Follow your passion: hustle culture vs anti-work movement.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Bonjour ✨
Last video before my little break!! Today we're exploring the meaning of the phrase follow your passion on the internet from hustle culture to the anti-work movement. Feel free to contribute to the discussion by commenting below. I'm super curious about your opinion on the topic :)
SOURCES/RESSOURCES 📚
Graeber, David. Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. , 2018.
Can We Fix Capitalism? Yanis Varoufakis vs Gillian Tett: • Can we Fix Capitalism?...
Antiwork reddit: / antiwork
Mark, Fisher. Capitalist realism : is there no alternative?, Winchester, UK: Zero Books, 2009.
Nat's video on the rise of the anti-work movement: • the rise of antiwork |...
MUSIC 🎶
alfredo - Vapor County - thmatc.co/?l=E...
SOCIALS 👩💻
Storygraph: @alicecappelle
Instagram: / aliceoverall
Enquiries: alice.cappelleyt@gmail.com
Salut !
Not to mention being involuntarily homeless is massively more stressful and mentally taxing than his stunt. He was never truly homeless in the first place and could have pulled the plug on his little skit at any time. Performing a skit for UA-cam and being truly homeless are entirely different worlds. There were many other advantages he didn't consider in his "rules" page, etc. as well.
yeah. being genuinely homeless would mean he has to be on drugs, an alcoholic, deep in debt from shitty past decisions, have a criminal record, and/or bum on the street corner of an active strip mall. all while touting conspiracies to random passerbys at the gas station where he's picking up cigarettes from his 'earnings'
@@Kuzey457 Ok, sociopathic AI Bot acting like an edgelord in Mom's basement.
The people who complain about "who will do the gross jobs?" have never had to muck out a house or clean a bathroom. You just put on rubber gloves and do it, it's not that big a deal. I'd be more than happy to take a shift doing a gross job 15 hours a month or whatever if it meant living in a humane society.
Edit: 1. For those questioning my "gross job" credentials, I mucked out houses in Biloxi, MS within a month of Katrina, and the five months following. As in, clearing sludge from houses that had been flooded for weeks in 70+ F temperatures. That's "throw bleach on it" level grossness, and there were times when we did that. 2. I calculated the work hours to population for water treatment in the major US city where I live, and 500 people could cover that job in 15 hours a week, out of a population of 700k. That is minuscule. Sure, that's only one part of sanitation, etc., but still, .0007% of the population could cover 24/7 water treatment responsibilities at the current level, at 15 hours a week. 3. We could take care of each other and our communities for a fraction of the work hours we currently devote to generating more money for rich assholes.
I worked for a funeral home before transporting deceased for a short while. I didn't love it, and I like desk jobs much more, but if I had a choice between transporting deceased for 20 hours a week and a desk job for 40 hours a week with the same pay, I'd pick the transport option. But in both cases, I did the best I could with both jobs and looking back on it I'm proud of the care I took in transporting the deceased with as much dignity as I could. There is an element of pride in doing something worthwhile that a lot of other people find uncomfortable. But I think my desk job is still worthwhile also so I'll probably stick with that as long as the pay is good.
Recycling toilet paper
@@theboombody sounds like a fun gig
You have a good heart, and I would like to think that me and my loved ones do as well. The problem is that most people won't volunteer for it, there needs to be some kind of compensation for it. I had a conversation about this with a coworker who advocated the "I don't dream of labor" idea, and when we got to the topic of "how a cashless society would be able to incentivise people to do undesirable but necessary, work", she had no answers. The only ways to make enough people do the work that we need is money or force. And personally, I'd rather a capitalist society in which we at least compensate people for their efforts toward the greater good over a system in which the government, or individuals, force people with violence to do things they don't want to do
what about plumbing
I was a security guard once. It was by far the most BS job i have ever worked. I worked at one place where my sole responsibility was to listen for an alarm, and if i heard it i needed to go run over to the manager and tell them the alarm is going off. The managers office was right next to the alarm. So they would hear it too. So, in fact my only responsibility was to show up and look professional. But businesses need security guards on site as a way to appease insurance companies, so every morning i had to put my clown makeup on and show up to work even though i was a completely useless employee and pretend i was making a difference. It was honestly humiliating.
This means you should not take your job seriously and start a side hustle or start using work time to build a new career. Dont let them waste your life, if your job is bullshit then take that time to get real work done for yourself. Just make sure to maintain appearances since thats literally all they care about.
@Queen Christopher The Merciful glad you're still around and that you are better after everything happened
I know someone who also works as a security guard in the US. He says the condition are the same like yours. So, what does he spend his mostly free time during the shift? Watching Vtuber.
No joke.
Don't build your self image or worth on your employment. You'll feel better. Jobs of any kind are temporary at worst and at the end of the day, it's just a job.
Get a remote job during your job
‘Technofeudalism’ sounds like a brilliant term! It encapsulates what’s going on perfectly. ‘F-A-A-N-G’ (Facebook/Meta, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google) fall under this. I could be wrong.
you can live without all of them if you choose - so it's not feudalism you are not being forced to serve any of these companies -- it's a choice to buy an Apple phone, subscribe to Netflix, etc...
@@sterlingmarshel6299 So you gonna work a job and live a normal social life, without buying a PC, laptop or mobilephone ever?
Sure bud.
Don’t forget Microsoft (I mean it makes the acronym sound less cool but still I think it counts?)
@@d.h-b7427 Yes, Microsoft is a major part too!
@@lilnoir4213 some days i spend hours thinking about how can i found a job or carrer that doesn't need to work with a computer or smartphone for 8 hours per day. And i keep falling. Even if you're an artist, writter, etc... you most likely to need to promotr yourself in social media.
Already have the answers, not hard. Let's cut the B.S he wasn't homeless, he literally cried the first night he thought he was going to sleep on a bench, and then got bailed out by that guy with the trailer. You have to spend atleast 24 hrs of no home to be counted as homeless
I've had a cool time discovering your videos over the past few days. As somebody who joined "The Great Resignation" about two months ago, I find myself reflecting on my jobs, which have honestly been quite interesting, even non-alienating (albeit fairly proletariat, salary-wise). Out of college, I worked at a book bindery making artisanal wedding albums from scratch (we did Zuckerberg's album, actually), then conducted historic research on old homes that might need to be protected from demolition. After that, I worked for a social enterprise with a double bottom line, where we helped women experiencing homelessness gain production job experience. At 30, however, I'm exasperated by low wages and feel somewhat alarmed by my desperation for a cushy tech job. As somebody who pursues an indie music project (we're called rincs!) "outside of the office", it's also interesting that certain "art forms" are actually professionally unacceptable to "creative class jobs". I always feel like a bright red flag if I mention that I front an indie band during an interview...even at music tech companies! Anyhow, you have a fan here in Los Angeles; look forward to your next video:)
wonderful to see young people engaging with these ideas, questioning materialistic values, not being reflexively ironic, remaining cynical about technology and hustle culture. Bravo!
