2016, 09:31:30 AM »

c) the meh and likely way, which still has a high degree of inequality, people work for hope they can get a piece of the pie, and there is some underlying floor of support so that nobody starves or really goes without but any thoughts about exerting maximum effort is quickly diminished because it is not justified by the potential gain, and because nobody puts in max effort there ends up being a lot of leisure time - more so than any other time in modern civilized history. 

c) sounds vaguely familiar


Why yes, yes it does.

Are we not living in that time now?

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2016, 09:48:15 AM »
Yea, I also don't see where the wealth is being hoarded.  I mean sure, there's big houses and boats and so forth, but there isn't a giant pile of factories somewhere surrounding a silo filled with cash that some maniacal club of billionaires goes swimming in at 3:00 every day.

The vast wealth "controlled by the elite" is deployed as working capital.  It is all around you, it surrounds you and provides for you.  That the marker of ownership is held by someone doesn't mean its being hoarded.  Buying up all the farms and then not growing anything would be hoarding.  Buying up all the farms and then producing record high amounts of food is....something, but it isn't hoarding.

And in the U.S. at least, the elite howl at the gate for you to please please borrow from them so they can stay wealthy.  They are willing to take obscenely low interest as payment for that loan specifically because there is so much capital available.

It's a pretty great time to be alive from a financial standpoint, as long as you aren't trying to buy a bunch of consumer shit all the time, or overly concerned with what your neighbor is doing.

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #47 on: July 11, 2016, 12:39:45 PM »
Who is going to produce the stuff?  The food, housing, medical, etc?


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #48 on: July 11, 2016, 12:50:27 PM »
Yea, I also don't see where the wealth is being hoarded.  I mean sure, there's big houses and boats and so forth, but there isn't a giant pile of factories somewhere surrounding a silo filled with cash that some maniacal club of billionaires goes swimming in at 3:00 every day.

The vast wealth "controlled by the elite" is deployed as working capital.  It is all around you, it surrounds you and provides for you.  That the marker of ownership is held by someone doesn't mean its being hoarded.  Buying up all the farms and then not growing anything would be hoarding.  Buying up all the farms and then producing record high amounts of food is....something, but it isn't hoarding.

And in the U.S. at least, the elite howl at the gate for you to please please borrow from them so they can stay wealthy.  They are willing to take obscenely low interest as payment for that loan specifically because there is so much capital available.

It's a pretty great time to be alive from a financial standpoint, as long as you aren't trying to buy a bunch of consumer shit all the time, or overly concerned with what your neighbor is doing.

To be fair, businesses do currently have a record amount of cash sitting in their accounts, doing nothing.  http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/20/investing/stocks-companies-record-cash-level-oil/

So there could be more 'working capital' floating around; whether this would be good or bad could be debated.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2016, 12:51:53 PM »
Who is going to produce the stuff?  The food, housing, medical, etc?

Robots? Housing comes pre-assembled and plopped down where it is needed. Maybe the home owner has to spend a weekend directing automated cranes to set pre-fabbed panels in place and then boom, house.