The rise of the anti-work movement(bbc.com)
bbc.com
The rise of the anti-work movement
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220126-the-rise-of-the-anti-work-movement
75 comments
The main reason anti-work exists,
is that work is wage slavery pretending
to be a hobby-like 'profession' that
isn't ordered top-down. People discover
this and begin to hate it, but they are
dependent on work to live: the pandemic
exposed how useless most jobs are for
the current generation and how the work
is mostly bureaucratic schedules and
regulations which treat humans like
replaceable robots(which is the ideal
worker in a modern world).
What an incredibly succinct and thoughtful summary! Well done.
I believe there is an additional emotional component of those who are sick of the way it FEELS when they realize how fruitless and stupid the work culture of America is. There's a quiet and desperate hopelessness that I think a log of people resonate with when they see and read about the impacts of organized labor movements. Everybody wants to feel in charge of themselves, and it's obviously natural to feel bad in some way when you realize that you don't, if you're poorer.
I believe there is an additional emotional component of those who are sick of the way it FEELS when they realize how fruitless and stupid the work culture of America is. There's a quiet and desperate hopelessness that I think a log of people resonate with when they see and read about the impacts of organized labor movements. Everybody wants to feel in charge of themselves, and it's obviously natural to feel bad in some way when you realize that you don't, if you're poorer.
The whole Reddit Mod/Fox News thing was both hilarious and tragic... It was a missed opportunity to present the message in the right context.
These days people are driven by arrogance and self perspectives so much that they can't even realize that they're harming themselves by just trying to win an argument that is intended to help everyone.
The pandemic has highlighted so many terrible truths, but the most scary thing about it is that people are in denial about fixing things for the better because, in their perspective, it always looks rosy, and they believe that money and popularity will insulate them from eventual suffering.
We're all watching fake "influencer" culture roll towards us like a giant boulder and trying to figure out how to jump on top of it (as a society)... It's a very toxic time in history.
These days people are driven by arrogance and self perspectives so much that they can't even realize that they're harming themselves by just trying to win an argument that is intended to help everyone.
The pandemic has highlighted so many terrible truths, but the most scary thing about it is that people are in denial about fixing things for the better because, in their perspective, it always looks rosy, and they believe that money and popularity will insulate them from eventual suffering.
We're all watching fake "influencer" culture roll towards us like a giant boulder and trying to figure out how to jump on top of it (as a society)... It's a very toxic time in history.
Pardon my French but that whole thing was needless and stupid. I mean beyond stupidity stupid. We're talking levels of stupidity that shouldn't even be possible.
I don't mean the already mentioned and worked over issues of personal appearance and the presentation of their room, the stereotypical autism excuses, etc etc. I mean just doing a modicum of research before agreeing to speak with Jessie Watters! Watters used to be Bill O'Reilly's guy, did a segment called 'Watter's World' where he would interview people and get them to (yes, you guessed it!) say stupid things so that he and O'Reilly could mug at the camera and say 'Kids these days!'
Just a cursory search of YouTube would have brought up video after video of this sort of thing. The only interviewer that should have raised more red flags would have been if they'd been told they'd be interviewed by Mark Dice! Instead this arrogant puffed up moron went in with no research, no plans or talking points and ultimately was a complete self-owned dagger at the heart of the movement they claimed to represent. What a joke!
I don't mean the already mentioned and worked over issues of personal appearance and the presentation of their room, the stereotypical autism excuses, etc etc. I mean just doing a modicum of research before agreeing to speak with Jessie Watters! Watters used to be Bill O'Reilly's guy, did a segment called 'Watter's World' where he would interview people and get them to (yes, you guessed it!) say stupid things so that he and O'Reilly could mug at the camera and say 'Kids these days!'
Just a cursory search of YouTube would have brought up video after video of this sort of thing. The only interviewer that should have raised more red flags would have been if they'd been told they'd be interviewed by Mark Dice! Instead this arrogant puffed up moron went in with no research, no plans or talking points and ultimately was a complete self-owned dagger at the heart of the movement they claimed to represent. What a joke!
A lot of people who retire or stop working without some sort of hobby, projects or groups of like minded people to keep the mind active don't generally do so well mentally.
I retired 16 years ago at the age of 43 for some of the anti-work reasons mentioned only to get bored so I restarted, working for myself. I now actually enjoy working taking on as little or as many projects I want without any office politics, justifications for everything or job reviews with less qualified managers. Its not all roses but I wish I had done it years earlier.
