It is unfortunate that this anti-work rhetoric often comes off as outrageous, when in reality it isn’t. I don’t know if the people doing it are intentionally trying to be controversial, or if they just are not good at communicating.
When we complain about work, this doesn’t mean that we are asking for a world where we lounge all day at home, and expect that food, shelter and entertainment are magically delivered to us without any regard to how it happens. No, anti-work is not about a blind sense of entitlement. But that is how a lot of these posts come off as, even if their authors don’t intend it.
Anti-work is a recognition that the working class works way too damn much; so much more than we need to to have a functioning society with everyone living happily and having their needs met. There’s so much inefficiency in capitalism, with aims to drive more capital to the wealthy, and working around other stupidities of capitalism (check out the book “Bullshit jobs” for examples). The ruling class holds hostage the world’s resources, and requires you to give them a large portion of your life to get even the minimum needed to sustain your living. Now that is outrageous.
I think a lot of people have trouble understanding the difference between “I don’t want to contribute anything to society” and “I don’t want to spend half my waking life laboring for peanuts so that my boss can get rich”.
Obviously, we should contribute according to our means, but we need to be compensated for those contributions accordingly.
…but we need to be compensated for those contributions accordingly.
This is the part they object to, thanks to the proliferation of Econ 101 thinking. Market wages are, after all, competitive by definition. For someone that hasn’t gone beyond basic economics, what you’re paid for the work you do is fair compensation.
The anti-work rhetoric is, first of all, incredibly misleading for people who take things at face value. But more important, the underlying theory for why market wages aren’t fair is different for each person you talk to. There is no coherent, rhetorically forceful reasoning for why people should be paid more. And separate messages that arrive at the same conclusion aren’t really effective at scale.
Getting paid better would be nice, but that will just bring the middle class closer to poverty. I’ve been a part of this community for a few years now and I have been fighting for better wages this whole time. But the biggest pain to me is inflation. Things keep costing more and more, but I keep making the same amount of money. Wouldn’t price regulations be a better solution to all of this to all of this? Not trying to start a fight, but looking for a slight skew from the topic.
Getting paid better would be nice, but that will just bring the middle class closer to poverty
This is not how math work. If you add 10% to wage for everyone, then nothing will change(with few exceptions that will become more affordable, mostly some sorts of taxes). But if you add 100$ to wage for everyone, then rich become sloghtly less rich, poor will become relatively richer and middle class will be slightly richer.
But the biggest pain to me is inflation. Things keep costing more and more, but I keep making the same amount of money.
The biggest problem is not inflation itself, but that capitalists when increase price of product will not increase wage of worker. If there is deflation, then capitalist will cut wages, but keep prices high
Regulations for everything would not allow the greedy pigs to make their own rules. What you’re asking for is that they gain some sort of heart and start valuing something other than their products. That won’t happen. I really think regulation is a better plan because it’s creating laws that cap profits. Then we can hit em with their own medicine and up the minimum wage too. Maybe even put a maximum wage out there.
Maybe I’ve seen too much star trek and I’m believing that the socialist/communist utopia exists out there someday. Maybe I’m crazy. All I know for sure is I don’t like the hand I was delt and it’s way too hard to fold.
Reminds me Savateev’s proposed education reform. Cap school directors’ wage at something like 2x-3x of lowest of top-60%(below median) teachers’ wages in conjunction with banning overtime more than 50%(hard cap work time at 150% of normal, currently over 200% is common practice which is really bad).
Wouldn’t price regulations be a better solution to all of this
What would that solve though?
I mean say, a loaf of bread is price regulated at $3/loaf. Do we treat it like the minimum wage and let it sit there for 15 years at $3? What about bread producers? After a few years, they’re certainly not getting paid the market price for their production. Is that justified to ensure that bread remains at $3?
The problems of price controls are demonstrated quite convincingly with rent controls versus just building affordable housing: the former doesn’t increase the housing supply which means, even if rent is affordable, some people remain homeless.
After a few years, they’re certainly not getting paid the market price for their production.
Why not? When monopoly sets price it is market price, but when monopsony-like actor does same it is not?
versus just building affordable housing: the former doesn’t increase the housing supply which means, even if rent is affordable, some people remain homeless.
