Voluntary exchanges and park muggings are totally the same. The people who made these trades were not coerced and if they value crypto currencies improperly that is their own fault. Would you feel any remorse for them over this or any other investment that turned out a loss through natural shifts in the market?
They were not coerced, but they were lied to. Fraud is illegal for a reason, and is not something to be defended just because someone didn't know they were being lied to.
If people are buying into crypto currencies as a long term investment, this small dip should matter little in the long run. If these people were trying to make short term flips to make money, they are not so different from the people who scammed them. In your analogy they are just other muggers in the park who were themselves mugged.
Being short on a security does not imply fraud or a scam. So no, they were not the same as the people who scammed them, just because they had a short term investment.
Legalized fraud/theft/robbery is the core of the entire problem.
Except in this case, the "victims" volunteered to be robbed.
No one volunteers to be robbed. There is fraud involved here. Surely you don't advocate lying and deception as a normal part of doing business.
When the same work should be worth the same.
Compensation should be proportional to the value produced, not the effort expended.
I would question how much value is really produced by pump and dump schemes. If I tell you that I am long on a security when I'm actually short, and convince you to join me in a long term investment, and then sell as soon as you make your investment, causing the price to drop, what value is produced?
Whaa? Investment from the government is not socialism. Socialism is government control of the means of production. The internet was started so that US right wingers could nuke the Soviet Union and survive the retaliatory strike. That's not even close to socialism.
When I talk about Socialism, I am talking about the government taxing the populace in order to fund services that the government provides. Call it Democratic Socialism if you like. That term seems to be in vogue these days. I don't think anyone in the US is seriously advocating that the government take over all production of goods and services. Not even China does that. It's just that we need to fill the gaps where Capitalism falls short of serving society.
Funny the article says SS will go bankrupt by 2034 instead of 2022. Reality congress will vote in 2033 to add SS to the national debt.
The article also says that the trust fund can be prevented from running out (not the same as bankruptcy) if the funding mechanism is adjusted. SS running out of funds is a political choice, not a fiscal one.
and we had to go to the post office to get a permit to operate a modem.
Then you are probably the only one who did that...
I know no one who went for a permit... we simply plugged them in.
He did say he was setting up an office. When you are doing things for business it is usually better to do them by the book. You don't want the authorities to show up 6 months later and shut your office.
I do enjoy not starving to death and dying from polio. Modern technology is also quite nice.
People starve to death under Capitalism, and avoided starving to death before Capitalism was a thing. Salk's team developed their vaccine at the University of Pittsburgh, which is state funded. Development of modern technology has relied heavily on research grants from the federal government. The Internet we are using now likely would not have come about without a government research initiative.
None of these things have resulted solely from Capitalism. They required investment from the government, i.e. Socialism, in order to become viable products.
What happened there was not real socialism, it was corruption and stupidity using socialism as a facade, just like in USA we don't have real capitalism, we got corruption and stupidity using the word freedom as a facade.
So if it's impossible to have "real socialism" (because all the failed efforts weren't "real socialism"), WHY THE FUCK DO IDIOTS KEEP PUSHING FOR IT???
You can't win the argument by saying all failed attempts at socialism weren't "real socialism" - because what you're really saying is "real socialism" can't reasonably be attained.
Or you're just trying to fool people: TRUST ME! IT WILL WORK THIS TIME! AND IF YOU LIKE YOUR DOCTOR, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR!"
We do have real socialism. We have Social Security, and Medicare, and Medicaid, and SNAP, and unemployment insurance, to name a few programs. They work quite well, as long as people in government don't work against them. For example, the Republicans like to tell people that Social Security is unaffordable and will go "bankrupt". It's not true but it works to turn people against a system they have opposed on principle from the start.
Socialism works fine as long as it is properly regulated, just like Capitalism. Unfortunately, people who don't want the public to understand that government can work for them have been funding propaganda efforts for decades to convince people that Socialism doesn't work, and is the same thing as Communism, which is the same thing as the Soviet Union, which everyone knows was really bad.
