Author Topic: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?  (Read 12205 times)

kite

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 900
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2016, 05:06:58 PM »

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.
I meant from the moment of actual labor to deliver said child until that kiddo can make his own sandwiches or read a book by herself to figure out how to replace the innards on a toilet.  It's all work to feed & educate & potty train.  But it's "women's work" so it's invisible to the academics who just assume the community will come together and help raise kids in a village or some shit.  Like those Kindergarten teachers don't go home exhausted from real work?!?!?!  Like they don't want to get paid or retire with a pension?!?!?!?!!  Like the mechanic who fixes the car your teen wrecks does so out of love for cars alone, not because he gets paid to put on a new bumper?!?!?!  Like the HPV vaccine, the orthodontia, the hockey skates all just show up in the barter economy.  Yup, yup. 
Medicine
Coaching
Child Care
Cooking
Cleaning
Chauferring
Teaching

It's work.

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #51 on: July 13, 2016, 09:27:28 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.
I meant from the moment of actual labor to deliver said child until that kiddo can make his own sandwiches or read a book by herself to figure out how to replace the innards on a toilet.  It's all work to feed & educate & potty train.  But it's "women's work" so it's invisible to the academics who just assume the community will come together and help raise kids in a village or some shit.  Like those Kindergarten teachers don't go home exhausted from real work?!?!?!  Like they don't want to get paid or retire with a pension?!?!?!?!!  Like the mechanic who fixes the car your teen wrecks does so out of love for cars alone, not because he gets paid to put on a new bumper?!?!?!  Like the HPV vaccine, the orthodontia, the hockey skates all just show up in the barter economy.  Yup, yup. 
Medicine
Coaching
Child Care
Cooking
Cleaning
Chauferring
Teaching

It's work.

Yes it's work. But it's work without a boss in the traditional sense. No performance reviews. No office politics. No RIFs. No reorgs. Don't feel like going to swimming lessons today? Screw it, we'll do it another time! Don't feel like cleaning? Then don't, the world won't end if you don't clean today. So although it's work, it's self directed work, and the sense of purpose is higher than most (not all) jobs where people are cogs in a very large wheel while having little sense of importance or meaning. Instead you're spending time with your family, caring for them. Doing work for those you love is different than working for a corp.

I'll also point out that people are generally doing the work you've described PLUS traditional work. Given the choice, most people would be very happy to only focus on the work of taking care of their families.

asauer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #52 on: July 13, 2016, 11:44:41 AM »
Great article!  Thanks for posting!  I think this article should be titled "Would a JOB free world...".  Because the psychological aspects of having no work are very negative.  But work doesn't need to mean a job.  I coach individuals on the emotional/ life side of retirement planning (very underserved area) and I have to frame this for nearly all of my clients.  I have to help them see that work is just purpose, not going to a certain place at a certain time everyday.  Work can mean, helping a grandchild learn car maintenance or starting a book club.  Hell, work could mean going to the gym everyday or learning to finally cook!  It just takes reframing b/c of society's push on "the job". 

tct

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #53 on: July 13, 2016, 01:50:03 PM »
I hope not. Our national parks are crowded enough. Can't imagine what they'd be like if most people didn't have to work.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #54 on: July 13, 2016, 01:51:26 PM »
I hope not. Our national parks are crowded enough. Can't imagine what they'd be like if most people didn't have to work.

Many more young buffalo would be endangered....

dougules

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2899
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #55 on: July 14, 2016, 10:53:12 AM »
I hope not. Our national parks are crowded enough. Can't imagine what they'd be like if most people didn't have to work.

There are so many great places in state parks, national forests, BLM Land, national seashores, etc.  Even some of the more popular national parks have less popular areas where you can be nearly alone.  It would be nice to get some publicity for those places to take some of the pressure off the popular ones like Yosemite, the Smokies, and the Grand Canyon. 

