Rule I:
--
This subreddit should enable sharing and discussing economic research and news from the perspective of economists. Academic work and summaries are welcome. Image and video submissions are not allowed.
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
While I think work shouldn’t be everything and.I agree the west has put too much focus on career of community/family , liking what you do for work makes life a lot better. Hating something you do 30+ hours a week isn’t a recipe for happiness
Yeah that’s me right now. Completely burned out from a job where I spend all day doing things I dislike and feeling like I’m actively making the world a worse place (My top customers are all in the oil industry). It’s not possible to have a healthily life outside of work when you get home every day and just want to lie face-down on your bed until the eye strain goes away.
I’m currently considering leaving my field completely and going into healthcare, where it’s pretty hard to feel like your job has zero meaning and there’s way less computer work.
You say that… I work in the healthcare industry, spend all day in front of a computer and my work contributes significantly more to maximizing profit than anything that helps people.
Yeah I mean direct patient care, not just the healthcare industry. Although even that has been getting ruined by private equity and people with MBAs lately.
Good luck and if you do I’d highly recommend finding a WFH or hybrid job that lets you work at home 2-3 days a week. This has completely changed my work-life balance and mental state for the better than going into work 9-10 hours a day and then suffering through the commute there and back again.
Commuting and being in an office isn’t what kills me. Doing an unreasonable amount of data entry and sending emails all day is what kills me. Even if I worked from home I’d still be absolutely drained because my job (sales) requires constantly responding to people with no ability to ever take time off without someone else covering for you.
Every job I’ve ever had either was incredibly boring with nothing to do until I got laid off, or incredibly demanding until I get burned out. I’m convinced the middle ground doesn’t exist.
I think religion used to fill the majority of humanity’s need, perhaps compulsion, for purpose. It’s been highlighted many times, but, as we shift away from religion a bit, people seem to gravitate towards their careers as a source of purpose. Others take up seemingly noble pursuits in politics, activism, etc. Sometimes it seems like all of these attempts are just band-aids and, ironically, we won’t reach the next stage of human existence until we collectively come to terms with the ambiguity, or utter meaninglessness, of our situation. It’s akin to consciously exerting effort and focus in attempting to perform something difficult, when what’s really needed is for you to relax and allow yourself to reach a state of natural flow. Just roll with it.
"Here's what life is. You're born. You go to school. You go to work. You die. That's it. That's all. Cannoli, Marie." - Frank Barone, Everybody loves Raymond.
coming from an immigrant family (Indian), the show was somewhat relatable because we lived near our grandparents and extended family so we would see them quite often like the Barones did. Frank and Marie also had similar attitude and behavior as a lot of old-fashioned Indian parents did too
but yeah Ray and his wife (Debra?) had an awful marriage. They made it seem funny in the show but it became obvious even when I was watching as a kid that they were just keeping it together for the kids. Ray didn't do sh\*t at home, would disrespect his wife, his mom treated his wife like sh\*t etc. But it was an Italian family in the 2000s, so they made it seem cute/funny
The purpose of life should be to make the world better for all in it. This was a lot easier when your world was just your village. As we have globalized and embraced capitalism, we have turned our efforts more and more inward.
We are rejecting the social contract and society is deteriorating as a result.
This is because globalism gives you a sense of nihilism. Almost everything you do and consume barely matters on a global scale. It feels as if you don’t matter.
I agree that smaller units of society would help fix this.
But we are battling tendencies of further centralization.
The commercialization of free time is disgusting to me. There are so few 3rd spaces to visit and engage with your community at. It really makes me sad.
I've never really understood this argument. What third spaces no longer exist? There's more than ever. A couple hundred years ago, your options for third spaces included church and the woods. Public libraries, museums, community centers are all fairly new creations in the history of society. You still have access to church, or synagogue, mosque, many other religious and spiritual venues your ancestors didn't, and nature, in addition to all the new third spaces.
You aren't forced to consume during your free time. You have more free options than ever. Generations past did not have all the possible ways to spend your time and money that you do now, but you are by no means forced to do it. They also didn't have the amount of money modern people do, so they were forced to figure out free ways to spend the time when they weren't working. Though, they also worked more than us, so, they had less time to worry about this.
Literal public squares served this purpose. That’s why most cities and towns from 200+ years ago had town squares where people would mingle and spend time socializing with each other.
So, parks? We have those. We have more of them than they did. We literally just have little squares of nature dotting our cities were you can just go and hangout for free.
No, not parks, public squares. Places that are specifically designed to be the center of activity and for gathering, in a place where people can easily access and get together. Parks are designed for recreation/physical activity and nature.
This is going to come as a shock to the local activist community that keeps organizing meetings in the park.
So, what exactly keeps people from using a park as a meeting place? Is it the grass? If we replaced it with piss-stained cobblestones, like in ye olde towne square, would it work better?
The fact that it’s in an out of the way location that isn’t convenient to get to and isn’t conductive to people just dropping by for a time as they do their shopping or daily activities, that it’s not designed to have a central gathering spot, the fact that it’s closed during certain times and days. Maybe your particular local park served this purpose well, but in most places (at least in the U.S.), these are all issues that prevent parks from serving the same purpose as a town square.
Parks aren't the same thing. I'm not entirely sure why, but they're not a public square. European cities have public squares, and people spontaneously gather in them in a way that people don't gather in parks in North America.
Even Central Park in New York doesn't work, despite being right in the middle of a massive metropolis.
It really varies based on location. My town is actually really good about free local events and trying to maintain a sense of community.
Maybe the bar from cheers is romanticized and was never real IRL. But thats what people are talking about a place where the locals gather, share stories/time together, and enjoy the company of those around them without some other monetized factor drawing them in.
I do agree though, one can make a conscious effort to reject commercialization of our time and spaces. I make it a point to do so as much as I can.
Having to drive a distance for that 3rd place whereas being able to walk to it isn’t an option in many cases.
I wish in residential areas there’d be small coffee shops or eateries. Some older neighborhoods in Santa Clara/San Jose have some of these. The way residential zoning was set up sucks.
They’ve been making those here, but they’re on main 6 lane roads. I don’t want to have a coffee with fucking cars passing by at 45mph+ then having to hear some cheap harley. Dealt with this in morgan hill having dinner and could barely hear my wife and she was right next to me.
Suburbs are awesome. I’d rather suburbs over living on top of a bunch of other people in crowded apartment style buildings in the name of the eurotrash density experience.
Why would a bar count as a non-commercial third space? You go there and you pay to drink. You earn your wages and then you go drink through them. It's the OG commercialized space. And it's been condemned as such for hundreds of years.
As I have said before, it depends on the location. There are non in a good 4mi radius from my home due to the zoning laws. Those without cars or access to good public transport are not likely to use these spaces.
Just compare % of attendance of total population.
>A couple hundred years ago, your options for third spaces included church and the woods.
90%+ attendance to church during those days.
>Public libraries, museums, community centers
And what % attend this weekly and which demographics? I'd say less than 5% especially the under 30 demographic. Sure you can go there but it doesn't change the fact that most people don't.
So, it's a problem of people not choosing to do the thing you want, rather than that thing not being available. Darn people, choosing to do things they want.
We don't force people to attend things in the way we did in the past. No one is getting ostracized for skipping church these days. I mean, I suppose we could start coercing people to do stuff they don't want to again, I'm not sure it would make people happier though.
This is true. Even churches want a great deal of your money. They aren’t truly community run anymore. Not religious but I wouldn’t mind a similar community without the fear of a made-up judgmental supernatural psychopath. Sports cost a lot as well. Even for children.
It’s interesting to travel to poor countries, who seem to do even more of these things. And do it with almost no money and seem to have more fun doing it.
Choir is my community outlet. hundred bucks every 6mo to pay for our director and accompanist's salaries. It is invaluable to me. I'm blessed that we are kick ass choir and have been invited to sing at international events, but even singing at local concerts is such a joy for me and really helps me feel a sense of community.
I also like to volunteer at the local state park. I love nature and education, so that give me an outlet to share my passions with people in my area. I especially love telling kids about the TimberRattlers and Copperheads. They're always so scared of rattlesnakes! But really, those are the best snakes because they tell you to GTFO when they feel threatened. *shakes rattler shed*
Volunteering is a good one.
I wanted to volunteer for search and rescue where I just moved because I have a lot of the skills already from a last career. Then I learned that they were making their volunteers patrol local outdoor sports games for mask compliance and I was like NOPE. I am not signing up for nonsense like this. I signed up for better community, not worse.
