
Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad? - prostoalex
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/would-a-world-without-work-be-so-bad/488711/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits&amp;single_page=true
======
bko
Among the dubious claims that the author provides no back-up for I found this
gem:

> Plus, in many modern-day societies, unemployment can also be downright
> boring. American towns and cities aren’t really built for lots of free time:
> Public spaces tend to be small islands in seas of private property, and
> there aren’t many places without entry fees where adults can meet new people
> or come up with ways to entertain one another.

Really? I feel the market for entertainment and those interested in niche
activities is as rich as it has ever been.

> “Sometimes people retire from their work, and they don’t know what to do,”
> Gray says. “They’ve lost the ability to create their own activities.” It’s a
> problem that never seems to plague young children. “There are no three-year-
> olds that are going to be lazy and depressed because they don’t have a
> structured activity,” he says.

I've read the opposite from PG, who suggests that children are now unhappy and
depressed because they have no purpose. Many parents are just using schools as
daycare [0]

> But need it be this way? Work-free societies are more than just a thought
> experiment—they’ve existed throughout human history. Consider hunter-
> gatherers, who have no bosses, paychecks, or eight-hour workdays. Ten
> thousand years ago, all humans were hunter-gatherers, and some still are.

The authors romanticizing such lifestyles are free to build a cabin in the
woods. But one should understand the accompanying poverty that would accompany
such a decision.

I could go on...

[0]
[http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html)

~~~
dublinben
Hunter-gatherer societies have absolutely nothing to do with 'building a cabin
in the woods' or poverty. They represent a highly social period in human
development that lasted for tens of thousands of years. It has been argued
that we have never been as happy or healthy ever since.[0]

[0]
[http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html](http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html)

~~~
openasocket
I just don't get this argument: are people seriously claiming that the hunter-
gatherer lifestyle is better for us than our modern society? In the modern
world life expectancy is significantly higher, as is prenatal and neonatal
care. People in the modern world are far less likely to die of infectious
disease, starvation, or really any form of violent/"unnatural" (meaning not
due to old age) death. And how could you measure the happiness of hunter-
gatherers relative to people in the modern world?

~~~
rsync
"I just don't get this argument: are people seriously claiming that the
hunter-gatherer lifestyle is better for us than our modern society? In the
modern world life expectancy is significantly higher, as is prenatal and
neonatal care. People in the modern world are far less likely to die of
infectious disease, starvation, or really any form of violent/"unnatural"
(meaning not due to old age) death. And how could you measure the happiness of
hunter-gatherers relative to people in the modern world?"

I don't "get" why we're arguing about it at all - we don't need to. In 2016
there exist authentic, functioning hunter gatherer societies and it is
possible to witness and document them.

Here is some witness and documentation:

[http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/crying-
meri/](http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/crying-meri/)

... perhaps scroll down to the photos of women being cut open and burned at
the stake for witchcraft, or the mutilated survivors of tribal justice.

Looks like a real party.

~~~
woodandsteel
The article was not about the hunter-gatherer life being better as a whole, it
was about how what is natural to human beings is a life with a good deal of
play.

------
nurettin
>20 percent of Americans who have been unemployed for at least a year report
having depression

Maybe because they have this irrational belief that having no money to pay
rent is bad?

~~~
buckbova
That's a "duh" moment.

I think it'd be more relevant to interview retired persons in reasonably good
health.

~~~
squozzer
And finances. Also might be useful to track lottery winners, though i once
read a book published 30 years ago that was a bit depressing on the subject.

~~~
Noseshine
The problem with winning lots of money is that it is disruptive and usually
takes a big toll on friends and family. Which is not the case when you earn
the money yourself, because that also comes with a selection process -
different kinds of friends, those who themselves grew into or are making
enough money.

------
buckbova
> "American towns and cities aren’t really built for lots of free time: Public
> spaces tend to be small islands in seas of private property, and there
> aren’t many places without entry fees where adults can meet new people or
> come up with ways to entertain one another."

Unsubstatiated bull. I've hundreds destinations near me with no entrance fees,
beaches, trails, clubs, churches, libraries, parks, etc.

> The primary purpose of the educational system is to teach people to work.

And that's why the curriculum includes civics, american history, geography,
literature? K-12 does not perpare students to become workers aside from
providing a struture of authority and some discipline.

