Why do people work?

[Tripledoc]

It has always struck me as odd that we despite industrialization and huge advances in information processing still have to meet at a what is now called the work-place.
One should think that with the increases automatization of production the demand for labor would decrease.
However, the large majority in the Western world still does menial work and recieve pay for the effort. But what kind of work is it that the so-called tertiary or service sector actually does. A disproportiante amount of people make a living out of providing services to other people - often those being served percieve themselves as having superior status. This work is not productive, it only serves to inflate those being served with self-importance. What is essentially being traded between worker and the person being served is time. Apparently some people percieve themselves to have a greater right to time than others. They pay for extra time by making a transfer of money - the value of which is questionable were it not for the willingness of both parties to invest trust in it. Whence this trust comes from is perhaps controversial, but ultimately it has to do with power. See the giver can refuse to offer a transfer, but the taker can hardly refuse - else he be fired. The taker of money has transfered sovereignty to the employer - or the owner of his worktime. The employee is subservient to the company and must hand over the whole of the money tranfer to the employer (exempting tips where that applies). In exchange the employer gives that person the right to recieve money from the custumer, but otherwise the employee has not significantly gained anything, but investing his own person in the legitimacy of the money transfering process. To add hurt to insult the employee now takes away part of the money transfer, precisely because he was the one who invested the employee with the right to recieve the transfer. To my mind this is an unequal deal and it is slavery.

Some might say - "yes, that is capitalism and it works."What I wish to know is what it works towards. The exchange in money for extra time has not given each individual more time - has it? To the contrary. All studies show that people are working for longer hours now - and more people are involved in providing work/time than ever before in the history of mankind - in relative terms even. So despite the fact that former generation's expenditure of time has provided adequately to the average household in all things material which are supposedly time saving, but are in reality not. Take the example of the dishwasher. In medieval times one person had one plate and when it was dirty he licked it clean. Now the mere indication of a spot of food on a plate will make any infrared-bespeckled housewife skyrocket through the air in neurotic terror. Mediaval Man wore the same shirt for three weeks on end and would never consider spending the amount of resources the western world spends on washing the color out of their clothes on a continual and habitual basis.
So, if the created capital by the forceful exchange of time through money transfers has not led and will never lead to truly free society, where each individual is capable of choosing for himself what he chooses to spend his time on - then capitalist society is merely a ploy in which people agree willingly to rob eachother of time.
Furthermore capitalist society twists this even further, by saying that the people who choose to invest time in creating capital - which in this day and age merely means surplus money supply - are allowed greater access to borrowing money because they are presumably more credit worthy. Credit worthy because they have agreed with the bank that the capital they have so conspiciosly accumulated can be laid down as security. This quite puts the banks in a fix since if the borrower is deemed not credit worthy despite his surplus money supply and his carefully husbanded capital - then clearly and logically the bank itself would not be considered credit worthy. But then again the bank is simply another service for the person who thinks his time is more valuable than the bank. The accumulation of time is then an expanding and dynamic process in that the more time you have the more you a capable of accumulating. From this follows that more and more people would logically have to transfer their time to the person who thinks his time is so valuable.
Thus the money economy is simply a ploy whereby the socalled capitalists are able to feed on the surplus money supply and hand it over in exchange for ekstra time, made possible by the overall legitimization of this process in the media and the possessed governments. The need for this system is to satisfy the human need for dominance over its fellow man. Strange system in my oppinion - and it is not sufficiently productive for the whole of humanity for it to make a living.

[Skanky Burns]

We have a much higher standard of living today than, say, 50 years ago. To pay for it, we need to work longer. For society to provide this higher standard of living for a large majority of people, it requires people in that society to do more work too.

[Inverse Icarus]

time is money. you trade your time for money no matter what you do. the essence of capitialism. that basically covers the first 1/3 of your post.

then you went into how we're overly clean, in terms of dirty dishes and clothes. personally, i'm not too caring about my dishes, and i stretch my laundry as long as i can, wearing jeans/shirts several times, and spraying febreeze on stanky laundry piles so the odor doesnt get too offensive. but we live in a society that scared us into this. it's like: CLEAN! OR YOU'LL GET DISEASED AND DIE". whatever. to quote george carlin "i never get sick. i have a healthy immune system because i swam in sewage when i was a kid and my body is prepared for that f*cking flu when it comes."

your final point: people are tied up in making a living and providing for their family. thats fine for them. i'd like to make a difference, but i'm young and ignorant, and the weight of the world hasn't crushed my hopes and dreams yet. ideally, and here we delve into socialism, people would work purely for the advancement of the human race (or, their society, depending on how wide-scale a system it is), but we're not there yet.

[Sava]

In a capitalist society like the US, the people that control the means of production (i.e. the rich, corporations, industrialists, etc) hold everybody else hostage, and force them to work for their lives. People are slaves to the system.

In a more socialist society, government (controlled by the people) provides for the people. Sure, people don't have to work as hard, but if they don't work hard enough, then they won't enjoy certain luxuries. People have more direct control of their quality of life, whereas in American capitalism, people work and work and work; and the rich reap the rewards. It's been that way for over a hundred years, and with conservatives and capitalists in control of government (instead of the people) it's going to remain that way.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
We have a much higher standard of living today than, say, 50 years ago. To pay for it, we need to work longer. For society to provide this higher standard of living for a large majority of people, it requires people in that society to do more work too.

