# We work too many hours!



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

I'm sure being homeless and begging isn't against the law, so there is no legal repercussion to not working.

Why are people not realising that work is a choice.


----------



## Watchtower (Aug 20, 2015)

Sometimes even five hours is too much. How many hours of it is actual work, though? If the system is based on people sitting in some cubicle from 9-5 regardless of actual input/output, the system is faulty. I know this doesn't apply to all jobs out there. But in certain jobs, I think it would actually be more productive to let people be free with their hours as long as they get their jobs done.

For example, I know a guy in banking who has a lot of work some days, and none at all at other days (because he's dependent on other people finishing theirs before he can start doing his), but he still has to come in every day, and just sit there whether he actually has something to do or not.



Reality Check said:


> That's what I was thinking when I read this. No one is actually forced to work. Its all contractual, don't like the contract don't sign. Its simple really.


It's simple when you can get a new job just by snapping your fingers. No one is forced to work, but they're still forced to pay their bills. So it really is about doing all you can do to survive. If getting a job is difficult, sometimes even a bad contract is better than no contract at all.


----------



## EidolonAlpha (Aug 11, 2014)

Aladdin Sane said:


> What do you do?


I teach the piano and the guitar and get some bonuses with coaching bands and helping out in gigs. This isn't necessarily a dreamjob, though. I have friends in the same branch and they barely make enough money to get through the month and have high debts.




Reality Check said:


> Why are people not realising that work is a choice.


I don't know where you live, so I won't judge you, but in Germany (and afaik in many other countries as well), you don't simply "get a job". Some people have illnesses which prevent them from certain kinds of labor. Others lost their job because companies hat to sack employees and now even though they're willing to work, nobody wants them, because they're too old. 

Okay. I admit it. I judge you a little bit, because I can't imagine that those problems don't happen in your country.


----------



## Amy (Jan 15, 2015)

Aladdin Sane said:


> Do you ever have anything mindful to say or do you just troll the forums acting surprised and saying wow at everything said on this site?


Yep. Can't I express my feelings here? WHERE'S FREE SPEECH?!


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

NewBeginning said:


> We work too many hours! Because people work too many hours in today's society instead of having five perfectly neat and banged out hours of getting paid for magnificent jobs well done over and over, which have been properly planned for with fresh nights of crisp sleep clean eating and meditation, people get fired for spending too much time with their coworkers and bosses instead of family. It shouldn't be that family time gets in the way of work time because you work so many hours that your boss has to know the way your body functions! Five hours is enough! Other countries have done it and are doing it now and it's working for them!



Surely you jest. Not 100 years ago, the "40-hour work week" was unheard of. People worked as many as 12-18 hours a day 6-7 days a week, and were happy to get .25 cents (or less) per hour to do it.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

And this is why we need robots to replace labor intensive + dangerous jobs or tasks as soon as possible or be used to reduce the work hours. This development needs to be done quickly maybe within less than 10 years if possible.They can also bring us resources for free or less without us even having to pay. 

We can relax, do less time or labor intensive jobs and explore things beyond this boring "mundane world", without being enslaved by "material necessity" and need to compete for it.


----------



## Im FiNe (Oct 17, 2013)

Chara said:


> And this is why we need robots to replace labor intensive + dangerous jobs or tasks as soon as possible or be used to reduce the work hours. This development needs to be done quickly maybe within less than 10 years if possible.They can also bring us resources for free or less without us even having to pay.
> 
> We can relax, do less time or labor intensive jobs and explore things beyond this boring "mundane world", without being enslaved by "material necessity" and need to compete for it.


In the US the pattern for inserting more mechanization that promised less time spent working and more time to enjoy life really has led to fewer people employed doing meaningful work so that fewer people at the top can make more money. More people have more time to pursue non-work-related interests but no way to pay for them let alone necessities like home, food, healthcare, _etc_.

Those who already have get more. Those that have little lose what little they had.


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

Reality Check said:


> I'm sure being homeless and begging isn't against the law, so there is no legal repercussion to not working.
> 
> Why are people not realising that work is a choice.


