questioning the work ethic of humanity

Post Reply New Topic

As a deer I have many joys. For one, I have hooves. But I digress!! I also have many sadnesses. For one, I cannot knit to save my life, because I have hooves. Again, I digress....
I am wondering why the great apes have a tendency to work all the hairs off their apey butts. I have read about this thing called the work ethic and am wondering just what its all about. I once disguised myself as a human by wearing a skirt, and decided to live life as I have observed them. I went to work every day for 8 hours and was very thankful for my hooves in the end, because it got me fired out that tedious hell hole for making too many typos!! ! I was also having trouble disguising my antlers with only a skirt, but I digress for a third and thankfully final time.

I am questioning the work ethic because from my humbly deer-ful perspective the work of man often seems rather pointless, and therefore pointlessly wasteful of time money and earthly materials and I cannot help thinking there are a few very clever chimps at the top who are swinging their extended arms (golf clubs) round their extended tree houses (mansions) who have subtley enslaved the masses into selling their life off at an hourly rate for hoof shaped trinket boxes and other such joys, until perhaps one day they will realise how crummy their existence really is enslaved paycheck to paycheck under a mortgaged roof and want to go out to touch a REAL deer hoof, much like the ones I proudly possess and trot upon day in day out! (I do not know whether to regard this as a digression or not, but they really are a spectacle as I'm sure some of you may know, if you have met me outside of cyberspace)

Why build more offices, when you can grow orchards!

I would love to listen and learn from everybody's views on this internet forum, a testimony to the work of man. I sincerely hope you will cope with this probably naive deer's perspective on the world of work. I guess what I am sensing here with my uniquely deer sensing skills is could the world do more by doing much less?


I apologise for my post being so rambly, I am a bit of a rambly deer - but I hope you get the general gist of what I am saying.
Many thanks!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !

Some people are lazy, but a few people's work actually requires them to be lazy, Philosphers for example.

Anyways,I do believe that humans have to work hard and contribute even if it seems pointless. Whatever is done is a step foward.

Damn Deer!

MA, WHERE THE HELL IS MY SHOTGUN!? DINNER'S ON THE PORCH AND I GOTTA SHOOT IT REAL QUICK LIKE!

I am not sure why you decided to rp the entire thing, it does make your comment more difficult to understand. Ultimately part of the question is whether or not people are acting towards their ends or someone else's. I tend to say that people are acting towards their ends in a system that has imperfections. I think you claim that people act towards another person's ends by arguing that this is an enslavement of one class of human beings by another. If people are acting towards their ends, and they want the money more than the time, then in essence the level of work is relatively efficient. It can be argued that these ends are wrong from a utilitarian perspective, but such a matter is beyond proper judgment as people do not always seek a perfectly utilitarian end for whatever reason.

If we do argue that there is a stronger classist tendency and a more monopsonistic labor market (favors employers strongly) then we might see that trades of dollars for hours on the margin will be at a loss for the worker due to contracts or a shrinkage in wages, or if it is a monopolistic market for various commodities we will see people spending a large amount of money on the necessary essentials. We might see the former but I am not sure if that is so much true given the current level of debt combined with the long-run trend towards less hours, which has changed in the last few decades due to various economic changes, and even though wages have dropped for some groups I don't think that this has much to do with employment as it does with technology replacing workers and possibly foreign competition, the addition of the latter is difficult to claim as enslavement of people in industrialized nations. I am also unsure that the latter is true as various things that are not necessary or necessary but not so at that cost are purchased, and even though gasoline prices have gone up for whatever reasons (speculation can go to another thread) we still don't see increases that similar in other goods and even with the gasoline issue we still have SUVs and other high-fuel consumption cars on the market which would not be indicative of a people suffering as much as would be thought under a slavery condition. As for the classist tendency, I am not really certain that there is enough organization amongst the upper classes to pull that off, as in order for true enslavement to occur there must be some collusion, even if such were attempted, the sheer number of people would cause a breakdown in the attempt I would think.

I dunno, just trying to give my take. I don't consider work to be a negative aspect of human society though as it is necessary for progress, without creation of value there cannot be use of value. It can be argued that this is disproportionate in benefiting certain groups, however, I think that the long run will show that growth will benefit all. I think that part of the issue is a lack of perspective of the problems that past generations had as they did not have most of the luxuries commonly taken for granted. It could also be more of a social problem relating to positional goods(status items) and the supposed "ideal life", but that would still likely fall under a matter of desired ends rather than oppression.

