Everything about work.

[dtq123]

I mean literally everything about work, from how to define it, to it's value in society, to how to measure it, to why it exists.

Let's start off with the basics of the thread itself:
1. Though I don't mind having other people post, I would like all comments to be serious.
2. I have the right to ignore any posts I don't like by simply scrolling past them.

Alright, now let's start with "conversation starters". (Please Answer these, and feel free to add anything as needed)

1. "How do you define work, if there can be one?"
2. "What is the value of work, if there is any?"
3. "How do you measure work, if you even should?"
4. "Why does it exist, or does it not?"

a. Work is anything that produces one of the following goods: Happiness, Knowledge, or Physical Items.
b. Work is first in my book, along with efficiency, and productivity.
c. I gave a ratio before, and will repeat it now.
==The greater the number, the higher value of work. (Note that this equation is incomplete/WIP)
Efficiency ratio: Goods/ Hours of Work
Value of Work: Productivity * Efficiency
**Goods is basically unusable until I figure out fair measurement of happiness and knowledge. Physical goods is easy to measure efficiency for, so those will likely be used in examples.
d. Work exists for several reasons based on the type of work:
Physical Work is easy, it's for survival. Intellectual work is also easy, it's to improve the chance of survival in the future. Emotional Work (Happiness) is more debatable, but ultimately comes down to the fact that when we are happy, we live longer. The less emotionally stable a person is, the more likely that the instability will spread, as well as lower (though not eliminate the) productivity of that person.

From here we will slowly transition to types of government and how they relate to work.

[Randy Carson]

I mean literally everything about work, from how to define it, to it's value in society, to how to measure it, to why it exists.

Let's start off with the basics of the thread itself:
1. Though I don't mind having other people post, I would like all comments to be serious.
2. I have the right to ignore any posts I don't like by simply scrolling past them.

Alright, now let's start with "conversation starters". (Please Answer these, and feel free to add anything as needed)

1. "How do you define work, if there can be one?"
2. "What is the value of work, if there is any?"
3. "How do you measure work, if you even should?"
4. "Why does it exist, or does it not?"

a. Work is anything that produces one of the following goods: Happiness, Knowledge, or Physical Items.
b. Work is first in my book, along with efficiency, and productivity.
c. I gave a ratio before, and will repeat it now.
==The greater the number, the higher value of work. (Note that this equation is incomplete/WIP)
Efficiency ratio: Goods/ Hours of Work
Value of Work: Productivity * Efficiency
**Goods is basically unusable until I figure out fair measurement of happiness and knowledge. Physical goods is easy to measure efficiency for, so those will likely be used in examples.
d. Work exists for several reasons based on the type of work:
Physical Work is easy, it's for survival. Intellectual work is also easy, it's to improve the chance of survival in the future. Emotional Work (Happiness) is more debatable, but ultimately comes down to the fact that when we are happy, we live longer. The less emotionally stable a person is, the more likely that the instability will spread, as well as lower (though not eliminate the) productivity of that person.

From here we will slowly transition to types of government and how they relate to work.

Some background for you:

From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The Dignity Of Work And The Rights Of Workers
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/the-dignity-of-work-and-the-rights-of-workers.cfm

And this encyclical from Pope Leo XIII:

RERUM NOVARUM
ON CAPITAL AND LABOR
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII MAY 15, 1891
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/the-dignity-of-work-and-the-rights-of-workers.cfm

[Randy Carson]

Alright, now let's start with "conversation starters". (Please Answer these, and feel free to add anything as needed)

1. "How do you define work, if there can be one?"

Dictionary definition: the mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result

2. "What is the value of work, if there is any?"

The obvious answer would be the value of the product of the work in the estimation of the person doing the work or causing the work to be performed. I might value the work done by my employee more than he or she values it. Or vice-versa.

