babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Why I am going to work tommorow

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why I am going to work tommorow
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 10 April 2006 02:57 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A lot of discussion lately about things like full employment and a guaranteed income... here's my take on it.

I need an income. I need to go to work in order for my employer to provide me with that income. If I do not show up for work, I will lose my job and therefore my income. Right now it is almost midnight, and can't get away with waking up any later than 5:30 am in order to go to work. This is going to make me very unhappy in a few hours. But I am still going to get up and go because, as I have just explained, I need to go to work.

Suppose my need for an income was guaranteed by the government and that I am also guaranteed a job. Then I am no longer at the mercy of my employer- simply put, I would not have to show up for work tommorow simply because I don't feel like it. I could remain secure in the knowledge that I have nothing to lose because whatever I would no longer get from the corporation would be covered by the government. A side effect of this is that my job doesn't get done. But then why should I care? Well, imagine this on a mass scale and everyone with a job they don't absolutely adore just doesn't feel like going to work. How could a complete collapse of society be avoided?


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 April 2006 03:06 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't have to show up for work tomorrow if I don't feel like it. I get 15 sick days a year, and I could easily call in sick. But I won't. I could use all of them every year if I feel like it, but I don't. I don't usually even use all my vacation days every year, although they're carried forward.

Why? Because I like the routine of working, I like getting up in the morning, and I like my job. The fact that I get paid fairly and treated well gives me the incentive to go in every day.

Most people like working if they aren't treated like shit at their workplace or screwed over financially by their employers.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 10 April 2006 03:55 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Most people like working if they aren't treated like shit at their workplace or screwed over financially by their employers.



Except for Gir. He apparently thrives on it. If he were to ever touch a union card, I bet he'd scream, and his hand would start to smoke...

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 10 April 2006 09:46 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am very fond of the work I do, though I don't like the utter lack of job security. It is very hard to find work other than freelance or phony freelance (the cases when one winds up working as a "freelancer" for a single employer) in my field. There used to be more "real jobs" in editorial work, whether translating as I do, as an editor or in related jobs.

I did a lot of unpaid volunteer translation last year, despite my misgivings about ever doing that, because I was involved in a refugee status struggle - and the refugee in question is the partner of a friend. Although that is yet another example of women getting caught up in unpaid work - highly technical legal translation in this case - I do have the satisfaction that we won our cause.

What I'm working on now is interesting - and paid. But it does get lonely working alone at home, which is why I babble.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 10 April 2006 10:14 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know lots of people who have had to limit their potential in order to "earn an income" ... many very smart people who were not "ambitious enough" to be born into a rich family had to settle for a career in a field not matching their potential.

If you're someone working in a job you don't like, and would not be there if it were not for the fact that you were forced to work or starve, then maybe you're not being as productive as you would be if you were in a job that you looked forward to going to in the morning?

If we weighed the cost / benefits of the lost productivity of having to put up with people in positions they don't want to be in, vs having to "suffer" with people who are free to reach for their ultimate career goals deciding that they aren't going to go to work anyway because they "don't have to" ... I wonder what we might determine?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 10 April 2006 11:02 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ha ha. Gir's silly initial post shows a presumption that people won't work unless they're forced to, in a manner of speaking. (The discipline of the threat of unemployment.) But there are better jobs and worse jobs. There could be a general guarantee of employment, say with a socialist government, and still people could be dismissed and have to look for another. This just shows a lack of imagination.

Conservatism is resistance to change. But change is inevitable. Therefore, conservatism is resistance to the inevitable. Conservatism is the Don Quixote of ideologies ...


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 10 April 2006 11:26 AM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First of all I think there is some truth in what Gir Draxon has stated. Now let me say that I do NOT necessarily agree with him on all points,but there is a grain of truth in what he says.

Before I continue, let me say that I am a very staunch union supporter and feel the main reason for the existence of unions today is because the employer took advantage of the worker in every way imaginable. I agree if the employer had been reasonably fair and equitable with his employees, there probably would not be any unions today, because the worker would be much happier in their jobs and would have not seen a reason to unionize. But greed being what it is, caused the employer to take advantage of his or her employees.