Which part of this is "the free market", and how exactly would a different financial system have prevented it?
Also, don't you find the story a bit fishy? She injured her back counting things? Really? And then she couldn't work because she couldn't lift her arm? To count things? But she could somehow still drive 120 miles each day? Because a back injury which somehow paralyses your arm doesn't impact your driving ability?
Sounds like fishing for workers comp... which is the exact opposite of "free market".
From TFA:
"In the meantime, Allen has become homeless after a workplace accident left her unable to do her job."
Yeah, she sure made out on her workers comp fraud! Maybe read the article before you just start making things up.
Maybe you should buy Twitter, and then it will behave the way you want it to. Isn't private ownership great?
Today I learned publicly traded "private" businesses are supposed to be immune to criticism from anyone but billionaires. Good to know.
Please drop some more insightful commentary on us.
Well, since you asked...
Welcome to America, my friend! This is the land where only money counts. The Republicans and the Right love to talk about the freedom of owners to do what they wish with what they own. Then, when owners do that to the detriment of the aforementioned, the aforementioned get their panties in a twist about it. They are massive hypocrites who can dish it out but can't take it. And I get a real laugh out of it.
The Right wants to privatize everything and abandon the common good, and now they are reaping what they have sown. If only they could see past the end of their collective nose.
What a fucking clown here defending censorship in the hands of a private corporation. What happened to Slashdot? When did it get overrun by so many damned lefty communists defending mainstream evil?
What a fucking clown here defending censorship in the hands of a private corporation. What happened to Slashdot? When did it get overrun by so many damned lefty communists defending mainstream evil?
Lefty Communists defending private companies? This is one confused post.
I'm sure the final step would be for a real person to verify the matches to see if there's false positives. The AI in this case would likely be setup to tend to produce false positives rather than outright missing matches because not being able to find anything is worrysome compared to finding a few false positives. You would hope the cops arn't crazy enough to start arresting people based entirely on the matching system and at least look at the profiles to confirm.
This is exactly correct, and why these statements from the ACLU are ridiculous. Would they rather the police just be looking for any tall black guy with a sweatshirt in the area? This type of technology simply provides more information to the police, but it still takes actual policemen and prosecutors to decide who is a real suspect and who should be charged.
It's not the tool that is the problem, but how it is used. And I just straight up don't trust the police. There have been too many stories of police shooting first and asking questions later, and railroading suspects for them to be seen as trustworthy. I may be a few bad apples, but let's remember the whole phrase: A few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.
I think the whole idea of using face recognition is to cut the amount of work required by a detective to search through thousands of pictures. I'm sure the final step would be for a real person to verify the matches to see if there's false positives. The AI in this case would likely be setup to tend to produce false positives rather than outright missing matches because not being able to find anything is worrysome compared to finding a few false positives. You would hope the cops aren't crazy enough to start arresting people based entirely on the matching system and at least look at the profiles to confirm.
I am not sure the final step would be to have people review this stuff. And yes, I would hope the police are not crazy enough to just start arresting people based on a facial match. But I do not have that much faith in the intelligence or propriety of police these days. There is enough corruption and corner-cutting going on in our police departments that I would not automatically trust them to do the right or smart thing, or have respect for the rights of citizens; especially citizens who do not have the resources to defend themselves.
Yeah, it was a lie about a private individual's actions. Much better than lying about not having sex with that woman, or that I could keep my doctor...
How is lying about not having sex with that woman different? It's literally the same lie.
Sorry but most of the inflammatory posts i see on social media these days tend to be from the left leaning populous, trying to dig up any tiny piece of dirt about Trump and blow it completely out of proportion.