But a second, less obvious answer would be that because work gives dignity to those who perform it, it has a value that is not measured strictly in terms of the product of the work. IOW, work has a value in that it gives dignity to the worker who can be proud of his accomplishments and his status as a worker.

3. "How do you measure work, if you even should?"

Let me know if the answers give above are inadequate. But more simply, work is measured by the output - whether that be lines of code written or bales of hay put into a barn or automobiles sold. Productivity is generally measured in terms of some unit of time: bales per day, cars sold per month, etc.

In the world of physics, force = mass x acceleration of F=ma. The next step is:
Work = Force x Displacement x Cosine(theta) or W = F d cos(theta)

But I don't think you are looking for an answer from physics. It seems like you are looking for a philosophical understanding of work. Is that correct?

4. "Why does it exist, or does it not?"

Generally, because we need things that we do not have. In modern societies, we do not produce the soap we need; we produce something else (wooden furniture or software) which exchange for money which we use to buy the things we need like soap. This is different from how life worked not too long ago. We have become specialists.

Am I on the right track, so far?

[Baruch]

First four rules of economics ...

1. There is no free lunch, even if someone else pays for you
2. If you don't work, you don't eat ... or see the pater familias
3. If you borrow from your own future, you will have a poorer future
4. If you borrow from Guido, you will pay back with interest, or else

If you contradict any of these rules, you are a fraud or a socialist or both.  Bankers are frauds (they get something for nothing, through magic interest) like the rest of the finance industry.  Socialists are politicians buying votes.  Don't vote for them or you live like Venezuela.  Have too much interaction with a bank, and you will be in the poor house.

The basis of human life is the family ... no family no life.  Marriage and parenting (which may be extended rather than nuclear).  People who don't marry or don't parent ... are marginal.  The primary industry of the family is agriculture.  No food, no people.  So in the beginning (neolithic) we have various forms of agriculture, being run by extended families aka clans and tribes.  The more male family members, more likelihood you can keep folks (other males) from ripping you off.  The city was invented as an exploitation of the agricultural business, but it can also provide a higher standard of living, for the few.  What is key, is for the city to not parasitize agriculture ... but usually agriculture gives more than it gets vis a vis the city, which provides a farmer's market.  This is because the city has citizens, aka citizen soldiers, who can enforce their will on the agriculturalists.  So the agricultural produce gets taxed, as food items, for ... protection.  There may also be a labor tax.  There isn't any money yet to pay protection money.

None of these realities have been changed, over the last 5000 years ... by modernity.  Modernity is ancient Mesopotamia with more gadgets and more people.

[dtq123]

::Randy::

Ah, you're Catholic. This ought to be interesting. I was once a Catholic myself.

Based on the background information given, you appear to value rights and collectivism above individual needs, is that fair to say?

It appears that Catholicism based on the information described matches a fair number of governments on the left, is that not true?

If not, please help explain how Catholicism is not Liberal/Leftist.

On another note, Take a brief look at this document for a context of my next statement.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/economic-justice-economy/upload/catholic-framework-economic-life.pdf

The actual quote:
"A fundamental moral measure of any economy is how the poor and vulnerable are faring."

There is something I would note before we continue on. I am leaning towards somewhat extremist thoughts when it comes to a work oriented society, if you read my thoughts in "Why are we all supposed to be equal?" One of the assumptions that I hoped you would pick up, that due to the lack of mention of rights for those who do not meet quota on my end means that those people are not important in my worldview.

One thing that has changed is the scope of people who would be considered "Lazy." However, my stance on withholding certain rights from those who cannot either work to support themselves or others has not changed.

With this, I may simply be pointing out something that isn't problem. However, I will clarify my points that I deem important enough for you to know.

Those who are impoverished and living in destitute conditions (i.e. Homeless, Drug Addicts, Debt Holders) are often the one's who are humbled and are working the hardest, maximizing time of work. Thus, these people would be held in high regard if a sudden shift to my system were made.

