Originally Posted By TomSawyer I just ran across this, and I think it raises some good points: "In modern Europe - and the North Atlantic world - we live in a climate where both work and leisure seem to be pervasively misunderstood, where both appear regularly in inhuman and obsessive forms. Time is an undifferentiated continuum in which we either work or consume. Work follows no daily or even weekly rhythms but is a twenty-four hour business, sporadically interrupted by what is often a very hectic form of play. It seems we are either producing or being entertained by a vast industry that purports to guess our wants before we ask and leaves us in so many ways passive. At least, that is the message regularly given by advertising and popular fictions. The strain on the life of the family, as well as the life of the soul, that all this generates is well-documented and the object of vague but powerful anxiety in the culture at large. (snip) A civilised life . . . is one in which economics is not allowed to set itself up as a set of activities whose goals and norms have no connection with anything other than production and exchange. We have to ask what it is that economics sustains – its own business or an environment of human development, intelligence and awareness? " So much of our culture is dominated by the needs of business. Are we being served as people as we serve the needs of businesses? Or does it matter?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I enjoy what I do...and I cannot imagine not working right now. I've often said that if I won the lottery I might want to take a year or two off to travel but at some point I would miss my vocation. That said, I don't live to work. My family is important to me and after putting in the necessary hours I welcome evenings and weekend, vacation and so forth. I just aim to strike a balance and so far in life that seems to have worked for me. Does that address the deepness of this topic? I don't know. But, that's my final answer.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think work is necessary, too, Wahoo. And I don't think the author of the quote was saying anything against work.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I have an interesting perspective since my "work" is in the field of parks and recreation. As a professional I see an increased need for leisure time (overweight children, stress levels in adults, the breakup of the family unit) juxtaposed with the "24 hour business climate" that the author mentions. There seems to be this pressure now that your leisure time must be spent "doing" something. Rock climbing, exercising, movies, the internet, etc. To me, leisure needs to go back to it's fundamentals; sitting in a park, playing board games with the kids, etc. Again, there is a balance that needs to be found and I think Americans, on a whole, aren't finding it right now.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>A civilised life . . . is one in which economics is not allowed to set itself up as a set of activities whose goals and norms have no connection with anything other than production and exchange. We have to ask what it is that economics sustains – its own business or an environment of human development, intelligence and awareness?<< In other words, should humanity serve the needs of the economy (low wages == good for the economy) or should the economy serve the needs of humanity? Is an unregulated economy that maximizes wealth generation preferable to a regulated economy that generates less wealth but provides greater societal stability? Have we really become homo economicus? >>In modern Europe - and the North Atlantic world - we live in a climate where both work and leisure seem to be pervasively misunderstood, where both appear regularly in inhuman and obsessive forms<< I think that this has become especially true in the US. We have become so frenzied by the modern pace of life that we have forgotten how to rest during our rare moments of "leisure". Vacations are short and fast paced (whenever we do a DLR trip I am constantly having to remind my teenage kids to slow down and enjoy the moment). Weekends involve never ending projects and activities. Here in Colorado we have a town called Glenwood Springs, which is home to large natural host springs. 100 years ago people would come out and spend weeks in Glenwood Springs, and most of it was leisure time (granted, these people had money). I remember thinking "Goodness, what did they do while here all that time? Didn't they get bored?" It was a different pace. I suppose that if we could go back in a time machine we would go stir crazy with the pace of things.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>To me, leisure needs to go back to it's fundamentals; sitting in a park, playing board games with the kids, etc.<< I agree 100%
Originally Posted By ecdc Don't get me started on this whole topic... I did a research paper on immigration during the Victorian era to the United States and was stunned at what I found. The U.S. has a Protestant work ethic tradition that makes it almost impossible for the masses to live fulfilling lives. This work ethic - or the idea that idleness and certain forms of recreation were equal to laziness - worked fine for the people who ultimately instituted it - the ruling classes. Rich men and women would sit on boards of industry, see their children as it pleased them, and engaged in activities that were considered "industrious". The majority of the working class, however, worked 60-80 hours a week and rarely saw family or had time for recreation. This was hardest on men who came from Europe and had lived an entirely different life. It used to be (sadly, Europe and other parts of the world have been Americanized) that if you asked a European "What do you do?" they would respond that they were a painter, a dancer, a singer, a mother, etc. Ask an American "What do you do?" and you will almost universally get an answer tied to their work. They're a lawyer, a customer service rep, etc. etc. Our whole self-identity is constructed on our work/career. It's pathetic. We see on a regular basis friends and family packing up and moving thousands of miles away from those they love for a job - just to make more money. We spend hours away from family and that which we love most to make money for giant corporations or governments or people, who, someday just like us, will be dead and can't take it with them. Life is short but full of amazing opportunities. Yet most people won't get that opportunity as they toil away for a capitalist system that rewards only the richest among us.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not sure that only the riches are benefitting from the capitalist system. I like going to Disney. To do so, I need money. In fact, for many of my leisure pursuits I need a buck or two. Work affords me that opportunity. Is someone else benefitting from my work? Yes.