The latest, the scandal about a secret recording about his past mistress. Who gives a flying fu*c? 1) It's not illegal to have an affair 2) it was before he was president not that 1) would be any different even if he was president at the time. See Clinton and his past in the whitehouse for a perfect example.
The left leaning seem aughfully interested in who's been diddling with Trumps Cheeto penis.
Yeah. Okay. Do you not remember how the Right reacted to Clinton's dalliances in the Whitehouse? They impeached him. No big deal, right?
Let's do a little thought experiment: How would you react if Barak Obama cheated on his wife with a porn star and then had his lawyer pay her off through a shell company in order to silence her before the election? Be honest now! No big deal? The Republicans and the Right would have just let that slide? Ya think?
By the way, that's quite the spelling of "awfully" you have there.
Oh really? And Maxine Waters is still visible? Perhaps YOU prefer how she expresses her views and what she encourages - along with the twit platform?
Were you really hoping that someone would buy that ludicrous explanation you provided?
Maybe you should buy Twitter, and then it will behave the way you want it to. Isn't private ownership great?
Who are you to tell some native group of people what they can and can't do?
Europeans showed up and straight up took it; that's who. Native Americans have been fucked over left, right and center since Columbus arrived. Sure, we told the that their reservations were sovereign territory. But when push comes to shove, the American system isn't going to let them actually assert that right. I mean, who's in charge here?
Actually, no. Identity politics and tribalism (quite literally) have no place in the US, and that's good thing.
Look around you. That is manifestly untrue. You may prefer it otherwise, but tribalism and identity politics are alive, well, and thoroughly embedded in American culture. They are as American as chanting, "USA! USA!"
40 years from now when/if autonomous cars finally become a widespread thing, one day some drunk asshole in a beat-up 2029 F150 will pass out at the wheel and mow down a crowd of pedestrians, and a 70-pound teenage bystander named Havid Dogg will wage a media war to get human-powered cars banned once and for all.
You have discovered the reason yourself: Conditioning
The population is conditioned to believe that they need to work to death and to hate and attack anyone who offer an alternative solution. And the conditioning is so strong that I just need to write a small number of "trigger words" here to immediately attract enraged comments and hate for no apparent reason.
Oh, yes, I'm well aware. The pro-capitalist propaganda has been quite effective, the the US at least. Work, work, work, you're lucky to even have a job, so shut up! People think wage-slavery is the only way it can be.
I'd probably even give up a bit in order to work less. It's not laziness. It's the recognition that I want more out of life than being someone's employee.
But then you'd have less value to society. As long as we're capitalistic-focused, your value in society is in what you produce and what you consume. Do less of either, and you're a less valuable person to society.
Combine that with a puritanical mindset that god rewards the just and punishes the unjust, and you've got the wonderful world-view of working you described. It's going to be very hard to overcome that in a majority of the population, which would be necessary to make the societal shift to working less.
Yeah, I can dig all that. It's kinda fucked up in my opinion; especially the idea that god is punishing or rewarding people. But it is the way it is, and I have found new peace in life by not resisting what is, or worrying about things I cannot/will not change.
I hope this firm's 4-day work week is an unmitigated success, but this story misses the most important metrics for measuring the success: increased worker productivity, increased retention, various recruitment KPIs, etc. These are the metrics which can show that this plan will work for a larger number of companies. If the only thing that happens is happier employees, it is a failed experiment. Just give every employee a million dollars if you only care about happy employees. If you want to find a way to improve employee well-being while running a sustainable successful business, then you need to real metrics for success.
I hope you are a business owner, with this outlook. Otherwise, I feel like there is some Stockholm syndrome going on here. Why is the most important metric worker productivity? Why are the needs of business elevated over the needs of people? Besides, the summary did say, "...with employees performing better in their jobs and enjoying them more than before the experiment.... Staff stress levels decreased by 7 percentage points across the board as a result of the trial, while stimulation, commitment and a sense of empowerment at work all improved significantly" That seems to speak to your point. Happy, committed, stimulated workers are good for a company.
