Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Rocsteady » Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:45 pm

Karl_ wrote:
Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I am interested in challenging the idea that people who work harder should not be wealthier than people who choose to work less hard. How on earth would we draw up the rules to avoid it? Does anyone really think society could function if there was no monetary incentive involved in gaining experience, training, accountability etc.?

Well, presently we might agree that the hardest workers do not earn the most. Generally, people with the most capital accumulate the most wealth and power, and owning capital is far from necessarily difficult (one might inherit it, for instance). So if we describe society as it is: "those with most capital earn the most," we must seek a revolution to establish: "those with the best work ethic should earn the most." But why that in particular? What is special about work ethic? The idea as we now understand it dates only back to Calvin, and is a bourgeois mantra born not coincidentally at the beginning of the era of industrialisation, precisely when in actual fact mechanisation caused intensity-of-labour to become uncoupled from the value of goods produced. If we are already seeking revolution, perhaps a fairer metric might be: "those who are most useful to society earn the most." But now we have abolished capital as a driver for wealth, for what do these labourers-of-most-utility work so hard for? If after a little work a community produces enough for its members---and we know we can produce plenty easily today---these ostensible most-utilitarians would be simply producing goods for themselves to hoard as a show of their virtue! Such a society would surely reject this behaviour, regarding they who sensibly work for an hour a day higher than they who needlessly toil and wastefully hoard their fruits. So now we are left with "those who contribute to society will be given plenty". In such a place, almost everyone would make some contribution or other to the community. Surely, though, such a utopian people would not punish those who could not do their small share of work---perhaps through age, or frailty, or mental state---and would have no real reason to impoverish even a criminal or some caricatural 'useless, obstinate, lazy' hermit. So the foundation of that civilisation would quite naturally become "From each according to their ability; to each according to their needs."

I don’t understand why anyone would do the gooseberry fool jobs in this utopian society. Who’s working on sewage waste or manning a supermarket till without monetary gain? I know I wouldn’t have while studying if I wasn’t being rewarded with cash for it.

I also wouldn’t have taken on extra diplomas without the future promise of more money. I suspect this would be the case for most people, meaning the sum of human knowledge would be lessened without people striving forward as much.

For jobs such as chefs as well, no one will ever want to start at the bottom rung - just now you peel potatoes with the future promise of rising up the ranks, with consummate salary increases. Very few will be willing to work their way up over a number of years without the cash to go with it.

Image
User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Lex-Man » Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:46 pm

Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.


Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Moggy » Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:53 pm

Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.



From that same link:

Working past retirement age might not be beneficial to health for everyone, however. For example:

Suffering stress on the job has long been recognized as a risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke.

If your job is physically demanding, you may have an increased risk of injury.

If you feel your job lacks meaning, if you're bored, or if you feel "burned out," that may add to stress or affect your mood.

It's not surprising, then, that a number of studies have found health benefits to retiring. For example, a 2010 study of 14,000 people, published in The BMJ, found that retiring was linked to a substantial reduction in mental and physical fatigue and depressive symptoms.

The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.

But she also points out that the mixed findings indicate the health benefits of working simply depend on the individual and his or her circumstances.

We do know that staying mentally, socially, and physically active — which working may enable you to do — is good for health.

Mental stimulation and problem solving are good for maintaining thinking skills; social engagement is associated with staving off chronic disease; and staying physically active, even if it's just walking, can lead to both better health and sharper thinking skills.

Does that mean you should keep working? "Yes, if you can," says Maestas. "But be smart about what you're doing. Don't stay in a job you hate. Try to find something that's meaningful and gives you purpose. If you're happy at work, that's one sign that work may be good for your health."



It’s not work that good for you, it’s staying mentally and physically active. Which is easy to do if you want to. It’s not so easy to avoid the stress/hardship of a job you hate if you have few other options.

User avatar
Meep
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: Belfast

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Meep » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:15 pm

One of the reasons I would love to work less is that it would improve my health. I spend most hours of most days sat in an office chair. I try to make up for this on the weekend with physical activity and going to the gym a couple of times in the weekday evenings but I have other things to take care including part time study so I have limited time to keep fit. Any time I get time off I try to fit in some physical activity to make the most of the day.

So no, I don't think working is good for health, at least not if you are in an office based job. It might be different if you work in construction or a trade or something like that, but in my family that seems not to be the case. Men in my family who have worked in trades have experienced worse physical health due to things like dodgy knees, back pain or arthritis. My grandfather had to have a double knee replacement and my uncle will probably need the same at some point. So it seems like when it comes to most lines of work you basically pick your poison. You either work in a physical job where you suffer from wear and tear as you get older or you have typical middle class office job and pile on the pounds as you hit middle age. Personally I think I have it better as at least I can use what free time I have to exercise in a way that does not leave my body a wreck in retirement.

