
Workism Is Making Americans Miserable - gotocake
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/religion-workism-making-americans-miserable/583441/
======
unclebucknasty
Just yesterday, I was watching an episode of "This Week in Startups" [0]. At
about 12:20, the conversation turns to jobs, UBI, etc. and his guest, Rabios,
starts going on about how depressed people would be without jobs, with
statements like this:

> _" The by-product of your toil is what makes you human in many ways, and if
> you pay people not to work, you're actually destroying their self-worth."_

My first thought was "well, that's convenient, coming from a guy who makes his
living from the work of others".

But, of course, it's also likely that he and the "investor-class"\--as well as
a broad segment of people, including much of startup culture--really are so
disconnected from reality, that they can't fathom that not everyone is in a
position to "create", "find fulfillment", or otherwise change the world
through their labor.

But, do they not notice when they see people cleaning toilets, etc? Or is it
just those people's moral failing?

Calacanis then goes on to make the case that young men become despondent and
start riots, turn to terrorism, etc because they are unemployed. This, as if
their despondency in unemployment has everything to do with not having access
to work as the sole means of fulfillment; and nothing to do with the fact that
we've structured society in such a way that we cannot subsist at any level of
decency, except through our labor.

I think these people have convinced themselves of the inherent truth of
workism, because it serves them and because it is their experience. But, with
this increasing disconnect and the mounting pressures faced by workers, the
situation will ultimately be untenable.

[0] [https://youtu.be/fOS9K4UU50A](https://youtu.be/fOS9K4UU50A)

~~~
jblow
Was there ever a time when a human being could subsist at any level of decency
except through labor?

Why then would you expect humans to be adapted to such a situation?

~~~
daniel-cussen
Hunting. Gathering. You have to do things, but it's not labor. Tribes cared
for their sick and old, and they would watch the children.

For what you said to be true, even chewing food would have to be considered
labor.

~~~
jblow
It’s not labor? What is your definition of labor?

------
mnm1
This workism sounds exactly like the puritanical ideological bullshit that's
been going around in America for hundreds of years fueling all types of
hideous cultural practices like the current obsession with work and
productivity. This is clearly a culture pushed by the business owners who
undoubtedly would be happy to have slavery back if it applied to everyone but
themselves. It's sick, disgusting, and oppressive. It's the sign of a
seriously broken culture and society that no longer meets the needs of workers
but only of their masters.

I don't know how you fix this at the societal level because such stupid
ideology has been around for so long, but at the individual level it's
possible. Individuals can start to recognize and see through the bullshit of
this ideology. Some will even be able to disconnect further from work and
focus on what they value rather than what their masters value. The more
disconnected, the more disengaged, and the less work people put in for their
overlords, the happier they will be. One promising avenue is remote work. In a
remote setting it's much easier to reject this stupidity and just focus on
doing a reasonable amount of work, then moving on to non work stuff. Some
management of appearances is necessary, of course, as the corporate overlords
would be unhappy if they found out their employees were not 100% invested even
if they did all the work asked on time with great quality.

This is one of the worst aspects of American culture. It's almost like the
slavery mindset never died. Instead, the new wage slaves have taken the
mindset and co-opted it for their own identities. If I had to guess why, it'd
probably be because our society does not provide much else for most people.
Money is such a focus, most people never think of anything else, even when
they have plenty of money. Or perhaps in a society where any little accident
can bankrupt a person and send them to skid row homeless, there's no such
thing as enough money and people are too scared to do anything but work and
earn money. I know this last thing keeps me up at night, and I have to
consciously remind myself that there is more to life than preparing for
disaster.

~~~
samhain
For me, I will not have children.

I would never subject another human to this kind of life.

~~~
QualityReboot
Same. I don't want to birth a human into a life of slavery. If I secure enough
wealth that I don't have to work, and my children wouldn't have to work, only
then would I have kids.

------
downrightmike
There is also a meta to this. He is telling people in the past that their
children will not have to work as long/hard. In doing this he gives people a
dream to think about while they slog away in their own work. It is an escapism
fantasy. I've worked at places where they lay people off, half of the group
and the other half has to pick up the pieces. a few months later when it gets
really bad and people are burning out, a Senior VP comes in to "listen" to
people and put up a front that the company cares and tries to sell the
employees on the idea that it will get better and that the company only want
to keep people occupied 73% of the time. Their numbers I don't know how they
came up with that 73%, but people ate it up and still got burned out, all the
while talking about how things will get better and somehow that 73% will
happen. It never did.

