The Laziness Revolution

[scheherazade_79]

Hundreds of years ago people used to work about 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. They got home, they washed, they slept, and then they got up again for another 12 hours of hard labour.

Nobody thought it was unusual or wrong at the time. It was just accepted as part of life without question or complaint.

Today the average working day is 7h30, with a whole weekend to recover. It sounds much better until you think about it carefully and realise we're not that much better off at all. We're still the peasant class in a society run not by landowners, but by company owners.

An awful lot of working people get up at 6am and don't get home til around 6pm - if they're lucky. They might not be at the office or the coal face for those 12 hours, but they're still taken up with work-related activities, such as commuting and preparation for the next day. And if you're getting up that early, then you need to go to bed early the night before.

In the average 24 hour period, when you take away work-related activities and sleep, only about four hours of each day are your own.

Why is it that everyone accepts this so blindly? Is it possible to be 100% productive so many hours, or would productivity increase if people had more leisure time and worked in smaller bursts?

And why the hell is productivity so important anyway? Whatever happened to just Being and Enjoying?

Would people still drink themselves senseless on a Friday night if the rest of their working week were more leisurely? Would we get as many cases of stress and mental health problems? Would people take as many sickies?

I don't think they would, which is why I propose a 5hr working day. I think people would be happier, and the world would benefit from it in the long run.

 

[rgraham666]

Being and enjoying don't make money. And so are secondary goals in our society.

Also, to the people at the top the people at the bottom are not human beings. They are human resources, to be exploited, used up and discarded.

 

[girlontheedge]

Its a sad truth in our society, slaves to the dollar/pound/euro are we all...

A 5 hour work day would be great, but how will you ever convince the ones at the top?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

1. Marx was right - in the future the workers will own the means of production. Increasingly it's happening, in the form of company stocks held in individuals' 401k, IRA and other retirement accounts, or stocks held by pension funds for the benefit of retired workers. We're not there yet, but that's the way the world is moving.

2. Commuting is most often a matter of individual lifestyle choice. No laws, economic or legal, prohibit most people from choosing to live near their workplace. That sometimes it's not convenient is a separate issue.

3. 200 years ago well over 90 percent of the people had no commute - they drudged from dawn 'til dusk doing monotonous, often dangerous, often backbreaking labor on farms. Women drudged to perform tasks that are effortless or have disappeared today - draw water from wells, make and repair clothes, clean them by hand, prepare meals from scratch with no conveniences like gas ranges and refrigerators. People lived in filth because cleanliness was too expensive in time and resources (chop wood to heat water for a bath). Life was perrennially close to the edge umimaginably hard for all but a tiny sliver of exploiters called aristocrats. It was like this everywhere in the world (except hunter gatherer peoples, who had tiny populations because such a life is unimaginably precarious). We don't have a clue just how good we have it, even when things aren't going well for any of us personally.

4. Scarcity is an existential reality. Even having come as far as we have, man must still work hard to overcome it. The work is much less demanding now, and for a growing number of people is actually interesting.

5. We've come this far in just 200 years. Give us a few hundred more and imagine what a paradise we could create. But there's no shortcut to get there - imagine if 100 years ago the population has said, "That's enough - let's divide it all equally and not expand the pie any further."

6. In that future paradise it's certain that the population will groan and grumble (about their 5-hour work-weeks) just as much as we do, and be as oblivious to their advantages.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Being and enjoying don't make money. And so are secondary goals in our society.

Also, to the people at the top the people at the bottom are not human beings. They are human resources, to be exploited, used up and discarded.

Who exactly are the people at the top, though?

 

[scheherazade_79]

Its a sad truth in our society, slaves to the dollar/pound/euro are we all...

A 5 hour work day would be great, but how will you ever convince the ones at the top?

Revolution

 

[scheherazade_79]

5. We've come this far in just 200 years. Give us a few hundred more and imagine what a paradise we could create. But there's no shortcut to get there - imagine if 100 years ago the population has said, "That's enough - let's divide it all equally and not expand the pie any further."

6. In that future paradise it's certain that the population will groan and grumble (about their 5-hour work-weeks) just as much as we do, and be as oblivious to their advantages.

What sparked this off was reading somewhere that ants only spend a tiny fraction of their day working. And yet they're considered the most industrious of animals, and in terms of size ratio accomplish an insane amount.

I wish we could copy ants instead of losing ourselves in the corporate claptrap that comes from the US...

