PDA

View Full Version : Worth ethics, the continued death of 50s values?


Ace42X
06-07-2006, 07:32 PM
http://money.guardian.co.uk/work/story/0,,1792697,00.html

It used to be, so long ago, that the men went out and earned a crust, while "Her indoors" stayed indoors, looked after the kids, and made the house look spiffy. We now live in a world were a dual income is necessary to even consider yourself as "average". Concepts such as the "leave it to beaver" family unit, gender roles (even gender identities), sexuality, spirituality, all have had a massive change in the last 40 years (hell, even the last 10 years) - is another bastion of post-war boom crumbling under the weight of a declining society?

The work-ethic that is still prevalent comes from the golden years of consumerism, where people thought they could buy an idyllic picket-fence existence if the worked at their job hard-enough. A shift in the economy means that such suburban fantasies are even more distant, as most people cannot afford these. When the goal-posts have been shifted, and two people working full-time can still be only living hand-to-mouth, let alone being even close to owning all the products advertising tells them they need to simply exist - isn't breakdown inevitable?

Has the nature of our relationship to "work" changed? Is it changing still, and what into? Where will it lead, if anywhere? Has "something you do to get a nice car and that fancy new washer-dryer" become "something you have to do merely to subsist" ?

The washer-drier is an interesting device. It is supposed to be labour-saving. In the 50s, buying the latest model "freed up time for the housewife."

Now the washer-drier is in every house in the country, and what is that "free time" used for? More hours at work, and more intense work. You need to use a washer-drier in order to have enough time to work in order to be able to simply keep yourself afloat and your washer-drier working. Have these "labour saving devices" bought anyone you know more free time? None that I know of.

b i o n i c
06-07-2006, 07:49 PM
things change.

i think that what you're talking about is what gives us all the great things that make society move the way it does. planes, trains, automobiles, clothes, food, media, blah blah... things like watching a movie with your family in the home theater - pretty sweet - and getting into a car that always works. being able to afford to live a nice, low crime hood is comfortable and having a short commute to work is too.
so yeah, peoples be workin mo but dey be producins mo... an hopefully makin mo $blings$. if you go into a career that you love, then the time spent can be a pleasure. the different family unit thing is difficult but there are a lot of people who've mastered and become successful in spite of it, peeples need to adjust

and i like my ipod

HAL 9000
06-07-2006, 08:20 PM
http://money.guardian.co.uk/work/story/0,,1792697,00.html

It used to be, so long ago, that the men went out and earned a crust, while "Her indoors" stayed indoors, looked after the kids, and made the house look spiffy. We now live in a world were a dual income is necessary to even consider yourself as "average". Concepts such as the "leave it to beaver" family unit, gender roles (even gender identities), sexuality, spirituality, all have had a massive change in the last 40 years (hell, even the last 10 years) - is another bastion of post-war boom crumbling under the weight of a declining society?

The work-ethic that is still prevalent comes from the golden years of consumerism, where people thought they could buy an idyllic picket-fence existence if the worked at their job hard-enough. A shift in the economy means that such suburban fantasies are even more distant, as most people cannot afford these. When the goal-posts have been shifted, and two people working full-time can still be only living hand-to-mouth, let alone being even close to owning all the products advertising tells them they need to simply exist - isn't breakdown inevitable?

Has the nature of our relationship to "work" changed? Is it changing still, and what into? Where will it lead, if anywhere? Has "something you do to get a nice car and that fancy new washer-dryer" become "something you have to do merely to subsist" ?

The washer-drier is an interesting device. It is supposed to be labour-saving. In the 50s, buying the latest model "freed up time for the housewife."

Now the washer-drier is in every house in the country, and what is that "free time" used for? More hours at work, and more intense work. You need to use a washer-drier in order to have enough time to work in order to be able to simply keep yourself afloat and your washer-drier working. Have these "labour saving devices" bought anyone you know more free time? None that I know of.

I can certainly relate to the article - I quite often find I need a few drinks before bed to knock myself out when my mind is still racing after a 16-hour day.

Relevant to the points you made, its worth noting that much technological advance these days is not about saving time but allowing you to multitask and utilise dead time, mainly for work. e.g. mobile technology so that people can work while commuting.

But there are physical limits to this; there are only so many hours in the day and so many days in the year. Clearly the prevailing economic forces are demanding more output from our time, but what will happen when we approach maximum output?

Lower wages?

I wonder what percentage of economic growth is attributable to people working longer hours? I remember a study a few years back comparing US and European economic growth over the last 20 years. The US economy had grown by 15% more than Europe’s over the period. With its employees having increased their work hours 15% relative to Europe during the same time.

Perhaps we are approaching some kind of Malthusian Catastrophe based on a saturated labour market.

Ace42X
06-07-2006, 08:29 PM
Perhaps we are approaching some kind of Malthusian Catastrophe based on a saturated labour market.