In India, the conversation about ‘meritocracy’ comes up a lot. People don’t understand it’s a term used ironically but use it to defend systemic exclusion of marginalised people. And there are who oppose the reservation of marginalised groups by taking advantage of quotas or affirmative action outside India. It took me some time to move away from the conditioning and come to the conclusion that I can turn my social capital into economic capital but so many people don’t have that.
I'm from south america and the situation you're describing is very similar here.
@@monjeanarquista3893 Yes, the exclusion of people is equally severe there, I presume?
Bollywood is the main reason why skin bleaching is a billion dollar industry in India. No matter how talented you are, if your skin is too dark, you won't ever be cast in a movie. And that's just the entertainment industry.
@@PokhrajRoy. yeah, it mostly depends on wheter you have a lot of social connections or born in a rich family with foreign last names.
Aye I agree with you but shouldn’t the correct course of action be to empower the marginalised groups to be able to climb up the social ladder? By focusing on public education and welfare so that the poorest of the children have the ability to climb the social ladder. There is no reason that >50% of the seats in government jobs and educational institutions be reserved. The poor lower caste person won’t have the abilities to pass the exams or do his job properly, because they didn’t have access to good education, same for the poor upper caste, while the middle and upper class has to suffer from less available seats and incompetent people in institutions. Reservation is helping nobody but politicians who wanna get some votes and look like they’re doing something. It is just driving away capable people from our country, and doing nothing to help the marginalised.
I feel quite conflicted about the idea of hustle culture... On one hand, I do firmly believe in the individual and in making the best of oneself and one's situation, but on the other hand, I don't think making money should ever be the primary motivation. Sure, you need money to survive, but having seen many people that have lots of money but are miserable and horrible people, I'd pick individual fulfillment and growth of character over having millions in the bank every day. Being able to combine the two - developing something that you love doing and making huge money from it - is a luxury that I don't think many people can achieve. If you do, that's great and all, but the homeless experiment is a bit misleading in that regard. Try again with an IQ of 80, a drug addiction and no access or understanding of the internet.
I am going to hustle,
but I am going to hustle my mental health and life's meaningful things
You got it right. Read the Bhagavad Gira or Stoics and you'll see they discovered this thousands of years ago
We need money to survive because that's what this technofeudalistic society has made for us. We just need food, water and good climate conditions. Education and love are also essential for our full development.
Since humanity is so deep buried in misery I think we should just go against the concept of money itself (of course capitalism too but at these point we ought to be more radical). It was created in ancient times to serve people due to inability to transport things easily. But that's not true anymore. I always think about that but people might think I'm crazy but even that once again proves the saying "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism".
Yeah, it's kinda cute to do when SOMEONE does it, but I really don't like the trend. It makes it feel like EVERYTHING is suddenly an icky and gross advertisement. I don't want to be advertised your art, I want to look at beautiful art someone made for the sake of making it and if I want to buy some, I will come to YOU to ask if I can commission or buy some. Saying you do commissions or sell it is fine, but not everyone needs to actively be a brand. Along with that, I may be pretty smart according to people around me... I am NOT a very independent person. I need to be taught shit one-on-one and thenIcando it really well. I have given up on branding myself (I'm wasn't even interested in the fist place) because I am not independent enough to know how to do that. Not only am I too stupid to do it, it also just depends on luck. If you don't have it, you may NEVER be recognized and won't even earn anything, let alone enough to live off of. I hate how this stuff gets fetishized nowadays.
@@chamberv5261 on the other side... You would become a massive hoarder so you can always trade shit and you may have trouble finding that one guy who happens to need your 5 eggs and also HAPPENS to have 2 spare steaks he needs to get rid of which HAPPENS to be exactly what you wanted to have
The whole "realistic solution" thing really irks me when people ask it. Capitalist realism is a helluva drug. If the house you're in is burning down around you, getting outside of it is likely going to improve your situation. I don't think the unknown or even the unreal are more harmful than the omnicidal status quo. Graeber's books definitely got me asking different questions as well, glad you mentioned them.
If the house is burning down around you, walking into another burning house is not much of an improvement. Mixed market economies are the only way.
The Wengrow Graeber book offers us the hope that these conversations we are having are society defining. We are currently having a global debate on whether we want to continue with capitalism. It may not seem like much now. But compared to the era of neoliberalism from the mid-70s onwards, in which such debate was almost absent from the popular sphere, this is a big deal.
On our side we have an unanswerable argument of the flaws of capitalism, the unethical nature of capitalism, the more democratic alternatives that can exist. But it's uphill against the debunked myths of capitalism because capitalism currently has all the power - which makes aligning with it rewarding despite its lack of moral or technical legitimacy.
Alice, with regard to who will do all the unpleasant jobs, I'd love to see you do a vid answering that question. Who _does_ do those jobs in worker-owned companies? Who does them in non-heirarchical organisations such as certain kinds of social, sports, or hobby clubs?
What ? in the 20th century 1/3 of the world was socialist or going towards socialism (more countries exist then western ones, i know its hard for u to understand) and all of them failed/collapsed or switched to capitalism. And no u don't have "unanswerable argument of the flaws of capitalism" i know marxists think they are smart but ur arguments easily can be deconstructed.
As a final year Law student, I find that the issue with our system isn't capitalism, but corporate personality. That a company is a separate legal person that generates profits for its shareholders does untold damage to our society. Throughout history, you worked to feed yourself, and traded excess creations for what you lacked.
In Ancient Greece, if you were not working for yourself but for others, you were a 'private' person which was akin to being a slave (and most private persons were slaves; private comes from to be 'deprived' of something - in Ancient Greece, it was to be deprived of contributing to the polis/ the public) The underlying concept is that those people worked for someone else - and hence had no control over their fate.
Corporates today have 'separate legal personality' meaning that they are legal persons who have rights and responsibilities, and can own property and land. When you work for a company - and everyone works for a company - you work for that legal person. This is true for even high paying jobs like directors, who often have to make risky business decisions and lower employee salaries to generate profits for the shareholders - who would otherwise replace them.
Shareholder however, are not liable for their companies' actions except to the extent of their initial investment; hence a companies are often 'limited liability companies (LLC)'. It is interesting to note that Adam Smith was vehemently opposed to the formation of limited liability companies at his time (joint stock companies, often formed for colonial ventures).
It isn't capitalism that we cannot 'not imagine ourselves without', but a life without corporations - that really exist as kingdoms in and of themselves. I reckon many of society's issues with wealth inequality would be solved if the average joe made a living through his creations, and not a salary for working for another person. Such 'creations' do not need to be tangible either; people don't need to become farmers or blacksmiths. Many people who work 9-5 in an office are creating intellectual property (contracts, computer programs, advertising communications, etc...) and offer it freely to their employer as virtue of their contract of employment.