Basically if you can afford to stop work then working for yourself should be an option you should consider
I retired 16 years ago at the age of 43 for some of the anti-work reasons mentioned only to get bored so I restarted, working for myself. I now actually enjoy working taking on as little or as many projects I want without any office politics, justifications for everything or job reviews with less qualified managers. Its not all roses but I wish I had done it years earlier.
Basically if you can afford to stop work then working for yourself should be an option you should consider
Well I think it's a case of expectation management then... Work has many sides. Drudgery, dread, friendship, fulfillment, passion, being bored out of your mind. And money of course too.
Expecting minimum wage to track inflation is not mismanaged expectations, it’s a basic part of the social and societal contract. Don’t blame workers in the world’s richest country for being unhappy with a measly $7 rise in minimum wage in 84 years.
The federal minimum wage has increased by approximately 2,400% since its inception, nearly double the rate of inflation.
Ok great, how about for the people of current working generations? The purchasing power of the minimum wage peaked in 1970. And that's using the official inflation data, which means the real purchasing power is even lower.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_Sta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_Sta...
The thing missing from this is that no one pays $7.25 any more, even though it is technically the minimum wage. Take it from me, someone who has an entry level job (customer service).
The minimum wage is now well under the natural wage floor. In most populated areas $15 an hour is old news, you have to pay $18-$20 if you want someone to show up. Setting a new minimum wage that is still below the natural wage floor won't have much of a effect. It's the sort of policy that feels good but in practice doesn't do much.
Now track it against cost of living.
When people talk about “inflation” they are talking about the CPI, which represents “cost of living” (food, energy, shelter, etc.) Is there a better “cost of living” metric out there? Would love to know if so.
It's UK, but check these out.
https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/status/1483778776697909252
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jan/26/terry-pratchet...
Their ONS agreed to make changes.
https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/status/1483778776697909252
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jan/26/terry-pratchet...
Their ONS agreed to make changes.
Why would you write "2400%" unless you were trying to mislead people?
It's like saying I traveled 1,609,344 millimeters because it sounds like more distance than saying than I traveled 1 mile.
It's like saying I traveled 1,609,344 millimeters because it sounds like more distance than saying than I traveled 1 mile.
Is “24x” better for you? The claim was that inflation has outstripped the rise in minimum wage. That claim was incorrect. Minimum wage has approximately doubled the inflation rate. It doesn’t matter how you write it.
Curious, increased by 2400% always felt like 25x to me. For example if we said increased by 50% then no one would think twice about 1.5x
Increase measured as a percentage is commonplace.
I would say "raised by a measly $7" is far more misleading than percentage terms.
Well that's a different statement from the original and I do agree it's a problem worth discussing.
Treating people like people is done less and less these days which doesn't help matters nor does the idea that everything workers do has to be turned into a metric that has to meet ever increasing values while those at the top of the company are not put in near the same situation.
Couldn't you say every inhumanity in history is a case of "expectation management?" Women should expect to be subservient to their husbands! Protestants should expect to be executed if they don't convert to Catholicism! The poor should expect to starve to death in the streets if they get sick! Sounds like it's just a case of expectation management to me!
Could not agree more. The movement is about changing our expectations to let us live the lives we want to, not that we need to sit down, shut up and say “thank you” for not starving us
> Shortly after the publication of this story on 26 Jan 2022, the r/antiwork subbredit went private
This is the weird part. A mod went on fox news, the interview went sideways, and now the sub is locked.
Isn’t the point of going on the air to promote the sub? Why lock it down right when it has so much new attention?
This is the weird part. A mod went on fox news, the interview went sideways, and now the sub is locked.
Isn’t the point of going on the air to promote the sub? Why lock it down right when it has so much new attention?
Members are moving to https://old.reddit.com/r/WorkReform/ after the mod of r/anti work mishandling criticism of their interview with Fox News.
The interview was really bad but the mod reacting to criticism by deleting and locking posts and eventually locking the subreddit caused the community to lose trust in the ability of this person as a moderator.
The interview was really bad but the mod reacting to criticism by deleting and locking posts and eventually locking the subreddit caused the community to lose trust in the ability of this person as a moderator.
We already had a work reform subreddit, it was called ChapoTrapHouse
That's the one that got banned for the incessant calls for violence right?
well, do you want to reform work or not?
ChapoTrapHouse promulgated marxism, so nope. I've seen enough of that in history. And the fact that it requires violence to implement, was fine with them. Also a no from me.
It also required violence to free slaves in the United States. To say violence is always impermissible sides with whatever violence already takes place. In our times, one example would be that 1 in 5 children that are food insecure on the wealthiest nation in the history of the planet. I want them fed. If it's going to require force to do so I prefer that violence to the slow, boring dystopia of an invisible hand.
