> The media is deliberately misrepresenting these stories for the click-bait.

This is a prime example of one of the main reasons I stopped reading/watching news some years back - the media thrives on click-bait and negativity, and I just don't need that in my life.

Here we have something happening that many would think is good - huge numbers of people switching jobs. Instead, all the focus is on only one side of the job switch, which exactly as you said is purposely misrepresenting the facts with the express purpose of driving traffic.

"Media" doesn't do this because they have a hidden agenda.* They are just following the profit motive. Click-bait gets clicks, which makes their ad-supported model work. I think the line in that Bond movie is, "Give the people what they want."

The way to fix this issue isn't to stop consuming news, it's to pay for the news that doesn't use click bait.

Obviously it's worse in the Internet age but honestly I don't think it's new. You think back to the sensational headlines that the newsies were shouting out on street corners and it's really the same thing.

* well, of course some do, but I'm talking 'real' news here

The same phenomenon seems to happen in nearly every industry. Optimizing for profit at the expense of just about everything else.

Kinda seems to me like profit being at the center of everything is the problem

> Click-bait gets clicks

Power of analytics optimizing for the metrics.

People fantasize about quitting their job for a better job too.

I'm sure a ton of people do both or neither, since "people" is a pretty vague category. But based on those I've talked to myself, and the popularity of reddit's antiwork sub, along with the rumblings in social discourse for the past, I dunno, 30 years or more, there are a lot of PEOPLE out there who really just want to not work at all. There's some argument about the definition of "work", since many of them might wish to do something that would be defined as work if they were paid for it by an employer. Still, others would be perfectly content becoming characters from WALL-E. I don't know how to feel about those types yet.

I want to work a professional job on a reduced schedule, so that I can prioritise my personal life. 20-32 hours per week, and that can be divided a number of ways. Judging anecdotally from interviewing the past month or two (I took a year off to hone my expertise at my hobby), HR/recruiters are not exactly coping with the collective power shift to employees. I think either side is waiting to see who blinks first. It's too bad it has to be that way, but our system does pit us against each other.

The way forward is to hire more people, pay people more, and give them more time off.

You mind if I ask what your hobby is?

I've been thinking about making a similar move.

>>Still, others would be perfectly content becoming characters from WALL-E. I don't know how to feel about those types yet.

As someone who does know how to feel about those types, let me make a suggestion: Don't. That is to say, why does it matter to you?

Is it because you need their labor for your happiness ("who will make my fries/clothes/things I'm incapable of making myself")? Then it's not their fault you feel that way, and they don't owe that to you.

Is it because "work = a moral good"? Then you're wrong work is a thing people do because they have to in order to be able to acquire currency for the things they actually want to do. It has no inherent morality.

Is it because "Mindless consumption is a moral bad"? Of course, but only because there's no ethical consumption under capitalism.

The long and short of it is you don't lose much by people opting out of working. By that I mean the type of person who was going to put in the years of work dedicated to trying to cure cancer (or advance society in whatever way you personally feel would be the most valuable) is very unlikely to also be the type of person who is only interested in doing it because they "needed a job".

TL-dr: Hang the jerk who invented work on the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

(Edited for formatting/grammar)

I hope everyone opts out of working, the more people that do the higher the price I command climbs. "Why aren't you competing with me?" is a silly notion to have.

What if it is because I want to live in a productive society?

I believe innovations come only from a productive society. The day we become wall-E characters is the day either AI has taken over or an Alien overlord has taken over. Then humans will go the way horses did - become pets and vanity objects. This also means the number of humans will go down the same way inevitably.

I am not going to take up the socialist vs capitalist fight, I am very wary of the impacts of a huge consumption only society.

The existence of a pure-consumer class (makes nothing, takes what they want/need) doesn't prevent a "productive society" from existing. If anything, is presupposes the existence of production (otherwise, where the hell are you finding things to consume while sitting in your comfy chair and slurping down nutrients)

From your previous post:

>>There's some argument about the definition of "work", since many of them might wish to do something that would be defined as work if they were paid for it by an employer.

So let's start asking questions about your perception: How many people who want to opt out of work fall into your 2 categories of "doing 'work'" vs "Wall-E Characters" and how many fall into the 3rd category (which you seem to be) of people who want "jobs"? Further, how many innovations do you believe only exist because people were forced to partake the a system that involves jobs and work? My best guess is that there are enough people who have the ego to believe themselves capable of creating and innovating to take care of the rest by doing so, even everyone had all their basic needs met and people could opt out.

I'm not arguing that everyone plug into the Matrix and let "big alien brother" keep us as pets. But if it's an option and people want to take it (while still allowing people like you to produce things), why is that bad? And why is innovation itself a moral good? Improvement =/= innovation.

That was my first post in this thread - so I don’t know which previous one you’re referring to.

I don’t know how you expect a pure consumerist class be able to exist alongside a productive class - sooner or later the productive class is going to want to distinguish itself, pushing the consumerists down far enough. The consumers are gonna want the latest gadget eventually - they’re not gonna be ok just with basic food / shelter, which’s going to only keep raising the bar of what the consumers are entitled to - which essentially means the society isn’t going to function. Nobody wants to keep paying for some no name set of folks to keep mooching off them and worse getting the same lifestyle for free.