Maybe it's possible that some people actually enjoy experiencing the great outdoors with a lot of other people and just won't admit it.  If we can keep them from tearing up national treasures there's nothing wrong with that.  The places that really are fragile probably should have the roads and parking lots removed. 

kite

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 900
Re: Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?
« Reply #56 on: July 14, 2016, 01:22:45 PM »

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.
I meant from the moment of actual labor to deliver said child until that kiddo can make his own sandwiches or read a book by herself to figure out how to replace the innards on a toilet.  It's all work to feed & educate & potty train.  But it's "women's work" so it's invisible to the academics who just assume the community will come together and help raise kids in a village or some shit.  Like those Kindergarten teachers don't go home exhausted from real work?!?!?!  Like they don't want to get paid or retire with a pension?!?!?!?!!  Like the mechanic who fixes the car your teen wrecks does so out of love for cars alone, not because he gets paid to put on a new bumper?!?!?!  Like the HPV vaccine, the orthodontia, the hockey skates all just show up in the barter economy.  Yup, yup. 
Medicine
Coaching
Child Care
Cooking
Cleaning
Chauferring
Teaching

It's work.

Yes it's work. But it's work without a boss in the traditional sense. No performance reviews. No office politics. No RIFs. No reorgs. Don't feel like going to swimming lessons today? Screw it, we'll do it another time! Don't feel like cleaning? Then don't, the world won't end if you don't clean today. So although it's work, it's self directed work, and the sense of purpose is higher than most (not all) jobs where people are cogs in a very large wheel while having little sense of importance or meaning. Instead you're spending time with your family, caring for them. Doing work for those you love is different than working for a corp.

I'll also point out that people are generally doing the work you've described PLUS traditional work. Given the choice, most people would be very happy to only focus on the work of taking care of their families.

On Tuesday, a friend (retired, wealthy) treated me to a Paul McCartney concert in Philadelphia.  She's brought me dozens of times. Back in the day, they checked your ticket and let you in.  Perhaps they sold nachos, beer, soft pretzels (it is Philly) or a hot dog.  And there'd be a couple security guys guarding the stage.
But today, in 2016, there are additional people working security to check your bags before you get in.  There are people selling bottled water.  Further down toward the stage, there are people whose job it is to dump your bottled water into a cup so that you can't throw a bottle of water like a missile.  In the old Veterans Stadium or Shea Stadium, you got water out of a fountain.  These days (Citizens Bank Park or CitiField), it's delivered (bottler employees, truck driver, sellers AND people hauling bottles away!).  There's also a stunning array of food choices at the stadium.  Sir Paul, after all.  So there's vegan choices; but lets not forget that gluten sensitive people want to eat, too.  All this choice needs more people prepping and selling, delivering, packaging and cleaning up. 
There used to be a few roadies who pushed pianos around and tuned the string instruments.  They're still around, but so are the video and pyrotechnics people. 
It all adds up to more work, not less; more jobs, not fewer.  This is what the music business evolved to because of human nature and desire.  This whole evening was for the entertainment of those with plenty of money.  A significant number of us were retired.  We have it to spend, and we spend it instead of sitting home and using technology to hear some Beatles or Wings tunes.  In the decades since the advent of recorded music, Sony Walkman, MP3 players, Sirius Satellite Radio and youtube, there are exponentially more people involved in putting on a concert featuring a 74 year old rock star.
There are jobs like nail technician or bikini waxer that make you scratch your head because these seem like self service occupations, at least they were things people did for themselves once upon a time.  But today, Massage Envy is a franchise!  A ubiquitous franchise.  When people have money, they pay others to paint their toes, rub their backs and rip the hair of their body parts. 
I get the mustachian premise that we could retire, be more self sufficient, barter, etc.  But the wealth that makes it possible is the same kind of privelege that can make work and workers invisible. 
So when academics wax philosophically about a world without work or without jobs, I question why so much work remains invisible to them.  Those quoted in this article sound like the quintessential Ivory tower types, so removed both from labor and from human nature that spurs demand for more labor that I question their fitness to even be educators. They ought to take a sabbatical and work on a cruise ship or at a nursing home.