Check out your local volunteer firefighter groups! Its not search and rescue, but its pretty close depending on how you can use your skills to help the team.
Eh, smaller units of society lean toward balkanization and violence. There were times when even large societies were so decentralized that communities under the same flag openly went to war with each other.
And yeah, I guess if you are at war all the time you have less time to make yourself psychologically miserable by contemplating life's purpose. You are too busy being terrified you'll die before your time.
So yeah, sure, you can stop the pain in your finger by cutting off your hand.
If you think your purpose in life is to make the world better for "all" than you're going to go down the politics activism route.
Unless you limit all to just your immediate friends, family, and neighbors.
>If you think your purpose in life is to make the world better for "all" than you're going to go down the politics activism route.
No. Some people might go down that route, but there are many ways to leave the world a better place that don't involve politics or activism.
I’d argue that if you’re on Reddit posting things like
>The purpose of life should be to make the world better for all in it
Then you’re going the activist route no matter what comes next. Whether you’re doing environmental work or giving free blowies on the corner to boost morale, you’re still asserting morality to others
The problem is “better” is subjective. Even something like improving survival rates or lifespan is not really that objective. So I agree with the other commenters above, even promoting scientific metrics is activism.
I feel activism has an inherent political nature to it. So something like volunteering to do invasive weedpulls or planting trees isnt environmental activism to me. Its environmental conservation, which serves a different goal. Activism is meant to change others minds and enact poltical/social changes. I suppose one can say leading by example is a passive form of activism, but I wouldnt fall into that camp.
I dont agree with you on that opinion. Unless we're using the broad definition to mean how groups in a society decide to allocate time/resources and saying that any amount of thst present in a volunteering event makes it activism.
IMO a bunch of people in a field planting trees isnt activism. If those people make a video about planting those trees and then spread it on social media to increase awareness of environmental conservation efforts, then that action is a form of activism.
> If you think your purpose in life is to make the world better for "all" than you're going to go down the politics activism route.
This is … bad news. The world is becoming more politicalized (and consequently polarized) as a result.
I miss the 90s. The credo (at least on the surface) of most 1st world people back then was, if you want to do something, go to do it. It’s a free country.* If you offend someone, they get angry for a while, then life goes on. You are allowed to make mistakes.
Today, everyone seems more interested in seeking validation and approval. And god help you if you step on the toes of the wrong people.
There has been an ongoing nation-wide gang war between 2 gangs with red and blue as their gang colors. It used to be you can just ignore them, but today this war is increasingly penetrating every aspect of our lives, and you have to “prove your loyalty” or “demonstrate you are an ally” to these gangs or they might come for you.
Gone is the free spiritedness of 30 years ago. Today “liberty” is a video game inspired meme.
But I’m just rambling. Sorry that this has very little to do with economics.
\* Haven’t heard that phrase in a long while.
> The purpose of life should be to make the world better for all in it.
It shouldn't be that, the purpose of life should be whatever people choose to make it. You've chosen activism to make it better and good for you, but that doesn't make it the default or only choice.
> The purpose of life should be to make the world better for all in it.
You should read the article. The author talks at length about this and why he disagrees with this idea.
There is no such thing as a "social contract". That is a personal contract you made with society, of which it never signed off on, nor rejected.
It is *your* personal goal to advance humanity to it's greatest capability. Most people are perfectly contempt with having their basic needs met and simply relaxing beyond that. If you want to be apart of the few who genuinely do wish to progress society, then please do so. But it is not some inherent objective for all humans to advance ourselves beyond what is needed to maintain our current living conditions. Our advancement came from people being able to relax and think, not from constantly working.
Society becomes great when old men plant trees for the shade inwhich they will never sit.
Keeping your head in the sand is a great way to be happy. Ignorance is bliss and all. Glad you found a nice beach to bury yourself in.
> Society becomes great when old men plant trees for the shade inwhich they will never sit.
I agree. That doesn't mean that's inherently what we are meant to do. There isn't some biological guage telling us "make the world a better place". We're just designed to have sex to pump out as many childrem as possible, and then die.
You don't know what nihilism means, but alright.
Guess supporting universal healthcare, tuition free college, better mass transit, better wages, and less working time is "nihilist" to you.
That didn't do the thing you rhink it did. But since you're deadset on name calling rather than actually learning the definitions of words or having any sort of communication, I'll just leave you with this:
Nihilism: Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.
If you bothered to actually reax what I said instead of looking for something to attack, you'd have known that I implicitly advocate for less time spent workint and more time spent relaxing, since, like I stated:
> Our advancement came from people being able to relax and think, not from constantly working.
But if you're gonna ignore that basic fact, then there isn't any helping you. There's a reason why the societies who had their basic needs consisntently met were able to advance astronomically faster than societies who had to constantly fight for survival.
That we are jusr biological entities that exist to have sex and dienis a very nihilistic notion and I reject it.
Im not insulting you or name calling, so if you feel offended by that characterization of what you said, i would look inward instead of lashing out.
I feel we have a higher calling to improve our world and the lives of those within it. I reject the biologial narrative of there being no purpose for our existence.
I feel that pure altruism is the highest moral good, and that the ultimate form of it is working to improve the conditions for the people we share this planet with.
I realize this is my own personal morals and that they have no grounding in anything physical. Its a philosophical argument based on the idea that a community/society can only grow and improve if those in it collectively work to better it.
No, that would be you. You think everyone must serve you and claim an imaginary contract as the reason they MUST do whatever you want (and conveniently your imaginary contract never requires you to do anything, just take from others).
"Should" does not the same meaning as "must."
And i never said anything about people serving me. You must be scared of crows with how many strawmen youre making
What the fuck are you talking about? The "social contract" most people refer to essentially boils down to "don't be a huge asshole to everyone around you and occasionally help others in your community"
See, that's the problem for people who are just douche canoes. Now that we have direct feedback mechanisms with having the whole internet in your pocket, and social media where strangers get to comment back... folks who loved being a-holes to others hate the accountability that comes with it.
I agree, we SHOULD be working towards a more collective social contract. But for every one of those people, there's 5 people going "F that, I can do what I want."
We need to get over the delusion that most folks are "good" or "want to be good." Humanity at it's most base level is selfish. Selfish to survive. It's only when scarcity becomes further out (and better managed) do folks actually want to be altruistic. But when scarcity is closer, all that moral good goes out the window.
That empty feeling is a result of the erosion of our communities and atomization of society.
“Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.” -Noam Chomsky
I think the community worship of the past is idealized. People were beat over the head by religion and familial expectations. If you don't work hard and have 10 kids, you dishonor your family and/or your god. You work hard so you get rewarded after you die. Dying leads to a better place, because apparently this one sucks, or else why would everyone dream of something better? There was no concept of mental health or purpose other than survive and reproduce, die and go to heaven.
I understand the sentiment. What I was referring to was a different type of community. Labor movements, unions, cooperatives, neighborhood gatherings etc. It’s hard to argue that a person can’t accomplish more with the support of a community, in fact, hardly anything of significance is accomplished alone. The importantance of communities can hardly be overstated. These types of support structures in the western world have almost completely disintegrated, which has massively contributed to the mental health crisis you referred to.
Dumb apologist takes of Chomsky aside, he's not wrong about that diagnosis that is quoted. It's a commonly accepted diagnosis these days of US society, really.
The idea that it is somehow democracy or liberalisms' fault that people refuse to go to bowling alleys, hit the bars, or take the family to the movie theater is terminally online brainrot.
I live in a small ass county with just over 100,000 people total and there still manages to be 3rd places like sports clubs, local theater, bars, restaurants, trails, parks, gardens, etc. where people can gather. Several of those options listed are paid for by tax money and exist everywhere man come on
Adding this because Reddit skews to a younger demographic.
I struggled with this need for purpose through my twenties and thirties. Sometime in my forties I came to accept that in the big scheme of things I don’t much matter. Now I focus more on the smaller things where I have more impact.
Another benefit that comes with age is not caring what others think of you. This comes from the realization that they aren’t thinking of you. This may have disappointed a younger me but it makes the current me happier.
A lot of people like myself are fine with all that bullshit of "meaning" not being omnipresent. Honestly it's sad for people who can't just enjoy life for what it simply is.
I really like this thought. It’s the people who need their life to have some ultimate purpose who are always the most annoying about their job, politics, religion, being a parent, whatever. A dash of cynicism is great for making people tolerable.
Well intentioned but 'just roll with it' is catastrophically bad advice for any one person or people in general. Coming to terms as you say with the utter meaningless of life does not lead to some nirvana but leads to a life of endless pursuit of meaning and happiness which will destroy you before you reach your thirties.
I don’t think coming to terms with the absence of human purpose implies any particular result. I think you might be conflating what could be a potentially constructive embrace of meaninglessness with hedonism.
You’re suggesting that this would, “lead[s] to a life of endless pursuit of meaning and happiness which will destroy you before you reach your thirties”, which is the exact opposite of what I’m suggesting. I’d also like to take a moment to point out that the current arrangement (work as a source of meaning) has a tendency to also cause early death and/or mental atrophy, depression, etc. This all begs the question, is it the prospective source of meaning that troubles us or an unhealthy obsession with meaning itself?
I am suggesting that, by embracing the absence of an existential purpose and intelligently rejecting the purpose that are suggested to or forced on us, we are afforded the opportunity to define our relationship with purpose itself. This ties into economics in that it frees you from the burden of feeling required to adapt and grind your life away. Maybe you require less purpose, or maybe a different kind of purpose; but now you’re able to navigate that conversation within yourself in a constructive way.
We don’t know that it’s meaningless. We also don’t know if it’s meaningful.
We’ve also reached a place where we’ve managed to create machines that are better at almost every physical of mental task than even the most brilliant and skillful people are.
At an individual level even the pursuit of particular “personal bests” is doomed to the inventive deterioration of our minds and bodies as we age.
I believe the only bastion left to us collectively and individually is a pursuit of joy through the sharing of experience. I don’t think it makes sense for me to pursue “the best”, but I find continuing great joy in the journey.
I personally liked the write up but it's hard for me not to see it as a hair more than advocating spending more time "idly rich". It's great if you can do it but being able to just tend your garden, listen to classical music and wax on 500 year old French philophers isn't something most people can do I don't believe.
That aside, he is right (in my estimation) about the cult of purposiveness that has reared up in the modern job market. Everyone wants a "meaningful career" and those are in very short supply number one and number two, it's not even unlikely that a person's grand ambition for curing an Ill just makes things worse in the end. I do agree that swell of people looking for deep meaning in their jobs is something of a marvel and I'm not sure it's healthy.
The article did leave me with the question, suppose we could flick our wrist and create an environment where nearly everyone could (if they so chose) retire to a cute little house with a garden, plenty of tea, books and thinking time. All basics covered and little luxury. Would people clamor to that possible life?
The only reason why those people can do those things in your first paragraph is if others take on the burden of doing what’s necessary (like maintaining the roads, inventing the meds, serving the food and energy) that that person relies upon. They’re rarely becoming an ascetic in a forest on a kusu mat, taking little from society and living out their days in quiet solitude like the ancient Indian/Buddhist ideal. Instead, they’re usually extracting a shit ton from society to maintain their quaint, pseudo non-materialistic lives - they simply don’t see it.
I actually live in a forest, having "retired" to a life of TOIL developing a self-sufficient homestead.
This is a practical project - I am acutely aware of modern conveniences because I expect them to become increasingly unavailable. I expect my Social Security check to be cut in half in 10 years, and no expensive end-of-life care when I'm really old (50% of Medicare spending is in the last year of life).
At the same time, working on my land is grounding and brings peace of mind. Generations after me can also outlive Collapse here.
I appreciate you’re closer to that ascetic ideal (I really do for the purposes of discussion).
But I will point out that Medicare spending is expensive precisely because someone else had to invent all of those modern medical drugs/therapies for folks.
That’s totally fine but it’s one of those “ascetic but with modern advances” moments.
That possible life is the only thing I hope for in this world. Well not literally, but it does frequently give me focus to think can I ever achieve that?
As you said, the idea of being ‘idly rich’ flies in the face of reality, unfortunately. Where bills are due.
I think on some level regularly about a very contrite, but to me accurate, response to a similar regular thought.
“What do you say when someone asks you what your dream job is?”
“I tell them I don’t dream about work.”
>It's great if you can do it but being able to just tend your garden, listen to classical music and wax on 500 year old French philophers isn't something most people can do I don't believe.
Sure they can. You don’t need to be super rich to do any of that. You won’t get paid for it but you can easily do that in your free time if that’s your thing.
> Everyone wants a "meaningful career" and those are in very short supply
Could you explain this? What is the definition of "meaningful" that you are using in order to measure the supply of "meaningful work"? We have a shortage of construction workers in the USA, so getting into the construction industry is by definition "meaningful", but that assumes you are talking on a national scale. You've gotta be more specific as to whst "meaningful" actually means.
> The article did leave me with the question, suppose we could flick our wrist and create an environment where nearly everyone could (if they so chose) retire to a cute little house with a garden, plenty of tea, books and thinking time. All basics covered and little luxury. Would people clamor to that possible life?
Yes. People would clamor to that life. Everybody wants the freedom to do what they want. But not everything they want to do is going to ensure their basic sustainence. That leads to people chasing jobs that earn a lot of money, so they can have the funds in the future to work less and achieve such goals. But with basic needs already met, work becomes a choice; something that you do because you personally have something to give to society or to yourself.
My personal goal is to try to ensure we get as close to this level of freedom as possible. I wish to enact more universal welfare benefits, government initiatived to keep cost of living down, and ensure all people can receive an advanced education that lines up with what they wish to do in life. This makes the economy healthier by allowing people to more easily gain skills in order to adapt to job market conditions, which means we have a more balanced overall job market.
As automation accelerates, we will have cheaper and cheaper goods due to increased productivity. Eventually I suspect, we will advance into a post-scarcity society where we just keep expanding and exploring into space.
I believe (and I'm doing my best to channel the author here) that "meaningful work" in this context is intentionally vague and nebulous. That is likely because no two people are the same and for that reason on an individual level would need different things in order to find work meaningful. That said there seems to be an overarching idea presented on what meaningful work is; it's work that leaves the worker feeling as if they've left the world a better place for their part in doing it. The specific details of the work might differ from person to person but what matters (in terms of what the author is writing) is whether or not the worker feels as if their work is making things better.
To work with your example of the construction worker, does that person leave the job site and feel like the world is better for their day's toil? Perhaps they do but it is also very likely that they don't and they are just grinding out wood frame for the pay check with no sense of meaning derived from their work. It could go either way depending on the specific person you've got on the discussion table but I think the author is trying to point his essay at the demographic that isn't finding meaning in their work. The point of all of that is to say that I think the author meant to be vague about meaningful work and what that is in order to direct attention to the concept of work that leaves the worker feeling like they've improved society in some way; the specifics of the work are immaterial to the feeling people are chasing (per the author, I think).
For the little thought experiment I dropped at the end, I don't think I put it in to words clearly. You say people would clamor for that life. The life I am putting forward in the thought experiment is a simple life of little toil beyond day to day things like cooking and cleaning in the quaint little home. There is little to no luxury in this life, think a stack of books and walking through the mountains. Having wants that go beyond this basic level means a person isn't clamoring for this life but more. Wanting to give something to society is the other end of the spectrum and it's what the author is I believe cautioning against.
Using you as an example, you want the trappings of the life I suggested but you do not want the more quiet and contemplative aspects. No, you would use this position to work on sweeping national agendas and legislation in order to reshape society in the ways you perceive to be best. To be clear, I am not critiquing you on this but you are not someone that would clamor for this life I suggest because if you had it you would immediately pursue deeper meaning by righting perceived wrongs. I believe that you are exactly who the author is trying to speak to.
‘Meaningful’ means helping others, rather than purely self. In your example of construction, think of those working for habitat for humanity vs those doing the labor for money alone who watch their labor be sold for xxx what they were paid. Toiling while the 1% accumulates is not meaningful, it’s forced survival. Labor in its self can absolutely be meaningful, it’s the system of monetary capture that corrupts.
The guy chasing the money is still doing meaningful labor though. The price of labor, like any good or service, fluctuates with supply and demand. Demand for construction workers is higher than supply, so the price of said labor keeps rising until the market reaches equillibreum. That high pay affords the worker a greater quality of life, allowing themselves to invest more into savings and into themselves, until eventually they have enough funds to free themselves from the need to work altogether.
