Why do people work?

[Docfeelgood]

Yur asking me?

Go to one of those porn sites and judge fur yourself

[FrostyBoy]

I think a future like what Star Trek resembles would be the ultimate goal in terms of working. I myself, if I didn't have to work, I would still work anyway. I enjoy working, I don't see it as something I don't want to do, I see it as something I want to do. If you hate work, its not works fault, its your fault.

If we want to reach a world like Star Trek, we have to go through what we are now and many more phases. It's worth it, so lets just keep going.

[aaglo]

Work is only a series of compulsory movements caused by hunger.

[FrostyBoy]

Not true, I can be a farmer and build a house for shelter. I don't need shelter to eat.

[Docfeelgood]

Work is only a series of compulsory movements caused by hunger.

Sex is only a series of compulsory movements caused by hormones.

work=sex
sex=work

[MRT144]

i work because i like it...

[Ben Kenobi]

*Looks at all the cynicism*

Only one person works to try to change the world, and it's a socialist?

I'd take less money to work at this kind of job, the hard part is finding one.

Until then I'll work to eat, survive, pay for school and not be a burden on my folks.

But for money? No job is worth the time you spend if you just work for some extra cash.

[Wraith]

--"Why do people work?"

Because it'd be extremely boring to sit around doing nothing all day?

--"A disproportiante amount of people make a living out of providing services to other people"

I do find it somewhat strange for you to bring up something like this after talking about the increasing automation of production.

--"the value of which is questionable were it not for the willingness of both parties to invest trust in it."

I'm not too sure what trust has to do with it. It's a contract. Violate it and get punished. You don't need a whole lot of trust for that sort of thing.

The rest of that first part seems pretty much a rant. I'm far less worried about being "enslaved" by my bosses (whom I can say no to and go find another job) than I am about my government, who takes a third of my paycheck before I ever get to see it.

--"All studies show that people are working for longer hours now"

You're definitely overstating things here. There are some fields that tend to the really long hours, but that's often due to a supply of qualified personnel that doesn't keep up with the demand.
Outside of that sort of thing, you might want to look at the last sentece of my last statement above. If I wasn't spending a third of the year working for the government I'd have a whole lot more time off if I wanted it.

--"the people that control the means of production hold everybody else hostage,"

I don't think you're too familiar with the US economy. Despite the government, small businesses are still a major factor here.

Wraith
"Awww. I wanted to explode."
-- Gir ("Invader Zim")

[Tripledoc]

Well, maybe I should change the headline to "Why do people work under the present system?"

Is it not so that women have become integrated in the labor market to an extent they were not before. hence the total amount of work being done has increased.

Also I think people in the third world work harder now than when they were farming their land - now they work in sweat-shops and factories to satisfy western demand for consumer goods. Capitalism is a global system - not an exclusively American construct.

The workers in the western world are kept in check precisely because they have acces to cheap goods from the third world. In that way the capitalists have cynically begun to exploit cheap foreign labor, and have actually involved the western workers as participants in that exploitation. Not a very nice thing to do.

I agree that work can sometimes be a satisfying experience - but only when it is oneself, friends or family who recieve the full benefit of the worktime invested.
No employer who skims off profit, please.

Capitalists must by definition enjoy their work - but under the present system it would be impossible if everyone was his own employer. if such a system existed everyone would be forced to trade work on an equal basis and the ability to dominate would be lost.

[Rogan Josh]

I am a theoretical particle physicist. I find my job extremely interesting - it is a lot of fun to learn about the physics of the universe and discuss things like black holes, supersymmetry and extra dimensions with my coleagues. And it is great to try and find solutions to problems at the cutting end of science and then travel the world explaining your solution in seminars with Nobel Prize winners in the audience.

Even so, I would probably not continue to do my job if I wasn't paid for it. My wife earns a lot of money in her job (she is a pensions actuary) so we would still have no problem with money if I didn't work, so that isn't why. It is more the feeling of self worth - somehow we are conditioned by our society to think that our lives are a failure if we don't have a successful "career". Our society tells us that we should be able to provide for our families and work our way to the top - and if we don't, we are losers. So if I wasn't paid for doing my job I would feel that my work wasn't appreciated and that I was a waste of space even although I know on an intellecual level that this is isn't true.

Having said that, if I left research and got a 'real job' I would probably still try to continue my research as a hobby - it is just that I would need the 'real job' for my feelings of self worth.

[Tripledoc]

Science and education is extremely important - yet in my country science and education budgets are being slashed. This is dangerous.

In the book The Renaissance the British historian Paul Johnson writes on the fall of the Roman Empire.


"The Greeks were inventive, and produced some scientists and engineers of genius, and the Romans were able to build on their work to carry out projects on a scale that is often impressive even by today's standards and appaered superhuman to mediaval man. but there was something suspect about Roman monumentality. It was built on muscle-power rather than brain-power. The forts, the roads, the bridges, the enormous aquaducts, the splendid municipal and state buildings, were put up thanks to a conscript or servile multitude, whose human energies were the chief source of power. the slave gangs, constantly replenished, by wars of conquest, were always available in almost unlimited numbers. The disincentive to develop new engineering skills, as opposed to the brute strenght of immensely thick walls and buttresses, was continual. Indeed there is disconcerting evidence that the Roman authorities were reluctant to use labour-saving methods, even when available, for fear of unemployment and discontent. considering the wealth of the Roman Republic in its prime, its technology was minimal, barely in advance of Athenian Greece, and confined laregly to the military sphere."

I take this to mean that unemployment in a society is a healthy sign that should not be met by reactionary policies.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by el freako
Workers in every major economy work less hours now than they did 50 years ago (or even 25 years ago) and yet standards of living have soared:

Less hours, but the "working time" is now almost pure work for most, In the past they didn't really work as
we do today.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also I think people in the third world work harder now than when they were farming their land

You've never been to a farm have you?

And the reason those people work in sweatshops is because those sweatshops offer substantially more money than farming land would.

[Solly]

And provide better working conditions.

BTW, Imran, GDP per capita isn't the definition of standard of living, it is just a way of estimating the difference in standard of living between areas or time-periods.

[Dis]

It's to keep the morons in line.