Would You Work for No Pay If It Was Something You Enjoyed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the notion that in a communist or socialist society, people may not work because their basic needs would be met by the state, leading to a lack of motivation. Contributors debate whether they would engage in enjoyable work without pay, with many expressing a willingness to contribute to society through hobbies or passions like writing, farming, or healthcare. Some argue that while they might participate in community activities, they wouldn't do so full-time without compensation. The conversation also touches on the potential for technology to reduce the need for traditional work hours, allowing for a more leisurely lifestyle. Overall, the thread explores the complexities of work, motivation, and societal structure in alternative economic systems.

What community-oriented work would you do for no pay?


  • Total voters
    37
  • #31
I would play music for free.

And I'd be more than glad to receive health-care for free.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Smurf said:
Do you have one now?
The problem with criticizing anarcho-socialist theories by saying they can't easily get certain products is that most individuals usually can't get them under this economy either.

Well for one, what kinda society would you be having if you took the actual manhours out of hte system to build luxury cars for every citizen that wanted one? You're trying to compare systems when the original selling point is that by itself, its a great system.
 
  • #33
Pengwuino said:
Of course not but how effective would you be if you're juggling 3 different types of jobs? What kinda cook do you think you'd have if on monday he cooks, tuesday he programs software, and wednesday he builds houses?
A cook that also built your house and programmed your OS?

You don't need a lifetime of dedication to learn to cook food pengwuino.
 
  • #34
Smasherman said:
Would you truly wish to devote your entire life to only one type of job? That sounds rather repetitive to me.


I think I got it! No way man

I think the best plan would be:

Mandatory FREE education until 21, including bachelors level degree. After that you have a set of options in blocks of 6 months of each! So you get to experience different jobs your whole life, and a total security!

Another option is to continue specializing and getting Masters or PHD - and then you'd have more advanced options like teaching and research and further specialization that you can choose yourself! Its like choosing an outline for your life that you can edit later depending on the most needed positions which would be presented to you as your part of your options list :biggrin:

Oh and I think we should limit our population growth! No more than 2 kids per family!

Call this a fascist state but it will work wonders I think
 
  • #35
Smurf said:
A cook that also built your house and programmed your OS?

See how rediculous it would be. You can't do 3 jobs and be any good at any of them.
 
  • #36
Pengwuino said:
Well for one, what kinda society would you be having if you took the actual manhours out of hte system to build luxury cars for every citizen that wanted one? You're trying to compare systems when the original selling point is that by itself, its a great system.
Who says we'd build a ferari for every dink that wants one?
 
  • #37
Pengwuino said:
See how rediculous it would be. You can't do 3 jobs and be any good at any of them.
:smile: :smile: :smile: Nevermind pengwuino... go back to humping rocks.
 
  • #38
One could cook in the morning and program during the day. One could undertake a building project for however long needed, doing less cooking and programming as a result. Though perhaps a little less efficient, people could conceivably be happier with a variety of tasks to occupy them. Happier people tend to be more efficient, possibly offsetting the decrease in efficiency from not streamlining.
 
  • #39
Smasherman said:
One could cook in the morning and program during the day. One could undertake a building project for however long needed, doing less cooking and programming as a result. Though perhaps a little less efficient, people could conceivably be happier with a variety of tasks to occupy them. Happier people tend to be more efficient, possibly offsetting the decrease in efficiency from not streamlining.

Holy hell are you serious. People's happiness would be horribly offset by the inefficiencies that would grow out of the fact that people barely do anything for any amount of time.
 
  • #40
Smurf said:
Who says we'd build a ferari for every dink that wants one?

Well its what the community wants...

See, its bull.

I can't believe people think like you.

I Am God.
 
  • #41
Pengwuino said:
I Am God.
Pfft. i easily have more worshippers than you.
 
  • #42
Perhaps it would be best to perform an experiment involving one group of people who do one job over and over again and another group of people that diversify their jobs.

Colleges look for students who do non-academic things, correct? Why is this? Is it because diverse individuals are more productive?
 
  • #43
Smasherman said:
Perhaps it would be best to perform an experiment involving one group of people who do one job over and over again and another group of people that diversify their jobs.

Colleges look for students who do non-academic things, correct? Why is this? Is it because diverse individuals are more productive?

