Comment by justncase80 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by justncase80 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I recently read an interesting book called Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy. It was written in 1887 but could have been written yesterday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward

It was basically about a guy who accidentally travels forward in time (sort of like idiocracy) except he finds himself in an American Socialist Utopia. It was a really good book in general but there was one idea in particular that the author had, which seems pertinent here.

Essentially in this utopia everyone gets the same pay check and the opportunity to work. Instead of getting paid more money for a demanding job you get "paid" in less hours. Meaning, all jobs start out at, say 40 hours per week. A job that doesn't get any applicants would decrease the number of hours it demands and correspondingly, the number of open positions would increase. Eventually an unappealing job would decline to a number of hours where someone would be willing to do it.

For example, that coal mining job that nobody wants to do? Well it pays the same as every other job but you only need to do it for 4 hours a week. You can work more of course if you want but you get the same paycheck. The rest of that time you can do whatever you want, spend time with your family or do art or whatever.

Also, in For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs by Robert A. Heinlein there are some very interesting ideas about American social economics, including a social credit system. Which I believe is a pretty old fashioned idea that we have almost completely forgot about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_o...

This constant back and forth about work hours and minimum wage and the inexorable pull towards wage slavery makes me think its time to explore some completely lateral options.

Humans have incredible propensity to acclimatize to the environment. That's the only reasoning I could arrive at when I was poor and saw people around willing to do the most mundane back breaking work than to seek other forms of employment.

The lever that is used in society today is desperation as opposed to higher pay per hr in the "Looking Backward" case. The sanitation worker doesn't enjoy their work and no amount of lower hours may compel them to be scarred by the experience. On the other hand desperation and hunger forces them to take what ever job they could salvage. Most of them would would get used to it while some would work their way out.

I believe convincing people to do "bad jobs" by means of desperation is named Wage Slavery. Besides being immoral and degrading, its pretty inefficient. On the other hand, some jobs that need to be done plain out unpleasant. How do you convince someone to do it?

In the Looking Backwards scenario the incentive to do one of the "bad jobs" isn't being paid more per hour, everyone is paid the same, its working less hours which I think is subtly different.

Less hours at the same pay is more money per hour. But there is a subtle difference - cleaning toilets for 2 hours is much different mentally than cleaning toilets for 8 hours. And you can then go look after dogs at the shelter for 4 more hours and get two paychecks.

Yes, its more money per hour of work but its not more money per week in this system.

Everyone needs to pitch in, you need to serve humanity so that it provides you with the things you need. If the only thing you can do to do your part is sanitation work, then sanitation work it shall be. That is, until you find new ways to serve others.

Slavery is something altogether different, and you really have to be in a position of privilege to conflate the two. The history of slavery is an incredibly dark one. Out of respect to those who've suffered under it's cruelty, I don't think it's right to use that word in this context. Doing your part is not slavery.

Yes agreed, in any social system everyone needs to work (if able) in order for society to thrive.

Wage slavery is a very specific term that I didn't just make up and I believe it accurately describes what you were talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

I know the term, as well as Marx's class theory. Pointing me to a Wikipedia article doesn't change the fact that it's insensitive hyperbole.

I think it is very important not to forget another factor - the Protestant Work Ethic. This had a gigantic influence on US culture and we still live with it today. It is the reason people reflexively object to McDonald's workers fighting for higher pay, and don't care that those workers are earning far more for their employer than they are being paid. The Protestant Work Ethic is the belief that the work itself, specifically the suffering endured while performing the work, which is of value. 'Hard work is its own reward'. It is a big part of why the improvements in productivity that came about in the 1980s due to computers and automation technology entering the workplace did not result in higher wages. Because the productivity was not a product of greater human suffering, the people did not 'deserve' any greater pay. The most virtuous are those who struggle and suffer the greatest for the lowest pay. They are paid primarily in the most valuable currency, the suffering, and to suggest that they deserve greater pay or to give them greater pay would denigrate them. Obviously this is not a viewpoint that most people would or can describe specifically. But it is what underlies the prevailing attitudes most people have about work.

To desire easy work, is immoral or weak. To desire high pay for a job which is not tremendously taxing, is immoral or weak. A person who is not working strenuously is inherently a worse person than one who is. It's why the unemployed are looked down upon, and why the working poor, no matter how exploited they might be, are revered as the 'salt of the earth' and the like. It is why it is presumed that a person who is not doing hard physical work is not "really working".

Mental work is of such a fundamentally different character from physical labor that our society simply doesn't know how to process it. The idea that a person, with the use of technology, can produce as much value as 100 people doing the same job manually seems a dirty kind of trick. Dirty either because the person is cheating and skirting the virtuous hard work, or dirty because being willing to accept such a situation is immoral. Wanting a job you love to do, and expecting to be paid well for it, is a fantasy tolerable only in children. To actually expect it is one of the biggest reasons older people say that Millenials seem "entitled" brats. In truth, the Millenials just seem to inherently understand that we're at the point where technology simply makes it the best (for everyone, employers included) course.

Thank you for this excellent response.

The first part made me think that in the past when church was so dominant and had to get people to work for them, this philosophy would have done the trick.

   'Hard work is its own reward'

This unfortunately brought the "Work will set you free" quote to mind but I'm not in a position to further comment on it.

I think people in power (Churches, Politicians, CEOs) would always try to portray work in this light as it is inherently valuable for them. I think this might be the case too with the older folks calling Millennial entitled brats.

I 100% agree with your assessment.

I of course 100% disagree with the notions however :)

You may find the 1936 Spanish Revolution fascinating, I recommend the whole video but here is a good synopsis

https://youtu.be/jPl_Y3Qdb7Y?t=54m50s

Also, besides "getting used to it" or "working their way out of it" there are a few other quite grim possibilities that can happen in Wage Slavery.

Namely suffering and early death. Sometimes the workers band together (aka unionize) or straight up rebel causing civil war. These are all things that have happened in the past, could happen again in the future.

Heinlein's "Beyond This Horizon" also had an interesting mix of ideas, including a scheme where jobs paid based on a three-factor formula (skill required, benefit to society, and unpleasantness of job). It has always struck me as one of the biggest injustices of the current setup that low-skilled but highly unpleasant/dangerous jobs are able to be so badly paid.

In Canada there was even a Social Credit Party:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Social_Credit_Party

In theory this is possible now, right? Why don't employers compete in this way? Is there some insurance/tax/other reason that employers so strongly prefer full-time employees?

Well it would require a pretty massive shift in economic systems. It's against the interests of employers in the current system as I understand it.

You should read the book, it has a lot more context and gives a much fuller explanation than I can right now :)

Would there be any prohibition against working two (or three or four) 4-hour per week jobs?

No prohibition certainly, but you would receive the same pay.

In the book the author supposed that this would lead more people to spend their time participating in artistic activities.

Would you still receive the same pay if you work 0 jobs?

Generally no, you gotta do some job.

The caveats being people who are sick or handicapped and people who are retired. I believe the author also said retirement age was something like 45.

Also, he went to some lengths to explain the importance of reinforcement through cultural values.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com