Options

Anti-work: Not Safe For Work, or is Work Not Safe For Us?

245

Posts

  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2010
    Nocturne wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    The question here is how much of that time is actually spent working? How often do people get done with their job early, or spend the first hour or two of the day not working?

    I've found that there are few people like myself who, in the event a task is done early for the night, will find other productive things to do. It's one of the constant praises I've gotten in every job I've had and I take a metric ton of pride in it.

    There's a lot of people out there who, when they recognize their job is almost done, shift gears and slow down just to fill the gap. People want to get paid but they don't wanna work.

    Feel free to give yourself a gold star for that, but for a lot of desk jobs there simply aren't other productive things to do.

    Unless I were to like, sweep the floor or something.

    But thats where someone higher up should be meeting out more work to do and/or judging the work conducted to have been completed in a just time.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    The question here is how much of that time is actually spent working? How often do people get done with their job early, or spend the first hour or two of the day not working?

    I've found that there are few people like myself who, in the event a task is done early for the night, will find other productive things to do. It's one of the constant praises I've gotten in every job I've had and I take a metric ton of pride in it.

    There's a lot of people out there who, when they recognize their job is almost done, shift gears and slow down just to fill the gap. People want to get paid but they don't wanna work.

    Feel free to give yourself a gold star for that, but for a lot of desk jobs there simply aren't other productive things to do.

    Unless I were to like, sweep the floor or something.

    Ah sorry, I meant to specifically note I was talking about physical jobs. Desk jobs, yeah I guess you're SOL there. But there's got to be something. If not, why are we paying people to be at their desk job for a long time if it only takes half the time to get their daily duties finished?

    Because work ebbs and flows. Sometimes there's so much to do that everyone is working at 110%, and other times a lot of people are bored. You can't just fire people, you'll need them later.

    NotYou on
  • Options
    NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    The question here is how much of that time is actually spent working? How often do people get done with their job early, or spend the first hour or two of the day not working?

    I've found that there are few people like myself who, in the event a task is done early for the night, will find other productive things to do. It's one of the constant praises I've gotten in every job I've had and I take a metric ton of pride in it.

    There's a lot of people out there who, when they recognize their job is almost done, shift gears and slow down just to fill the gap. People want to get paid but they don't wanna work.

    Feel free to give yourself a gold star for that, but for a lot of desk jobs there simply aren't other productive things to do.

    Unless I were to like, sweep the floor or something.

    Ah sorry, I meant to specifically note I was talking about physical jobs. Desk jobs, yeah I guess you're SOL there. But there's got to be something. If not, why are we paying people to be at their desk job for a long time if it only takes half the time to get their daily duties finished?

    That is the golden question. A lot of the answer lies in what defines a "full time employee" and all the benefits associated with it.

    You'll notice a world of difference when you're working a part time job. Like, you know, getting sent home if there's no work for you to do.

    But again, at the cost of any sort of health insurance and reliable income.

    Nocturne on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Nocturne wrote: »
    That is the golden question. A lot of the answer lies in what defines a "full time employee" and all the benefits associated with it.

    You'll notice a world of difference when you're working a part time job. Like, you know, getting sent home if there's no work for you to do.

    But again, at the cost of any sort of health insurance and reliable income.

    If it were easier for me to get health insurance, I'd probably go back to a part-time schedule and just eat the difference in income by reducing my lifestyle. I work full-time mostly for the benefits.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    i support this philosophy of work as necessary evil, wholeheartedly

    I struggle between two poles.

    On the one hand, I understand why it's important to have a job that you love, that is meaningful to you.

    On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain that it's healthy to define yourself by your occupation. I cringe a little bit when the first question somebody asks me at a party is, "So what do you do for a living?" First off, I don't want to be identified by my job. Secondly, why do we use the word "living" when talking about an occupation? I don't live to work, I work to live (and I wish I didn't have to, at that).

    Isn't that exactly what that question you dislike is asking? "What do you do (to earn) a living."

    They don't ask, "What is the job that defines your life?"

    Which is often times shortened to "What do you do?" In codespeak, they are asking what is your job because that is what you do, consequently, what you "do" then defines you.