I would personally say that the problem is we have an outmoded and increasingly redundant view of production. Before production was linked to providing for people, and an increase in production meant a lowering of costs and plenty. Of course, when production outstrips demand, then you have wastage, and we live in a nation, and a first-world, of GREAT wastage. America even more so. The idea that capitalism is thus "hyper-efficient" is an illusion. It is hyper-productive, and destined for a burn-out. I'd say it is not a labour market that is saturated, but production. In today's world, prices are increasingly divorced from production costs (IE nike shoes being made for 50c and costing hundreds of dollars), and economic mechanisms are being dislocated by changes in society and work. Consumerism is, hopefully, reaching breaking point. And hopefully good things will come next. But that might be optimistic.

EN[i]GMA
06-07-2006, 08:48 PM
http://money.guardian.co.uk/work/story/0,,1792697,00.html

It used to be, so long ago, that the men went out and earned a crust, while "Her indoors" stayed indoors, looked after the kids, and made the house look spiffy. We now live in a world were a dual income is necessary to even consider yourself as "average". Concepts such as the "leave it to beaver" family unit, gender roles (even gender identities), sexuality, spirituality, all have had a massive change in the last 40 years (hell, even the last 10 years) - is another bastion of post-war boom crumbling under the weight of a declining society?

The work-ethic that is still prevalent comes from the golden years of consumerism, where people thought they could buy an idyllic picket-fence existence if the worked at their job hard-enough. A shift in the economy means that such suburban fantasies are even more distant, as most people cannot afford these. When the goal-posts have been shifted, and two people working full-time can still be only living hand-to-mouth, let alone being even close to owning all the products advertising tells them they need to simply exist - isn't breakdown inevitable?

Has the nature of our relationship to "work" changed? Is it changing still, and what into? Where will it lead, if anywhere? Has "something you do to get a nice car and that fancy new washer-dryer" become "something you have to do merely to subsist" ?

The washer-drier is an interesting device. It is supposed to be labour-saving. In the 50s, buying the latest model "freed up time for the housewife."

Now the washer-drier is in every house in the country, and what is that "free time" used for? More hours at work, and more intense work. You need to use a washer-drier in order to have enough time to work in order to be able to simply keep yourself afloat and your washer-drier working. Have these "labour saving devices" bought anyone you know more free time? None that I know of.

Until priorities change, nothing will change.

People are desirious of expensive cars, speculative home prices, and superfluos consumer items, and run themselves into debt in order to have it.

I mean, look at consumer saving in America; it's negative. How does that not scare people? It scares me.

And it's not as if people need to spend themselves into debt, it's that they think they do. Convenience beats cost almost every time; people will overpay and do it happily.

They buy the V-6 or the V-8 'for that extra' power when, in reality, they'll never need it.

Most people are compliant with the drive to work more hours, because it means they'll make money, which they'll inevietably piss away.

There is a good balance between work and free time, but neither side is willing to find it.

You have to make sacrafices, in your personal spending, and employers have to sacrafice as well, which wouldn't be so a big a problem if THEIR priority were less materialistic.

It has to be a cultural, societal change, not an institutional or political one.

People have to want less consumerist shit for there to ever be less consumerist shit.

EN[i]GMA
06-07-2006, 08:53 PM
I would personally say that the problem is we have an outmoded and increasingly redundant view of production. Before production was linked to providing for people, and an increase in production meant a lowering of costs and plenty. Of course, when production outstrips demand, then you have wastage, and we live in a nation, and a first-world, of GREAT wastage. America even more so. The idea that capitalism is thus "hyper-efficient" is an illusion. It is hyper-productive, and destined for a burn-out. I'd say it is not a labour market that is saturated, but production. In today's world, prices are increasingly divorced from production costs (IE nike shoes being made for 50c and costing hundreds of dollars), and economic mechanisms are being dislocated by changes in society and work. Consumerism is, hopefully, reaching breaking point. And hopefully good things will come next. But that might be optimistic.

The problem is, people want those expensive shoes, and until they stop wanting pointlessly expensive things, none will stop producing them.

There exist countless cheap shoes that are identical to Nike in every way except for the label, but people have to be willing to change their wants.

THey have to say, to think ahead (which won't happen, of course), and look at every excess purchase as excess time spent at work; less time spent with your family, more stress, and absolutely no increase in happiness.

Kids aren't happier if they have Nikes because that need for those Nikes, from their peer group, is entirely artificial.

It's fake happiness, like when something is wrong with your car, and you get it worked on, thinking the transmission is out, and its really just a belt; that makes you happy, for some reason, yet you're out 60 bucks for labor and a belt.

It's 'happiness' prompted by the artifice of various members of society and I would argue that it isn't happiness in any meaningful sense.

There are purchases you can make that increase your happiness, but expensive shoes are not one of them.

Ace42X
06-07-2006, 08:54 PM
GMA']
There is a good balance between work and free time, but neither side is willing to find it.


That is an interesting hypothesis. While I agree there is no reason there shouldn't be, especially in this day and age, here at least all employers are adverse to flexible work hours. I was very lucky in my previous job where they were glad to have me, and as long as I made a sensible appearance, and didn't fuck them about so that computers were left un-utilised, I could pick and choose my hours, and leave whenever I felt like it. So if I didn't fancy a particularly dull afternoon, I could finish my work-unit and knock off to the pub, etc. I have found very few jobs that are as flexible, even in the part-time positions that are abundant here. If you want to work, then you have to do it on *their* terms. Which stinks.

