Antiwork: It takes a lot of work to create no work.

[gredinger]

tldr; activism requires work

I hate work. I absolutely hate it. The idea that we *must* sell our bodies for a fixed amount of hours per week, set by people who have been dead longer than I've been alive, is an absolutely disgusting concept to begin. The system that was meant to be ended up even worse than when implemented primarily due to lack of raising min wages for the last decade.

I live in the USA. A very capitalistic society. If I was born rich -- with capital -- I'd be set. Zero work required for a boatload of income. Actually, it's not even considered "income" when the investments are older than a year [capital gains] -- which being born into wealth, all the investment would be older than a year.

There's a reason why capital gains taxation rates are separate from income tax -- because it benefits the rich. 0% taxation rate for the first $40,000 (single filer, $80k joint filing). That's enough money to live pretty easily (in a lower cost of living area) without lifting a single finger -- just cashing out *profits* from previous investments and paying the federal government **ZERO** in taxes.

Anti-work exists. It just exists for those *with* everything.

---

With that in mind, to summarize the system is rigged *for* those that have, and rigged **against** those who do not have.  The problem is where many people **think** they have, but they do not. Or even worse, those who **believe** they will *eventually* have.

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

I believe that plays true today, rather it be based upon wealth, race, class, sex, gender. A scapegoat to hate to be 'better' than, to feel superior to another to feel better about themselves; to feel 'lucky' that they're not the ones worse off.

---

USA is a democracy. Those who *have* are absolutely outnumbered by those that do not have.

An individual is limited on how many seats they can occupy and the system is set to where no single individual seat has the authority to change the entire system. No individual person has the unilaterally authority to force progress on this specific issue (regardless of what the mass media implies when it comes to Presidential powers).

Going back to my title, it takes a lot of work to create no work. We can only force the changes together. With a supermajority of any parliament, rather it be US Congress, state assemblies, local councils, associations (such as state BAR (legal), unions, hell, even Parent-Teacher Association); anything is possible.

When like minded folks start to occupy these seats, we can make real change. In Germany, auto unions have been able to get a 28 hour work week.

If majority the of members on a city or village council held antiwork ideologies, they'd be able to set all local government employee work weeks to 20 or 30 hours if they desired. Local change made within the communities they live; while it's not solving 100% of the problem, it's solving part of the problem.

If the antiwork individuals were to run and occupy local school board, board of education seats, and similar; they'd be able to set 30 hour long class weeks to create shorter school weeks for teachers and perhaps even students.

There's a lot of change that can be made at any level of organization, but it takes work and effort to become members of these associations -- to engage in these activities -- to become active.

[BADecker]

I had a boss who was into shortcuts. He made far more work for himself attempting the shortcuts, than if he had simply gone out and done the work in the first place.

[suchmoon]

I hate work. I absolutely hate it. The idea that we *must* sell our bodies for a fixed amount of hours per week, set by people who have been dead longer than I've been alive, is an absolutely disgusting concept to begin. The system that was meant to be ended up even worse than when implemented primarily due to lack of raising min wages for the last decade.

Uhm... you don't have to work a fixed amount of hours. You can work part time or freelance or just wing it and live under a bridge.

The rest of your post makes zero sense. Set a 20-hour work week and then... live on half the income? Or expect to be paid the same?

[gredinger]

Uhm... you don't have to work a fixed amount of hours. You can work part time or freelance or just wing it and live under a bridge.

The rest of your post makes zero sense. Set a 20-hour work week and then... live on half the income? Or expect to be paid the same?

So, the system is really geared towards a 40 hour work week which was set nearly a hundred years ago.

I'm an advocate for increasing wages while decreasing overall hours worked. If raised the min wage to $15 an hour and set the hours worked to 30 hours (overtime at 1.5x until 40 hours, 2x after that), I think society would be *much* better off than just raising the min wage to $15 an hour.