    "Who was Jimmy?"
    "Oh, he was the cars salesman at the party"

    Lilnoobs on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Hm.

    So, the point of this anti-work movement is to allow people to sit around on the internet at home, instead of sitting around on the internet at work? Meh.
    Honestly, what would people do with all of that free time? I suppose some people would think and ruminate, but most people would be more bored than they usually are.

    It might just be a part of our genes. We needed to be hardwired to need work, otherwise we'd just sit around and be eaten. Now that we have all of this wealth, these riches, and we've automated most of the useful stuff, we don't have anything to do any more, do we?

    At the same time, as I said, people need to be valued. They need to have someone else, whether it be a person or a system, validate their existence in some way. If their hours were cut, even if they were given the same pay, what would they do with that extra time? They'd probably just suffer from ennui, and either be depressed or take drugs to deal with it.

    In conclusion, I don't see all of the value in this. As useless as modern work is, we need people to roll the rocks up the hills of this world for their sake. If they didn't, they'd just sit around and mope.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    i support this philosophy of work as necessary evil, wholeheartedly

    I struggle between two poles.

    On the one hand, I understand why it's important to have a job that you love, that is meaningful to you.

    I used to think that. Now I'm not so sure.

    WI think what is important is that you have a job that facilitates the sort of life you wish to lead. What if you really love being a fry cook at McDonalds? Well, by all means, be a fry cook. But if you also want to raise a family with lots of kids, travel a lot, and own a big-ass TV? You can't do that if you're a fry cook at McDonalds.

    Rather than focusing on finding a job you love, find a life that you love. If what you really want to do is have five kids and travel a lot, then what you should do is find a job with good pay and ample vacation time. Find something enjoyable enough that you're not miserable - after all, you're going to be there for a big chunk of your life - but don't obsess about finding the most fun job in the world.

    Now, if you happen to love a job that is also amenable to whatever personal lifestyle you want, hey, aces. And you should certainly consider workplace enjoyment in addition to salary and benefits. But the whole "find a job you love" thing isn't always realistic, for numerous reasons.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2010
    Hm.

    So, the point of this anti-work movement is to allow people to sit around on the internet at home, instead of sitting around on the internet at work? Meh.
    Honestly, what would people do with all of that free time? I suppose some people would think and ruminate, but most people would be more bored than they usually are.

    It might just be a part of our genes. We needed to be hardwired to need work, otherwise we'd just sit around and be eaten. Now that we have all of this wealth, these riches, and we've automated most of the useful stuff, we don't have anything to do any more, do we?

    At the same time, as I said, people need to be valued. They need to have someone else, whether it be a person or a system, validate their existence in some way. If their hours were cut, even if they were given the same pay, what would they do with that extra time? They'd probably just suffer from ennui, and either be depressed or take drugs to deal with it.

    In conclusion, I don't see all of the value in this. As useless as modern work is, we need people to roll the rocks up the hills of this world for their sake. If they didn't, they'd just sit around and mope.


    Its not in our genes, we're programmed, brainwashed from birth to believe that you go to school then you get a job and you pay into the machine until you either die or are old enough to retire. I mean there are people over retirement age who want mandatory leave REMOVED so they can go back to work. Noone likes work that much. Its like jail. You're in jail for 30 years, what else can you do? Its what you know, you can't function in regular society.

    Same thing, you've worked for 30 years that you don't know what to do with yourself and you started working because you were led to believe you had to, to get a car, a house, get married, have kids and take your 4 week a year vacation. You feel bored, you feel you have to work but if you stepped back, there must be a hobby or SOMETHING you can learn. I mean how many hobbies/skills/crafts are there in the world?

    How many countries to explore?

    And you want to go back to work?

    That isn't in your genes.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2010
    Oh, speaking of time at the job spent working, keep in mind that part of a job is often just being available to do whatever pops up. While maybe you only spend four hours of your workday working, you are available to do stuff at a moment's notice for eight hours. A whole lot of jobs could not be done with four hours of contiguous work as effectively as by four hours of work spread across an eight hour shift.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Oh, speaking of time at the job spent working, keep in mind that part of a job is often just being available to do whatever pops up. While maybe you only spend four hours of your workday working, you are available to do stuff at a moment's notice for eight hours. A whole lot of jobs could not be done with four hours of contiguous work as effectively as by four hours of work spread across an eight hour shift.

