Personal Finance

Why more money? Why not less work?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 24th, 2011 5:41 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 7, 2009
13885 posts
1368 upvotes

Why more money? Why not less work?

I see a lot of talk lately about 'creating jobs.' I always just shake my head and wonder at the people scrambling to create holes for people to dig, and fill back in again.

Engineers will quickly recognize, Power = Work/Time.
Simply, the more power we have, the more work we put in, and the less time is required. So if we substitute money for power (The adage, "money is power" rings true here), then we should see more time freed up, with our ability to scale work with power. There is no doubt that we are producing more work and more power, and doing it more efficiently over less time in accordance with Moore's Law. So, I ask you.. Where is our free time? What happened to it? And why are we trying to create more work, rather than account for that lost time?

Do we have no way of throttling the manufacture of unnecessary crap, in order to make our time and energy more valuable?

All you macro-economists out there, explain to me why we can't put a collective premium on work output (say a dollar value per joule spent) and measure that to come up with an accurate scale for our real economic growth?

Either we are a true global economy, or we're just price-fixing certain commodities in order to legislate profit to particular stakeholders. I'm gonna go ahead and throw my hat in for the former. Y'all go ahead and disagree if you like, but I'd like an explanation.
In a perfect system, corporations would fear the government and the government would fear the people. - David Wong

Check out caRpetbomBer's picks in this thread.
50 replies
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 7, 2009
13885 posts
1368 upvotes
So come on guys, figure it out.

What happened to our free time, that we earned from the work gained from efficiency? It's being "spent" by people who are unemployed. Except, they don't get to enjoy it. Why? Because we're too busy punishing them for being unemployed, by withholding the glut of resources, rather than allocating them.

Essentially, we are taking the fruits of our labour, which is all the extra time saved from doing more work for less wasted energy, and instead of cashing it in, we are treating it like a problem. Yet, it's just a natural by-product. We are pretending like unemployment is a chasm that needs to be filled. Hell, we aren't even putting the energy back into the system. We've become so efficient at making 'stuff' that we can't even find ways to spend the spillover.
In a perfect system, corporations would fear the government and the government would fear the people. - David Wong

Check out caRpetbomBer's picks in this thread.
Deal Addict
Aug 21, 2009
1330 posts
74 upvotes
Transient
Capitalism is what happened dude. We could easily replace most jobs with technology and we could design things to last a lot longer but then the hamster wheels would stop turning. Planned obsolesces and consumerism is all a fundamental part of capitalism and it nearly paralyses technology not to mention destroys the environment. The problem is if we accept that some people don't have to work in society who would be motivated to work anymore? (And how would all the rich people siphon all the slaves money anymore?)

From what I see most people waste a lot of time at work (IE they could produce just as much in 5-6 hours as they do in 8, and they would be happier/more efficient) North Americans work much longer hours in than in other parts of the world. There is a compromise in there somewhere but it seems to be North American culture to work far more/longer than you really need to, so that you can buy more cheap disposable junk.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 7, 2009
13885 posts
1368 upvotes
Not a bad assessment.

So assuming that I agree with your breakdown of the problem, then how do we go about fixing this?
In a perfect system, corporations would fear the government and the government would fear the people. - David Wong

Check out caRpetbomBer's picks in this thread.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 8, 2010
2564 posts
992 upvotes
Start your own business. Or start/join an ecovillage.

Choose not to live somewhere with high upkeep (=tax).

Are you talking on a personal level or as a society? As a society - there's so much going on. It's in the interests of the people (we put) in power to keep people working (or otherwise distracted - what would you *do* if you only worked 25 hours a week? Some people could deal with it, others would go off the rails) for many reasons - one being that if people are too busy to riot/complain/think too much then the status quo will continue.

There are examples of people who have decided not to work 40 hour weeks. Have a look at "Living the Good Life" by Helen and Scott Nearing.

But the issue for most people is that society brings some safety nets - healthcare, unemployment benefits, education, and so on - that they are not willing to forego.

You can be an artist living in the woods, but in order to be appreciated you need humanity.

I'm trying to work this out at the moment myself. Currently earning ok with low overheads but I'm done with that in a few months. Then I'd like to get a part time job - enough money to live on, but spare time to think, lie around, read more, walk... but part time skilled stuff seems rare. I mean, if you earn $50k for 5 days a week, wouldn't you much rather earn $30k for 3?! I know I would!!

BUT the thing is, if everyone did that, prices would collapse - because those people earning $50k+ are the ones buying all the new stuff, buying services, spending spending spending which makes GDP go up. If everyone was like me (a tightarse), 99% of restaurants theatres car dealers computer shops bookshops would go out of business...
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 3, 2002
1321 posts
68 upvotes
Ottawa
Syne wrote: So come on guys, figure it out.

What happened to our free time, that we earned from the work gained from efficiency?