There's a long storied tradition of that in the US, such as farmers going armed to foreclosure auctions and preventing sales or acquiring them at pennies to return to the previous owners. Railroad workers and coal miners are two other demographics that had similar labor upheavals in recent history.
There's a long storied tradition of that in the US, such as farmers going armed to foreclosure auctions and preventing sales or acquiring them at pennies to return to the previous owners. Railroad workers and coal miners are two other demographics that had similar labor upheavals in recent history.
>To say violence is always impermissible
Except I wouldn't say that. Plenty of things can require violence to solve. Marxism however requires violence against my neighbor just because he has work equipment to run his small business, which is "capital" and thus verboten. Come to think of it, since their kids moved out there is no way he and his wife needs 3 bedrooms, so we need to force them into more sustainable housing as well, through violence of course.
No thanks, I'll be opting out of Marxism.
Except I wouldn't say that. Plenty of things can require violence to solve. Marxism however requires violence against my neighbor just because he has work equipment to run his small business, which is "capital" and thus verboten. Come to think of it, since their kids moved out there is no way he and his wife needs 3 bedrooms, so we need to force them into more sustainable housing as well, through violence of course.
No thanks, I'll be opting out of Marxism.
Ok, hold up your sign and keep voting harder.
If you watch the interview I think it’s pretty self evident how it embarrassed the subreddit into locking down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yUMIFYBMnc
They didn't lock down just to keep the spotlight off. The participants decried "you don't represent us" and proceeded to get uppity and then the mods wend scorched earth which culminated in locking the sub. I'm sure the spotlight didn't help.
Quite horrendous but if you were at any point following the sub, most of the threads were in the same tone.
The comments on Reddit are a sad sight. The fun is gone, the humor is stale. There is no discussion whatsoever. All that's left are a lot of sad, angry people, reciting the litany in hopes of earning digital applause from sad, angry strangers.
It's the progressive millennials' equivalent of the Fox News comments section.
It's the progressive millennials' equivalent of the Fox News comments section.
I couldn't finish watching that. Rough.
Watch it again. The interviewer wasn't even trying to be mean. The argument just crumbled in on itself in the atmospheric pressure of the real world.
I've seen this sentiment expressed elsewhere too, something to the effect of "echo chamber collapses when exposed to the real world". I wonder how many internet forums that thrive today, only because of this isolation from the real world. Sometimes I feel this is true for HN, to a certain extent.
HN has foundations in math and engineering so I don't think it would collapse as easily. In real life it would be more akin to a developer convention. There would be purpose and connection to the shared reality. It wouldn't survive in the streets of normal people per se but it would be capable of standing on its own foundation, at least significantly better than lets say a star wars convention. It will look pretty silly if someone claiming to be a jedi master went on camera to be interviewed, but not so much if a machine learning expert did.
Fox News set the situation up to begin with. They likely investigated the person before requesting them as they asked for this mod specifically. They could have seen the top mod is an autistic, trans, reddit moderator who fits the boomer caricature of entitled lazy millennial.
Then it’s no shocker when the interview is completely socially inept because that’s what they set up from the start.
The Fox News guy is even mocking the moderator but the mod isn’t socially aware enough to see it.
Then it’s no shocker when the interview is completely socially inept because that’s what they set up from the start.
The Fox News guy is even mocking the moderator but the mod isn’t socially aware enough to see it.
Essentially what happened is the mod went into an interview without telling anyone, without preparing, and basically managed to destroy all momentum the sub had, and then started banning anyone who brought up the interview, leading to a max exodus because that goes againt the entire point of the movement.
/r/WorkReform quickly emerged to replace /rAntiWork (360K+ subscribers almost overnight).
The new sub name is arguably better aligned with the goals of the movement, and it’s remarkable to see a replacement sub gain so much traction so quickly.
The new sub name is arguably better aligned with the goals of the movement, and it’s remarkable to see a replacement sub gain so much traction so quickly.
Some would argue that there are at least two parts to the movement, of which one is focused on actual work reform and can be contrasted with a faction of true "lying flat" slackers.
There are two possible ways I’d frame that, personally:
1. There are two separate movements. I’d argue that people who want reform are not remotely related to people who don’t want to work.
2. Every movement will always have extreme factions that don’t necessarily align with the primary goals of the majority.
We saw plenty of #2 with Recent social movements.
1. There are two separate movements. I’d argue that people who want reform are not remotely related to people who don’t want to work.