I understand the system we work in, and the requirements it has. But I feel like the needs of business are often given precedence over the needs of employees. Aren't businesses supposed to serve and benefit the public? If a business requires people to be over-worked and stressed in order to thrive, what is the value of the business? At that point it seems to only benefit the business owner.
Yeah, next we should try a three-day week. Then imagine how much better a two-day week will be! When we get to zero, the work-life balance will be perfect!
At that point you wouldn't be working. Work-Life balance not found. But sure, I'd love a three or two day work week, if I could still maintain my comfortable lifestyle. Why wouldn't we want that?
I must say, it's impressive how conditioned we are to work. Our society's needs are over-filled. We produce too much, and throw away a lot of it. Automation is getting to the point where we could all work less, have more leisure time, and still have all the products we need. Yet when we hear stories like this one, in which people are working less and reporting measurable benefits, the reaction of many is to scoff at it. Why? Do we feel so trapped in our 40+ hour week lives that we resent the people making an improvement? Do we think the only thing of value in our lives is the work we do?
Personally, I work to live. If I could live a fairly comfortable life, like I do now, without working, I would quit my job tomorrow. The only reason I put up with the bullshit I do, day after day, is that it gets me a nice house and a nice car, the ability to travel and eat at restaurants, and all the other nice things money can buy (including a lack of financial anxiety). If I could have all that, with less of the daily bullshit, it would be great. I'd probably even give up a bit in order to work less. It's not laziness. It's the recognition that I want more out of life than being someone's employee.
I understand that our Capitalist and monetary systems require us all to stay on the hamster wheel. That's a whole other discussion. I'm just remarking on the negative reactions of many to the idea that working less would be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you consider fraud to be just another voluntary exchange? Because pump and dump is a form of fraud.
No kidding. Apparently, to some on this board, being a "sophisticated investor" means being able to discern all fraud and dishonesty.
Voluntary exchanges and park muggings are totally the same. The people who made these trades were not coerced and if they value crypto currencies improperly that is their own fault. Would you feel any remorse for them over this or any other investment that turned out a loss through natural shifts in the market?
They were not coerced, but they were lied to. Fraud is illegal for a reason, and is not something to be defended just because someone didn't know they were being lied to.
If people are buying into crypto currencies as a long term investment, this small dip should matter little in the long run. If these people were trying to make short term flips to make money, they are not so different from the people who scammed them. In your analogy they are just other muggers in the park who were themselves mugged.
Being short on a security does not imply fraud or a scam. So no, they were not the same as the people who scammed them, just because they had a short term investment.
Legalized fraud/theft/robbery is the core of the entire problem.
Except in this case, the "victims" volunteered to be robbed.
No one volunteers to be robbed. There is fraud involved here. Surely you don't advocate lying and deception as a normal part of doing business.
When the same work should be worth the same.
Compensation should be proportional to the value produced, not the effort expended.
I would question how much value is really produced by pump and dump schemes. If I tell you that I am long on a security when I'm actually short, and convince you to join me in a long term investment, and then sell as soon as you make your investment, causing the price to drop, what value is produced?
Whaa? Investment from the government is not socialism. Socialism is government control of the means of production. The internet was started so that US right wingers could nuke the Soviet Union and survive the retaliatory strike. That's not even close to socialism.
When I talk about Socialism, I am talking about the government taxing the populace in order to fund services that the government provides. Call it Democratic Socialism if you like. That term seems to be in vogue these days. I don't think anyone in the US is seriously advocating that the government take over all production of goods and services. Not even China does that. It's just that we need to fill the gaps where Capitalism falls short of serving society.
Funny the article says SS will go bankrupt by 2034 instead of 2022. Reality congress will vote in 2033 to add SS to the national debt.