That being said, greed is NOT solely a vice of the rich employers. Just like employers who after a while they tend to feel they have some special entitlement because they provide jobs in a community, so to do many working people fall prey to the same vices. So to assume people will always be self motivated if they are guaranteed an annual income is naive.

The former Soviet Union took away all incentive to work and as a result it collapsed mainly because no person cared. I recall a famous line from a Russian worker who said " We pretend to work and the state pretends to pay us".


From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 10 April 2006 11:36 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unemployment and under-employment waste gigantic resources, the most important of which is the energies and lives of millions of people. The very idea that gigantic plans can be made by governments and corporations but not, it seems, plans to keep everyone (able and willing to) working just shows a unresolved contradiction of capitalism.

The fact that the Soviets had something like a job guarantee (which, if you were a political oppositional person, wasn't necessarily true.) doesn't demonstrate that such guarantees were the cause of the collapse of that regime. But nice try.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 10 April 2006 11:40 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Suppose my need for an income was guaranteed by the government and that I am also guaranteed a job. Then I am no longer at the mercy of my employer- simply put, I would not have to show up for work tommorow simply because I don't feel like it. I could remain secure in the knowledge that I have nothing to lose because whatever I would no longer get from the corporation would be covered by the government.

First of all, this is a false dichotomy. A guaranteed annual income only provides a minimum income necessary to meet all human beings' basic necessities.

People would continue to work because it gives them the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labour, both intrinsic (i.e. many people like their jobs and draw satisfaction from what they accomplish there) and extrinsic (i.e. the opportunity to make more money than the minimum and buy the luxuries they would like to enjoy).

Second of all, I don't know about you, but I do not do my best work when I am threatened with death or deprivation. I find that unduly stressful. As several other posters have pointed out above, it all depends on what you believe about yourself and other people. If you believe that you are inherently bad or lazy, you would probably think that without the threat of imminent poverty, you would no longer work. But if you believe you have inherent worth as a person and you are ambitious, then without the "discipline" of unemployment to hold you down, you would also have a chance to soar.

quote:
Originally posted by virge47:
The former Soviet Union took away all incentive to work and as a result it collapsed mainly because no person cared.

I don't think that's really why the Soviet Union collapsed but I think I will let someone else take a run at this canard. Is Fidel around?

[ 10 April 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 10 April 2006 12:05 PM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think many people are attacking the problem of unemployment and most especially low wages and in some cases sub-standard wages from the wrong end.

Our problems lie in the fact that large corporations who control the government and as a result make policy in favor of big corporations, is the root of the problem.

Free trade is the biggest hoax ever foisted on the public. It was sold to people as the answer to prosperity and a comfortable lifestyle, when the fact is free trade is ONLY free for the corporations. Free Trade with countries of similar standards of living will work but NOT with countries such as China and India as they are being conducted today is the root cause of many of our problems today.

It is ludicrous to think that a country such as the U.S. or Canada for example with a higher standard of living then say China, which pays their workforce slave wages, with NO benefits to name a few differences will compete on a level playing field.

So in hindsight we must fight against any type of trade with such countries and force these corporations to keep the jobs in the U.S. or Canada.


From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 April 2006 12:09 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
A guaranteed annual income only provides a minimum income necessary to meet all human beings' basic necessities.

I've seen numbers like $30K/year tossed about. This translates to $15/hr. I had mostly finished school and was about 31 years old before I was earning $15/hr. I wouldn't call it the minimum. I'm betting anyone working for $14.50/hr would be happy to drop out and receive a raise for following their bliss. Also anyone making less, and perhaps even a few people making more.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 10 April 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Magoo, was that for an individual or a family? I thought that figure was for a family, in cities such as Toronto and Vancouver where housing costs are sky-high. It has become a serious problem for low-wage workers (for example, in restaurants and shops) in such cities.

