View Full Version : Jobs, consumption, simple living...
In the Baltimore thread, ANM raises an interesting point:
There's not enough jobs now, look at labor force participation rates since 2008, down down down. That's working age people not working. Some of it may be be people getting more education and starting work much later. But no I don't believe everyone just decided to become a housewife or retired early.
Where do "jobs" come from?
How many jobs do we need?
What's the purpose of a job?
Do we have a duty to have a job? A duty to consume to support others in having jobs?
How does this interact with the Simple Living/YMOYL approach?
Are the increased productivity gains due to capital investment causing a reduction in the number of jobs available in society? (A favorite childhood economics sci-fi story of mine, by Frederick Pohl, "The Midas Plague" spoke to this: https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1954-04/Galaxy_1954_04#page/n7/mode/2up )
Etc etc.
Right. Just like WWII after the Great Depression of the 1930's put everyone to work, a Riot does the same thing, with property destruction that will need cleanup and rebuilding. Plus, Good Attorneys will have a paper shuffle, phone calls, court appearances and billable hours. This all translates to JOBS!!! So, really--we should be thankful to the rioters for helping reduce unemployment. I hope that doesn't sound too stooped. Thankk Mee.
ApatheticNoMore
5-2-15, 3:50pm
In a society where most people rely on jobs to buy what they need to survive yes jobs matter.
Some people propose we should just give everyone money for not working, just for existing, this is called a Basic Income Guarantee. Some countries may experiment with this (I think Switzerland is or was considering). I hope they do. I wish them well. But I'm not sure it's entirely worked out that such a proposal would ever work and I may have my doubts (I'm not entirely sure it won't work either though), although if ever there was an incredibly (and rather non-representative) affluent society in which to try it Switzerland is it. And besides I think such a proposal would fight an uphill battle every step of the way in U.S.. People believe in the virtues of working for money rather than free money etc. (they even resent money given without strings to help the poor who most definitely need it.). I don't think you could sell people easily on a Basic Income Guarantee in the U.S.. It's so counter-cultural. But the problem remains, many people have no work-based way to get the means of survival. Decades of outsourcing jobs has contributed.
Sometimes you hear proposals of job sharing, more people would have jobs, but everyone would work part-time, maybe a 20 hour week. That is my idea of heaven. And it's probably all the time spent in production that ANY society needs and would allow time to be more properly allocated to other more needed things like maintaining social harmony. But the part-time jobs would have to pay a living wage, because part-time jobs that don't provide enough to survive on solve nothing.
The purpose of a job should be to produce what needs to be socially produced probably. We need food, it may be better to have a roof over one's head than not, sometimes we need dentists and medical care etc.. So those are useful occupations. Maybe we want more than we need. I don't think as much as we want now is inherent, it's advertising, but nonetheless. But jobs are also at present the main way of distributing money even to buy thing things we do need (the food, the medical care etc.). What it ends up as, is a ridiculous amount needs to be produced just so most people can get the things they actually do need (they may buy more than they need, but they work primarily because of what they need).
I think a simple living approach to labor would be to keep the economy as localized as possible. As far as "should" people work--Depends on how you define work. If it's paid employment, I don't think anyone has a patriotic duty to get a job. But people need work in order to get basic necessities. Just a couple of decades ago, the typical family had division of labor where the man worked and the mom stayed home to do the domestic chores. Both were "work" but one was paid and one was not. I don't see anything wrong with that either, as long as if the woman wants to re-enter the workplace she has equal opportunity (which she didn't back then).
My personal philosophy of work is the same as Kahlil Gibran's: "Work is love made visible." You can argue that bees work, birds work, primates work in their own ways.
I also really like the concept of bread labor--where each one of us puts in a certain amount of time, and that work is spread evenly so everyone feels they contribute, but they do not have to give up their lives or souls to do it. One of my favorite books, A Handmade Life by William Coperthwaite, has a chapter on work, and he feels the same way--that because of the odious nature of many jobs today, we misunderstand work. He thinks a new way to approach work would be, instead of being preoccupied with our "hourly wage" we set aside a piece of time each day to contribute to the world's labor pool. 400 hours per year might suffice to meet everyone's basic needs, according to his calculations.
Sounds good to me, and this idea fits in perfectly with the simple life.
Right. Just like WWII after the Great Depression of the 1930's put everyone to work, a Riot does the same thing, with property destruction that will need cleanup and rebuilding. Plus, Good Attorneys will have a paper shuffle, phone calls, court appearances and billable hours. This all translates to JOBS!!! So, really--we should be thankful to the rioters for helping reduce unemployment. I hope that doesn't sound too stooped. Thankk Mee.
That's the broken window fallacy in action.
Alan: I had never heard of the broken window fallacy, so I just googled it. Pretty interesting and I feel like I learned something worthwhile, so thanks.