Sorry but that's total utter tosh.

Workers in every major economy work less hours now than they did 50 years ago (or even 25 years ago) and yet standards of living have soared:


Average Annual Hours worked in 1975 & 2000:

United States: 1850, 1840 (it was 2040 in 1950)
Japan: 2110, 1810
Germany: 1760, 1480
France: 1860, 1590
Britian: 1880, 1710
Italy: 1770, 1620
Canada: 1860, 1790


Rise in GDP per head 1975-2000

United States: 72%
Japan: 107%
Germany: 107%
France: 69%
Britian: 87%
Italy: 104%
Canada: 74%

[orange]

People work to eat. If you don't work, you don't eat.
People work hard to eat better food than the guy who just works.
People work really hard to eat the best food, and lots of it.
People exploit others to have seven course meals, served on silver platters, delivered by servents, every night.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by el freako
Sorry but that's total utter tosh.

Workers in every major economy work less hours now than they did 50 years ago (or even 25 years ago) and yet standards of living have soared:


Average Annual Hours worked in 1975 & 2000:

Per citizen or per worker? Frankly, the demise of the eight hour day leads me to believe your statistics either wrong or meaningless. Perhaps the reason why people seem to be working less hours now is because many are underemployed, and have to work multiple jobs to get by. Unemployment is also higher today than it was then.

As far as the increase in GDP per head, that's a meaningless statistic when it comes to standard of living. Those on the very top make so much that it skews the whole system, even for those who are worse off.

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by Sava
People have more direct control of their quality of life, whereas in American capitalism, people work and work and work; and the rich reap the rewards. It's been that way for over a hundred years, and with conservatives and capitalists in control of government (instead of the people) it's going to remain that way.

Sava, there are countless stories of poor immigrants who come to America and become rich and successful.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes

Sava, there are countless stories of poor immigrants who come to America and become rich and successful.

thats because the countless*100 stories of immigrants comming to america and failing / sucking the welfare teet aren't as exciting or amazing.

[Jon Miller]

I am not really sure

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

To my mind this is an unequal deal and it is slavery.

It ain't slavery if you choose to do it. And how would you have things be sold? Robots do not exist to sell goods. Would you work it on the honor system? Pick up what you need and then put the money in a tray by the door? Please.

And as stated, since Capitalism has existed the standard of living around the globe for those countries have SKYROCKETED! Would you rather work 60 hours a week in a log cabin with a few books, or work the same amount of time in a modern house with TVs, Computers, etc, etc. I know what I'd pick. We work in order to further improve our lot.

As far as the increase in GDP per head, that's a meaningless statistic when it comes to standard of living.

Seeing as the definition of 'standard of living' is GDP per capita, I find this statement hilarious.

[el freako]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Per citizen or per worker?

Per worker.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Frankly, the demise of the eight hour day leads me to believe your statistics either wrong or meaningless.

What demise?, just because Americans have seen a negligable decline in hours since 1975 doesn't make the falls elsewhere any less meaningful - surely you of all people are aware that there is a world outside the US borders?
Are you sure you're not succumbing to the folly of 'any statistic that question's my beliefs must be wrong'?

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Unemployment is also higher today than it was then.

Unemployment rate (using the ILO definition) 8.3% in 1975 & 4.0% in 2000, yup obviously a big rise there

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by el freako
Sorry but that's total utter tosh.

Workers in every major economy work less hours now than they did 50 years ago (or even 25 years ago) and yet standards of living have soared:

My comment was based upon Tripledoc's post, specifically:

All studies show that people are working for longer hours now

I must admit I didn't research it at all.

[Docfeelgood]

Spend nine months getting out and the rest of your life TRYING to git back in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And he wants to know why we go to work

No secret here......................a piece of human flesh no bigger than your hand!!!!

[orange]

it is so bigger than my hand!

[Docfeelgood]

Yur asking me?

Go to one of those porn sites and judge fur yourself

[FrostyBoy]

I think a future like what Star Trek resembles would be the ultimate goal in terms of working. I myself, if I didn't have to work, I would still work anyway. I enjoy working, I don't see it as something I don't want to do, I see it as something I want to do. If you hate work, its not works fault, its your fault.

If we want to reach a world like Star Trek, we have to go through what we are now and many more phases. It's worth it, so lets just keep going.

[aaglo]

Work is only a series of compulsory movements caused by hunger.

[FrostyBoy]

Not true, I can be a farmer and build a house for shelter. I don't need shelter to eat.

[Docfeelgood]

Work is only a series of compulsory movements caused by hunger.

Sex is only a series of compulsory movements caused by hormones.

work=sex
sex=work

[MRT144]

i work because i like it...

[Ben Kenobi]

*Looks at all the cynicism*

Only one person works to try to change the world, and it's a socialist?

I'd take less money to work at this kind of job, the hard part is finding one.

