Would You Work for No Pay If It Was Something You Enjoyed?

[Artman]

I've done a little of most items on the list and most of those without compensation in the form of pay, but not full time for extended periods.

In the poll I voted for "other." If my basic needs were to be met, I would do some form of art, music, drama or writing. The thing is, these arts are one of the first things to go if others are required to provide for the basic needs of the artists. They get directed as to what is and what is not worthy of state funded work.

 

[cronxeh]

Anyway, the poll, pattylou, is poorly constructed. If you want to know if people would work if they did not have to (or if you didn't get paid), you should ask 'would you work if you did not have to?' or 'what would you do if you did not get paid to work?' in a straightforward yes-or-no way and provide yes or no answers. It appears that the question people are answering is 'if you did not get paid, but still had to work, what would you do?' and the conclusions you drew cannot be gathered from answering that question.

I don't believe that is an option in Patty's view of a utopian society. Everyone has to work, its just a matter of working doing what makes you happy. Particularly some people find joy doing certain things, even be it gaming. I could find plenty of jobs for those computer types - running remote oil drilling bases, operating robots and equipment, scheduling tasks and monitoring levels, punching in and out on the system. So thus if something breaks down mechanically they can order the parts and then inspect the replacement process, but I'm sure as technology becomes more advanced those events would become more and more rare. Thus one guy would operate an entire nuclear power plant from his house and be responsible for it. Sounds far fetched? Well today it is, in future I don't see any other reasonable way - a team of engineers watching the console 24/7 is just plain stupid.

Now on the other hand the technology and automata should enable farming of dozens of acres by one person, and in the future I don't see a need for people to actually "drive" the cars, trucks and trains - it should be automated. The real question of course would be.. what the hell are we going to do with the 10+ billion people spawned by then? STOP HUMPING PEOPLE!

 

[Evo]

Anyway, the poll, pattylou, is poorly constructed. If you want to know if people would work if they did not have to (or if you didn't get paid), you should ask 'would you work if you did not have to?' or 'what would you do if you did not get paid to work?' in a straightforward yes-or-no way and provide yes or no answers. It appears that the question people are answering is 'if you did not get paid, but still had to work, what would you do?' and the conclusions you drew cannot be gathered from answering that question.

I thought pattylou was talking about volunteer work outside of my regular job. If what she meant was if I didn't have to work, all of my needs were cared for already, would I work for free anyway...NO, I might volunteer time to time.

 

[Astronuc]

If I didn't have to work - I would certainly still work - since I enjoy doing interesting and meaningful things.

I voted for:

farming (agriculture) - really an extension of the gardening I enjoy,
carpentry (construction) - I do that at home, and I like building things, particularly useful things,
education/child care - I like teaching, especially children,

other - I would like to be working on irrigation, agricultural, transportation and energy projects in Africa, South America and Asia, or wherever there is an opportunity to improve the quality of life for people.

 

[Bladibla]

Work in a orchestra

 

[russ_watters]

I thought pattylou was talking about volunteer work outside of my regular job. If what she meant was if I didn't have to work, all of my needs were cared for already, would I work for free anyway...NO, I might volunteer time to time.

I figured most people missed it (I hadn't considered that interpretation, though), but this poll is an offshoot of a conversation in the politics forum...

 

[pattylou]

All I've ever wanted to do was to have a huge animal shelter. I wish I could find some way to do that and make a living at it, but that's tough. If I had all the money I needed, that's what I would do.

I love your barbie borg.

 

[pattylou]

Anyway, the poll, pattylou, is poorly constructed. If you want to know if people would work if they did not have to (or if you didn't get paid), you should ask (a) 'would you work if you did not have to?' or (b) 'what would you do if you did not get paid to work?' in a straightforward yes-or-no way and provide yes or no answers. It appears that the question people are answering is (c) 'if you did not get paid, but still had to work, what would you do?' and the conclusions you drew cannot be gathered from answering that question.

(a) Obviously there is a need to work in any situation where people hope to live. We need to eat and have shelter. Question 'a' is senseless.

(b) There is no stratification of wealth in this scenario, and so your question 'b' is the same as my poll.