Anything and everything but a reflex is theoretically your own choice. You are choosing to do something every single day by keep eating all your meals as usual. Drinking bleach for shits and giggles is also a choice. The people already realized work is a choice... But... Apparently, you failed to realize some other choices, such as being homeless and begging are the most dysfunctional and eventually the unthinkable ones. Poor working conditions are also sabotaging the overall quality of life to a degree. Nobody is bitching about being forced to constantly have a job by a nonexistent legal obligation anyway. On the contrary, thanks to capitalism and "freedom of choice", we are mostly losing our jobs and experiencing that misery temporarily and sometimes permanently even if we were loving our jobs and doing our best.

"_The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs._" George Carlin


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> I'm sure being homeless and begging isn't against the law, so there is no legal repercussion to not working.
> 
> Why are people not realising that work is a choice.


Actually, being homeless could easily be seen as being illegal, even if it's not written in law. If shelters are filled up, where do you think homeless are legally allowed to reside?

Perhaps it's 'legal' to exist somewhere at a certain time, but sleeping there is certainly grounds for police intervention...many times it may simply be telling someone to leave town, but othertimes it can be fines which lead to warrants. People aren't allowed to simply pitch a tent anywhere where I live--even state parks have limits that prohibit habitation.

I mean...what does it mean when you are homeless--where is it legal to sleep? If you don't own or pay for the right to sleep somewhere, you are usually breaking a law, whether it be trespassing or loitering, or breaking some traffic law about whether parking is legal between whatever AM hours. It's very hard for me to imagine that under the existing laws, homelessness is anything but illegal.

There are places where it is illegal to sit on the ground in a public place.

Some cities have gone so far as to make soup kitchens illegal. Is Giving Food to the Homeless Illegal in Your City Too? | Mother Jones

Yeah, I guess work is a choice for those who are raised in money, or who have a family safety net so they can sleep somewhere where cops aren't going to be raiding in the middle of the night.

Choosing to be homeless is nothing short of choosing to be a fugitive, and it's also very taxing and requires a lot of energy, which I guess you could consider 'work' if you remove the idea of work being something for the community (but that seems kind of archaic, considering all the legit types of work that don't benefit the community). Not that I would choose not to work--even while unemployed I still enjoyed volunteer work. It think many people would choose similar, regardless of class.

Edit: I apologize, I think I may have taken your quote out of context. Edit again: Actually, nevermind. It sounds as if you have no idea what it's like to fear homelessness.


----------



## NewBeginning (Oct 8, 2016)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Surely you jest. Not 100 years ago, the "40-hour work week" was unheard of. People worked as many as 12-18 hours a day 6-7 days a week, and were happy to get .25 cents (or less) per hour to do it.


That's why communal living is advocated through sayings like "do what you love"---> always about work and money.


----------



## NewBeginning (Oct 8, 2016)

Caveman Dreams said:


> I'm sure being homeless and begging isn't against the law, so there is no legal repercussion to not working.
> 
> Why are people not realising that work is a choice.


Work is not a choice. Work is a privilege. There are people who make more money and they are active dominants almost all of the time. Passive, submissive people get fired all the time for not being able to put their feet down and keep their jobs that a-holes kick them out of for genuinely being nice people. The thing about labor and the workforce is that it makes society function but the whole system is a corrupt, lawful evil. I can't tell you the amount of times I've gotten fired for having resting bitch face. I'm sorry I'm not a sanguine ESFP or holy ISFJ nurturer who'll just take everything I'm told to do up my butt and put a smile on my face to eat a happy meal of cocoa puffs and throwing out important details to keep everything running smoothly and on-time and on-budget.


----------



## Anunnaki Spirit (Mar 23, 2018)

Deep down a lot of people will be happy just to see it all crash and burn as lets face it the current systems are not sustainable by any measure so quicker it all shits the bed the quicker something can be done to either fix or replace before these systems do the current civilization in. Sad part is far too many people enjoy their difficulties and sufferings expecting the younger generations to endure 60-110 hour work weeks working as machines with little to nothing else for family, relationships, and other activities.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

NewBeginning said:


> Work is not a choice. Work is a privilege. There are people who make more money and they are active dominants almost all of the time. Passive, submissive people get fired all the time for not being able to put their feet down and keep their jobs that a-holes kick them out of for genuinely being nice people. The thing about labor and the workforce is that it makes society function but the whole system is a corrupt, lawful evil. I can't tell you the amount of times I've gotten fired for having resting bitch face. I'm sorry I'm not a sanguine ESFP or holy ISFJ nurturer who'll just take everything I'm told to do up my butt and put a smile on my face to eat a happy meal of cocoa puffs and throwing out important details to keep everything running smoothly and on-time and on-budget.