The physically ill and mentally ill are also fairly exempt due to "Morale" (Happiness) produced when these people do succeed at life. There is one exception in this group:

Those in a vegetative state or unable to work in addition to not producing any happiness.

It is my believe that these people must be given a swift, painless death. Even the most hardworking person who gets knocked out into comatose will be executed in such manner.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1407797
"The hospital bills obtained for 13 patients averaged $170,000,"

It is my belief that the most moral option is not to let them die, that could take days or weeks at a time. Rather, they must be killed to preserve resources.

::Baruch::

And of the Nordic States? Those do well, and they're FAAAAAR Left. At least compared to the world.

EDIT: This was one long post @_@ I'ma take lunch now.

[Baruch]

"::Baruch::

And of the Nordic States? Those do well, and they're FAAAAAR Left. At least compared to the world."

They have free lunches in Sweden?  I know a guy, former American, who lives in Sweden.  He never mentioned the free lunches.  Maybe I should ask him about free smorgasbord?  All those free lunches ... is that why most of the Muslim refugees prefer Scandinavia to even Germany?  Germany has been a promised land for Turks, ever since the Germans got in bed with the Turks in 1914.

Ah yes, and nobody has to work in Sweden ... the Swedish meatballs grow on trees without any tree husbandry?  Maybe the Swedish blond haired blue eyed
girls aren't frigid, if you warm them up first, they will sleep with anyone, like French girls?  Who know utopia could exist so far north.

As far as paradise goes ... compare Denmark, Norway and Finland (not Nordic) ... in WW II, compared to Sweden, who mostly collaborated with you know who.

Just remember, this is about work, not politics.  No politician ever works, that is why they run for office, to get a little of the flab off.

[PickelledEggs]

[mod]Guys. How many times have I said in the last week to not make new threads that single out a different member? At least 2... and this makes at least 3 times.  This thread is closed.
If you want to, try doing the thread over without adding names in to the thread title. If you need to speak with a member directly, that is what the private message feature is for. No more of this making a new thread to address other members. If you want it to be a public debate, private message him and ask him to do an either formal or informal debate in the debate section.

This is in the last part of rule 5. No more of this. Ok? Ok.
[/mod] Please read the rules, because everyone seems to be disregarding and forgetting them. http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=5589.0

[PickelledEggs]

Unlocked. And thread title changed.

[dtq123]

Thank you, and sorry for any confusion.

I will refrain from using "Flaming" Language in the future if possible. My previous post before the change of the name (of thread) was meant to give an incredibly nuanced example of why the statement "A fundamental moral measure of any economy is how the poor and vulnerable are faring." Would not suffice in a society that I thought of.

Having not shared this outside of this community, I sincerely want the opinion of a religious person.

And with that, I await a response for the conversation to continue.

**Opens the floodgates for anyone who's interested.**

[Baruch]

The Catholic position on the dignity of work is pretty good.  And they are pretty clear on the social welfare subject.  Widows and orphans are mentioned in the Bible.

"A fundamental moral measure of any economy is how the poor and vulnerable are faring." - couldn't agree more.  But is work about morality?  Or is social relief outside of work?  I think most people separate those.

[stromboli]

And for every 1,000 or so good Catholic/Christian/peon/proletariat righteously slaving for the man, there is some rich kid with daddy's provided Assistant Manager job with stock pulling in a couple mil a year doing nothing but shagging his secretary. Yup, God provides for the masses.

[Randy Carson]

::Randy::

Ah, you're Catholic. This ought to be interesting. I was once a Catholic myself.

If you were baptized in the Catholic Church, then you still are a Catholic. You're just not a "practicing Catholic". But I understand what you're saying.

Based on the background information given, you appear to value rights and collectivism above individual needs, is that fair to say?

It appears that Catholicism based on the information described matches a fair number of governments on the left, is that not true?

If not, please help explain how Catholicism is not Liberal/Leftist.