I make considerably more than $15hr and a LOT less than 30k a year. The same applies to many other freelancers.

At my age, I also have a slight handicap (arthritis in an ankle) that would prevent me from doing the kind of low-wage jobs that I'd managed to survive on as a young person (such as working in a bookshop) as while I can walk all day, I can't stand for hours without moving. That is the case for many people.

Welfare, beyond the humiliation, wouldn't even pay my relatively low rent and my utilities, not to mention food.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 April 2006 12:33 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure... I just saw it go by. And I'm calculating the $30k before taxes, assuming most people work 40 hours x 50 weeks (2000 hours) a year, which means that if you know the hourly wage, you just multiply it by 2 and add the "K".
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 10 April 2006 12:40 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Gir has shown us once again that "conservatism" is a political philosophy for people who know that they're really lazy, shiftless degenerates, and that the horrible social-political system they want to impose on everybody is really something that is only needed for themselves. (The gold-bricking closet-cases!)

So, some people bandy-about $30k as a GAI? Well then, by all means, let's dismiss it as a point of discussion altogether! btw: I hear that some socialists are actually Stalinists! forget "socialism"! And some liberal-capitalists think that Pinochet was a good guy! Forget "liberal-capitalism"!

I hear that some environmentalists are crazy! Forget environmentalists!

I hear that .... i gave up thinking ... blah, blah, blah,


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 10 April 2006 12:40 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mr. Magoo, alas nowadays your assumption no longer applies. There is more and more contingent labour - whether of the low-wage kind (interim employment firms) or freelancers who may make more per hour for their qualifications, but never rack up enough billable hours to reach an average of even 30 hours a week.

This trend has spread even to the social services and health sector, where a lot of workers are on call or temporary forever. And there are a lot of temporary instructors at colleges and universities.

I've taught in language schools, one of the worst offenders in terms of phony freelancing - our travel time between clients' premises is never covered, nor is our correction time. God, I hope someone unionises those places. The work for civil servants studying ESL or FSL used to be government jobs with benefits...


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 10 April 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Magoo you keep referencing people "following their bliss" I think you should probably be working more hours if you have enough time to read Joseph Campbell.
From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 10 April 2006 12:51 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bliss is never having to say you're Tory.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 10 April 2006 02:28 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obviously there are those who enjoy toiling for others in a 'work' environment. But why should their agenda be imposed upon the rest of the population? Not everyone believes in the protestant work ethic. Not everyone is a protestant either.
Like so many other belief systems that have been imposed upon populations over the ages, the whole capitalist wage slave relationship relationship is but the latest. Capitalism and all that it stands for is just something that a bunch of people that were able to grab control of the political decision making process have been able to impose upon the rest of us.

There is nothing about it that is real or necessary. Its just another ideology that only serves those at the top of its hierarchy while needlessly exploiting everyone else. It exists primarily in our minds.

And, because it exists primarily in our minds the only thing stopping us from seeking other economic systems where there is far more equitable distribution of wealth and goods is our own intransigence.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 10 April 2006 02:34 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Capitalism is not merely an "ideology" or an illusion. It is an economic system and set of social relations. Like any other social and economic system, it has given rise to an ideology (or series of ideologies) that shore it up and legitimise it, but calling it above all an ideology is ... putting the cat before the horse.

Cripes, I'm not a protestant either, but I think a work ethic of some kind is common to many human societies. And how about the creative impulse?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 10 April 2006 03:04 PM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
otter your post is very astute, but for one miscalculation. You describe ideologies as if they are in a vacuum, because the reality is when you add people to the mix, which of course is the necessary ingredient you inject the human condition with all of its failings and shortcomings.

That being said, people being the way they are is the fly in the ointment so to speak. No matter what ideoligy a given society embraces, it will always be exploited by a few to the detriment of the majority. It matters not whether it is capitalism, socialism or any other ideoligy. I think in ALL societies the populace must stand vigil to assure a balanced treatment of society and avoid any extremes.


From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca