From whence this moral "necessity" of work?

From the proposition that if nobody worked, nobody would eat, and if nobody ate, nobody would live. I suppose there's no moral necessity to live, but I'll let you handle that on your own.

From the proposition that if nobody worked, nobody would eat, and if nobody ate, nobody would live

Given modern production, an outdated assumption.

So are people watching the debate tonight?

I will be wokrking, so no. Plus I heard that there may be some baseball being played tonight.

A sound-muted Yanks-Sox / O's-Rays on the TV with a furiously working remote, and the debate on the radio. I just hope that the Yanks and O's have their games wrapped up by the 5th or 6th inning, and that the Nats win this afternoon, so that I can concentrate on the debate and then get to the A's and the Rangers.

From the proposition that if nobody worked, nobody would eat, and if nobody ate, nobody would live

Given modern production, an outdated assumption.

Yes, the food would pull a Topsy, and we'd all live happily ever after, just like Adam and Eve.

I'll support whichever candidate is most likely to promote the proliferation of labor-saving robots.

From whence this moral "necessity" of work?

Well it depends if you are talking about the post scarcity society or the current one. Currently we (the world) is trending towards less work. This makes sense, as income grows the trade off between work and leisure grows and more people will (on the margin) choose to not work and enjoy their leisure time. What they are doing has also shifted somewhat into more enjoyable work (on an aggregate basis).

Now there is a practical reason that someone in society needs to work. Even in Player Piano some folks worked, even if a huge majority did not. For obvious reasons someone has to do the production, so there is something to consume. If there is no incentive to produce, then there will be nothing to consume. In a hunter/gatherer society (which by the way tend to have a fair amount of leisure time in them) if no one hunts and no one gathers then everyone starves. In fact there is a strong incentive in a society like that to have a incentive that everyone (as much as possible) does some work.

One major way societies incent behavior (no money is not the only one, there are several) is through behavior expectations - morals* if you will. So the moral necessity of work almost certainly reaches back to the earliest human societies (and depending on how advanced our genetic predecessors are before then).

One can argue in the post scarcity world that the moral expectation of work is irrelevant. Heck you can argue in today's world it is a legacy bit from our past and is "enacted" incorrectly by society according to modern circumstance. However I think the provenance of the moral imperative of work is pretty solid from a societal perspective.

So what was your question again?

* I am defining morals in a secular relativist fashion for this discussion, because I don't want to get into a religious discussion about the morals behind work. I mean we can, but I won't have much to contribute to the discussion.

EDIT: I am (typically) a bit slow, so cokes to those who deserve them, but hopefully I added a bit to the discussion.

Even though Obama and Romney have already "won" the debate--because barring one of them vomiting on stage both sides of the aisle will claim victory--I'm still going to watch. And I'll watch it on PBS just to say I watched it on PBS.

For much of the early Industrial revolution, productivity increases were correlated with increases in leisure. Working in factories, as horrible as they were, was less backbreaking than working a farm, particularly one in which the soil was exhausted. Factory labor went from 80 hour weeks, to 60, to 50, then 40, and other occupations followed. Then things stalled out. Are 40 hours sacrosanct? Or should we look forward to a future in which 30 or 20 hours a week is considered a full-time job?

Given modern production, an outdated assumption.

Who makes this modern production occur?

For much of the early Industrial revolution, productivity increases were correlated with increases in leisure. Working in factories, as horrible as they were, was less backbreaking than working a farm, particularly one in which the soil was exhausted. Factory labor went from 80 hour weeks, to 60, to 50, then 40, and other occupations followed. Then things stalled out. Are 40 hours sacrosanct? Or should we look forward to a future in which 30 or 20 hours a week is considered a full-time job?

Reality check: For the past 40 years, productivity has soared while wages have remained stagnant, while the upper 20% is prospering as never before and the upper 1% is making out like bandits. If anything, more and more families are having to put in more and more work hours just to keep pace with rising costs.

Are 40 hours sacrosanct? Or should we look forward to a future in which 30 or 20 hours a week is considered a full-time job?

No. Yes (I hope). But I personally could work fewer hours and survive, so maybe I am being a hypocrit. For me I am super paranoid about money stuff (legacy of my childhood) and being an independant contractor, hourly, and no real benefits (combined with the divorce and needing to depend on a single income) I end up working way more hours than I have to to get along (I did take a half day off yesterday though to run some errands, which is progress). It is irrational, but people are irrational often.