I totally agree with everything you've said and actually have come to the exact same conclusion. This system *needs* to collapse or be destroyed in order for purification. The question is when?

Once upon a time you could work for yourself to survive and have a home, once upon a time there was a society where morality and good had so much power. You didn't even have to be employed in order to start working in many cases, had to do none of the things you mentioned. Everything was honest and plain out in the open.

The Protestant reformation and its work ethic has much to blame for the 'soul sucking' work hours needed to live today.

For those who get to live and meet their needs outside of the system, even in death or suffering there is always a sense of bliss that cannot be explained which is like the opposite of depression.

Good must win and if it doesn't then what naturally happens is that evil will destroy everything or create conditions so bad that they need to be destroyed for the world to keep going. This is how it works.

It is not chemical imbalance alone that causes things like depression or similar, but something about our system or society in its fundamental nature that if removed you can notice immediate proof of its cause. It can be 100% proven by *experimentation* of giving people the freedom to survive on their own and have their own place to live without the system in which you can observe the results immediately.



The Edwardian Spirit said:


> Deep down a lot of people will be happy just to see it all crash and burn as lets face it the current systems are not sustainable by any measure so quicker it all shits the bed the quicker something can be done to either fix or replace before these systems do the current civilization in. Sad part is far too many people enjoy their difficulties and sufferings expecting the younger generations to endure 60-110 hour work weeks working as machines with little to nothing else for family, relationships, and other activities.


Again the question is when can this happen and most likely by what/whom?

Totally wouldn't mind if this system ends up the way of the Abbasid Caliphate when the Mongols invaded it somehow, who do you think could do that? China or Russia? Except this time for this system and its supporters.

When the Abbasid Caliphate empire existed its destruction was almost as unthinkable as capitalism today until it was utterly and totally destroyed by invading forces, literally made unable to recover for over 200 - 400 years.


----------



## Anunnaki Spirit (Mar 23, 2018)

Anti-Fascist Knight said:


> I totally agree with everything you've said and actually have come to the exact same conclusion. This system *needs* to collapse or be destroyed in order for purification. The question is when?
> 
> Once upon a time you could work for yourself to survive and have a home, once upon a time there was a society where morality and good had so much power. You didn't even have to be employed in order to start working in many cases, had to do none of the things you mentioned. Everything was honest and plain out in the open.
> 
> ...


Probably with in the next couple of decades except that it would more than likely bring on the collapse of the current civilization along with decimating the populations. On the side note cut out the religious extremism as that only brings out further death and suffering as there has been more than enough of that already.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Decades is too long. 

Also, putting making money or competing above worship is considered idolatry in Catholic Christianity. The Protestant reformation is what gave rise to this ‘work ethic’ and nihilism as well as greyness.

I would rather be in a ‘theocracy’ even than this system.

If only there was a 'Thanos' who could snap all supporters of it.


----------



## NewBeginning (Oct 8, 2016)

I think the only way for that sort of Thanos Revolution to be created would be to shut off all the power lines entirely and not rely on production abroad or military troops fighting for the oil demand overseas risking their lives on a daily basis. If we can rely on irrigation and natural plant power...dreamer mentalities inspire but the warrior archetypes create havoc through their nihilistic practices. Life on clouds is costly.


----------



## Maybe (Sep 10, 2016)

I Disagree. If we were to go lower then it should go to 6 because it fits nicely into 24.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Primitive Accumulation is apparently what lead to the lack of freedom and being forced to work so many hours that we have today:


----------



## Aridela (Mar 14, 2015)

Well, according to the Guardian, a 9 hour work week might be needed to tackle the pollution levels in most big European cities. I suspect other parts of the world are no better. I've seen first hand the pollution levels in Hong Kong and other parts of SE Asia. The USA is more or less similar to Europe in that sense (in my limited experience).


----------



## Anunnaki Spirit (Mar 23, 2018)

Another thought is that I am doubtful there will be change that would be timely due to older generations having dated values towards work and life in general which prevents there being reductions in hours and any attempt towards moving from quantity to quality would be meet is resistance especially from business as well government. The older generations often defined their sense of accomplishment and self worth through work, should the younger generations buy into it wholesale being success driven the cycle will continue.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

The Edwardian Spirit said:


> Another thought is that I am doubtful there will be change that would be timely due to older generations having dated values towards work and life in general which prevents there being reductions in hours and any attempt towards moving from quantity to quality would be meet is resistance especially from business as well government. The older generations often defined their sense of accomplishment and self worth through work, should the younger generations buy into it wholesale being success driven the cycle will continue.


One option is to basically be an accelerationist. If those old people hate 'the poor' so much then lets strategically support candidates that will take away or cut their pension and healthcare.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

The Edwardian Spirit said:


> Another thought is that I am doubtful there will be change that would be timely due to older generations having dated values towards work and life in general which prevents there being reductions in hours and any attempt towards moving from quantity to quality would be meet is resistance especially from business as well government. The older generations often defined their sense of accomplishment and self worth through work, should the younger generations buy into it wholesale being success driven the cycle will continue.





Anti-Fascist Knight said:


> One option is to basically be an accelerationist. If those old people hate 'the poor' so much then lets strategically support candidates that will take away or cut their pension and healthcare.



Old people's work ethics is not what drives long working hours. 

What are you going to do--take away old people's pensions and healthcare and then suddenly poor, elderly, uninsured will rise up against corporations that seek to erode or inhibit labor laws?

I think next we have to recruit the infants and children who are too young to work...once the army of elderly who have no health care or income or means of survival unite with infants and children who are incapable of providing for themselves, then capitalism will fall! Corporations will not stand a chance! The disabled too...lets blame them and remove any safety nets they may have. Wow--this will really strengthen the proletariat!


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

MeltedSorbet said:


> Old people's work ethics is not what drives long working hours.
> 
> What are you going to do--take away old people's pensions and healthcare and then suddenly poor, elderly, uninsured will rise up against corporations that seek to erode or inhibit labor laws?
> 
> I think next we have to recruit the infants and children who are too young to work...once the army of elderly who have no health care or income or means of survival unite with infants and children who are incapable of providing for themselves, then capitalism will fall! Corporations will not stand a chance! The disabled too...lets blame them and remove any safety nets they may have. Wow--this will really strengthen the proletariat!


No, what I'm advocating for is actually part of Maoist Third-Worldist Theory as outlined by Jason Unruhe. 

If people do not have the motivation or incentive to resist then there is no hope they will. The point is also to have natural selection remove or weed out those with the least will to not allow other classes to take advantage of them because their existence is inherently reactionary and supports the continued existence of the system. Class traitors especially or the labor aristocracy who benefit off the exploitation of third world workers.

According to the Manifesto, the Middle Classes/Petty Bourgeoisie are supposed to be bound to suffer expropriation by the upper classes and have their capital accumulated so they are pushed into the proletariat or lower class in order for the right material conditions to be created.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Anti-Fascist Knight said:


> No, what I'm advocating for is actually part of Maoist Third-Worldist Theory as outlined by Jason Unruhe.
> 
> If people do not have the motivation or incentive to resist then there is no hope they will. The point is also to have natural selection remove or weed out those with the least will to not allow other classes to take advantage of them because their existence is inherently reactionary and supports the continued existence of the system. Class traitors especially or the labor aristocracy who benefit off the exploitation of third world workers.
> 
> According to the Manifesto, the Middle Classes/Petty Bourgeoisie are supposed to be bound to suffer expropriation by the upper classes and have their capital accumulated so they are pushed into the proletariat or lower class in order for the right material conditions to be created.


So...elderly people with 'strong work ethics' will somehow be pushed into the proletariat because you take away their health care. I think maybe you're missing the fact that they aren't in the working class because they are too old to work. 

Why don't you just come to the US to collect your army of destitute elderly people? You know--nothing brings corporate power to its knees like a homeless senior citizen who lacks healthcare. That's why we're such a great Communist model in the US--because we put ideas like yours into play decades ago.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

MeltedSorbet said:


> So...elderly people with 'strong work ethics' will somehow be pushed into the proletariat because you take away their health care. I think maybe you're missing the fact that they aren't in the working class because they are too old to work.
> 
> Why don't you just come to the US to collect your army of destitute elderly people? You know--nothing brings corporate power to its knees like a homeless senior citizen who lacks healthcare. That's why we're such a great Communist model in the US--because we put ideas like yours into play decades ago.