Ideally, we'd raise the min wage higher than $15 an hour, but that seems to be the message currently and is already double federal min wage in America.

[Gyfts]

Uhm... you don't have to work a fixed amount of hours. You can work part time or freelance or just wing it and live under a bridge.

The rest of your post makes zero sense. Set a 20-hour work week and then... live on half the income? Or expect to be paid the same?

So, the system is really geared towards a 40 hour work week which was set nearly a hundred years ago.

I'm an advocate for increasing wages while decreasing overall hours worked. If raised the min wage to $15 an hour and set the hours worked to 30 hours (overtime at 1.5x until 40 hours, 2x after that), I think society would be *much* better off than just raising the min wage to $15 an hour.

Ideally, we'd raise the min wage higher than $15 an hour, but that seems to be the message currently and is already double federal min wage in America.

So ofc US politicians are advocating for a 15 dollar minimum wage and it seems like it will be successful. Minimum wage in EU countries tends to vary. But a question - how do you determine what the minimum wage should be set at? You said you want it higher, what is reasonable? Do you not think low skilled jobs will just be eliminated once businesses realize it's cheaper just to automate?

The federal minimum wage in America is a bit over 7 bucks, but how many people in the US actually make that?

[franky1]

if say a 'living wage' was $400 ($10x40hours) then you might think that having min wage at $15 means you only have to work ~26 hours to get the same $400.

problem is. working only 26 hours means you have more free time and more time to spend money

think about it working 8 hours a day means your home entertainment system, heating is not used for 8 hours
but working just 5hours 20 minutes means your electric will increase by ~3 hours or 12.5%

you will probably decide to want to go out and do stuff. new hobbies.
in the end you find your 'living' cost becomes $500 and suddenly your missing $100 which you have to fill by working another 10 hours.(2 hours a day)
so now you are back to working atleast 7hours 20minutes a day instead of 5hours 20minutes.
which is pretty much nearly the same work effort as working 8 hours previously.

...
if you could change the system where a 5hours a day or 3 day week could provide you with enough income to over all costs. all that will happen is companies notice that households have excess 'disposable income' and they increase their bill charges/fees.

its why bread in some countries is only $0.15 where all the calculations worked out that its all the country can afford to pay for bread on balance. yet its $2.50 in other countries where they work out they can afford to pay more

yep if 'living wage' was $10 and minimum wage went from $10 to say $20. all that will happen is price of goods and services will increase by 2x also.

once you start to see the game. you realise how much work is needed to change it.
even things like government subsidising the destruction of old cars.. yep if they can get rid of the old cheap cars people then have less cars to choose from and have to spend a lil extra to get their first cheap car
(good old supply vs demand))

[gredinger]

How do you determine what the minimum wage should be set at? You said you want it higher, what is reasonable? Do you not think low skilled jobs will just be eliminated once businesses realize it's cheaper just to automate?

The federal minimum wage in America is a bit over 7 bucks, but how many people in the US actually make that?

So, I think min wage should be set where a household income on a single earner can provide a livable means. That means, the income should be able to cover food, water, electricity, shelter, internet, health insurance, transportation, a good education, and pretty much the other required necessities of modern society entirely with a tiny bit to spare to save.

For Americans, considering productivity vs wage growth, we could probably aim for around $20-25 USD / hr. $15 is a good start though -- easier to double than to triple.

Low skill work should be eliminated. That should be the goal. Once we start eliminating work en mass, we can start to consider programs such as guaranteed minimum income and such. However, I don't believe work will ever fully go away. I don't think people realize how difficult some jobs are to automate, but I fully embrace more automation.

According to wikipedia, 5% of America goes on less than $14,999 (min wage at 40 hours a week would be $14,500/yr).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_household_income

---

yep if 'living wage' was $10 and minimum wage went from $10 to say $20. all that will happen is price of goods and services will increase by 2x also.

By your magical logic, if $10 min wage stays $10, then all goods and services also stay the same price?

