I remember reading the 6th paragraph as a teenager, it’s still good: “First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two different bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e. of advertising.”
> Throughout Europe, though not in America, there is a third class of men, more respected than either of the classes of workers. These are men who, through ownership of land, are able to make others pay for the privilege of being allowed to exist and to work. These landowners are idle, and I might, therefore, be expected to praise them. Unfortunately, their idleness is rendered possible only by the industry of others; indeed their desire for comfortable idleness is historically the source of the whole gospel of work. The last thing they have ever wished is that others should follow their example.
A century later, still no four-hour workday. Yet our productivity has increased many times.
If the story of AI productivity is true, why are we not seeing the same pay, for fewer hours, with the same output?
Edit: see this quote for context. Wow.
> This is the morality of the Slave State, applied in circumstances totally unlike those in which it arose. No wonder the result has been disastrous. Let us take an illustration. Suppose that at a given moment a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins as before. But the world does not need twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world everybody concerned in the manufacture of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?
Great read. In a similar (but not identical) vein, I have been reading "Leisure: The Basis of Culture" (1952) by Josef Pieper, which discusses the concept of "total work" - where every activity of the modern worker's day is either work, or in service of work. Even "leisure" activities are pondered in terms of how maximally leisurely they are, and how much they refresh the worker to prepare for the work week again.
"Leisure" is different from "idleness", as Pieper expands upon early in the book. I'm still only partway through the book, and am not sure I fully understand this difference yet, but I think Bertrand Russell's article shared here is a helpful piece that might get me there.
Leisure, it seems, is a more enlightened and intentional state than idleness, and one is permitted to conduct work-like activities while in a leisurely state, from what I understand. But then this seems to break down as leisure is supposed to be defined as independent of the concept of work. If two individuals are doing the same task, and it appears from the outside to be work, but one is doing it with a "leisurely" state of mind, then is only one of them actually doing work? It appears to be the case, from my reading so far.
I remember reading the 6th paragraph as a teenager, it’s still good: “First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two different bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e. of advertising.”
> Throughout Europe, though not in America, there is a third class of men, more respected than either of the classes of workers. These are men who, through ownership of land, are able to make others pay for the privilege of being allowed to exist and to work. These landowners are idle, and I might, therefore, be expected to praise them. Unfortunately, their idleness is rendered possible only by the industry of others; indeed their desire for comfortable idleness is historically the source of the whole gospel of work. The last thing they have ever wished is that others should follow their example.
Ahhh, how times have changed indeed!
A century later, still no four-hour workday. Yet our productivity has increased many times.
If the story of AI productivity is true, why are we not seeing the same pay, for fewer hours, with the same output?
Edit: see this quote for context. Wow.
> This is the morality of the Slave State, applied in circumstances totally unlike those in which it arose. No wonder the result has been disastrous. Let us take an illustration. Suppose that at a given moment a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins as before. But the world does not need twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world everybody concerned in the manufacture of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?
Earlier discussions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10310846 – Oct 2015 (24 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10876730 – Jan 2016 (25 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21509144 – Nov 2019 (82 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29338666 – Nov 2021 (173 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40257677 – May 2024 (108 comments)
Great read. In a similar (but not identical) vein, I have been reading "Leisure: The Basis of Culture" (1952) by Josef Pieper, which discusses the concept of "total work" - where every activity of the modern worker's day is either work, or in service of work. Even "leisure" activities are pondered in terms of how maximally leisurely they are, and how much they refresh the worker to prepare for the work week again.
"Leisure" is different from "idleness", as Pieper expands upon early in the book. I'm still only partway through the book, and am not sure I fully understand this difference yet, but I think Bertrand Russell's article shared here is a helpful piece that might get me there.
Leisure, it seems, is a more enlightened and intentional state than idleness, and one is permitted to conduct work-like activities while in a leisurely state, from what I understand. But then this seems to break down as leisure is supposed to be defined as independent of the concept of work. If two individuals are doing the same task, and it appears from the outside to be work, but one is doing it with a "leisurely" state of mind, then is only one of them actually doing work? It appears to be the case, from my reading so far.
I was first introduced to the concept of "total work" by Andrew Taggart's excellent article "The Secret to Office Happiness Isn't Working Less - it's Caring Less" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170810035800/https://qz.com/10...).
Are there any other related works on the concepts of "total work", "leisure", or "idleness" that people would recommend here?
If one wants to go deeper, and more radical, may I recommend Bob Black's "The Abolition of Work": https://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/abolitionofwork.ht...
I read the first few paragraphs and it still hasn't gotten to the point..
Definitely still an interesting read almost 100 years later.
I remember my Dad giving me this to read when I was about 14, just the thing for a teen who was getting snowed under with school work!
I wonder if passively consuming online/offline content is considered idling!
I am so good at this!
Thank you for this!