I view my own politics as conservative and NOT left-leaning, but I think it might be fair to say that the Church would be more left than right on the political scale. I've started to ask myself questions along these lines this election cycle, but I haven't gone very far with it, yet.

On another note, Take a brief look at this document for a context of my next statement.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/economic-justice-economy/upload/catholic-framework-economic-life.pdf

The actual quote:
"A fundamental moral measure of any economy is how the poor and vulnerable are faring."

There is something I would note before we continue on. I am leaning towards somewhat extremist thoughts when it comes to a work oriented society, if you read my thoughts in "Why are we all supposed to be equal?" One of the assumptions that I hoped you would pick up, that due to the lack of mention of rights for those who do not meet quota on my end means that those people are not important in my worldview.

One thing that has changed is the scope of people who would be considered "Lazy." However, my stance on withholding certain rights from those who cannot either work to support themselves or others has not changed.

With this, I may simply be pointing out something that isn't problem. However, I will clarify my points that I deem important enough for you to know.

Those who are impoverished and living in destitute conditions (i.e. Homeless, Drug Addicts, Debt Holders) are often the one's who are humbled and are working the hardest, maximizing time of work. Thus, these people would be held in high regard if a sudden shift to my system were made.

The physically ill and mentally ill are also fairly exempt due to "Morale" (Happiness) produced when these people do succeed at life. There is one exception in this group:

Those in a vegetative state or unable to work in addition to not producing any happiness.

It is my believe that these people must be given a swift, painless death. Even the most hardworking person who gets knocked out into comatose will be executed in such manner.

That's a pretty dangerous role to play; I don't think you have the skillset needed to be God.

Something that has been coming out in your posts is this: you value work and those that can work, but you place no value on those who cannot or do not work. But is this how God sees people? I think all people have value to God and they all deserve the dignity that comes from being created in the image and likeness of God. Moreover, these bodies that we inhabit now are not our final destiny. One day we will be with God in heaven or with the demons in hell. Each one of us has this potential. The famous author, C.S. Lewis, said it this way:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.” (C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory)

Paul spoke of it this way in his first letter to the Church at Corinth:

1 Corinthians 15:51-53
51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changedâ€" 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

So, do not rush to play God, my young friend. He alone is able to fill that role.

[gentle_dissident]

1. Work is effort that provides and maintains food\clean water, shelter\covering, and general health. It is effort that designs technology and methods that minimizes work and aids production of the aforementioned.

2. The value of work is survival and minimization of pain of humanity and other life forms it contacts.

3. We should measure work by the happiness of humanity and other life forms it contacts.

4. Work exists to lengthen our lives, bring about happiness, and create leisure.

In my honest and serious opinion, competition in work is a hindrance to this process.

[dtq123]

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare.(C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory)

Paul spoke of it this way in his first letter to the Church at Corinth:

1 Corinthians 15:51-53
51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changedâ€" 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

So, do not rush to play God, my young friend. He alone is able to fill that role.

To my understanding, It appears that you value the "possible" over the "certain". It is as they say, "A dog's bark is worse than it's bite."

Let us say your statement was true. Who is to blame?

If nature took it's course, majority would die on their own. The rest would be an incredible burden to the rest who are living. And let's not forget to mention that these people are not only a exception, but by definition for the requisites of death, these people must have produced no happiness while dead. It is easy to fix this should a good friend or family member care enough to visit, thus showing that even one person cares. I'm talking about people who have been dead to society long before their death, the hated people who simply haven't been placed in prison yet.

As for playing God? I have no intent. This entire conversation is conjecture, a question if I may use that word. A question to see if it can hold up to scrutiny. I already know that it's too utopian. If this ever were to come to light, a machine who knew where everyone was and what they were thinking would control the system. Definitely not me.

[doorknob]

I'm pretty sure the definition of work is the definition of work

other wise every thing else is quite subjective. Drawing a flower maybe work to you but for me it's hella fun.