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

  • Thread starter Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread 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
  • #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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #61
pattylou said:
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 ...
Correct !
...for the common good, out of basic human drives of decency etc.
Only correct if "etc" includes things like "out of a desire to live, and not atrophy". There's no evidence that all 12 respondents want to work "for the common good". Many have chosen to do things that simply give them pleasure.
 
  • #62
Another thing to keep in mind is the particular crowd that's being polled here. I've met planty of people that would do nothing but play video games and the like all day if they could get away with it.
One of my good friends is in graduate school and really hasn't any plans to do anything with himself but to keep going to school. He makes really good money working as a teachers aid which usually doesn't take up much of his time and he mostly finds it annoying. He spends most of his time drinking, reading random essays on cognitive science, and playing on his computer.
 
  • #63
I would spend the first half of my life preparing for the second half of my life, where I created a needed product so unique and so successful that it would establish a new standard within its industry, and I would protect that product with intellectual property that guaranteed that product would dominate its industry for many, many, many years, and after individuals all over the globe understood that the product would dominate its industry for many, many, many years, I would leave my immediate family forever, give away all the wealth that I derived from that creation, and spend the final days of my life in solitude, for the non-guaranteed opportunity to teach you what is "right".

o:)
 
  • #64
jimmie said:
I would spend the first half of my life preparing for the second half of my life, where I created a needed product so unique and so successful that it would establish a new standard within its industry, and I would protect that product with intellectual property that guaranteed that product would dominate its industry for many, many, many years, and after individuals all over the globe understood that the product would dominate its industry for many, many, many years, I would leave my immediate family forever, give away all the wealth that I derived from that creation, and spend the final days of my life in solitude, for the non-guaranteed opportunity to teach you what is "right".
o:)

That doesn't make any sense given the context of our hypothetical situation here. In a world with no money, seemingly with no transactions of any kind, in which people's needs are simply provided for them, the very concepts of "wealth" and "products" and "intellectual property" are dubious at best. You're free to create whatever industry standard you wish, but you would derive no gain from it personally outside of satisfaction and the gains that it wrought for the entire community.
 
  • #65
not no transaction of any kind. Just no monetary transactions.
 
  • #66
wasteofo2 said:
I would play music for free.
For "fun" is what I think you mean. For the enjoyment of yourself and others.

But I hope you wouldn't be a lazy ass playing music all day for free. Like that beggar down the street... Your real job would be programming OSs and hand-building Ferraris for the people that worked hard enough to get enough money, to buy them.
 
  • #67
All I've ever wanted to do was to have a huge animal shelter. I wish I could find some way to do that and make a living at it, but that's tough. If I had all the money I needed, that's what I would do.
 
  • #68
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.
Even today's Catholic religion seems to be the same idea to me. If you do certain designated things you spend all of eternity (well almost that long) in an unimaginably bad place. Since, the Church and/or local king could "interpret" the Bible really, however they wanted; they would decide what it says and what it doesn't, thereby controlling their people in yet another way.

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'
Well, you kind of want to be cool with an omnipotent being(s). I would say it was fearing and pleasing them at the same time.

Of course, maybe more towards fearing... they murdered unimaginable amounts of people annually, on top of those pyramids, ripping out their beating hearts. Some festivals, such as their spring festival (forgot the name), required children to be sacrificed.

I don't know what would drive a sane human to do and watch willingly those kinds of things. To please someone? Maybe out of fear that it would happen to you. I admit I'd rather have it happen to someone else than myself.
 
Last edited:
  • #69
Anyway, the poll, pattylou, is poorly constructed. If you want to know if people would work if they did not have to (or if you didn't get paid), you should ask 'would you work if you did not have to?' or 'what would you do if you did not get paid to work?' in a straightforward yes-or-no way and provide yes or no answers. It appears that the question people are answering is 'if you did not get paid, but still had to work, what would you do?' and the conclusions you drew cannot be gathered from answering that question.
 
  • #70
Hunting sounds good to me always enjoyed stalking lil rabbits as a kid with my grandads air rifle. Other would be playing soccer or spending more time playing my guitar and apart from that i would sit around watching MTV!
 
  • #71
I've done a little of most items on the list and most of those without compensation in the form of pay, but not full time for extended periods.

