4 ms·
But for a large proportion of people, "what they build" is meaningless (in social terms). Doing as you suggest would eliminate the majority of work.
by amoe_ 1mo ago
But for a large proportion of people, "what they build" is meaningless (in social terms). Doing as you suggest would eliminate the majority of work.
- flaburgan 1mo agoWell then we would have more time to make art, play music, enjoy time with friends... Being fulfilled. I don't see work as a goal, just a way to accomplish something in our current society, but I would be perfectly fine in a society with no jobs the way we see them at the moment. I just spent my Saturday to take care of my grandmother. I was not paid for that, it isn't my job. But I for sure created more "value" than a day in the office.
- WorldMaker 1mo agoThe problem the article restates is that having more time to make art/play music/enjoy time with friends isn't accurately incentivized by this economy. Rather than employ more people a smaller share of the work week companies are optimizing for fewer people at the same share of a work week. That's what the AI Layoff Waves have been for: companies reminding laborers that they aren't desired if a company can use fewer of them. This current direction seems to be bad both for workers and for long-term health of companies. If they layoff enough workers and can't easily replace them because they find other uses of their time like art and creativity they risk sustainability by not being able to hire back the people they need and the skills that they trained those people to have in the first place. The article stops short of offering proposed solutions to this current crisis, though.