h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The number of days in the work week ought to be none at all.

If human beings worked properly, there would be no need for a work week, as such. The whole idea of having to get out of bed when you don't feel like it, to do something you'd rather not, is nonsense. Worse, it's a perversion of the fundamental function of life, which is to have fun!

Some might say that if people didn't have to go to work nothing would get done. Well, that's nonsense. Worse than nonsense it's an insult to all those people who really come alive outside of the 'work week', in order to devote themselves to all sorts of pursuits that they simply care about.

When rivers burst their banks, people fill sandbags not job application forms. The purpose of labour should be the enrichment of all life.

People choose their careers first because they care about their work; it's something they want to do. How sad, then, that our jobs cease to be a simple celebration how well our arms and legs and (occasionally) brains work, and become merely a way of paying for things.

JTG

Who's getting out of bed?
Some of us are working ( when 10 min break is over).

Gotta pay da bills, but what about the Freds?

None at all... so all the awful jobs would never get done? None at all would be the right phrase then for the people working HARD labour to, say, build your roads, drill the oil that makes your gasoline, pick up your garbage, and quite a few other things I can think of.

Perhaps there would be a few hearty souls who truly enjoy meaningless, pointless labour. But for certain, the number of help desk people available would surely be "none at all".

Sometimes you can't do what you want or what you love.
Sometimes you have to do what needs to be done. It's called work.

---------------------
Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar.
--Drew Carey

Hey soulthief leave da oil an gasoline out of it. I only just finished workin with em.

BUT no nurses, food, fuel ( you got me at it now ), entertainment, houses? Sounds rough to me!

Maybe "None at all" needs to visit one of the 3rd world countries after a flood? You'll get plenty of none then....except for famine, cold, disease, loads of fun!!

If you don't like your job, do something about it. There's other jobs in other countries.

Everyone has to make a deal with the Devil sometime, it's life. And just sometimes it can be too!!

in a perfect world, everyone would choose a career that they loved, and proceed to enjoy and be fulfilled by working. but this world is far far far from perfect. i only know a handful of people who are doing something they are passionate about (and able to support themselves through it). and every single one of those people got to where they are by first 'paying their dues' in jobs they didnt particularly enjoy.

That's because of the way things operate. People are motivated by different things. Many of them would choose to do the nasty stuff just because it is nasty. The difference would be that they wouldn't get stuck in the 'nasty' rut because others would be there to pick up the slack; it's human nature to... even if we do grumble about it.

Sure, some people will do a nasty job because in some way it gives them satisfaction. But given a free choice I doubt if there would be enought of those people for all the nasty/boring but necessary jobs to get done.

I'm reminded of the BBC Castaway programme & similar commune situations. Chores had to be done on a rota system because there were some tasks nobody wanted to do.

We live in a world of inequality of ability. That means that we cannot all choose what work to do, because we are not all capable of doing the tasks we might prefer.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (or something like that). Well, we know what that lead to.

The problem with "Reality" TV programs is that they take people like us, who carry the baggage of a value system based on work for pay and merit based on acquisition of things, and confront them with situations in which those values don't work. Which is why so many of the participants look such miserable wretches and why the ratings of such programs is so high.

I agree that we're not usually up to the task of doing what needs to be done simply because it needs to be done. But isn't that a sad comment on the type of people we are? Look at it this way: Nobody payed our parents to change nappies or mop up sick; yet they did it anyway, not for profit, or even enlightened self interest, but out of love and because it needed to be done.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could operate that way on a larger scale!

JTG

Yes I agree it would be pleasant if we were all so altruistic & took turns at doing what needs to be done.

But what then happens to people who haven't the skills & abilities to do anything more interesting when it's not their turn? They can't have a turn at being e.g. doctors. There also jobs which require a certain level of ability which people might choose not to do.

Being a doctor or a lawyer is not necessarily the most coveted thing to be. It is for us because those people get paid a lot.

I think there's a broad enough spectrum of 'jobs' to be done that anybody could, if circumstances gave them the chance, find something fulfilling to do.

If public service became the standard by which people are judged, there would certainly be easier ways for people to be feel successful than by becoming doctors. Anything than demands the degree of commitment required of what we call the professions would probably be among the least desirable ways to play a part in such a society.

If your talent ends at sorting fruit and veggies on the market, then doing it well should feel very rewarding. In fact, I've worked with people who are generally thought of as being developmentally handicapped, who get a great deal of satisfaction out of doing simple things well. Doing something simple well is a good feeling for anyone.

I wasn't meaning that being a doctor is necessarily to be desired, but demands a certain level of skill. I agree about there being satisfaction in doing a simple job well & people getting fulfillment from doing a job well that suits their capabilities. Equally some jobs requiring greater ability may not be so desirable.

I'm still doubtful that everyone could be found a fulfilling job that they enjoy & at the same time ensure that all necessary tasks are done.

No, that's true. But, then, that's life. And that takes us back to where we came in: If people only worked when they felt the need to, we'd all be a lot happier. And the jobs that would make people the happiest, under those circumstances, would be the services which are most appreciated by other people, whether that's performing surgery, unblocking drains, or even gardening.

The incentive to train and learn skills is still there. The only difference is that the payoff isn't the big paycheck; it's genuine job satisfaction and the respect of grateful patients. That's where modern medicine and all our professions came from before huge amounts of cash entered the picture.

The problem with working for a living, for most people, I suspect, is that a lot of the time spent at work is just performing for the sake of whoever signs the paycheck. I think most people, regardless of what their job involves, would enjoy the work more if they could simply do whatever needs to be done and then go fishing.

You're spot on in your last paragraph.

Of course people's opinions would differ as to what really needs doing

I suspect we'd find that it's possible to cross most of the stuff we do now off the list.

The Golgafrinchams springs to mind!

I often get the sense that my employers have reserved a seat in my name.