Rather, I think that this post is about balance, and about being emotionally present. He's saying that it should be a constant struggle to balance off things that you care about, because that shows you care. The only way to avoid the struggle is to cease caring, and that means you push something out of your mind that you really should be paying attention to because it's uncomfortable.
I've got plenty of stories about a dad who went the other way - full time househusband, gave up his career entirely soon after my sister and I were born - but they're a bit too personal to share on HN. It's not all roses and sunshine on that side either, though.
Yay, survival should be a struggle, because it shows you care (about increasing the ROI for the shareholders you'll never see)!
"We need work" is justified by "we need shelter and food".
The only thing a constant struggle shows is that you don't have the freedom to choose how you spend your life.
What people need is a vocation, a calling, fulfilment from creativity or helping other people out. The things that we call hobbies, that is (and people who enjoy them - amateurs).
Work is an exchange of about half of your waking hours for the privilege of not dying in this society (because as far as food and shelter go, yes, we actually do need them, as well as healthcare, education, transportation, etc).
The only way to avoid struggle is to be rich - and that's because the rich had set it up that way.
Van Gogh never even had a career to give up, and his struggles weren't because it was hard for him to divide his attention.
Ummm, no? Not really? You think "the rich" could just magically end the need for work if they chose?
We live in an age of abundance relative to the past, but not to the point where we don't have to struggle for our existence, at least somewhat.
(Though to be clear, I am personally incredibly well placed in this society, and though I have to work, my profession is way easier than many other people's and my compensation far greater, as is true of many people on this forum)
Yes[1]. And it's not that I think so, it's that the likes of Bertrand Russel have observed it to be the case[2] back in the 50s.
If you think it's impossible to ensure that every citizen has access to food, shelter, education, transportation, and healthcare regardless of their employment status, you seriously underestimate how everything we do is struggling to fight over crumbles.
Of course it's possible. Most people will choose to work, still. Right now, it's not a choice.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
[2]https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/
We struggle for _inclusion_ in the institutions that allow is to consume from this fountain of wealth. Production is reliable, but inclusion is always precarious.
The "we" that doesn't have to pay rent?
The "we" for whom food is free?
The "we" whose student loans were paid off by someone?
The "we" that doesn't know that being homeless is, essentially, illegal?
The "we" that doesn't realize that there is no alternative to inclusion in the system of institutions?
Seriously, what do you think "exclusion" here is. The only way out is 6 feet under, otherwise you are still a part of the system, and the "struggle" is an inherent part of it.
This is where the socialists and libertarians agree, by the way. Except the Libertarians imagine there's a way to be sort of outside the system (while, somehow, still getting the benefits), and the Socialists aim to improve the system instead. Regardless, either would agree that the struggle of existing within the system is an artificial, and purposeful effect of the way the system was structured.
> Seriously, what do you think "exclusion" here is.
Exclusion from any of the social institutions of income distribution. Whether private or state. Whether a job, a government pension, an unemployment check, or a dividend from a private fund.
> The only way out is 6 feet under, otherwise you are still a part of the system
The system is a system of exclusions (or a hierarchy of exclusivity) used to enforce rules against or create incentives for the included. Prison is a kind of exclusion, and so is unemployment.
You complete with others to stretch yourself.
People that build huge businesses keep push and building for more. Many like the money but are more motivated by the Vision of what they're building.
There is something built into us that wants to strive that wants to work.
Hobbies don't satisfy the same need. Hobbies are self directed and motivated. You don't get the same sense of achievement.
That said grinding 40 hours a week as a process worker is life sucking. That is not a good long term way of being. You need a hope of moving up to make that worth it.
Having gone through a handful of periods of a few months where I wasn’t working and was also not engaged in an existential struggle for survival, I have to disagree here.
Personally, I know that I need a focus for my intellectual life. It needn’t be employment, but “work” is a fair way to describe it. I can spend two or three weeks idling most of the time, but after that I need something to direct my energy and concentration toward. I need a goal that stretches my abilities, or I find myself constantly battling a depressive spiral.
