Because being without a job and having bills to pay is a scary thing.

All work and no play makes Frank a dull boy....

Buuuuuuut,

All play and no $$$ makes Frank a homeless, hungry, cold boy with a cardboard sign at the intersection.

Besides, I like to work. I think Marx was right, that having a job where you feel ownership and pride and satisfaction is an essential part of being a fulfilled human being.

Tzeentch
579
Because being without a job and having bills to pay is a scary thing. — Tzeentch

Why not just come to the realization that we have MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone...and just find a more efficient system to distribute the bounty...one that doesn't involve being forced to work.

The people who want to work will be able to work...and the people who do not want to work (who are mostly very inefficient and harm productivity by being forced to work)...can do whatever they would rather be doing.

Artemis
1.7k
↪Frank Apisa

All work and no play makes Frank a dull boy....

Buuuuuuut,

All play and no $$$ makes Frank a homeless, hungry, cold boy with a cardboard sign at the intersection.

Besides, I like to work. I think Marx was right, that having a job where you feel ownership and pride and satisfaction is an essential part of being a fulfilled human being. — Artemis

Read what I wrote above. Why are we so wedded to the idea that people must work...in order to have the stuff they need for a reasonable life?

Me...I'm like you. I like to work. I'm 83...and I don't have to work, but I do. Not a lot...just two days a week...and the money I make pays for a few things. (Since I work at a golf course, it also provides the free golf I crave as a perk.)

We've got more than enough for everyone, Artemis.

Why not just distribute it better...and without the requirement to work. Leave the work to those who want to work. They do a better job of it. And they will be paid better for their work...so that they can have more than just adequate.

Why people cheer at more work? Because they are Americans. It is a deeply rooted moral, social and economic reality for Americans to work. Even the richest person in America is "working". It is a shame, really, in America to be not working. It means you are poor, and furhtermore, that you are lazy, no good, hit the road, Frank, and don't you come back no more no more no more hit the road Frank and don't you come back no more.

To work is more a privilege and a right, and more a responsibility and a duty in America, than it was ever was in the now defunct communist countries during communist era, where it was the LAW that everyone must work, unless disabled. You had the right and the responsibility to work. If you were put out, the gov found you a job in a few days. IN America the same thing, but not by the LAW, but by the pressure of public MORALS.

Read what I wrote above. Why are we so wedded to the idea that people must work...in order to have the stuff they need for a reasonable life? — Frank Apisa

I agree with that, and I agree that in an ideal society all basic needs would be provided for. Of course, we'd still need to ensure that people work, or else we wouldn't have much of the abundance we do have...

But you asked why people right now cheer for politicians promising jobs, and the answer is mostly that people know that society right now does not provide for people who don't want to work.

Now, a more interesting phenomenon is that a significant portion of Americans have been led to believe that they don't want handouts and want to work hard for every crust of bread the elites will condescend to toss in their direction... Brainwashing if I've ever seen it.

We've got more than enough for everyone, Artemis.

Why not just distribute it better...and without the requirement to work. Leave the work to those who want to work. They do a better job of it. And they will be paid better for their work...so that they can have more than just adequate. — Frank Apisa

But how, exactly, do we distribute it better? We'd need a system that accounts for people's needs and desires, and also presumably for their willingness to work, since someone still has to do all the work and distribution.

A market economy happens to solve these issues, a well regulated market economy can even do so without a lot of terrible outcomes.

Just saying "there is enough for everybody" doesn't cut it, unfortunately.

Why not just come to the realization that we have MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone... — Frank Apisa

Shouldn't people decide for themselves what is enough, though?

The people who want to work will be able to work...and the people who do not want to work (who are mostly very inefficient and harm productivity by being forced to work)...can do whatever they would rather be doing. — Frank Apisa

It's an interesting idea, but I think certain consequences need to be considered.

It makes large groups of people completely dependent on their government, and this would have a great impact on the amount of power that government has over those people. What happens when a government starts to leverage that power? What happens to these people when circumstances change and the money to finance them is no longer available?

Being complete dead-weight to a society makes those people extremely vulnerable.

Good point.

You want good process; jobs are just growth.

Less priviatised life, more schools of arrangement.