For thousands of years, people were making fires with sticks, and fighting with stones and bows. Within ~100 years we've gone from discovering electricity, to flying to the moon and sending probes to other planets. Sounds like a pretty efficient use of time to me, compared to the previous few centuries?
Deal Fanatic
Jul 1, 2007
8569 posts
1763 upvotes
I should be able to hire a robot to work for me. It earns the wages, I play golf.
Money Smarts Blog wrote: I agree with the previous posters, especially Thalo. {And} Thalo's advice is spot on.
Banned
Mar 4, 2009
4833 posts
277 upvotes
Toronto
Thalo wrote: I should be able to hire a robot to work for me. It earns the wages, I play golf.

You can. Start a business.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 18, 2007
4832 posts
759 upvotes
I'd have to agree with this. I'd rather have more time off vs. more pay (within reason)
Why have money if I can't spend it as I want.

But it's part of the North American culture. I for 1, won't have another job after with where time off is the "10 day joke". Life is too short. If someone else want's to keep up w/ the joneses, so be it. I'd rather travel. I work to live, not live to work.

40 years from now, I won't be glad I spent tons of time in the office. lol
Deal Expert
Aug 2, 2001
18946 posts
10527 upvotes
Syne wrote: Not a bad assessment.

So assuming that I agree with your breakdown of the problem, then how do we go about fixing this?
Why do we want to fix this?

Many people are perfectly happy with the way things are and do not want to take part in a society with an increased slant towards socialism (which is obviously what you are hinting at). In order to protect the wealth that is accumulated the wealthy countries will continue to do what they do to maintain their economy (which is, to profit and grow to get more profit).

On an individual scale the more an individual works the more they profit. Some of their profits go to those that don't work (or don't work as hard), however in the end their profit is greater through their greater amount of work. We (society) care about profiting, so people strive to continue doing so, and seem happy to do so.


So the real question is, why should you change a society that is happy with taking the route it is to fit another mold?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 18, 2007
4832 posts
759 upvotes
TrevorK wrote: Why do we want to fix this?

Many people are perfectly happy with the way things are and do not want to take part in a society with an increased slant towards socialism (which is obviously what you are hinting at). In order to protect the wealth that is accumulated the wealthy countries will continue to do what they do to maintain their economy (which is, to profit and grow to get more profit).

On an individual scale the more an individual works the more they profit. Some of their profits go to those that don't work (or don't work as hard), however in the end their profit is greater through their greater amount of work. We (society) care about profiting, so people strive to continue doing so, and seem happy to do so.


So the real question is, why should you change a society that is happy with taking the route it is to fit another mold?

Happy is subjective.
The older generation believes good work = time spent. The younger thinks good work = however long it takes.
Sort of a clash at time in the work place. I for 1 fall into the younger crowds beliefs.
But to each their own.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 7, 2009
13885 posts
1368 upvotes
TrevorK wrote: Why do we want to fix this?

Many people are perfectly happy with the way things are and do not want to take part in a society with an increased slant towards socialism (which is obviously what you are hinting at). In order to protect the wealth that is accumulated the wealthy countries will continue to do what they do to maintain their economy (which is, to profit and grow to get more profit).

On an individual scale the more an individual works the more they profit. Some of their profits go to those that don't work (or don't work as hard), however in the end their profit is greater through their greater amount of work. We (society) care about profiting, so people strive to continue doing so, and seem happy to do so.


So the real question is, why should you change a society that is happy with taking the route it is to fit another mold?

Well first of all, I think it's a pretty broad oversight, when you fail to distinguish happiness with mere complacency. I show a measure of complacency, because I am willing to work with the current system, living out my philosophy in hopes of making small changes. But working with a broken system, even while silently having reservations, is not the same as being happy with it.

You give an example of people working proportional to the payoff. I ask you, if we could devise a sort of work-o-meter, that would measure both physical and mental stress, and pay people accordingly (suspend your disbelief a bit here) then would you support implementing this, in order to more accurately compensate people's work?

But to bring this around a bit to the OP, I think that IceBlueShoes makes a valid point. Our culture is dividing between those who value work for work's sake, and those who value leveraging work for free time.

I guess that's what happens when you start to harvest an entire generation of university educated global citizens. The dogma and the adages about hard work that we took for granted no longer hold traction. It will be interesting to see how N. American attitudes will shift in the next 20 years.
In a perfect system, corporations would fear the government and the government would fear the people. - David Wong

Check out caRpetbomBer's picks in this thread.
Sr. Member
Aug 29, 2006
506 posts
6 upvotes
London
i think we are naturally competitive, therefore, we will always want to work more so that we can better (higher socioeconomic status) than the next
Deal Expert
Aug 2, 2001
18946 posts
10527 upvotes
Syne wrote: Well first of all, I think it's a pretty broad oversight, when you fail to distinguish happiness with mere complacency. I show a measure of complacency, because I am willing to work with the current system, living out my philosophy in hopes of making small changes. But working with a broken system, even while silently having reservations, is not the same as being happy with it.
How are you able to judge whether people are happy or complacent? It seems a bit presumptuous to assume that people aren't "happy" with the ways things work now.
You give an example of people working proportional to the payoff. I ask you, if we could devise a sort of work-o-meter, that would measure both physical and mental stress, and pay people accordingly (suspend your disbelief a bit here) then would you support implementing this, in order to more accurately compensate people's work?
No, not at all.