Nah because its a source of cheap labor :devil:
 
  • #44
Did you have to lump education and child care together? I love teaching, but hate babysitting. No way in heck I'd offer to take care of anyone's kids but my own. I've always said that if I didn't have to work to earn a living, I'd teach.

I don't see anything else on that list that I'd do for free. I got the education I got so I would earn enough to NOT have to do those to earn a living.
 
  • #45
I wouldn't of, except I ran out of options.

Cooking isn't even on the list. So child care and education got lumped, probably because my kids are smallish and the two are still basically the same chore.

(well, that, and my college age students are really in need of a grounding from time to time. )
 
  • #46
Smurf said:
Patty's understanding of anarcho-socialist thought it rough at best.
Hey now. While I'm not even sure that you've used proper English, I am pretty sure that I've just been insulted.

I told you (or someone else) that I am not a communist. So I may not appreciate the nuances of anarcho-socialism.

But! The main beef I have with the converation in PWA is the idea that "people won't work if they don't have to..." The fact that no one out of 12 respondents *here* has chosen "none," is strong evidence that I was right - people work at things they enjoy for the common good, out of basic human drives of decency etc.

Even if half of the population wanted to be lazy (or, alternatively, all the population half the time) it seems that society should still function well enough.
 
  • #47
pattylou said:
I am pretty sure that I've just been insulted.
Of course not. My insults are far more creative than that. That was me excusing you from your position as thread monitor. It's a hijacking without actually changing the subject. Quite clever, really.
 
  • #48
Well, alright then. As long as we have that cleared up.

Smurf is terribly clever, and Patty has not been insulted. I'm good with that.
 
  • #49
Pengwuino said:
Hmm... living in a world with only basic needs? BORING.
The idea is that if there is something you enjoy doing, you might do it - and thereby relieve your boredom.
 
  • #50
pattylou said:
Smurf is terribly clever, and Patty has not been insulted.
got that right.
 
  • #51
I'm sorry.. are we forgetting about the Teotihuacan ?!? That was the greatest civilization before Aztecs! They've had just the society you are thinking of, Patty. Not to mention their far greater pyramids than some lame Egyptian ones
Edit: well ok maybe Egyptians had a better pyramids, but their reasons were lame!
http://www.crystalinks.com/mexico.html
 
Last edited:
  • #52
i said childcare/education... but i wouldn't do both probably. if i had to watch kids and try to educate them as well... that'd suck. but i can just entertain kids for a while, or i can just teach them.

i'd probably also build a house... i just don't know how. so i didn't check it. likewise with healthcare.

i definately wouldn't take care of the eldery... ew. what would be the point of taking care of the elderly anyway?
 
  • #53
cronxeh said:
I'm sorry.. are we forgetting about the Teotihuacan ?!? That was the greatest civilization before Aztecs! They've had just the society you are thinking of, Patty. Not to mention their far greater pyramids than some lame Egyptian ones
http://www.crystalinks.com/mexico.html
They were also maletheists. They believed their gods would love nothing better than to destroy them and made human sacrifices to appease them. I'm sure working hard for your community made it less likely that you'd get the sharp end of the dagger or be used as a guinea pig for cranial experiments.

----edit----

The pyramids are also pretty clear evidence that there was slave labour in their society.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
TheStatutoryApe said:
They were also maletheists. They believed their gods would love nothing better than to destroy them and made human sacrifices to appease them. I'm sure working hard for your community made it less likely that you'd get the sharp end of the dagger or be used as a guinea pig for cranial experiments.
----edit----
The pyramids are also pretty clear evidence that there was slave labour in their society.

Well they were polytheists, i don't know where you got the message that they feared their gods - probably seeked to please them rather than fearing them. Although a couple of volcano eruptions would've made them more scared of the 'gods'

Slaves not in same sense as European kind of slaves. At least judging by what Aztecs considered 'slave':

Slaves or tlacotin (distinct from war captives) also constituted an important class. This slavery was very different from what Europeans of the same period were to establish in their colonies, although it had much in common with the slaves of classical antiquity. (Sahagún doubts the appropriateness even of the term "slavery" for this Aztec institution.) First, slavery was personal, not hereditary: a slave's children were free. A slave could have possessions and even own other slaves. Slaves could buy their liberty, and slaves could be set free if they were able to show they had been mistreated or if they had children with or were married to their masters.