~~~
ch4s3
Perhaps you don't live in a typical town. Most small towns don't have beaches,
and most have tiny parks. Trails aren't the most common either.

~~~
buckbova
Most have lake, rivers, or access to an ocean. If not this, they have
mountains or other natural features. If you're living in a barren wasteland, I
suggest you get outta there!

Let's take a typical american city, cleveland ohio.

Plenty of trails:

[http://www.traillink.com/city/cleveland-oh-
trails.aspx](http://www.traillink.com/city/cleveland-oh-trails.aspx)

Beaches:

[http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/06/the_10_bes...](http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/06/the_10_best_beaches_on_ohios_l.html#0)

Parks:

[http://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/Main/Recreation/Hiking-
an...](http://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/Main/Recreation/Hiking-and-
Walking-12.aspx)

~~~
Throwaway23412
What makes a typical American city? One could argue that the second largest
city in Ohio is not a typical city.

~~~
greenshackle
You're not wrong, but then again, the typical American doesn't live in a
typical city (where typical = median).

The average American city/town has a population of 20,000, yet 80% of the
population lives in a metropolitan area.

([http://www.newgeography.com/content/00242-america-more-
small...](http://www.newgeography.com/content/00242-america-more-small-town-
we-think))

If that's counterintuive, imagine the extreme case of a country with 100
cities of 10,000 residents, and one city of 10 million residents. The median
city has 10,000 residents, yet 10 out of 11 millions live in the big city.

If you are interested in the experiences of people as opposed to statistics
about cities, the sort of city a typical American lives in is more interesting
than a typical city.

------
jrapdx3
How is a "work-free world" even possible? There are _always_ problems to
solve, who will solve them? Finding and applying solutions is _work_ and one
or more people must do it.

Getting paid is orthogonal to the effort. Even if performed voluntarily there
is still work that needs to be accomplished.

Even having fun is a hell of a lot of work in all proportion. It's no mystery,
work is the implication of existence.

~~~
tc313
Yeah, somebody needs to make the video games. Otherwise, what's the point of
not working?

~~~
jeena
Actually, when I don't do work for my employer, I make video games. It still
is work, even though I don't get payed in money, but it is also much more fun
than playing video games others have created. I even would say it is driven by
the same desire.

------
wangchow
Just watch Wall-E and there's the answer. :)

Jokes aside: idle hands lead to new art, science, and culture on the one hand;
and trouble on the other hand. For those with a natural inclination for
creative endeavors they will explore. For people who have desires to conquer,
pillage and plunder they'll go around beating people up and destroying things.
For the lazy people that like sitting around, they'll end up just like Wall-E
predicts.

~~~
slackstation
A high percentage of unemployed young men roaming the streets of your
civilization is a dangerous thing.

But, if those young men aren't angry for not having a job and are entertained
by things like video games all day. I don't think you'll have much trouble.

People might take a generation or two to adapt but, we will adapt.

Eventually, doing "nothing" with your life will be socially frowned upon so
people will try to find interesting, unique bohemian pursuits if only to
appear like an interesting and well rounded person at dinner parties.

Men will certainly do this. Without the ability to make lots of money, men
will have to have something to attract women. Men have been doing this for
literally thousands of generations. It's not going to change any time soon.

Also, I see a future where people will work out alot more. It's incredible how
cheap and easy lifting something heavy repeatedly decreases stress, makes one
more attractive to the opposite sex and makes one happy.