    This is true, but I'd guess in a lot of cases you could switch that to working from home for 4 hours, while being on call for an additional 4 hours. Edit: Or I meant working at the office for 4 hours then on call at home for 4 hours.

    Of course working from home is not necessarily objectively better than having to be at an office or anything. I just find this idea an interesting thought exercise.

    Really I don't give a shit about the "movement" talked about in the OP, just the ideas it talks about and Feral's commentary after the articles. It's interesting to think about how much the working part of our society could be streamlined.

    Nocturne on
  • Options
    MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    What would people do with that free time?

    Raise their damned kids.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • Options
    SolventSolvent Econ-artist กรุงเทพมหานครRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I take issue with some of the idiocy quoted from 'The Abolition of Work'. I'm aware that no-one has yet stepped up and fully agreed with it.
    But saying that all banking and insurance is little more than useless paper shuffling betrays a complete lack of understanding about what the finance industry does and why it has been responsible for huge increases in our quality of life.

    I can agree that a lot of the time, in certain jobs, people are probably not being productive. And if we had a culture which allowed people to do their work, and then go home if they're not needed, that would probably be pretty sweet. I too dislike the default opening small-talk question to be 'What do you do?', and I try to avoid it when I'm meeting people (although I'm not a stunning conversationalist, so often I will fall back on it). It does make sense, however, that a great many of us spend about eight hours a day working, which makes it a significant part of our lives, which makes it an easy thing to ask about when meeting someone.

    I find it difficult to believe, though, that if we all slacked off and put in the '5%' quoted in the OP, we would be happier than we are with the current situation. Sure, we may meet our 'minimal needs', but would many people really be satisfied with that? And how would we advance? (I mean technologically, I guess).
    We work hard, and through efficiencies and technology our productivity improves. This allows us to either A) work less but receive the same welfare or B) work the same amount and receive greater welfare (from a long-run, overall point of view, that is). I think this is a pretty good way to have it. I want more more stuff in my life, I like to have goals, and although I have many non-materialist goals, some of my goals involve aquiring shit I want. Call me a consumer I suppose. I'm happy to work to achieve those ends, and hope that my work contributes to society and allows others to achieve those ends as well (again, long-run, overall point of view).

    Anyway, it wasn't that long ago that people worked twelve-hour, fourteen-hour, or longer days, right? Now most people (first-world) do eight or nine. In fact in my job I have a pretty sweet deal of seven-and-a-third 'official' hours.


    I know little on the subject, but I had assumed that in hunter-gatherer societies people were required to work harder, and longer, and less comfortably than many of us do now in the first-world. Perhaps someone better informed can enlighten me. I was definitely surprised to see Feral write: "Well, hunter-gatherers don't spend eight hours per day working. They spend more like two or three, depending on the particular society we're talking about."

    Solvent on
    I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.

    http://newnations.bandcamp.com
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2010
    Basically, when we have mechs to do the work for us, we can live free.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    i support this philosophy of work as necessary evil, wholeheartedly

    I struggle between two poles.

    On the one hand, I understand why it's important to have a job that you love, that is meaningful to you.

    I used to think that. Now I'm not so sure.

    WI think what is important is that you have a job that facilitates the sort of life you wish to lead. What if you really love being a fry cook at McDonalds? Well, by all means, be a fry cook. But if you also want to raise a family with lots of kids, travel a lot, and own a big-ass TV? You can't do that if you're a fry cook at McDonalds.

    Rather than focusing on finding a job you love, find a life that you love. If what you really want to do is have five kids and travel a lot, then what you should do is find a job with good pay and ample vacation time. Find something enjoyable enough that you're not miserable - after all, you're going to be there for a big chunk of your life - but don't obsess about finding the most fun job in the world.

    Now, if you happen to love a job that is also amenable to whatever personal lifestyle you want, hey, aces. And you should certainly consider workplace enjoyment in addition to salary and benefits. But the whole "find a job you love" thing isn't always realistic, for numerous reasons.