Yes--rioters break windows, and they need to be fixed. But see--rioters do not possess the skills and equipment to repair them. They don't want to work, anyway--just more entitlements. The crews replacing the broken glass are outside contractors, who already have jobs. They might get more overtime pay, but that's it. The money spent fixing broken windows is money diverted from other projects. It works about like "cash for clunkers"; a way to buy votes with your money. Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
flowerseverywhere
5-3-15, 7:30am
Interesting article and story Bae and Alan.
Of of interest is how many things we make or spend money on that are only common in the last hundred years. Just to name a few, transportation like planes and autos with the associated jobs of production, maintenance and fuel production and consumption. Then there are all the electronics with associated cable, Internet, games and other applications. Lawn care companies and associated chemicals, fast food restaurants, big box stores and so on.
So so are all of these advances and associated jobs which in turn cause us to spend money more like the the broken window fallacy Alan has mentioned or actually giving us a higher quality of life.
Miss Cellane
5-3-15, 8:58am
The flip side is that you can have a job, and work hard at it, and still not be able to support yourself, let alone a family.
When I was laid off and on unemployment, the state considered me "employed" once I got a part-time retail job for 12-20 hours a week. I was no longer an unemployed statistic. But I was still eligible for plenty of state aid--food stamps and heat assistance, for starters.
I did not know from week to week how many hours I'd be working, or when. On the 12 hour weeks, I brought home (net) roughly $84 a week. On the 20 hour weeks, I brought home $140.
I'm frugal, but on wages that could vary from $336 to $540 a month, I could not pay rent, buy food, put gas in the car and pay for heat in the winter. Let alone fix the car when it broke, buy new shoes to keep my feet from hurting, or new clothes to meet the dress code at the retail job. Or save anything.
I spent two years with that retail job and temping as much as possible. It worked out to 55-60 hour weeks, with no days off for months--the retail job filled the weekends with 13-18 hours of work, plus 2-3 night shifts, and the temping was 40 hours a week most weeks.
And of course, no paid sick days, no paid vacations or holidays, no health insurance, no retirement plan. At the retail job, if you called out sick or were more than 10 minutes late, you a) lost that day's pay and b) earned an attendance point. Six attendance points in 6 months and you were fired. With the temp agency, if you missed more than 5% of the contracted hours, you were put on probation. If it happened again, they dropped you. Have a doctor's appointment? Better make it before or after work started, or you'd be put on probation, even when you were working a temp job that was contracted for 6 months.
And I still barely made enough money to keep from getting evicted.
Meanwhile, the CEO of the retail store was paid about $16 million a year.
I think it is that imbalance, whether or not it is perceived that directly, that causes things like the Baltimore riots.
More than 10 min late and lost a day's pay - so they sent you home if you were late? Cause they can't make you work without paying you ....
I hate the blatant inequality in our society.
When i imagine "work", I think about how my grandparents and DH's grand parents lived - in fact, most people of their generation. They had small patches of land where they raised livestock, grew food and provided for themselves. Often, they bartered for services or goods. They mostly got by from year to year. Compared to our wants and needs today, theirs seem ridiculously simple. If they did not have land, then they lived in small towns and owned shops or services. It was a way of life that seemed much more authentic than what we call work today. In the end, I guess we all figure out a way to survive.
When thinking about "work" and the past, consider Marshall Sahlins' interesting work on the economics of hunter-gatherer societies:
https://libcom.org/files/Sahlins%20-%20Stone%20Age%20Economics.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society
An interesting topic to ponder. I think it's hard for Baby Boomers to really grasp the realities of the employment world in 2015. There are macro forces along with micro influences that all impact today's employment prospects far beyond what we boomers had to contend with. For example, the loss of 6 million manufacturing jobs in 11 years is huge not only for those employed there but in the economic and cultural ripple effect.
That said, I think most people are happy to have reasonable employment which brings in enough income for basic household needs. I think of this as a job and not a "career." I also think it's likely "enough" will increasingly mean multiple income streams from multiple skills along with excellent networking abilities. The days of a single employer providing decades of employment, cheap health insurance, and a pension are gone.
There's no one single answer but in the simple living world those of us who have downshifted our needs and expectations are already ahead.
When thinking about "work" and the past, consider Marshall Sahlins' interesting work on the economics of hunter-gatherer societies:
https://libcom.org/files/Sahlins%20-%20Stone%20Age%20Economics.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society
Well, that is definitely something I want to look at--being intrigued by Derrick Jensen's brand of anarcho-primitivism and the gift economy as outlined by Charles Eisenstein, but as it turns out I live in this world and thus have to write a report tonight in preparation for a busy week ahead, and Sahlins book doesn't look like a quick read.
