Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Recently read this article: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...ots-employment


    TLDR version: assuming this is possible on a worldwide scale would this be a good thing overall? I suspect human life would overall be practically pointless and miserable..,




    Longer version.

    Supppse all nations were abolished and everyone in the world was paid a guaranteed universal income and the vast majority of work was done by robots. Everyone had access to free universal access to practically anything whether quality healthcare, luxury travel, realistic life ‘companion’ robots etc

    A while ago I had the idea that in a fully fair and equal world we wouldn’t have people to laugh at as most humour is based on the misfortune of others (I know, I’m a terrible person).

    But actually thinking about it, it would be even ‘ ‘worse’ than that- you’d also have nobody to help or care for. You’d face no challenges and have no purpose save your own gratification. It’s just a theory but this might be related: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.tim...ottery-winners

    Could it be that humans are simply not designed to live in a ‘heaven’ on earth?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Recently read this article: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...ots-employment


    TLDR version: assuming this is possible on a worldwide scale would this be a good thing overall? I suspect human life would overall be practically pointless and miserable..,




    Longer version.

    Supppse all nations were abolished and everyone in the world was paid a guaranteed universal income and the vast majority of work was done by robots. Everyone had access to free universal access to practically anything whether quality healthcare, luxury travel, realistic life ‘companion’ robots etc

    A while ago I had the idea that in a fully fair and equal world we wouldn’t have people to laugh at as most humour is based on the misfortune of others (I know, I’m a terrible person).

    But actually thinking about it, it would be even ‘ ‘worse’ than that- you’d also have nobody to help or care for. You’d face no challenges and have no purpose save your own gratification. It’s just a theory but this might be related: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.tim...ottery-winners

    Could it be that humans are simply not designed to live in a ‘heaven’ on earth?
    Nah.

    I do find it funny when people try to tell me that a country in which everyone could live comfortably and spend their time doing things they enjoy rather than sat behind a desk, without any financial worries and better health, would somehow be worse.

    Job satisfaction rate is 13%.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Nah.

    I do find it funny when people try to tell me that a country in which everyone could live comfortably and spend their time doing things they enjoy rather than sat behind a desk, without any financial worries and better health, would somehow be worse.

    Job satisfaction rate is 13%.
    Meh. I guess it depends on how you view human nature.

    Genuinely, after thinking about it I think it would be the end of us. Or lead to a mass Luddite revolution.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Meh. I guess it depends on how you view human nature.

    Genuinely, after thinking about it I think it would be the end of us. Or lead to a mass Luddite revolution.
    It's going to be the case that automation is able to produce so much wealth that if we shared it out reasonably, then we could all work 15-20 hours a week, as Keynes predicted.

    But something tells me that won't happen and instead people will go on about the virtues of sitting in front of a desk 60+ hours a week.

    If we're not going to use the advancements in technology to seriously increase the quality and enjoyment of human life, what's the point?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The question is a misnomer since i don't think we could reasonably allow such freedom for the masses. Employment and routine provides a great use of time for the masses to maintain order in society.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    It would simply get boring. Not having everything given to you gives yourself goals and ambitions... Without goals and ambitions progression is impossible, and someone being born into this reality wouldn't feel like they have a purpose. For those who dream of never-ending luxury and are finally experiencing it, they're stuck in a state of delusion where they convince themselves that there's purpose to their life as they've achieved their ultimate goal. However in actual fact, there isn't, and after a while of being in this state of never-ending luxury they come to the realisation that all they've done is plateaued into insignificance.
    Without goals life doesn't have purpose. We don't have an answer to "why does the universe exist", so it's up to you to give your life purpose. Therefore, it's impossible to give your life purpose if you force yourself into a state where further goals and thus progression is made extinct.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It wouldn't work for everyone. In a utopia there would be flawless transport, waste and safety systems in place, as you said a lot of work would be done by robots including these areas. The only careers which robots wouldn't replace are those that require the input of humanity such as entertainment, engineering, architecture/art, police. Not everyone would be pursuing these careers, what exactly would happen to the people that wouldn't be able to do these careers or just simply wouldn't enjoy them and really (as above said) they wouldn't have any ambitions to aspire toward.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Recently read this article: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...ots-employment


    TLDR version: assuming this is possible on a worldwide scale would this be a good thing overall? I suspect human life would overall be practically pointless and miserable..,




    Longer version.