In the poll I voted for "other." If my basic needs were to be met, I would do some form of art, music, drama or writing. The thing is, these arts are one of the first things to go if others are required to provide for the basic needs of the artists. They get directed as to what is and what is not worthy of state funded work.
 
  • #72
russ_watters said:
Anyway, the poll, pattylou, is poorly constructed. If you want to know if people would work if they did not have to (or if you didn't get paid), you should ask 'would you work if you did not have to?' or 'what would you do if you did not get paid to work?' in a straightforward yes-or-no way and provide yes or no answers. It appears that the question people are answering is 'if you did not get paid, but still had to work, what would you do?' and the conclusions you drew cannot be gathered from answering that question.

I don't believe that is an option in Patty's view of a utopian society. Everyone has to work, its just a matter of working doing what makes you happy. Particularly some people find joy doing certain things, even be it gaming. I could find plenty of jobs for those computer types - running remote oil drilling bases, operating robots and equipment, scheduling tasks and monitoring levels, punching in and out on the system. So thus if something breaks down mechanically they can order the parts and then inspect the replacement process, but I'm sure as technology becomes more advanced those events would become more and more rare. Thus one guy would operate an entire nuclear power plant from his house and be responsible for it. Sounds far fetched? Well today it is, in future I don't see any other reasonable way - a team of engineers watching the console 24/7 is just plain stupid.

Now on the other hand the technology and automata should enable farming of dozens of acres by one person, and in the future I don't see a need for people to actually "drive" the cars, trucks and trains - it should be automated. The real question of course would be.. what the hell are we going to do with the 10+ billion people spawned by then? STOP HUMPING PEOPLE!
 
  • #73
russ_watters said:
Anyway, the poll, pattylou, is poorly constructed. If you want to know if people would work if they did not have to (or if you didn't get paid), you should ask 'would you work if you did not have to?' or 'what would you do if you did not get paid to work?' in a straightforward yes-or-no way and provide yes or no answers. It appears that the question people are answering is 'if you did not get paid, but still had to work, what would you do?' and the conclusions you drew cannot be gathered from answering that question.
I thought pattylou was talking about volunteer work outside of my regular job. If what she meant was if I didn't have to work, all of my needs were cared for already, would I work for free anyway...NO, I might volunteer time to time.
 
Last edited:
  • #74
If I didn't have to work - I would certainly still work - since I enjoy doing interesting and meaningful things.

I voted for:

farming (agriculture) - really an extension of the gardening I enjoy,
carpentry (construction) - I do that at home, and I like building things, particularly useful things,
education/child care - I like teaching, especially children,

other - I would like to be working on irrigation, agricultural, transportation and energy projects in Africa, South America and Asia, or wherever there is an opportunity to improve the quality of life for people.

:smile:
 
  • #75
Work in a orchestra
 
Last edited:
  • #76
Evo said:
I thought pattylou was talking about volunteer work outside of my regular job. If what she meant was if I didn't have to work, all of my needs were cared for already, would I work for free anyway...NO, I might volunteer time to time.
I figured most people missed it (I hadn't considered that interpretation, though), but this poll is an offshoot of a conversation in the politics forum...
 
  • #77
Math Is Hard said:
All I've ever wanted to do was to have a huge animal shelter. I wish I could find some way to do that and make a living at it, but that's tough. If I had all the money I needed, that's what I would do.
:smile: :smile: :smile: I love your barbie borg.
 
  • #78
russ_watters said:
Anyway, the poll, pattylou, is poorly constructed. If you want to know if people would work if they did not have to (or if you didn't get paid), you should ask (a) 'would you work if you did not have to?' or (b) 'what would you do if you did not get paid to work?' in a straightforward yes-or-no way and provide yes or no answers. It appears that the question people are answering is (c) 'if you did not get paid, but still had to work, what would you do?' and the conclusions you drew cannot be gathered from answering that question.


(a) Obviously there is a need to work in any situation where people hope to live. We need to eat and have shelter. Question 'a' is senseless.

(b) There is no stratification of wealth in this scenario, and so your question 'b' is the same as my poll.

(c) I fail to understand how you cannot draw conclusions based on the way the question was framed.

I think you're wrong in your assessment of what people here thought they were answering, and whether conclusions can be drawn. I'll start a poll to see.
 
  • #79
Evo said:
I thought pattylou was talking about volunteer work outside of my regular job. If what she meant was if I didn't have to work, all of my needs were cared for already, would I work for free anyway...NO, I might volunteer time to time.