I did like the part of the Wikipedia synopsis that said:
Hunter-gatherers also experience "affluence without abundance"[3] as they simply meet their required ends and do not require surplus nor material possessions (as these would be a hindrance to their nomadic lifestyle). The lack of surplus also demonstrates that they trust their environment will continuously provide for them. By foraging only for their immediate needs among plentiful resources, hunter-gatherers are able to increase the amount of leisure time available to them. Thus, despite living in what western society deems to be material poverty, hunter-gatherer societies work less than people practicing other modes of subsistence while still providing for all their needs, and therefore increase their amount of leisure time. These are the reasons the original affluent society is that of the hunter-gatherer.[3]
Love it. Maybe an interim is E.F. Schumacher's "Buddhist Economics"--again, from Wikipedia:
It says that truly rational decisions can only be made when we understand what creates irrationality. When people understand what constitutes desire, they realize that all the wealth in the world cannot satisfy it. When people understand the universality of fear, they become more compassionate to all beings. Thus, this spiritual approach to Economics doesn't rely on theories and models but on the essential forces of acumen, empathy, and restraint.[2]
The Buddhist point of view ascribes to work a trinal function: to give man a chance to utilize and develop his aptitude; to enable him to overcome his self-aggrandizement by engaging with other people in common tasks; and to bring forward the goods and services needed for a better existence.[4]
Cool stuff.
All of this sounds like lockered beef, cash-for-clunkers, and church n mow. Lockered beef means you buy in quantity, claiming you not only save money, but it tastes better, cause it's fresh. These are Broken Window Fallicies. Don't say they aren't, either. Lockered Beef is like gasoline--the price goes down, so you tend to consume more of it, and you are spending more. Driving costs more than gas; there are tires, maintenance, etc., as well. Also, you gain weight, which is a risk factor. . You locker it, and after the first week, it isn't really fresh. Stuff always tastes better when it is a treat; you tend to be jaded if you have it everyday. So, there go the reasons you had for it. Cash For Clunkers: Now there is a broken-window Fallacy. It is corporate welfare & faux environmentalism, all in one. Some think tank, with no partisan axe to grind, calculated the per-unit cost of cash for clunkers, and it was outrageous. I think they included factors such as the increase in the price of available used cars, and opportunity costs of not having them in the economy, in addition to the expense in paying off the debt incurred by the program. Last, but not least: Church N' Mow; that seems like that is an enormous waste of time. Period. Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
Somewhat related: a fascinating article on bbc.com explaining how the Vietnamese took over the nail salon business.
Turns out that it's traced back to actress Tippi Hedren who visited refugees from Vietnam who had landed in the U.S. in refugee camps. She tried to think of a job skill they could learn and thought of nails because they were fascinated with hers. She brought her own manicurist to start teaching them, and later made it a more formal program. Fast forward 40 years and see the results.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32544343
Just a couple of random links I came across yesterday and today that apply to this topic:
Jacob Lund Fisker re-posted this earlier blog post (http://earlyretirementextreme.com/post-materialism-post-productivity.html) on productivity--excerpt below:
The question, therefore, is whether it is really worthwhile to be productive in materialistic sense? Insofar that I am concerned, I have produced all the “material” I need for the rest of my life. I can thus channel my “productivity” to “unproductive” factors such as this blog—nobody is paying me, so it must be unproductive, unlike say professional baseball, which as measured by income is very productive. I can also spend much effort training for the perfect cut, something that makes no sense today—after all, sword fighting does not happen more. Or trying to make a sail boat go 4.9 knots instead of 4.8 knots which requires a scientific effort on par with a masters degree.
I’d rather do that than increase my productivity so I may build more toasters under the condition that they are less well built in order to wear out faster so that I may actually sell the ones I am producing. This is exactly what I see happening in the “productive consumer world” and this is what I do not wish to take part it. It just makes no sense whatsoever.
Here's a story (http://www.livetravelenjoy.com/a-city-where-everyone-works-there-is-no-police-and-the-salary-is-1200-euros/) about a rather utopian town in Spain where there is no police force, no unemployment, and they give you the materials to build your own house.
BTW, bae, I was reading Beyond Civilization by Daniel Quinn the other day, and he references Sahlins in that book.
ETA: I've been reading Stone Age Economics, and it's really great--thanks for the link. It's actually $30 on Amazon, so I'll read the digital version you provided.
Somewhat related: a fascinating article on bbc.com explaining how the Vietnamese took over the nail salon business.
Turns out that it's traced back to actress Tippi Hedren who visited refugees from Vietnam who had landed in the U.S. in refugee camps. She tried to think of a job skill they could learn and thought of nails because they were fascinated with hers. She brought her own manicurist to start teaching them, and later made it a more formal program. Fast forward 40 years and see the results.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32544343
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/nyregion/at-nail-salons-in-nyc-manicurists-are-underpaid-and-unprotected.html?_r=0
The Price of Nice Nails
Manicurists are routinely underpaid and exploited, and endure ethnic bias and other abuse, The New York Times has found.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/nyregion/at-nail-salons-in-nyc-manicurists-are-underpaid-and-unprotected.html?_r=0
The Price of Nice Nails
Manicurists are routinely underpaid and exploited, and endure ethnic bias and other abuse, The New York Times has found.
Yes, I just saw that too. It seems to have happened with the rise of these acrylic fake nails. Very troubling.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.