The article also says that the trust fund can be prevented from running out (not the same as bankruptcy) if the funding mechanism is adjusted. SS running out of funds is a political choice, not a fiscal one.
and we had to go to the post office to get a permit to operate a modem. Then you are probably the only one who did that ...
I know no one who went for a permit ... we simply plugged them in.
He did say he was setting up an office. When you are doing things for business it is usually better to do them by the book. You don't want the authorities to show up 6 months later and shut your office.
I do enjoy not starving to death and dying from polio. Modern technology is also quite nice.
People starve to death under Capitalism, and avoided starving to death before Capitalism was a thing. Salk's team developed their vaccine at the University of Pittsburgh, which is state funded. Development of modern technology has relied heavily on research grants from the federal government. The Internet we are using now likely would not have come about without a government research initiative.
None of these things have resulted solely from Capitalism. They required investment from the government, i.e. Socialism, in order to become viable products.
What happened there was not real socialism, it was corruption and stupidity using socialism as a facade, just like in USA we don't have real capitalism, we got corruption and stupidity using the word freedom as a facade.
So if it's impossible to have "real socialism" (because all the failed efforts weren't "real socialism"), WHY THE FUCK DO IDIOTS KEEP PUSHING FOR IT???
You can't win the argument by saying all failed attempts at socialism weren't "real socialism" - because what you're really saying is "real socialism" can't reasonably be attained.
Or you're just trying to fool people: TRUST ME! IT WILL WORK THIS TIME! AND IF YOU LIKE YOUR DOCTOR, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR!"
We do have real socialism. We have Social Security, and Medicare, and Medicaid, and SNAP, and unemployment insurance, to name a few programs. They work quite well, as long as people in government don't work against them. For example, the Republicans like to tell people that Social Security is unaffordable and will go "bankrupt". It's not true but it works to turn people against a system they have opposed on principle from the start.
Socialism works fine as long as it is properly regulated, just like Capitalism. Unfortunately, people who don't want the public to understand that government can work for them have been funding propaganda efforts for decades to convince people that Socialism doesn't work, and is the same thing as Communism, which is the same thing as the Soviet Union, which everyone knows was really bad.
Which part of this is "the free market", and how exactly would a different financial system have prevented it?
Also, don't you find the story a bit fishy? She injured her back counting things? Really? And then she couldn't work because she couldn't lift her arm? To count things? But she could somehow still drive 120 miles each day? Because a back injury which somehow paralyses your arm doesn't impact your driving ability?
Sounds like fishing for workers comp ... which is the exact opposite of "free market".
From TFA:
"In the meantime, Allen has become homeless after a workplace accident left her unable to do her job."
Yeah, she sure made out on her workers comp fraud! Maybe read the article before you just start making things up.
By the way, that's quite the spelling of "Barack" you have there.
LOL! Fair enough! But still, "aughfully"?
Maybe you should buy Twitter, and then it will behave the way you want it to. Isn't private ownership great?
Today I learned publicly traded "private" businesses are supposed to be immune to criticism from anyone but billionaires. Good to know.
Please drop some more insightful commentary on us.
Well, since you asked...
Welcome to America, my friend! This is the land where only money counts. The Republicans and the Right love to talk about the freedom of owners to do what they wish with what they own. Then, when owners do that to the detriment of the aforementioned, the aforementioned get their panties in a twist about it. They are massive hypocrites who can dish it out but can't take it. And I get a real laugh out of it.
The Right wants to privatize everything and abandon the common good, and now they are reaping what they have sown. If only they could see past the end of their collective nose.
What a fucking clown here defending censorship in the hands of a private corporation. What happened to Slashdot? When did it get overrun by so many damned lefty communists defending mainstream evil?
What a fucking clown here defending censorship in the hands of a private corporation. What happened to Slashdot? When did it get overrun by so many damned lefty communists defending mainstream evil?
Lefty Communists defending private companies? This is one confused post.