So the moral of the story is, 40 hours is not sacrosanct, but how much people work depends on many factors both rational and irrational.

But of course any "healthy 25 year olds, 30 year olds" without any independent source of income*** should be working to support themselves one way or another, either through the normal job market or through some sort of public works project, and I'm sure that most 25 to 30 year olds would agree.

...

***I put that qualifier in to distinguish what I'm saying from the Leninist version of forcing every able-bodied person to work. If a millionaire's child can live off his inheritance, as long as he's paying his full share of taxes, I don't care if he spends all his time playing video games on a yacht.

Your footnote here seems to undercut your argument, though, doesn't it? If "work" is a moral good, then isn't it equally morally good for the children of millionaires? And if you go back to what started the debate, the argument for "work" was originally posited as an argument against the government just giving everybody a guaranteed income. But if the government did that, wouldn't everybody be exempt via your qualifier as everybody would now have an "independent source of income"?

Well it depends if you are talking about the post scarcity society or the current one.

Post-scarcity society isn't; it becomes. As we advance our means of production and automate more and more aspects of labor, then the "moral" requirement for work (which is not identical to production - artifice is also production) fades.

In the modern world we could quite easily support a 20-hour work week for virtually everyone (of course people who wanted to "work more" could.) But there's no reason food and shelter should require more than 15-20 hours per week at this point. The "moral necessity" of work is an artifact of an more and more archaic social need.

That’s the problem, isn’t it? There are not enough jobs.

Is the 21 yr old with 2 yrs of community college who cannot even get a minimum wage job morally deficient? Is he entitled to benefits even if he spends 12 hrs a day playing video games in his room?

A sound-muted Yanks-Sox / O's-Rays on the TV with a furiously working remote, and the debate on the radio. I just hope that the Yanks and O's have their games wrapped up by the 5th or 6th inning, and that the Nats win this afternoon, so that I can concentrate on the debate and then get to the A's and the Rangers.

A's and Rangers actually play at 3:30 pm eastern, which has me excited - I actually get to watch it live!

Out of curiosity, what time of day are the Friday games?

A's and Rangers actually play at 3:30 pm eastern, which has me excited - I actually get to watch it live!

Great, and thanks for the info. Somehow I missed that. At least I might get some sleep tonight.

Now my only problem is that I promised my wife I'd record Half The Sky on PBS from 3:00 to 5:00, since I didn't do it last night because of the games. So I've gotta root for the Nats to wrap it up early, and for the A's and Rangers to remain scoreless until about the 5th inning. I don't ask for much.

Joe, the video was of Obama pandering to his base during a primary season. It is entirely unremarkable. Liberals like Treder may wonder how a Republican who does this will ever be able to win a general election, but their bewilderment has always been silly.

Out of curiosity, what time of day are the Friday games?

Sadly I don't think they've announced anything yet. I have to imagine they are waiting to see what time zone the AL game in in (and perhaps if any tiebreakers are necessary Thursday).

I have to say, one benefit to the simpler/smaller playoffs is more straightforward scheduling...

I'm going to watch the debates. I think that Romney might actually give some policy specifics. He's been cracking on that front lately. Also, I haven't seen it on the thread, but I thought the idea to cap the overall deduction is actually a pretty good one. It avoids a lot of the entrenched interest groups who would fight for the Homeowners Exemption, Child Credit, etc.

Also, there's a slight chance that Romney self-destructs with his bizarre focus on "zingers."

Ayn Rand vs. the Pygmies

In the modern world we could quite easily support a 20-hour work week for virtually everyone (of course people who wanted to "work more" could.) But there's no reason food and shelter should require more than 15-20 hours per week at this point. The "moral necessity" of work is an artifact of an more and more archaic social need.

Possibly. But what if enough is never enough. What I mean is humans are a somewhat insatiable lot, and what if the output from everyone works 20 hours a week is in some sense not enough for people. It isn't for me as I said before. The very poor live in a paradise according to satndards of a few centuries ago, but clearly live in squalor by todays standards. When is the standard of living good enough?