If we had more equal time between work and leisure, through a longer weekend for instance, then we might be able to solve some of this by giving those in physical jobs longer to recuperate and those of us who are idle more time to exercise.

User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Lex-Man » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:19 pm

Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.



From that same link:

Working past retirement age might not be beneficial to health for everyone, however. For example:

Suffering stress on the job has long been recognized as a risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke.

If your job is physically demanding, you may have an increased risk of injury.

If you feel your job lacks meaning, if you're bored, or if you feel "burned out," that may add to stress or affect your mood.

It's not surprising, then, that a number of studies have found health benefits to retiring. For example, a 2010 study of 14,000 people, published in The BMJ, found that retiring was linked to a substantial reduction in mental and physical fatigue and depressive symptoms.

The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.

But she also points out that the mixed findings indicate the health benefits of working simply depend on the individual and his or her circumstances.

We do know that staying mentally, socially, and physically active — which working may enable you to do — is good for health.

Mental stimulation and problem solving are good for maintaining thinking skills; social engagement is associated with staving off chronic disease; and staying physically active, even if it's just walking, can lead to both better health and sharper thinking skills.

Does that mean you should keep working? "Yes, if you can," says Maestas. "But be smart about what you're doing. Don't stay in a job you hate. Try to find something that's meaningful and gives you purpose. If you're happy at work, that's one sign that work may be good for your health."



It’s not work that good for you, it’s staying mentally and physically active. Which is easy to do if you want to. It’s not so easy to avoid the stress/hardship of a job you hate if you have few other options.


That quote does say it tends to be positive. We can create a society that works to make work as positive as possible for people. There are a lot of small changes like introducing flexible working that would massively improve work for people.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Moggy » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:22 pm

Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.



From that same link:

Working past retirement age might not be beneficial to health for everyone, however. For example:

Suffering stress on the job has long been recognized as a risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke.

If your job is physically demanding, you may have an increased risk of injury.

If you feel your job lacks meaning, if you're bored, or if you feel "burned out," that may add to stress or affect your mood.

It's not surprising, then, that a number of studies have found health benefits to retiring. For example, a 2010 study of 14,000 people, published in The BMJ, found that retiring was linked to a substantial reduction in mental and physical fatigue and depressive symptoms.

The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.

But she also points out that the mixed findings indicate the health benefits of working simply depend on the individual and his or her circumstances.

We do know that staying mentally, socially, and physically active — which working may enable you to do — is good for health.

Mental stimulation and problem solving are good for maintaining thinking skills; social engagement is associated with staving off chronic disease; and staying physically active, even if it's just walking, can lead to both better health and sharper thinking skills.

Does that mean you should keep working? "Yes, if you can," says Maestas. "But be smart about what you're doing. Don't stay in a job you hate. Try to find something that's meaningful and gives you purpose. If you're happy at work, that's one sign that work may be good for your health."



It’s not work that good for you, it’s staying mentally and physically active. Which is easy to do if you want to. It’s not so easy to avoid the stress/hardship of a job you hate if you have few other options.


That quote does say it tends to be positive. We can create a society that works to make work as positive as possible for people. There are a lot of small changes like introducing flexible working that would massively improve work for people.


That quote doesn’t really say it tends to be positive, it says it’s a mixed bag and different studies have different results.

Work will never be positive for the vast majority of people as the vast majority of jobs are shitty.

User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Lex-Man » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:28 pm

Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.



From that same link:

Working past retirement age might not be beneficial to health for everyone, however. For example:

Suffering stress on the job has long been recognized as a risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke.

If your job is physically demanding, you may have an increased risk of injury.

If you feel your job lacks meaning, if you're bored, or if you feel "burned out," that may add to stress or affect your mood.

It's not surprising, then, that a number of studies have found health benefits to retiring. For example, a 2010 study of 14,000 people, published in The BMJ, found that retiring was linked to a substantial reduction in mental and physical fatigue and depressive symptoms.

The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.

But she also points out that the mixed findings indicate the health benefits of working simply depend on the individual and his or her circumstances.

We do know that staying mentally, socially, and physically active — which working may enable you to do — is good for health.

Mental stimulation and problem solving are good for maintaining thinking skills; social engagement is associated with staving off chronic disease; and staying physically active, even if it's just walking, can lead to both better health and sharper thinking skills.

Does that mean you should keep working? "Yes, if you can," says Maestas. "But be smart about what you're doing. Don't stay in a job you hate. Try to find something that's meaningful and gives you purpose. If you're happy at work, that's one sign that work may be good for your health."



It’s not work that good for you, it’s staying mentally and physically active. Which is easy to do if you want to. It’s not so easy to avoid the stress/hardship of a job you hate if you have few other options.


That quote does say it tends to be positive. We can create a society that works to make work as positive as possible for people. There are a lot of small changes like introducing flexible working that would massively improve work for people.


That quote doesn’t really say it tends to be positive, it says it’s a mixed bag and different studies have different results.

Work will never be positive for the vast majority of people as the vast majority of jobs are shitty.


The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.



I think there's a lot we could do to make jobs less shitty. It really doesn't have to be as bad as it currently is.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Moggy » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:34 pm

Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.



From that same link:

Working past retirement age might not be beneficial to health for everyone, however. For example:

Suffering stress on the job has long been recognized as a risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke.

If your job is physically demanding, you may have an increased risk of injury.

If you feel your job lacks meaning, if you're bored, or if you feel "burned out," that may add to stress or affect your mood.

It's not surprising, then, that a number of studies have found health benefits to retiring. For example, a 2010 study of 14,000 people, published in The BMJ, found that retiring was linked to a substantial reduction in mental and physical fatigue and depressive symptoms.

The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.

But she also points out that the mixed findings indicate the health benefits of working simply depend on the individual and his or her circumstances.

We do know that staying mentally, socially, and physically active — which working may enable you to do — is good for health.

Mental stimulation and problem solving are good for maintaining thinking skills; social engagement is associated with staving off chronic disease; and staying physically active, even if it's just walking, can lead to both better health and sharper thinking skills.

Does that mean you should keep working? "Yes, if you can," says Maestas. "But be smart about what you're doing. Don't stay in a job you hate. Try to find something that's meaningful and gives you purpose. If you're happy at work, that's one sign that work may be good for your health."



It’s not work that good for you, it’s staying mentally and physically active. Which is easy to do if you want to. It’s not so easy to avoid the stress/hardship of a job you hate if you have few other options.


That quote does say it tends to be positive. We can create a society that works to make work as positive as possible for people. There are a lot of small changes like introducing flexible working that would massively improve work for people.


That quote doesn’t really say it tends to be positive, it says it’s a mixed bag and different studies have different results.

Work will never be positive for the vast majority of people as the vast majority of jobs are shitty.


The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.



I think there's a lot we could do to make jobs less shitty. It really doesn't have to be as bad as it currently is.


We could. But we won’t. There’s no profit in it.

And for a lot of people even a wonderful job will eventually annoy them. Getting out of bed in the morning is shitty, even if it’s to a stress free job.

User avatar
Peter Crisp
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Peter Crisp » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:38 pm

Rightey wrote:
Moggy wrote:We have several tax bands. I can’t remember exactly but it goes something like:

£0 - £12k = 0%
£12k - £40k = 20%
£40k+ = 40%

There might be a higher lever once you hit a much higher salary, but I can’t be arsed to check.


So then why would anyone not be motivated to work harder to earn more? They would still earn more than they did before, just the extra they earned would be taxed differently. It's not as if they would lose money by being at the bottom of the next band.


It's also made clear from the start of people's working life that they'll pay more as they earn more it's not secret information that just hits people. Someone earning £2m will still earn way more than someone on 20% tax and all these people who get all angry about high tax rates also miss that the high earners also get paid with things that don't get covered by income tax.

The demotivation argument also doesn't take into account that many high earners are not doing jobs they detest unlike many people on low or middle income.

jiggles wrote:Nobody with a VR headset is going to be using it regularly this time next year, let alone in 4 years time.


Posted 16th March 2016. Let's see.
User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Lex-Man » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:41 pm

Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.



From that same link:

Working past retirement age might not be beneficial to health for everyone, however. For example:

Suffering stress on the job has long been recognized as a risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke.

If your job is physically demanding, you may have an increased risk of injury.

If you feel your job lacks meaning, if you're bored, or if you feel "burned out," that may add to stress or affect your mood.

It's not surprising, then, that a number of studies have found health benefits to retiring. For example, a 2010 study of 14,000 people, published in The BMJ, found that retiring was linked to a substantial reduction in mental and physical fatigue and depressive symptoms.

The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.

But she also points out that the mixed findings indicate the health benefits of working simply depend on the individual and his or her circumstances.

We do know that staying mentally, socially, and physically active — which working may enable you to do — is good for health.

Mental stimulation and problem solving are good for maintaining thinking skills; social engagement is associated with staving off chronic disease; and staying physically active, even if it's just walking, can lead to both better health and sharper thinking skills.

Does that mean you should keep working? "Yes, if you can," says Maestas. "But be smart about what you're doing. Don't stay in a job you hate. Try to find something that's meaningful and gives you purpose. If you're happy at work, that's one sign that work may be good for your health."



It’s not work that good for you, it’s staying mentally and physically active. Which is easy to do if you want to. It’s not so easy to avoid the stress/hardship of a job you hate if you have few other options.


That quote does say it tends to be positive. We can create a society that works to make work as positive as possible for people. There are a lot of small changes like introducing flexible working that would massively improve work for people.


That quote doesn’t really say it tends to be positive, it says it’s a mixed bag and different studies have different results.

Work will never be positive for the vast majority of people as the vast majority of jobs are shitty.


The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.



I think there's a lot we could do to make jobs less shitty. It really doesn't have to be as bad as it currently is.


We could. But we won’t. There’s no profit in it.

And for a lot of people even a wonderful job will eventually annoy them. Getting out of bed in the morning is shitty, even if it’s to a stress free job.


But we're having a theoretical discussion about the best way to live. I just think in an ideal society most people would have some kind of job.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Karl_
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Karl_ » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:44 pm

Rocsteady wrote:I don’t understand why anyone would do the gooseberry fool jobs in this utopian society.

Well, you think of them as gooseberry fool jobs, so it's not surprising you can't imagine people volunteering to do them. I think some of them would change in a post-capitalist "economy"---our need for till staff and call centres would certainly be reduced---and others might undergo a cultural shift that make them desirable volunteering opportunities.

Say, if being a sanitation worker made you a literal hero who commanded universal respect, there'd be demand to do it: I suspect probably enough that each individual on the team would work part-time-if-that.

Rocsteady wrote:I also wouldn’t have taken on extra diplomas without the future promise of more money. I suspect this would be the case for most people, meaning the sum of human knowledge would be lessened without people striving forward as much.

What else would you have done with that time? Would you not have advanced yourself in some other way? You wouldn't have been locked in a room, you would have had the freedom to strive in any way you wanted.

Rocsteady wrote:For jobs such as chefs as well, no one will ever want to start at the bottom rung - just now you peel potatoes with the future promise of rising up the ranks, with consummate salary increases. Very few will be willing to work their way up over a number of years without the cash to go with it.

I suppose I just disagree and think people will actually still want to be chefs. I mean, cooking is a really popular hobby and showing off your cooking makes you feel good.

Perhaps no-one will want to work in some of the more uniquely late-capitalist structures and formats---e.g. McDonald's---but is that the end of the world?

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Moggy » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:57 pm

Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.



From that same link:

Working past retirement age might not be beneficial to health for everyone, however. For example:

Suffering stress on the job has long been recognized as a risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke.

If your job is physically demanding, you may have an increased risk of injury.

If you feel your job lacks meaning, if you're bored, or if you feel "burned out," that may add to stress or affect your mood.

It's not surprising, then, that a number of studies have found health benefits to retiring. For example, a 2010 study of 14,000 people, published in The BMJ, found that retiring was linked to a substantial reduction in mental and physical fatigue and depressive symptoms.

The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.

But she also points out that the mixed findings indicate the health benefits of working simply depend on the individual and his or her circumstances.

We do know that staying mentally, socially, and physically active — which working may enable you to do — is good for health.

Mental stimulation and problem solving are good for maintaining thinking skills; social engagement is associated with staving off chronic disease; and staying physically active, even if it's just walking, can lead to both better health and sharper thinking skills.

Does that mean you should keep working? "Yes, if you can," says Maestas. "But be smart about what you're doing. Don't stay in a job you hate. Try to find something that's meaningful and gives you purpose. If you're happy at work, that's one sign that work may be good for your health."



It’s not work that good for you, it’s staying mentally and physically active. Which is easy to do if you want to. It’s not so easy to avoid the stress/hardship of a job you hate if you have few other options.


That quote does say it tends to be positive. We can create a society that works to make work as positive as possible for people. There are a lot of small changes like introducing flexible working that would massively improve work for people.


That quote doesn’t really say it tends to be positive, it says it’s a mixed bag and different studies have different results.

Work will never be positive for the vast majority of people as the vast majority of jobs are shitty.


The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.



I think there's a lot we could do to make jobs less shitty. It really doesn't have to be as bad as it currently is.