I'm sure the final step would be for a real person to verify the matches to see if there's false positives. The AI in this case would likely be setup to tend to produce false positives rather than outright missing matches because not being able to find anything is worrysome compared to finding a few false positives. You would hope the cops arn't crazy enough to start arresting people based entirely on the matching system and at least look at the profiles to confirm.
This is exactly correct, and why these statements from the ACLU are ridiculous. Would they rather the police just be looking for any tall black guy with a sweatshirt in the area? This type of technology simply provides more information to the police, but it still takes actual policemen and prosecutors to decide who is a real suspect and who should be charged.
It's not the tool that is the problem, but how it is used. And I just straight up don't trust the police. There have been too many stories of police shooting first and asking questions later, and railroading suspects for them to be seen as trustworthy. I may be a few bad apples, but let's remember the whole phrase: A few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.
I think the whole idea of using face recognition is to cut the amount of work required by a detective to search through thousands of pictures. I'm sure the final step would be for a real person to verify the matches to see if there's false positives. The AI in this case would likely be setup to tend to produce false positives rather than outright missing matches because not being able to find anything is worrysome compared to finding a few false positives. You would hope the cops aren't crazy enough to start arresting people based entirely on the matching system and at least look at the profiles to confirm.
I am not sure the final step would be to have people review this stuff. And yes, I would hope the police are not crazy enough to just start arresting people based on a facial match. But I do not have that much faith in the intelligence or propriety of police these days. There is enough corruption and corner-cutting going on in our police departments that I would not automatically trust them to do the right or smart thing, or have respect for the rights of citizens; especially citizens who do not have the resources to defend themselves.
Yeah, it was a lie about a private individual's actions. Much better than lying about not having sex with that woman, or that I could keep my doctor...
How is lying about not having sex with that woman different? It's literally the same lie.
Sorry but most of the inflammatory posts i see on social media these days tend to be from the left leaning populous, trying to dig up any tiny piece of dirt about Trump and blow it completely out of proportion.
The latest, the scandal about a secret recording about his past mistress. Who gives a flying fu*c? 1) It's not illegal to have an affair 2) it was before he was president not that 1) would be any different even if he was president at the time. See Clinton and his past in the whitehouse for a perfect example.
The left leaning seem aughfully interested in who's been diddling with Trumps Cheeto penis.
Yeah. Okay. Do you not remember how the Right reacted to Clinton's dalliances in the Whitehouse? They impeached him. No big deal, right?
Let's do a little thought experiment: How would you react if Barak Obama cheated on his wife with a porn star and then had his lawyer pay her off through a shell company in order to silence her before the election? Be honest now! No big deal? The Republicans and the Right would have just let that slide? Ya think?
By the way, that's quite the spelling of "awfully" you have there.
Oh really? And Maxine Waters is still visible? Perhaps YOU prefer how she expresses her views and what she encourages - along with the twit platform? Were you really hoping that someone would buy that ludicrous explanation you provided?
Maybe you should buy Twitter, and then it will behave the way you want it to. Isn't private ownership great?
Who are you to tell some native group of people what they can and can't do?
Europeans showed up and straight up took it; that's who. Native Americans have been fucked over left, right and center since Columbus arrived. Sure, we told the that their reservations were sovereign territory. But when push comes to shove, the American system isn't going to let them actually assert that right. I mean, who's in charge here?
Actually, no. Identity politics and tribalism (quite literally) have no place in the US, and that's good thing.
Look around you. That is manifestly untrue. You may prefer it otherwise, but tribalism and identity politics are alive, well, and thoroughly embedded in American culture. They are as American as chanting, "USA! USA!"
40 years from now when/if autonomous cars finally become a widespread thing, one day some drunk asshole in a beat-up 2029 F150 will pass out at the wheel and mow down a crowd of pedestrians, and a 70-pound teenage bystander named Havid Dogg will wage a media war to get human-powered cars banned once and for all.
Relax dude, no one is taking your guns away.
