[Magmatic]

Giving everyone a job is not, and should never be, the goal of a society. In the early twentieth century American workers were killed fighting for the right to support themselves working 40 hours a week but for much the population that option has evaporated. I know people in the bay area working 70 hours a week at dead end jobs barely making ends meet; a fact I consider unacceptable given the wealth they are surrounded by.

[neilwilson]

It has to be the goal of society - assuming you expect other people in society to continue working to provide a surplus to support you rather than, say, taking Friday off. We trade lifetime with each other. It may take less and less lifetime to produce a loaf of bread, but it still requires some people somewhere to be there babysitting a machine. There has to be a mechanism by which you can give up your time for the benefit of others, so that others will continue to give up their time for the benefit of you. Even if that is done via the mechanism of public goods (clean street, flowers on lampposts, better libraries, community centres, active church, etc.)

[jimmywanger]

> I know people in the bay area working 70 hours a week at dead end jobs barely making ends meet; a fact I consider unacceptable given the wealth they are surrounded by.

By what means is this unacceptable? "I find myself working 40 hours a week to afford cable and a new iphone. I consider that unacceptable given the wealth I am surrounded by."

Those two statements are qualitively equivalent. Because you move to a nicer neighborhood, you shouldn't have to put up with things other people put up with? Huh?

[CamelCaseName]

Working 70 hours is much more than 40. In the first case you're working to survive and don't have any time outside of work to improve your situation.

[jimmywanger]

I'm pretty sure you own a cell phone and a laptop.

And most of your things are made by people working comparable hours for much less money and a lower of standard of living. Yet you somehow find that "acceptable" even though you're still complicit in their exploitation.

I fail to see why geographic proximity makes things less acceptable. If we could ship the fruits of their labor from overseas, that would be ok?