If God Is Dead, Your Time Is Everything (2019)
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
Also, because that judgement involves our choices, thoughts, words, & actions; I personally think that forced kindness is inadequate in many ways including effectiveness in helping others and for the effects it has on the heart of the giver. More on that (if one cares to read & drill in a bit) at maybe here
"Savagely compressed, Hägglund’s argument goes something like this: If what makes our lives meaningful is that time ends, then what defines us is what Marx called “an economy of time.” Marx is, in this sense, probably the most secular thinker who ever lived, the one most deeply engaged with the question of what we do with our time. He divided life into what he called the realm of necessity and the realm of freedom. Hägglund adopts these categories: the realm of necessity involves socially necessary labor and the realm of freedom involves socially available free time. Rationally, Hägglund says, we should strive to reduce the realm of necessity and increase the realm of freedom. But capitalism is systemically committed to exploiting most of us, and to steadily increasing the amount of labor at the expense of our freedom. Capitalism treats the means of economic life, labor, as though it were the purpose of life. But, if we are to cherish this life, we have to treat what we do as an end in itself. “The real measure of value,” Hägglund says, “is not how much work we have done or have to do (quantity of labor time) but how much disposable time we have to pursue and explore what matters to us (quality of free time).”
I got an involuntary [citation needed] mental response at this. Anyone know if this is a quote from the book, or the author's opinion?
It was under capitalism that we got a 40-hour week. In fact, the history of capitalism over the last 150 years shows a trend of decreasing time working. So I'm not buying this point in the argument.
"Over the 20th century, work hours shortened by almost half, mostly due to rising wages brought about by renewed economic growth, with a supporting role from trade unions, collective bargaining, and progressive legislation. The workweek, in most of the industrialized world, dropped steadily, to about 40 hours after World War II."
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#History )
"Mostly due to rising wages brought about by economic growth." Without the economic growth, we're left with the choice of longer hours or a painfully reduced standard of living.
That just means giving up on more consumption, or funding one's own retirement. It's evident though that most people prefer consuming over anything else. They buy shiny things, go into debt for it, then are forced to work off the debt.
Thinkers like Marx may feel different about the whole thing, they need their time off to do what fulfills them. Most workers, even those performing hard manual labor, feel empty if they don't work.
Sorry, no. Death does not make life precious. It just forces us to make the most of what little remaining time we have. We then concentrate as much value as we can in our first 80 years or so, since those are the only years we get.
A more distant death may dilute that effect, but not entirely: with more time, we get to do and experience more things. Thus, the value of life increases as it lengthens. Perhaps not linearly, but it's not at all clear there's an upper bound.
Yes it does. Especially if you're the one living it.
Even if it's a lifeless object - the rareness of something easily makes it more valuable. For instance, diamonds would be worthless if DeBeers didn't artificially constrict the supply.
> ...with more time, we get to do and experience more things. Thus, the value of life increases as it lengthens.
You're confusing quantity with quality. As if a human with 80 years of being catatonic would be more valuable than someone who lived, loved and adventured for only 40 years.
> Yes it does. Especially if you're the one living it.
So, you want to die. More precisely, you want a limit on your lifespan. Not just so you give your place to the youth or avoid over population. No, you want your life to be limited, because if it wasn't, it would be worthless.
I can accept that. But then you should be able to answer this: when do you want to die? Where's the limit?
> Even if it's a lifeless object - the rareness of something easily makes it more valuable.
The value of one diamond decreases as we have more total diamonds. But it doesn't decreases so fast that the total value of diamonds also decreases as the total amount of diamonds increases. Value may increase sub-linearly with quantity, but there's no way it decreases.
The same goes for lifespan. If you genuinely think the value of an entire life decreases with its length at some point, then there is an ideal lifespan. Life should be no shorter, and no longer than this ideal duration (on average).
I ask again: do you have any idea what this duration might be?
> You're confusing quantity with quality
And you are assuming we couldn't have quality in quantity. Couldn't we possibly live, love and adventure for 80 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
How much life has to offer, really? How much can we experience, how much can we learn, before life stops being worth living? When do we start hitting diminishing returns, for reasons other than bad health? (Just to get that out of the way: we probably agree that it's better to live 80 healthy years and die of a sudden stroke, than live 60 healthy years, then gradually decline until we hit 80 and finally die.)
Some would re-word that as "those 80 years are precious" ;)
.. and reading ..
.. and reading ..
.. and still no point made, so I gave up.
I'm reading the book currently and am really enjoying it so was excited to see it get such a comprehensive and ultimately glowing review. But tbh I was a bit annoyed at how long this review takes to get going :)
No god > No afterlife > These X years are it > Best invest in becoming happy > Happiness is not joy or money > Most Human happiness is in rich social interactions and feeling safe > Rich social interactions and a big family means dying with a lot of grand children, this would make most people happy > Feeling safe is about not leaving your relatives in debt or having to cook meth to pay for cancer treatment > Socialism (which I would argue is the American word for what most "socialist" countries call "common sense" -society).
It begs the question by trying to show that obviously doing good to get to Heaven is really about the community, therefore we should all be Marxists. Being a good person will have a positive effect on the community in which you live, but the point is not about how high your utility to the community is. The point of being a good person is that it reduces suffering, or at the least makes it meaningful.
But individualism, in this formal sense, is anathema to such discussions.
Systems are judged historically and empirically, and that is why communism is bad. Ask people who grew up in the USSR, especially from their "republics". Similarly, one should be careful to parade your philosophy under the umbrella of "socialism".
No God, no afterlife, time being important has absolutely nothing to do with political systems. If it has, then you have a hidden agenda.
From the beginning Walter has solutions, people offer him several ways. But he decline all of them because of his ego and turn more and more to criminality to satisfy his hunger for power.
Their is a harsh criticism of the US medical insurance system since every time someone need care in the show, either insurance decline coverage or provide a subpar one. But thats about it, Walter slow descent into a evil power junky is mostly describe as a result of his own character and decision. A simple chemical-teacher that missed his big break and live a fairly bland suburban life and finally get to break this and feed the frustration he had all along.
At some point he wields real power. It corrupts him, I wonder how many people would not be corrupted and just pay their cancer bills and move on (like any normal person would think they would do.)
Before I start a meth lab.
If all these goals were attainable at the same time, capitalism would happily sell it to people.
Keep in mind, in the US, there's neither capitalism nor socialism. There's the worst of both worlds. Virtually all political reform can be sabotaged by crying "socialism!", but corporate welfare goes through unchallenged.
I am not sure I understand your point. "common sense" socialism has been more or less in use in Europe for decades. It does evolve from time to time and depending on the political climate and economy, it can face some financial issue, but it has been in used for at least as long as the end of WWII.
Having a form of UBI will increase the tax burden on medium to high earners such as myself. I simply don't believe it is ethical to offer UBI i.e. you are taking my earnings to fund those that unwilling to work, even if it is a tiny percentage it is still wrong on principle.
I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).
It's nice if you are rich, but you're going to have to build a big wall around your house and stay inside if you let inequality go rampant.
I don't care if someone or some studies say that it works out cheaper or it maybe nicer. It is simply not ethical. However I am someone that given the choice between Monarchy and Democracy, Monarchy is the better choice.
I understand these people very well (I grew up with them). I find that those that advocate for these types of programs that you refer to, to be very naive or willingly ignorant.
No. I am fed up of this pathological altruism. They should be looking for employment. End of discussion.
It is simply wrong to take from others who work to those who cannot be bothered to work. Everything you do afterwards is trying rationalise your desire for UBI because you believe it to be virtuous.
When I read stuff like this I think of the couple of thousand a year I pay in taxes that gets handed over to defense contractors in return for nothing of value.
We all know that those who work will be taxed more highly as that is the simplest way. It will have to be quickly as it has to be done within a few years (because that is a term limit of most politicians).
> The world today has the wealth to pull this off.
No the world today is very good at printing money, which destroys the middle class (as their savings and investments become increasingly worthless). Without the middle class you typically don't have people with disposable income which is normally used on goods and services, so you end up with less actual wealth in the economy.
> The government (or some other entity) could employ people to generate wealth like traditional corporations do today.
Governments do not generate wealth (it only takes from others and enriches the bureaucracy). Why would another entity freely give away its money?
> So the billions tied up in mega corps could be used for something that actually moves us on as a civilization.
Pure utopianism.
> There are economic models that support a variety of liberal crackpot and old school approaches plus everything in between.
More economic models. That have that never work. When are people going to learn that you cannot make wealth out of thin air?
> There MUST be a better alternative to what we have today.
There is. But what I consider better alternatives are very different from what you would consider better alternatives and you definitely won't like what I would propose.
It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario. Most money goes to corporate welfare to maintain jobs that should not exist. I'm not just talking about taxes, I'm talking about government debt, which dwarves tax revenue.
It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful.
> I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago.
If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago.
> I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).
This amounts to a huge bureaucracy to determine who and who isn't entitled. Inevitably, some people fall through the cracks. Other people game the system.
It's not going to be fair either way. Just incentivize people to work and they will work.
If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income, they will be able to take risks. They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them. They will not be put to shame standing in line at the unemployment office.
I agree. But that still doesn't mean you have a right to take from those (through the form of taxes) to give to those that are unwilling to work.
> It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful.
I had a job and went to university, I unloaded lorries in a warehouse it was very boring. I still spend a lot of my time outside of work reading, coding etc.
People typically have 4-6 hours plus the weekend so another 32 hours to educate themselves, yet most choose their time watching netflix, playing theirs Playstation etc, going to the bar (nothing wrong with those in themselves btw). Online courses are inexpensive these days and it is literally at your fingertips. Before there were online courses people used to go to night schools to learn. The opportunities are there but people choose not to pursue them, that is up to them.
> If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago.
There are many reasons why property prices in the UK are ridiculous. However if wasn't taxed to the high heavens I would have been able to afford it sooner regardless of why the prices were high. In any event, it was just an example of how I could have spent my money differently that would have directly benefited me.
> If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income,
I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.
>They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them.
I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. That bit of welfare going to people who maybe don't deserve it? It's nothing compared to the money that goes to corporations to keep people working in jobs that make no economic sense.
That money is not only taken from you, it's taken from generations to come through debt. You're the sucker, either way!
Now, do you want to make things worse to enforce some idea of "fairness"? That's the essence of socialism.
> I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.
That's survivorship bias. Depending on the business, it would be unwise to take all the risk, relative to the limited reward. I hope you managed to save enough for your retirement, unlike most small business owners.
> I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.
If you want real capitalism where workers don't have all these rights that prevent an efficient economy, inevitably some workers will be in a dire economic situation and will have to take any job, lest they starve. That's an exploitable situation. I suppose you don't want that.
I'm not arguing for Marxism, I'm arguing to get rid of the entitlements and most of the worker's rights, but in turn give them a simple safety net, a very modest means of living, so that they don't have to take or keep a bad job - especially not those artificial jobs created by corporate welfare.
You must understand that keeping people working in uneconomical jobs is more wasteful than just giving them money to do nothing, because on top of it costing taxpayer money, it also costs people's time.
Get rid of corporatism as well. Any politicians to be seen to be paid off (and I don't doubt there are quite a few) should be locked up. Corporations can that are inefficient can only survive because there isn't a fair market place and this is facilitated by politicians.
> That money is not only taken from you, it's taken from generations to come through debt. You're the sucker, either way!
At the moment it is getting taken from me. I can see it in my accounting. So don't tell me it isn't when it very clearly is.
> Now, do you want to make things worse to enforce some idea of "fairness"? That's the essence of socialism.
Oh please. This is ridiculous. I am not saying it should be fair, I am saying that in principle it is wrong to allow those that do not want to work to do nothing and be supported by those that do do the work. Doing something on principle isn't fairness. I don't like corporatism and those politicians that sold us down the river should be rotting in a prison cell.
>That's survivorship bias. Depending on the business, it would be unwise to take all the risk, relative to the limited reward. I hope you managed to save enough for your retirement, unlike most small business owners.
Claiming survivorship claim is a bit of a meme on here and your usage is utterly ridiculous, in fact it must be some sort of fallacy to claim this every-time someone simply say "You can do this without the government" they parrot survivorship bias because they read the wikipedia entry the week before.