Originally Posted By ecdc "I'm not sure that only the riches are benefitting from the capitalist system. I like going to Disney. To do so, I need money. In fact, for many of my leisure pursuits I need a buck or two. Work affords me that opportunity." And I think this is a healthy attitude - work gives us the opportunity to be leisurely in our off-work hours. But let me clarify my definition of "the richest". I think you and I probably fall into this definition in the larger scheme of things, wahoo. The reality is, a very small percentage of the world's population can afford to go to Disneyland or make enough money at work to enjoy such a pursuit. Even if you restrict to the U.S. and then do an average income of those who make less than 100,000 a year, it's a pretty small number. And those that can afford it often work so hard in multiple jobs or their spouses work too that it's a very rare opportunity to do something like Disneyland. That's my objection to the status quo - not that we work, or even that we work 40 hours a week, but that usually isn't even enough for most people. The reality is, the vast, vast majority of people in the U.S., regardless of income, see their co-workers more often than they see their spouses and children. I think there's something seriously wrong with that.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The reality is, the vast, vast majority of people in the U.S., regardless of income, see their co-workers more often than they see their spouses and children. I think there's something seriously wrong with that.< lots of reasons for that: mostly IMHO an economy here based on the need for two income families ....to afford a home, property taxes & utlities ( putting aside 'luxuries' like vacations and nice cars for now. Home ownership is at an all time high right now, but so is personal debt.... If home ownership is the golden goose of reaching middle class status, as a nation we are doing it by sacrificing most semblance of home life. .... health care costs, many times now requires 2 sets of insurance ( and still leaves a fair amount of co pays ) - in order to not get wiped out by one major occurance. .....ability to try and save for retirement since many major corporations are renegging onthe verbal guarantees of pensions earned over the last 25 - 30 years. Without 2 incomes trying to save enough in 401k's to not be living on the street after working 30 years..and having no pension and no health care benefits - until medicare age We have created this economy and it won't be changed any time soon to return to a time when June Cleaver was at home with dinner waiting for Ward...and yet somehow they had a house in the suburbs, a car, and vacations. Add to that the lack of personal time off here ( back to the Puritan thing ) - where I have worked for the same large international firm for 30 years...and have 5 weeks vacation time. We still start people off with basically what amounts to 1 week, then moves to 2...you get 3 weeks at 5 years, and 4 weeks at 10 years of service. The 5 weeks I have comes at 20 years of service and tops out - that's it. Yet the same company in Europe grants between 6 - 8 weeks for a new hire because that is what the country standards are set at......the same basically goes in Brazil also... so yes, the companies here drive our social life ( or lack of) - so what can be done at this point ? I wish I had that answer. I can tell you one thing for sure though, after working 30 years ( almost 10 more in part time work in high school and college) - and climbing the corporate ladder..working 60 - 75 hour weeks mostly in management roles...you do not get that time back -- ever. Make sure you really like what you do, because when you look back, that time is gone forever, and the money made mostly spent. Perspective on this changes as you age, trust me.
Originally Posted By ecdc I think corporate greed is a great place to start with why things are the way they are. It's simply unacceptable in today's economic world for a company to report that their profits were steady, the same as last quarter or last year or two years ago. The pressure to continue earning by shareholders is insane. I remember as a little kid in the late 70s watching my grandmother packing my grandpa's lunch pail and he'd head off to work at the steel mill he'd worked at for years. They'd performed this routine for decades and my grandma never worked and they were the classic example of the blue collar, middle class American family. In the 80s the mill was bought out and my grandfather forced into an early retirement. I don't know if that's when it really began, in the Reagan years, but that's been my observation. In today's world, a young version of my grandparents wouldn't stand a chance on a single blue collar income. They'd never be able to afford the modest home, the two cars, and the 2.5 (actually 3) kids. There would have to be another source of income for them to barely scrape by - and forget the family vacations.