We could. But we won’t. There’s no profit in it.

And for a lot of people even a wonderful job will eventually annoy them. Getting out of bed in the morning is shitty, even if it’s to a stress free job.


But we're having a theoretical discussion about the best way to live. I just think in an ideal society most people would have some kind of job.


You’re the one that brought a Harvard study into it. ;)

I’m not sure most people’s ideal future involves continuing to work. People dream of getting away from working for faceless arsehole companies. Even if it extends your life (and it’s in no way clear that it does) I’d rather die happy a few years earlier than live another few years miserable.

Sure it’d be wonderful in a theoretical society where everyone absolutely loves their job, but it’s never going to happen.

User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Lex-Man » Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:00 pm

Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.



From that same link:

Working past retirement age might not be beneficial to health for everyone, however. For example:

Suffering stress on the job has long been recognized as a risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke.

If your job is physically demanding, you may have an increased risk of injury.

If you feel your job lacks meaning, if you're bored, or if you feel "burned out," that may add to stress or affect your mood.

It's not surprising, then, that a number of studies have found health benefits to retiring. For example, a 2010 study of 14,000 people, published in The BMJ, found that retiring was linked to a substantial reduction in mental and physical fatigue and depressive symptoms.

The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.

But she also points out that the mixed findings indicate the health benefits of working simply depend on the individual and his or her circumstances.

We do know that staying mentally, socially, and physically active — which working may enable you to do — is good for health.

Mental stimulation and problem solving are good for maintaining thinking skills; social engagement is associated with staving off chronic disease; and staying physically active, even if it's just walking, can lead to both better health and sharper thinking skills.

Does that mean you should keep working? "Yes, if you can," says Maestas. "But be smart about what you're doing. Don't stay in a job you hate. Try to find something that's meaningful and gives you purpose. If you're happy at work, that's one sign that work may be good for your health."



It’s not work that good for you, it’s staying mentally and physically active. Which is easy to do if you want to. It’s not so easy to avoid the stress/hardship of a job you hate if you have few other options.


That quote does say it tends to be positive. We can create a society that works to make work as positive as possible for people. There are a lot of small changes like introducing flexible working that would massively improve work for people.


That quote doesn’t really say it tends to be positive, it says it’s a mixed bag and different studies have different results.

Work will never be positive for the vast majority of people as the vast majority of jobs are shitty.


The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.



I think there's a lot we could do to make jobs less shitty. It really doesn't have to be as bad as it currently is.


We could. But we won’t. There’s no profit in it.

And for a lot of people even a wonderful job will eventually annoy them. Getting out of bed in the morning is shitty, even if it’s to a stress free job.


But we're having a theoretical discussion about the best way to live. I just think in an ideal society most people would have some kind of job.


You’re the one that brought a Harvard study into it. ;)

I’m not sure most people’s ideal future involves continuing to work. People dream of getting away from working for faceless arsehole companies. Even if it extends your life (and it’s in no way clear that it does) I’d rather die happy a few years earlier than live another few years miserable.

Sure it’d be wonderful in a theoretical society where everyone absolutely loves their job, but it’s never going to happen.


Do you actually hate your job? What do you do?

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Moggy » Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:05 pm

Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.



From that same link:

Working past retirement age might not be beneficial to health for everyone, however. For example:

Suffering stress on the job has long been recognized as a risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke.

If your job is physically demanding, you may have an increased risk of injury.

If you feel your job lacks meaning, if you're bored, or if you feel "burned out," that may add to stress or affect your mood.

It's not surprising, then, that a number of studies have found health benefits to retiring. For example, a 2010 study of 14,000 people, published in The BMJ, found that retiring was linked to a substantial reduction in mental and physical fatigue and depressive symptoms.

The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.

But she also points out that the mixed findings indicate the health benefits of working simply depend on the individual and his or her circumstances.

We do know that staying mentally, socially, and physically active — which working may enable you to do — is good for health.

Mental stimulation and problem solving are good for maintaining thinking skills; social engagement is associated with staving off chronic disease; and staying physically active, even if it's just walking, can lead to both better health and sharper thinking skills.

Does that mean you should keep working? "Yes, if you can," says Maestas. "But be smart about what you're doing. Don't stay in a job you hate. Try to find something that's meaningful and gives you purpose. If you're happy at work, that's one sign that work may be good for your health."



It’s not work that good for you, it’s staying mentally and physically active. Which is easy to do if you want to. It’s not so easy to avoid the stress/hardship of a job you hate if you have few other options.


That quote does say it tends to be positive. We can create a society that works to make work as positive as possible for people. There are a lot of small changes like introducing flexible working that would massively improve work for people.