    Everybody should listen to this guy. He's wise.
    Oh, speaking of time at the job spent working, keep in mind that part of a job is often just being available to do whatever pops up. While maybe you only spend four hours of your workday working, you are available to do stuff at a moment's notice for eight hours. A whole lot of jobs could not be done with four hours of contiguous work as effectively as by four hours of work spread across an eight hour shift.

    True enough, but even assuming that the nature of my job (or commute, or both) requires me to physically be there for the entire eight hours, why is "goofing off" so unacceptable. If you've only got four hours of work for me to do in an eight our span, let me cruise the PA forums for the other four. Or read the news. Or do a crossword puzzle. Or read a book.

    Of course, then we get back into that power/control thing.

    Never was this more evident to me than in the National Guard, where we'd spend literally eight or nine hours on a weekend day doing an hour of work. It was fucking mind-numbing. But, while it was often perfectly acceptable to be doing nothing (in that the leadership would not flip out of you were idle) it was absolutely unacceptable to be doing any of the wrong "somethings." Staring at the wall or hanging out with your section making dick jokes? It's all good. Looking over your textbook because you have a final on Monday? WRONG FUCKING ANSWER, SOLDIER.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    There is no reason 90% of people need to go into an office to work when they can get all of their work done at home, through the Internet, in their bathrobe, and in a fraction of a time they would spend in their cubicle.

    It would also reduce carbon emissions.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I do think it's a myth that Americans have more free time than hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, or agriculturists which provide for their minimum needs through their work.

    It's a different scenario when you have corporate farmers and the likes, but for basic needs, I think they have the upper hand for free time. The trade off Americans have is, we have less free time but more things to pass the free time with (haha?). So...yeah.

    But really a myth to keep people working for sure.

    Lilnoobs on
  • Options
    JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    It seems to me that as production of goods and services become easier and easier, shouldn't that make it so people have to work less and less for the same amount of things? Surely we can't always want more and more and more. Shouldn't our goal be to constantly reduce the work week for the same amount of pay?

    JebusUD on
    and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
    but they're listening to every word I say
  • Options
    NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    It seems to me that as production of goods and services become easier and easier, shouldn't that make it so people have to work less and less for the same amount of things? Surely we can't always want more and more and more. Shouldn't our goal be to constantly reduce the work week for the same amount of pay?

    No, because then we wouldn't have modern medicine or any other technology.

    Nocturne on
  • Options
    JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Nocturne wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    It seems to me that as production of goods and services become easier and easier, shouldn't that make it so people have to work less and less for the same amount of things? Surely we can't always want more and more and more. Shouldn't our goal be to constantly reduce the work week for the same amount of pay?

    No, because then we wouldn't have modern medicine or any other technology.

    Those people would still be working. As their jobs became easier, they would also work less. Additional people could be employed doing "infinite" jobs like research.

    JebusUD on
    and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
    but they're listening to every word I say
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    It seems to me that as production of goods and services become easier and easier, shouldn't that make it so people have to work less and less for the same amount of things? Surely we can't always want more and more and more. Shouldn't our goal be to constantly reduce the work week for the same amount of pay?

    Well, you run into the issue that there are (or at least were) people who never had jack shit to begin with. It's not like the average coal miner was living large, or the average meat packer. In today's terms, those guys wouldn't exactly own an Xbox, or maybe not even a television. So most of that increased production gets absorbed into bringing the lower classes up to the standard we all enjoy now. And the population of the world (and our nation) continues to increases as does the number of nations (with similarly growing populations) wanting to get in on our lifestyle.

    So yeah, to some extent we kind of do always want more and more.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    SolventSolvent Econ-artist กรุงเทพมหานครRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    It seems to me that as production of goods and services become easier and easier, shouldn't that make it so people have to work less and less for the same amount of things? Surely we can't always want more and more and more. Shouldn't our goal be to constantly reduce the work week for the same amount of pay?

    Yes, it should (To the first sentence, not the last).

    But then we'd stagnate. Who's to say what we have now is 'enough'?