2. Every movement will always have extreme factions that don’t necessarily align with the primary goals of the majority.
We saw plenty of #2 with Recent social movements.
That’s absolutely what it is. The original antiwork user base was people who literally do not want to work at all even if it was reformed to be fair.
The person of Fox News didn't represent the community, but did control the subreddit. After the interview, they were criticised by the community and closed the subreddit. The community now moved to /r/workreform.
Recent and related:
Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30095366 - Jan 2022 (117 comments)
Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30095366 - Jan 2022 (117 comments)
I think this whole situation came about because the original user base of anti work wasn’t about workers rights or work reform. But it was quite literally against working at all. So you have all these regular people joining last year who have very different ideas than the mods who founded it.
It’s like the split between “defund the police” vs “reform the police”. People will tell you it was never about totally removing the police entirely but there are certainly people who believe the statements to their most literal meanings.
It’s like the split between “defund the police” vs “reform the police”. People will tell you it was never about totally removing the police entirely but there are certainly people who believe the statements to their most literal meanings.
The label "Antiwork" doesn't representation the movement doesn't it?
It's really about fair labour, I don't think most people want to not work. I think most people want to work in exchange for a livable resource, be it wages, work/life balance, recognition, etc. There are plenty of people who are willing to work hard to have a mundane life. A simple car, a apartment/suburban home, an annual vacation, affordable healthcare, education for their kids, nothing extravagant.
The issue is today's corp slave trade their employees and it's at a point where it's not sustainable anymore.
Hence, IMHO, it's less about antiwork, but more about fair labour.
It's really about fair labour, I don't think most people want to not work. I think most people want to work in exchange for a livable resource, be it wages, work/life balance, recognition, etc. There are plenty of people who are willing to work hard to have a mundane life. A simple car, a apartment/suburban home, an annual vacation, affordable healthcare, education for their kids, nothing extravagant.
The issue is today's corp slave trade their employees and it's at a point where it's not sustainable anymore.
Hence, IMHO, it's less about antiwork, but more about fair labour.
More than anything, it is a breakdown of American values.
As the "purpose" of work is redefined, leaving a chasm to be filled
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29903457
https://trendguardian.medium.com/why-we-are-dispensable-7a57...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29903457
https://trendguardian.medium.com/why-we-are-dispensable-7a57...
The only reason mainstream media is talking about this is because the anti work "movement" is not radical and does not threaten capitalism in any way.
Instead of a discussion on the nature of capitalism and how worker exploitation is central to it, the subreddit talks about why employers ideas need to change.
Zero historical materialist analysis. If i was smarter I'd think this is another one of those 3 letter agency funded programs to control dissent.
Instead of a discussion on the nature of capitalism and how worker exploitation is central to it, the subreddit talks about why employers ideas need to change.
Zero historical materialist analysis. If i was smarter I'd think this is another one of those 3 letter agency funded programs to control dissent.
No kind of economic system will tolerate a large percentage of people who do not desire to be productive. It threatens all working economic systems.
No kibbutz, no socialist, no communist, no laissez faire, no capitalist, etc. They all need productive people to do things.
How long would these people last as bushmen or pastoralists? Do they think others in the group will put up with unproductive people who otherwise are able bodied?
No kibbutz, no socialist, no communist, no laissez faire, no capitalist, etc. They all need productive people to do things.
How long would these people last as bushmen or pastoralists? Do they think others in the group will put up with unproductive people who otherwise are able bodied?
When a revolution happens the result is nothing more than change of the elites. Things need to get done, the management style can only affect the efficiency and sustainability. You can’t suddenly have a society where everyone is a theoretical physicist, for example. You can pretend to achieve it only if you can label the cooks outsiders.
The Only true change is when technology changes something.
The Only true change is when technology changes something.
There was non-stop railing against capitalism and pro-socialism cheerleading in that sub, so your conspiracy theory is a poor one.
The reason the sub is getting lots of coverage is because it has exploded over the last year, and because it manages to present its ideas in as poorly a light as possible.
The reason the sub is getting lots of coverage is because it has exploded over the last year, and because it manages to present its ideas in as poorly a light as possible.
Serious question is is pro-socialism for people to complain that billionaires keep getting property tax breaks while normal working people keep seeing their property taxes go up in part to fund them?
Anti capitalism and pro "socialism" aren't actually hard indicators of marxism, believe it or not. There has been so much political distortion that circles who use those terms are, more often than not, filled with liberals rather than marxists.