Would your abilities feel stretched by being a cashier? How about a janitor? Waiter?
These jobs are what "work" actually is for most people. I think most people could go without doing those things.
Intellectual stimulation, or goals that stretch one's abilities, don't have to come from work (and for most people those things and "work" are hardly related at all). Therefore, saying we (as humans) "need" work is generally incorrect (at least for the reasons you stated) since most people don't even get what you say we "need" from work anyway.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all... but I do that kind of interesting. I like to think that if I had unlimited free time, there's no way I'd ever be bored, I have so many things that I love doing... No way I'd give up 20 hours of my week just to go work as a cashier when I don't need to.
That said... things might change when I get older.
First, as I said in my comment, the man in your example is likely not working in order to "stretch [his] abilities" as was the context of my comment...
Second, I'm not sure that doing something out of boredom is equivalent to a "need," regardless of how one might describe it.
Third, it seems to me that many people's only source of purpose is work (partially because they must work exhaustively to survive), so, when the need or ability to work is removed, they have nothing else; the idea that "work" is either a necessity or a noble pursuit in of itself only serves to reinforce this outlook and the resulting behavior (i.e. deriving all purpose from work).
I don't want to push too hard, but it should be somewhat self-evident who might benefit from a culture that perpetuates a myth of work as necessity.
Or: having a public-facing job is something to do that also served as a social outlet for him (especially if it's related to his hobbies) that was free (how many social activities (the kind where you meet people, not the kind where you spend time with folks you already know) are free these days?).
Every time I go to a nursery I think about how much fun it would be to "work" there, if I didn't have to consider the pay, because I love plants and talking about plants and making chit-chat with strangers.
Just different definitions of "work". I think the sense meant by those saying people "need work" is "meaningful toil". Something that requires focused effort, and done for some tangible purpose.
So cashier, janitor, waiter would fit that broad definition, even though they are not a focus of intellectual life. But there can be other types of work that also fulfill intellectual needs, that might be more fulfilling for many (most? all?) people.
I'm going to disagree on this simplification. There is a common definition of work, e.g. the definition used in the context of work/life balance (i.e. the context of the original article), that is widely used; redefining it to be as broad as you've described is detrimental to the conversation.
> Something that requires focused effort, and done for some tangible purpose.
Essentially everything can be made to fit this definition, making it, I think, not very useful.
The author literally said "We need food. We need shelter." right after saying we need work.
I meaningfully toiled over a 3D print of a twisted hexagonal mesh over a tube around a 5,4 torus knot yesterday. Guess how much it helped me pay rent.
Your reply is entirely reasonable but it seems the gp already covered what you wrote and anticipated it in his disclaimer: ">It needn’t be employment,[...]"
He just happened to use the imprecise label "work" -- which is so tainted and overloaded that one can't re-use that word to also describe "non-employment intellectual activity" because it inadvertently tricks people into talking past each other.
(E.g. Notice that you used "work" as synonym for "employment" but the gp did not.)
With that in mind, I'll just agree with your analysis, redefining "work" to include "non-employment" is detrimental to the conversation. When people discuss work/life balance (i.e. in the original article), they are (almost universally) not talking about balancing intellectually stimulating hobbies and the rest of life. We are, from the onset, talking about jobs, i.e. employment.
Additionally, I think my original comment is still useful when discussing the more common definition of work.
If your passion is painting, and its something you would do for free, then fulfilling your artistic potential is still work. It still requires hours upon hours of deliberate practice. The great masters would spend years working on a single painting. You don't think there would be times when they just didn't feel like making progress? Where they wanted to just take the day off and hang out at a bar with their friends?
Part of the human condition is struggle, imo. That's what I think the OP is getting at when he says that human beings need work. Maybe not a 9-5, but we all need something worth staving off instant gratification for.
Some people still consider tasks they enjoy doing a form of "work". Work doesn't have to be compensated activities engaged in out of a desperate need to provide basic necessities.
Just different people using the same word to mean different things.