From a soceity perspective it makes sense to have the members of society doing more than they need to, so the society can "bank" the surplus. Many of the arguments between left and right is what to do with that surplus. It can get dumped into "Natinal Defense", science programs (Mars anyone?), supporting rent seeking so it accumulates to the owners of IP and capital, or whatever.

Arguably a society which does not produce any surplus will get out competed on some level by one which does produce a suplus (Not to get all social Darwin on the bit, and assuming said surplus is not totally wasted).

I think it is a good question to ask - regarding the "morality" of work - but I think the answer is fairly complex.

Liberals like Treder may wonder how a Republican who does this will ever be able to win a general election, but their bewilderment has always been silly.

Why is Treder always the go-to example for Generic Liberal for the Libertarians? Steve's barely involved in these threads.

So are people watching the debate tonight?

I will be wokrking, so no. Plus I heard that there may be some baseball being played tonight.

This. While I'd like to watch the debate live and snark here on BBTF, there's something more important going on. So debate's on TiVo, saved for after the game.

Of course, after the game I will be either (a) so happy that I won't care if Obama openly promises to confiscate the means of production at gunpoint, or (b) so depressed that I won't care if Obama confesses he's a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda.

Paul Ryan has a band!

I thought the idea to cap the overall deduction is actually a pretty good one.

I think it is the best policy idea I have seen this election season, and I am not kidding. I do not know where it came from, but the basic idea is awesome.

For those not following, the idea is to cap the total amount of deductions allowed. Not what kind of deduction, charity, home,whatever, but the total amount. I am not 100% sure I am willing to sign off on it (details always matter), but it is a very interesting way of looking at taxation and deductions. I spy another conservative idea that progressives can agree to and watch it get completely repudiated by the conservatives.

From whence this moral "necessity" of work?

Asked and answered. By even the lefties around here. Please try to keep up, Sam.

Why is Treder always the go-to example for Generic Liberal for the Libertarians? Steve's barely involved in these threads.

Heh. He has time served. I don't know who the go to Generic Liberal should be. Generic Libertarian is Ray on most things, but David on a few. Generic Conservative right now has to be Joe K doesn't it? Old school Democrat is Andy (I assume). Iconoclast is Sam's. Hmmm, good question. One problem is there is in fact a fair number of Liberals on the board, with many similar beliefs.

I am willing to nominate tshipman as Generic Liberal 2012. I think he (it is he, right? I have a terrible memory for thigns like that) has done a good job of expressing Liberal viewpoints. My only concern is the lack of capital letters, is all lower case generic enough?

From whence this moral "necessity" of work?

Also, as people live longer, they have more leisure time later in life. That is becoming a huge problem for most of the developed world.

Asked and answered. By even the lefties around here. Please try to keep up, Sam.

I think it is a great question though. Many bedrock assumptions - like the moralality of work - should be challenged. It allows us to talk about some fundemental issues which inform our politics (and is better than talking about Media Bias, that is for sure).

I am willing to nominate tshipman as Generic Liberal 2012. I think he (it is he, right?

I am much more of a neo-liberal (although it doesn't come across much on these threads).

Edit: Yes, he. Everyone knows that there are no girls on the internet.

Also, as people live longer, they have more leisure time later in life. That is becoming a huge problem for most of the developed world.

Problem finding things for them to do, or problem having the resources to support them in their non-working life?

I spy another conservative idea that progressives can agree to and watch it get completely repudiated by the conservatives.

I can't even imagine the tsunami of "Class Warfare!!!" screams had Obama suggested this. And he will totally co-opt it at some point, much to my delight and the undying chagrin of the GOP.

But of course any "healthy 25 year olds, 30 year olds" without any independent source of income*** should be working to support themselves one way or another, either through the normal job market or through some sort of public works project, and I'm sure that most 25 to 30 year olds would agree.

...

***I put that qualifier in to distinguish what I'm saying from the Leninist version of forcing every able-bodied person to work. If a millionaire's child can live off his inheritance, as long as he's paying his full share of taxes, I don't care if he spends all his time playing video games on a yacht.

Your footnote here seems to undercut your argument, though, doesn't it? If "work" is a moral good, then isn't it equally morally good for the children of millionaires?