I am a contractor (and I sub-contract to others). There are plenty of small businesses that do fine and it is trivial to setup a pension and investments through you business (took me an afternoon on the phone). This does however require you to read up on things, and take responsibility and think ahead.
> If you want real capitalism where workers don't have all these rights that prevent an efficient economy, inevitably some workers will be in a dire economic situation and will have to take any job, lest they starve. That's an exploitable situation. I suppose you don't want that.
The reality is that some people will have to work jobs they don't like. I've done it. That still isn't exploitation, it is called life mate. There are some thing that you won't like doing. I don't like working with legacy systems but most of the work involves working with them.
> I'm not arguing for Marxism, I'm arguing to get rid of the entitlements and most of the worker's rights, but in turn give them a simple safety net, a very modest means of living, so that they don't have to take or keep a bad job - especially not those artificial jobs created by corporate welfare.
"I am not arguing for socialism. I am arguing for redistributing wealth by taxing the upper-middle class further". The elites never pay these taxes (I wouldn't if I was soo rich I could pay an army of accountants to work out how to move my wealth to a tax haven).
Also when people say "corporate welfare. I am starting to suspect that it means "I don't like my boring job at global-corp, therefore if we had UBI I could read reddit at home instead and post pictures on r/unixporn instead of having to pretend to be working".
> You must understand that keeping people working in uneconomical jobs is more wasteful than just giving them money to do nothing, because on top of it costing taxpayer money, it also costs people's time.
No you must understand we have to end collusion between Government and Business. UBI will make people more dependant on Government. Once that is ended, if the job is uneconomical and there is no corporatism the problem will resolve itself as eventually businesses will have to innovate their processes if they want to stay competitive.
I didn't say that. Read the sentence again. It is not only taken from you. Sure, you pay taxes, but the government is also getting deeper and deeper into debt, because your taxes aren't enough. Who is going to pay for that? Well, you, as long as your alive, then your children, if you have any. Or maybe you'll be poorer through inflation. You need to look beyond taxes and start looking at debt. Taxation is (politically) hard, debt is easy.
> I am not saying it should be fair, I am saying that in principle it is wrong....
It's only wrong because it is unfair. Same difference.
> This does however require you to read up on things, and take responsibility and think ahead.
Oh sure. Most likely, you'll be wiped out easy as soon as some minor crisis shows up at the door. There's a major recession unfolding right now, perhaps it hasn't hit you yet. You'll lose all your money, your pension, and then you'll wish you had your protected salary at some "too big to fail" company, or maybe some government desk job. You can barely afford real estate, so the risk you are taking is in no proportion to the reward. I wish it'd be different, but I didn't make the rules.
> The reality is that some people will have to work jobs they don't like. I've done it. That still isn't exploitation, it is called life mate.
Dude, you're from the UK, your worst case scenario is being on unemployment benefits. You effectively have a social safety net, you can just stop pontificating about the people who don't have one. If your options are "be out on the street" or "work 60hrs in a dead-end job for the rest of your life", it's a little bit different.
> No you must understand we have to end collusion between Government and Business. UBI will make people more dependant on Government. Once that is ended, if the job is uneconomical and there is no corporatism the problem will resolve itself as eventually businesses will have to innovate their processes if they want to stay competitive.
The whole argument to keep these companies alive is to protect jobs. If we have it your way, a lot of people will be unemployed. Maybe in the UK that's not such a big deal, but only because there is a welfare system.
Just admit that your idea of good politics is putting people out in the street and let them figure it all out. Apart from that, we're probably on the same page.
When people like yourself start putting words into my mouth. It is time not to bother conversing any longer. Goodbye.
I'm only replying in kind. Haven't you noticed?
In that context, a UBI isn't just a support mechanism.
Neither does getting money without labour mean that a UBI is wrong in principle.
Yes it is. Because they are taking wealth from people who do work. Everyone sidesteps this and tries to justify it as being virtuous by citing things that are post rationalisations.
It will also make people more dependent on the government which gives more power to politicians (those who will want to be elected will simply promise to increase the UBI) and we go further down the road to tyranny.
Private property takes wealth out of the commons.