 

[Equinoxe]

(except hunter gatherer peoples, who had tiny populations because such a life is unimaginably precarious)

That's not remotely true. Hunting and gathering cannot, by its very nature, support the same population levels as agriculture by any stretch of the imagintion, even rudimentary agriculture allows for much larger populations, but it actually supports human life (in terms of health and nutrition) at a much higher quality than agriculture [excluding Modern industrialised and especially post-Green Revolution agriculture]. Some studies of certain existing hunter-gatherer tribes show that they eat, on average, approximately 2000 calories a day and they only engage, on average, in about 20 hours of work a week in order to do so. There are several major manifestations in the archæological and palæontological records which show that agriculture actually made life significantly more precarious. One of the most striking of which is the loss of height in early agricultural societies (the average height of individuals in a given population is indicative of basic childhood health and nutrition—this is why South Koreans are significantly taller than North Koreans and why people from the Developed World are generally taller than people from the Developing World): in the Eastern Mediterranean in the late Palæolithic circa 12000 years ago, the average man was appoximately 5'9" and the average woman 5'4", but by the time of the beginnings of civilisation circa 5000 years ago, the average man was approximately 5'3" and the average woman 5'0". More recent peoples have provided similar evidence, such as the Plains Indians of the 19th century, who were the tallest people on record in their day—again, because their hunter-gatherer lifestyle of following the buffalo was anything but precarious and actually provided a healthy and nutritious diet. Huntering and gathering supports tiny groups at a relatively high quality diet: agriculture, prior to modern advancements, supports huge groups very minimally.

It took humanity thousands of years to fully recover, in terms of basic health and nutrition, from the transition to agriculture. The end results are the society that we have now, but it has made many more generations miserable than it has allowed to rise to new creative heights.

 

[rgraham666]

From my favourite book, The Doubter's Companion.

ANTS Ants do nothing 71.5 per cent of the time. They are trying to think of what can usefully be done next. And this is in spite of their reputation - shared with beavers and bees - as hard-working roles models for the human race.

Most humans in positions of responsibility work more than 28.5 per cent of the time. It could be argued that, being brighter than ants, we need less time to think. This is a technically correct and reassuring argument. Yet a comparison of the incidence of error among ants versus humans would not come out in our favor. We could counter that by risking error, human society - or at least human knowledge - has progressed, while that of ants remains stable. Bur if we are so bright, then why are we so eager to spend as long as possible on the non-intellectual task which hard work represents, while desperately economizing on the time spent thinking? An outside observer, an ant for example, might wonder if we are afraid of our ability to think and more precisely of the self-doubt which it involves.

MYREMECOPHAGA JUMBATA Ant-eater. The existence of this predator demonstrates that thinking 71 per cent of the time, as ants do, won't prevent you from being eaten. Thinking less than that, as humans do, will almost guarantee it.

 

[neonlyte]

Who exactly are the people at the top, though?

The 'people at the top' are (generally) males who enjoy the company of other males. Usually they have been through some form of 'right of passage'. In England, this used to mean Winchester, Eton or Harrow followed by Oxbridge and serve time in a Regiment - Horse Guards by preference. America has it's own right of passage along similar lines though generaly more commercially or educationally biased.

These people are 'winners', by which I mean (topically) if they were Olympians they'd resort to performance enhancing drugs. Winning means casualty, most often wife and children, May/December second marriages, multiple Directorships allowing opportunity for self-fulfillment since they have the inside track on what is happening. They stack the (company board) deck with non-execs (i.e. Golf Buddies) who agree lavish stock options for mediocre performance knowing it is their turn to get the same treatment next month.

I worked with a 'tosser' in the early 90's who thought he could re-write the standard building construction contract that had taken decades to evolve. Cleaning up his mess took years and several legal actions. He now heads one of the UK's major High Street companies having passed through a series of businesses where he barely spent enough time to cash in his stock options. This guy (Eton & Horse Guards) was aghast that I employed 'women' and 'blacks' as professional members of my project team.

It was the only time I ever worked for anyone - the rest of my forty odd years of working life I've worked for myself. I don't make much money but I have a whole lot more fun. I work Sunday's but refuse to work Monday to Friday

 

[rgraham666]

I had a client in the late '80s. He had inherited the business from his dad.

My company had supplied a computer system to them with software to manage the company. This system, to put it bluntly, sucked. Crashed four to five times a day, left orphan records all over the place. What was in the computer and what was actually happening in the company had no relation to one another.

It was my job to maintain the system. I got very tired of picking up after this piece of shit. I tried to get my employers to agree that it needed to be fixed. They said, "The client has signed off on it. Until they request a change we're doing nothing." The employees of the company hated the system as much as I did but the owner said nothing.

So I decided "Fuck it! I'm supposed to make this system work and the only way to do that is to rewrite the whole damned thing!" So I did. Took me three weeks of sixteen to twenty hour days but I did it.