(c) I fail to understand how you cannot draw conclusions based on the way the question was framed.

I think you're wrong in your assessment of what people here thought they were answering, and whether conclusions can be drawn. I'll start a poll to see.

 

[pattylou]

I thought pattylou was talking about volunteer work outside of my regular job. If what she meant was if I didn't have to work, all of my needs were cared for already, would I work for free anyway...NO, I might volunteer time to time.

Volunteering *is* working for free. And your needs aren't provided, unless the community (of which you are a part) is able to provide them. Nowhere did I (or anyone) imply that needs are met without any input from individuals, Russ is mistaken if he is projecting that onto the question.

I also never stipulated how much time would need to be donated per person (I don't know what it would take in a well run money-less society).

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I voted 'other'. I was thinking of some care-in-the-community type thing, helping former PF poll addicts get on with their lives. I may start as soon as I've finished my caption kick. I did think about working with children, but I think I'd get more done on my own.

I have never had MTV. Has anyone else never had MTV? Maybe I should start a thread. Should I start a thread? Is asking if you should start a thread off-topic? Don't tell me if it is.

 

[pattylou]

If by starting such a thread you are contributing to the welfare of the community, then in no way is asking such thing off topic on this thread.

 

[eax]

Theoreticaly its best for everyone to help and work together for free. In this case personaly I would work for free. but unfortunatly many people will abuse and take advantage of the system and thus resulting in corruption. In the system that we live in today (work for money) I do not want to work for free unless I'll be working with 2 or 3 other people who are also doing the deed for free.

We all know that how we work will never change. It will alway's be for money. Trying to convince someone else is useless and won't change anything. Makeing little changes approaching working for free is stupid because people will complain about child labour which will limit the activity so no sides may make a profit of money. Also these little changes will make it harder for the society to build itself since the societies sorrounding it rely on money.

 

[Danger]

I checked 'hunting'; although I don't do it for sport, I certainly would for food if necessary. Also 'teaching', although I'm with Moonbear on the babysitting issue. Also 'other', which would be my favourite activities of mechanical design/building/maintenance, flying, helping out with lab work or whatnot. And, of course, being SOS's love slave.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Realistically, I would probably do any of those things if those that I cared about needed me to. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would really enjoy doing any of them (except education), so I wouldn't be likely to devote my life to it.

I do believe that a certain amount of philanthropy is good for a society and I certainly don't think that every act of kindness encourages laziness, but there are always limits. Helping out in a nursing home or giving some occasional free tutoring (or posting on PF! ) can be very good. Giving money to every homeless person you pass on the street...probably not the best idea.

 

[Gokul43201]

Theoreticaly its best for everyone to help and work together for free.

What theory is this ?

 

[cronxeh]

What theory is this ?

Hypothetically?

 

[Math Is Hard]

I love your barbie borg.

thank you. It's my halloween costume.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I selected other.

I would volunteer my time 24/7 to the destruction of the society in which I lived.

 

[pattylou]

LOL. You're an angel, Jimmie.

 

[pi-r8]

You left a few options off the poll.

1) coal miner
2) fry cook
3) shoe shiner
4) Prison warden
5) person who cleans up vomit at disneyland
6) chimney sweep
7) garbage collector

How many of you would do THOSE jobs for free? There's a reason you have to pay people to do those jobs- they're HORRIBLE. But they're all very important jobs, so if you want a good society, someone has to do them. And if no one's willing to do them voluntarily for the good of others (and they shouldn't!) you're going to have to FORCE them to.

What a glorious society it'll be when we replace paid labor with slave labor.

 

[Smurf]

I wouldn't mind collecting garbage. Who the hell needs someone else to shine their own shoes in the first place? What kind of whimps do you think live in our worlds

edit: actually the same goes for cooking, sweeping your chimney and cleaning up your own vomit.

I assume whoever runs disneyland will clean up disneyland

 

[Moonbear]

You left a few options off the poll.
1) coal miner
2) fry cook
3) shoe shiner
4) Prison warden
5) person who cleans up vomit at disneyland
6) chimney sweep
7) garbage collector
How many of you would do THOSE jobs for free? There's a reason you have to pay people to do those jobs- they're HORRIBLE. But they're all very important jobs, so if you want a good society, someone has to do them. And if no one's willing to do them voluntarily for the good of others (and they shouldn't!) you're going to have to FORCE them to.
What a glorious society it'll be when we replace paid labor with slave labor.

Based on the other poll about understanding this poll, I'd say there are a LOT of things left off this one. The list here includes fairly respectable jobs, not the really menial, disgusting jobs that I can't imagine anyone would do if they weren't paid for it. Who will clean those absolutely filthy public restrooms, especially after some deranged person gets in and spreads feces on all the surfaces (yes, this does happen), or collect the trash, or empty the septic tanks, or climb around mucky crawlspaces to exterminate termites, ants or the ocassional raccoon? Who would be a hospital orderly responsible for cleaning up the mess in the ER when the floor is covered in bodily fluids? Just because you can find people to volunteer for this one list of jobs, it doesn't mean you can find people willing to volunteer for all the jobs society needs to have done. Heck, there are some jobs that it's hard enough to find people to do them for pay let alone without pay.

 

[pi-r8]

Ok, so maybe shoe shining isn't the most crucial sector of the economy. But would you really want to be a garbageman? You said you wouldn't mind doing it, but would you honestly do it if everything was free? More importantly, do you think enough people would do it, and do it well?

 

[Smurf]

If I was being provided with everything from some magical entity, no I wouldn't collect garbage. I assume that magical entity which gives me everything I need would take away everything I don't need too.

 

[Moonbear]

I assume whoever runs disneyland will clean up disneyland

Just one person is going to do all the work there? That doesn't even make sense. Do you have any idea how many employees they have? (I'm sure Zz can answer off the top of his head if you need a precise number). I guess your world won't have many things like Disneyland, because those require employees to run them. But if they have to do everything for themselves, even things they aren't particularly good at, they won't have time for recreation anyway.

 

[Moonbear]

If I was being provided with everything from some magical entity, no I wouldn't collect garbage. I assume that magical entity which gives me everything I need would take away everything I don't need too.

Ah, well, if we're talking about a magical world where things we want just appear and things we don't want just disappear, then there's really no reason for anyone to do anything other than have parties all the time.

 

[Smurf]

I guess your world won't have many things like Disneyland

I'm counting on it.

But if they have to do everything for themselves, even things they aren't particularly good at, they won't have time for recreation anyway.

See now I always thought that people weren't good at things because they never did them. I don't know, I guess you could figure that maybe 20% of the population is genetically incapable of cleaning up puke. Poor them. I guess they'll have to go to someone who is genetically capable of cleaning up puke and ask really nicely. With any luck that person will be genetically incapable of putting frying pans on the stove. Maybe they could exchange services.

 

[Smurf]

Ah, well, if we're talking about a magical world where things we want just appear and things we don't want just disappear, then there's really no reason for anyone to do anything other than have parties all the time.

Yeah. Anyone have any ideas how to get to a world where things just appear with no effort? I don't think I've ever heard any theories about that before, would be cool.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm counting on it.

There are quite a few people who enjoy going to amusement parks and there are also people who enjoy building them and running them.

See now I always thought that people weren't good at things because they never did them. I don't know, I guess you could figure that maybe 20% of the population is genetically incapable of cleaning up puke. Poor them. I guess they'll have to go to someone who is genetically capable of cleaning up puke and ask really nicely. With any luck that person will be genetically incapable of putting frying pans on the stove. Maybe they could exchange services.

There are people who are germaphobes and people who can not stand the sight or smell of vomit. I once met a woman that would become nauseous if you so much as spit into a napkin in front of her.
On other matters there are quite a few people who are just terrible at math. One of the most common jobs is running a register and as far as I can tell most likely about one in ten of those who have ever worked the job consistantly screwed it up.

 

[pattylou]

I wouldn't mind cleaning up other people's vomit, etc, even feces, for some period of time.

Off hand I say I'd be willing to do something like that once or twice a month.

Of course, for my family I do that daily.

(I expect most everyone here knows how to wipe themselves, after all, and therefore we all have practical experience with feces - cleaning.)

