Well, it is true. Most people don’t want to work. I certainly wouldn’t if I could help it.
Yeah. Me too. You would literally have to give me money, for me to sacrifice a part of my chilling out time.
The notion that more is better than less has been a dominant paradigm in various fields of inquiry, from economics to psychology. However, this paradigm has been challenged by recent philosophical developments that question the validity and applicability of this assumption. I have examined the arguments for and against the traditional paradigm of more versus less, and explored some of the exceptional cases that defy this binary opposition. In order to reconcile these conflicting perspectives and provide a more nuanced understanding of the complex relationship between larger and smaller quantities, further research is still required.
In Texas they’ve solved the problem by simply deciding that bigger is better and more is more. The rest of the world is still struggling with this conundrum, so the debate is far from over.
Exactly. When I was a kid, my parents gave me a job at the family business. It was great, they said I could work half days. I could do whatever i wanted with the other 12 hours.
My current deal says 7.5 h and I’m quite happy with that. If I get a better offer, I may reconsider.
And that should be the goal of a society. Currently we work because as individuals we're forced to. As humanity we're already past the forced need. Enabling people to choose would be more beneficial and we have the innate quality of finding meaningful ways to spend our time.
The problem is that we suck at allocating productivity. For example, we produce enough food for everyone but don't distribute it half as well as we should, so people still starve while food rots somewhere else. We waste resources propping up a whole host of parasites that add no value to society, such as famous-for-being-famous celebrities, advertisers, speculators and redundant managers, while underpaying the people who actually produce wealth. And we want a brand new iPhone every year, a brand new car every two years, etc, and by and large don't recycle. We're wasteful.
Most of the actually important and time-consuming work is automated already. If we were smart about what work we do, an 8-hour work week for everyone would be more than possible. But we are so inefficient with our productivity due to warped priorities that most of us barely scrape by as it is.
Our excessive lack of proper planning and foresight really gets accentuated when you evaluate how wasteful and inefficient any of our processes are. I’ve been listening to Walden on audiobook recently, it’s almost as if Thoreau really did transcend his time and saw that the future would be equally as futile as his present at properly providing for humanity in a meaningful way.
We would rather have luxuries and pleasures than fulfilling proper needs, work tends to take away from our needs in ways we overlook.
I wouldn’t work if I could, but I’d end up doing the same shit all day anyway, but for fun.
This just in: humans do not enjoy any degree of enslavement.
Check back next year to see if we've managed to break the spirit of the human race.
This is true. It's because we evolved over many hundreds of thousands of years as egalitarian hunter-gatherers and only relatively recently invented things like agriculture, big stratified societies, the bulk accumulation of wealth and property and work.
This reminds me of a recent meme pushing back against the "greed is human nature" narrative. Was something like:
"If you see a bear riding a bicycle at the circus, do you assume it is the nature of bears to ride bicycles?"
no one has ever wanted to work, you're supposed to pay them enough that they're willing to work anyway
"Why do you want to work here?"
Uh, I don't, but this stupid thing called not dying requires me to have money and you're offering to pay me money for doing a job you need doing.
In case anyone is interested in the sauces https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nobody-wants-to-work-anymore/
I absolutely love this: "The Miami Herald published an article in 1981 about an 89-year-old man named Sammy James. James had worked for decades as a crate nailer and said his fast moves earned him the nickname, "The Nailer.""
His job title was a crate nailer, but he got the nickname from his fast moves. That's like being so good at operating the cash register you earn the nickname "The Cashier"
There's a reason why it's called "work" and "free time." Most prefer free time to do whatever they actually want to do.
I do workforce planning/management. No one wants to work by default. It is up to the organisation to do enough for their employees to compensate their employees so that they don't mind having to work. Whether culture, financial, work-life balance, etc.
Employers need workers but employees just need money. It is up to the employer to make a convincing argument that what they offer in exchange for finite portions of a person's life is reasonable, especially if they want to reduce costs with retention.
I work in permitting and I get to see a lot of businesses in a lot of industry types. Everything from small mom and pop places to places that have hundreds of employees, small contract jobs shops all the way up to massive chemical manufacturers. One common question I ask is about staffing, typically if a business doesn't have enough staff to run the business appropriately it's a good indicator of whether they will be able to meet their permit requirements.