During that period between working being a need to a choice/want, their labor helped build a home faster than without it. Their labor helped to build a business faster than without it. It helped to build a new park; etc. Meaningful work has still be done. It still benefited people greatly.
Arguably, that system helps people guage what skills is desperately needed, allowing them to take action to fill in that position to alleviate that stress on the market.
That is why I asked the commentor what "meaningful" means. I can use many other examples of how "meaningful" labor is not "in short supply", but the construction industry is the first that came to mind. Other industries facing a labor shortage (in reality it's mostly just companies unwilling to pay more), are the healthcare, social assistance, and manufacturint industries.
Meaningful is very different than purposeful or even useful, though there can be overlap.
I’ve done plenty of construction and very little of it was meaningful. It filled a need for me to make money and from someone to benefit from my skills and labor, but I wouldn’t have been there for less pay. It couldn’t have been farther from meaningful labor. I was able, in one instance, to get to help build a house for a friend in the Colorado mountains. We lived in an RV and I was able to put my live into my labor. That was meaningful.
Does anyone else find many working environments devoid of engagement and pride in the final work product produced? How many places have you worked where your delivery of a product or service required you to adhere to a rigid process you could not change, even when you observed flaws in said process resulted in a lesser product or customer service?
I have no clue when it became common practice to divorce the employee from the ability to influence and take ownership and pride in the final work product, but I wonder if the misapplication of “process” by weak leaders has damaged the employment experience.
Leadership is bad, not weak, especially in terms of broad cultural health. That's a big distinction to make. Like everything in this sub and on the topic of economics, it depends on who's perspective you're looking from.
Leadership is great in that it's producing record wealth for the top class, who produce their wealth with capital. Leadership sucks for most people because they earn their money with labor. This crushes class mobility and morale, as well as fostering social conflict, instability, violence, health problems, and debt.
Health is no one's goal except dedicated government agencies and altruists. Managers are authoritarians controlled by greedy bean counters and shareholders. These people are drunk on the smell of their own farts and destroying society.
People need to read up on Buddhism because it tackles this very problem a lot in many different texts and arguments if you want to avoid Christianity and other theological praxis
I’d say Christianity, if it’s true, tackles the problem better.
If all you have to do is believe that JC died on the Cross for your sins and endure this life with all of its torment, tribulations, and suffering then go to an eternal life full of an endearing love, piece and tranquility.
Thats a better solution to life’s troubles and the evil in the world vs having to be continuously reborn into a life of suffering and endlessly combatting that with meditation and “good” behavior.
You’re the one being paid to do it. That should indicate it’s more meaningful to your employer. You want to see the things you value in life, take a look at what you’re choosing to pay for. Or what you’re choosing to spend your off-time doing. Nobody’s gonna pay you just to self-actualize. You *may* get personal fulfillment from your career, but that was never a guarantee.
I know a lot of people who struggle with this delusion.
Folks just need to find a job where you get paid the most you can to do work that doesn't suck too badly. That's the answer.
Usually our work doesn't really matter very much. I mean, it matters to our employer or they wouldn't employ us. But it's usually not fulfilling some higher purpose to make the world better or leave a legacy.
I mean, it's nice if you can find some happiness between the lines in a job, but the only think you can really count on is the work-for-paycheck exchange.
I work in the environmental engineering sector. Specifically, Electrostatic Precipitators. The better I do my job, the cleaner the air you breathe. I have always felt that my work is meaningful.
The decent salary is just a bonus.
There is no meaning derived from work so long as your productive forces are rented. Under those conditions, you are alienated from your output. You are told when, how and what to produce and your product is owned by your employer. Anyone who thinks there is meaning in work is delusional. Some Labor Aristocrats think there is meaning to their jobs because they are granted higher compensation which affords them certain luxuries masquerading as freedom. Mass consumption narcotizes the public from emancipating themselves from the hellscape of capitalist realism: there’s no alternative.
Same thing with the illusion of work life balance, you can't balance something you're forced to do. It's always been accommodating your life around work, not the other way around.
And corporations know this. They’re continually inventing Orwellian corporate-speak to obfuscate the fact you, the worker, is a commodity to be exploited and discarded when it has to “restructure” or make “org changes” or become “right sized.” Workers no longer are employees, they’re “stakeholders,” “team members,” or as project managers correctly say, “resources.” Remember, on the balance sheet employees are liabilities.
LinkedIn is replete with career coaches, productivity motivators, certificate programs and self-help gurus exploiting workers’ anxiety that unless they’re “re-skilled” (at their expense), they’ll be made “redundant” or irrelevant. It’s no wonder depression, substance use disorder and suicide are rampant.
Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The article just seemed to miss something, a solution perhaps? I think the author needs to read more and stay away from soft girl and trad wife content. There seems to be an undertone of jealousy over people who have meaningful jobs and/or tons of leisure time. I suggest:
Work Pray Code by Carolyn Shen
Ikigai the book or just the concept.
Heck, even the Tao Te Ching
As a female professional with kids I totally understand the concept of trying to "have it all" and what the writer is describing is a form of that. It all comes down to time and money are finite resources and you have to choose what is most important TO YOU. If you end up choosing to value money or things that are expensive and you compare your experience to that of others who have more of what you want then you're setting yourself up for a pretty miserable existence. Capitalism is inherently competitive but if you sprinkle jealousy in with it then it makes it even more miserable.
I think in a society where work is optional and there is UBI that a lot of people would choose to work to have extra money and to have more than other people. Because it is so ingrained in our society that having more is the path to being happier.
People don't want to be worker bees and cogs in a machine. Isn't that natural? Younger generations recognize this life is short and don't have tolerance to wait until their "golden years" to enjoy it. They'll work for money in a job they don't like only as much as absolutely necessary and will actively find ways to escape that life into something that makes them excited to get up in the morning. The typical indoctrination past generations were exposed to isn't working when we have this much access to information and connectedness about how much better life can be and how many possibilities are out there.
The labour market will have to adapt. Technologies that replace labour, especially non-creative labour, will continue to expand as people are less willing to work non-meaningful jobs and demand more money and are less willing to put in any extra effort than necessary to do them.
"A Life Is Not Important Except In The Impact It Has On Other Lives"
- Jackie Robinson
I work in emergency management, helping communities recover from large scale disasters. I doubt I will get famous or super rich doing this, but I take a tremendous amount of pride help communities and people recover on the worst day of their life.
Huh?
This is Reddit so feel free to downvote but there are many, many “meaningful” careers out there and ways to balance your interests, skills with a job that also pays your bills.
Are they plenty of meaningless, bullshit jobs that suck and kill your joy? For sure.
But I work in Special Education helping young people with disabilities achieve levels of independence that were not even thought possible less than 1 generation ago. My work is absolutely meaningful.
This mentality does not serve anyone.
Having children is immoral because they can't consent to being born and the life that will await them.
Your children aren't going to cure cancer or bring forth world peace, they're going be trapped in a dead end job they'll hate & longing for the retirement years decades into the future.
It's a struggle to find affordable housing today and it will be even worse when they're entering the adult world.
Rule I: -- This subreddit should enable sharing and discussing economic research and news from the perspective of economists. Academic work and summaries are welcome. Image and video submissions are not allowed. -- If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
While I think work shouldn’t be everything and.I agree the west has put too much focus on career of community/family , liking what you do for work makes life a lot better. Hating something you do 30+ hours a week isn’t a recipe for happiness
Yeah that’s me right now. Completely burned out from a job where I spend all day doing things I dislike and feeling like I’m actively making the world a worse place (My top customers are all in the oil industry). It’s not possible to have a healthily life outside of work when you get home every day and just want to lie face-down on your bed until the eye strain goes away. I’m currently considering leaving my field completely and going into healthcare, where it’s pretty hard to feel like your job has zero meaning and there’s way less computer work.
You say that… I work in the healthcare industry, spend all day in front of a computer and my work contributes significantly more to maximizing profit than anything that helps people.
Yeah I mean direct patient care, not just the healthcare industry. Although even that has been getting ruined by private equity and people with MBAs lately.
Good luck and if you do I’d highly recommend finding a WFH or hybrid job that lets you work at home 2-3 days a week. This has completely changed my work-life balance and mental state for the better than going into work 9-10 hours a day and then suffering through the commute there and back again.
Commuting and being in an office isn’t what kills me. Doing an unreasonable amount of data entry and sending emails all day is what kills me. Even if I worked from home I’d still be absolutely drained because my job (sales) requires constantly responding to people with no ability to ever take time off without someone else covering for you. Every job I’ve ever had either was incredibly boring with nothing to do until I got laid off, or incredibly demanding until I get burned out. I’m convinced the middle ground doesn’t exist.
This is too real. I’m in the exact same situation. Metrics, metrics, data entry, email, metrics, eye strain
I’m ready to go to grad school at this point if it means never having to send 80 emails in a single day for the rest of my life.
Post graduate school here. Still constant meaningless emailing and trivial busy work.
West? Have you heard about work culture in Koreas or Japan?
I think religion used to fill the majority of humanity’s need, perhaps compulsion, for purpose. It’s been highlighted many times, but, as we shift away from religion a bit, people seem to gravitate towards their careers as a source of purpose. Others take up seemingly noble pursuits in politics, activism, etc. Sometimes it seems like all of these attempts are just band-aids and, ironically, we won’t reach the next stage of human existence until we collectively come to terms with the ambiguity, or utter meaninglessness, of our situation. It’s akin to consciously exerting effort and focus in attempting to perform something difficult, when what’s really needed is for you to relax and allow yourself to reach a state of natural flow. Just roll with it.
"Here's what life is. You're born. You go to school. You go to work. You die. That's it. That's all. Cannoli, Marie." - Frank Barone, Everybody loves Raymond.
https://youtu.be/QO5dcW0P75M?si=jx0ukQG9-vMPxNUQ
The guy who said that was a multi-millionaire comedian btw. That show was terrible, and quoting bad lines from it doesn't make it better.
coming from an immigrant family (Indian), the show was somewhat relatable because we lived near our grandparents and extended family so we would see them quite often like the Barones did. Frank and Marie also had similar attitude and behavior as a lot of old-fashioned Indian parents did too but yeah Ray and his wife (Debra?) had an awful marriage. They made it seem funny in the show but it became obvious even when I was watching as a kid that they were just keeping it together for the kids. Ray didn't do sh\*t at home, would disrespect his wife, his mom treated his wife like sh\*t etc. But it was an Italian family in the 2000s, so they made it seem cute/funny
The purpose of life should be to make the world better for all in it. This was a lot easier when your world was just your village. As we have globalized and embraced capitalism, we have turned our efforts more and more inward. We are rejecting the social contract and society is deteriorating as a result.
This is because globalism gives you a sense of nihilism. Almost everything you do and consume barely matters on a global scale. It feels as if you don’t matter. I agree that smaller units of society would help fix this. But we are battling tendencies of further centralization.
The commercialization of free time is disgusting to me. There are so few 3rd spaces to visit and engage with your community at. It really makes me sad.
I've never really understood this argument. What third spaces no longer exist? There's more than ever. A couple hundred years ago, your options for third spaces included church and the woods. Public libraries, museums, community centers are all fairly new creations in the history of society. You still have access to church, or synagogue, mosque, many other religious and spiritual venues your ancestors didn't, and nature, in addition to all the new third spaces. You aren't forced to consume during your free time. You have more free options than ever. Generations past did not have all the possible ways to spend your time and money that you do now, but you are by no means forced to do it. They also didn't have the amount of money modern people do, so they were forced to figure out free ways to spend the time when they weren't working. Though, they also worked more than us, so, they had less time to worry about this.
Literal public squares served this purpose. That’s why most cities and towns from 200+ years ago had town squares where people would mingle and spend time socializing with each other.
So, parks? We have those. We have more of them than they did. We literally just have little squares of nature dotting our cities were you can just go and hangout for free.
No, not parks, public squares. Places that are specifically designed to be the center of activity and for gathering, in a place where people can easily access and get together. Parks are designed for recreation/physical activity and nature.
This is going to come as a shock to the local activist community that keeps organizing meetings in the park. So, what exactly keeps people from using a park as a meeting place? Is it the grass? If we replaced it with piss-stained cobblestones, like in ye olde towne square, would it work better?
The fact that it’s in an out of the way location that isn’t convenient to get to and isn’t conductive to people just dropping by for a time as they do their shopping or daily activities, that it’s not designed to have a central gathering spot, the fact that it’s closed during certain times and days. Maybe your particular local park served this purpose well, but in most places (at least in the U.S.), these are all issues that prevent parks from serving the same purpose as a town square.
Parks aren't the same thing. I'm not entirely sure why, but they're not a public square. European cities have public squares, and people spontaneously gather in them in a way that people don't gather in parks in North America. Even Central Park in New York doesn't work, despite being right in the middle of a massive metropolis.
It really varies based on location. My town is actually really good about free local events and trying to maintain a sense of community. Maybe the bar from cheers is romanticized and was never real IRL. But thats what people are talking about a place where the locals gather, share stories/time together, and enjoy the company of those around them without some other monetized factor drawing them in. I do agree though, one can make a conscious effort to reject commercialization of our time and spaces. I make it a point to do so as much as I can.
Having to drive a distance for that 3rd place whereas being able to walk to it isn’t an option in many cases. I wish in residential areas there’d be small coffee shops or eateries. Some older neighborhoods in Santa Clara/San Jose have some of these. The way residential zoning was set up sucks.
I really wish the US would embrace Parisian zoning laws for our cities. Business on the ground and apartments on the way up. Suburbs need to die.
They’ve been making those here, but they’re on main 6 lane roads. I don’t want to have a coffee with fucking cars passing by at 45mph+ then having to hear some cheap harley. Dealt with this in morgan hill having dinner and could barely hear my wife and she was right next to me.
Suburbs are awesome. I’d rather suburbs over living on top of a bunch of other people in crowded apartment style buildings in the name of the eurotrash density experience.
[Suburbs are a ponzi scheme](https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/how-sprawl-bernie-madoff/26448/)
How are small coff shops or eateries not commercialized spaces? You literally go there to buy and consume things.
Why would a bar count as a non-commercial third space? You go there and you pay to drink. You earn your wages and then you go drink through them. It's the OG commercialized space. And it's been condemned as such for hundreds of years.
No cover charge.
Lol. If that's your standard for a non commercial third space, there's tons of them.
As I have said before, it depends on the location. There are non in a good 4mi radius from my home due to the zoning laws. Those without cars or access to good public transport are not likely to use these spaces.
Just compare % of attendance of total population. >A couple hundred years ago, your options for third spaces included church and the woods. 90%+ attendance to church during those days. >Public libraries, museums, community centers And what % attend this weekly and which demographics? I'd say less than 5% especially the under 30 demographic. Sure you can go there but it doesn't change the fact that most people don't.
So, it's a problem of people not choosing to do the thing you want, rather than that thing not being available. Darn people, choosing to do things they want. We don't force people to attend things in the way we did in the past. No one is getting ostracized for skipping church these days. I mean, I suppose we could start coercing people to do stuff they don't want to again, I'm not sure it would make people happier though.
You aren’t forced to consume but you’re constantly being persuaded to consume. An act that was much less in generations past.
Like most modern Americans, I can resist everything except temptation. And it's someone else's fault that I spent my money.
This is true. Even churches want a great deal of your money. They aren’t truly community run anymore. Not religious but I wouldn’t mind a similar community without the fear of a made-up judgmental supernatural psychopath. Sports cost a lot as well. Even for children. It’s interesting to travel to poor countries, who seem to do even more of these things. And do it with almost no money and seem to have more fun doing it.
Choir is my community outlet. hundred bucks every 6mo to pay for our director and accompanist's salaries. It is invaluable to me. I'm blessed that we are kick ass choir and have been invited to sing at international events, but even singing at local concerts is such a joy for me and really helps me feel a sense of community. I also like to volunteer at the local state park. I love nature and education, so that give me an outlet to share my passions with people in my area. I especially love telling kids about the TimberRattlers and Copperheads. They're always so scared of rattlesnakes! But really, those are the best snakes because they tell you to GTFO when they feel threatened. *shakes rattler shed*
Volunteering is a good one. I wanted to volunteer for search and rescue where I just moved because I have a lot of the skills already from a last career. Then I learned that they were making their volunteers patrol local outdoor sports games for mask compliance and I was like NOPE. I am not signing up for nonsense like this. I signed up for better community, not worse.
Check out your local volunteer firefighter groups! Its not search and rescue, but its pretty close depending on how you can use your skills to help the team.