In a post scarcity world, I see alot of gyms and not people too fat to get out
of their chair. Even without the capital markets or paying rent to spur
competition, there will always be the sexual market to spur competition. In a
Wall-E world, the one guy who works out would get more women. The woman who
worked out would get access to the best men. If both of these groups had
nothing but free time, mating market competition alone would lead to an
explosion of attractive people. If one was raised not to over-eat or was
constantly stressed out from work (in order to survive) then the chances of
being obese would drop.

People today are fat because they sit all day, get stressed from work. Poor
people are stressed because they don't have enough money. Rich people are
stressed (maybe less so) because they are competing to get more money.

If you have massive unemployment from technology, you won't have the social
stigma of not having a job. Or to put it another way, you can surround
yourself with people who are jobless and you'll compare yourselves in other
ways.

We already see this with hipsters. Millennials already are in the first
generation of post-Work thinking. They already demand more from a job than
just a steady paycheck (often because finding and getting one is so hard).
They look for fulfillment, work/life balance and opportunities to change the
world for the better.

This will only continue and deepen. Despite media that competes for attention
by making more and more dire predictions and alarming rhetoric, the world is
largely getting better. More diseases are being eradicated, billions are being
lifted out of poverty, billions more are gaining access to the entirety of the
world's information.

There are interesting problems to solve and they will be solved quickly in our
lifetimes. It will be extremely pleasing to be a part of the world as we
eliminate poverty and bring the global standard of living up to where the
poorest of us will still be able to live a decent life.

The optimal path could usher in the greatest climb and heights humanity has
ever seen. We could make a world better than people 200 years ago could have
even imagined.

We could potentially make basically Heaven on Earth if we play this right.

> Edited for grammar and clarity. It's still a bit rambly

------
beatpanda
The problem with all if these arguments is that it assumes there's no other
work you'd rather be doing aside from whatever work you've been forced to
contort your desires into in order to pay rent. I think there's probably a lot
of socially valuable work not getting done because social value doesn't
translate to economic value.

~~~
theseatoms
Is that a problem though? Freed from the socio-economic obligation to
maximizing income from labor, (due to basic income) one is able to pursue
these other types of more p-personally rewarding work.

------
Pica_soO
Yes, but not for the reasons we expect it to be. I think people would find
other sources of self-worth and dedication too. The problem is the guys who
need people to play the games of power. I don't think that a psychopath
actually can exist without his daily dose of personal power and domination
gestures. These guys need people to fill there little model trains that race
against one another. I think if you would automate the whole factory, up to
the CEOs secretary, the market value staying the same, the reward staying the
same, the CEO would drop the project like a hot potato- or would start to hire
people for useless work. And im okay with that- those guys are better kept
from the streets.

------
CydeWeys
Ever read the Culture series?

Yeah, until we achieve that level of technological sophistication, where human
labor isn't needed because much more intelligent AIs and robots handle
everything, then we can't truly have a work-free world. Don't get me wrong,
the hedonistic Culture sounds amazing, it's just so far from reality as it
stands today that it's not even worth talking about as anything other than
science fiction.

Star Trek would be another post-scarcity parallel to draw, and again, it's
very far from our current level of progress.

~~~
shkkmo
> It's just so far from reality as it stands today that it's not even worth
> talking about as anything other than science fiction

We need to discuss this today, because we need to determine the path we will
take forward.

1) Do we impede the adoption of automation to make sure there is work for
everyone?

2) Do we have to keep the increasingly large numbers of unemployed mired in
poverty to incentivize people to do the remaining necessary work?

3) Do we allow people the economic freedom to choose whether to work or not
and then trust that the necessary work will get done because enough people
want power and status?