By and large the only businesses who say, "Nobody wants to work anymore," are places that don't pay enough. Every single time it's a pay issue, maybe rarely it's a personality problem. I had one new business (that's particularly dirty and hard to hire for) come in and they wanted to start up fast, rather than hiring and training new employees they literally went to their 3 competitors in town and hired their staff directly. An extra $2.5 an hour, 17 people left which nearly crippled the competition, and they had fully trained staff that were more than happy to work in that type of business.
By and large the only businesses who say, “Nobody wants to work anymore,” are places that don’t pay enough.
Yep, pretty much. Funny, you don't hear about this being a problem for jobs paying $100,000+. Weird, that.
My employer struggled to hire a meat guy for three years, as they only wanted to offer minimum wage without benefits. They'd score the occasional hire, but that hire would inevitably quit after a few weeks when they realized it wasn't worth the pay. Both the store owner and the meat manager would continue to grumble about how "Nobody wants to work anymore", rather than facing the reality that nobody wants to work for shit pay and no benefits, as evident by the multiple hires who said "Fuck this job" and took their services elsewhere. Eventually they coughed up more and wound up landing a certified meat cutter with experience. Crazy how nature do that.
I don't know what the nobody wants to work crowd thinks the average non-contributer is doing to afford food and shelter. It's as though they imagine these people just declare that they don't want to work and receive government subsidies via the "I don't want to work anymore" check-box.
As a previous boss of mine said, "The reason that I pay you is that otherwise nobody would want to be here"
According to a new survey ... 1 in 5 executive leaders agree with this statement: "No one wants to work".
So, 4 in 5 executive leaders DO NOT agree with this statement, yet the message in the media is that "dammit, no one wants to work!".
Peak journalism.
I wrote a blog article about this a while back with references to what this meme is actually quoting.
https://netmonkey.net/2023/06/03/nobody-wants-to-work-anymore/
Also, the point isn’t whether people want to work or not, but rather that the moral panic keeps coming up.
Your blog entry seems singularly focused, which left me with questions. After having read the Snope article, which was more broad and informative, my questions were answered.
Honestly not trying to criticize your blog entry, but just stating that it didn't seem as well written as a Snopes article to me.
I want to Do. I like Doing. I like getting good at Doing.
I don’t like work. I only work so I can Do what I want.
Some people want to work. They usually have no hobbies, family, or interests.
Or they have a job they love. I have heard legends of such things existing.
Programmer here. The hobby became my job and it's pretty great when there isn't a layer of corporate bullshit on top and I can just be creative to satisfy that itch.
Works out most of the time but I'm also able to contribute to open source when in at work so that helps.
I have a job I love 99% of the time. And I have hobbies. I worked really fucking hard to get to where I am. 80+ hour weeks for months at a time for years.
We also have other younger guys come in, and some of them want to learn, and they go right on up the chain. Then, we have people that want things handed to them, don't wanna do anything, and wonder why they're not getting promotions. I've even given them incentives, raises, and tried to coach them on what they should do to meet a goal we both set. Some just want to point fingers and blame everyone else, and never take responsibility for their actions
But we have more success stories than "failures." It's good company to work for.
Definitely something white-collar in any case. Nobody is working 80 hours a week for months on end as a roofer or brick-layer. Even fishermen only work 16 hour days for 2 week stretches which are physically punishing enough. The average human body just isn't up to months of 80 hours/week of manual labor.
I got close being a framer from 2012-2016. 6 12s in construction was pretty fulfilling and I really liked working with my hands even if the pay was crap. Now I'm an office drone and it's just okay doing a regular 40 for waaay more pay and benefits. I keep doing it because now I have the space to do and buy the stuff I want and not feel economic pressures like I used to.
Sometimes I miss the blue collar job, though. I'm glad I did it but I'm even more glad I made the career change.
Well that's precisely my point. You can do it, for awhile, when you're young, and maybe you even like it; but there is no world in which one can work 80 hour weeks in construction indefinitely without wrecking your body and playing serious hell with your home life.
Ask me how I know.
It's not white collar. It's powerplants. I do work in management, but the deal when I moved up was that I still got to work in the field 50% of the time. I get burned out sitting in my office. And I definitely did not start in management, but at the very bottom
And as far as the hours.. there's only so many people you can put on some jobs, so hiring others will just have them standing around
Also, I'd say 90% of the people that work with me love their jobs. I've seen quite a few of them turn down better pay because we're pretty chill and honest about work and expectations. We keep good people around as long as possible.