~~~
MRD85
The bigger issue is what will happen if our children don't need to work hard.
A world where 95% of people don't need to work at all sounds great until we
factor in wealth inequality.

~~~
smallgovt
Is wealth inequality inherently bad? I've heard of numerous studies that point
out that people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain
point. Is that 'certain point' a moving goal post?

~~~
gotocake
That sounds like a case _against_ wealth inequality, since there’s no increase
in happiness for the very rich.

~~~
kartan
> That sounds like a case against wealth inequality, since there’s no increase
> in happiness for the very rich.

Not necessarily. Inequality seems to bring unhappiness independently of
wealth.

You may have more than others. But if you get way less for your work than
others, most people will be unhappy. That is why millionaires want more when
they see the billionaires.

This video helps to illustrate my point:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg)

------
erokar
In reality we all work too much. 8 hours a day is extreme, we should strive
for 2-4 hours.

~~~
fileeditview
I wonder what inspires such thoughts. I mean I would love to only work 2-4
hours. I can however not see how it would work if the majority of people did
this.

I also do not know of any period or place in time where 2-4 hours of work were
sufficient for the majority of people.

So maybe I'm misunderstanding you but why do you think 8 hours is extreme/too
much and why 2-4h should be sufficient.

~~~
purplezooey
the right wing would never settle for it

~~~
chrisco255
Thank goodness they wouldn't. These calls for short work days "just because"
are careless statements that don't take into account the complex realities of
our incredibly diverse economy.

------
coldtea
It also makes them poor.

Not only because the most valuable resource is time (and they are not getting
those extra work time back, at least not while they're as young to enjoy
them), but also because if companies depend on the marginal benefits of
working more hours, then the workplace is a race to the bottom.

------
mortenjorck
This is a fine discussion of the culture of workism, but it’s not complete
without a discussion of the economics. Keynes' prediction of shorter work
weeks would have been much closer to the mark if the gains in productivity in
the latter part of the century had been reflected in commensurately higher
per-hour compensation.

------
baxtr
It’s funny how relative this is. My American friends tell me: we work, you
Germans live. My Italian friends say: we live, you Germans work.

~~~
yoodenvranx
I heard it slightly different:

French people work to live and German people live to work.

~~~
jlangenauer
What rubbish. Germans are fiercely protective of their work/life balance.

~~~
xtracto
I worked I Germany for 4 years.

At some point, a German colleague and I went on a visit to a French Institute.
Their schedule:

9.00am everybody arrived.

9.30-10.30 coffee/chat time

10.30-12.00 do sone work

12.00-1.30 lunch time

1.30-3.30 some more work.

3.30-4.30 coffee/chat time.

4.30-5.00 wrap up work for the day

5.00 everybody left.

After 3 weeks working with this schedule, my German co-worker commented that
she had no idea how French managed to get anything done.

~~~
agumonkey
That institute is probably high on the exception scale. My mother has
20minutes to eat and there's no restaurant in her company.

That said French people don't have the work 101% mentality but slacking off is
not the norm either.

~~~
mamon
Here's how work supposedly looks like in a French factory

[https://www.cnbc.com/id/100474481](https://www.cnbc.com/id/100474481)

~~~
agumonkey
I remember that affair.. I'm sure taylor is an innocent person telling the
truth and only the truth ;)

------
spynxic
It's interesting to see the range of perspectives on work put forth in this
thread. I'd only point out how strange it is that the question of what is
being worked towards isn't more often in these discussions. I can only imagine
that is because there is predominate perception of individuals as competitors
rather than allies. Unfortunately such a perception keeps the masses grasping
for their share rather than promoting a common drive towards abundance.