I personally think 1) is a bad idea and will retard our progression. However,
if you believe work is necessary for happiness and we have a duty to provide
happiness for everyone, then 1) seems to be the only choice. (The article's
point is to make an argument agains this option)

I do think we need a balance between 2) and 3). To me the unknown is how much
economic freedom can we provide before we start losing economic output. I
don't think we need to have a clear answer for this right now, but we can find
the balance gradually by introducing a slowly increasing basic income.

~~~
EdSharkey
Whatever our discussions on automation lead to, I hope we can consider the
fragility angle. I'm with you on #1, but it seems to me that automation
encourages too much dependency on the technology because of human nature. If
there was some catastrophe and the populace was deprived of technology, I fear
that most would be utterly helpless and endangered.

I understand that the best person to take charge of the average individual is
themselves, and ultimately one's continued survival is their responsibility.
That said, life is pretty sublime for most people where I live and most of the
time all needs are met - so survival ranks low on the priorities list. Perhaps
the responsible thing to do would be to make it a part of a standard education
to teach low-tech survival skills. Boy Scouts was the closest thing I had to
this kind of training as a kid, and I still hang on to my boy scout manual if
I need knowledge in an emergency.

I try to buy food and manufactured goods made at the local level wherever
possible to increase the chances that essentials can be provided if my area
were to ever be cutoff from outside support for a long period.

------
carsongross
Leaving aside the existential meaning found in non-alienated creative work, if
the reproductive fitness of the violent, criminal and sociopathic is not
constrained, yes, it will be.

------
partycoder
People might just work on activities they like (e.g: the maker movement, open
source, art).

------
NetTechM
I'm going to guess that a good portion of the depressed people reportedly
unemployed, would list their reason as "Broke".

Might explain why there are double the numbers of depressed people in the
unemployed vs the employed. Not so much a lack of purpose, but a lack of
money.

Money might not buy happiness, but its a lot easier to be happy with money
than it is without it.

------
haroem
throughout the comments, people have commented about the necessity of work as
if the only jobs required for society to function are 40 hour corporate office
accounting professionals and IT staff.

the entire concept vastly downplays the actual number of services people
utilize and purchase. how do you automate a lawsuit? which robot knows how to
install a new circuit breaker box? and even if a robot could hypothetically
discover new oil fields who decides how it searches and where are these
mythological solar powered oil field search bots that have close to unlimited
range so nobody has to figure out what depot they're stashed in?

finally, how do I build a new computer and phone from scratch when no slave
labor exists to create all the components that go into that design since apple
and microsoft and samsung and sony all have to go out of business because
nobody has any money to buy their devices?

I would google it, but they're out of business since ads don't work in a
society without money.

the library card only goes so far. psychological thrillers to academic
psychiatry, kids books to romance novels, newspaper articles going back 50
years, but somehow I don't think I'd be able to learn micro-computing circa
2016. It would be back to concepts circa 1980-1996 and the entire field would
be tedious again.

yes. a work free world would be terrible. I've thought about it a lot because
the better part of my life is spent figuring out how to work less. you notice
over time the people who don't have a choice in automation and they get my
respect because there's very little chance they're ever unemployed longer than
a couple days in their lifetime.

~~~
slackstation
It's not that there would be no work or that there would be no jobs or
companies staffed with people.

The point is that the average median person might not be good enough to get a
job. If automation makes it so that only 20% of people are employed in any
traditional sense that we recognize today; that world would be drastically
different than the one we have.

In that world, we have a path where we don't get rid of money but, just use
taxes on large mega companies and redistibute that money as a basic income to
people without a job. This keeps capitalism and the efficiencies it brings.

With basic income, you still have advertising, you still have companies and
you still have consumers buying things. There is still competition to push
quality up and prices down. There is still the invisible hand of the market.

It's elegant in that it achieves the goals of eliminating both poverty and
forced labor to survive without eliminating the competition that makes the
world so damned efficient and effective.

------
acr25
Why yes, yes it would.

~~~
J_Darnley
Seconded. Being jobless sucks.

~~~
jpindar
Would it still suck if you had lots of money?

~~~
J_Darnley
It would probably suck less but I would still be left with the question: what
the fuck do I do all day?