Please see 'The Corporate Criminal: Why Corporations Must Be Abolished' by David Whyte.
Yeah I can agree on that a focus on shareholder priority isn't a great theory for social helping (I forgot the word) but implementing a stakeholder theory could mean that the economy take a hit and companies would lose massive profit if every company would take this route. So I still think that there would be a shareholder priority although I do agree that many who work on new IP just give it away to the company is depressing when they could have created their own wealth but some rather comfortability rather than risking their lives to push an idea where there is many great incentives to sell their ideas to companies that have more power than a sole person that came out of a 9 to 5. Not only that there are jobs that aren't about creativity such as a corporate lawyer or a paralegal, truck driver and other jobs. Therefore these jobs became a salary based jobs since it was an easy way out a "fair" however I hope that we all can get paid what we should be getting paid and yes not on a salary but making our money throughout our creativity althought realistically I doubt that there would be that kind of world. Il read the article too since that could also be a great reference for my essay.
The problem of the average joe making a living through his creations is that once you go freelance, you have to take care of everything - networking, making contracts, all sorts of legal issues, etc. Having seen what running a small startup takes and how precarious existence it is, I can see quite a lot of value in being able to just clock in, do my job for X hours and than go home with a clear head while my enterpreneur friend is losing another night of sleep over some project with a difficult client.
Simply put, if you're not a part of a company with sales department, legal department and project management, you have to become you own salesman, lawyer and manager.
I'm not saying that mega corporations with questionable practices like Amazon are cool but there always needs to be some mechanism of connecting the supply with the demand, and that facilitation is a job in itself.
That is so extremely naive. Corporatism is capitalism, my friend. It is an inevitable outgrowth of capitalism. You can't have a system where profit and competition are core dynamics, and then get surprised by businesses growing to insane levels in order to hoard more wealth.
tldr: Sacred Economics by Charles Eisenstein. A must read!
Really loved how you've woven seemingly opposite phenomena together into the narrative that questions the system that produces them both. I cannot recommend enough Sacred Economics by Charles Eisenstein. It is a remarkably thoughtful journey into these very questions you present. The book starts with the ubiquity of money, where any socioeconomic transformation must actually start with changing the money system. So it focuses on money rather than ideology or politics. It charts out a different kind of money that is aligned with the natural world and totally removes the inescapable exponential growth inherent in usury money in capitalism.
Explain the last sentence
@@keylanoslokj1806 The driver of the modern capitalist economy is interest-bearing money. Basically, whenever money is created in someone's bank account, it is loaned into existence, and that loan bears interest. Consequently, the whole economy has no option but to grow in order to cover this debt. Otherwise, the system would crumble under huge default rates.
That's why banks seek to lend the individuals or firms that might have the highest probability of creating more money.
That is why economic growth is a necessity in the modern economy, even (and especially) in times of health or social crisis. This kind of exponential growth did raise quality of life in western countries in the twentieth century, but most of the commons were still preserved. But it never stops, because it can't, so the capitalist machine started eating away at the all other types of commons, cultural commons (DRM/brutal copyrights), knowledge commons(paywalled scientific research), social commons (weaker social ties due to commodifying all services that used to be provided as gifts, rise of individualism and isolation, exploitative aspects of social media) and of course the environmental commons.
It's a huge topic. Essentially, this never stops, more of the commons is being turned into commodity, into something as generic and disposable as money.
The book is an eye-opening journey into the true essence of money as an embodiment of a society's values and the vehicle that furthers them. And he dives into a number of ideas (old and new) that transform the nature of money to align it with the real purpose. For instance, negative interest and internalization of social and environmental costs.
We Americans tend to see ourselves as all "temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
I recently read the book 'The Dispossessed' and they had a fascinating solution to 'who will do the bad jobs?'. The solution is that everyone is asked to do these jobs for a week or two every year. If an individual actually enjoys that job, then they are able to spend all of their time doing it. It is a simple and elegant solution. Workers often reflect on how nice the change of pace is from their normal day to day.
The entrepreneur culture is being promoted to distract from the fact that there are fewer and fewer viable jobs--which could be okay if we were still taken care of, but the big tech leaders are basically replacing workers with AI and investing in a culture to condition us to accept in instead of demanding proper adaptations (like UBI for an example)
I look at things such as the ideas everyone following their passion what really doesn't go through for me is who would build the houses and do the upkeep on the houses? I don't think a lot of the world would actually become seamstresses and tailors. Would that mean se resort to have small quantities of clothes and make our own? would we get rid of fashion? What about people who work in waste management, os there anyone who would do that? Well is there anyone who's going to work in the factories that produce plastics?
It's a very complicated idea to think of because so much of our daily lives are supported by things that people don't exactly have a passion for.
It's a reasonable concern, I can think of two possible solutions:
- financial incentive, when everyone receives a basic income the less popular jobs can be subsidised with a monetary bonus for those who'd like more luxury. For example, when there's shortages in certain professions in the Netherlands the government will sometimes offer a discount on tuition fees for specific study programs to promote enrolment.
- volunteering/duty, there is a Dutch saying that can be translated to "many hands create less labour" so with a large population only a minimal contribution would be required by the individual. It can be implemented in a way comparable to jury duty in the US, where participating in supportive labour is part of the 'social contract' you implicitly sign by living in an area/country (like the theory from Rousseau I think)
This is a good point, and I mean, I think capitalism has made it so we are all extremely severed from community ties, because the undesirable jobs that we all need are punted to the most economically desperate. Therefore, those jobs pay way less than a living wage for the most part. I for one would love to contribute more to my community and feel like I'm giving back and helping people, but when those opportunities are unpaid or paid very low, I simply don't have the bandwidth to do them because I am fighting tooth and nail to simply make enough money to survive. I think a lot of people wish to feel more connected to their communities, but don't want to go into poverty or give up precious hours of limited free time to do it. I would love to spend my entire life being a social worker, but it just doesn't pay enough for the emotional labor it requires. If we divided this labor up more equitably or offered more money for the work that actually makes the world run, I think people would love the opportunity to help their communities in a tangible and needed way that doesn't drain them of all their economic, emotional, and physical resources. I think that's the kind of society we should be striving for.
I recommend anyone interested in this to read a bit about the degrowth movement (there's a page for it that has some easy starting material/definitions). It has a lot to say on these topics and ultimately seeks to ask people/societies what we want out of our life/society.
