I have been unemployed for about 4 years, as I took time off to raise my child. I am an active member of my community, I cook, I clean, I care for my daughter. I think labeling everyone who doesn't have a job as selfish and lazy is propaganda. I feel I provide a bigger benefit to the world now than l did when I had a job that was ultimately worthless.

The luxury of having good and fulfilling work shouldn't be limited to those who have professions and education allowing for that. I reject the assertion that work and self worth should be applied to every situation. I feel that attitude quickly leads to thoughts like "they just work retail, they aren't really doing anything!"

[–] ViridianNott@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I never said giving up a job to raise children is not labour, or that it doesn’t count as contributing to society. I was criticizing people who want to give up work to do nothing

[–] ScrivenerX@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is there anyone who wants to nothing?

I think we are so entrenched in capatalism that not working feels like doing nothing.

[–] ViridianNott@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I am guessing you are not very familiar with the antiwork community as a whole, but there are plenty of young people who truly no aspirations about contributing to society.

There’s a whole rabbithole to go down on that front. There’s also the term NEET which refers to (usually young) people who are “not in education, employment, or training.”

In other words, people who do not work or better themselves and survive using a combination of welfare and living with their parents or friends.

There’s also a lot to criticize about people who purposely under-employ themselves, like the antiwork moderator who lived with her parents, had no degrees or training, and aspired to be a dogwalker for 10-15 hours a week. She technically worked, but used others as a crutch to avoid doing anything more than the bare minimum.

[–] ScrivenerX@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

aspired to be a dogwalker for 10-15 hours a week. She technically worked, but used others as a crutch to avoid doing anything more than the bare minimum.

So some work is inherently worse than other work? I feel this attitude is a slippery slope, it assigns moral virtue to financial achievement.

You criticize what she does for income. You haven't even guessed as to what she does. I think the fundamental difference in our thoughts is that I don't believe that a job defines a person. Someone can "do the minimum" and still provide benefits to their community.

[–] ViridianNott@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess you’re right. You can say it makes me an asshole if you want, but I don’t think that person deserves the same credit or wealth as a person who got an education and used it to work full time in a specialized field.

I do not see that as a weird or unjust opinion.

[–] ScrivenerX@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a weird opinion. It is what we have been conditioned to think. Capitalism tells us that our worth is linked to our work.

It's taken me a long time, but I no longer feel that the purpose of life is to be "productive" but rather to be happy. If you are curious about what other assumptions about the world and how things "have to be" I'd suggest reading "the one dimensional man" by Marcuse.

[–] ViridianNott@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I appreciate the recommendation but I don’t see my perspective on this issue as flawed or in need of changing.

I do have a lot of issues with the way wealth is distributed in capitalist societies… our income from work is a downright shitty attempt at approximating people’s value to society. Some people get more than they deserve and others get a lot less.

At the same time, I don’t think it’s wrong that at least a large part of a person’s value and worth should be determined by how they choose to spend their time. I see it as inherently unjust that someone who doesn’t apply themselves in a way that improves or maintains the world should be rewarded the same as someone who does.

The world is full of passions and hobbies that everyone would love to earn money from, but there are a lot of shitty, difficult, and hard jobs that need doing and but won’t get it without some sort of incentive. Thus, inequality, at least to some extent, is an essential feature of human societies that strive to improve over time. Every communist country has been wrought with inequalities under the surface, because they couldn’t motivate people without it!

This is not to say that anyone who honestly tries according to their ability deserve poverty, and I strongly believe in having a social safety net to help those people (I consider myself an Obama/Clinton democrat for reference).

While capitalism is an ultimately bad and inefficient way of rewarding people for their contribution to society, it would be far, far worse to fail to reward those that work extra hard, especially in jobs that are otherwise undesirable.

That’s the perspective I come from, and I think we simply have to agree to disagree.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just so you know, Clinton was famously against safety nets, resorting to “welfare queen” propaganda and pushing for the dismantling of the welfare system.

I’d also argue that we do not value those who work extra hard, but those who most efficiently extract others hard work. The highest paid individuals aren’t the ones doing the terrible jobs, nor the important jobs. There’s actually a pretty solid reverse correlation between how hard one works and how much one earns.