Because that's not reality buddy -- considering the federal min wage hasn't gone up in a decade+ 

Macroeconomics is a rather complex topic to start with, once you start to pull in international geopolitical measures with fiat market manipulation it gets even more complex quickly.

[franky1]

So, I think min wage should be set where a household income on a single earner can provide a livable means. That means, the income should be able to cover food, water, electricity, shelter, internet, health insurance, transportation, a good education, and pretty much the other required necessities of modern society entirely with a tiny bit to spare to save.

yep if 'living wage' was $10 and minimum wage went from $10 to say $20. all that will happen is price of goods and services will increase by 2x also.

By your magical logic, if $10 min wage stays $10, then all goods and services also stay the same price?

Because that's not reality buddy -- considering the federal min wage hasn't gone up in a decade+  

Macroeconomics is a rather complex topic to start with, once you start to pull in international geopolitical measures with fiat market manipulation it gets even more complex quickly.

i never said if wages stagnate inflation equally stagnates.. you said that

but the magical logic is the governments GDP has risen due to more money in circulation due to the mortgages creating money meaning while people are not using their income. and instead getting credit cards and mortgages to buy things.. companies see this as the hidden 'disposable' money increases. and so they increase their fee's/charges. even if true salary income has not increased..
..so yes if no salaries increased. the inflation still would increase as just explained..
..but if you then 2x salaries the inflation would also 2x ontop of the GDP based inflation from credit/debt currency flows
.. basically no escaping or outrunning the inflation game

the other complexes are that in play is that minimum wage is not the same as living wage.
and not the same as minimal social security benefits

the power that be actually do budget calculation.
for instance they look at the cheapest utility companies. and set that as the expenditure for social security benefits. they take the median 5 utility companies and average their charges and set that as the mini wage budget. they then take all the utility companies and average that for the living wage budget.

3 different budgets
survival budget (social security) productive budget(min wage) and the content/comfort budget(living wage)


same with food budget. they look at the cheapest ownbrand baked beans, bread, pasta. and work out the basic nutrition cost for social security budget.
they take the median 5 brand produce and set a budget for min wage. and then take al the brands and work out a budget for living wage.
what makes this complex. is to tweak the inflation to seem less apparent is that they subsidise big grocery retailers to offer certain produce extra low. just so that they dont have to tweak the national budgets of social security/minimum wage
yep its why you see certain food basics like own brand baked beans seem to be sold too cheap.
its why some utility companies charge $0.12/kw while they try to push one utility company to offer 0.05/kw for people on low income schemes
(yep if they know low income scheme people can access electric at 5c/kw(same as national average years ago) they dont have to increase social security budget to new national average of 12c/kw)

same goes for the as said grocery. it doesnt matter that the bread nd beans are tasteless. as long as grocery stores provide dirt cheap food thats been subsidised. the government then doesnt have to increase social security budgets

so not only is the game of removing cheap cars out of circulation. but also making the food 'essentials/basics' dirt cheap.
ud be surprised when you start to see which items are on governments 'basic basket' shopping list used for calculations. and then look at how unsurprisingly the markets for them specific items dont move the same way other produce does
.. in short it should be no surprise that own brand baked beans has not moved by 2% a year while everything else has moved by more than 2%.

good research reveals cheese was on the government 'basic basket' shopping list. which is why when importing proper cheddar cheese increased in cost. the government started supplying 'american cheese' cheap.
things like basic chicken (water injected to add weight) seems dirt cheap. all to keep the inflation hidden to not require increasing minimal budgets

[gredinger]

i never said if wages stagnate inflation equally stagnates.. you said that

You tied wage to cost of living increases as a 1:1 ratio in your previous post.

Put it another way, in your original statement, if wages fell by 50%, would goods and services not fall by 50%? Or does your microeconomic theory only work in on direction?

[franky1]

i never said if wages stagnate inflation equally stagnates.. you said that

You tied wage to cost of living increases as a 1:1 ratio in your previous post.

