[ball_of_lint]

Working for money is imperative in most people's lives. The failure to do so carries a heavy stick including poverty, homelessness, health issues, the list goes on.

Contrary to the article, balance is impossible first because our economy and low-paying jobs are designed to lock people in them, creating a cycle of living paycheck to paycheck and barely surviving financially.

Work might be an important part of a life where it's not a person's top priority due to finance survival reasons, but would naturally be structured differently. Only in this privileged state is "balance" or "alignment" possible. Even so, I suspect not every healthy person would choose to work, given the opportunity to not.

[twblalock]

> Contrary to the article, balance is impossible first because our economy and low-paying jobs are designed to lock people in them, creating a cycle of living paycheck to paycheck and barely surviving financially.

There is no conspiracy or design, that's just the reality of any economic system. No system has ever existed that didn't involve the vast majority of people working -- and it will always be the case unless we find a way to generate enough wealth to live on without doing work.

[kaskakokos]

This is not correct.

We work like crazy[1], the machine should continue moving: we are fat but it costs us a lot.

[1] https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...

[twblalock]

I think most people would rather have modern working hours and a modern quality of life, than have pre-industrial working hours and a pre-industrial quality of life.

[_cenw]

The 8 hour workday is not as modern as you might be assuming. In the US it was introduced (though force, really) in the 1860s.

[twblalock]

I am fully aware of the history of that. What point are you trying to make?

[_cenw]

Maybe the standard of 150 years ago isn't sufficient anymore, especially facing the extreme improvements in productivity (aside from the creation of bullshit jobs).

[kaskakokos]

It can be. One man, one life. I would like to live other lives to be able to compare, because you can't choose what you don't know. I see advantages in both.

[janef0421]

Every system has required most people to do work, but the character of work in the modern era is qualitatively different from the typical character of work throughout history.

[mistrial9]

> just the reality of any economic system

nonsense - games run by game rules

[twblalock]

Show me any economic system that has ever existed that did not involve mass work.

The secret to the success of the advanced economies in the world (which are all market economies based on private ownership of the means of production, and yes, that includes Scandinavia) is that instead of trying to create a game and enforce the rules of the game, we instead try to understand the economic realities that will exist in any system and channel them toward beneficial outcomes.

In contrast, every attempt to actually create a "game" or some kind of utopian engineered economy has done worse.

[wheelerof4te]

"The secret to the success of the advanced economies in the world (which are all market economies based on private ownership of the means of production"

Explain to me how a model that feeds off of a lowly-paid (relative to the small percent of upper-class citizens) slave labor can be called successful?

Are Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos wealthy because of their hard labor? Or are they wealthy simply because they were smart enough to figure out "the game"?

Here is the hard truth: It doesn't matter how hard you work. It's like how, in a war, the winner is not the side that has more soldiers. Winner is usually the side which can do most using the least percent of it's forces.

Try to avoid playing the game. It's rigged from the start.

[rayiner]

Only if the game is created rather than being an emergent phenomenon.

[Eliah_Lakhin]

In Russia it is slightly different.

Due to a number of good things inherited from the Soviet epoch. Working for money is imperative here too, but I would say it is bounding you on lesser extent.

University education is free, the government is fully subsidized a huge part of students. Base medicine is free, and the paid medicine of good quality is cheap even if you don't have regular Insurance. Electricity and other utility bills are relatively cheap. A number of common goods and food is cheaper than in the western countries. What's most important in my opinion that a lot of young people are inheriting real property from their grandparents. It's not always the house of your dream(usually small flats), but you gain a place to stay in and to start with for free.

And the country itself is relatively well developed in terms of common services and the opportunities you have around. By GDP(PPP) the country is around Germany[1].

All in all, here in Russia you may have an opportunity to make a work/life balance relatively easier than in Europe or North America.

It's sad to face that a lot of young people are looking for emigration.

I had been travelling a lot, and I was fascinated by the developed countries of the West too for many years when I was younger. I don't want to underestimate the opportunities you may have abroad, and also I don't want to underestimate the problems we have here in Russia. But honestly speaking in my opinion it is much harder to survive in the West than in the post-soviet countries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

[wheelerof4te]

It's sad how many russian people fall for the western narative of "a better life", not realizing how many benefits they have in their home country.

[_kbh_]

> It's sad how many russian people fall for the western narative of "a better life", not realizing how many benefits they have in their home country.

The great a many benefits like being forcefully conscripted into a war dying in a trench in Ukraine after 2 weeks of training?.

Sure Russia could be great during peace time, but at the moment its probably not a good idea to be there if you're a military age male.

[wheelerof4te]

I haven't waited long for this reply, have I?

Don't you worry. The West will soon get it's lion's share for all the blight it caused to this world.

[_kbh_]

> Don't you worry. The West will soon get its lion's share for all the blight it caused to this world.

What does this even mean?.

[wheelerof4te]

It means no more wellfare state for you western snowflakes.

Get ready to taste your own medicine.

[sshine]

> food is cheaper than in the western countries.

