[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Arlo Bensinger]

Hi Platt,

[Arlo previously]
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.

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

[Arlo]
What would your logic say? Is 35 hours a week "better" than 40? "Counting 
shorter work weeks and longer vacations, the average European gets nine 
weeks (350 hours) more free time per year." Is the European model of 5 
weeks vacation better than ours of 2? If not, that does mean "free time to 
pursue activity one cares about" is not as valuable as you say? Or is it 
just something we can only look forward to in our retirement?

[Platt]
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]
I can see you reluctance to deny history, but it just doesn't fly. When 
left to the "free market" (circa 1890-1930), before the Fair Labor Act was 
introduced as part of the New Deal, people were working 10 hours a day, 6 
days a week. "Labor saving devices" are responsible for streamlining 
production, but not for limiting the work week. That was a direct result 
only of social policy. Let's not forget that the "assembly line", and many 
"labor saving devices" were already well into normal production by the time 
the FLA was passed.

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

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..

[Arlo]
I'm not sure I understand this, which is it? Do we labor for material 
profit, or because of "internal rewards" (which I assume you mean 
self-worth, self-fulfillment and "flow").

It also leaves me with another question. If people "who work 60-80 hours a 
week" do so because they "find bliss in their work", then that undercuts 
your argument that without material profit, people would not labor. Seems 
to me, they would work (if they truly found "bliss" in this activity) 
whether or not they received "money" for it. Indeed, it sounds nearly like 
an argument for communism! I mean, if so many people labor for such long 
hours because they find bliss in it, then I imagine communism would work, eh?

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

[Platt]
For many, their work is their life.

[Arlo]
By choice? Or by necessity? Out of a desire to accumulate material profit? 
Or out of "care" and "identity" with the activity?

[Platt previously]
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 responded]
Looks like you model calls for subtle coercion after all.

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

[Arlo]
So, the threat that if Wally does not work extra "for free" (do more than 
the minimum required by the labor contract), you'd fire him. And you don't 
feel that is coercive?

[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]
Why does business think that Wally owes them extra work for free? If they 
expect more work, shouldn't they expect to pay for it? If Wally meets the 
minimum required for his labor contract, i.e., he does what he is paid to 
do, but no more, why is that "slacking" in your world? Seems to me it makes 
sense. If the business wants more, they should pay more. Or do people "owe" 
businesses more than what they are paid for?

[Platt]
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."

[Arlo]
In other words, businesses are right to demand that people do more than 
they are paid for. If you do only what you are paid to do, you are a 
"parasite"? If Wally's pay is not going to go up, why should he do extra 
work? Isn't that working for free so that someone else can reap a greater 
reward? And not only that, but being told if you don't provide extra labor 
for free, so that someone else can earn more profit, you'll lose your job. 
Sounds like a great system.

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

[Arlo]
I'm not a "teacher", but I'd argue that anyone who seeks a career in the 
Academy does so because "material profit" is not of primary concern. I 
could earn a lot more "money" working in the "private sector", but to me I 
value the climate of the Academy moreso than "money", participating in 
knowledge ecologies, and developing better ways to strengthen and support 
those ecologies. I also value the "free time" an academic position provides 
(at Penn State you "earn" 2 vacation days and 2 sick days a month, and can 
accumulate these. This amounts to about a month off every year, when I can 
travel on the bike, spend time with family, and "pursue activity I care 
about"). Also, because of the need for decent health coverage for my 
family, and the university provides a very comprehensive and affordable 
coverage.

If I didn't need the money, I'd likely be doing the same thing I am now.

Arlo