That quote doesn’t really say it tends to be positive, it says it’s a mixed bag and different studies have different results.

Work will never be positive for the vast majority of people as the vast majority of jobs are shitty.


The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.



I think there's a lot we could do to make jobs less shitty. It really doesn't have to be as bad as it currently is.


We could. But we won’t. There’s no profit in it.

And for a lot of people even a wonderful job will eventually annoy them. Getting out of bed in the morning is shitty, even if it’s to a stress free job.


But we're having a theoretical discussion about the best way to live. I just think in an ideal society most people would have some kind of job.


You’re the one that brought a Harvard study into it. ;)

I’m not sure most people’s ideal future involves continuing to work. People dream of getting away from working for faceless arsehole companies. Even if it extends your life (and it’s in no way clear that it does) I’d rather die happy a few years earlier than live another few years miserable.

Sure it’d be wonderful in a theoretical society where everyone absolutely loves their job, but it’s never going to happen.


Do you actually hate your job? What do you do?


I’m not really talking about myself. It’d be going too far to say I hate my job, but I certainly don’t like it. I can’t see I’d like any job to be honest, I resent having to work for arseholes. I’d be much happier as a lottery winner.

I assume you enjoy working and that’s great. But lots of us don’t and never will.

If you look at the really shitty jobs in the world, it’s pretty clear it’ll always be shitty for some people. Capitalism will always demand it for profit and even socialism/communism will rely on some poor sod going into the sulphur mine.

User avatar
mic
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: I'm on my way...

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by mic » Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:10 pm

I think the first step is to crack down on corporate tax evasion and the use of off-shore tax havens.

User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Lex-Man » Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:58 pm

Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.



From that same link:

Working past retirement age might not be beneficial to health for everyone, however. For example:

Suffering stress on the job has long been recognized as a risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke.

If your job is physically demanding, you may have an increased risk of injury.

If you feel your job lacks meaning, if you're bored, or if you feel "burned out," that may add to stress or affect your mood.

It's not surprising, then, that a number of studies have found health benefits to retiring. For example, a 2010 study of 14,000 people, published in The BMJ, found that retiring was linked to a substantial reduction in mental and physical fatigue and depressive symptoms.

The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.

But she also points out that the mixed findings indicate the health benefits of working simply depend on the individual and his or her circumstances.

We do know that staying mentally, socially, and physically active — which working may enable you to do — is good for health.

Mental stimulation and problem solving are good for maintaining thinking skills; social engagement is associated with staving off chronic disease; and staying physically active, even if it's just walking, can lead to both better health and sharper thinking skills.

Does that mean you should keep working? "Yes, if you can," says Maestas. "But be smart about what you're doing. Don't stay in a job you hate. Try to find something that's meaningful and gives you purpose. If you're happy at work, that's one sign that work may be good for your health."



It’s not work that good for you, it’s staying mentally and physically active. Which is easy to do if you want to. It’s not so easy to avoid the stress/hardship of a job you hate if you have few other options.


That quote does say it tends to be positive. We can create a society that works to make work as positive as possible for people. There are a lot of small changes like introducing flexible working that would massively improve work for people.


That quote doesn’t really say it tends to be positive, it says it’s a mixed bag and different studies have different results.

Work will never be positive for the vast majority of people as the vast majority of jobs are shitty.


The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.



I think there's a lot we could do to make jobs less shitty. It really doesn't have to be as bad as it currently is.


We could. But we won’t. There’s no profit in it.

And for a lot of people even a wonderful job will eventually annoy them. Getting out of bed in the morning is shitty, even if it’s to a stress free job.


But we're having a theoretical discussion about the best way to live. I just think in an ideal society most people would have some kind of job.


You’re the one that brought a Harvard study into it. ;)

I’m not sure most people’s ideal future involves continuing to work. People dream of getting away from working for faceless arsehole companies. Even if it extends your life (and it’s in no way clear that it does) I’d rather die happy a few years earlier than live another few years miserable.

Sure it’d be wonderful in a theoretical society where everyone absolutely loves their job, but it’s never going to happen.


Do you actually hate your job? What do you do?


I’m not really talking about myself. It’d be going too far to say I hate my job, but I certainly don’t like it. I can’t see I’d like any job to be honest, I resent having to work for arseholes. I’d be much happier as a lottery winner.

I assume you enjoy working and that’s great. But lots of us don’t and never will.

If you look at the really shitty jobs in the world, it’s pretty clear it’ll always be shitty for some people. Capitalism will always demand it for profit and even socialism/communism will rely on some poor sod going into the sulphur mine.



I don't know I'd say I love my job, but I don't think I've really ever dislikes a job I've had. Also I don't if I didn't have to work I'd just sleep all the time and be really bored.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Moggy » Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:02 pm

Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
I also think that work is actually good for people to a certain degree being idle for large amounts of time actually decreases people mental faculties. I remember reading some research that showed that lottery winners actually died sooner than the general population. The author put these down to the lack of goals in life leading to mental decay and early death.


Even if it was true lottery winners die sooner than normal people (which doesn’t sound true to me), I’m sure they live longer than those who work long hours of heavy labour or those that work stressful jobs.


Sure, I believe we should try and minimise very stressful work and heavy labour but I believe that working is in general a good thing for people to do.


I don’t believe that, working sucks for most people. It’s probably great if you have a job you enjoy, if not it is awful.


https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ust-income

There's increasing evidence that the payoff of working past age 65 may go beyond income. Some studies have linked working past retirement with better health and longevity.

A 2016 study of about 3,000 people, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, suggested that working even one more year beyond retirement age was associated with a 9% to 11% lower risk of dying during the 18-year study period, regardless of health.

A 2015 study of 83,000 older adults over 15 years, published in the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease, suggested that, compared with people who retired, people who worked past age 65 were about three times more likely to report being in good health and about half as likely to have serious health problems, such as cancer or heart disease.

Other studies have linked working past retirement age with a reduced risk of dementia and heart attack.



From that same link:

Working past retirement age might not be beneficial to health for everyone, however. For example:

Suffering stress on the job has long been recognized as a risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke.

If your job is physically demanding, you may have an increased risk of injury.

If you feel your job lacks meaning, if you're bored, or if you feel "burned out," that may add to stress or affect your mood.

It's not surprising, then, that a number of studies have found health benefits to retiring. For example, a 2010 study of 14,000 people, published in The BMJ, found that retiring was linked to a substantial reduction in mental and physical fatigue and depressive symptoms.

The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.

But she also points out that the mixed findings indicate the health benefits of working simply depend on the individual and his or her circumstances.

We do know that staying mentally, socially, and physically active — which working may enable you to do — is good for health.

Mental stimulation and problem solving are good for maintaining thinking skills; social engagement is associated with staving off chronic disease; and staying physically active, even if it's just walking, can lead to both better health and sharper thinking skills.

Does that mean you should keep working? "Yes, if you can," says Maestas. "But be smart about what you're doing. Don't stay in a job you hate. Try to find something that's meaningful and gives you purpose. If you're happy at work, that's one sign that work may be good for your health."



It’s not work that good for you, it’s staying mentally and physically active. Which is easy to do if you want to. It’s not so easy to avoid the stress/hardship of a job you hate if you have few other options.


That quote does say it tends to be positive. We can create a society that works to make work as positive as possible for people. There are a lot of small changes like introducing flexible working that would massively improve work for people.


That quote doesn’t really say it tends to be positive, it says it’s a mixed bag and different studies have different results.

Work will never be positive for the vast majority of people as the vast majority of jobs are shitty.


The fact is, scientists have found mixed results when they've studied the effect of working past retirement. "Some studies find less of a benefit, no benefit, or maybe even harm. On balance they tend toward the positive," Maestas says.



I think there's a lot we could do to make jobs less shitty. It really doesn't have to be as bad as it currently is.


We could. But we won’t. There’s no profit in it.

And for a lot of people even a wonderful job will eventually annoy them. Getting out of bed in the morning is shitty, even if it’s to a stress free job.


But we're having a theoretical discussion about the best way to live. I just think in an ideal society most people would have some kind of job.


You’re the one that brought a Harvard study into it. ;)

I’m not sure most people’s ideal future involves continuing to work. People dream of getting away from working for faceless arsehole companies. Even if it extends your life (and it’s in no way clear that it does) I’d rather die happy a few years earlier than live another few years miserable.

Sure it’d be wonderful in a theoretical society where everyone absolutely loves their job, but it’s never going to happen.


Do you actually hate your job? What do you do?


I’m not really talking about myself. It’d be going too far to say I hate my job, but I certainly don’t like it. I can’t see I’d like any job to be honest, I resent having to work for arseholes. I’d be much happier as a lottery winner.

I assume you enjoy working and that’s great. But lots of us don’t and never will.

If you look at the really shitty jobs in the world, it’s pretty clear it’ll always be shitty for some people. Capitalism will always demand it for profit and even socialism/communism will rely on some poor sod going into the sulphur mine.