So the only way I see a pure consumer setup working out is where you’re zombied out or made into a pet. Or I see that as the end result.

I think almost all the innovations exist because of hard work. My above point addresses why folks want their whole society to be productive - so everyone works / contributes the best they can. It could be a doctor / nurse / janitor / manual labor / line cook feeding them / day care employee etc.

Re why not allow for folks to become pets: I hate to Godwin this argument, but I don’t think our society is going to make peace with that ever. Even the existence of a higher race will change the equation completely up side down for us - forget about them harnessing humans as pets. There have been way too many lessons from slavery for this to be acceptable.

Re why is innovation a moral good: we either move forward and harness nature or it harnesses us. Just like how covid emerged - there are always new challenges. Eventual the sun is going to go nova - we need to be off this solar system long before that. However you want to think - be in short or long times, we need innovation. I think stagnation / advocacy for the same is actually a moral bad because it dooms humanity’s future.

Note: you might be referring to a very minimalistic homeless lifestyle when you mean a pure consumer sector, in that case - that exists now. We will continue to take care of folks who choose that (or unfortunately forced into it) with increasing quality over time, but that will never be looked upon as a positive thing. It is always going to be a something to avoid - there is always going to be a stigma and danger surrounding the same. I am hoping that’s not the argument you’re going for.

>>That was my first post in this thread - so I don’t know which previous one you’re referring to.

Sorry, I had been referring to a specific person and the tone of your answer made it seem like you were them. Didn't think to check the user names.

>>I think stagnation / advocacy for the same is actually a moral bad because it dooms humanity’s future.

You have a very short view on things. Eventually, it all ends. Humanity is doomed. The very universe itself has been in a state of decay and entropy since the Big Bang. Over the long term, humanity has a 0% chance of survival. We're just whistling past the graveyard.

You would be hard pressed I think to produce someone who truly wanted to do nothing all day. People just want to do something they enjoy, not the meaningless drivel of most jobs. Just my anecdata.

Lots of people in recent years have talked to me about their idea for a small, personal business. They despise their jobs and the grind, but as you say, all dream of working on something else, just something over which they have more control.

Personally, I'd be absolutely ecstatic to do nothing all day. I love nothing more than a quiet day with nothing on the agenda where I can just chill out and enjoy the world.

Solving interesting problems is fun and all, but I don't really care to define my life around it.

I think a lot of people held on on account of so many people being laid off and many companies instigating hiring freezes. This very much feels like the exhale.

It also seems to time well with the antiwork movement, which in my opinion exists as a "correction", like we'd see in other economic paradigms, sure it's probably heightened by current inflationary pressures, but it seems worker pay, especially service-jobs, is deeply needing a steep increase.

>And a fair amount of it is also pent-up demand for job switching that didn't happen during the pandemic.

Is this actually true? I've seen this numerous times over the last 8-12 months and it's always stated as if it's obviously true. But, why? Why would people have put off switching jobs until November 2021? Covid has been about the same in 95% of America since June 2020.

I think there has to be some other explanation, or at least some data to support the idea that this is all just pent-up demand being released.

> Why would people have put off switching jobs until November 2021?

A ton of people have had well over year of working remotely while slowly losing personal connections with their teams. At the same time, people are generally reluctant to entertain a job switch in a time of uncertainty. It’s not a stretch to believe that as people accept the “new normal” they finally decide to move on.

Anecdotally, I’ve seen some of this. Voluntary attrition at work tanked during the first year of COVID and then started to uptick in late summer and fall of last year.

> Why would people have put off switching jobs until November 2021? Covid has been about the same in 95% of America since June 2020.

I put off looking for a new job at first because I was worried about a Covid-induced major economic downturn. I didn't want to be the new person when my employer is figuring out who to fire[1]. I only pulled the trigger when the numbers rebounded (and the downturn wasn't a big as I feared, consumer spending was really strong).

1. Or my personal nightmare, getting a downturn while serving notice and the new employer change their mind about the offer while jobs evaporate all around.

In my personal case I did not job search during the time you mentioned because the job I had was super flexible and I had kids at home with no child care - I put off any hunting until school was back in person (and looked stable at that).

> People want to read stories about quitting work because they dream of doing that themselves. But the reality is they're not quitting the work force, they're just changing jobs.

I don't read "quitting jobs" as leaving the work force forever, just changing jobs. How would that even make sense? People need jobs.

A lot of folks are also reflexively drawn by the negativity of the headline (myself included)... "how is society going to handle no one working?!" was my initial thought, before my conscious brain caught up with my instinctive thoughts.

Some are quitting the work force. We have an aging population and a decent amount of baby boomers (capitalized?) are retiring. Media outlets are also misrepresenting the number of boomers who have reached an age where retirement is not just an option, but expected.

The data source here notionally separates quits from retirements, though I am not sure how well it does so (as this is not particularly straightforward for say, an employer survey for people without employer pensions, which are increasingly rare for private sector retirees. My employer has no reliable way to tell if I’m quitting to live off my private retirement savings and social security or quitting for another job or quitting to take a few months to deal with burnout and then consider my options.)

Totally fair. I've had exit interviews and I've had jobs which didn't, and when I got laid off during the pandemic (which, luckily, didn't last long) there was no follow up when I stopped applying for unemployment, so I'm not sure how those numbers work, to be completely honest.