EN[i]GMA
06-07-2006, 09:00 PM
That is an interesting hypothesis.

It's true.

Studies have shown that having a job increases all sorts of vital statistics about your quality of life.

Having a job is actually a good thing, but there's always 'too much of a good thing'.


While I agree there is no reason there shouldn't be, especially in this day and age, here at least all employers are adverse to flexible work hours.

I can see that in some lines of work, factories for instance.

You can't rightly have the guy running the lathe come in 3 hours after production starts, for instance.

But for many jobs the idea of a 'shift' is archaic.

Changing this idea would require changes to the whole workplace though, which isn't likely to happen.

I don't see any reason why people would be less productive, but any change is going to be met with resistence.

HAL 9000
06-07-2006, 09:08 PM
GMA']
People have to want less consumerist shit for there to ever be less consumerist shit.

So what can be done - is there a fundamental fault in human nature that makes us desire wasteful consumption?

I try very hard to spend money only on products with minimal 'added value' where that value is created by marketing. This means I cant really buy a car or coffee or trainers but this is no great loss.

Nonetheless most of the western world is totally hooked on unnessecary consumption and I really dont know what can be done. Its the main reason why I believe it is impossible for a free market to avoid market failure.

D_Raay
06-07-2006, 10:07 PM
The problem is, people want those expensive shoes, and until they stop wanting pointlessly expensive things, none will stop producing them.

These shoes you speak of are very heavily marketed to consumers at a great cost I am sure to the company. There is advertising everywhere you go where there used to be no such thing. You cannot engage in any sort of activity in this country anymore without being assaulted with it.

I vaguely remember a "no frills" movement in the 70's that was quickly ridiculed into non existence. I wonder what would happen if such an effort were applied with the same force as the current state of marketing applies it's collective advertising might. America would probably look something like a George Romero movie.

fucktopgirl
06-07-2006, 10:29 PM
[QUOTE=HAL 9000]So what can be done - is there a fundamental fault in human nature that makes us desire wasteful consumption?

I think human have been brainwashed and believe that to be happy and successful they need tonne of materials and the more expansive,the better it is.This is a "tour de force" that the big corporations have achieved over the years with tv,commercial and so on,they have inserted in the brain'subconscient of people faked and vain values.WHile this is going on,they(corporates dudes) filled their pocket with money and drink champagn ,eat caviar and play golf.

HUman are nowadays like hamster spinning in their wheel,there is no end ,its is a constant race without really seeing or harvesting the fruit of their labor.Yes ,people will buy nice things but this is superficial,they end up at 60,retired with not much time left ( the best time or the prime force of their life gone).They are still paying for that house and have no clue whatsoever what to do with their 10 fingers.They are at loss because they give all their time/life to somedy else.

People need to take back control of their time and be more creatif with their way of surviving or else they are doomed to be hamsters.

Mot
06-08-2006, 05:55 AM
Now the washer-drier is in every house in the country, and what is that "free time" used for? More hours at work, and more intense work. You need to use a washer-drier in order to have enough time to work in order to be able to simply keep yourself afloat and your washer-drier working. Have these "labour saving devices" bought anyone you know more free time? None that I know of.

All I know is that if I came home after working 8 plus hrs, and I had to beat my clothes against a rock all night, I'd be pissed.

Qdrop
06-08-2006, 07:12 AM
Ace, is this just because you don't want to get a job?

enree erzweglle
06-08-2006, 07:48 AM
Nah, not everyone uses his life in the way you suggest.

I've been working full-time for a long time and I will say this: if you're even remotely capable, it takes a tremendous amount of fortitude to resist the pressure management puts on employees to work longer, harder, better; and, most of all, to aim to advance into management. I have learned the very hard way to know what my capabilities are and to know what I want from a job and from this life, and I try to remember to stay that course or else it would be too easy to slip and slide and inch away from the things I want.

So, I have this approach: I do a thing that I enjoy doing and that I do well. I try to learn something new in my job as often as possible and there are lots of possibilities in that regard. I don't work overtime; I do use flex-time. I have a network of colleagues who know me and my work and who trust me--I work to maintain that network. I don't apply for promotions although my boss occasionally does this for me. Probably key is that I understand my limitations and goals and don't overextend in that regard; to that end, I absolutely don't pursue managerial positions. I take courses on campus whenever I can. I seek out challenging projects there (on campus) and at work.

Several things result from this: the pressure to "advance" increases each time I get a new boss or managerial-based co-worker because they equate advancement with promotions; I don't--I equate advancement with learning and identifying, participating in, and completing challenging projects. And so an incredibly important thing to me is that I come to work each day to interesting and challenging work--for example, I just finished editing a book that will be published at the end of summer. That was a fantastic project because it's an amazing text and I learned so much doing it.

I learn things because of but also apart from my job. I am active in my life outside of work; I am happy and healthy; I can afford to travel occasionally; I have friends who are not affiliated with my job; I have activities and interests that are unrelated to my job; and I do have and use a washer and dryer.

Ace42X
06-12-2006, 05:30 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/story/0,,1795371,00.html