I installed it and it ran fine for at least five years. The employees of the client were very happy. They could depend on the system now.

The owner was very, very unhappy. He wanted a broken system. That way he could cook the books.

My employers were unhappy as well. I'd overstepped my bounds. And they knew the client wanted a broken system and agreed to it. The "maintenance contract" was essentially hush money.

That was my worst experience in the business world. Although others came close.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

That's not remotely true. Hunting and gathering cannot, by its very nature, support the same population levels as agriculture by any stretch of the imagintion, even rudimentary agriculture allows for much larger populations, but it actually supports human life (in terms of health and nutrition) at a much higher quality than agriculture [excluding Modern industrialised and especially post-Green Revolution agriculture]. Some studies of certain existing hunter-gatherer tribes show that they eat, on average, approximately 2000 calories a day and they only engage, on average, in about 20 hours of work a week in order to do so. There are several major manifestations in the archæological and palæontological records which show that agriculture actually made life significantly more precarious. One of the most striking of which is the loss of height in early agricultural societies (the average height of individuals in a given population is indicative of basic childhood health and nutrition—this is why South Koreans are significantly taller than North Koreans and why people from the Developed World are generally taller than people from the Developing World): in the Eastern Mediterranean in the late Palæolithic circa 12000 years ago, the average man was appoximately 5'9" and the average woman 5'4", but by the time of the beginnings of civilisation circa 5000 years ago, the average man was approximately 5'3" and the average woman 5'0". More recent peoples have provided similar evidence, such as the Plains Indians of the 19th century, who were the tallest people on record in their day—again, because their hunter-gatherer lifestyle of following the buffalo was anything but precarious and actually provided a healthy and nutritious diet. Huntering and gathering supports tiny groups at a relatively high quality diet: agriculture, prior to modern advancements, supports huge groups very minimally.

It took humanity thousands of years to fully recover, in terms of basic health and nutrition, from the transition to agriculture. The end results are the society that we have now, but it has made many more generations miserable than it has allowed to rise to new creative heights.

It is true that life is precarious in hunter-gatherer societies.

What you say about the impact of agriculture is also true.

Let's step back a moment. In the HG life, when things are going well life is very pleasant, and little work is required. And when they're not going well, most of you die. That's what I mean by precarious. At all times infant and child mortality is horrendous. Adults are largely worn-out by their mid-30s, especially women, who must be breeding factories to sustain a population. That is a hard life, even if daily life during periods of it are not hard.

For a long time after ag was invented it was as you describe - sucky. Daily life was harder even in the good times, and much of the population did not thrive. In the bad times, however, many fewer people died, because it had become possible to store a surplus, which wasn't possible with HG. So life was actually less precarious.

Mankind (H. Sap.) lived by HG for almost 100,000 years. Ag is a new thing in the world, only around 7,000 years old. It took a while to get much good at it - like thousands of years.

The way we live now - industrial civilization - is really new. Just 200 years or so. A tiny baby. We're getting better at it at a much faster rate than we did at ag, but still have bugs to work out. As a species we're still trying to cope with all its implications, but making progress on that, too.

Life has always been hard and uncertain. It's much less so now than at any time in the history of our species. By orders of magnitude less so. The comforts, conveniences and broadened horizons this new way of living has given us were literally inconceivable for 99.9 percent of human history.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My great-great grandfather wrote a book about life on the American Frontier circa 1820-1860. His mother wrote her autobiography for the years 1780-1860.

According to them people worked all the time, often till the Moon set and there was no light to labor by. In Illinois, where they lived, a trip to town occurred once a year. For the rest of the time people made do. They only bought what they couldnt make.

The men took a caravan to Alton, Illionis. They traded pelts, beeswax, moonshine, etc for gunpowder, lead, needles, coffee, paper, tools, shoes, and other essentials. My ancestor relates an amusing incident about a new bonnet a young man bought for his new wife.

People on the frontier were desperately poor and almost never got anything new or storebought, especially the women. So the new bonnet created an eruption of envy, jealousy, and depression among the other women. The young wife was screamed at, defamed, and accused of debauchery. She was called a whore and accused of luring the men into depravity with her new bonnet.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Who exactly are the people at the top, though?

Landlords, grocery stores, water and power companies. At the minimum.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Nonsense.

The people at the top are the Bush's, Kennedy's, Rockefellers, Waltons, etc.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Landlords, grocery stores, water and power companies. At the minimum.

That's me!

I own a house that I rent out, and an IRA mutual fund that holds shares of Walmart and Exxon. I've had them both for almost 25 years. For most of that time my household income was below median. In the last few years, as I've entered the later years of my working life and reached my peak earning power, it's slightly above median. In short, I'm a middle class American, not a mogul.