Originally Posted By threeundertwo >>So much of our culture is dominated by the needs of business. Are we being served as people as we serve the needs of businesses?>> This brings to mind one of my favorite pet peeves, the dvd player in the car. How did families survive without them? They survived just fine thankyouverymuch. To my mind, consumers are serving the needs of big business by buying into a lifesytle like this. I'm sure I'm considered pretty extreme, but we haven't had tv at our house for about 7 years. We have a tv set that we watch dvds on about once or twice a week. I would characterize our home life as very rich and extremely rewarding. We eat most meals together. (Which reminds me that we also don't have a microwave - I think fast food is unnecessary in our house and I really like to cook and put love into food). We have chosen a lifestyle for our family that includes unstructured down time every single day. My kids play, and are imaginative and read like maniacs. My kids have learned that just because something is available, doesn't mean we have to have it. So I guess my answer is, I don't think we are necessarily being served as people when we serve the needs of businesses. But we can choose which businesses and services we incorporate into our lifestyles. Most people just may not realize they have a choice.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>This brings to mind one of my favorite pet peeves, the dvd player in the car. How did families survive without them?<< Like most things, it's a question of wants vs. need. We don't 'need' most of the stuff in our homes or our lives, but they can add enjoyment and they keep the economy rolling along. People don't need to visit Disneyland, but they want to. Well, except me. I need to visit Disneyland.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, as a child we drove out to California and back a couple of times. My mother tells me should would have given her right arm to have a tv/dvd player to occupy us as we complained for 5 days out and 5 days back. I don't need the DVD player in the car, but it is a nice option for parents of young children.
Originally Posted By hopemax Yes, I was going to bring priorities into this. My friend was telling me about her DD's kingdergarten class. The plan is $10 per kid, to help a family. My friend, thought great, food, clothes, some toys. What the family asked for? An X-box 360. My DH and I have engineering degrees, but I decided that I didn't want to go into my field, and I took some time off. That turned into 10 years and counting for me staying at home. It has not come without some sacrifices. We only own one car, and I would love to own a house. Of course, I also know that we could have a house if I cut back on my Disney trips, pin and scrapbooking spending. So I wonder if people are working so much because they HAVE to put clothes on their backs, and food on their table. Or they have to work so much because they think they need to have a new car, clothes with labels, an HDTV, the newest game system, fancy coffee, etc. In which case, I can't point the finger at businesses. IMO, EVERYONE has a sense of, "I need it now, or it's a DISASTER!" For companies, that equals profits and so they stick it to their employers and the quality of the products. For the rest of us, it's I must have X, Y and Z and they stick it to their families and on their credit cards. But I think it's the same phenomenon, instant gratification at the sacrifice of something else.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't blame business. People are free to take and leave jobs as they please, so when a person is working somewhere they apparently finds the trade-offs worthwhile. I also don’t blame business for constantly creating new products. In fact I’m very glad they do. Did we absolutely NEED personal computers in every home in America? Probably not. But I’m darned glad business was able to create the product and reduce the price to where virtually anyone can have one. People in America really have a choice about how many hours they work and how stressful their job is. There are many people apparently satisfied living a rather modest life in the interest of having a greater quality of life. That is what we sell when we try to hire staff. We just can't compete salary-wise with private industry when we need to hire an application developer, database administrator, etc. They are going to substantially outbid us every time. You know you will never get rich at a place where the president only makes about $350K per year (well, unless you are the football coach). We tell people right in the interview that if their primary motivation is money, they would probably be happier somewhere else. What can we offer? A relaxed environment. Good benefits. Job security (not complete, but more than you ever have in private industry). Educational opportunities. 40 hour weeks -- we only work overtime if there is a major problem of some type. The chance to work for an organization that has a loftier goal than maximizing profits. There are many jobs out there, good professional positions that do not come with the God-awful pace of major corporations. There will be tradeoffs, as there always are in life. But in the end you are able to choose what is most important to you.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <(well, unless you are the football coach)< If the Gophers coach makes more than $350K he is overpaid - LOL !!!!! j/k
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Now you do have a very good woman's volleyball team -- my daughter has a good friend on that team making a run at a national title....