Yea, it's a good job. And it's nothing about hiring more people. Some jobs can only be done by a few people, so we just go around the clock until it's fixed and bring home big paychecks
Perhaps there's a company out there where there's an exception, but an 80+ hr work week means this company desperately needed to hire, or if you were salaried and especially not earning overtime, it was exploiting your value to get paid without sharing that compensation with you.
If it was under the promise of future compensation, then it's a case of I'd gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today--still scummy.
Internal promotion is pretty rare these days in my field. Usually, you have to jump ship and you learn quickly not to get too attached to a company.
It's because you can only put a few people on these jobs at a time, and you want damn good workers that do quality work. You don't want multiple crews messing with some things because it can cause confusion or things to be missed
And it wasn't promised to me, but I did make it up the ladder some, and still have places I can go up to. It's actually a really good job, pays damn good, but requires a person to put in some work.
But, it's nothing to go work a month like this, pay all your bills and have $15k extra after it's all done
This is also exactly my situation. I worked hard for my dream job and now it doesn't feel like work but a fun game instead. I know that's not the case for most, and I'm grateful for it.
I do hire people for my department, and want to give them the same opportunity to be happy. It's really hard to find someone who is as excited as me for what I do. It's not so much they don't want to work, but they don't want to work HERE.
I forgot about my comment and just tried out Sync, and saw the replies..
That's great, though. This wasn't my dream job, but I kind of fell into what I wanted to do along the way. It turns out that it's very fulfilling and pays well. And I can't think of anyone that is above me that I don't like. No one has given me a reason to hate them, and I think they feel the same about me. The people that work for me like me, even though they're constantly giving me shit
I do like how this site (pretty much Reddit) acts like every employer is out to fuck them, and everyone is as miserable as they are.
Hoping to be a software dev or some other similar job someday. I've been writing code in some capacity ever since I could write (thanks to an uncle who got me into it and paid for all kinds of learning opportunities), some kind of job revolving around it has been my dream for most of my life. I'm 20 now, tried getting into college this year but life is good at turning your plans upside down. I've still got plenty of time to chase that dream job at least, I just gotta get the knowledge and the degree
That's me but they are underpaying me and are very nitpicky and pedantic in return and have no respect for the time I put into their stupid enterprise.
As a result the can soon do the shit themselves.
Their efforts of finding people with an iq over 100 have been mixed in the last few years. I am wishing them all the best.
If no one wants to work then who the fuck are all these people on the highway at rush hour?
Most people that say “people don’t want to work anymore” typically don’t themselves do any work
Many of us are only working because we can't afford not to work. This bullshit world is designed in that way.
I would love to just be a stay at home dad and keep the house clean, do chores, and cook meals for my family. Is that too much to ask?
I love cooking and baking and would do the same.
If money were somehow not an object, i would also be free to work on my friends and families houses too, or even say a library or school in the community with the skills i have, contributing to the community that way. If i were doing it for people or something i cared about, it wouldnt feel like work.
Absolutely. I would do more volunteer work in a heartbeat. The moments I felt like I was actually helping contribute to our society was cooking breakfast for our unhoused community. I mean in a better society we wouldn't have food insecurity so that volunteering would go elsewhere but can't we just use our free time to just help people? Nope, we gotta stress about working and trying to not get fired.
My boss has been looking for new technicians since I joined but has had no luck. His excuse is the classic "Nobody wants to work", but then I saw what he's paying for entry level for the positions. It's so low you're better off working at McDonalds or slinging Amazon packages bad.
Change My View: Its not the business owner's fault that they can't pay enough wages to hire enough people. It is the landowners and land speculators fault for raising the rent / price of land to the point where the businessowers don't have enough money to pay.people because all their revenue is going to the landowners. I believe we need a land value tax to fix this issue.
A very Georgist view, but a lot of companies are just scummy and want to make the most profit possible.
Sure, but at least companies can be competed with and if they get too big, are subject to government scrutiny. On the other hand, its really hard to control a large population of landowners and speculators who have a personal incentive to do whatever they can to increase the perceived price of their owned land.
Have you ever heard of Google? There is no such thing as 'too big' anymore. Hasn't been for a long time.
This is a very Polyannaish take and places way too much faith in a "free market" and government oversight. There is no free market when we are regularly allowing companies to get massive and become practical monopolies. When was the last time a company faced serious repercussions for getting too big?