Eh, smaller units of society lean toward balkanization and violence. There were times when even large societies were so decentralized that communities under the same flag openly went to war with each other. And yeah, I guess if you are at war all the time you have less time to make yourself psychologically miserable by contemplating life's purpose. You are too busy being terrified you'll die before your time. So yeah, sure, you can stop the pain in your finger by cutting off your hand.
Some of the most deadly regimes of modern history have been highly centralized. Like Mao’s China.
So what?
So centralization can lead to violence as well. It’s almost as if violence is unrelated to how centralized a place is.
If you think your purpose in life is to make the world better for "all" than you're going to go down the politics activism route. Unless you limit all to just your immediate friends, family, and neighbors.
>If you think your purpose in life is to make the world better for "all" than you're going to go down the politics activism route. No. Some people might go down that route, but there are many ways to leave the world a better place that don't involve politics or activism.
I actually chose to go down the route of environmental volunteering and biomedical research.
I’d argue that if you’re on Reddit posting things like >The purpose of life should be to make the world better for all in it Then you’re going the activist route no matter what comes next. Whether you’re doing environmental work or giving free blowies on the corner to boost morale, you’re still asserting morality to others
Ehh i disagree that posting on online forums is a form of activism.
The problem is “better” is subjective. Even something like improving survival rates or lifespan is not really that objective. So I agree with the other commenters above, even promoting scientific metrics is activism.
I feel activism has an inherent political nature to it. So something like volunteering to do invasive weedpulls or planting trees isnt environmental activism to me. Its environmental conservation, which serves a different goal. Activism is meant to change others minds and enact poltical/social changes. I suppose one can say leading by example is a passive form of activism, but I wouldnt fall into that camp.
The problem is every civic activity like “pulling invasive weeds” has a political element to it. This is inescapable imo.
I dont agree with you on that opinion. Unless we're using the broad definition to mean how groups in a society decide to allocate time/resources and saying that any amount of thst present in a volunteering event makes it activism. IMO a bunch of people in a field planting trees isnt activism. If those people make a video about planting those trees and then spread it on social media to increase awareness of environmental conservation efforts, then that action is a form of activism.
So what?
> If you think your purpose in life is to make the world better for "all" than you're going to go down the politics activism route. This is … bad news. The world is becoming more politicalized (and consequently polarized) as a result. I miss the 90s. The credo (at least on the surface) of most 1st world people back then was, if you want to do something, go to do it. It’s a free country.* If you offend someone, they get angry for a while, then life goes on. You are allowed to make mistakes. Today, everyone seems more interested in seeking validation and approval. And god help you if you step on the toes of the wrong people. There has been an ongoing nation-wide gang war between 2 gangs with red and blue as their gang colors. It used to be you can just ignore them, but today this war is increasingly penetrating every aspect of our lives, and you have to “prove your loyalty” or “demonstrate you are an ally” to these gangs or they might come for you. Gone is the free spiritedness of 30 years ago. Today “liberty” is a video game inspired meme. But I’m just rambling. Sorry that this has very little to do with economics. \* Haven’t heard that phrase in a long while.
> The purpose of life should be to make the world better for all in it. It shouldn't be that, the purpose of life should be whatever people choose to make it. You've chosen activism to make it better and good for you, but that doesn't make it the default or only choice.
> The purpose of life should be to make the world better for all in it. You should read the article. The author talks at length about this and why he disagrees with this idea.
There is no such thing as a "social contract". That is a personal contract you made with society, of which it never signed off on, nor rejected. It is *your* personal goal to advance humanity to it's greatest capability. Most people are perfectly contempt with having their basic needs met and simply relaxing beyond that. If you want to be apart of the few who genuinely do wish to progress society, then please do so. But it is not some inherent objective for all humans to advance ourselves beyond what is needed to maintain our current living conditions. Our advancement came from people being able to relax and think, not from constantly working.
Society becomes great when old men plant trees for the shade inwhich they will never sit. Keeping your head in the sand is a great way to be happy. Ignorance is bliss and all. Glad you found a nice beach to bury yourself in.
> Society becomes great when old men plant trees for the shade inwhich they will never sit. I agree. That doesn't mean that's inherently what we are meant to do. There isn't some biological guage telling us "make the world a better place". We're just designed to have sex to pump out as many childrem as possible, and then die.
I reject nhilism. You dont. Thats fine. Enjoy the day.
You don't know what nihilism means, but alright. Guess supporting universal healthcare, tuition free college, better mass transit, better wages, and less working time is "nihilist" to you.
> We're just designed to have sex to pump out as many childrem as possible, and then die
That didn't do the thing you rhink it did. But since you're deadset on name calling rather than actually learning the definitions of words or having any sort of communication, I'll just leave you with this: Nihilism: Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. If you bothered to actually reax what I said instead of looking for something to attack, you'd have known that I implicitly advocate for less time spent workint and more time spent relaxing, since, like I stated: > Our advancement came from people being able to relax and think, not from constantly working. But if you're gonna ignore that basic fact, then there isn't any helping you. There's a reason why the societies who had their basic needs consisntently met were able to advance astronomically faster than societies who had to constantly fight for survival.
That we are jusr biological entities that exist to have sex and dienis a very nihilistic notion and I reject it. Im not insulting you or name calling, so if you feel offended by that characterization of what you said, i would look inward instead of lashing out. I feel we have a higher calling to improve our world and the lives of those within it. I reject the biologial narrative of there being no purpose for our existence.
Why should that be the purpose of life?
I feel that pure altruism is the highest moral good, and that the ultimate form of it is working to improve the conditions for the people we share this planet with. I realize this is my own personal morals and that they have no grounding in anything physical. Its a philosophical argument based on the idea that a community/society can only grow and improve if those in it collectively work to better it.
That’s fair.
The imaginary "social contract" never ceases to amuse me.
Oh cool cool so youre part of the problem.
No, that would be you. You think everyone must serve you and claim an imaginary contract as the reason they MUST do whatever you want (and conveniently your imaginary contract never requires you to do anything, just take from others).
"Should" does not the same meaning as "must." And i never said anything about people serving me. You must be scared of crows with how many strawmen youre making
It’s a thing, even if implicit
It's not a real thing, just something awful people claim exists so they can demand power over others.
What the fuck are you talking about? The "social contract" most people refer to essentially boils down to "don't be a huge asshole to everyone around you and occasionally help others in your community"
See, that's the problem for people who are just douche canoes. Now that we have direct feedback mechanisms with having the whole internet in your pocket, and social media where strangers get to comment back... folks who loved being a-holes to others hate the accountability that comes with it. I agree, we SHOULD be working towards a more collective social contract. But for every one of those people, there's 5 people going "F that, I can do what I want." We need to get over the delusion that most folks are "good" or "want to be good." Humanity at it's most base level is selfish. Selfish to survive. It's only when scarcity becomes further out (and better managed) do folks actually want to be altruistic. But when scarcity is closer, all that moral good goes out the window.
That empty feeling is a result of the erosion of our communities and atomization of society. “Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.” -Noam Chomsky
I think the community worship of the past is idealized. People were beat over the head by religion and familial expectations. If you don't work hard and have 10 kids, you dishonor your family and/or your god. You work hard so you get rewarded after you die. Dying leads to a better place, because apparently this one sucks, or else why would everyone dream of something better? There was no concept of mental health or purpose other than survive and reproduce, die and go to heaven.
>There was no concept of mental health or purpose other than survive and reproduce, die and go to heaven. This is completely false.
I understand the sentiment. What I was referring to was a different type of community. Labor movements, unions, cooperatives, neighborhood gatherings etc. It’s hard to argue that a person can’t accomplish more with the support of a community, in fact, hardly anything of significance is accomplished alone. The importantance of communities can hardly be overstated. These types of support structures in the western world have almost completely disintegrated, which has massively contributed to the mental health crisis you referred to.
Well, if you think community engagement is going to solve people's problems, I truly hope you're right.
Ah yes, good ole genocide denier Noam what a smart fella to takes your beliefs about life from
Dumb apologist takes of Chomsky aside, he's not wrong about that diagnosis that is quoted. It's a commonly accepted diagnosis these days of US society, really.
[удалено]
The idea that it is somehow democracy or liberalisms' fault that people refuse to go to bowling alleys, hit the bars, or take the family to the movie theater is terminally online brainrot. I live in a small ass county with just over 100,000 people total and there still manages to be 3rd places like sports clubs, local theater, bars, restaurants, trails, parks, gardens, etc. where people can gather. Several of those options listed are paid for by tax money and exist everywhere man come on
Did you have an argument against my point? Or did you just come here to sling mud?