Lol degrowth is bs u can still grow gdp and at the same time lower emissions. Also Eastern countries like China will just obliterate the west if u try to "degrowth"
I think it is my first comment on your channel, Alice, even though I watch all the videos and thiiiiink. The idea that came up to my mind was about who will do stuff nobody wants to do? And it was about the metaphor of parenting. I have a 5yo and many questions to the world. But if there is anything that I learnt during these 5 years is that having a baby brings you lots of love, gratitude, purpose and personal growth, which mostly is very good. But it kinda teaches you to do A LOT OF stuff you don't really want to do. Some of these things are about physical pain, some about dealing with unpleasant smells (sorry), some about saying no to your desires, etc. So what I mean is that you cannot have parenthood with only good stuff, questionable stuff goes in a bundle. But people generally want the good stuff, no nasty stuff please - capitalists or lefts - which is pretty understandable. But unreachable. Yeah, I am bad in communicating my thoughts. But I hope I expressed myself. I adore how commentary youtubers do it. Thank you, Alice, for bringing food for thought. And Merry Christmas!
Hello. I´ve been binging a couple of your videos lately and found them a charming antidote to "hustle culture". We seem to consume some of the same theory. However, it always surprises me how people don't take geopolitics into account when trying to think about other systems of socio economic organization. Im saying this because studying only a little geopolitics makes you understand how hard countries compete against eachother. This makes each country very dependent on international capital flowing their way, which is why countries with expensive labour (people working less and earning more, protected workers etc.) will have a harder time. Every time someone suggests raising wages or reducing work hours, the argument that this will reduce competitive power internationally is brought up. And it is a strong argument. Now, as China is projected to outpace the United States in certain technologies, NATO have already starte to tremble about the implications this will give. My point is: whatever Zizek or Varoufakis say, the problem with capitalism is not just that it disadvantages some people. It's that it actually works to well, in converging capital to those places who welcome it in.
One of the ancient Greek philosophers characterized the political systems of his time as a function of military power. Athens was a democracy because it depended on its rowers to enforce its power, and they got a say in where they rowed. Sparta was an oligarchy because that system was best for producing heavy infantry. Persia was an aristocratic empire because that's the best way to produce cavalry--and interestingly, that does seem to repeat in the Middle Ages, when feudalism and the rule of large landowners takes over to produce mailed knights (reaching its most extreme expression in Eastern Europe, where cavalry armies survived much longer, and where peasants had the fewest legal protections). The development of capitalism and liberal democracy went hand-in-hand with the turn away from noble armies and toward mass infantry and mercantile naval warfare.
I don't think it's mere coincidence that "technofeudalism" arises at the same time that the most advanced economies turn away from mass mobilization and back toward small, professional armies with specialized, very expensive weapons, whereas the high-water mark of both socialism and social democracy was during the age of mass mobilization, from the Levee en Masse to the million-man armies of the second world war. The power of the state is no longer dependent on convincing the citizen he has a stake in it, but on cultivating the most advanced high-tech sector to make the best high-tech weapons.
"The strong do what they can. The weak endure what they must." When push comes to shove, I believe technofeudalism is more or less inevitable as drone warfare undoes the gunpowder revolution. The drone is the new knight-with-lance, an arm that will never tire of scything down rebellious peasants.
I would like to read more about this. Could you please give me the name of the philosopher?
@@lylia3413 I think it was Aristotle, but I'm going off second-hand information--it was referenced in a lecture by Kenneth Harl (Tulane University) on the Peloponnesian War.
Also, Xenophon, Constitution of the Athenians:
"My first point is that it is right that the poor and the ordinary people there should have more power than the noble and the rich, because it is the ordinary people who man the fleet and bring the city her power; they provide the helmsmen, the boatswains, the junior officers, the look-outs and the shipwrights; it is these people who make the city powerful much more than the hoplites and the noble and respectable citizens. This being so, it seems just that all should share in public office by lot and by election, and that any citizen who wishes should be able to speak in the Assembly."
One can see, then, the logic of those who link the Athenian navy to the growth of democracy, and my own suggestion that the reverse can hold true--in a system where military power ceases to depend on the investment of the common people, some form of aristocracy will emerge, because the "noble and respectable citizens" become the true holders of power.
Polemos pater panton, it's a quote by heraklitos (war is the father of all things)
I think we should think about the world as a house - we should all have some chores and time for pleasure. With this thinking shorter work weeks and more flexible schedules seem to be the most reasonable solutions.
And we are at a point in technology and automation in which there are very few chores for us to do compared to the amount of people, which would let us more free than most people think :)
I have always thought that the hustle culture is a temporal representation of a personality who loves to takes risks and is very ambitious - previously coined as enterprenours or yuppies etc. Contrasting with basic income or anti-work movement, I feel that that kind of a mindset justifies itself as the driving force behind progress in capitalism. More specifically, if we had basic income, then no one would be motivated to take risks and thus nothing would get done. Ironically, even though the hustle-culture icons are often with no doubt hardworking and successful, then the basis of their success comes from profiting off extreme consumerism or incentivizing non-productive tasks (ala "its not a product, its a lifestyle"). From my point of view, with such sources of income, they "generate less progress" than for example inventing new ways to generate energy from fusion, and they make more money while at it. So, for me, it boils down to the existential question: "what is *money* worth/what does it represent in a society?".
As a recent CS graduate deciding between continuing to work in bioinformatics or going full-on data scientist for some random company with seemingly higher pay for less work, thanks for activating another existential crisis!
Jokes aside (help me), I love content that provides eventually more value than the time and attention required to just consume it. Your channel has become a reliable source for that kind of content. Happy holidays!
I'm pursuing a chemical engineering degree and I'm in the same boat over here. I can either go full-on oil and gas tycoon servent and make money with great promotion prospects, or I could pursue research into fusion, cultured meat, Bioplastic, etc., and make less money (like 70k instead of 90k) and fewer career growth options. Just so you have another person's insight, I'll probably end up in Oil and Gas... what matters more to me is the kind of people I'm with and getting to work together. Both paths allow for that, and Oil and Gas is way easier to get into than MIT nuclear engineering graduate school.
As for your issues with the incongruity of payment and progress, I 100% agree what you're saying is true in every field.
The way I answer that issue is that I vote for the society I want and work in the society I live in ( the Oil and Gas job).
There is a part of me that says "I'll be making more than most people no matter the choice so go for research", but money and a need for security aren't as logical as the rest of me. A need for financial security is a real motivator for me.
In places like México, that argument about people that can’t quit their job it’s true, in a way it’s too hard more if you already have time working on that job, to relocate, to have a new job, implies a lot of things, such as, if you have kids in home or school, public transport sucks, violence it’s out of control (narco and robbery). Great video btw.
I'm mexican, i studied fine arts, i'm from a city of underpaid factory workers. It's all true, está bien cabrón.
@@alexisestrada5221 saludos desde Tijuana!
The job market being more about self-marketing than skill has always been a thing.
Finding incompetent people being overpaid for jobs they are bad at because they are good at selling themselves and managing up (being able to make themselves look good to their bosses even when things go wrong) is super common and it has always been.