 

[gauchecritic]

That's me!

I own a house that I rent out, and an IRA mutual fund that holds shares of Walmart and Exxon. I've had them both for almost 25 years. For most of that time my household income was below median. In the last few years, as I've entered the later years of my working life and reached my peak earning power, it's slightly above median. In short, I'm a middle class American, not a mogul.

You really believe that you 'own' Walmart and Exxon? That you and 25 million other shareholders actually 'own' Walmart and Exxon? I can see where your sideways thinking comes from now.

And Marx said that 'the workers shall control the means of production. No one owns anything, because property is theft.

Roxy, Roxy, Roxy. tcha.

P.S where were you when your ship killed all those birds and animals and blighted the coastline around Prince William Sound?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You really believe that you 'own' Walmart and Exxon? That you and 25 million other shareholders actually 'own' Walmart and Exxon? I can see where your sideways thinking comes from now.

And Marx said that 'the workers shall control the means of production. No one owns anything, because property is theft.

Roxy, Roxy, Roxy. tcha.

P.S where were you when your ship killed all those birds and animals and blighted the coastline around Prince William Sound?

Yeah, I own it: When they do good I do good.

They're ship (my ship?) crashed because a stupid law said they were discriminating against the "disabled" if they fired the captain for being a drunk. Besides, it wasn't the end of the world when it did.

Hey Gauche - do you drive or ride in motor vehicles? I assume yes: You're welcome for the fuel "my company" provided to run them (my mutual fund probably owns BP too).

 

[rgraham666]

Corporation n. - An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. Ambrose Bierce.

 

[Munachi]

well i guess i agree that we are off than most people have been throughout most of history - though with we i don't necessarily mean everyone in the world. there are still many people whose lifes consist of working all day and receiving very little for it.

 

[jomar]

Whatever happened to just Being and Enjoying?

I'll get back to you on this if I win the lottery.

 

[Boxlicker101]

well i guess i agree that we are off than most people have been throughout most of history - though with we i don't necessarily mean everyone in the world. there are still many people whose lifes consist of working all day and receiving very little for it.

This is true, and it has always been true, but only a tiny percentage of those people live in the industrialized West. I didn't say none of them; I said "A tiny percentage."

 

[Boxlicker101]

What sparked this off was reading somewhere that ants only spend a tiny fraction of their day working. And yet they're considered the most industrious of animals, and in terms of size ratio accomplish an insane amount.

I wish we could copy ants instead of losing ourselves in the corporate claptrap that comes from the US...

In your first post, you said the average work day was 7.5 hours, which comes to 37.5 hours a week, out of the 178 hours that are in a full week. Work occupies about 21.1% of the time and non-work occupies about 78.9% of the time.

Rob said:

From my favourite book, The Doubter's Companion.


Quote:
ANTS Ants do nothing 71.5 per cent of the time. They are trying to think of what can usefully be done next. And this is in spite of their reputation - shared with beavers and bees - as hard-working roles models for the human race.

Most humans in positions of responsibility work more than 28.5 per cent of the time. It could be argued that, being brighter than ants, we need less time to think. This is a technically correct and reassuring argument. Yet a comparison of the incidence of error among ants versus humans would not come out in our favor. We could counter that by risking error, human society - or at least human knowledge - has progressed, while that of ants remains stable. Bur if we are so bright, then why are we so eager to spend as long as possible on the non-intellectual task which hard work represents, while desperately economizing on the time spent thinking? An outside observer, an ant for example, might wonder if we are afraid of our ability to think and more precisely of the self-doubt which it involves.

Quote:
MYREMECOPHAGA JUMBATA Ant-eater. The existence of this predator demonstrates that thinking 71 per cent of the time, as ants do, won't prevent you from being eaten. Thinking less than that, as humans do, will almost guarantee it. [/b]

Assuming the numbers in Rob's quote are correct, it makes an interesting comparison.

BTW, how do you tell when an ant is working? Most of the time, I see them scurrying aimlessly around. Would that be called work?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

well i guess i agree that we are off than most people have been throughout most of history - though with we i don't necessarily mean everyone in the world. there are still many people whose lifes consist of working all day and receiving very little for it.

Yeah. That's one of the main things I was thinking when I wrote, "We're getting better at this new way of living at a much faster rate than we did at ag, but still have bugs to work out." As I also said, "it's a brand new thing in the world," this new way of living - so new it hasn't yet taken hold everywhere.

 

[Munachi]

that is of course the question - will it take hold everywhere? or is the fact that we are enjoying this better live kind of on the back of those people that don't?