Well they could end up voicing their support for the abolition of the system or talk about it to others, which is how 'populism' in the U.S is a thing but can still be manifested into something else for now when the correct conditions are created. That is the third world material conditions which are necessary.

I'm mainly talking about the 'conservative elderly baby boomers'.


----------



## NewBeginning (Oct 8, 2016)

The Edwardian Spirit said:


> Another thought is that I am doubtful there will be change that would be timely due to older generations having dated values towards work and life in general which prevents there being reductions in hours and any attempt towards moving from quantity to quality would be meet is resistance especially from business as well government. The older generations often defined their sense of accomplishment and self worth through work, should the younger generations buy into it wholesale being success driven the cycle will continue.


Production. Inheritance. Guaranteed jobs based on last names and ancient values. Testosterone-based work ethics. Erosion happens and civilizations migrate or change due to evolution's preferences.


----------



## NewBeginning (Oct 8, 2016)

Anti-Fascist Knight said:


> Well they could end up voicing their support for the abolition of the system or talk about it to others, which is how 'populism' in the U.S is a thing but can still be manifested into something else for now when the correct conditions are created. That is the third world material conditions which are necessary.
> 
> I'm mainly talking about the 'conservative elderly baby boomers'.


If you're talking about making sure they can safely retire based on their citizenship status and at least two or three decades of living in the country as a citizen than yes we can do something wise and nice for the baby boomers. I'm all for that. I don't think they should be working anymore unless it's a personal choice. I'm at an age where I should quite definitely have a job already (and I'm looking for them every day) but somehow there must be a majority of preferred beige pants-people out there. What can I say? People who want to work are in hell because they actually can't get work, people who are working are in hell because if they leave their jobs they can lose everything they have, and people who are in administration are constantly thinking of who they want to fire next, since they are devas who easily control and manipulate people into feeling like they have to work in the first place, make them feel guilty about not being on their own level of dominance and how *they the administrator dominants* would go about it, and even find ways of omitting peasant artisans and servers from the entire system itself as a way of dealing with their alcoholism (which is also why weed is still illegal in some states). They don't understand abstract-random thinking processes of peace and happiness as an ultimate goal. They just want their money, their control, and their next fix.


----------



## NewBeginning (Oct 8, 2016)

I don't see how I'm being safeguarded right now. I find actual practical manifestation in the informal setting way more romantic than the corrupt power associated with having had multiple wives already.


----------



## NewBeginning (Oct 8, 2016)

It's also a question of pain tolerance and just how much pain can one individual (lack of empathy in most men being put aside as a focus for now) handle? Especially being that a strong work ethic is so valued TO the point of slavery being appreciated at such a highly congratulated level (there's no guarantee of getting hired anywhere after college) do we begin to question the concept of schooling and its practical private versus public entities. Who stands out after the process of child-rearing others' children is over? Which child is going to be working less hours due to privilege(and getting paid even more of course) and which child is going to be working much more hours, if hired anywhere at all, working even when not working in search of work opportunities, unable to eat at restaurants with friends and pay for elderly family members' visits, and dunked into a list of publicly-schooled, emigrant peasant status realities of "should you simply just restructure your resume"? ?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Anti-Fascist Knight said:


> Well they could end up voicing their support for the abolition of the system or talk about it to others, which is how 'populism' in the U.S is a thing but can still be manifested into something else for now when the correct conditions are created. That is the third world material conditions which are necessary.
> 
> I'm mainly talking about the 'conservative elderly baby boomers'.


I'm not an expert at all, but I think that it's less of an issue of old time beliefs and more an issue when a company decides to squeeze as much profit out of their employees as possible.

Baby boomers might seem privileged, but that might also be because they lived in a time where there was a little more decency and a little more strength in the labor unions (at least here in the US). If I'm wrong about any of this--hopefully someone will correct me.

But I think the older views of work--the idea that people should even have access to pensions or health insurance, or benefits at all (this comes from the work of the labor unions, at least in the US) is dying out with increased efforts to undermine and disable the unions.

What ends up happening is that companies don't value the workers beyond cattle. They don't care about loyalty (people who've been working in a job for decades.)