The "Uglies" series by Scott Westerfeld takes place in the future, going from dystopia to recovering from dystopia. The books are:
Uglies
Pretties
Specials
Extras
In "Extras," they have what they call the "reputation economy" where subsistence stuff like food, clothing, and shelter are covered by the state, but if you want anything extra (nicer clothes, better tech, nicer lodgings, fancy surgeries) you can either become famous, or you can do work to earn credits. There was the nerd side of that (cosmetic surgery is a big thing in the setting, so lots of doctors), and the dirty jobs (janitors, sanitation, etc.) part, and both are respected because both parts of work are necessary to have a functioning city. (There's also a follow-up few books that start with "Impostors" but they're not as relevant as "Extras.")
There are already many jobs that need to be done that no one does because there's very little financial incentive if any for example replication of scientific experiments. The tech firms are taking advantage of an existing flaw where private businesses are allowed to become monopolies so long as they provide a cheaper service or product. Access to education and healthcare will make it possible for people to pursue their passions and reduce the kind of dependence that makes us vulnerable to exploitative work.
Really great discussion! thank you for the video, Alice :)
Let me introduce a humble contribution. I am currently working on the final thesis of my BA on the left-wing accelerationism of Srnircek and Williams. In their book "Inventing the future: a world without work" they also talk about the demands for automation and a Universal Basic Income. Apart from their optimistic approach to technology (while the traditional left has fleed and left the terrain for a hegemony of the right and neoliberalism), I think their most interesting point is that they say that 'big tech' should not have control over these new technologies and that, instead, their benefits (and, of course, means of production) should be nationalized, because they rely on the data of thousands of users.
The point is that maybe we should be thinking about alternatives such as the "Fully automated luxury communism" that Aaron Bastani talked about because technology is here to stay. But at the end of the day I the problem is always the same: inequality. What left-wing accelerationism brings again to the table is the discussion of a post-growth society where 1) people from rich countries have a lifestyle where they consume much less and 2) a world where technology can produce resources that are enough for the population to live from. Basically, a new Eden.
But then the question revolves around our very human nature: if we could have machines that would be able to produce enough food/resources for all of us to live, don't you think that some people would try to fight over them? I think that here is where things should change: it is in our hands to create a more thoughtful society...
Of course, I still have plenty of things I'm thinking about but I prefer to keep it short and keep the discussion going, but I hope I made you discover new interesting authors! Merci
I'm in the lunchroom at work with headphones on and you speak so softly I can here everyone around me over you.
Great video, comrade. I've only heard of Graeber's work posthumously but the interviews I've watched have all been incredible. We have produced enough across the world to satisfy a great value of life but it's disproportionately distributed. Anti-work is the complete abolishment of work and is a direct antithesis to capitalism.
Just on the “who will do the jobs that no one wants to do”. My first job was as a farmhand at a dairy. No experience, no training. My only expectation was that I’d be scraping poop. I did to a bit of that, but mostly I bottle fed, watered, and grain fed calves of different ages. Drove a tractor, scraped feed bunks, and cleaned water troughs. I didn’t need the money, I wanted to work on a farm. Minimum wage, 6/12 hour days (depending on how long I was needed). Cold cold winter mornings and hot hot summer days. There are plenty of people who want to do the jobs that no one wants to do. And there are plenty of people now doing those jobs that don’t want to do it. I think of people had enough money to live, everyone would try everything, not worrying if the job didn’t pan out. There would be a lot of turnover, but if you incentivize the most necessary jobs with more benefits/luxuries I don’t think it would be that hard to imagine a society where some people just live, and maybe get bored and try something out for a while, and other people hustle still to gain extra income or just extra benefits that I probably can’t imagine outside of the context of capitalism.
wow i think this is the best video from this channel whyyyy I haven't seen it before???
Very thought provoking, and one of those rare YT channels that keeps away from the superficial. Yes there are serious problems, and the solutions are not obvious.
This is an amazing discussion a brave new world is being born right in front of us and we are apart of shaping it
The beggining of the video reminded me of Adorno's and Horckeimer's work about mass cultural products. The narrative of the lucky one in a million is sold to you and you empathize with it and belive it is possible while you're held in place by the systems that construct that very narrative - the odds are against you, so most likely you won't be an outlier
It sucks that having meetings doesn’t count as chargeable hours in a consulting job.
I fully support capitalism, but more than that, I support personal choice, and I see capitalism as the best way to achieve personal choice. I personally don't see antiwork as anti-capitalism. Rather, I see it as what capitalism should be: a system where anyone can choose how they want to earn money, and if people don't want to work shitty jobs, then they shouldn't have to. I believe that all the problems regarding the economy is actually due to government interference and corruption especially. Biggest obvious example is the bank bailouts. The government should have no right to spend tax dollars on any private business.
Holy naivety Batman! Someone slap this sucker with the hand of reality.
Big government and capitalist firms go hand in hand. Why is that so fucking hard for naive children like you to understand? There ain’t no magical mechanism that just make humans good and rational, that shit takes work. Work most modern humans do not want to engage in.
@@EpioN Corporativism and capitalism aren't the same thing. I do agree that it is evident that as corporations become richer and more powerful than the government, capitalism transitions to corporativism and turns to shite, i.e. "late stage capitalism", corrupting the political system (generally democracy). But what is a viable humanitarian solution to fix this issue? People like citing Marx. As if it's not yet equally evident that violently seizing people's propert/goods (i.e. authoritarianism) is also a shite option...
Edit: don't get me wrong, I believe people who idealize full blown unregulated capitalism are as naive as marxists, so I disagree with the OP's viewpoint.
I believe that one of the problems of 'thinking past capitalism' is thinking about capitalism as a single monolithic concept; the current system is made of many layers of dynamics that should be analyzed separately (without denying their mutual dependence). Mercantilism, materialism, the spiritual void of individuals/values/morals, liberal economy are things that can be though of as separate dimensions of the problem, this way one can begin to imagine a post capitalism by updating or replacing parts.
Book recommendation about universal basic income (and more but espacially on this topic) is Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bregman. He really touches upon how to implement it and it's so interesting
That we even entertain enjoyment and fulfillment as priorities demonstrates how privileged recent generations have become when compared to any previous age of our species. The pursuit of improved security and enjoyment for all through societal machinations is laudable, and by all means shouldn’t be withheld because these ideals have not yet been attained.
However, there is a baseline reality of inequity that has always and likely will always exist due to our natural disposition to select based on preference. Some individuals will always be better looking, or have more resources. These individuals will acquire more resource and socialize with more competent friends and attractive mates. No public policy of time off from supporting your own survival will stop this process.