    Supppse all nations were abolished and everyone in the world was paid a guaranteed universal income and the vast majority of work was done by robots. Everyone had access to free universal access to practically anything whether quality healthcare, luxury travel, realistic life ‘companion’ robots etc

    A while ago I had the idea that in a fully fair and equal world we wouldn’t have people to laugh at as most humour is based on the misfortune of others (I know, I’m a terrible person).

    But actually thinking about it, it would be even ‘ ‘worse’ than that- you’d also have nobody to help or care for. You’d face no challenges and have no purpose save your own gratification. It’s just a theory but this might be related: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.tim...ottery-winners

    Could it be that humans are simply not designed to live in a ‘heaven’ on earth?


    Have you read the Culture novels by Iain Banks? They are part about what how to find meaning and purpose when you live in a society of material abundance, where you can manipulate your genetics, manipulate the chemicals in your body, where death is optional (but considered polite to engage in after about 400 years).

    We are miles away from anything resembling utopia. The "utopia" you describe would still be full of human suffering. People would still get ill, get depressed, die and so on. We already live in a societies that have increasingly killed the social construct of god. Philosophers used to panic about the effects mass atheism would have on humans. Yet here we are still living our lives. A sizable chunk of humans already live with abundance, most of the classic scientific breakthroughs were done by privileged people who had the resources to devote their time to doing things like searching for the philosophers stone instead of toiling in a field. Basic income is hardly anything. Bill Gates has extreme abundance, he never has to work again. It doesn't mean that he kills himself from a hedonistic heroine binge. He is still doing things. BY your logic no millionaire businessman would ever continue to live. That evidently isn't true. Also as a historical example the Bolsheviks were pretty good harnessing the kind of human energy that goes into middle class strivers in capitalist society towards gathering bureaucratic power. There is more than money and material wealth when it comes to human inequality and competitiveness.


    To be honest a lot of this is very puritan, it fetishises human misery. Worships it and finds a twisted meaning in misery. It isn't luddism as they were fearful of being thrown into the deprecations of poverty by the machines. This is more a akin to the islamist who despises the loose moral of the west with all their hedonistic decadence. Capitalism generally disproves your theory. We started to work more and become more industrious and striving once we started to have more abundance. Lots of peasant societies had more holiday from work once harvests had been done etc. That fact alone throws holes in your view a slightly more equally distributed abundance. It is possible to work about 25 hours a week and have as much as most humans had in the past. Yet people work more than that.

    (Original post by omarathon)
    It would simply get boring. Not having everything given to you gives yourself goals and ambitions... Without goals and ambitions progression is impossible, and someone being born into this reality wouldn't feel like they have a purpose. For those who dream of never-ending luxury and are finally experiencing it, they're stuck in a state of delusion where they convince themselves that there's purpose to their life as they've achieved their ultimate goal. However in actual fact, there isn't, and after a while of being in this state of never-ending luxury they come to the realisation that all they've done is plateaued into insignificance.
    Without goals life doesn't have purpose. We don't have an answer to "why does the universe exist", so it's up to you to give your life purpose. Therefore, it's impossible to give your life purpose if you force yourself into a state where further goals and thus progression is made extinct.


    The problem here is you are identifying goals with wage labour, a profession or accumulating profit. People have hobbies that do none fo these things. Their is no freedom for all of humans to work out what to do with their life until all the mundane, extreme division of labour job are automated and everyone has a cretin guaranteed material abundance. I'm essentially a microcosm of this, I volunteer doing manual labour for a conservation charity. I don't do it for career progression, I do it because I get to be outside, with other people and getting exercise. It's enjoyable because it is in moderation and I get enjoyment out of it. Life would be like that but on a much wider scale. Humans have arguably already lived liked this anyway... the first luxury societies were hunter gatherer societies. They didn't have the concept of jobs or career. We would just do the sort of thing they did with all their free time. You just have to teach people how to live, like we have already changed over and over through the course of human history.

    (Original post by Vikingninja)
    It wouldn't work for everyone
    It what way does the current order of things work for everyone?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Recently read this article: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...ots-employment


    TLDR version: assuming this is possible on a worldwide scale would this be a good thing overall? I suspect human life would overall be practically pointless and miserable..,




    Longer version.

    Supppse all nations were abolished and everyone in the world was paid a guaranteed universal income and the vast majority of work was done by robots. Everyone had access to free universal access to practically anything whether quality healthcare, luxury travel, realistic life ‘companion’ robots etc

    A while ago I had the idea that in a fully fair and equal world we wouldn’t have people to laugh at as most humour is based on the misfortune of others (I know, I’m a terrible person).

    But actually thinking about it, it would be even ‘ ‘worse’ than that- you’d also have nobody to help or care for. You’d face no challenges and have no purpose save your own gratification. It’s just a theory but this might be related: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.tim...ottery-winners

    Could it be that humans are simply not designed to live in a ‘heaven’ on earth?
    If you can't hack it when this utopia exists, just off yourself. Don't destroy our lovely robots.

    But seriously, just because most labour will be done by robots, humans have no purpose and just live pointless lives.

    This is how dependent you are on capitalism and it's philosophical foundations. In other words, read this quote from the mighty philosopher, Morpheus lol:

    “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

    If you find that you have no purpose in such a world, you can go and live in the woods and live a simple life. Wake up in the morning, chop some wood, hunt for your food, build a hut etc. lol That sounds like a pointless life to me.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The drive you have is the problem, there's a reason amibition is a sin. Why not enjoy what you have?

    If robots automated all the boring jobs, you'd have more time to do what you wanted - whatever that might be. Want to travel? Want to play games? Want to spend some quality time with your family? Ok cool.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Buda951)
    The drive you have is the problem, there's a reason amibition is a sin. Why not enjoy what you have?

    If robots automated all the boring jobs, you'd have more time to do what you wanted - whatever that might be. Want to travel? Want to play games? Want to spend some quality time with your family? Ok cool.
    In Canada, there is a place that has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. It's called Pikangikum. It's a reservation for natives.

    Some would argue that the reason the suicide rate is so high is because of the historically terrible way natives were treated. They would argue genocide or the residential schools were to blame. The problem with this is that all reports prior to the 1970s show no suicides and a reservation that appeared to be functioning fine.

    In Canada, if you're Native, you are guaranteed free education - That doesn't matter because less than 1% of people graduate high school out there. You are guaranteed free housing. You pay no taxes. You get free health care. You are paid a lump sum upon turning the age of majority dependent upon how badly your tribe was affected.

    Starting in the 1970s, the first suicide happened. That was a century and a half after the genocide. It was more than a century after the residential schools were created. None of those things destroyed their culture.

    Why do you think their suicide rate is now so high that it puts active war zones to shame?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Have you read the Culture novels by Iain Banks? They are part about what how to find meaning and purpose when you live in a society of material abundance, where you can manipulate your genetics, manipulate the chemicals in your body, where death is optional (but considered polite to engage in after about 400 years).

    We are miles away from anything resembling utopia. The "utopia" you describe would still be full of human suffering. People would still get ill, get depressed, die and so on. We already live in a societies that have increasingly killed the social construct of god. Philosophers used to panic about the effects mass atheism would have on humans. Yet here we are still living our lives. A sizable chunk of humans already live with abundance, most of the classic scientific breakthroughs were done by privileged people who had the resources to devote their time to doing things like searching for the philosophers stone instead of toiling in a field. Basic income is hardly anything. Bill Gates has extreme abundance, he never has to work again. It doesn't mean that he kills himself from a hedonistic heroine binge. He is still doing things. BY your logic no millionaire businessman would ever continue to live. That evidently isn't true. Also as a historical example the Bolsheviks were pretty good harnessing the kind of human energy that goes into middle class strivers in capitalist society towards gathering bureaucratic power. There is more than money and material wealth when it comes to human inequality and competitiveness.


    To be honest a lot of this is very puritan, it fetishises human misery. Worships it and finds a twisted meaning in misery. It isn't luddism as they were fearful of being thrown into the deprecations of poverty by the machines. This is more a akin to the islamist who despises the loose moral of the west with all their hedonistic decadence. Capitalism generally disproves your theory. We started to work more and become more industrious and striving once we started to have more abundance. Lots of peasant societies had more holiday from work once harvests had been done etc. That fact alone throws holes in your view a slightly more equally distributed abundance. It is possible to work about 25 hours a week and have as much as most humans had in the past. Yet people work more than that.





    The problem here is you are identifying goals with wage labour, a profession or accumulating profit. People have hobbies that do none fo these things. Their is no freedom for all of humans to work out what to do with their life until all the mundane, extreme division of labour job are automated and everyone has a cretin guaranteed material abundance. I'm essentially a microcosm of this, I volunteer doing manual labour for a conservation charity. I don't do it for career progression, I do it because I get to be outside, with other people and getting exercise. It's enjoyable because it is in moderation and I get enjoyment out of it. Life would be like that but on a much wider scale. Humans have arguably already lived liked this anyway... the first luxury societies were hunter gatherer societies. They didn't have the concept of jobs or career. We would just do the sort of thing they did with all their free time. You just have to teach people how to live, like we have already changed over and over through the course of human history.



    It what way does the current order of things work for everyone?
    The problem is that many people are conditioned to believe that work in and of itself is a virtue, rather than a means to an end.

    Therefore they'd resist the idea of having the same quality of life by working half the hours. You are right in that we fetishise misery and boredom.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Have you read the Culture novels by Iain Banks? They are part about what how to find meaning and purpose when you live in a society of material abundance, where you can manipulate your genetics, manipulate the chemicals in your body, where death is optional (but considered polite to engage in after about 400 years).
    Yeah, I’ve only read the first book. Iirc the Culture were the antagonists in the novel and were essentially parasites being ‘lead’ by supercomputers.

    We are miles away from anything resembling utopia. The "utopia" you describe would still be full of human suffering. People would still get ill, get depressed, die and so on. We already live in a societies that have increasingly killed the social construct of god. Philosophers used to panic about the effects mass atheism would have on humans. Yet here we are still living our lives.
    And they were tight: Breakdown of families A rise in moral relativism Mass drug use, degeneracy and despair
    A sizable chunk of humans already live with abundance, most of the classic scientific breakthroughs were done by privileged people who had the resources to devote their time to doing things like searching for the philosophers stone instead of toiling in a field. Basic income is hardly anything. Bill Gates has extreme abundance, he never has to work again. It doesn't mean that he kills himself from a hedonistic heroine binge. He is still doing things. BY your logic no millionaire businessman would ever continue to live. That evidently isn't true.
    My argument isn’t that no one can have that lifestyle but that it should be exclusive and competitive in order for it to have any meaning. Also Bill Gates is responsible for his wealth.

    Also as a historical example the Bolsheviks were pretty good harnessing the kind of human energy that goes into middle class strivers in capitalist society towards gathering bureaucratic power. There is more than money and material wealth when it comes to human inequality and competitiveness
    Elaborate please.
    To be honest a lot of this is very puritan, it fetishises human misery. Worships it and finds a twisted meaning in misery. It isn't luddism as they were fearful of being thrown into the deprecations of poverty by the machines. This is more a akin to the islamist who despises the loose moral of the west with all their hedonistic decadence. Capitalism generally disproves your theory. We started to work more and become more industrious and striving once we started to have more abundance. Lots of peasant societies had more holiday from work once harvests had been done etc. That fact alone throws holes in your view a slightly more equally distributed abundance. It is possible to work about 25 hours a week and have as much as most humans had in the past. Yet people work more than that.
    Not sure about your peasant example, where was this? Also the peasants wouldn’t have been paid at all well would they?
    The problem here is you are identifying goals with wage labour, a profession or accumulating profit. People have hobbies that do none fo these things. Their is no freedom for all of humans to work out what to do with their life until all the mundane, extreme division of labour job are automated and everyone has a cretin guaranteed material abundance. I'm essentially a microcosm of this, I volunteer doing manual labour for a conservation charity. I don't do it for career progression, I do it because I get to be outside, with other people and getting exercise. It's enjoyable because it is in moderation and I get enjoyment out of it. Life would be like that but on a much wider scale.
    A) would other people be content doing that? B) would you be content doing that if you could do anything else?
    Humans have arguably already lived liked this anyway... the first luxury societies were hunter gatherer societies. They didn't have the concept of jobs or career. We would just do the sort of thing they did with all their free time. You just have to teach people how to live, like we have already changed over and over through the course of human history.
    Ay? I’m pretty sure there was nothing at all luxurious about hunter gatherer societies...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The problem is that many people are conditioned to believe that work in and of itself is a virtue, rather than a means to an end.
    Therefore they'd resist the idea of having the same quality of life by working half the hours. You are right in that we fetishise misery and boredom.[/QUOTE]

    Don’t see it as a problem. Self responsibility and taking pride in your work, even if ‘dull’ isn’t to be sneered at. Some people might not have the ability for more complex jobs.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Therefore they'd resist the idea of having the same quality of life by working half the hours. You are right in that we fetishise misery and boredom.
    Don’t see it as a problem. Self responsibility and taking pride in your work, even if ‘dull’ isn’t to be sneered at. Some people might not have the ability for more complex jobs.[/QUOTE]

    There's a culture where we insist people spend 500+ hours a week behind a desk because apparently being bored immensely for a large number of hours, is worth something.

    If we can't use advancements in technology to provide a better life, with more time for comforts and enjoyment then what's the point?
    What's the point in all this research if we end up chained to a desk most of our lives?

    That's what I don't get and every time someone makes an attempt to go 'hey why not look at ways in which we can have more time to enjoy ourselves' as being irresponsible.

    It's almost as if some people sneer at people wanting to enjoy themselves rather than be sat in an office. As if misery and boredom is something to be fetishised.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Don’t see it as a problem. Self responsibility and taking pride in your work, even if ‘dull’ isn’t to be sneered at. Some people might not have the ability for more complex jobs.
    There's a culture where we insist people spend 500+ hours a week behind a desk because apparently being bored immensely for a large number of hours, is worth something.

    If we can't use advancements in technology to provide a better life, with more time for comforts and enjoyment then what's the point?
    What's the point in all this research if we end up chained to a desk most of our lives?

    That's what I don't get and every time someone makes an attempt to go 'hey why not look at ways in which we can have more time to enjoy ourselves' as being irresponsible.

    It's almost as if some people sneer at people wanting to enjoy themselves rather than be sat in an office. As if misery and boredom is something to be fetishised.[/QUOTE]

    Where do you work that you have to work that many hours? That isn’t the experience of most people in the UK.

    I work about 60 hours a week on average with two days off and 30 days paid holiday and that’s fine for me.

    It’s not that I think people shouldn’t want to enjoy themselves it’s that it should be done in moderation as that’s what makes it special- that’s why we look forward to the weekend or Xmas.

    Also- I don’t think I’m close minded or boring but genuinely think I’d be bored to death without working- and unless I’ve got the necessary motivation I’m always going to procrastinate/ doss it left to my own devices.

    The internet is full of NEETs and they are some of the most depressed and miserable people out there. Why is it that richer countries like Japan and the US have such high suicide rates? As well as general secularisation I reckon it’s because of the lack of meaning/ value to their lives made easier by greater/ freedoms and technology.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    There's a culture where we insist people spend 500+ hours a week behind a desk because apparently being bored immensely for a large number of hours, is worth something.