    Solvent on
    I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.

    http://newnations.bandcamp.com
  • Options
    NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    It seems to me that as production of goods and services become easier and easier, shouldn't that make it so people have to work less and less for the same amount of things? Surely we can't always want more and more and more. Shouldn't our goal be to constantly reduce the work week for the same amount of pay?

    No, because then we wouldn't have modern medicine or any other technology.

    Those people would still be working. As their jobs became easier, they would also work less. Additional people could be employed doing "infinite" jobs like research.

    What? No. Those things would not exist.

    You are saying we should just take the living conditions that exist at a specific time, and focus on maintaining that with as little work possible.

    No new inventions would happen. Or if they did in someone's free time, there would be no way to distribute them.

    At least that's how I'm reading your last sentence. That's really the only outcome of that goal that I see.

    Nocturne on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2010
    Nocturne wrote: »
    This is true, but I'd guess in a lot of cases you could switch that to working from home for 4 hours, while being on call for an additional 4 hours. Edit: Or I meant working at the office for 4 hours then on call at home for 4 hours.

    There are a lot of benefits to actually being present, though. Working through complex problems, or asking non-trivial questions, often works a lot better if you're talking with someone face to face. If papers are kept in a fixed location accessible to all (and there are lots of reasons to not keep digital copies of everything accessible to the outside world), you sort of need to be there if you need any of them.

    A big chunk of the jobs out there that could "obviously" be performed just as effectively from home probably can't. That said, a small drop in effectiveness might be worth the savings in workspace, commute, and other costs associated with your physical presence.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    This is true, but I'd guess in a lot of cases you could switch that to working from home for 4 hours, while being on call for an additional 4 hours. Edit: Or I meant working at the office for 4 hours then on call at home for 4 hours.

    There are a lot of benefits to actually being present, though. Working through complex problems, or asking non-trivial questions, often works a lot better if you're talking with someone face to face. If papers are kept in a fixed location accessible to all (and there are lots of reasons to not keep digital copies of everything accessible to the outside world), you sort of need to be there if you need any of them.

    A big chunk of the jobs out there that could "obviously" be performed just as effectively from home probably can't. That said, a small drop in effectiveness might be worth the savings in workspace, commute, and other costs associated with your physical presence.

    Personally this is why I'm a fan of things like 9/80 schedules (80 hours over nine days, every other friday off) or just straight-up working four tens (one extra day off every week). This, combined with at least a little bit of flex-scheduling, can seriously reduce things like carbon emissions, traffic, and time spent commuting while still getting all the same work done.

    Even allowing telecommuting one day a week (and making sure no more than X% of employees do so on a given day, through scheduling) could have a huge impact in this regard. It's largely a matter of giving up the lie that your presence in your cubicle is a fucking vital necessity while at the same time not making every employee seem easily fired with no impact to the company/operation.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Just Like ThatJust Like That Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I wish I could live like this guy

    the-big-lebowski-bridges-dude.jpg

    Just Like That on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I wish I could live like this guy
    the-big-lebowski-bridges-dude.jpg

    Have you tried...abiding?

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I wish I could live like this guy
    the-big-lebowski-bridges-dude.jpg
    Have you tried...abiding?
    Hell, even that guy still had to drag around a briefcase with his business papers.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • Options
    SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    "When your advocation becomes a vocation you'll no longer consider it a vacation." Something like that...

    Slider on
  • Options
    r4dr3zr4dr3z Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I've been wrestling with the idea of whether work is worth it over the past few months. I'm in a situation where my project got canceled and am having to re-invent myself with new skills. I'm pretty lucky in that I have a job where management doesn't really stick their noses in and they let you do whatever as long as you're productive. Even if you're not productive, you can generally ride on the coat tails of your previous successes for a little while before getting noticed.

    I don't know how you can survive in this environment unless you really are in to what you are working on. It has to be the number one thing that's most interesting to you that you would do even if you weren't getting paid. Convincing yourself of this is key to being successful in this world. I have a 6 month old daughter, and I worry about balancing my time at the office against being there for her at home. I wouldn't be the first daddy to get sucked up in my job. My wife is supporting me working more hours and doing what I need to in order to advance my career.