You have discovered the reason yourself: Conditioning The population is conditioned to believe that they need to work to death and to hate and attack anyone who offer an alternative solution. And the conditioning is so strong that I just need to write a small number of "trigger words" here to immediately attract enraged comments and hate for no apparent reason.
Oh, yes, I'm well aware. The pro-capitalist propaganda has been quite effective, the the US at least. Work, work, work, you're lucky to even have a job, so shut up! People think wage-slavery is the only way it can be.
I'd probably even give up a bit in order to work less. It's not laziness. It's the recognition that I want more out of life than being someone's employee.
But then you'd have less value to society. As long as we're capitalistic-focused, your value in society is in what you produce and what you consume. Do less of either, and you're a less valuable person to society.
Combine that with a puritanical mindset that god rewards the just and punishes the unjust, and you've got the wonderful world-view of working you described. It's going to be very hard to overcome that in a majority of the population, which would be necessary to make the societal shift to working less.
Yeah, I can dig all that. It's kinda fucked up in my opinion; especially the idea that god is punishing or rewarding people. But it is the way it is, and I have found new peace in life by not resisting what is, or worrying about things I cannot/will not change.
America is a continent, not a country. You must mean USian.
North America and South America are continents. America is not a continent.
I hope this firm's 4-day work week is an unmitigated success, but this story misses the most important metrics for measuring the success: increased worker productivity, increased retention, various recruitment KPIs, etc. These are the metrics which can show that this plan will work for a larger number of companies. If the only thing that happens is happier employees, it is a failed experiment. Just give every employee a million dollars if you only care about happy employees. If you want to find a way to improve employee well-being while running a sustainable successful business, then you need to real metrics for success.
I hope you are a business owner, with this outlook. Otherwise, I feel like there is some Stockholm syndrome going on here. Why is the most important metric worker productivity? Why are the needs of business elevated over the needs of people? Besides, the summary did say, "...with employees performing better in their jobs and enjoying them more than before the experiment. ... Staff stress levels decreased by 7 percentage points across the board as a result of the trial, while stimulation, commitment and a sense of empowerment at work all improved significantly" That seems to speak to your point. Happy, committed, stimulated workers are good for a company.
I understand the system we work in, and the requirements it has. But I feel like the needs of business are often given precedence over the needs of employees. Aren't businesses supposed to serve and benefit the public? If a business requires people to be over-worked and stressed in order to thrive, what is the value of the business? At that point it seems to only benefit the business owner.
Yeah, next we should try a three-day week. Then imagine how much better a two-day week will be! When we get to zero, the work-life balance will be perfect!
At that point you wouldn't be working. Work-Life balance not found. But sure, I'd love a three or two day work week, if I could still maintain my comfortable lifestyle. Why wouldn't we want that?
I must say, it's impressive how conditioned we are to work. Our society's needs are over-filled. We produce too much, and throw away a lot of it. Automation is getting to the point where we could all work less, have more leisure time, and still have all the products we need. Yet when we hear stories like this one, in which people are working less and reporting measurable benefits, the reaction of many is to scoff at it. Why? Do we feel so trapped in our 40+ hour week lives that we resent the people making an improvement? Do we think the only thing of value in our lives is the work we do?
Personally, I work to live. If I could live a fairly comfortable life, like I do now, without working, I would quit my job tomorrow. The only reason I put up with the bullshit I do, day after day, is that it gets me a nice house and a nice car, the ability to travel and eat at restaurants, and all the other nice things money can buy (including a lack of financial anxiety). If I could have all that, with less of the daily bullshit, it would be great. I'd probably even give up a bit in order to work less. It's not laziness. It's the recognition that I want more out of life than being someone's employee.
I understand that our Capitalist and monetary systems require us all to stay on the hamster wheel. That's a whole other discussion. I'm just remarking on the negative reactions of many to the idea that working less would be nice.