I saw this happen when the company my mom worked for was bought by a a more cutt throat company.

The old company was a little more 'old fashioned' in that they had a union that ensured that the employees even have access to health insurance (in the US many don't), and even such things as paid sick time, paid vacation time etc. They had symbolic ways of appreciating employees for loyalty. Like giving little presents for years of service, acknowledging 'employee of the month.'

I remember my mom got 'employee of the month' over a dozen times.

Some of these are more symbolic and less meaningful than others, but it shows a more human approach and a little bit more decency. Doesn't change the fact that my mom still sometimes worked until ten or eleven at night, on weekends, on holidays, with a constantly changing, unpredictable schedule-- which isn't always the easiest if you're a single mother--since something has to be done with your child during that time.

But when the company was purchased--the first thing the new one did was to eliminate anyone who'd been working there for a long time. Because those people'd had raises, so they cost more. So all the older, more senior employees were offered a deal to leave, and if they didn't accept the severance pay, later they were just fired. 

They did this so they could replace them with younger people who'd work for less. But of course they didn't replace all of them--they cut costs by making the workplace more unsafe by under-staffing the business. Then people might have to be both in the back dealing with shipping while no one was at the front.

I remember one long-time customer of the old company saw what was happening and she felt bad for all the older employees, and the ones who had to work the equivalent of two or three jobs (and get paid less). She complained to the management that she saw the old pharmacist running around, understaffed...that there wasn't anyone in the store to help her. So they responded by firing the long-time employee of decades, instead of taking any responsibility for the changes that were happening in the company.

So this is what I think of when I think of 'old fashioned' workplace attitudes. Obviously no one's going to have good loyalty or morale with this style of dishonest business practice. No one can respect it. Then these companies go and force their employees to watch union-busting videos about how evil unions are, and to report anyone who even talks about a union. And stupid 'workplace ethics' videos that no one should take seriously because if the upper levels of the company are acting like respectless thieves and liars, what kind of model should that set for their employees?

So anyway--I think I have a very different view, knowing what happens here in the US. They don't care about ripping benefits from employees if they can. It's not going to teach anyone a lesson. They've been disabling the unions for years and all that ever does is make the workforce weaker and easier to exploit.

Yeah--there's a lot to complain about when you're a young person with no experience. But life is also hard if you're a single parent who has to provide for your family or else become homeless. It's also hard if you're an older, senior worker who gets thrown out because you're not as profitable, and more difficult to hire. But working class people have more in common with each other, and more to gain by sticking together, than by pointing fingers at who has it easier because they have benefits. The other workers who have a little better benefits aren't the problem...neither are retired workers who are fortunate enough to have worked somewhere where there are pensions.

Even though my mom was working class and this happened to more blue collar jobs where she worked, it also happens in the more middle class, salary jobs. Companies just fire employees to increase profits and then they don't re-hire, leaving the remaining employees doing the work of what was previously two or three employees. I guess this will probably keep happening too with advancements in technology.


----------



## NewBeginning (Oct 8, 2016)

MeltedSorbet said:


> I'm not an expert at all, but I think that it's less of an issue of old time beliefs and more an issue when a company decides to squeeze as much profit out of their employees as possible.
> 
> Baby boomers might seem privileged, but that might also be because they lived in a time where there was a little more decency and a little more strength in the labor unions (at least here in the US). If I'm wrong about any of this--hopefully someone will correct me.
> 
> ...


I don't know if quoting has become a regular PERc thing to do because I've been on here for so many years and off and on again, (ParetoCaretheStare was my former username but I forgot the password for that login name in case anyone's interested) but I have requoted this because of the highlighted context of union jobs. 

I join union jobs because I have a dependent personality. That's why unions can never fail. Not everyone is administrative or commandeering. 

Though if we're talking about how to be a good revolutionist, the first thing we would need to do is open up all zoos, animal shelters, and pet stores that store wild animals meant to be domesticated and set them free. Another thing that would need to be done (and I don't believe people should be in jail for this, either) is hack into every bank and credit card private lender company, and shut down the system entirely. It's "borrowed" money you're taking out, but it's not really money that exists, therefore it's a potential human loss because people tend to be greedy and homicidal about others' needs in the business world. 

