[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Platt Holden]

Good morning Arlo:
 
> On you statement, "our culture provides more free time to pursue activity one
> cares about than any culture in history." 
> 
> [Arlo]
> According to what measure? How would you say our culture provides more free time
> than Icelandic culture? Danish? Canadian? Japanese? 
> 
> [Platt]
> I'm comparing today's Western culture with the Victorian culture before the
> advent of the mandatory work week which today in the U.S. is 40 hours, in
> France, 35 hours. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> By definition, then, France is better, as it provides 5 hours more "free time"
> per week. Also, working Americans average a little over two weeks of vacation
> per year, while Europeans average five to six weeks! So, as far as cultures that
> provide free time, I'd say we could do a lot better.

Yes, and by your logic 20 hours would be better than 35, 10 better than 20 and 
0 hours best of all.

> But I'm glad to hear that
> you support the idea that people need time away from work. And, let's not forget
> that it was the US Labor Unions that pushed through, and won, the 40-hour work
> week (the Fair Labor Standards Act). A result of "The New Deal". Back in
> "Victorian Times" when the "market" dictated the length of the work week (and
> not social policy), people worked an average "10 hours a day, six days a week".
> Glad to see you siding on the side of labor in limiting, though social policy,
> the amount of work that can be demanded of an individual (without a significant
> increase in renumeration- overtime) ensuring that "our culture provides more
> free time to pursue activity one cares about".

Forget about mandatory social policy. The reduced work week is only made 
possible by improvements in labor saving devices driven by economies demanded 
by a free market capitalist system.

> [Arlo previously]
> However, just to see if I understand, let me get back to your original
> statement, and restate it. Tell me if you agree or disagree with this.
> 
> "The craftsman is driven to produce Quality things by a desire for material
> profit." Would you say this is fairly true on a societal scale, in your opinion?
> 
> [Platt]
> I would put it this way. A craftsman who pays little or no attention to the
> bottom line will soon find himself digging ditches for a living.
> 
> [Arlo]
> You keep skirting the issue. I've already stipulated that a certain amount of
> attention to money is required in a money-based economy.

Good. In that stipulation you will find the basis of my argument. You seem to 
have a problem with a "money-based economy." What other type of economy would 
you like to see put in its place, the horse and buggy economy of the 
Mennonites? 

> So, I ask again, "is the craftsman driven to produce Quality things by a desire
> for material profit?" While individuals may vary, does this reflect your opinion
> for the "reason we labor" on a societal scale?

The reason we labor on a social scale is to provide food, shelter and clothing 
for ourselves and our families.

> Do you feel, like Erin seems to, that the motivation to labor at "work" is
> naturally distinct from the motivation that prompts us in our leisure time? It
> seems to me that such a distinction implies that "work" activity will only occur
> as the result of external rewards. While "leisure activity" occurs as the result
> of an internal desire, such as "following your bliss", or following DQ.

Many people work for internal rewards, especially entrepreneurs, managers and 
businessmen, many who work 60-80 hours a week. They find bliss in their work, 
and carry a lot of Wally type people on their backs..

> If "work" is only possible via external prompting and rewards, how on earth can
> we ever "identify" with it, as Pirsig suggests, at all?

For many, their work is their life.

> [Arlo previously]
> If his salary isn't going to increase, and he is not in danger of losing his
> job, why should Wally do anything more than the absolute lowest and least he can
> do?
> 
> [Platt]
> If I were Wally's boss, I'd fire him. Businesses are not built by slackers,
> i.e.,  those who think the world owes them a living..
> 
> [Arlo]
> Looks like you model calls for subtle coercion after all.

Coercion comes from someone with a gun pointed at your head, not from employers 
seeking loyal, hard-working employees.. 

> But again, I had said that Wally would do the minimum necessary to fulfill the
> labor contract. You'd fire him for that? Why would you expect someone to do more
> than what they are paid for? Why wouldn't you just pay them for the extra
> effort? Why pay for a little, and then use the threat of firing to coerce effort
> above and beyond the minimum stiplated in the labor contract?

There are workers and there are parasites. Wally is a parasite who thinks the 
world owes him a living. If he believes he's worth more than he's currently 
getting  paid, he can seek work elsewhere. Any worker worth his salt will 
ignore labor contract "minimums." 

> [Platt, on identifying with labor activity]
> Maybe so. In that case, if I can recognize the quality of the finished product
> coming off the assembly line, I can identify with it even if my part was only
> turning a screw.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Can you? And you're extensive work on an assembly line, doing something like
> "turning a screw", over how many years has led you this self-realization?

I was simply following your logic to its conclusion.

Incidentally, if you are a teacher, are you not working largely for "internal 
rewards?" Just curious.

Platt