When people undertake schooling for an occupation they have a relatively good idea of their projected salary and career potential. It's not a surprise, it's not hidden. It's out there. If someone chooses to accept a stressful job that does not pay well that's their choice - they obviously had other options and that is what they have chose.

The system you are proposing is different. No better, no worse, just different. Some will like it and others won't but you aren't going to be able to scientifically prove whether it's better or not and that seems to be what you are trying to do.
Deal Addict
Aug 21, 2009
1330 posts
74 upvotes
Transient
IceBlueShoes wrote: I'd have to agree with this. I'd rather have more time off vs. more pay (within reason)
Why have money if I can't spend it as I want.

But it's part of the North American culture. I for 1, won't have another job after with where time off is the "10 day joke". Life is too short. If someone else want's to keep up w/ the joneses, so be it. I'd rather travel. I work to live, not live to work.

40 years from now, I won't be glad I spent tons of time in the office. lol

Yes, other cultures have this figured out. You can accomplish just as much and still take a break for lunch and evening. NA culture is to work non stop. Instead of laying people off, we could subsidize a job share program. It's a win-win-win: company keeps their employee skills, employee keeps their job and gets more time - gov saves money on EI and welfare etc
Deal Addict
Jun 9, 2003
4646 posts
746 upvotes
Syne wrote: Power = Work/Time
Sure.
Syne wrote: So if we substitute money for power (The adage, "money is power" rings true here)
Not quite, IMHO. In this simple case, power is the rate (and is proportional to $), but work is the cumulative result:

Work = $

So as power increases and time remains the same, we get more production, which when demand can support it, results in more profit. That is where the efficiency goes, IMHO, towards the pursuit of more profit. It doesn't always lead to more profit, because market forces may cause extra efficiency to be wasted (i.e. no demand for new production), but that is where the extra "energy" is directed.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 30, 2009
12178 posts
603 upvotes
Toronto
IceBlueShoes wrote: I'd have to agree with this. I'd rather have more time off vs. more pay (within reason)
Why have money if I can't spend it as I want.

But it's part of the North American culture. I for 1, won't have another job after with where time off is the "10 day joke". Life is too short. If someone else want's to keep up w/ the joneses, so be it. I'd rather travel. I work to live, not live to work.
Exactly. Everybody keeps saying they want a raise, but forget that I want more time to ENJOY my life. I work in part of a union and people keep protesting better pay, but I'm thinking to myself what's the point with these awful shifts. Productivity and overall happiness would increase tenfold with at the very least a 2 week mandatory Summer Vacation, outside the normal vacation allowance.

North America sucks sometimes. lol

Btw, don't Parliament get like the whole Summer off. And don't tell me they're working for us. Pfft lol
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 30, 2009
12178 posts
603 upvotes
Toronto
TrevorK wrote: How are you able to judge whether people are happy or complacent? It seems a bit presumptuous to assume that people aren't "happy" with the ways things work now.



No, not at all.

When people undertake schooling for an occupation they have a relatively good idea of their projected salary and career potential. It's not a surprise, it's not hidden. It's out there. If someone chooses to accept a stressful job that does not pay well that's their choice - they obviously had other options and that is what they have chose.

The system you are proposing is different. No better, no worse, just different. Some will like it and others won't but you aren't going to be able to scientifically prove whether it's better or not and that seems to be what you are trying to do.
I think it's quite obvious that people would rather work less, if they can afford not to lose out on income.

Btw, when somebody takes on a stressful job, it's usually not by personal choice. There are a TON of other factors out there. Just go speak with those people in "stressful" situations and find out.
Deal Fanatic
Oct 7, 2007
9404 posts
5374 upvotes
In case anyone is interested, there is good book out there titled "Your Money or Your Life" by Vicki Robin that really sheds an interesting perspective on the whole money versus quality of life question. I think alot of people who value their jobs look at the value/sacrifice of their jobs in terms of gross salary but this book helps explain why the reward is actually less than what appears on the surface and the personal sacrifice greater than just the hours spent on the job.

Unless you totally love your job (i.e. would rather work than be free), you may want to read this book.
Deal Addict
Apr 21, 2008
1753 posts
1902 upvotes
My goal has always been to make more and work less. I see ppl that work 60 hour work weeks and i've never been envious of them.

But one thing i would consider is working more per week/per day, but having more time off. Or perhaps have more companies adopt a 4 day, 10 hour a day work week, i'd love that. We need to have a change in our work/life going forward that allows for more flexible hours when possible.

Top