Open up free institutions and once again, shut down all need for theoretical honorary historical markers of nationalism that actually breed hatred and resentment just as much, and make art school completely free. There you go, Italian and French-style art guild unions nationwide that consist of people who both want to be in the country and are proud of it because they're now getting paid and are doing something they're naturally good at without having to have paid false money to do so out of their behinds. 

Trade in your car for walking or riding a bicycle to work. It takes a mere couple of people to begin a cleaner-air revolution that has much less money laundering involved. 

All of these ideas are succinct, but without the amount of workload it would take to redo Capitalist Society each individual wouldn't be given a chance to get clean and take a healthy shower each morning. 

Of course there are people who are perpetual revolutionaries and stick to their Native American roots and when they do bathe it's in lakes and rivers... I have always looked up to people who are indigenous to and respectful of the earth we breath and walk on in peaceful manners. But when you're from an immigrant family and have to explain this detail to people who talk about insurance rates and constantly pressure you into getting a car because that's just what everybody else is doing, you're going to want to move to a place where the conversation doesn't revolve around getting sued or having to go to another court case for a speeding ticket.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

NewBeginning said:


> It's also a question of pain tolerance and just how much pain can one individual (lack of empathy in most men being put aside as a focus for now) handle? Especially being that a strong work ethic is so valued TO the point of slavery being appreciated at such a highly congratulated level (there's no guarantee of getting hired anywhere after college) do we begin to question the concept of schooling and its practical private versus public entities. Who stands out after the process of child-rearing others' children is over? Which child is going to be working less hours due to privilege(and getting paid even more of course) and which child is going to be working much more hours, if hired anywhere at all, working even when not working in search of work opportunities, unable to eat at restaurants with friends and pay for elderly family members' visits, and dunked into a list of publicly-schooled, emigrant peasant status realities of "should you simply just restructure your resume"? ?





NewBeginning said:


> Production. Inheritance. Guaranteed jobs based on last names and ancient values. Testosterone-based work ethics. Erosion happens and civilizations migrate or change due to evolution's preferences.


It was actually the Protestant Reformation due to the work of this guy called Martin Luther in Europe that lead to such long hours. In Catholic times many people actually worked far less, here's what happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic

People worked a quarter or half of the year while dedicating the rest of their life to domestic work or things, leisure and religion/spirituality depending. Holidays were extremely long and as a result they had many festivals, empathy quota on average was lower for the population because they could work for themselves to survive yes but they did care alot about those close to them or those they were actually loyal to.

Catholic teachings according to Thomas Aquinas said that everybody should not be made to work more than the minimum than is necessary to support themselves and their communities. In terms of belief according to people who looked at that period of history's 'mentality', life was almost like an 'enchanted garden' you could explore full of mysteries, meaning, purpose and many wonders etc. Work was only something in the detail and did not dictate your life.

In the Protestant/Calvinist work ethic they started teaching that essentially only materialism matters, and that 'good works', morality and worship/religion are all subjective or 'don't matter'. 

The Catholic side essentially had the same views as you expressed when they were fighting the Protestants during the wars of the reformation. Even most of the 'Witch Hunts' were actually initiated by Protestants or Protestant-leaning people who later put pressure on the church. Some monasteries and their writings were burnt or destroyed by the Protestant side:

*"Protestants, beginning with Martin Luther, reconceptualized worldly work as a duty which benefits both the individual and society as a whole. Thus, the Catholic idea of good works was transformed into an obligation to consistently work diligently as a sign of grace. Whereas Catholicism teaches that good works are required of Catholics as a necessary manifestation of the faith they received, and that faith apart from works is dead (James 2:14–26) and barren, the Calvinist theologians taught that only those who were predestined to be saved would be saved.