One advantage of a whateverist society we're talking about, is that jobs could get shuffled. Can you imagine if we were already that society, discussing a *specialised* society in which you have to do the same job 40 hours a week for years on end? i expect we'd have a number of posters who thought such a set up was completely insane. (Yet that's the kind of society we have at present.)

It certainly isn't part of our evolution to never vary what we're doing. We're generalists by nature.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

One advantage of a whateverist society we're talking about, is that jobs could get shuffled. Can you imagine if we were already that society, discussing a *specialised* society in which you have to do the same job 40 hours a week for years on end? i expect we'd have a number of posters who thought such a set up was completely insane. (Yet that's the kind of society we have at present.)

But it's not the kind of society we have a present. I've worked in about four or five different sorts of jobs. I'm trying to get my self together so I can move on to yet another sort of job right now. In our society you can get just about what ever sort of job you want as long as you have the skill and the merit.

 

[Moonbear]

One advantage of a whateverist society we're talking about, is that jobs could get shuffled.

The problem is that some jobs take considerable training to do. If you could just up and quit and do something else when you got bored of it, and had to wait while someone else learned the ropes, things could get pretty inefficient. Of course we all are capable of cleaning vomit, but would you actually volunteer to clean up other people's vomit if you could choose anything else instead?

It certainly isn't part of our evolution to never vary what we're doing. We're generalists by nature.

Can you back up that statement? I was under the impression that throughout human history, people have had fairly fixed roles in societies, whether self-selected or society-imposed. If someone is proficient at hunting, they hunt. It wouldn't make sense to send them out to pick berries if someone else has gotten proficient at selecting the non-poisonous berries and the former hunter wouldn't know those nightshade berries aren't edible, or which mushrooms are safe and which aren't, etc. We're a social species, not a solitary species, and it seems usually social species have roles in order to function in a social system rather than being entirely self-sufficient, in which case it would make more sense to be solitary.

 

[pattylou]

But it's not the kind of society we have a present. I've worked in about four or five different sorts of jobs. I'm trying to get my self together so I can move on to yet another sort of job right now. In our society you can get just about what ever sort of job you want as long as you have the skill and the merit.

I wonder how widely applicable your situation is.

I'm limited to teaching and research by and large. I am not complaining, but it's interesting to consider being valued as a seamstress, as a farmer, as a cook, as a teacher, then back again to seamstress.

I'd be willing to tuck in a coal mining stint every few years if it was necessary.

But I wouldn't want to have mine coal all the time, as things have been in our country's recent past.

 

[pattylou]

Can you back up that statement? I was under the impression that throughout human history, people have had fairly fixed roles in societies, whether self-selected or society-imposed. If someone is proficient at hunting, they hunt. It wouldn't make sense to send them out to pick berries if someone else has gotten proficient at selecting the non-poisonous berries and the former hunter wouldn't know those nightshade berries aren't edible, or which mushrooms are safe and which aren't, etc. We're a social species, not a solitary species, and it seems usually social species have roles in order to function in a social system rather than being entirely self-sufficient, in which case it would make more sense to be solitary.

I'm thinking in general terms of the basic skills of survival being known by most members of the species. Look at apes. Any ape knows how to get food, knows some tool use, knows communication, etc -

Skills needed for basic survival are inherent in individuals. Interestingly, the related needs/provisions ... form the basis of society as well.

We are capable of specialisation, no question. Whether a person becomes trained in identifying poisonous plants or recognizing dangerous weather signals, (Pulling something off the top of my head here) has less to do with their innate capabilities and more to do with their training.

So our innate capabilities, I'd argue, are more geared towards a general skill set. Through training we become specialised.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I wonder how widely applicable your situation is.
I'm limited to teaching and research by and large. I am not complaining, but it's interesting to consider being valued as a seamstress, as a farmer, as a cook, as a teacher, then back again to seamstress.
I'd be willing to tuck in a coal mining stint every few years if it was necessary.
But I wouldn't want to have mine coal all the time, as things have been in our country's recent past.

I'm sure there are probably more people who let themselves get stuck into a cubby hole but I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people here on PF whom have worked various sorts of jobs. I'm pretty Positive that LYN has and I'd venture to say that Danger and Astronuc would be among them aswell.