It is, but in the absence of any necessity for any sort of supplementary income support from the government to this class of people, this particular moral point is (to me, anyway) trumped by the moral point that the government shouldn't gratuitously be telling people how to spend their days. Just as I have no desire to force outside work on stay-at-home parents, I feel no particular need to force productive work on financially independent heirs of millionaires.

And if you go back to what started the debate, the argument for "work" was originally posited as an argument against the government just giving everybody a guaranteed income. But if the government did that, wouldn't everybody be exempt via your qualifier as everybody would now have an "independent source of income"?

The idea of a guaranteed annual income was someone else's argument (Richard Nixon's, I believe), not mine.

Post-scarcity society isn't; it becomes. As we advance our means of production and automate more and more aspects of labor, then the "moral" requirement for work (which is not identical to production - artifice is also production) fades.

In the modern world we could quite easily support a 20-hour work week for virtually everyone (of course people who wanted to "work more" could.) But there's no reason food and shelter should require more than 15-20 hours per week at this point. The "moral necessity" of work is an artifact of an more and more archaic social need.

Plenty of folks nearly a century ago figured we'd be working 20 hour weeks by now.

I think it is a good question to ask - regarding the "morality" of work - but I think the answer is fairly complex.

It is and it isn't --

Does the poet who could never hope to eat, shelter, and survive solely on selling his poetry 'work'?

Does the gardener that lacks the land and climate to self-sustain 'work'?

The 'morality of work' shouldn't be reduced to saleable commodities/output that provides an income to survive... That's an ugly world of soot and machines that I wouldn't really want to be a part of...

Old school Democrat is Andy (I assume)

Close enough, as long as you know what you actually mean by that, and realize that unlike the Founding Fathers branch of conservatism, we Old School Democrats are sometimes known to take post-18th century facts into consideration in formulating our views on 21st century issues.

we Old School Democrats are sometimes known to take post-18th century facts into consideration in formulating our views on 21st century issues.

Yup. Your sensibility (in my mind) is very OSD. Which is a compliment by the way. I agree with much of the OSD, but am a bit too wonky and secular to really fit that.

Does the poet who could never hope to eat, shelter, and survive solely on selling his poetry 'work'?

Yes, but that begs the question as to how much society should be required to subsidize that work. But don't forget that most poets either have independent sources of income or other jobs that help keep them going. There are only so many Poet Laureate jobs to go around.

Does the poet who could never hope to eat, shelter, and survive solely on selling his poetry 'work'?

Does the gardener that lacks the land and climate to self-sustain 'work'?

I must study politics and war, that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, natural history and naval architecture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, tapestry, and porcelain.

— John Adams, noted communist

The idea of a guaranteed annual income was someone else's argument (Richard Nixon's, I believe), not mine.

I'd actually be fine with a "guaranteed" annual income as long as we're doing the whole socialism thing, except that it would never work because the recipients would burn through their alloted incomes and then be in danger of dying in the streets (*), and the liberals here would just take more of other peoples' money to prevent that.

So a guaranteed annual income would be pointless.

(*) Or of having medical bills or of not having iPhones.

I agree with much of the OSD, but am a bit too wonky and secular to really fit that.

I'm not sure I see any necessary contradiction. To me the "OSD" concept is centered mostly around the idea of true equality of opportunity as a goal.** There's no reason that wonks can't contribute to the furtherance of that ideal, and there's nothing particularly religious or anti-religious about it, either.

Beyond that, there's plenty of room for disagreement. I can't see reading a serious RTLer out of the "Old School" party, nor a serious pro-choice person. Social issues like that are worth debating, but they transcend easy political labeling.

**Admittedly a fluid concept, but one that reveals itself in our reactions to hundreds of positions on hundreds of specific issues and programs.

Asked and answered. By even the lefties around here. Please try to keep up, Sam.

Some folks who have the ability to think outside of their tiny little coat closet are formulating interesting responses which, eventually, might entail and "answer."

No one is shocked your pygmy intelligence hasn't quite grasped the question yet, of course. Don't you have some legal forms to collate and file? Legal "thinking" won't wait all day, son.

I'd actually be fine with a "guaranteed" annual income as long as we're doing the whole socialism thing, except that it would never work because the recipients would burn through their allotted incomes and then be in danger of dying in the streets

Because they're all foolish children unqualified to run their own lives, or they'd be making a decent living?