Since it was impossible to know who was predestined, the notion developed that it might be possible to discern that a person was elect (predestined) by observing their way of life. Hard work and frugality were thought to be two important consequences of being one of the elect. (They said this in theory) Protestants were thus attracted to these qualities and supposed to strive for reaching them."*

There came the notion that _*"You should work as many hours as you can because all work is to the glory of god, put prayer, domestic life and leisure last after work."*_



NewBeginning said:


> If you're talking about making sure they can safely retire based on their citizenship status and at least two or three decades of living in the country as a citizen than yes we can do something wise and nice for the baby boomers. I'm all for that. I don't think they should be working anymore unless it's a personal choice. I'm at an age where I should quite definitely have a job already (and I'm looking for them every day) but somehow there must be a majority of preferred beige pants-people out there. What can I say? People who want to work are in hell because they actually can't get work, people who are working are in hell because if they leave their jobs they can lose everything they have, and people who are in administration are constantly thinking of who they want to fire next, since they are devas who easily control and manipulate people into feeling like they have to work in the first place, make them feel guilty about not being on their own level of dominance and how *they the administrator dominants* would go about it, and even find ways of omitting peasant artisans and servers from the entire system itself as a way of dealing with their alcoholism (which is also why weed is still illegal in some states). They don't understand abstract-random thinking processes of peace and happiness as an ultimate goal. They just want their money, their control, and their next fix.


Well I was talking about accelerationism, if those people betray us all by doing what they do then we can have the ones they support cut their welfare and see how they like it. At the same time if it causes further issues this could lead to people actually deciding to think of revolt as an option for survival.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Later on after this, the 'killing blow' to freedom was 'Primitive Accumulation' which the video I showed covers also.


----------



## NewBeginning (Oct 8, 2016)

Working too many hours...either way people who wear the crown of managerial actuality and get the pay raises to show for it know that they are in control but in a society where quality attempts to match with quantity (there's a lot of basic-made carp that has no real flavor, breaks easily, and is not homemade and is actually made overseas for reasons we can understand as a product of Capitalism's harsh working hours and body-hazard debt fees) , religious uproar is expected and it only hurts the mass population's children who grow up with loving parents who choose to stay together and "make it work" in a seemingly (and deceitfully so) functional society where everybody is nice and friendly and working together to keep everyone alive and happy. I'd rather a good guy find me, take me off the grid with him, and settle on a plot of land that we wouldn't have to pay for because we built and claimed it ourselves, and it's built well enough to not be seen and of course this is wishful thinking and something only out of a fairy tale and indeed I am a product of Disney and Pixar and Cartoon Network and IFC and MTV and divorce and other lies and art of the modern 21st century but a girl should be able to dream on her own feet without feeling like someone's hunting her down to slash her legs because of credit card debt and the general overpopulation of women in cities. Especially when she stands out like a sore thumb. It's pathetic when land taxes have to be met. I actually passed by a guy screaming at a woman outside of his living room window while walking her kid from school because the child touched his lawn animal or something. He's not just being a selfish prick, he's suffering from heart disease and struggling to pay his rent, whereas the mom is in a struggling relationship with her spouse and barely paying for her child's field trips.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

EidolonAlpha said:


> Doesn't work that easily if you live in an achievement-oriented society.


What does work have to do with achievement?


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Well, let's look at the situation from different perspectives and see if it would really work

1. Workers - less work, but also less money. Why would companies pay the same amount of money for less work? Also, if there is one thing we know about companies is how much they love to save money by reducing expenses on workers. This is how the gig economy came about, they sought all types of cheap labour, all sorts of legal solutions to skip paying normal stuff that would provide worker protections. So they will immediately see this as an opportunity to pay workers less.

2. Companies - they won't like it, as they will see it as lowering productivity and profits, regardless whether or not it is objectively so. But even if despite their objections, the measure is passed, they have all the lawyers to make sure that they turn in into something that benefits them and not the workers, like paying them less, since they can argue that you're working less. Maybe they would follow more and more gig work solutions with temporary work, contract work, part-time work, etc. which would allow them to avoid paying for things like social security. So you can be sure that they will find legal solutions to turn this to their advantage and further save money on labour costs.

3. Consumers - these are for the most part also workers, but in a different economic role. Looking at them from a different angle, as buyers of products and services. As already stated above, they would earn less money, allowing them to spend less on products and services. This would mean that their standard of living would decrease and their situation would worsen as a result. How many workers are ready to accept this? Already, a lot of people are having trouble living from paycheck to paycheck, what if their paycheck would get smaller? More time with family doesn't feed that family!


----------



## Adelis (Jun 1, 2019)

What the prob with that?

Slavery for money is a matter of choice of productive activity, you can change it, but if you wanna live on Earth, where money is the oil between the wheels, you will invest time in making/investing money. Thats the whole point of money dummis, to steal our time! Bc if dont have time, we wont focus on why were here.


----------

