Why work?

ACG

ihatemyhouse wrote: »

that's London, a well paid job down here is £7 an hour, most is NMW

Take another look, there are jobs with similar wages all over, London, Bristol, Swansea, Leeds etc etc.

ihatemyhouse

I know there was others, and most of them are nearly double what you would earn down here

thistledome

pinkteapot wrote: »

At opposite ends of the spectrum you can have a capitalist economy where everyone works for themselves or a communist society where everyone works for the good of society.

Notice what they have in common?

If we all sat on our backsides and refused to do anything resembling work then we wouldn't last long.

True, but not everyone feels the same way. In reality, life for most people isn't about going to one extreme or the other.

Some people enjoy working and some don't. There isn't full employment available for everyone so why not let the people who really hate working do other things and the people who love work can have as many jobs as they can fit into the day (and night). Everybody's happy.....

Make the really enjoyable and popular jobs like professional footballing or acting pay minimum wage and the horrible jobs like cleaning sewers or nursing pay about £50 per hour. Sorted.

sandsni

thistledome wrote: »

Make the really enjoyable and popular jobs like professional footballing or acting pay minimum wage and the horrible jobs like cleaning sewers or nursing pay about £50 per hour. Sorted.

Now there's an idea :T

thistledome

The post about Capitalism and Communism reminded me of the story of the Fisherman and the Businessman. For those that haven't heard it:

Once a poor fisherman was lying on a beach, enjoying the afternoon sunshine. He struck up a conversation with a rich western businessman on vacation, who was also lying on the beach. The businessman enquired as to why he was sunbathing on the beach and not working. To this the poor fisherman replied that he had caught enough fish for the day.

Hearing this the rich man said: Why don’t you catch more fishes instead of lying in the sun and wasting your time?

Fisherman asked: What would I do by catching more fishes?

Businessman: You could sell them and earn more money, and buy a bigger boat.

Fisherman: What would I do then?

Businessman: You could go fishing in deep waters and catch even more fishes and earn even more money.

Fisherman: What would I do then?

Businessman: You could buy many boats and employ many people to work for you and earn even more money.

Fisherman: What would I do then?

Businessman: You could become a rich businessman like me.

Fisherman: What would I do then?

Businessman: In time you could afford to go on a luxury vacation like this and spend a your days sitting in the sunshine on a beach.

Fisherman: What do you think I’m doing right now?

moneyistooshorttomention

thistledome wrote: »

True, but not everyone feels the same way. In reality, life for most people isn't about going to one extreme or the other.

Some people enjoy working and some don't. There isn't full employment available for everyone so why not let the people who really hate working do other things and the people who love work can have as many jobs as they can fit into the day (and night). Everybody's happy.....

Make the really enjoyable and popular jobs like professional footballing or acting pay minimum wage and the horrible jobs like cleaning sewers or nursing pay about £50 per hour. Sorted.

"Some people enjoy working and some don't" provoked my instant thought of "Since when?" (as regards the some "enjoy" working).

Most people would probably give up their job, or at least cut down their hours, instantly if they had a choice about it. I've recently retired from having done a full-time job constantly (bar spells of unemployment) ever since leaving school and I would instantly have given up any of those jobs the second I could have had the income anyway. I suspect most of us are the same.

Work was just one total "waste of space" to me. I gained some boyfriends through it. I gained some friends through it. But I would have met people to be boyfriends and friends anyway and didn't need to have a job for that.

Like most of us, I worked because I had to. I knew I had to "pay my way" and, if I hadn't paid my own way, then someone else would have had to "pay my way" for me (ie other people....because that's where State money comes from).

That's the deal. I pay for myself and contribute ONLY towards those unable to help themselves (ie those too ill to work or genuinely unable to get a job through no fault of their own).
That's the deal we all have (bar the exclusive club of "Richies"...who live on a different planet to the rest of us anyway:mad::().

Gwhiz

That letter, to The Times in 1982, is a load of twaddle by some fantasist idiot.

Nowadays knows as a troll.

John_Ma

Well lucky for him somehow he can eat without a job. Its all too unrealistic, I mean sure no one wants to really work if they could but thats not how life is. I'm sure he wouldn't be enjoying his jobless life without ever having a job in the first place!

sonastin

Very little in western society is "free" without someone having to be in paid employment to deliver it. Parks and libraries are staffed and maintained by people, many of whom would dearly love to give up work to enjoy the fruits of their labours instead. Food is, for the most part, purchased from shops - it is transported to those shops by workers, the shops are staffed by workers, there is a whole supply chain of staff employed so that you can eat. Even if you are able to live the most idyllic, sustainable "Good Life" type of self-sufficiency, there is most probably a supply chain of paid employees working to make the tools you need available to you so that you can achieve self sufficiency.

Anyone who belittles people who work for making the wrong "choice" fails to understand just how dependent they are on the people they are looking down on. Anyone who doesn't contribute to society as a whole in some way (through taxes, work output, time helping others, etc) is a pure parasite. I can't speak for the author of the letter in the OP as there may be some un-detailed contribution but it does read very much like a call to arms for the parasitic.

Gwhiz

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Did you remember The Times from 1982 or did you google it?

I think the *troll label is a bit unfair. The writer expresses a point of view which others evidently find discussion-worthy.

You don't agree with the view he expresses and it can inform the discussion if you say a bit more than 'it's a load of twaddle'.

*a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

You asked me what I think, I told you.