I don't know if you've ever lived in a high unemployment area, but a load of unemployed or underemployed NTs, especially men are hell. as far as NTs go, KEEP EM BUSY, COS IT KEEPS EM OUT OF TROUBLE!

I had a long post prepared for this but I'm thinking your posts reflects a bit too much innocence for it to be appropriate. I think though, once you can see around that innocence and get a sense for what our world really is (I'm guessing you really won't like it but it'll happen sooner or later) you'll figure it out pretty easily.

Hello again, spirited folks! I have left my grove and returned here after a pleasant kip and day at work.

Please excuse my deer-like naivety. What is it the humans are progressing towards, what is their goal?



I live in a forest so I cannot say I have lived in a high unemployment area, but perhaps these men are hell because either they can't find a job to pay bills or they don't like being employed?? Perhaps they have not had a proper education that could teach them things to fill their spare time productively and not so 'hellishly'. Not all unemployed people are hell though thats for sure (I understand you only said a load). I cannot say that oppressing people with any old job could solve the problem. Maybe it would work for them becuase they might have nothing better to do (cannot think of anything better to do) and it would give their life "meaning". well it wouldnt do that for me!! *stomps hooves and chews onions wildly*



even though I am merely a young deer, amongst very clever apes, feel free to say more on this! if you think I won't like it then it's best I hear it.



With sincere thanks
from a deer in the headlights

Who said that there was an absolute goal of all humans? Progress though is simply the statement that because of value created there can be more value stored up in technological gains and capital in order for the improvement of material conditions such as sheets, toys, computers, etc. I tend to be of the opinion that generally more value stored in technology and capital is a good thing, something that others can disagree with but still it is my opinion and one based upon its own different premises.

I wonder why the term "wage slave" is so common?

I never thought it was really common. I have only heard it from a few socialists on the internet.

Heard it pretty often myself. Low end jobs and such.

I can tell you I'm not a socialist but I do think there should be some incentive to work. It's pointless when jobs pay hardly more than the unemployment benefit. Maybe it's a worse problem in the US, hence the popularity of tipping.

We don't have tipping much in Australia but it's left up to the customer if they wish to reward the taxi driver or waiter/waitress or whoever else for good service. I wouldn't want to pay a tip if the service was bad.

There is something really wrong with a society when working full time doesn't allow a person to be able to support themselves.

I don't think that most people disagree with that first part. Tipping is a social/cultural matter though. Most jobs don't get tips other than jobs where you directly serve a particular customer, in which case it is expected and is essentially a part of the value of the job, it is not in order to entice people to continue to work, there would be too great of a free-rider problem, but it is just a part of how things are seen as being properly done.
I think it might be more of an expectation here, but if service is really bad then customers will sometimes refrain from tipping, I think there is also often considered to be a courtesy level of tipping with more or less based upon the goodness of the service, it is not so much formal though.

What level of support though? There is always a question of what a person needs to live, and also what full-time should considered to be in our case. Too often we have a continually scaling level of what is support, and a continually declining level of full-time, which means that we continually set the bar higher and higher and call it a huge failure if that "absolute" level of justice isn't met. Really though, I don't like the way that this is put together in the sentence, it seems sloppy, as the purpose of a job is always exchange between employer and employee, other things are more along the lines of external abstractions. I guess, a better phrasing would be that a person working X hours a week should be able to subsist upon their funds. I just don't like the idea that a job is anything but an exchange perhaps.

Okay, that's what I meant - a person working full time should be able to get a wage that will keep them fed, clothed and housed and where if they are careful with their money, they won't go into debt.

A bit of perspective for you AG. A friend of mine is a delivery truck driver. He used to drive for Airbone Express. He made $12 an hour when he worked there. (This was in the California Central Coast) Afte working there for several years, his rich aunt bought him a FedEx Ground route where he owned the truck and the route. He went from scraping by on $12 an hour (that money barely covers rent, gas, groceries in Cali) to grossing over $90,000 in his first year. Now, the work he performed was no different. He delivered in the same area, with the same number of stops. Even when you take into account the added expenses (insurance and maintanence on the truck) he still took home 3 times what he was paid by Airborne Express.
Since you're one of the more politicaly astute members on this site, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that, in order for Capitalism to function, it must steal weath from those who produce it. We are living in a time when more of our wealth is being stolen from us (High housing and fuel costs) in exchange for cheap consumer goods from China. (yes, the Chinese economy has driven fuel and housing costs).

Yes well, the price of housing is certainly a rip-off and I would be inclined to say the same about the price of cars.