Misaki
Senior Member
- Jul 8, 2011
- 159
- 30
- 46
Before we begin, ask yourself this question: does it help a nation when someone in that nation works long hours, without exceeding limits for fatigue regarding heavy equipment or vehicles?
Point 1: social pressure is real. When a large number of people think that a certain action is the ethical thing to do, then even if it isn't legally required, people will be pressured into doing it.
White feathers were given to unenlisted males in Britain, as a symbol of cowardice, to encourage them to enlist.
Soldiers in Russian units at the border of Ukraine, during the conflict in 2014 (notorious for being the cause of the downing of flight MH17, with 298 killed) were given the option of volunteering to help the Russian side in the conflict. They could step over a line, or remain where they were. Due to social pressure, in at least one case everyone volunteered. By volunteering they were helping the Russian-speaking side in the conflict, although it may have been better for the Russian-speaking side if they had avoided the conflict entirely by participating in elections.
Monkeys do it too: Female monkeys spur on warring males, shunning those who don't fight
In countries like the US, even after social restrictions for the control of coronavirus were announced, there were still young people having large parties. This was due to a lack of social pressure.
Point 2: people work more than they need to. The US has GDP per capita of 65,000 USD, yet it has slightly lower life expectancy than neighboring Cuba, with 8,800 USD per capita GDP. Based on these numbers, people in the US could work just 1/7 as much as they do currently, and live just as long. (In reality, it's a little more complicated with purchasing power parity and so on, but according to the US Central Intelligence Agency's world factbook, Cuba still only has $12,300 per capita with PPP.)
Some people in the US may complain that they can't buy a house even though they make enough money in a single year to buy a house in another country like Mexico, but this is only because the amount that other people work drives up prices. Either based on what they earn from working, or because their work contributes to the profits of a company like Comcast ($12 billion net income in 2020) which goes to the shareholders, who compete for limited housing.
Point 3: there are people who would work even if they didn't earn any money from it. If they didn't need money, they might choose to work for some non-profit organization instead of giving their work to a company that passes excess profits on to shareholders and executives, but for them, the amount of time they work isn't about the money.
Point 4: sometimes we do harmful things because we don't know they're harmful. We used chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in our refrigeration equipment until we learned they were destroying the ozone layer, and then we stopped.
Point 5: markets tend towards a limited amount of available paid work. Governments can create jobs by paying for things that don't make sense for private companies, like building new roads that anyone can drive on, but this has to be paid for with either taxes or inflation. (This includes inflation in the price of stocks or real estate, if most of the 'printed money' goes to enrich people who are already wealthy.)
People who are more skilled, or who have an educational degree or work experience that suggests skill, find it easier to get jobs. People who can't get jobs, resulting in them either going on welfare or suffering (or possibly doing illegal things for money), are generally less skilled. But if, say, the 50% most skilled people in a country all decided to reduce how much they work by 90% over the course of a year, all the less-skilled people would be able to get jobs and all the essential work would still get done, just as it would if a skilled person died.
(In a few places, like Gaza with 49% unemployment, there might not be enough jobs even if the 50% most skilled worked 90% less.)
Point 6: there's no useful result from depriving less-skilled people of jobs. Some people might just be unable to do a job, due to either physical or mental issues (but see how much Stephen Hawking accomplished while paralyzed, eventually communicating with only his cheek muscle), and society doesn't expect them to, but for people who do have the capacity to work, few societies prevent them from surviving if they can't find work due to lack of jobs. For those who think that stupid people shouldn't have children, and that unemployment is a mechanism that accomplishes this, it doesn't.
Point 7: if all fossil fuels were to run out over the course of the next six months, there would be a huge economic disaster. Billions of people would probably die. World GDP would probably drop by at least 84%, which is the amount of energy from coal, natural gas, and oil, even before billions of people died to reduce it further. Since ships use oil, and between 70 and 90% of the world's goods travel by sea, the drop in GDP might be even greater. If we don't prepare for the end of fossil fuels now, we'll probably get surprised in the future.
Lifestyle changes that lead to us using less energy will encourage us to be better prepared for this future.
Point 8: as fossil fuels run out, they will become more valuable, so nations that are harvesting them now are making a poor long-term decision.
Point 9: inequality has many harmful effects, like increasing crime or preventing people from isolating at home during a coronavirus lockdown because they're poor. If we solve unemployment by providing lots of jobs, we pretty much solve inequality as well, with no government intervention in the form of taxes or welfare. We might not even need a government-mandated minimum wage when there are lots of jobs available.
Point 10: sometimes actions that people know, or at least suspect, are harmful aren't legally or socially punished, and so people do them. A corporation might even be required to do these things to avoid betraying its shareholders. By changing incentives, we can change behavior.
People like to think that if they work more, it will somehow help people who need to be helped. But there's no substitute for a job. What we need as a society is a conversation about how we can eliminate the social pressures to work long hours and give people an incentive to work less, until everyone has a job and we can focus on our real long-term problems like resource exhaustion.