Job centres, Training and then job, no wait times, no grades. The mind is more capable.

Our inteference capacity over the world, would allow Government stimulus to add workers, though it is logically strict and the odds are against us, probably wiser to sort out a newer system.

:gasp:

Because leisure is secondary to taking care of one’s responsibilities and duty to provide for himself and his family.

Only the devil makes work for idle hands. But puritans are very devilish.

Too bad that. More free time makes more sense.
But...if you think having life be easier and more pleasure for those who would prefer it...is something to scorn...show it as much contempt as you want.

Yup.

We come a long way, technologically.

We should not have to work anywhere near as hard as we used to have to work.

But back in the 1950's...the norm was for only one person (usually the father was the provider) in the family to work...and that person earned enough for shelter, medical needs, education, transportation, food, clothing and all other needs...plus small vacations and even some savings for later years.

Today...after the introduction of billions of slave machines...both parents work...sometimes with more than one job...and basic needs are barely met.

During my lifetime, normal work went from 45 hours during 5 1/2 days a week...to 40 hours 5 days a week. That was back in the 1950's.

We should be working 2 days a week...10 hours now.

This all sucks.

There is plenty for everyone...DOES WORK.

It requires some adjustment in thinking.

This is a PHILOSOPHY forum.

Let's discuss the philosophical implications.

Shouldn't people decide for themselves what is enough, though? — Tzeentch

Absolutely. But I argue that one of the choices should be, "Not work as much as we are almost forced to work now."

I suspect a lot of people will choose that option. And we will still have plenty if we plan correctly.

It's an interesting idea, but I think certain consequences need to be considered.

It makes large groups of people completely dependent on their government, and this would have a great impact on the amount of power that government has over those people. What happens when a government starts to leverage that power? What happens to these people when circumstances change and the money to finance them is no longer available?

Being complete dead-weight to a society makes those people extremely vulnerable. — Tzeentch

What you are saying is: There are philosophical implications that must be considered.

I agree.

The concept of "earning a living" stopped making sense a long time ago. — Anthony

It has indeed, Anthony.

The Protestant Work Ethic has us in its vices...and will not give up its grip even a bit.

For many...even considering making life more pleasurable...with less toil and more leisure...is uncomfortable.

We gotta get over that.

Absolutely. But I argue that one of the choices should be, "Not work as much as we are almost forced to work now."

I suspect a lot of people will choose that option. And we will still have plenty if we plan correctly. — Frank Apisa

No one forces one to work. I don't see people choosing for the "work less, have less" voluntarily very often, though.

No one forces one to work. — Tzeentch

No one forces you to lie.

But in both cases, someone might well make your life unpleasant to unbearable if you don't.

EVERYONE should have sufficient...EVERYONE should have plenty. What do we not have enough of?

And the way things are now...YES...people ARE forced to work.

EVERYONE should have sufficient...EVERYONE should have plenty. What do we not have enough of? — Frank Apisa

It depends on what you mean with "we" and "everyone".

And the way things are now...YES...people ARE forced to work. — Frank Apisa

No, they're not. People just feel that way because they really like the benefits that working (or more specifically, money) brings.

Tzeentch
582
EVERYONE should have sufficient...EVERYONE should have plenty. What do we not have enough of?
— Frank Apisa

It depends on what you mean with "we" and "everyone".

And the way things are now...YES...people ARE forced to work.
— Frank Apisa

No, they're not. People just feel that way because they really like the benefits that working (or more specifically, money) brings. — Tzeentch

So...have you seen any good movies lately.

Or read any good books.

Um, sure. But what does that have to do with anything?

Tzeentch
584
↪Frank Apisa Um, sure. But what does that have to do with anything? — Tzeentch

I've been at this a long time, Tz. Started in Abuzz, the New York Times/Boston Globe forum...the best I've ever been in.,

One thing I've learned over the years is...when you are in a discussion with someone who asks what you mean by words like "we" and "everyone"...best to just change the subject.

If you want to just fuck around...no problem. There are times when I want to do that...and I do. You have every right to do it if you choose.

But right now, if YOU do...go do it with someone else.

If you actually want to discuss, though, I am more than happy to accommodate.