I don't know I'd say I love my job, but I don't think I've really ever dislikes a job I've had. Also I don't if I didn't have to work I'd just sleep all the time and be really bored.


If the only thing you can think to do is work or sleep then I think you need to work on your imagination.

User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Lex-Man » Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:24 pm

Moggy wrote:
If the only thing you can think to do is work or sleep then I think you need to work on your imagination.


I can think of doing other stuff. I just know what I'd do if I could do anything and it'd be mostly sleeping. I'd be meaning to get round to plan a load of traveling but I'd just end up sleeping in late looking at crap on the internet, eating and playing game. It'd make me hate myself but that's what I'd do. I feel like working makes me spend my spare time better.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Moggy » Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:08 pm

Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
If the only thing you can think to do is work or sleep then I think you need to work on your imagination.


I can think of doing other stuff. I just know what I'd do if I could do anything and it'd be mostly sleeping. I'd be meaning to get round to plan a load of traveling but I'd just end up sleeping in late looking at crap on the internet, eating and playing game. It'd make me hate myself but that's what I'd do. I feel like working makes me spend my spare time better.


If you like working then that’s great, I don’t think anybody should take that away from you.

But some of us don’t like it.

User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: Meritocracy: Does anyone "deserve" to be rich? Could such a system exist?
by Oblomov Boblomov » Sun Jun 23, 2019 8:05 am

Karl_ wrote:
Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I am interested in challenging the idea that people who work harder should not be wealthier than people who choose to work less hard. How on earth would we draw up the rules to avoid it? Does anyone really think society could function if there was no monetary incentive involved in gaining experience, training, accountability etc.?

Well, presently we might agree that the hardest workers do not earn the most. Generally, people with the most capital accumulate the most wealth and power, and owning capital is far from necessarily difficult (one might inherit it, for instance). So if we describe society as it is: "those with most capital earn the most," we must seek a revolution to establish: "those with the best work ethic should earn the most." But why that in particular? What is special about work ethic? The idea as we now understand it dates only back to Calvin, and is a bourgeois mantra born not coincidentally at the beginning of the era of industrialisation, precisely when in actual fact mechanisation caused intensity-of-labour to become uncoupled from the value of goods produced. If we are already seeking revolution, perhaps a fairer metric might be: "those who are most useful to society earn the most." But now we have abolished capital as a driver for wealth, for what do these labourers-of-most-utility work so hard for? If after a little work a community produces enough for its members---and we know we can produce plenty easily today---these ostensible most-utilitarians would be simply producing goods for themselves to hoard as a show of their virtue! Such a society would surely reject this behaviour, regarding they who sensibly work for an hour a day higher than they who needlessly toil and wastefully hoard their fruits. So now we are left with "those who contribute to society will be given plenty". In such a place, almost everyone would make some contribution or other to the community. Surely, though, such a utopian people would not punish those who could not do their small share of work---perhaps through age, or frailty, or mental state---and would have no real reason to impoverish even a criminal or some caricatural 'useless, obstinate, lazy' hermit. So the foundation of that civilisation would quite naturally become "From each according to their ability; to each according to their needs."

Of course, it is easy to agree that presently it is not always the hardest workers who earn the most. Inherited wealth results, as a general rule, in continued wealth and power. No dispute there, however this discussion isn't really looking at hard workers within our current system.

I would expand on the definition of 'hard work' used within a discussion like this in that it does not simply refer to how much effort is being put in during the hours of labour on any given day/shift. Rather, I would consider it the ongoing sum total of effort made throughout both an educational and professional career.

This counters the argument of (for example) someone scrubbing toilets all day working harder than someone in a senior professional services position. Anyone could rock up and clean a toilet to a satisfactory level on their very first go. I think through this lens it is a reasonable viewpoint that overall, the senior professional services person is considered a 'harder worker'.

Your postulated society relies very heavily on the vast majority of citizens being happy to contribute a net surplus productivity (i.e. more than just enough to provide for them/their families) to the community and unfortunately this is where I think it crumbles. You could reasonably assume many people would enjoy furthering themselves in creative/research/sporting roles (to give very broad examples) but it is those public and professional support roles (that make up the overwhelming majority of required labour) that, in my opinion at least, would collapse almost overnight.

To return to my original point, I think it is acceptable for harder workers (with reference to my earlier definition) to deserve to be richer than people who work less hard. What isn't fair is that people can so easily drop into poverty. I don't want anyone to be in this position, regardless of how hard they work. Perhaps this is where something like a UBI could realistically be compatible, even within our current system.

Image

Return to “Stuff”