Think about the question at the start. Did you say that working long hours helps a nation? Do you still feel that way?
Point 1: social pressure is real. When a large number of people think that a certain action is the ethical thing to do, then even if it isn't legally required, people will be pressured into doing it.
White feathers were given to unenlisted males in Britain, as a symbol of cowardice, to encourage them to enlist.
Soldiers in Russian units at the border of Ukraine, during the conflict in 2014 (notorious for being the cause of the downing of flight MH17, with 298 killed) were given the option of volunteering to help the Russian side in the conflict. They could step over a line, or remain where they were. Due to social pressure, in at least one case everyone volunteered. By volunteering they were helping the Russian-speaking side in the conflict, although it may have been better for the Russian-speaking side if they had avoided the conflict entirely by participating in elections.
Monkeys do it too: Female monkeys spur on warring males, shunning those who don't fight
In countries like the US, even after social restrictions for the control of coronavirus were announced, there were still young people having large parties. This was due to a lack of social pressure.
Point 2: people work more than they need to. The US has GDP per capita of 65,000 USD, yet it has slightly lower life expectancy than neighboring Cuba, with 8,800 USD per capita GDP. Based on these numbers, people in the US could work just 1/7 as much as they do currently, and live just as long. (In reality, it's a little more complicated with purchasing power parity and so on, but according to the US Central Intelligence Agency's world factbook, Cuba still only has $12,300 per capita with PPP.)
Some people in the US may complain that they can't buy a house even though they make enough money in a single year to buy a house in another country like Mexico, but this is only because the amount that other people work drives up prices. Either based on what they earn from working, or because their work contributes to the profits of a company like Comcast ($12 billion net income in 2020) which goes to the shareholders, who compete for limited housing.
Point 3: there are people who would work even if they didn't earn any money from it. If they didn't need money, they might choose to work for some non-profit organization instead of giving their work to a company that passes excess profits on to shareholders and executives, but for them, the amount of time they work isn't about the money.
Point 4: sometimes we do harmful things because we don't know they're harmful. We used chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in our refrigeration equipment until we learned they were destroying the ozone layer, and then we stopped.
Point 5: markets tend towards a limited amount of available paid work. Governments can create jobs by paying for things that don't make sense for private companies, like building new roads that anyone can drive on, but this has to be paid for with either taxes or inflation. (This includes inflation in the price of stocks or real estate, if most of the 'printed money' goes to enrich people who are already wealthy.)
People who are more skilled, or who have an educational degree or work experience that suggests skill, find it easier to get jobs. People who can't get jobs, resulting in them either going on welfare or suffering (or possibly doing illegal things for money), are generally less skilled. But if, say, the 50% most skilled people in a country all decided to reduce how much they work by 90% over the course of a year, all the less-skilled people would be able to get jobs and all the essential work would still get done, just as it would if a skilled person died.
(In a few places, like Gaza with 49% unemployment, there might not be enough jobs even if the 50% most skilled worked 90% less.)
Point 6: there's no useful result from depriving less-skilled people of jobs. Some people might just be unable to do a job, due to either physical or mental issues (but see how much Stephen Hawking accomplished while paralyzed, eventually communicating with only his cheek muscle), and society doesn't expect them to, but for people who do have the capacity to work, few societies prevent them from surviving if they can't find work due to lack of jobs. For those who think that stupid people shouldn't have children, and that unemployment is a mechanism that accomplishes this, it doesn't.
Point 7: if all fossil fuels were to run out over the course of the next six months, there would be a huge economic disaster. Billions of people would probably die. World GDP would probably drop by at least 84%, which is the amount of energy from coal, natural gas, and oil, even before billions of people died to reduce it further. Since ships use oil, and between 70 and 90% of the world's goods travel by sea, the drop in GDP might be even greater. If we don't prepare for the end of fossil fuels now, we'll probably get surprised in the future.
Lifestyle changes that lead to us using less energy will encourage us to be better prepared for this future.
Point 8: as fossil fuels run out, they will become more valuable, so nations that are harvesting them now are making a poor long-term decision.
Point 9: inequality has many harmful effects, like increasing crime or preventing people from isolating at home during a coronavirus lockdown because they're poor. If we solve unemployment by providing lots of jobs, we pretty much solve inequality as well, with no government intervention in the form of taxes or welfare. We might not even need a government-mandated minimum wage when there are lots of jobs available.
Point 10: sometimes actions that people know, or at least suspect, are harmful aren't legally or socially punished, and so people do them. A corporation might even be required to do these things to avoid betraying its shareholders. By changing incentives, we can change behavior.
People like to think that if they work more, it will somehow help people who need to be helped. But there's no substitute for a job. What we need as a society is a conversation about how we can eliminate the social pressures to work long hours and give people an incentive to work less, until everyone has a job and we can focus on our real long-term problems like resource exhaustion.
Think about the question at the start. Did you say that working long hours helps a nation? Do you still feel that way?