What people need is to be able to channel their energy into something productive, whether it be learning, hobbies, helping others in a meaningful way, or maybe some sort of self-improvement in terms of health.
I suppose you could put all of that under the vague umbrella of "work", but for the purpose of having a conversation that's not arguing about semantics, work is what most people do to generate an income to support their life goals and activities.
> Having gone through a handful of periods of a few months where I wasn’t working and was also not engaged in an existential struggle for survival, I have to disagree here.
I've also gone through a few such periods, in between jobs. Best time of my life. Even though I didn't accomplish a whole lot during it that you could put on paper and call work. Learned a few things, improved friendships, and did a little room remodel.
"It is difficult for a man who always has a full stomach to put his mind to some use. Are there not players of liubo and go? Even playing these games is better than being idle." -- Confucious
Alas, alas, work has been co-opted to mean employment in most people's minds.
There's learning, there's helping, there's contributing, there are a million things that aren't idling and require effort, but net you with no money.
So they don't count as "work".
Sure but that is taking a short break from your job/career. Its not like leaving school and never working.
Intellectual life and work are completely orthogonal.
People have been taught to confuse them because it benefits the ruling class.
It didn't always use to be that way, and it doesn't have to. That we have physical needs is a fact. That we have alienated work from life, or family, or expressing ourselves is not. That work created an absentee father is not in the laws of physics, obviously, but that it's hard to perceive it as anything else is what OP pointed out, and that's something worth paying attention to.
The idea that you have to 'move work around' (kind of sounds like moving garbage around) wouldn't make sense to a person who is able to express themselves in their work. Ask a craftsman for example, an artist, or someone on a family farm.
The fact that people are detached from their work, that they're objects of their work, that their work dehumanizes them in extreme cases, that is a result of a particular mode of production we are living under. Someone for whom their work is an extension of their life, who are not detached from the products of their work, and for whom work strengthens their social relations, there is no work-life balance, because there is no work-life conflict.
When I go over to the printmaking studio, I recognize that in principle someone else might be able to grind the limestone slabs I intend to use for printing, maintain the printing press, clean up the ink, or perform any number of tasks incidental to the expressive portion.
I am just as sure that anyone on a family farm knows they can, in principle, get someone else in the family to do work, and that hired hands exist, and can take care of many tasks or unpleasant chores. They may prefer to do the work themselves, so that they get better results, or have more control or feel useful, or because they have a duty to contribute productively.
In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. It is essentially never entirely fun.
While it's not necessary that everyone works, some work is necessary. If people stopped showing up to the farms, or the water treatment plants, everyone would die. So, someone has to work.
Labeling "we need work" as only a social fact is a misguided kind of relativism. "Society has created arbitrary weights and values on which work gets rewards, therefore we only need work if we believe we need it". The logic is just plain faulty.
And not in some bs "part time vs full time" but that we have enough humans on this freakin planet that you should only need to work 30 hours a week to live a healthy, balanced life.
What happens is that other humans do more hours of work per household and outbid you on things that you might otherwise want. Some people are OK with that and go on to live happy lives. Others get frustrated and join the race to keep up with the others. (Which I think is a choice that people should have; I would strongly oppose taking that choice away, but the end result is that lots of people are working lots of hours to buy lots of things.)
IMO it's simply that money is a better motivator than equality. Money is tangible with easy to understand value, while equality is intangible and dubious in value, according to some.
Once you realize you can beat the guy working 20 hours a week by working 40 hours a week, you quickly find yourself optimizing for productivity over anything else. The rest of us get swept up in the current of the people that want it the most.
https://www.kiplinger.com/real-estate/602609/cheapest-small-...
Is there anything you would die for?
Is there anything you fear worse than death?
Some are meanings are constructs, but some are limitations of complete communication from a single English world.
For some of those other companies, a TPS report is required.
Furthermore, not everyone can survive without specialization of labor. Prior to specialization of labor, it was much more common for people to die young, and the world's population reflected this.