I recommend you to watch Rossmann’s walks around NYC where he just shows places that can be rented, but nobody does for 10 years. It is not because there is not enough supply, there was oversupply even before pandemic, just a lot of companies prefer to let place rot, then rent at fair literally market price because it will bring down rent on other places. Well, for housing there is also ban of everything that is not single-family shed or humant colony.
For you, absolutely. With such a defeatist attitude there’s no possibility of advancing. It appears you don’t know how to negotiate which would explain the acceptance of peanuts.
Well there wasn’t any need to twist what I said into some new statement, but you chose to anyway. Why, what purpose did that serve you?
Look, you can always walk away from a shit deal. No one is being forced to accept low wages, but as long as people do it will always be a thing. If you want out of that pool, do something to get out of it.
There are always jobs elsewhere, though it’s hard to see that for those who are complacent. I could apply for a job that would give me a 200k/yr raise, but I don’t because I enjoy where I work and I believe the job I’m working at now will benefit me in the long run.
Like your thesis that capitslism is inefficient. I agree! It is efficient though solving a problem, it’s just the wrong one (money instead of happiness as the x).
I was born in a comunist society and can wholeheartedly tell you (I presume you are from US or a western country): you don’t even know or can imagine what inefficient is :)
But that’s kind of the point here. There hasn’t been any win. So far no proposed system has been able to beat capitalism in terms of efficiency. Right?
I am not from the US or Western, and I understand and can imagine it well. Socialism is still the answer. I’d be happy to discuss this further with you, but I’ll keep it at that otherwise.
A good start might be not calling the movement Anti-work, as that seems to be an all or nothing type of negative name, to those who feel everyone should put in their fair amount of work to earn the rewards from society.
Perhaps smart-work or fair-work or right-work would have been a better name for the movement, less of a blockage / hurtle for others to get over.
The thing of such names is they cannot be hijacked as fas as I know. You simply can’t do anti-work-washing or create yellow anti-work union. Distorted anti-work is worse for capitalism than real anti-work because supporter of distorted anti-work will not agree to work at all.
You have a good point. Although I doubt it’s worth the trade off. I think pirate party movements vs environmental movement is a good comparison. Pirate party-ism kind of died. Environmentalism lives on. Not saying it’s necessarily because of naming. But, I don’t think sounding like you’re “pro theft” helped.
The negative connotation that you mention is the point of the trade off. On one hand it makes the message less appealing - because it’s using a symbolic name with a negative connotation.
On the other hand - the negative connotation makes it less likely that the symbols will be hijacked by opponents.
By example:
Green movements don’t have symbols with such connotation. Opponents use green washing to hijack the movement.
Pirate party movements do have names and symbols with negative connotations. If you’re working with intellectual property you don’t want to be associated with piracy. There’s no such thing as pirate-washing…(?) However, open source movements is a related phenomenon and a counter example. There have been examples of open source-washing. Companies that pretend to be open but they really aren’t really. Android and openai comes to mind.
When a movement is formed there is a possibility to build a narrative that is more or less desirable to hijack. Making it less desirable to hijack might make it less desirable overall. That’s the trade off.
Wouldn’t say so. They got more popular, they are just not as often mentioned in news as before.
In Russia for example Pirate Party was frozen becase during Putin’s reign it is unsafe(as in you will be killed or imprisoned) to register opposition. So currently PP works as Roskomsvoboda(PP’s project like EFF).
The thing of such names is they cannot be hijacked as fas as I know. You simply can’t do anti-work-washing or create yellow anti-work union.
Actually that’s usually the number one way if somebody combating you where they want to “kill the messenger”, they hijacked a term and make it mean something different than it should be.
For example being a liberal used to mean one thing and then conservances painted it in a different light, and now it has a negative connotation in our society to centrists.
Distorted anti-work is worse for capitalism than real anti-work because supporter of distorted anti-work will not agree to work at all.
I honestly read this four times, and just literally do not understand the point you’re trying to make.
If you can elaborate on it so I can see what you’re trying to tell me I’d appreciate it.
Fundamentally the point I was trying to make is that “anti-work”, when people hear that they think “this person doesn’t want to work for their living and carry their weight in our society”. It’s a very strong negative connotation, and usually it shuts somebody down from listening to you and to your ideas right at the start.
If your goal is a fair work philosophy then you should state that in the tldr name for it. If otherwise you truly mean no work, then ‘anti-work’ has a tldr name that matches that philosophy better.