    Once you convince yourself of the fact that you are there because you want to be there, things flow a lot more smoothly. There's no more wonder if you do nothing if anyone will care. The potential negative ramifications of not doing your job goes away.

    Deep down, I know that if I had millions of dollars I probably wouldn't be doing this exact job. But I might start off doing something similar on my own. I do have ideas for things I want to do on my own and I believe I would be successful, but I just can't put down the security blanket of the 9-7 job. When I'm done working and am at home in the evenings and weekends, I don't want to put in the effort to do more work. Or if I do, it's just to improve my skills in order to be more successful at my day job.

    It's kind of like in college, I struggled. It wasn't until my senior year that I discovered the key to success for most good students: they love learning. They are at college because they love to learn and are willing to spend all their free time with their noses in books and talking to professors. Me, I just wanted to play Quake 2. If I could have convinced myself that I love learning (which isn't that hard to do), I would have been much more successful. With life and work, it's the same thing, you just have to find the right mindset and apply it.

    Not sure what the point of this post was, just wanted to share my perspective.

    r4dr3z on
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I fucking hate work, and I don't like the idea of dedicating 40 hours of my life each week to feeding a faceless machine just so I can afford the lifestyle my country has practically forced upon me, but I'm also 19 so my opinion is pretty much forfeit

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2010
    I fucking hate work, and I don't like the idea of dedicating 40 hours of my life each week to feeding a faceless machine just so I can afford the lifestyle my country has practically forced upon me, but I'm also 19 so my opinion is pretty much forfeit

    Its a fair opinion though. In the UK you can spend £160,000 over a lifetime, finally own your house but not own it. Because if you don't pay council tax which the council can spend on what it wants, they can still take your fucking house out from under you. So you can't even have a home and just retire when its paid off and chill out. You're trapped in an inescapable system which forces you to work unless you're content being a bum and living off state handouts.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I wish I had more freedom on how the 40 hours a week were distributed. 12 hours over 3 days (okay not quite 40 but close enough) would be ideal, because four free days in the week is pretty fucking valuable in my eyes.

    Henroid on
  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited March 2010
    I fucking hate work, and I don't like the idea of dedicating 40 hours of my life each week to feeding a faceless machine just so I can afford the lifestyle my country has practically forced upon me, but I'm also 19 so my opinion is pretty much forfeit

    Its a fair opinion though. In the UK you can spend £160,000 over a lifetime, finally own your house but not own it. Because if you don't pay council tax which the council can spend on what it wants, they can still take your house out from under you. So you can't even have a home and just retire when its paid off and chill out. You're trapped in an inescapable system which forces you to work unless you're content being a bum and living off state handouts.

    It should be noted that council tax pays for things like your rubbish being taken away and the local amenities and a bunch of other stuff and is nowhere near the amount that rent comes to. It's an annual £1300 bill (depends on how nice your house is) you pay off in monthly installments. This amount doesn't force you to continue working past retirement age, but will eat up some of your pension.

    Bogart on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    It seems to me that as production of goods and services become easier and easier, shouldn't that make it so people have to work less and less for the same amount of things? Surely we can't always want more and more and more. Shouldn't our goal be to constantly reduce the work week for the same amount of pay?

    As I understand it, we actually have to some extent. The weekend is a fairly recent concept, as are paid vacations.

    EDIT: this is over the long term, like a century or two. And I think I've read that the trend in the US has slowed down - many of us are working more than we were thirty or so years ago.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2010
    I should be at work right now. I'm not, because going sooner would mean I'm more fatigued and simply kill time looking busy. And hell, I should enjoy what I do.

    You're a researcher in a uni. Do you even have a fucking timesheet?

    Slight tangent, but apparently offices are deathtraps. First there was that thing about particulates from printers, and now our very chairs are out to get us D:

    I firmly believe that a lot of modern white-collar working environments are poorly designed, lack flexibility and that a lot of jobs are stupid bullshit - the entire HR industry for instance, and a lot of computer-operator jobs that emerged back when computers were scary and foreign and only used by special people - but 90%? Forget it. There's a lot of stuff that needs doing. And a lot of it is in hands-on jobs that too many people pussy out of doing. I can think of maybe two or three other people in my uni course that wouldn't balk at the outdoors-physical aspect of my job; even though they signed up to do enviro science they'd rather be poking at a GIS and writing reports than out there doing actual fieldwork.