------
acd
I think America would be better if you had 5-6 weeks of vacation and/or 4 days
workweek and a year of parental. Then you would have better work life balance
and be happier in general!

~~~
maxxxxx
Especially a minimum amount of vacation time would also be market friendly
because everybody could compete on the same level.

------
Mr_Shiba
Curious, I just red "It doesn't have to be crazy at work" by David Heinemeier
Hansson. Could not be more true, we have created a toxic amoral culture that
is making everyone miserable.

This work thing, the whole point is to make our life better, not worse.

------
DiseasedBadger
"Not getting paidism" is killing Americans. Does anyone remember houses?
Honestly I barely remember living in a house. I probably never will again.

~~~
sircastor
This exposes to me how privileged I really am. I have lived almost exclusively
in houses my whole life. There are exceptions like college, but for the most
part I've enjoyed a detached house on suburbia.

~~~
meddlepal
Meh, most people can afford a house somewhere in the US. I have a friend that
does gas station convenience store attendant level work and owns a house in
Iowa. It isn't much but it has a yard, was in decent shape at purchase and
only cost him about 100K.

What most people mean when they say they can't afford a house is they can't
afford a house in or near Boston, NYC, Seattle, SF, DC or some other hot and
important urban market. That's an entitlement problem not an affordability
problem. People feel entitled to live in certain locations.

~~~
mnm1
It's so entitled that all these people want to live in places that have jobs.
How unbelievably elitist they are to want to work for a living. /s

~~~
hellisothers
Living in an area and owning a house are not the same thing. I 100% understand
the desire and angst/emotion but don’t get the entitlement, that one deserves
this, it can never work out for everybody. Living in SF area I want to
understand this point of view, plz point me at a good articulation.

------
Animats
Not a new idea. See "Stakhanovite_movement".[1] Capitalism does it better than
Communism did, by pushing competitiveness down to the individual. The
destruction of unions made this possible.

It's so much more cost effective than slavery. Slavery doesn't provide a just
in time workforce. Slaves are a capital expense and an ongoing operating cost.
Capitalist workers are disposable.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement)

------
maerF0x0
> There is new enthusiasm for universal policies—like universal basic income,
> parental leave, subsidized child care, and a child allowance—which would
> make long working hours less necessary for all Americans.

These universal policies will only exacerbate the load on those who work.
Remember that when ever the government spends money on "someone" that money
comes from someone who had to work to produce it.

Universal income that dismantles the bureaucracy and keeps the budget status
quo could be a better system, but one that increases the budget will just put
more labor on the shoulders of those who work.

------
Sortofeven8811
47 1/2 years as a wage slave, by choice, and never heard of such non sense. I
have known co-workers over time who may believe this theory. I treated time
off, every minute, as a mini vacation be it weekends, paid holidays, paid
vacation, paid sick leave and time off during labor strikes during which I
would work part time to keep fiscally healthy. How time off is managed is key.
If the job has no 'percs', sickness will result.

------
mc32
When Kaynes madd these predictions the world pop wa about 2 billion. With that
pop it may be possible to achieve a 1940x level of leisure for everyone. But
at 7 billion I’m pessimistic and think it’s unfair to anchor the article on
something envisioned 80 years ago.

I’d like to know what the author expects people to do with their free time?

Get immersed in social media/games ?

Get involved in hobbies?

Lifelong learning?

Consumerism/travel?

Just what exactly?

~~~
fulafel
Why would population change the picture?

~~~
downrightmike
If we are talking about modern people only working 2 days a week and still
being as productive as people were in the past while working a whole week,
then you have to see that 3.5 times the population increases the number of
people able to do work. So either the work is divided among more people and
people work even less and are able to live, or the bosses keep all the cash
and make people work a full week and give them a marginal percent of what they
brought in and everyone is worse off.

~~~
fulafel
I think you are close to falling into the "lump of labour" fallacy. Work is
generally done to service consumer demand that scales with the number of
people.

------
huffmsa
_> In 1980, the highest-earning men actually worked fewer hours per week than
middle-class and low-income men, according to a survey by the Minneapolis Fed.
But that’s changed. By 2005, the richest 10 percent of married men had the
longest average workweek._

Surprise, a 70% marginal tax rate makes people reluctant to work when making
dollars at that rate.