We are social animals and feel positive emotion from holding status within our contextual group and from advancing toward goals. Feel free to work less, be less productive, but hyper-productive individuals will feel no such need to acquiesce. Those people will continue to assume more and more resources and inequality will be exasperated. Checking out of the game doesn’t solve any problems because the game is inherent to our nature and continues on regardless of your participation.
It’s an interesting perspective, but I always struggle with the “follow your passion” narrative at a societal level. Even with UBI you’ll end up with a lot of people wanting to be actors, musicians etc and not enough societal demand for these “non basic” services. With high supply and low demand, competition for artistic work will remain very high and end up being affordable only to the rich and nepo babies. The only way to allow everyone that wants to to be an artist is to generate a lot of demand for art
I wouldn't complain if everyone were required to do a relatively small amount of some job that keeps society working every week: gross jobs, boring jobs, etc. Or even if capitalists were able to still have more money than people. We'd just have to create and maintain a culture where those people are seen as trading some of their life for fancier goods. They already do, but today the culture is one of conquest. The shift necessary for this is pretty large though, so it'll take some workshopping.
I’m a sucker for the accent. What a lovely voice… subscribed. The question of where we go from here is one of the main questions of our time. Capitalist inertia is like an algorithm that runs regardless of what individuals within the system do. If a CEO grows a conscious and wants to make changes that go against the profit motive, he will be replaced by someone that will fulfill the algorithm. We set the machine in motion with strict instructions to kill us if we tamper with it. One thing we could do in the US is anti-trust, but that requires political will from people bought out by the corporations they are trying to regulate.
One thing to note about the BS jobs estimate, is that the 50% number came not just from the BS jobs themselves, but the support jobs they require. When you factor in janitors, HVAC, and other tradesmen, it becomes a much more believable number.
This is one of my comfort channels
Just found and binged about 10 of your videosl, keep it coming, you say what ive been feeling for so long with elegance.
subbed
Honestly I do not think the current situation is as bad as younger generations in the West tend to portray it. Every system has its pros and cons, and capitalism proved throughout the history to be the most flexible system that can be adapted to different needs and circumstances and can also evolve quite a lot. One of the things that contributed a lot to the anxiety of younger people and millennials is the fact that most of us grew up in an environment of widespread internet use. Internet provided a lot of means of instant gratification which fundamentally changed the way people's brains are hardwired, and the generation of digital native people is the main victim of that. So when people aged 15 to 35 come across a problem, they want quick and easy solutions like "end smth", "cancel smth/someone", "change government", "rewrite constitution" etc. A whole lot of energy is put into demanding for things to improve drastically and immediately, and very little energy is put into discussing the problems, devising sustainable solutions and actually working on making things better.
Anyway, thank you for your video!
I was about to recommend you reading Yanis Varoufakis and then you mentioned him. NEAT!
Hey, I really like your videos. they are well researched, writen and edited. thanks for breaking down a complex topic like anti-work and basic income and making easier to understand
Well this is another video I am about to think for about a week and just go crazy over this.
Quality content on UA-cam?! Bring your torches!!! ... I'm kidding, this is really a good video, liked and subscribed.
the anti work movement is actually really concerning. Work isn’t the problem. It’s being overworked and exploited.
I think the movement became so powerful because of the fact more of us are noticing the problem of being overworked and exploited. It’s definitely being acknowledged by the movement
@@LiveLoveSour yes that is true! I wish they had better language to illustrate that!
Agreed one can see working from home being a prime example of where exploiting staff by arguing they can work longer hours as they don't have to commute.
work is defined by the makers of anti work as exploited labor.
they're thus anti work, not anti labor
I just started learning french just so I can talk and meet with cute french girls. Thanks UA-cam for recommending this channel.
Just came to this after seeing a BBC Reel video on the early retirement movement.
First, they do this by having some kind of capital. They refer to a 'portfolio' over and over again. This magic thing that works for them. It hides the fact that money does not work on its own but needs the labour of others. So that 'portfolio' is dependent on the continuining socio-economic drudgery for most other people. Now, I have to hand it to people with the will and skills to make early retirement work, but when they pretend 'anyone can do it*' it's a lie. Only a few people can do it. If a lot of people tried to do this, it would fail, because early retirement for a few people depends on extracting as much surplus from other people's labour as possible, or worse, living off the rent they have no option but to pay.
this is exactly what ive been thinking lately. Glad I stumbled on your video
lets not forget this, people who are at risk of homelessness, despite there being such a vast array of information out there, have to worry about other nececities and have to deal with the low quality of things they have been issued, i dont think you can quite compare it, a poor person does not have the perspective of an afluent one and in order to achieve afluence before you become what you want, well, thats highly unlikely if your parents are poor. so, lets just say, people who are poorer or abjectively poor, have less experiences to draw from that let them make the decisions in order to become successful. never the less, that is quite impressive, but also not quite comparable to others, who may or may not be able to replicate his success... its not that easy, hard work never paid, oportunities are rare and most risky ideas fail. always be aware of that, he had his knowledge with him along the way, thats priceless!
There’s even been a movement towards making meaningful jobs meaningless. Ask any teacher or public health worker in the UK
i always love your insights, thank you for sharing them with us, hope you'll have a lovely break!
Hey I recommend u check out the end of capitalism (as we know it) by J.K Gibson-Graham. It's a feminist critique of capitalism and kind of describes really well the all encompassing nature of capitalism but also offers alternative terms - which helps with doing the imaginative / speculative work required to think of alternatives! Love Ur videos btw!
I think there's a balance between hustle culture and the anti-work movement. I see nothing wrong with working a 40 hour work week doing an unfulfilling or BS job and prioritizing leisure hours for family, hobbies, and other "unproductive" things. The book, Four Thousand Weeks was helpful in thinking about engaging in "unproductive" hobbies as an act of resistance against the hustle culture. (Also, from what I understand the companies that received bailouts paid back their loans to the government - from Barack Obama's A Promised Land. The situation surrounding the economic crisis might be worth looking into more...)
“And they call this making a living? Think about it. How many people have you seen who are more alive at the end of the workday than they were at the beginning? Do we come home from our “making a living” activity with more life? Do we bound through the door, refreshed and energized, ready for a great evening with the family? Where’s all the life we supposedly made at work? For many of us, isn’t the truth of it closer to “making a dying”? Aren’t we killing ourselves-our health, our relationships, our sense of joy and wonder-for our jobs?
Excerpt From
Your Money or Your Life
Vicki Robin
It may be below already, but Graeber and David Wengrow have a new book. Came out last October after Graebers unfortunate and unexpected death.