    That said, working from home in your muumuu turns out to not be that great, either. Its extremely socially isolating, for one thing, and a lot of people find it even more distracting than the office.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I fucking hate work, and I don't like the idea of dedicating 40 hours of my life each week to feeding a faceless machine just so I can afford the lifestyle my country has practically forced upon me, but I'm also 19 so my opinion is pretty much forfeit

    Its a fair opinion though. In the UK you can spend £160,000 over a lifetime, finally own your house but not own it. Because if you don't pay council tax which the council can spend on what it wants, they can still take your fucking house out from under you. So you can't even have a home and just retire when its paid off and chill out. You're trapped in an inescapable system which forces you to work unless you're content being a bum and living off state handouts.

    You can't lose your home for not paying council tax. You can have your benefits (or wages) reduced to make up the costs, or bailiffs sent to collect your property. Unwillingness to pay can also land you in prison. However, the best solution is to contact your local council, as soon as you are aware that you can't make your payments, usually you can arrange a way of making the payments over a longer period that suits your circumstances. In addition, there are a range of discounts and exemptions available.

    Space Coyote on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    "The full employment policy by means of investment is only one particular application of an intellectual theorem. You can produce the result as well by consuming more or working less. Personally I regard the investment policy as first aid... Less work is the ultimate solution."

    - J. M. Keynes

    Saturday moved from being a work day to a weekend day primarily by the demand shock of the Great Depression. We'll see when Friday joins it.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2010
    Bogart wrote: »
    I fucking hate work, and I don't like the idea of dedicating 40 hours of my life each week to feeding a faceless machine just so I can afford the lifestyle my country has practically forced upon me, but I'm also 19 so my opinion is pretty much forfeit

    Its a fair opinion though. In the UK you can spend £160,000 over a lifetime, finally own your house but not own it. Because if you don't pay council tax which the council can spend on what it wants, they can still take your house out from under you. So you can't even have a home and just retire when its paid off and chill out. You're trapped in an inescapable system which forces you to work unless you're content being a bum and living off state handouts.

    It should be noted that council tax pays for things like your rubbish being taken away and the local amenities and a bunch of other stuff and is nowhere near the amount that rent comes to. It's an annual £1300 bill (depends on how nice your house is) you pay off in monthly installments. This amount doesn't force you to continue working past retirement age, but will eat up some of your pension.

    Eh, I'd take the bins away myself. I'd rather not pay council tax and not use public amenities and just pay for stuff I want to use instead. Point is, you can't just pay off your house and thats it, you just work as and when you want to. Theres a bill for owning your own house.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    can't happen soon enough. I loved working 4/10s and it was really hard to go back to 5s.

    ed: re: ronya

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Bogart wrote: »
    I fucking hate work, and I don't like the idea of dedicating 40 hours of my life each week to feeding a faceless machine just so I can afford the lifestyle my country has practically forced upon me, but I'm also 19 so my opinion is pretty much forfeit

    Its a fair opinion though. In the UK you can spend £160,000 over a lifetime, finally own your house but not own it. Because if you don't pay council tax which the council can spend on what it wants, they can still take your house out from under you. So you can't even have a home and just retire when its paid off and chill out. You're trapped in an inescapable system which forces you to work unless you're content being a bum and living off state handouts.

    It should be noted that council tax pays for things like your rubbish being taken away and the local amenities and a bunch of other stuff and is nowhere near the amount that rent comes to. It's an annual £1300 bill (depends on how nice your house is) you pay off in monthly installments. This amount doesn't force you to continue working past retirement age, but will eat up some of your pension.

    Eh, I'd take the bins away myself. I'd rather not pay council tax and not use public amenities and just pay for stuff I want to use instead. Point is, you can't just pay off your house and thats it, you just work as and when you want to. Theres a bill for owning your own house.

    Take the bins where exactly? Would you be willing to pay the landfill tax?

    Space Coyote on
Sign In or Register to comment.