What I'm saying is Maslow's scale is tipped upside down with an overabundance of leisure and scarcity of high quality basic fulfillment. There's so much entertainment, that we can afford for a few markets to crash and disappear, hence why I called them "made-up".
I think you've got cause and effect reversed. It's our exceptional progress on basic fulfillment that has enabled our economy to support these so-called "made-up" jobs.
I think it's good to be critical, we can always improve the system. But I also personally believe our society is actually incredible at self-optimizing, and we are pretty darn close to an ideal system in practice. It's easy to focus on the bad, but our society has produced truly immeasurable good (very little relative violence, hunger, boredom, etc.) Of course it can be improved, and there are some real problems, particularly around wealth inequality. But I can't help but think that we're doing pretty damn good.
It's not "modern work" but work-the-social-institution. Which is the primary definition of "work."
What they don't mean is productive activity. Every productive activity that takes place within the social institution of work also takes place outside of that social institution. For example, farming, building construction, cooking, cleaning, education -- all of these take place both inside and outside of work.
That’s just what it takes to live, we forget that because of how far removed we are from actual survival. But take away modern society, and the world is much harsher and much less fulfilling.
Something I believe, but can't really prove is that this is completely wrong and there's very little about the need for "work" that's socially determined. We are biological creatures that evolved under very specific circumstances. And "work" in the most basic sense is a big part of that. We need to be struggling to feed ourselves (or simulating it) -- every day. Most of us wither and die when that need is removed.
Most (I avoid saying all, because I'm not that smart) animals, when not surviving (finding food, consuming food, finding sex, having sex) are super idle. It's energetically expensive to work, and, so far as I can tell, nothing has evolved to be energetically stressed.
If we're throwing around words like "evolution" we need to understand that we're talking about genetic survival (passing genes on through generations). The state of "struggling to feed ourselves" is directly antithetical to the goal of having sex. At best you could argue that the hypothesis that peacocks attract mates with their flamboyant tail feathers suggests that they've survived to maturity as intact as they are because of their good genes (survival in spite of being an easy, colorful target for predators), but that's a stretch.
"[F]inding food, consuming food, finding sex, having sex" is the work I'm talking about. So, yes, animals are either working or they're "super idle." There's no third mode where they're, like, finding their true selves. They're either working or they're asleep.
I'd love to hear a different argument.
Every system breaks down, unless it is maintained through energy/work.
At the most basic level, we need food to maintain our system. How will you get it without work?
I'm not saying that we all need to work for hyper-capitalistic machines. Or even anything remotely resembling a "business". But humans need to do semi-regular things that approximate work. Whether it's something like running a farm, coding programs, or passing lessons on to the next generation—we all need something semi-recurring, with some perception of value.
I do agree that the sense of duty towards work that is stereo-typically cultivated in Silicon Valley is a social construct and not at all a universal truth. THAT we can both agree is definitely a social construct.
To me when you write “we need work” is a social fact, I read “we need jobs/full employment.”
Work to me is a term that applies to any system doing a task; input->(processing)->output.
So like you’re saying, it’s “work” in a “biological sense” to learn wine.
Inherently we need to “work” but our social idea of work is arbitrary, a lot is busy work.
Police violence, don’t let government have weapons of mass destruction to police global violence, wind down superfluous industrialism, deflate chads whose dads own dealerships and be humans.
Not sure I follow. It's amazing how these little bits of social knowledge ferment the flavor of the story. It's a lot like learning to taste beer or wine. Once you take the time to sit down and learn to pay attention to your senses, you can identify things like acetaldehyde, diacetyl, and mercaptans. It's fun teaching people how to sense things they weren't aware of before.
The author seems to have done a little trick. By assuming this little fact, it serves as a rationalization for Dad's emotional neglect. It explains his behavior in retrospect, and I get why that makes sense. But that doesn't mean it's true, it doesn't have any predictive power because it reverses subject and object. "We need work" is a social fact, nothing more, and it's only true as much as it's believed to be true. To me it stands out like pickle in pancake, maybe it can for you too.