The Dawn Of Everying, has a lofty title, but is a very grounded book. No pun intended, the addition of Wengrow, an archaeologist provides Graeber an additional and tangible medium to make clear examples of alternative systems of human organization varied across cultures, centuries, and ideologies. Much of the work is based off of more recent developments in aracheology
Accidentally hit send, I’m on a phone. Wanted to finish by saying that with that bass, there is ample room for discussion of a lot of what you discuss here, and string to gather quite well in a short period of time so thank you! I think there book hopefully can be a foundation for many constructive conversations about what can be, as a result of now knowing more about what was, and what happened. Great respect to you and to the indigenous communities analyzed in the book. #landback
I think that a central component of why we as humans can't outrun capitalism is because of the way individualism in the market ("what can I provide?") aligns so easily with our experiences trying to define and understand our individualized experiences as human animals. Only I can know what I am thinking and feeling, so only I can fully observe, vocalize, and prioritize my needs, thus shaping the world (and the market) around me. We can build small support system networks but ultimately we have to be our own guides and advocates, even within those support systems.
Alice, I love your videos. My fav thing on UA-cam these days. Have you read the Meritocracy Trap?
Hard work will lead you nowhere, intelligent work will
warm welcome to every one who found the courage to face the fact that work life promises little future, and purpose & joy can be found elsewhere; let's be awesome together
The phrase you're looking for is 'magical volunteerism'.
Fascinating post. I really enjoyed this. It reminds me of Greek culture and education which we pale by comparison to. We have devolved. My theory is people don't want free education because the most innate fear is facing your own mediocrity.
I really like your video style, the way you present things in your videos.
The same was once said about Empires not failing but they all failed, same thing goes with feudalism many once said that they could not see it failing and then capitalism came about. Nothing lasts forever that goes for everything, and for those who wonder where the money comes from or how we would get it the answer is we simply create it, humans create the value without the human element there is no value. During the 2008 financial crisis if society actually believed in capitalism then all of the financial institutions should have collapsed but all of us wouldn't have any money or jobs, and the U.S. dollar would no longer be the world's reserve currency. America didn't want to give that up so all they did was print more money and we gobble it up, every dollar on the market is a line of credit every job on the market is backed by a line of credit.
In capitalism wealth is not created it is only borrowed, the Federal Reserve has a debt tab for America in the tune of 85 trillion dollars in counting, if wealth was actually created debt would not exist. All that takes place in our current monetary system, is money is borrowed and then shifted throughout the market, baffles my mind these financial institutions expect you to pay back what you borrowed with interest when you didn't have the money in the first place and no mechanism of making new money without borrowing it. Fyi the financial crisis has never left us the FED simply continues to print more money, almost on a quarterly basis the banks run out of money and the Fed just prints more to keep capitalism alive.
Some would argue we need to go back to the gold standard, but that would make things even worse because there's not enough gold to go around, and it's easy to make fools gold. It's never good to go backwards, humans have no choice but to move forward and get beyond the idea of capitalism. If we don't we only stagnate our progression by thousands of years of which has already taken place because of capitalism. There is a better way we simply just have to implement it just like we did capitalism and feudalism and everything that came before.
Idk about you but the guy who did the homeless 1Mil seems like a “hail hydra” type situation, he just conveniently went viral on tik tok, had housing (he solved the issue of homelessness day one, although most homeless people do too through the charity of others)
After reading a lot of comments i´ve come to the question, how classes would still exitst in a future with unconditional basic income. I mean, yes we would all get the same amount of basic income, but there is still old money. Wouldn´t that uphold privileges still?
If anyone knows about a theory dealing with this topic or just has some thoughts about it, i would be really interested!:)
in a lot of different schools of thought, inheritance is seen as just that, and that all forms of inheritance should be banned. also, UBI doesn't come close to abolishing class, as a basic income doesn't change who is in charge of the workplace, and the work.
UBI is only a means to level the playing field a bit. Class struggles would still persist, but the conditions for the lowest classes would be significantly better.
@@janebaker966 damn, apparently you don't know history, as well as being pessimistic. drug abuse goes UP when people don't have money, and it goes DOWN when people do have money. you can also see that in rich countries they have limited cigarette use, while in poor countries they have unrestricted use. apparently you know less about human nature than you think you do.
@@ethanstump ha ha ha its just you!
@@janebaker966 ? clarify.
I like work. Usefulness keeps us outta trouble.
Alice: "How do we create a realistic socio-economic model where people have the right to work or not. And if they do then they can pursue something fulfilling to them."
Capitalism: That's the neat part, You don't.
Ever heard of welfare states?
I really enjoyed this! I kept expecting you to mention Modern Monetary Theory. I think you would be interested in Kate Raworth’s book, The Deficit Myth. She also has a TED Talk which is probably here on UA-cam. If you do, I would love to hear you discuss how real and artificial scarcity perpetuates poverty and inequality, and why techno-feudalists are pushing people toward artificially scarce cryptocurrencies.
Rekindling Democracy by Cormac Russell may give you an interesting perspective. I still have to finish it, but I really recommend it!
This is a great work!! First video I saw from the channel and it is really good! New sub, big love from Argentina Buenos Aires
you guys might find "Hegemony and revoluion" by Antonio Gramsci as an interesting read. "Manufacturing consent" by Noam Chomsky as well
The most conspicuous thing about the soft-spoken, intellectual, Foucaultian French lady and her digestible deconstructions of consumer capitalism is how she flashes a bit of bra and looks generally breathless on the UA-cam cover videos. All for the cause, I'm sure.
This guy wasn't "homeless" for a single night.
LOL went homeless on purpose. Such a load of BS.
The middle ground: FIRE
Well said! I think we need to create better systems for people to have actual free time to pursue what they like. Universal basic income etc. We have to change everything about how we do things. And it starts from the ground up. Everyone quiting their job is a perfect start. As for jobs that no one wants to do we rotate them. We could all have like 2 hours of actual important work to do. Like oh today im on food duty or toilet duty. Everyone will start being cleaner because everyone will want that work to get down to an hour instead.
How about a dual, system? You have to work 14 hours a week, doing a "shitty" but necessary job of your choosing to earn your Universal Basic Income. Then, the rest is up to you.
A little bit of both worlds.
Feel free to tear this idea appart or add to it.
This idea is bad because disabled people exist and I don't trust any system to be able to determine which people are "disabled enough" for an exemption
People lack Philosophical principle they can keep for themselves. I am not Buddhist but I do believe that living is accompanied by pain and suffering. How can one realize happiness without experiencing sadness? How can one experience pleasure without knowing pain? Life is not about finding purpose or passion or happiness. Life is a something you experience. Life is what you make it. What is the connection with hustle culture and anti-work culture? People work to survive no matter how bullshit or fulfilling their job is. Now, people see as getting the job for pleasure. No. Job is a continuous struggle to live and to survive. Not all people wanted the job they have. Most of them do it because they need to survive. Life is what you make it. You can still do your passion and not consider it work. The moment you transform your passion to work, it will turn out to be work and not passion anymore. People are lost for finding their passion with their work. I work a job I hate and I pursue my passion in a healthy way, I do it in secret and in a more personal and intimate way. Separate your hobbies with your skills. Hobbies are things you like doing and continue improving while skills are things you acquire as you practise.
you as a brand AND... who you (and more importantly your parents) know
As I am learning more about Posmodernism, I realize how it seems like it is a direct result from the development of centralized forms of the market. And how this has contributed to this new era of "technofeudalism".