    If we can't use advancements in technology to provide a better life, with more time for comforts and enjoyment then what's the point?
    What's the point in all this research if we end up chained to a desk most of our lives?

    That's what I don't get and every time someone makes an attempt to go 'hey why not look at ways in which we can have more time to enjoy ourselves' as being irresponsible.

    It's almost as if some people sneer at people wanting to enjoy themselves rather than be sat in an office. As if misery and boredom is something to be fetishised.

    Where do you work that you have to work that many hours? That isn’t the experience of most people in the UK.

    I work about 60 hours a week on average with two days off and 30 days paid holiday and that’s fine for me.

    It’s not that I think people shouldn’t want to enjoy themselves it’s that it should be done in moderation as that’s what makes it special- that’s why we look forward to the weekend or Xmas.

    Also- I don’t think I’m close minded or boring but genuinely think I’d be bored to death without working- and unless I’ve got the necessary motivation I’m always going to procrastinate/ doss it left to my own devices.

    The internet is full of NEETs and they are some of the most depressed and miserable people out there. Why is it that richer countries like Japan and the US have such high suicide rates? As well as general secularisation I reckon it’s because of the lack of meaning/ value to their lives made easier by greater/ freedoms and technology.
    This logic seems to be justify easily preventable ills like hunger and homelessness and poverty because people wouldn't appreciate having food/ housing if it came easy. Or at least that's how it's come across.

    It's a nonsense and as CB says it worships misery and suffering, as if one can't enjoy what they have unless someone else has it worse.
    'Moderation' doesn't seem to be 60 hours a week working.

    If we have the technology to reduce the working week to 25 hours yet pay people the same amount of money, then why not do it?

    I repeat, job satisfaction is 13%.

    If we have the technology to seriously improve the quality of life of the population and wipe out relative poverty, why would we not do it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I could quite happily not work wage labour at all and never get bored.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The question is a misnomer since i don't think we could reasonably allow such freedom for the masses. Employment and routine provides a great use of time for the masses to maintain order in society.
    Well in a democracy it’s feasoble. A fair share of corporates would be happy with such a world for a plethora of reasons.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    This logic seems to be justify easily preventable ills like hunger and homelessness and poverty because people wouldn't appreciate having food/ housing if it came easy. Or at least that's how it's come across.

    It's a nonsense and as CB says it worships misery and suffering, as if one can't enjoy what they have unless someone else has it worse.
    'Moderation' doesn't seem to be 60 hours a week working.

    If we have the technology to reduce the working week to 25 hours yet pay people the same amount of money, then why not do it?
    I don’t worship misery and suffering. If there was a drug that could make us happy 24/7 with no negative side effects would you encourage people to take it? Who doesn’t want to be happy right? There’s actually some good in being upset or angry at times. Same figures here. I value being a good person- in order to be a good person it requires bad people- that doesn’t mean I worship bad people.

    Another point: on value, actually no- if people have never been without it how can they truly value it?

    If people are given something as a right, eg housing I believe they are not going to see the true value of it as it hasn’t been ‘earnt’ - it’s like with kids, when I was a stroppy teenager I didn’t give a **** about keeping my room tidy or not wearing muddy shoes indoors and that’s kinda the case I’ve observec with most people who live in council houses (and I’m not ****ging these people off either in this case) they don’t feel as attached to it as they would if they’ve spent time ruthlessly saving up for it.



    I repeat, job satisfaction is 13%.
    Could be s multitude of reasons for this eg commmuting.

    It would be interesting to see a wide ranging study on reduced hours in working. There have been some in specific industries and whilst there were some bonuses (which I’m not disputing) eg in productivity, work satisfaction there are also negative consequences: loneliness and decreases in quality.

    [/quote]
    If we have the technology to seriously improve the quality of life of the population and wipe out relative poverty, why would we not do it?[/QUOTE]

    You wouldn’r be able to wipe out relative poverty- there will still be comparatively wealthier people able to afford better products and some people screaming that this isn’t fair.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.