I certainly agree. I never liked the term anti-work at all. I prefer to just cut to the chase and explain what I’m about. Or call myself a socialist. That may have its own baggage to unpack as well, but at least its not a core semantic flaw in the term.
Anti-work is extremely unfortunate. We really named a movement after a strawman criticism of leftists by boomers.
It is unfortunate that this anti-work rhetoric often comes off as outrageous, when in reality it isn’t. I don’t know if the people doing it are intentionally trying to be controversial, or if they just are not good at communicating.
When we complain about work, this doesn’t mean that we are asking for a world where we lounge all day at home, and expect that food, shelter and entertainment are magically delivered to us without any regard to how it happens. No, anti-work is not about a blind sense of entitlement. But that is how a lot of these posts come off as, even if their authors don’t intend it.
Anti-work is a recognition that the working class works way too damn much; so much more than we need to to have a functioning society with everyone living happily and having their needs met. There’s so much inefficiency in capitalism, with aims to drive more capital to the wealthy, and working around other stupidities of capitalism (check out the book “Bullshit jobs” for examples). The ruling class holds hostage the world’s resources, and requires you to give them a large portion of your life to get even the minimum needed to sustain your living. Now that is outrageous.
I think a lot of people have trouble understanding the difference between “I don’t want to contribute anything to society” and “I don’t want to spend half my waking life laboring for peanuts so that my boss can get rich”.
Obviously, we should contribute according to our means, but we need to be compensated for those contributions accordingly.
This is the part they object to, thanks to the proliferation of Econ 101 thinking. Market wages are, after all, competitive by definition. For someone that hasn’t gone beyond basic economics, what you’re paid for the work you do is fair compensation.
The anti-work rhetoric is, first of all, incredibly misleading for people who take things at face value. But more important, the underlying theory for why market wages aren’t fair is different for each person you talk to. There is no coherent, rhetorically forceful reasoning for why people should be paid more. And separate messages that arrive at the same conclusion aren’t really effective at scale.
Getting paid better would be nice, but that will just bring the middle class closer to poverty. I’ve been a part of this community for a few years now and I have been fighting for better wages this whole time. But the biggest pain to me is inflation. Things keep costing more and more, but I keep making the same amount of money. Wouldn’t price regulations be a better solution to all of this to all of this? Not trying to start a fight, but looking for a slight skew from the topic.
This is not how math work. If you add 10% to wage for everyone, then nothing will change(with few exceptions that will become more affordable, mostly some sorts of taxes). But if you add 100$ to wage for everyone, then rich become sloghtly less rich, poor will become relatively richer and middle class will be slightly richer.
The biggest problem is not inflation itself, but that capitalists when increase price of product will not increase wage of worker. If there is deflation, then capitalist will cut wages, but keep prices high
Regulations for everything would not allow the greedy pigs to make their own rules. What you’re asking for is that they gain some sort of heart and start valuing something other than their products. That won’t happen. I really think regulation is a better plan because it’s creating laws that cap profits. Then we can hit em with their own medicine and up the minimum wage too. Maybe even put a maximum wage out there.
Maybe I’ve seen too much star trek and I’m believing that the socialist/communist utopia exists out there someday. Maybe I’m crazy. All I know for sure is I don’t like the hand I was delt and it’s way too hard to fold.
Reminds me Savateev’s proposed education reform. Cap school directors’ wage at something like 2x-3x of lowest of top-60%(below median) teachers’ wages in conjunction with banning overtime more than 50%(hard cap work time at 150% of normal, currently over 200% is common practice which is really bad).
What would that solve though?
I mean say, a loaf of bread is price regulated at $3/loaf. Do we treat it like the minimum wage and let it sit there for 15 years at $3? What about bread producers? After a few years, they’re certainly not getting paid the market price for their production. Is that justified to ensure that bread remains at $3?
The problems of price controls are demonstrated quite convincingly with rent controls versus just building affordable housing: the former doesn’t increase the housing supply which means, even if rent is affordable, some people remain homeless.
Idk, how are thinking about it?
Why not? When monopoly sets price it is market price, but when monopsony-like actor does same it is not?
