this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
908 points (85.4% liked)
Antiwork
8282 readers
1 users here now
-
We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.
-
We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.
Partnerships:
- Matrix/Element chatroom
- Discord (channel: #antiwork)
- IRC: #antiwork on IRCNow.org (i.e., connect to ircs://irc.ircnow.org and
/join #antiwork) - Your facebook group link here
- Your x link here
- lemmy.ca/c/antiwork
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Again, in nature, if you don't work and find food, you die. No animal with a consciousness just hangs out and survives. Similarly, I don't see any reason why a person just gets to chill because they don't want to work while others work to feed and provide for them. But maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.
????? Are you kidding? For most of human history people have worked way longer hours for more days than we do now. In the feudal era, the vast majority of people didn't own much besides a shirt or two. They would build a shelter (which was technically owned by whomever owned the land it wase on) often a single room structure without a proper chimney so it was smoky, smelly and filled with a large number of children (as well as the multitude of pests that lived in the thatch roof, which generally leaked.) The large number of children was necessary because the land needed more hands to work it from dawn to dusk and most of those children died incredibly young. Even though someone would work the land all year, the food they grew wasn't theirs and they could be killed for eating it instead of providing it to their lord.
And that was a VAST improvement from the plebians and slaves that made up the majority of people in empires before them. You think the folks who built the pyramids were on vacation?
Heck, during the industrial revolution, people were housed in large dormitories where they would trudge to work 70 hour work weeks and in return, earn just enough to keep them alive, maybe a bit extra for gin.
There's a reason the Myth of Sysyphus (Camus) starts by stating "There is but one serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy."
Life has been unpleasant for most people for most of human existence. And it's not wildly better across much of the world. Ask the children who lost their limbs mining the cobalt in our phones, or the ones working 12 - 14 hours a day (and occasionally burn to death doing so as it's easier to lock fire escapes to prevent people from escaping) every day, to make our cheap clothes. Or any Ethiopian how the last few years have been.
Yes, society could and should be better. Like I said, there are lots of serious issues. But providing for everyone who simply chooses not to work? Not in my top hundred priorities. To paraphrase George Carlin, some rich (globally speaking) fuck doesn't want to eat? Fuck em. Don't eat. I don't give a shit.
My heart bleeds for those unable to work, whether because of trauma, mental or physical issues. We need to support those folks and we need to do it better. But this whiny, I didn't ask to be born and I don't want to work? Nope, you're not special and don't get to skip the work life that everyone else has to deal with. Especially when there are people dying literally every day just for a chance to work a worse job for less money. It's mind bogglingly, I dunno if you'd call it selfish, self centered or just ignorant but I have no respect for it.
No, I'm not. If you want to get an idea of how things have changed to become more financially constraining, I recommend the book Walden by Thoreau, which offers financial specifics which can be compared to modern circumstances (the cost of housing relative to labor is of particular interest). If you want to consider more distant history, I highly recommend the book Debt: The First 5000 Years.
I'll just point out that what I'm talking about is Universal Basic Income, not the sort of program that is sometimes described as 'Basic Income' that is means tested and only pays people who are very poor but where benefits rapidly drop off if they start earning money. The main beneficiaries of UBI are working people, especially if the program is designed as a remedy to wealth inequality, and has a funding mechanism that focuses on large concentrations of wealth rather than clawing back job income.
I don't think Walden is really the best choice if you're going to look at human history... I mean, it's written by a white guy who was one of the 2% or so of people who had a post secondary education who was only able to build his house because he was squatting on his buddy's land... Were someone willing to grant you the land, you could buy the same materials he used for about the same price, if not cheaper. (As long as you were willing to spend however many years building and convincing others to help you build as he did.) And besides that, it's in a somewhat unique point in history/space where the United States had plenty of land and was rapidly expanding, that's fairly unusual in human history. (At that point, it was far more common to live in large shared housing rampant with rats and disease. You might look at The Condition of the Working Class in England, which noted that almost half of all children died before age 5.)
I'll put it very simply, would you say that your life is better or worse than the average person in the feudal era? Or the Roman times? Or Greek? Or Egyptian? Or during the industrial revolution?
Yeah, I'd much rather an extremely progressive tax system wherein the wealthy are taxed significantly and we can use the revenue to support the working poor (subsidizing housing, expenses etc.) None of this is a reason why someone should be able to declare they don't want to work but society is still indebted to them and owes them housing and food.
That's not the same as being able to build something you can legally live in. And I'm not referring specifically to his circumstances, the book goes into what costs were for people in general (dramatically lower for housing, clothes and food were more of a bottleneck, but clearly a more flexible one). Even considering a greater availability of habitable land, it doesn't account for the difference. It should be clear from things like the ratio of wages to productivity and measures of wealth inequality that especially in recent history the bulk of people are getting squeezed, and their agency over their lives and how they are spent has been in decline for a long time.
Maybe not, but it's a reason why appealing to a comparison with the struggling working poor makes no sense. Those people would also be lifted up, and to a greater extent; the most elegant aspect of UBI is that by granting workers the ability to say no, it gives them a negotiating power that would be more flexible, effective, and has fewer negative externalities than specific employment regulations might. Any jobs that are unsafe, have an abusive work environment, etc. will need to find some balance of improved conditions and higher pay, being no longer being able to prey on desperate people forced to sell themselves. The OP framing of this as being about consent is absolutely correct, and I think there exists no other hypothetical measures that could possibly solve these issues as cleanly, because all issues of poverty are inherently about a lack of agency and safety, and restraining employers does not itself grant a worker agency. Giving them money not tied to employment does.
I'll happily answer the rest but you keep focusing on the account of one of the most privileged people of the time (again, only 2% of the population had the luxury of a post secondary education.)
I keep asking a simple question and getting no answer, but I'll try again:
Simply put, would you have rather been an average person from say, 0 BC to 1800? If so, where/when?
I don't think his level of privilege has much bearing on the approximate accuracy of the numbers he cites, which are what is relevant to my argument. I don't think he was making that stuff up.
No, my own life has gone well enough, I got what I wanted. What I'm advocating for isn't anything I need for myself. But when I talk or read the accounts of people who feel financially trapped, particularly young people, there isn't any realistic advice to offer. What worked out for me isn't reproducible and isn't available to them. I don't have a deep enough knowledge of history to talk about specific times and places. But for someone who resents the life that has been chosen for them and doesn't want it, sure, why wouldn't they be better off rolling the dice with historical circumstances? The specific malaise affecting them now was not there, and maybe whatever hardships would be faced instead would be more tolerable to them. But there's no reason that should be the standard anyway. We are so rich in resources compared to any other time, there is no justification for anyone to be trapped like that. Everyone can be free to do what they want, and so they should.
I think I have said all I have to say on this. It bothers me that you seem to think it's acceptable to let people who find their work intolerable to fall into despair and kill themselves, but you've made some valid arguments and it's refreshing to discuss this with someone who does not seem to be a property rights absolutist, so thanks for sharing your perspective.
Edit: One last thing I want to mention, beyond making a point about whether the progress of civilization is a strict improvement, Debt: The First 5000 Years is also a comprehensive critique of the moral logic of debt. If it seems strange to reject that logic, I again recommend that book.