SMBC Comics Forum

Kaharz wrote:The whole regular hours day job thing can take a bit to get used to, but most people do. Sometimes that is kind of crappy though. I'm lucky if I can sleep past 7 on the weekend even if I went to bed at 2am.

I've worked mostly 7-3:30 or so (w/ 1hr lunch) for about the last 5 years. But recently I've changed to mostly 10-6:30. And despite having worked afternoons (3-12) and nights (11-7) I'm having a harder time adjusting to this than any other.
Mostly based on meals.
My 7-3:30 schedule was basically wake up at 6am, shower, pack a lunch, and get to work. Breakfast was my first break at 9ish, a coffee and muffin. Lunch was at 12 or so. Shift ends at 3:30, get home, do whatever, make and eat dinner around 5:30-6pm. Go to bed around 10-11pm.
Now I wake up at 8:30, spend some time on my phone, shower, and head to work. Breakfast ends up being at my first break, usually a coffee and a muffin. My mid-shift 'lunch' is somewhere around 2-3pm, where I'm usually ravenous, but I also don't want to go full-meal because I intend on making dinner as soon as I get home. So my 'lunch' ends up being something between a snack and a meal, and isn't something I've packed from home because I don't see it as a meal. Then I finish my shift and depending on how my day went and what I have in the fridge dinner is either prepared or some bullshit I have sitting around. Go to bed around 12-1pm.
I know that I can fix it, but it's not easy to do so.

Yea, that is a crappy shift. I breifly worked 11am to 7pm as a line cook and it just ruins your day. I prefer my typical 6:30am to 3:00 hours. But my schedule is pretty flexible now that I am mostly back in the office.

At my employer we can work whenever.

Astrogirl wrote:At my employer we can work whenever.

I am jealous of Europe and their flexible/short/whatever working days. I don't think they fly for retail, but it's still a great way to view work.

I think the "developed" world is definitely at an uncomfortable point where 1) most people don't need to have a job for all necessary functions in a country to work fine and 2) we could potentially move towards a guaranteed income, which will almost inevitably move towards a no-money society. But crossing that barrier is sure to be pretty difficult. And if the world messes up now, and we let global warming go full throttle and wait till it's too late to seriously switch over to green energy sources, humanity probably won't have a second shot. We'll have burned through too many of the available fossil fuels to "re-industrialize" and try again.

I saw a Tesla with a "NOGASINME" (or something like that) license plate and wondered if they had a solar-powered generator they charged it up with, cause if not, they really aren't helping anything.





yayyy president trump

Yea, but a lot of that luxury is thanks to incredibly cheap labor and the exploitation of resources elsewhere.

Right, yeah - we aren't *that* close.

Liriodendron_fagotti wrote:I think the "developed" world is definitely at an uncomfortable point where 1) most people don't need to have a job for all necessary functions in a country to work fine and 2) we could potentially move towards a guaranteed income, which will almost inevitably move towards a no-money society. But crossing that barrier is sure to be pretty difficult.

I hadn't even really heard of the idea of guaranteed income a year+ ago. I liked it from the start but it took me a few months to get a good handle on it, another few months to start actively discussing it with friends, and now I'm beating that drum hard and loud.
I think there are two major things that are needed to adopt guaranteed income:
1) We need to remove the idea that work (traditional jobs/labour) are intrinsic to the capitalist structure. I know and understand that most people look at guaranteed income and scream "Socialism!" But it's not. It really isn't even a step closer to communism than what we currently have, from what I can see. It doesn't remove specialization of labour. There would still be endeavour, there would still be innovation, and it would actually prop up the idea of the long-dead American Dream because it would free more people to actually pursue it rather than just taking what they can based on their needs.
2) We need to be able to put it in place while ignoring big corporations. What's horrible about this is that the major corporations are already moving this direction but not because they like the idea. It's because they are looking to cut their bottom line. Online shopping, cashier-less shopping, driver-less cars, machines that make your burger, etc. They are inadvertently pushing the issue, but with their lobbying ability? We'd have to push past their objections (and probably tax them heavier, but that's another issue altogether) and put it out there.

The really sad thing is that we need both. So I think it's unlikely that it can be done in this generation. There are still so many voters who have their heels dug into how capitalism functioned in the past (pound the pavement, bootstraps, unions, and all that) that it's not likely to make a dent while they still hold the political strings. So while we struggle to get to #1, the corporations will see their advantage, dig deeper, and make it harder for us to get #2. So while the fight gets easier for #1 it'll get harder for #2.
Now that's without some sort of major interruption, which may well occur. Take 'interruption' as you will, as I think there is a broad range of system-changing events that could happen in that time.


As for the move to a no-money society? I think that guaranteed income does kind of lay the path towards it. But those are another set of hurdles which at this point seem pretty impossible to clear. While I think that guaranteed income would require a significant but doable restructuring of capitalism, a no-money society would require something pretty close to a dismantling and rebuilding.

Yeah, the no-money part is wayyyy in the future if we don't mess things up. I'll admit my ideal vision for the future is very TNG. There did happen to be a cataclysmic war between now and then...

Regarding 1) I definitely agree. People want to work and to do something with their lives, and you can absolutely derive satisfaction from your work without relying on it as a means to pay the bills. Retiring is pretty much the single biggest detriment to your health if you wind up just sitting around with nothing to do. I think the other is the one you mentioned - the generation thing. "Getting help is weakness!" "....especially from the government!"

It's past my bedtime so I'll wait on talking about 2.

I've always liked the idea of a guaranteed minimum income as it would mean that my more useless coworkers could quit their jobs and let someone better take over.

On the subject of people working or not with guaranteed income: I don't know how much is known about the guaranteed income experiment everyone likes to bring up, because when the conservative government took over they ended it and sealed all the records on it. But I live like 2 hours from the city that did it, and did a couple month work placement there a while back, and people told me over and over again about how nobody quit their jobs, nobody stopped working.* It was honestly a source of pride for them. But it did take a bit of pressure off and make things a lot easier for them.

I mean I'm sure you'd definitely get a group of people who'd say 'yeah this is enough for me' and not bother, but working is really important for most people. Not just for the money but to get out and feel like you're being a productive member of society. Not to mention most people wouldn't be satisfied with the quality of life of a small income you can live off if you had to when you could supplement it with a job and get a lot more perks.


*At the time the experiment wasn't expected to just end. It was designed to be long term. But I have a lot of rants on Filmon.

smiley_cow wrote:and sealed all the records on it

WTF?!
What was the name of the city?

I remember reading about some Canadian city that tried it, and about 10% of the people quit their jobs - but mostly teenagers who where still in high school and parents of babies ... so people for which it is entirely reasonable to be doing something other than working.

Astrogirl wrote:

smiley_cow wrote:and sealed all the records on it

WTF?!
What was the name of the city?

I remember reading about some Canadian city that tried it, and about 10% of the people quit their jobs - but mostly teenagers who where still in high school and parents of babies ... so people for which it is entirely reasonable to be doing something other than working.

Yeah when the tories took power, they told the researchers they weren't interested, ended the experiment and put all the records in storage. I think there wasn't even a final report. I mean this was late 70's/early 80's, so I think they might be accessible now.

The city was Dauphin Manitoba. I think it was done a few other places too, but Dauphin was the only city wide one. Look up Mincome.

From what I've read in the last year, I believe Canadia tried it in several communities over the last few decades. Unfortunately (but understandably) I believe they weren't exactly urban locations. Which is where I think guaranteed income would have the most direct impact. And where I think it would sell gov't on the program more thoroughly.

Gee, I'd disagree, but you're all already posting in 'insane drivel' so fuckit.