I am reminded of Boris Yeltsin visiting an American grocery store.

“When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people.” - Yeltsin (autobiography)

> it is much harder to survive in the West than in the post-soviet countries

I don't imagine it is hard to survive in either place.

There is more to life than surviving.

[Jochim]

The capitalist joy of spending 10 minutes on each product trying to figure out which of the 8 brands is scalping you the least.

[badpun]

How about the fact that, if you're a man, government thugs on any given day can come for you and send you to a war in Ukraine where you'll have to fight until you die or get badly maimed? That alone sounds like a good enough reason to leave the country (at least temporarily).

[Jochim]

Have you ever heard of a tiny little incident called the Vietnam War?

[s1artibartfast]

>Contrary to the article, balance is impossible first because our economy and low-paying jobs are designed to lock people in them, creating a cycle of living paycheck to paycheck and barely surviving financially.

I would add government incentives to the list. Welfare benefit cliffs [1] are a real issue as well. If your net income plus benefits is higher with a 20k income than a 60k income, you have very little incentive to improve your earnings, especially if you have children that depend on your benefits.

https://fee.org/articles/if-you-accept-this-raise-you-fall-o...

[echelon]

> Contrary to the article, balance is impossible first because our economy and low-paying jobs are designed to lock people in them, creating a cycle of living paycheck to paycheck and barely surviving financially.

> designed [emphasis mine]

I'm not so sure it's designed so much as an emergent phenomena.

The world has gotten so caught up in value creation that it rewards the roles that are most able to create value or the roles that are non-fungible and necessary.

Because of globalization and immigration, the "non-skilled" jobs are conceivably not just available to 16 year old high school students. Immigrants that are just reaching the country and establishing their foothold increase the pool of available labor.

The increasing gulf between high paying and low paying jobs is a result of offshoring manufacturing and other types of labor that can be easily purchased at a substantially lower rate on the worldwide market. This has happened because our very own consumers want cheaper goods. And in the big picture, it's not a bad thing - every nation that follows the industrialization pattern has rapidly pulled themselves out of poverty and built up a strong, educated workforce.

> Even so, I suspect not every healthy person would choose to work, given the opportunity to not.

Personally speaking, if I had the freedom not to work, I would perhaps pursue my own goals or hobbies which may not bring value to the world in the most optimal way. It might even subtract.

[bloppe]

People were locked into work long before there was an economy to speak of. They were hunting, gathering, subsistence farming, spending hours gathering materials and building things from dusk till dawn. Even the poor are generally able to work much less than the historical baseline.

I'm not saying the modern economy is fair. It's just easy to lose sight of the fact that it inherently takes a lot of work to live.

[feoren]

> The world has gotten so caught up in value creation that it rewards the roles that are most able to create value or the roles that are non-fungible and necessary.

God I wish that were true. What would you prefer the world reward, other than value creation? Currently the world rewards whoever just already owns everything or whoever is the best at taking advantage of others; value creation has virtually nothing to do with it. A fast-food worker is creating value by preparing tasty fries; Mark Zuckerberg maybe created some value by helping people stay connected, but that's overwhelmingly outweighed by his value destruction if you look at his overall impact on the world.

> if I had the freedom not to work, I would perhaps pursue my own goals or hobbies which may not bring value to the world in the most optimal way

We have very different definitions of "value" then, because I suspect people pursuing their own goals and hobbies is one of the best ways to create value in the world. Of course we also need vast cooperation to create valuable things like the James Webb Space Telescope.

It just sounds like you're dramatically over-estimating how much "value" is produced by (A) the current top caste of rent-seekers leveraging the vast amounts of wealth they were born into into even more wealth by taking advantage of their fellow humans as much as possible, and (B) the vast amount of bullshit jobs that are literally worthless busywork. If you're sitting around writing poetry or building train sets, you're way ahead of both those groups in terms of "value creation".

[superfrank]

> Even so, I suspect not every healthy person would choose to work, given the opportunity to not.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don't this that's a good argument that work is bad or unhealthy. I think most people would choose to do something else with their time spent at work if they had the opportunity, but they choose to work because the benefits they receive from working are better than the lifestyle they'd have if they were not working.

That trade off of doing something we don't enjoy to gain a result we do enjoy isn't unique to work though. I suspect that most people wouldn't eat healthy or exercise if they didn't have to.

[gymbeaux]

There is NO point in living paycheck to paycheck, because eventually you will be unable to work and will have to pay the piper for not saving for retirement/an emergency.

If people have to choose between living paycheck to paycheck or living in a smaller house/driving an older car/not eating out as much, the choice should be clear, but it’s not to most people.

[adrianN]

There are a large number of people who have no alternative to living paycheck to paycheck. You make it sound like it's a choice.

[gymbeaux]

It’s a choice for many. I’m glad we aren’t forgetting about the less-fortunate in the world, but let’s be realistic too- at least in America, the middle class is pretty much entirely subscribed to consumerism. New iPhone every year, BMW when Toyota would suffice, etc.

[gymbeaux]

Whether it’s a choice is irrelevant