Put it another way, in your original statement, if wages fell by 50%, would goods and services not fall by 50%? Or does your microeconomic theory only work in on direction?

nope. never mentioned anything about wage freezes=inflation freezes. nor did i mention wage decreases=inflation decreases.

i think you over simplified what i said for YOU to imply it meant something else.
the actual examples context was about pushing the minimum income up.. pushes the expenditure up
it did not imply the opposite nor the stagnant nor that other expenditure pushes did not exist
the implication was not 1:1
i mentioned no ratios or strict rules
i did not imply the opposite was not true or true.. no implications were made at all

now go cry somewhere else if the content is too complex to understand

[gredinger]

yep if 'living wage' was $10 and minimum wage went from $10 to say $20. all that will happen is price of goods and services will increase by 2x also.

Ah yes, make sure never to take this user's word seriously because they can't even remember it a few min later.

[franky1]

yep if 'living wage' was $10 and minimum wage went from $10 to say $20. all that will happen is price of goods and services will increase by 2x also.

Ah yes, make sure never to take this user's word seriously because they can't even remember it a few min later.

oh stop crying
instead read it.
you quoted it so now i re quoted it so now take time to read it
there is no ratio's mentioned, there is no law or rule or mention that it says strictly and forcely linked 1:1
2x was the example.. not the rule

its a basic example where the context says increase the income=increase the expenditure.

seems YOU are the one implying its a hard rule of 1:1 just so that you can cry that its not a 1:1
your basically fighting your own implications.

anyway the point is and ill emphasise it in as basic ELI-5 as you can understand
increasing income  will = increase in expenditure.

anyway. back to the topic.
point is increasing income/reducing hours just causes prices and spending to go up. which can then cycle to needing to increase hows to reattain level of living standard or increase income..
repeat repeat repeat

[gredinger]

There's a lot of change that can be made at any level of organization, but it takes work and effort to become members of these associations -- to engage in these activities -- to become active.

Activism is how change is made towards these sort of systems. Rather it be through unionization or through occupying varying levels of government, change can be made to improve from the status quo is the primary topic of the thread

[suchmoon]

I'm an advocate for increasing wages while decreasing overall hours worked. If raised the min wage to $15 an hour and set the hours worked to 30 hours (overtime at 1.5x until 40 hours, 2x after that), I think society would be *much* better off than just raising the min wage to $15 an hour.

You can already work less if you want to. I don't see a reason to mandate to work less. I think the society would be better off if people worked more and facetwitted less but hey, free country.

[BADecker]

Work is activity. Activity is life. Stop being active, and you die.

The problem isn't the work. The problem is when there is slavery or attempted slavery involved. Note that a person who volunteers himself into slavery, with full knowledge of what he is doing, isn't really a slave, even though his self-imposed slavery is stressful at times.

If anybody wants to outlaw voluntary slavery, he is taking away the rights of the person who wants to be enslaved. There are more people that want self-imposed slavery than one would think. In fact, it might be close to 99% of the free people in the Americas and Europe... as they willingly bow to their leaders' wishes.

[Smartvirus]

Work is all that is to life, if you don't work you won't find life easy and would just be a problem to society. Its the way it is, hating work simply means you finding other ways of surviving, you might consider it easy but, your still going to brain storm and that in itself is work.

The richest man in the world and other employers of labor works as hard as a common laborer on the streets. How?
You might not be involved in the physical handy jobs, but the stress you put yourself through to ensure the supervise the managers and contemplating on decisions that would help and expand the your organization is work as well. I tell you consumes much energy in going through papers and brain storming as you do while exercising too. So, you can't take work out of the picture ever, its always going to be there! You can hate an aspect but, don't hate work!

Don't work hard but, work smart!

[Gyfts]

How do you determine what the minimum wage should be set at? You said you want it higher, what is reasonable? Do you not think low skilled jobs will just be eliminated once businesses realize it's cheaper just to automate?