Typically, upon the death of the master, slaves who had performed outstanding services were freed. The rest of the slaves were passed on as part of an inheritance.

Another rather remarkable method for a slave to recover liberty was described by Manuel Orozco y Berra in La civilización azteca (1860): if, at the tianquiztli (marketplace; the word has survived into modern-day Spanish as "tianguis"), a slave could escape the vigilance of his or her master, run outside the walls of the market and step on a piece of human excrement, he could then present his case to the judges, who would free him. He or she would then be washed, provided with new clothes (so that he or she would not be wearing clothes belonging to the master), and declared free. Because, in stark contrast to the European colonies, a person could be declared a slave if he or she attempted to prevent the escape of a slave (unless that person were a relative of the master), others would not typically help the master in preventing the slave's escape.
Wooden collar.
Enlarge
Wooden collar.

Orozco y Berra also reports that a master could not sell a slave without the slave's consent, unless the slave had been classified as incorrigible by an authority. (Incorrigibility could be determined on the basis of repeated laziness, attempts to run away, or general bad conduct.) Incorrigible slaves were made to wear a wooden collar, affixed by rings at the back. The collar was not merely a symbol of bad conduct: it was designed to make it harder to run away through a crowd or through narrow spaces.

When buying a collared slave, one was informed of how many times that slave had been sold. A slave who was sold four times as incorrigible could be sold to be sacrificed; those slaves commanded a premium in price.

However, if a collared slave managed to present him- or herself in the royal palace or in a temple, he or she would regain liberty.

An Aztec could become a slave as a punishment. A murderer sentenced to death could instead, upon the request of the wife of his victim, be given to her as a slave. A father could sell his son into slavery if the son was declared incorrigible by an authority. Those who did not pay their debts could also be sold as slaves.

People could sell themselves as slaves. They could stay free long enough to enjoy the price of their liberty, about twenty blankets, usually enough for a year; after that time they went to their new master. Usually this was the destiny of gamblers and of old ahuini (courtesans or prostitutes).

Motolinía reports that some captives, future victims of sacrifice, were treated as slaves with all the rights of an Aztec slave until the time of their sacrifice, but it is not clear how they were kept from running away.
 
  • #55
Definitely fishing, I do it all the time for no pay.:wink:
 
  • #56
Funny, the only thing you couldn't get me to do for any amount of money is take care of children. I didn't even like children when I was a child. Once in a blue moon an intelligent child comes along that I can tolerate, but it's rare, very rare.
 
  • #57
Evo said:
Funny, the only thing you couldn't get me to do for any amount of money is take care of children. I didn't even like children when I was a child. Once in a blue moon an intelligent child comes along that I can tolerate, but it's rare, very rare.

and then there's the Evochild, right? :rolleyes:
 
  • #58
cronxeh said:
and then there's the Evochild, right? :rolleyes:
She's that very, very rare child, (and her sister) and they know it.
 
  • #59
Smurf said:
:smile: :smile: Finally proof that Russ understanding of english doesn't include "contribute to the common good".
It's called realism, Smurf. People who win the lottery do not go back to work and the USSR wallowed in mediocrity because there were no rewards for doing good work. Just because what you imagine can exist inside your head does not mean it can exist in reality. In your head, you are able to ignore the contradictions and flaws. In reality, what you imagine simply cannot work.

And since we live in a capitalist society, Smurf, the best way for me to "contribute to the common good" is to do a good job at my job, get paid well, and pump that money back into the economy by spending it. And I will.

And though liberals like to think they have the market cornered on pulling your weight for the sake of pulling your weight, they are the ones who are pushing to reward people for not pulling their weight!

When I left the navy, I was unemployed for exactly 60 days - I actually started looking for a job before I left. When my hippie roommate got laid off from his job, he went on a 2-month road-trip out west and then lived off the extended unemployment Bush got passed for the next year before making a serious attempt at finding a new job. There is a reason why rich people are Republicans and it ain't because they became rich before they became Republicans.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
I have always wanted to go live in a farm house in the country, like the ones in Norah Roberts' novels.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
9K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K