And often times that's what some of us call the synthetic left. Groups of so called leftists lead by think tanks, NGOs or even historically by intelligence agency agents whose sole purpose is to spread disinfo, deradicalize or confuse people all while using a radical aesthetic.
And often times that's what some of us call the synthetic left. Groups of so called leftists lead by think tanks, NGOs or even historically by intelligence agency agents whose sole purpose is to spread disinfo, deradicalize or confuse people all while using a radical aesthetic.
[deleted]
If I had to guess, I'd say that grousing probably came before structural analysis historically too. But we don't have archived reddit comments from historical workers movements, only the published works that followed lots of discussion.
Almost all media is owned and controlled by corporations. So obviously the media will always be on the side of the employers. No 3 letter agency required for that to happen.
> Zero historical materialist analysis. If i was smarter I'd think this is another one of those 3 letter agency funded programs to control dissent.
I think it's a bit much to consider Marxism some inevitable conclusion that all who consider the problems with society eventually will arrive at. That's whig history at best.
It, first of all, requires you to identify with and accept the notion of classes as an part of an ontological category with agency.
It's perfectly reasonable to say no, classes only appear to have human-like properties in the same way a the sun or a thundercloud appeared to be a god with thoughts and wants to people of the past. That is to say, they only exist as idea, within the infinite realm of ideas, and it doesn't even make sense to say they aren't real.
I think it's a bit much to consider Marxism some inevitable conclusion that all who consider the problems with society eventually will arrive at. That's whig history at best.
It, first of all, requires you to identify with and accept the notion of classes as an part of an ontological category with agency.
It's perfectly reasonable to say no, classes only appear to have human-like properties in the same way a the sun or a thundercloud appeared to be a god with thoughts and wants to people of the past. That is to say, they only exist as idea, within the infinite realm of ideas, and it doesn't even make sense to say they aren't real.
Is it perfectly reasonable to say that? If you have evidence I'd be more than willing to go through it.
Most people do not control production and even the small amount who do control production make their decisions according to their material interests (not evil or twisted morals). Those who do not control production must work for those who do in exchange of money. These two groups' economic interests as a whole contradict themselves even though they are locked into a social relationship. These relationships change based on the development of production.
This is the basis of social classes in marxism.
Its not just imagination. No other theory has explained the progression of society in such a complete way. Some just talk about ideas, others about the qualities of great men but none can profoundly explain progress on a material basis. I've seen both sides of the coin while it seems you've only imagined flipping it.
"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange."
Most people do not control production and even the small amount who do control production make their decisions according to their material interests (not evil or twisted morals). Those who do not control production must work for those who do in exchange of money. These two groups' economic interests as a whole contradict themselves even though they are locked into a social relationship. These relationships change based on the development of production.
This is the basis of social classes in marxism.
Its not just imagination. No other theory has explained the progression of society in such a complete way. Some just talk about ideas, others about the qualities of great men but none can profoundly explain progress on a material basis. I've seen both sides of the coin while it seems you've only imagined flipping it.
"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange."
That sub went complete trainwreck in less than a day after that was aired.
I'm trying to catch up on some reddit drama. Apparently the mod of r/antiwork did an interview on Fox News that didn't go so well. I can only imagine Fox is spinning it as "young people are lazy"
https://old.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/sddx07...
https://old.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/sddx07...
Did you watch the interview? Fox doesn't have to spin anything, it was a disaster. In response to the question "Are they [the members of the sub] lazy?" The mod responded with "Laziness is a virtue in a society that demands we be productive". They also said that they work 20 hours a week as a dog-walker but think they should work less, and ideally would like to teach philosophy.
The anchor asked some incredibly softball questions and the mod did their work for them.
The anchor asked some incredibly softball questions and the mod did their work for them.
I've watched it now. What a disaster!
> I can only imagine Fox is spinning it as "young people are lazy"
No need. Jessie Waters basically sat back and let the person dig their own grave.
No need. Jessie Waters basically sat back and let the person dig their own grave.
They set this up from the start. They scour the internet for the most socially inept or dumbest people, then bring them on where they crumble under the slightest pressure.
Although in this case fox didn’t have to look too hard since they literally selected the mod with the highest privilege on the sub.
Although in this case fox didn’t have to look too hard since they literally selected the mod with the highest privilege on the sub.
Yeah, this has been a tactic of both traditional and alternative media for a while now. Only people dumber are the ones that fall for it.
Believe me, fox didn't have to spin anything. It's the softest interview I've seen, and that mod absolutely blew it.
There was absolutely no need to spin that. It was a straight up train wreck of an interview
[deleted]