↪god must be atheist Too bad that. More free time makes more sense.
But...if you think having life be easier and more pleasure for those who would prefer it...is something to scorn...show it as much contempt as you want. — Frank Apisa

I apologize. I did not mean to scorn you. I just quoted an old song by Ray Charles, and I used your name instead of the one, "Jack", which was used in the song. A creative effort. But I see now how damaging it must have been. So I apologize to you. Sorry.

We should not have to work anywhere near as hard as we used to have to work.

But back in the 1950's...the norm was for only one person (usually the father was the provider) in the family to work...and that person earned enough for shelter, medical needs, education, transportation, food, clothing and all other needs...plus small vacations and even some savings for later years.

Today...after the introduction of billions of slave machines...both parents work...sometimes with more than one job...and basic needs are barely met.

During my lifetime, normal work went from 45 hours during 5 1/2 days a week...to 40 hours 5 days a week. That was back in the 1950's.

We should be working 2 days a week...10 hours now.

This all sucks. — Frank Apisa

This is true. The sad thing is it is not an unfortunate coincidence that we are forced to work so much. It is by design.

We don’t need much to be happy. Shelter, food, love, fun. We could have all that working 10 hours a week, if education was focused on teaching us how to get that. Instead education is focused on indoctrinating us into being pawns of a system that enslaves us through money and that progressively destroys the planet. Education doesn’t help us taking care of ourselves or being happy, it teaches us to become obedient and productive and dependent slaves who do not question the status quo. The powers that be do not want our freedom and happiness, they want our enslavement. That’s why things are the way they are.

The real powers aren’t the presidents, they are those who control money. Those who control the central banks, who can issue money out of thin air, while everyone else is struggling for it. People kill one another over money, kill themselves over money, make wars over money, struggle constantly for money, while there are some individuals out there who can create it out of thin air, while lending it with interest. We are kept in a constant state of debt. There is more debt than money in circulation, it can never be repaid! That keeps people struggling constantly, struggling while going nowhere, just struggling within a system that wants them to struggle. Why is it that pretty much all countries are in debt? Debt to whom? Debt to the central banks. They are the ones truly ruling us. The ones who rule the presidents.

The presidential candidates who want to change this system do not get elected. If they do manage to get elected, they are demonized constantly by the media who too are controlled by the same powers, and usually they end up being assassinated. That’s what we’re up against. Deep down you know that if the presidents were the ones truly in control and working for our best interest, things wouldn’t be that way. Despite all the people struggling for positive change, things don’t turn positive because on the other side there is a strong force working against us, against our happiness and against our freedom. That’s why we have to work so much just to be worse off than in the past. This isn’t some unfortunate circumstance, this is wanted, this is by design. And those who are responsible want us to stay asleep, struggling within a box against one another while they are free to enslave us more and more. We are their pawns, their slaves, and we will be slaves and things will continue to get worse as long as people don’t wake up to what’s going on.

Considering the amount of goods the USA imports from other countries, I'd say it's a relevant question.

No problemo! I just went back and read my response. I came on a bit strong in that reply. I musta been having a bad day yesterday. Lots of my replies were a bit over-the- top.

My bad.

Right on, Leo.

Things have got to change.

We have got to be working much, much less...and enjoying leisure time a lot more. ESPECIALLY here in America...where we are driven by the work ethic more than almost anywhere else.

I just hope we pull it off peacefully...rather than be pushed into a destructive revolution of some kind. I want to see some politicians actually speaking up the problem.

None around at the moment that I can see.

↪Frank Apisa Considering the amount of goods the USA imports from other countries, I'd say it's a relevant question. — Tzeentch

I don't, but perhaps you are correct.

I could suggest:

Why not try answering my question, but preferencing your response with something like, "Assuming that by 'we' you mean _____" and "Assuming that by 'everyone' you mean_____?"

But whether I mean just Americans when I use "we" and just Americans when I use "everyone"...

...or if I mean "all humans on the planet" when I use "we" and "every human on the planet" when I use everyone...

...what real difference would it make to my question?

On a global scale we humans collectively now have the capability to produce MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone on the planet to have plenty (more than just enough to stay alive)...without everyone working anywhere near as hard as many of us (all we humans) are now working.