[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Arlo,
 
> [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?

If 350 hours more free time per year is better, why not 700 more, or 1000 more, 
or how about the rest of your life off with full pay for doing nothing? Now 
that would be ideal wouldn't it? Except, who is going to pay? I've heard of 
sabbaticals where academics get a year off with pay to pursue their bliss, but 
guess who pays? Mr. and Mrs. Poor Slob taxpayer, that's who. Or maybe the 
freebie comes out of the school's endowment funds, invested in and getting good 
old dividends from, you guessed it, profit -making corporations. The moral 
lesson in all this? There ain't no free lunch, as Europe is learning to its no-
growth economies and high unemployment..

> [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.

I hate to break the news to you but during the New Deal millions weren't 
working at all. It was depression time in the U.S. that didn't end until WW II. 
As for the Fair Labor Standards Act,  it required employers to pay certain 
workers overtime if they worked more than 40 hours a week. Many begged for 
overtime work so they could make more money. To say the law prevented them from 
working more than 40 hours a week just ain't true. Furthermore, the law doesn't 
apply at all to white collar workers who make up the bulk of the workforce 
today.

> [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-fulfilment and "flow").

You asked why people work on a "societal scale." I assumed that meant human 
society in general. Thanks to capitalism, many in the West have the luxury of 
following their bliss through their jobs, as you apparently do. We're the lucky 
ones, having been freed from scratching for the basic needs of food, shelter 
and clothing that most of the world still struggles to fulfil. 

> 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?

Maybe you wish communism would work, but it didn't did it? It's proven to be a 
horrible system, and I'm surprised you keep bringing it up as something that 
has possibilities for betterment. What's more, you find bliss in your work but 
I don't see you burning up your pay check or giving it all to the "less 
fortunate." Let's get real here. 

> [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?

For any number of reasons, as I've tried to explain repeatedly. Seems to me you 
often objected to restrictive "either-or" viewpoints. 

> [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?

Is Wally on piece work? Is that what you mean by "minimum required by a labor 
contract?" Otherwise, Wally's job performance is judged by his employer. If he 
works hard for me, I keep him. If he goofs off, I fire him. So would you, I 
hope. 

> [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.

What are "knowledge ecologies?"  

Is not Penn State supported by taxpayers and investments in profit-making 
companies?  

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

Ah, but like my businessman who works 80 hours a week, you'll take the money 
anyway. Not that there's anything wrong (immoral) with that. :-)

Platt