[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).

[twblalock]

We don't have the standard of 150 years ago. 150 years ago the 8-hour work day was fought for by workers who had to normally work from dawn to dusk, 6 days a week. It was a reform, not an imposition!

Today we work far fewer hours than our ancestors did, we make a lot more money for the work we do, we have more days off, a better standard of living, and much longer life expectancy with the possibility of multi-decade retirement. Things are way better now!

[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.