Volunteering *is* working for free. And your needs aren't provided, unless the community (of which you are a part) is able to provide them. Nowhere did I (or anyone) imply that needs are met without any input from individuals, Russ is mistaken if he is projecting that onto the question.

I also never stipulated how much time would need to be donated per person (I don't know what it would take in a well run money-less society).
 
Last edited:
  • #80
I voted 'other'. I was thinking of some care-in-the-community type thing, helping former PF poll addicts get on with their lives. I may start as soon as I've finished my caption kick. I did think about working with children, but I think I'd get more done on my own.

I have never had MTV. Has anyone else never had MTV? Maybe I should start a thread. Should I start a thread? Is asking if you should start a thread off-topic? Don't tell me if it is.
 
  • #81
If by starting such a thread you are contributing to the welfare of the community, then in no way is asking such thing off topic on this thread.
 
  • #82
Theoreticaly its best for everyone to help and work together for free. In this case personaly I would work for free. but unfortunatly many people will abuse and take advantage of the system and thus resulting in corruption. In the system that we live in today (work for money) I do not want to work for free unless I'll be working with 2 or 3 other people who are also doing the deed for free.

We all know that how we work will never change. It will alway's be for money. Trying to convince someone else is useless and won't change anything. Makeing little changes approaching working for free is stupid because people will complain about child labour which will limit the activity so no sides may make a profit of money. Also these little changes will make it harder for the society to build itself since the societies sorrounding it rely on money.
 
  • #83
I checked 'hunting'; although I don't do it for sport, I certainly would for food if necessary. Also 'teaching', although I'm with Moonbear on the babysitting issue. Also 'other', which would be my favourite activities of mechanical design/building/maintenance, flying, helping out with lab work or whatnot. And, of course, being SOS's love slave.:-p
 
  • #84
Realistically, I would probably do any of those things if those that I cared about needed me to. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would really enjoy doing any of them (except education), so I wouldn't be likely to devote my life to it.

I do believe that a certain amount of philanthropy is good for a society and I certainly don't think that every act of kindness encourages laziness, but there are always limits. Helping out in a nursing home or giving some occasional free tutoring (or posting on PF! :smile:) can be very good. Giving money to every homeless person you pass on the street...probably not the best idea.
 
  • #85
eax said:
Theoreticaly its best for everyone to help and work together for free.
What theory is this ?
 
  • #86
Gokul43201 said:
What theory is this ?
Hypothetically? :biggrin:
 
  • #87
pattylou said:
:smile: :smile: :smile: I love your barbie borg.
thank you. It's my halloween costume. :smile:
 
  • #88
I selected other.

I would volunteer my time 24/7 to the destruction of the society in which I lived.
 
  • #89
LOL. You're an angel, Jimmie.
 
  • #90
You left a few options off the poll.

1) coal miner
2) fry cook
3) shoe shiner
4) Prison warden
5) person who cleans up vomit at disneyland
6) chimney sweep
7) garbage collector

How many of you would do THOSE jobs for free? There's a reason you have to pay people to do those jobs- they're HORRIBLE. But they're all very important jobs, so if you want a good society, someone has to do them. And if no one's willing to do them voluntarily for the good of others (and they shouldn't!) you're going to have to FORCE them to.

What a glorious society it'll be when we replace paid labor with slave labor.:mad:
 
  • #91
I wouldn't mind collecting garbage. Who the hell needs someone else to shine their own shoes in the first place? What kind of whimps do you think live in our worlds :biggrin:

edit: actually the same goes for cooking, sweeping your chimney and cleaning up your own vomit.

I assume whoever runs disneyland will clean up disneyland
 
Last edited:
  • #92
pi-r8 said:
You left a few options off the poll.
1) coal miner
2) fry cook
3) shoe shiner
4) Prison warden
5) person who cleans up vomit at disneyland
6) chimney sweep
7) garbage collector
How many of you would do THOSE jobs for free? There's a reason you have to pay people to do those jobs- they're HORRIBLE. But they're all very important jobs, so if you want a good society, someone has to do them. And if no one's willing to do them voluntarily for the good of others (and they shouldn't!) you're going to have to FORCE them to.
What a glorious society it'll be when we replace paid labor with slave labor.:mad:

Based on the other poll about understanding this poll, I'd say there are a LOT of things left off this one. The list here includes fairly respectable jobs, not the really menial, disgusting jobs that I can't imagine anyone would do if they weren't paid for it. Who will clean those absolutely filthy public restrooms, especially after some deranged person gets in and spreads feces on all the surfaces (yes, this does happen), or collect the trash, or empty the septic tanks, or climb around mucky crawlspaces to exterminate termites, ants or the ocassional raccoon? Who would be a hospital orderly responsible for cleaning up the mess in the ER when the floor is covered in bodily fluids? Just because you can find people to volunteer for this one list of jobs, it doesn't mean you can find people willing to volunteer for all the jobs society needs to have done. Heck, there are some jobs that it's hard enough to find people to do them for pay let alone without pay.
 
  • #93
Ok, so maybe shoe shining isn't the most crucial sector of the economy. But would you really want to be a garbageman? You said you wouldn't mind doing it, but would you honestly do it if everything was free? More importantly, do you think enough people would do it, and do it well?
 
  • #94
If I was being provided with everything from some magical entity, no I wouldn't collect garbage. I assume that magical entity which gives me everything I need would take away everything I don't need too.
 
  • #95
Smurf said:
I assume whoever runs disneyland will clean up disneyland
Just one person is going to do all the work there? That doesn't even make sense. Do you have any idea how many employees they have? (I'm sure Zz can answer off the top of his head if you need a precise number). I guess your world won't have many things like Disneyland, because those require employees to run them. But if they have to do everything for themselves, even things they aren't particularly good at, they won't have time for recreation anyway.
 
  • #96
Smurf said:
If I was being provided with everything from some magical entity, no I wouldn't collect garbage. I assume that magical entity which gives me everything I need would take away everything I don't need too.
Ah, well, if we're talking about a magical world where things we want just appear and things we don't want just disappear, then there's really no reason for anyone to do anything other than have parties all the time. :biggrin:
 
  • #97
Moonbear said:
I guess your world won't have many things like Disneyland
I'm counting on it.
But if they have to do everything for themselves, even things they aren't particularly good at, they won't have time for recreation anyway.
See now I always thought that people weren't good at things because they never did them. I don't know, I guess you could figure that maybe 20% of the population is genetically incapable of cleaning up puke. Poor them. I guess they'll have to go to someone who is genetically capable of cleaning up puke and ask really nicely. With any luck that person will be genetically incapable of putting frying pans on the stove. Maybe they could exchange services.
 
  • #98
Moonbear said:
Ah, well, if we're talking about a magical world where things we want just appear and things we don't want just disappear, then there's really no reason for anyone to do anything other than have parties all the time. :biggrin:
Yeah. Anyone have any ideas how to get to a world where things just appear with no effort? I don't think I've ever heard any theories about that before, would be cool.
 
  • #99
Smurf said:
I'm counting on it.
There are quite a few people who enjoy going to amusement parks and there are also people who enjoy building them and running them.

Smurf said:
See now I always thought that people weren't good at things because they never did them. I don't know, I guess you could figure that maybe 20% of the population is genetically incapable of cleaning up puke. Poor them. I guess they'll have to go to someone who is genetically capable of cleaning up puke and ask really nicely. With any luck that person will be genetically incapable of putting frying pans on the stove. Maybe they could exchange services.
There are people who are germaphobes and people who can not stand the sight or smell of vomit. I once met a woman that would become nauseous if you so much as spit into a napkin in front of her.
On other matters there are quite a few people who are just terrible at math. One of the most common jobs is running a register and as far as I can tell most likely about one in ten of those who have ever worked the job consistantly screwed it up.
 
  • #100
I wouldn't mind cleaning up other people's vomit, etc, even feces, for some period of time.

Off hand I say I'd be willing to do something like that once or twice a month.

Of course, for my family I do that daily.

(I expect most everyone here knows how to wipe themselves, after all, and therefore we all have practical experience with feces - cleaning.)

One advantage of a whateverist society we're talking about, is that jobs could get shuffled. Can you imagine if we were already that society, discussing a *specialised* society in which you have to do the same job 40 hours a week for years on end? i expect we'd have a number of posters who thought such a set up was completely insane. (Yet that's the kind of society we have at present.)

It certainly isn't part of our evolution to never vary what we're doing. We're generalists by nature.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top