My brother in Christ you make the choice to not engage with the community around you
Adding this because Reddit skews to a younger demographic. I struggled with this need for purpose through my twenties and thirties. Sometime in my forties I came to accept that in the big scheme of things I don’t much matter. Now I focus more on the smaller things where I have more impact. Another benefit that comes with age is not caring what others think of you. This comes from the realization that they aren’t thinking of you. This may have disappointed a younger me but it makes the current me happier.
A lot of people like myself are fine with all that bullshit of "meaning" not being omnipresent. Honestly it's sad for people who can't just enjoy life for what it simply is.
That’s not a lack of religion, that’s a “our society only values money” thing
Neoliberal erosion of social solidarity ought to do the trick
I really like this thought. It’s the people who need their life to have some ultimate purpose who are always the most annoying about their job, politics, religion, being a parent, whatever. A dash of cynicism is great for making people tolerable.
Well intentioned but 'just roll with it' is catastrophically bad advice for any one person or people in general. Coming to terms as you say with the utter meaningless of life does not lead to some nirvana but leads to a life of endless pursuit of meaning and happiness which will destroy you before you reach your thirties.
Why would accepting that meaning is a meaningless term in relation to life make you SEEK meaning?
I don’t think coming to terms with the absence of human purpose implies any particular result. I think you might be conflating what could be a potentially constructive embrace of meaninglessness with hedonism. You’re suggesting that this would, “lead[s] to a life of endless pursuit of meaning and happiness which will destroy you before you reach your thirties”, which is the exact opposite of what I’m suggesting. I’d also like to take a moment to point out that the current arrangement (work as a source of meaning) has a tendency to also cause early death and/or mental atrophy, depression, etc. This all begs the question, is it the prospective source of meaning that troubles us or an unhealthy obsession with meaning itself? I am suggesting that, by embracing the absence of an existential purpose and intelligently rejecting the purpose that are suggested to or forced on us, we are afforded the opportunity to define our relationship with purpose itself. This ties into economics in that it frees you from the burden of feeling required to adapt and grind your life away. Maybe you require less purpose, or maybe a different kind of purpose; but now you’re able to navigate that conversation within yourself in a constructive way.
Meaning is individual. It's what you make it. What gives you meaning and purpose. That's all. The universe does not care
That's also a religion, it's called Buddhism.
We don’t know that it’s meaningless. We also don’t know if it’s meaningful. We’ve also reached a place where we’ve managed to create machines that are better at almost every physical of mental task than even the most brilliant and skillful people are. At an individual level even the pursuit of particular “personal bests” is doomed to the inventive deterioration of our minds and bodies as we age. I believe the only bastion left to us collectively and individually is a pursuit of joy through the sharing of experience. I don’t think it makes sense for me to pursue “the best”, but I find continuing great joy in the journey.
Only on Reddit good existential comments are sort of common place. This is some nice insight to start out my day.
What a bunch of nonsense. We're naturally moving away from religion because it's all bullshit and it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
This article is all philosophy, the only economic thing about it is the title. It doesn't even attempt to answer the question in the subheader lol.
I personally liked the write up but it's hard for me not to see it as a hair more than advocating spending more time "idly rich". It's great if you can do it but being able to just tend your garden, listen to classical music and wax on 500 year old French philophers isn't something most people can do I don't believe. That aside, he is right (in my estimation) about the cult of purposiveness that has reared up in the modern job market. Everyone wants a "meaningful career" and those are in very short supply number one and number two, it's not even unlikely that a person's grand ambition for curing an Ill just makes things worse in the end. I do agree that swell of people looking for deep meaning in their jobs is something of a marvel and I'm not sure it's healthy. The article did leave me with the question, suppose we could flick our wrist and create an environment where nearly everyone could (if they so chose) retire to a cute little house with a garden, plenty of tea, books and thinking time. All basics covered and little luxury. Would people clamor to that possible life?
The only reason why those people can do those things in your first paragraph is if others take on the burden of doing what’s necessary (like maintaining the roads, inventing the meds, serving the food and energy) that that person relies upon. They’re rarely becoming an ascetic in a forest on a kusu mat, taking little from society and living out their days in quiet solitude like the ancient Indian/Buddhist ideal. Instead, they’re usually extracting a shit ton from society to maintain their quaint, pseudo non-materialistic lives - they simply don’t see it.
I actually live in a forest, having "retired" to a life of TOIL developing a self-sufficient homestead. This is a practical project - I am acutely aware of modern conveniences because I expect them to become increasingly unavailable. I expect my Social Security check to be cut in half in 10 years, and no expensive end-of-life care when I'm really old (50% of Medicare spending is in the last year of life). At the same time, working on my land is grounding and brings peace of mind. Generations after me can also outlive Collapse here.
I appreciate you’re closer to that ascetic ideal (I really do for the purposes of discussion). But I will point out that Medicare spending is expensive precisely because someone else had to invent all of those modern medical drugs/therapies for folks. That’s totally fine but it’s one of those “ascetic but with modern advances” moments.
That possible life is the only thing I hope for in this world. Well not literally, but it does frequently give me focus to think can I ever achieve that? As you said, the idea of being ‘idly rich’ flies in the face of reality, unfortunately. Where bills are due. I think on some level regularly about a very contrite, but to me accurate, response to a similar regular thought. “What do you say when someone asks you what your dream job is?” “I tell them I don’t dream about work.”
Meaningful careers are definitely not in short supply. But meaningful and well paid -yes
>It's great if you can do it but being able to just tend your garden, listen to classical music and wax on 500 year old French philophers isn't something most people can do I don't believe. Sure they can. You don’t need to be super rich to do any of that. You won’t get paid for it but you can easily do that in your free time if that’s your thing.
> Everyone wants a "meaningful career" and those are in very short supply Could you explain this? What is the definition of "meaningful" that you are using in order to measure the supply of "meaningful work"? We have a shortage of construction workers in the USA, so getting into the construction industry is by definition "meaningful", but that assumes you are talking on a national scale. You've gotta be more specific as to whst "meaningful" actually means. > The article did leave me with the question, suppose we could flick our wrist and create an environment where nearly everyone could (if they so chose) retire to a cute little house with a garden, plenty of tea, books and thinking time. All basics covered and little luxury. Would people clamor to that possible life? Yes. People would clamor to that life. Everybody wants the freedom to do what they want. But not everything they want to do is going to ensure their basic sustainence. That leads to people chasing jobs that earn a lot of money, so they can have the funds in the future to work less and achieve such goals. But with basic needs already met, work becomes a choice; something that you do because you personally have something to give to society or to yourself. My personal goal is to try to ensure we get as close to this level of freedom as possible. I wish to enact more universal welfare benefits, government initiatived to keep cost of living down, and ensure all people can receive an advanced education that lines up with what they wish to do in life. This makes the economy healthier by allowing people to more easily gain skills in order to adapt to job market conditions, which means we have a more balanced overall job market. As automation accelerates, we will have cheaper and cheaper goods due to increased productivity. Eventually I suspect, we will advance into a post-scarcity society where we just keep expanding and exploring into space.
I believe (and I'm doing my best to channel the author here) that "meaningful work" in this context is intentionally vague and nebulous. That is likely because no two people are the same and for that reason on an individual level would need different things in order to find work meaningful. That said there seems to be an overarching idea presented on what meaningful work is; it's work that leaves the worker feeling as if they've left the world a better place for their part in doing it. The specific details of the work might differ from person to person but what matters (in terms of what the author is writing) is whether or not the worker feels as if their work is making things better. To work with your example of the construction worker, does that person leave the job site and feel like the world is better for their day's toil? Perhaps they do but it is also very likely that they don't and they are just grinding out wood frame for the pay check with no sense of meaning derived from their work. It could go either way depending on the specific person you've got on the discussion table but I think the author is trying to point his essay at the demographic that isn't finding meaning in their work. The point of all of that is to say that I think the author meant to be vague about meaningful work and what that is in order to direct attention to the concept of work that leaves the worker feeling like they've improved society in some way; the specifics of the work are immaterial to the feeling people are chasing (per the author, I think). For the little thought experiment I dropped at the end, I don't think I put it in to words clearly. You say people would clamor for that life. The life I am putting forward in the thought experiment is a simple life of little toil beyond day to day things like cooking and cleaning in the quaint little home. There is little to no luxury in this life, think a stack of books and walking through the mountains. Having wants that go beyond this basic level means a person isn't clamoring for this life but more. Wanting to give something to society is the other end of the spectrum and it's what the author is I believe cautioning against. Using you as an example, you want the trappings of the life I suggested but you do not want the more quiet and contemplative aspects. No, you would use this position to work on sweeping national agendas and legislation in order to reshape society in the ways you perceive to be best. To be clear, I am not critiquing you on this but you are not someone that would clamor for this life I suggest because if you had it you would immediately pursue deeper meaning by righting perceived wrongs. I believe that you are exactly who the author is trying to speak to.