I recommend you to watch Rossmann’s walks around NYC where he just shows places that can be rented, but nobody does for 10 years. It is not because there is not enough supply, there was oversupply even before pandemic, just a lot of companies prefer to let place rot, then rent at
fairliterally market price because it will bring down rent on other places. Well, for housing there is also ban of everything that is not single-family shed or humant colony.You are responsible for negotiating your compensation. You allow yourself to be paid peanuts.
It will always be peanuts, regardless of negotiating.
For you, absolutely. With such a defeatist attitude there’s no possibility of advancing. It appears you don’t know how to negotiate which would explain the acceptance of peanuts.
Only good negotiators deserve fair compensation, gotcha.
Well there wasn’t any need to twist what I said into some new statement, but you chose to anyway. Why, what purpose did that serve you?
Look, you can always walk away from a shit deal. No one is being forced to accept low wages, but as long as people do it will always be a thing. If you want out of that pool, do something to get out of it.
There are always jobs elsewhere, though it’s hard to see that for those who are complacent. I could apply for a job that would give me a 200k/yr raise, but I don’t because I enjoy where I work and I believe the job I’m working at now will benefit me in the long run.
Like your thesis that capitslism is inefficient. I agree! It is efficient though solving a problem, it’s just the wrong one (money instead of happiness as the x).
Never thought about it that way
I was born in a comunist society and can wholeheartedly tell you (I presume you are from US or a western country): you don’t even know or can imagine what inefficient is :)
Coming up with something even more inefficient isn’t a win.
But that’s kind of the point here. There hasn’t been any win. So far no proposed system has been able to beat capitalism in terms of efficiency. Right?
I am not from the US or Western, and I understand and can imagine it well. Socialism is still the answer. I’d be happy to discuss this further with you, but I’ll keep it at that otherwise.
A good start might be not calling the movement Anti-work, as that seems to be an all or nothing type of negative name, to those who feel everyone should put in their fair amount of work to earn the rewards from society.
Perhaps smart-work or fair-work or right-work would have been a better name for the movement, less of a blockage / hurtle for others to get over.
The thing of such names is they cannot be hijacked as fas as I know. You simply can’t do anti-work-washing or create yellow anti-work union. Distorted anti-work is worse for capitalism than real anti-work because supporter of distorted anti-work will not agree to work at all.
You have a good point. Although I doubt it’s worth the trade off. I think pirate party movements vs environmental movement is a good comparison. Pirate party-ism kind of died. Environmentalism lives on. Not saying it’s necessarily because of naming. But, I don’t think sounding like you’re “pro theft” helped.
Could you elaborate?
The negative connotation that you mention is the point of the trade off. On one hand it makes the message less appealing - because it’s using a symbolic name with a negative connotation.
On the other hand - the negative connotation makes it less likely that the symbols will be hijacked by opponents.
By example:
When a movement is formed there is a possibility to build a narrative that is more or less desirable to hijack. Making it less desirable to hijack might make it less desirable overall. That’s the trade off.
Wouldn’t say so. They got more popular, they are just not as often mentioned in news as before.
In Russia for example Pirate Party was frozen becase during Putin’s reign it is unsafe(as in you will be killed or imprisoned) to register opposition. So currently PP works as Roskomsvoboda(PP’s project like EFF).
Actually that’s usually the number one way if somebody combating you where they want to “kill the messenger”, they hijacked a term and make it mean something different than it should be.
For example being a liberal used to mean one thing and then conservances painted it in a different light, and now it has a negative connotation in our society to centrists.
I honestly read this four times, and just literally do not understand the point you’re trying to make.
If you can elaborate on it so I can see what you’re trying to tell me I’d appreciate it.
Fundamentally the point I was trying to make is that “anti-work”, when people hear that they think “this person doesn’t want to work for their living and carry their weight in our society”. It’s a very strong negative connotation, and usually it shuts somebody down from listening to you and to your ideas right at the start.
If your goal is a fair work philosophy then you should state that in the tldr name for it. If otherwise you truly mean no work, then ‘anti-work’ has a tldr name that matches that philosophy better.
I certainly agree. I never liked the term anti-work at all. I prefer to just cut to the chase and explain what I’m about. Or call myself a socialist. That may have its own baggage to unpack as well, but at least its not a core semantic flaw in the term.
Anti-work is extremely unfortunate. We really named a movement after a strawman criticism of leftists by boomers.
Now say that in 160 characters. Brevity is the capitalist way.
Capitalism bad. Hope that’s short enough for you to comprehend.
Zinger!