------
strikelaserclaw
I would say those things that gave most Americans a sense of identity like
community, religion or whatever are completely eroding. People move away to
colleges, move away for jobs, i think we live in an era where the world looks
so vast and chaotic, so people look for meaning in things they feel that are
in their control, their work.

------
craftinator
No shit. Our government has engineered a culture of fear to coerce the average
person to work themselves as hard as they can, increasing the governments
power and posh lifestyles for its elite, president, congresspeople, senior
officials etc...

------
rajacombinator
Keep in mind this is a result of great powers applying simultaneous asset
inflation and wage suppression to destroy this country.

------
swayvil
If I was a capitalistic billionaire, "Workism" is a religion that I would
definitely encourage in my serfs.

------
paulryanrogers
> But everybody worships something.

Bullshit. This meme needs to die. People may desire meaning in their lives,
but that's generally a sign they have ascended higher on Maslow's pyramid.

And finding meaning in certain kinds of work is still considered noble:
education, small scale agriculture, charity, etc. Perhaps other industries
could be equally fulfilling if workers gained a larger share of the spoils of
their labor.

~~~
jm__87
This statement is actually what stood out the most to me because I disagree
with it. But, I actually disagree with you that people at the bottom of
Maslow's pyramid don't need meaning. If anything, these people need meaning in
their lives far more than the people at the top of the pyramid - otherwise,
how does one justify all the suffering they must go through on a day to day
basis. If you're struggling to make ends meet, having some meaning in your
life such as children to raise and feed will make the struggle feel justified.
You're not just working those long hours for low pay so you can go home and
eat, sleep and repeat, you're doing it for your family and hopefully your
children will have a better future as a result of your hard work.

------
jl2718
For the American Natives, when the landscape was lush and the population was
low, almost all time was spent in leisure. Then settlers came and made farms
which were massively more productive, but they had to work a lot more because
they were feeding a city of people doing other things. In the city, people
can’t farm, so they have to buy food and shelter by inventing goods and
services to trade for it which previously had no value. Then in these markets
too, productivity increases so that a small number of people are working very
hard to provide a low-value product to a large number of people. As
productivity increases, so must scale, and workers are displaced, who must
then find a way to sustain themselves by creating a new product that is even
less necessary to survival and well-being.

This basic economic cycle is immutable regardless of the political system or
label you place on it, and I believe that Keynes was a charlatan to deny it. A
time traveler from the past might assume that we are all in some kind of penal
colony being forced to do absolutely nothing and stressed out about random
punishments for meaningless transgressions.

There is one thing that breaks the cycle: population decline. It was the
plague that broke the pointless misery of the feudal system. In our world,
even voluntary population decline is considered such a crisis that leaders are
eager to sacrifice all forms of sustainability for any kind of growth. Unwise.

~~~
browsersetting
_For the American Natives, when the landscape was lush and the population was
low, almost all time was spent in leisure._

I would heartily recommend reading _anything_ about the native american
peoples written in this millennium, the world you’re imagining never existed.

~~~
jl2718
Despite the utter uselessness of this comment, there is some merit in the
sense that there are differing opinions from reputable sources. Thus I will
present my second-person account of the Amish.

They work very hard and what they do is very physically demanding. But most of
their work is of their own choosing, with some small fraction required for
sustenance. The women knit more quilts than they know what to do with them
(unfortunately exploited by charity scams). They cut down trees to make new
furniture just because. Kids make a game out of collecting rocks from the
fields. I get the sense that it’s pleasurable and community-oriented.

All Amish young adults must spend at least two years living in the ‘english’
world and decide whether to return. The vast majority do. Tech workers might
happily pay for such an experience. Is that leisure? Well, sort of. The point
is that it’s optional and uncoerced. Make your own conclusion.

I’m sure you can find a differing opinion, but I don’t care to. This is direct
from someone I know very well.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I don’t really think of Amish as American Natives.

The Amish are actually an example of hypercivilization, not indigenous
culture. They took all of the learnings from civilization and edited, edited,
edited.

They use even the most modern technologies if they are deemed useful to their
civilization. It’s more like Western Society, gameified, than a pre-colonial
society.