By this I mean that it seems like Posmodernism is the result of loss of Enlightened values, formed in the XVIII century, replaced by capitalistic values. The end result is the dehumanization of people, valued only to the extent where they are productive and can "contribute to society".
Hustle culture and the I don't dream of labor movement are, as Alice so beautifully put it, an attempt to escape the capitalist trap. People who have the privilege to stop for a minute and realize that they hold more value than just how productive they are to a company. Which seems more in lone with the Declaration of Human Rights that the Enlightenment brought. So, there is a trend to go back to these values we had previously lost.
I'd only be paraphrasing at this point. For I get to the same conclusion: how do we move on from capitalism? How do we reconfigure our society to respect the basic human rights?
On a personal note, I believe that human nature plays a crucial role here and might be the reason why we resist to change to a more cooperative system. There is a reason why bullying of the weakling at schools happens. There is a reason why women have been dominated by men... Power and strength drive us. Some people are naturally more competitive and will want to take advantage of a situation when given the chance. Ultimately, we rely on the strong and powerful to let go of their power, or at least not to abuse it... Knowing how people are, I do not see this happening any time soon.
I imagine it's easier to eat meat when you don't have to slaughter your own cow. That's the centralized market form you speak of. But you also take less pride in the meal you prepped from that cow. I've worked in a small business for a long time and I do think that makes it easier to assign value to your job than working for a giant business. I haven't really had any big business experience so I don't know.
“Anybody can become a millionaire! You just need an address and a phone and a government-issued ID and nice clothes and relatively stable mental health and transportation and work experience and job references and the ability to write a resume and cover letter so you can get an office job, business knowledge and connections and access to the internet and money for the startup costs of a small online business (which always turn profits immediately, might I add), and an able body and a vehicle so you can move large items that you obtained for free and sell them for a ridiculous markup despite adding no value whatsoever to the product (which is definitely not a problematic business practice at all). Did i mention I’m homeless? You can tell by the giant kitchen full of brand new stainless steel appliances in my backdrop”
edit: wanna clarify that if an actual homeless person sells items they obtained for free and in order to survive, I have no criticism - it’s just uber annoying that this bourgeoise can of expired sardines is suggesting it
very nice! Cannot contribute to the discussion, but the questions are relevant.
People did those s__t jobs before capitalism existed. I mean, there's entire complex systems of privilege and prestige that accrue to individuals who prepare the bodies of the dead in pre-colonialist indigenous cultures, for example. Money is NOT the only currency people exchange for the labor of others, and wealth also isn't the only motivator or driver for people to do work (not even now).
I'm reminded of a conversation I had recently in which I pointed out that everyone has the right to be given care, AND ALSO that no one has the right to force you to administer care to someone else. No one of European descent could even figure out what I meant--that, in a fairly-healthy society, SOMEONE will freely choose to step forward to help another person, and that being considered PART of society (worthy of being helped) was actually a human right. Healthy people don't refuse to help others all the time--helping other people, sharing humanity, FEELS good. We enjoy it, and it answers our own individual need for connection and community. Healthy people build healthy communities, and they don't need wealth accumulation to motivate them to do right by other people.
I mean, part of loving your family members includes being willing to do the s__t jobs when they need you to, because you also know they'll hold your own hair back when you're sick.
I think that seems so foreign to so many people now because abusive and toxic systems that stratify and concentrate power are so widespread. We don't believe people will take care of each other without being paid to do so, because those who hoard wealth demonstrate so very clearly that they will not take care of us without greed (or violence/coercion) to motivate them.
But they're not really our leaders, or our parents. And we don't have to structure our relationships with other people, our social networks, or our communities in the (very unhealthy) ways they're trying to force us into.
my passion is lazing around
I held out on working until I found a local boss who started offering much better pay with benefits and time off without a wall of fine print. Meanwhile other businesses in the area that refused to make a decent offer and condescended to applicants ended up imploding during the lockdowns. I don't want to stomp on the face of the defeated, but it's _very_ tempting to gloat at the now-unemployed hiring managers.
Because I was taught and observed also that nobody is out there to help me I learned to fend for myself only and give absolutely no fks about others anymore. The day I become successful is the day I liberate only myself with that money away from society and give no hand to anyone. This will be the way to buy myself out of this system and others will just have to do the same and if not, their problem and worry. We're not in this together at all. I'm alone in this.
Very insightful video. What are your thoughts on the current post-feminist economic culture, where now both sexes are expected to be employed, whereas before only men had to work? Basics such as housing now costs "twice" as much because it is expected to be paid for with two incomes vs one. Is it better? Worse? Less fulfilling or more fulfilling? Would be interesting to hear your perspective.
It sucks for the hypothetical baby, that's for sure.
it's about portfolio not personal branding
No matter how complex a form of socialism one can imagine, the outcome is the same: it still does not work.
demonstrably false
@@sldulin well, how about a demonstration…..
@@RANDassociatesinc Oops, no reply
@@tiztu6321 There will be NO reply. EVER. They spew but cannot sustain.
@@sldulin Nothing is MORE demonstrable than Socialism's consistent track record for COMPLETE failure as an economic system in every scenario where it has been applied. Sure, there are laws that have been inspired by socialists such as workman's compensation, but every economic implementation, such as minimum wage and universal basic income, as but two examples, have been COMPLETE disasters and especially so for the people it was claimed to be help for. Centrally planned economies? 100% complete disaster. No exceptions. BUT good old socialist just right in with their "oh. socialism has just been vilified because people misunderstand it but REAL socialism hasn't been tried!!!" REALLY? Even its most fundamental principles FAIL on the basis of logic alone and of course are complete desasgteres when implemented. So...good luck and all the best with your unicorn sparkles and magic thinking.
I think I have an answer to the question; what about the jobs noone wants to do? Well, supply and demand. Let the market do its thing. If the demand for job X is high, the price someone is willing to pay to do that job will be high as well. At a certain paygrade there will be someone passionate enough about that sum of money to do this dirty job. If someone would pay me $5000 USD an hour to scrub toilets I would happily scrub one toilet in an hour and pursue my passion the rest of the month.
Can someone please simplify the meaning of technofeudalism? I think I somewhat understand what it is, but I don't understand it fully.
Technofeudalism and Modern 'capitalism' are close to Mercantalism which was what Capitalism and Marxism/Communism/Socialism were formed to go against.
Though every model I have seen shows UBI only works if there are no other welfare systems alongside there being no minimum wage.
I have been interested in the same thing. How to get rid of b.s. jobs???