I'd actually be fine with a "guaranteed" annual income as long as we're doing the whole socialism thing, except that it would never work because the recipients would burn through their alloted incomes and then be in danger of dying in the streets (*), and the liberals here would just take more of other peoples' money to prevent that.

You mean how liberals take all of my and Good Face's money to keep you from being mugged every night on the way home? Oh, I forgot. The socialism that you were born into and depend on for preservation of status quo ante isn't "socialism." It's "natural law" or something.

The question is pretty simple. Why, exactly, are we still thoughtlessly accepting the puritanical notion of "salvation through work" handed down from a few weirdo Anabaptists 400 years ago?

I'd actually be fine with a "guaranteed" annual income as long as we're doing the whole socialism thing, except that it would never work because the recipients would burn through their alloted incomes and then be in danger of dying in the streets (*), and the liberals here would just take more of other peoples' money to prevent that.

Yeah, I'm not sure how you get around the problem of stupid people doing stupid things. A "guaranteed annual income" system only makes sense if it's used to replace existing entitlement programs.

Plenty of folks nearly a century ago figured we'd be working 20 hour weeks by now.

I have clear memories of being told in elementary school that at some point in the near future, we'd all only need to work 4 days a week at most because computers would save us so much time and labor. What a kidder that teacher was.

Also, as people live longer, they have more leisure time later in life. That is becoming a huge problem for most of the developed world.


Problem finding things for them to do, or problem having the resources to support them in their non-working life?

Supporting them, as the live longer. There are fewer workers per retiree, which can strain the system, especially as medical costs continue to grow.

People live for 20 years after they retire these days. We can't have a system where people work for only 45 years and are not productive for 45 (birth to start of work, and retired). Unless robots come to be.

Yeah, I'm not sure how you get around the problem of stupid people doing stupid things. A "guaranteed annual income" system only makes sense if it's used to replace existing entitlement programs.

1) Universal health care.
2) Universal child services.
3) Universal elderly care services (rides to health care, etc.)

That's it.

People live for 20 years after they retire these days. We can't have a system where people work for only 45 years and are not productive for 45 (birth to start of work, and retired). Unless robots come to be.

Productivity is up by a factor of 4 since 1947. It doubles every 30 years or so.

There are fewer workers per retiree, which can strain the system, especially as medical costs continue to grow.

We could always allow more immigration ....

I'd actually be fine with a "guaranteed" annual income as long as we're doing the whole socialism thing, except that it would never work because the recipients would burn through their allotted incomes and then be in danger of dying in the streets

Because they're all foolish children unqualified to run their own lives, or they'd be making a decent living?

We know they're unqualified to run their own lives, because they're depending on government handouts to run them. I don't care _why_ they're unqualified (*), I just care about the result: a vast many of them will burn through their alloted incomes. You know they will. I know they will. So what are you denying, exactly?

(*) And some people have legitimate excuses (they're disabled, they're mentally incapacitated, etc.).

We could always allow more immigration ....

I am for that. But more legal immigration with people with skills and education. More productive people.

A "guaranteed annual income" system only makes sense if it's used to replace existing entitlement programs.

I was taking it for granted that this would be the case. Otherwise, what's the point? Without necessarily arguing for a guaranteed income, my thinking would be that the government would literally send everybody a check (every month?) for the exact same amount (adjusted by cost-of-living adjustments based on where you live?). The idea is that everybody can afford the bare necessities and by giving it to everybody, there's no disincentives being created at the bottom to work low-wage jobs (there still are disincentives to work, but you're not losing benefits by working; your minimum-wage McDonald's salary is pure profit on top of your government money).

As a practical matter, my gut instinct is that this wouldn't work because of negative macro-economic implications. My first thought is it would trigger inflation - if everybody suddenly has an extra $20,000 per year to spend (or whatever it'd be; you'd probably want to err on the side of setting income too low initially, so, for example, well below the $40k that somebody suggested last page), then prices would just go up to capture that $20,000. But if it's replacing existing entitlement programs, then maybe not?

The upside vs. current entitlement programs is that you're giving people more freedom to spend their money as they see fit. The downside is that some people will "see fit" to blow their money on crack and whores. But that's what freedom and liberty are all about, right?