There is certainly some more competition among smaller, local businesses. And the price of land/real estate can be an issue for them. But I would also ask to see how much the business owner is making in relation to their employees.
All that being said, I would like to see landownership completely overhauled, if not abolished.
OK I hear you on redistributing weath from landlords, but how do we keep the landlords from passing that tax on to their tenants?
If landlords don't want to hemorrhage money by not having a paying tenant on their land, they will lower their prices. The problem with land is that we can't create more of it. It is not a commodity supply can be artificially restricted to the detriment of the rest of society. If land holders constantly lost money for not having their land generate wealth, there would be no incentive to artificially reduce supply.
Idk what definition of commodity you are using, but I will say that it seems that by wikipedia's definition something like food or manufactured goods are more of a commodity than land, something that can not be created.
I would agree that housing is a commodity though, so long as there is more land to build it on.
I'm using the definition of commodity explained in chapters 1–3 of Marx, Capital, vol I.
Capitalism is commodity-producing society. In this political economy, the means of subsistence – things we need to survive – are produced for their exchange value and their use value. Socially necessary labour time is the only source of this value. This roughly coincides with your definition, that a commodity must be manufactured in some way.
But the Wikipedia definition is incomplete. At some point in the history of capitalism, humans come to fetishise commodities. At this point, even things that are not produced as commodities, such as land (including their minerals, trees, etc) are treated as if they have value and, from then on, are commodified.
It is the same process that commodifies women, meta data, etc. These things are not produced as commodities, yet they are treated as having a use value and an exchange value. One of the ways that this occurs is through financial derivatives, such as potato futures. This allows someone to buy and exchange something that does not yet exist: hence the commodification of everything under capitalism, even things that aren't 'produced' or aren't yet produced.
This is favourably referred to in the Wikipedia article that you referred to, under 'commodification of labor'. A direct reading of Marx and an analysis of the implications of his work reveals the additional argument that I provided about the commodofication of land.
This 'commodity form' is the root of the problem that you identified to begin with, about rent/wages. I have prepared something about that, which I will post soon.
It's the fault of capitalism. In socialist theory, a distinction is (generally, since there are always many schools of thought) made between the Bourgeoisie, basically the ultra rich at the very top like Musk and Bezos, and the Petty Bourgeoisie, which is your average restaurant owner and such. The former is what we refer to when we say things like "down with the Bourgeoisie," we're not actually dreaming of sticking the manager of the McDonald's down the street in a guillotine. The Petty Bourgeoisie are also chained into capitalism like the workers.
Okay deleted my previous comment because this CMV is not really about socialism vs capitalism.
You are technically correct in saying that people not wanting to work because they aren't paid enough is a capitalism problem, but it doesn't really change my view on the solution of a land value tax, as it is a capitalist solution that I think only applies to a capitalist system.
It’s actually no one’s fault per se that useful land is more expensive. After 2008 there was a major lack of investment into housing that reared its ugly head around 2019. COVID amplified the existing problems making it harder to build and get materials, and created soaring inflation.
There are things we can do now such as change zoning and make permit times faster but it’s going to take a while even in a best case scenario to move the housing stock and commercial real estate supply to where it needs to be.
I think a land value tax would speed up the process of building more houses, and would make housing denser because owners of the land would be incentivised to build as many houses as possible to not loose money to the land value tax.
There are some good arguments for a wealth tax (without distinguishing land from other assets, which would be easily avoided via financial arrangements):
This is a promising idea. Ultimately, it won’t work.
Landowners raise rents and business owners keep wages low because they are controlled by imperialists. Land-holding capital is only one piece of the puzzle. As promised, I wrote something longer about this topic, here: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1052415
One solution is to tax imperialists, rather than the ‘landowners’ and ‘speculators’, but they won’t allow it unless the alternative is revolution. This is how the US got its New Deal. The organised unions, socialists, and communists and offered an ultimatum: New Deal or what the Russian’s had.
The US bourgeoisie bent over backwards, increasing taxes to almost 100% above a threshold to stave off a domestic revolution. (In foreign states, they backed paramilitaries, etc, to stave off revolution). Then they spent the best part of a century rolling back those taxes and the welfare services they were spent on.
You can read about this in:
The lesson is, you can argue for higher taxes on the bourgeoisie if you like, you may even get them to agree, but they will connive until you are complacent and then betray you.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=t9l7AYl0jUE
https://piped.video/watch?v=XlhFMa4t28A&t=3901s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.