Until then I'll work to eat, survive, pay for school and not be a burden on my folks.

But for money? No job is worth the time you spend if you just work for some extra cash.

[Wraith]

--"Why do people work?"

Because it'd be extremely boring to sit around doing nothing all day?

--"A disproportiante amount of people make a living out of providing services to other people"

I do find it somewhat strange for you to bring up something like this after talking about the increasing automation of production.

--"the value of which is questionable were it not for the willingness of both parties to invest trust in it."

I'm not too sure what trust has to do with it. It's a contract. Violate it and get punished. You don't need a whole lot of trust for that sort of thing.

The rest of that first part seems pretty much a rant. I'm far less worried about being "enslaved" by my bosses (whom I can say no to and go find another job) than I am about my government, who takes a third of my paycheck before I ever get to see it.

--"All studies show that people are working for longer hours now"

You're definitely overstating things here. There are some fields that tend to the really long hours, but that's often due to a supply of qualified personnel that doesn't keep up with the demand.
Outside of that sort of thing, you might want to look at the last sentece of my last statement above. If I wasn't spending a third of the year working for the government I'd have a whole lot more time off if I wanted it.

--"the people that control the means of production hold everybody else hostage,"

I don't think you're too familiar with the US economy. Despite the government, small businesses are still a major factor here.

Wraith
"Awww. I wanted to explode."
-- Gir ("Invader Zim")

[Tripledoc]

Well, maybe I should change the headline to "Why do people work under the present system?"

Is it not so that women have become integrated in the labor market to an extent they were not before. hence the total amount of work being done has increased.

Also I think people in the third world work harder now than when they were farming their land - now they work in sweat-shops and factories to satisfy western demand for consumer goods. Capitalism is a global system - not an exclusively American construct.

The workers in the western world are kept in check precisely because they have acces to cheap goods from the third world. In that way the capitalists have cynically begun to exploit cheap foreign labor, and have actually involved the western workers as participants in that exploitation. Not a very nice thing to do.

I agree that work can sometimes be a satisfying experience - but only when it is oneself, friends or family who recieve the full benefit of the worktime invested.
No employer who skims off profit, please.

Capitalists must by definition enjoy their work - but under the present system it would be impossible if everyone was his own employer. if such a system existed everyone would be forced to trade work on an equal basis and the ability to dominate would be lost.

[Rogan Josh]

I am a theoretical particle physicist. I find my job extremely interesting - it is a lot of fun to learn about the physics of the universe and discuss things like black holes, supersymmetry and extra dimensions with my coleagues. And it is great to try and find solutions to problems at the cutting end of science and then travel the world explaining your solution in seminars with Nobel Prize winners in the audience.

Even so, I would probably not continue to do my job if I wasn't paid for it. My wife earns a lot of money in her job (she is a pensions actuary) so we would still have no problem with money if I didn't work, so that isn't why. It is more the feeling of self worth - somehow we are conditioned by our society to think that our lives are a failure if we don't have a successful "career". Our society tells us that we should be able to provide for our families and work our way to the top - and if we don't, we are losers. So if I wasn't paid for doing my job I would feel that my work wasn't appreciated and that I was a waste of space even although I know on an intellecual level that this is isn't true.

Having said that, if I left research and got a 'real job' I would probably still try to continue my research as a hobby - it is just that I would need the 'real job' for my feelings of self worth.

[Tripledoc]

Science and education is extremely important - yet in my country science and education budgets are being slashed. This is dangerous.

In the book The Renaissance the British historian Paul Johnson writes on the fall of the Roman Empire.


"The Greeks were inventive, and produced some scientists and engineers of genius, and the Romans were able to build on their work to carry out projects on a scale that is often impressive even by today's standards and appaered superhuman to mediaval man. but there was something suspect about Roman monumentality. It was built on muscle-power rather than brain-power. The forts, the roads, the bridges, the enormous aquaducts, the splendid municipal and state buildings, were put up thanks to a conscript or servile multitude, whose human energies were the chief source of power. the slave gangs, constantly replenished, by wars of conquest, were always available in almost unlimited numbers. The disincentive to develop new engineering skills, as opposed to the brute strenght of immensely thick walls and buttresses, was continual. Indeed there is disconcerting evidence that the Roman authorities were reluctant to use labour-saving methods, even when available, for fear of unemployment and discontent. considering the wealth of the Roman Republic in its prime, its technology was minimal, barely in advance of Athenian Greece, and confined laregly to the military sphere."

I take this to mean that unemployment in a society is a healthy sign that should not be met by reactionary policies.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by el freako
Workers in every major economy work less hours now than they did 50 years ago (or even 25 years ago) and yet standards of living have soared:

Less hours, but the "working time" is now almost pure work for most, In the past they didn't really work as
we do today.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also I think people in the third world work harder now than when they were farming their land

You've never been to a farm have you?

And the reason those people work in sweatshops is because those sweatshops offer substantially more money than farming land would.

[Solly]

And provide better working conditions.

BTW, Imran, GDP per capita isn't the definition of standard of living, it is just a way of estimating the difference in standard of living between areas or time-periods.

[Dis]

It's to keep the morons in line.