The federal minimum wage in America is a bit over 7 bucks, but how many people in the US actually make that?

So, I think min wage should be set where a household income on a single earner can provide a livable means. That means, the income should be able to cover food, water, electricity, shelter, internet, health insurance, transportation, a good education, and pretty much the other required necessities of modern society entirely with a tiny bit to spare to save.

For Americans, considering productivity vs wage growth, we could probably aim for around $20-25 USD / hr. $15 is a good start though -- easier to double than to triple.

Low skill work should be eliminated. That should be the goal. Once we start eliminating work en mass, we can start to consider programs such as guaranteed minimum income and such. However, I don't believe work will ever fully go away. I don't think people realize how difficult some jobs are to automate, but I fully embrace more automation.

I'm not sure how you determine which jobs should go first and which Americans should be given everything they need in life for free. Seems like you're talking about a UBI that will subsidize the cost of living for anyone that doesn't make enough -- but the question is why should anyone else pay for that?

If someone goes to college and earns more than someone with a primary education, why would it make sense to boost the pay of someone without diversified skills? Would it not incentive everyone to not putting in the extra work?

[franky1]

How do you determine what the minimum wage should be set at? You said you want it higher, what is reasonable?

So, I think min wage should be set where a household income on a single earner can provide a livable means. That means, the income should be able to cover food, water, electricity, shelter, internet, health insurance, transportation, a good education, and pretty much the other required necessities of modern society entirely with a tiny bit to spare to save.

you still have not given an answer

governments have done budgets of necessities to live on

but here is the thing. what one person thinks is necessary another person thinks is not enough

so come on what is the monetary level of your 'necessity.
seeing as you want to define exact ratios of math and you want to be pin point specific.
please show your budget calculation of need
whats the shelter allowance
whats the food allowance
whats the utility /service charge allowance
whats the entertainment allowance
whats the hobby allowance
whats the clothing allowance
whats the disposable income allowance
whats the total

then when you account for the obvious inflation on goods/services caused by the basic increase. would your allotted amount STILL be enough?

[Natsuu]

Minimum Wage is needed to be increased, but I don't see any necessary measurements needed to diminish the old system of 40 hrs a week, cause there are still works that doesn't need you to work 40 hrs a week. But if you want that work, you must work a lot bigger that 40 hrs to make it happened, and that is the reality.

You hate work, but you love money, and for you to have both, you need to compromise one way or another.

[Gyfts]

How do you determine what the minimum wage should be set at? You said you want it higher, what is reasonable?

So, I think min wage should be set where a household income on a single earner can provide a livable means. That means, the income should be able to cover food, water, electricity, shelter, internet, health insurance, transportation, a good education, and pretty much the other required necessities of modern society entirely with a tiny bit to spare to save.

you still have not given an answer

governments have done budgets of necessities to live on

but here is the thing. what one person thinks is necessary another person thinks is not enough

so come on what is the monetary level of your 'necessity.
seeing as you want to define exact ratios of math and you want to be pin point specific.
please show your budget calculation of need
whats the shelter allowance
whats the food allowance
whats the utility /service charge allowance
whats the entertainment allowance
whats the hobby allowance
whats the clothing allowance
whats the disposable income allowance
whats the total

then when you account for the obvious inflation on goods/services caused by the basic increase. would your allotted amount STILL be enough?

The number is besides his argument (if I understand what he's saying). It's an argument for some sort of UBI with basic expenses covered (whatever the number is). You don't even have to go that far to argue against UBI.

If you're talking about the numbers though, look at this - https://www.thebalance.com/breakdown-of-average-monthly-household-expenses-4687519

Easily thousands of dollars a month person. So minimum wage would need to be possibly more than 15 dollars for a single person to pay for food, rent, electric, whatever there is. So you're no longer talking about a minimum wage increase, it's just a UBI under the guise of a minimum wage increase.