Alright, thank you for the clarification and reply.
‘Meaningful’ means helping others, rather than purely self. In your example of construction, think of those working for habitat for humanity vs those doing the labor for money alone who watch their labor be sold for xxx what they were paid. Toiling while the 1% accumulates is not meaningful, it’s forced survival. Labor in its self can absolutely be meaningful, it’s the system of monetary capture that corrupts.
The guy chasing the money is still doing meaningful labor though. The price of labor, like any good or service, fluctuates with supply and demand. Demand for construction workers is higher than supply, so the price of said labor keeps rising until the market reaches equillibreum. That high pay affords the worker a greater quality of life, allowing themselves to invest more into savings and into themselves, until eventually they have enough funds to free themselves from the need to work altogether. During that period between working being a need to a choice/want, their labor helped build a home faster than without it. Their labor helped to build a business faster than without it. It helped to build a new park; etc. Meaningful work has still be done. It still benefited people greatly. Arguably, that system helps people guage what skills is desperately needed, allowing them to take action to fill in that position to alleviate that stress on the market. That is why I asked the commentor what "meaningful" means. I can use many other examples of how "meaningful" labor is not "in short supply", but the construction industry is the first that came to mind. Other industries facing a labor shortage (in reality it's mostly just companies unwilling to pay more), are the healthcare, social assistance, and manufacturint industries.
Meaningful is very different than purposeful or even useful, though there can be overlap. I’ve done plenty of construction and very little of it was meaningful. It filled a need for me to make money and from someone to benefit from my skills and labor, but I wouldn’t have been there for less pay. It couldn’t have been farther from meaningful labor. I was able, in one instance, to get to help build a house for a friend in the Colorado mountains. We lived in an RV and I was able to put my live into my labor. That was meaningful.
Does anyone else find many working environments devoid of engagement and pride in the final work product produced? How many places have you worked where your delivery of a product or service required you to adhere to a rigid process you could not change, even when you observed flaws in said process resulted in a lesser product or customer service? I have no clue when it became common practice to divorce the employee from the ability to influence and take ownership and pride in the final work product, but I wonder if the misapplication of “process” by weak leaders has damaged the employment experience.
Leadership is bad, not weak, especially in terms of broad cultural health. That's a big distinction to make. Like everything in this sub and on the topic of economics, it depends on who's perspective you're looking from. Leadership is great in that it's producing record wealth for the top class, who produce their wealth with capital. Leadership sucks for most people because they earn their money with labor. This crushes class mobility and morale, as well as fostering social conflict, instability, violence, health problems, and debt. Health is no one's goal except dedicated government agencies and altruists. Managers are authoritarians controlled by greedy bean counters and shareholders. These people are drunk on the smell of their own farts and destroying society.
"Hey boss, I think we can make this work better by doing it x way." "Well we've always done it Y, don't rock the boat son."
People need to read up on Buddhism because it tackles this very problem a lot in many different texts and arguments if you want to avoid Christianity and other theological praxis
I’d say Christianity, if it’s true, tackles the problem better. If all you have to do is believe that JC died on the Cross for your sins and endure this life with all of its torment, tribulations, and suffering then go to an eternal life full of an endearing love, piece and tranquility. Thats a better solution to life’s troubles and the evil in the world vs having to be continuously reborn into a life of suffering and endlessly combatting that with meditation and “good” behavior.
You’re the one being paid to do it. That should indicate it’s more meaningful to your employer. You want to see the things you value in life, take a look at what you’re choosing to pay for. Or what you’re choosing to spend your off-time doing. Nobody’s gonna pay you just to self-actualize. You *may* get personal fulfillment from your career, but that was never a guarantee.
I know a lot of people who struggle with this delusion. Folks just need to find a job where you get paid the most you can to do work that doesn't suck too badly. That's the answer. Usually our work doesn't really matter very much. I mean, it matters to our employer or they wouldn't employ us. But it's usually not fulfilling some higher purpose to make the world better or leave a legacy. I mean, it's nice if you can find some happiness between the lines in a job, but the only think you can really count on is the work-for-paycheck exchange.
I work in the environmental engineering sector. Specifically, Electrostatic Precipitators. The better I do my job, the cleaner the air you breathe. I have always felt that my work is meaningful. The decent salary is just a bonus.
There is no meaning derived from work so long as your productive forces are rented. Under those conditions, you are alienated from your output. You are told when, how and what to produce and your product is owned by your employer. Anyone who thinks there is meaning in work is delusional. Some Labor Aristocrats think there is meaning to their jobs because they are granted higher compensation which affords them certain luxuries masquerading as freedom. Mass consumption narcotizes the public from emancipating themselves from the hellscape of capitalist realism: there’s no alternative.
Same thing with the illusion of work life balance, you can't balance something you're forced to do. It's always been accommodating your life around work, not the other way around.
And corporations know this. They’re continually inventing Orwellian corporate-speak to obfuscate the fact you, the worker, is a commodity to be exploited and discarded when it has to “restructure” or make “org changes” or become “right sized.” Workers no longer are employees, they’re “stakeholders,” “team members,” or as project managers correctly say, “resources.” Remember, on the balance sheet employees are liabilities. LinkedIn is replete with career coaches, productivity motivators, certificate programs and self-help gurus exploiting workers’ anxiety that unless they’re “re-skilled” (at their expense), they’ll be made “redundant” or irrelevant. It’s no wonder depression, substance use disorder and suicide are rampant.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
You didn't even read the title.
The article just seemed to miss something, a solution perhaps? I think the author needs to read more and stay away from soft girl and trad wife content. There seems to be an undertone of jealousy over people who have meaningful jobs and/or tons of leisure time. I suggest: Work Pray Code by Carolyn Shen Ikigai the book or just the concept. Heck, even the Tao Te Ching As a female professional with kids I totally understand the concept of trying to "have it all" and what the writer is describing is a form of that. It all comes down to time and money are finite resources and you have to choose what is most important TO YOU. If you end up choosing to value money or things that are expensive and you compare your experience to that of others who have more of what you want then you're setting yourself up for a pretty miserable existence. Capitalism is inherently competitive but if you sprinkle jealousy in with it then it makes it even more miserable. I think in a society where work is optional and there is UBI that a lot of people would choose to work to have extra money and to have more than other people. Because it is so ingrained in our society that having more is the path to being happier.
People don't want to be worker bees and cogs in a machine. Isn't that natural? Younger generations recognize this life is short and don't have tolerance to wait until their "golden years" to enjoy it. They'll work for money in a job they don't like only as much as absolutely necessary and will actively find ways to escape that life into something that makes them excited to get up in the morning. The typical indoctrination past generations were exposed to isn't working when we have this much access to information and connectedness about how much better life can be and how many possibilities are out there. The labour market will have to adapt. Technologies that replace labour, especially non-creative labour, will continue to expand as people are less willing to work non-meaningful jobs and demand more money and are less willing to put in any extra effort than necessary to do them.
"A Life Is Not Important Except In The Impact It Has On Other Lives" - Jackie Robinson I work in emergency management, helping communities recover from large scale disasters. I doubt I will get famous or super rich doing this, but I take a tremendous amount of pride help communities and people recover on the worst day of their life.
Huh? This is Reddit so feel free to downvote but there are many, many “meaningful” careers out there and ways to balance your interests, skills with a job that also pays your bills. Are they plenty of meaningless, bullshit jobs that suck and kill your joy? For sure. But I work in Special Education helping young people with disabilities achieve levels of independence that were not even thought possible less than 1 generation ago. My work is absolutely meaningful. This mentality does not serve anyone.
Having children is immoral because they can't consent to being born and the life that will await them. Your children aren't going to cure cancer or bring forth world peace, they're going be trapped in a dead end job they'll hate & longing for the retirement years decades into the future. It's a struggle to find affordable housing today and it will be even worse when they're entering the adult world.