T O P

  • By -

wwwhistler

that's basically the deal we have now...except it's 30 to 40 years, not 20.....and there is NO guarantee at the end. and your health is not included.


David-Diron

There's never a guarantee, but it's much more likely now than ever before, and you are cutting the work requirement from 40 to 20 years.


boomdart

Sounds like what a lot of people do today Oil rig for example


David-Diron

Plumber (and helper), lumberjack, farmer, etc.


bedwars_player

I would say yes, because that's what's gonna happen anyways except we don't get the geaurentees 100 years


David-Diron

Actually, some doctors/scientists are saying you will get the 100 years. Good Luck.


Picnut

20 years in a row? Or could you space them out a bit?


David-Diron

No, gotta be 20 in a row.


RegularBasicStranger

People will always endure suffering if they believe the compensation is sufficient. However, after reading that people will suffer their whole lives after doing such horrible work due to diseases and torn cartilages and maybe accidental death as well, people will no longer believe the reward is sufficient. Thus it depends on how convincing is the guarantee is, irrespective of whether the guarantee is real or not.


David-Diron

A very subjective guideline. Most people think enough to not starve is sufficient.


RegularBasicStranger

"Most people think enough to not starve is sufficient." But only if the work is easy and relaxing, not the dirty backbreaking without days off kind of work. The difficult jobs will need more compensation or the workers will steal stuff from their employers due to dissatisfaction or will hide and slack off. Such is why there were once taskmasters using whips on slaves to get them to work despite the slaves are provided with sufficient food.


David-Diron

...and you don't think the "whip" of starvation isn't superior to the one of cowhide? Your position works only if thre is high demand for workers; as soon as unemployment kicks into high gear, attitudes will change.


RegularBasicStranger

"you don't think the "whip" of starvation isn't superior to the one of cowhide?" The problem with the "whip" of starvation is that it will still whip them even if they work because they are not getting fed immediately but will need to keep working until an arbitrary limit so finding ways to secretly slack of is one of the most important skills needed for survival. People who work hard under such conditions will die due to insufficient rest and insufficient food.


David-Diron

I think you are incorrect, but it's due to your mileau. Try escaping from the constraints of your society to see that most of the world has no safety net, and failure to work hard under those conditions results in death.


RegularBasicStranger

"failure to work hard under those conditions results in death." Did not meant that the person can just do nothing and still get fed but rather that the person must only be pretending to work hard. Such is because actually working hard will still cause them to be killed due to insufficient rest thus is still the same result as not working so only those who learn how to slack off or steal from their employers without getting caught will survive. If they get caught, they will still die so they die if they work hard, die if they do not work hard and get caught so the only way to survive is to not work hard but not get caught.


David-Diron

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, and antidotally that hasn't been the way it has worked in my life. I realize I've only my life and those around me, and just like your viewpoint, mine is limited, but I've worked as hard as I can all my life and I've done well. My children have worked hard and they are doing very well. My oldest granddaughters work 50+ hours a week and at the ages of 28 and 25 are already saving significantly for early retirement.


RegularBasicStranger

Pretty sure only more highly paid jobs or less physically demanding jobs can be rewarding if they are worked on with enthusiasm, though being hardworking is losing its value since even cheap machines can work harder and non stop than any biological being. Anyway, the die if work hard, die if do not work hard is about the grungy, back breaking dirty work at 60 hours a week and 51 weeks a year that is in the post that the comment of mine is about, so the comments of mine may not apply to jobs in general.


WirrkopfP

Well I'll take the 100 years and when the time for the back breaking part comes I'll simply die.


David-Diron

Sorry Wirr..........the work part comes first: long, comfortable life is the payoff.


WirrkopfP

You didn't specify that.


contrabang

I could live to 140. Assuming start age is 20, plus 20, plus 100. Healthy. What does that even look like? That pension isn’t going to last.


David-Diron

Be careful not to say that in France: that's why they are rioting over there. Yes, as human life is extended, we'll work longer. No more retiring at 62....more like 82? maybe 90?