Finally had the opportunity to check out the entry, unfortunately, during commute on Smartphone. An iPad help me feel less overloaded by blogs and commenting on them.
Only I'll comment on is how crazy it seems to me that New England working class fought for 10-hour days back in the 1830's until much later. And we complain about our 8-hour days!
The computers/robots do work aspect makes me think Asimov. He touched upon topics of people feeling resentful about robots pushing them out of workforce. Not sure Asimov addressed it more on economic or psychological levels, though. Those part were more exposition or plot device than straight out ideological arguments.
I have tons of thoughts on topic. Nothing I can encapsulate with Smartphone. Need address again once I have time & more blog-amiable computer.
To be honest, I think the main problem in our society is (a) the individualistic alienation of society/communities and (b) the lack of a purpose bigger than ourselves as individuals. Easy to get sucked into work as a way to provide yourself with purpose.
And back in the early 1800s, at least around Boston, leisure was seen as a time for self improvement and communion with God. Radical working class fought and fought for the leisure to use in these "responsible" ways.
On flip side, bosses saw themselves as doing favors for working class by working them long hours. Working class wouldn't have to suffer idle time, which would give working class time to become the Devil's workshop.
In my opinion, people in the US hardly know what to do with their free time. Our education systems and parents not having time (amd possibly not the patience sometimes) doesn't help the matter.
I believe, as a nation, we have to facilitate better educate citizens to focus and creativity rather than money and idle leisure time.
This ramble makes part a preview of a chapter in my project/book and an attempt at redirecting the question. No offense, but in my opinion, idle leisure time (except when truly needed to rest the body and mind much like sleep) is an inefficent use of time with our limited life spans.
Then again, I've got something of a Puritan work ethic.
Third attempt at another idea (Smartphone not best way to enter entry):
I believe the need/desire for vacation equates opposite to the enjoyment of the work. Enjoyment of work includes: intrinsic enjoyment, the improvement of leisure time through money made and/or the work providing the person with a sense of purpose greater than themselves benefitting others.
The last one is especially good if compassion fatigue doesn't burn out someone, as often happens with nonprofits.
I don't think a nation can institute a fair and equitable reward system to bring the right amount of work enjoyment to everyone. People's conceptions of their own enjoyment is too subjective, change and many conflicts would occur.
I believe and advocate that a co-op or association type community could address this aspect better. I'm talking about a type of organization that makes decisions by consensus or changes the office holders/board based on a fair decison process that is representative of both the people's wish and also for the betterment of the co-op or association. Such an organization can create the bonds between people, a sense of individual responsibility/ownership of the organization's success and the means of communication for an equitable and fair distribution of labor and leisure.
Smartphone frustrating me too much to write more. Accidently deleted multiple paragraphs.
In the long run, though, I'm a strong advocate of a slow and small movement, as in a cultural slow movement that is occurring. Look it up on Wikipedia or around the Web. I believe that the slow movement encourages people to take responsibility/ownership for the results of the world, the environment and society. I think this adopting this approach would do a lot to make the world a better place.
Hm, just to pick on one little detail, not sure I dig "equate liking vacation for a disapproval of work". It can be a time to recharge in the same way sleep is, and just a change of pace.
Longing for early retirement (as I do) that might be a disapproval or work, but it's not quite the same thing.
Stimulating mind and body in variety of ways definitely important.
Nonetheless, I'm thinking about people making money from something they love doing and never want to stop doing. I hope to become a successful writer and do that.
I'll probably take some vacations to prevent burn out through overstimulating one topic or to get different perspectives. Nonetheless, writing is something I can possibly take anywhere and may require some degree of travel and experience outside of home or office life. Figuring out a minimum amount of time required for that kind of vacation would be difficult.
I also know someone who has their own home tech support company and is the only employee. He hasn't a vacation in 2 years, and he loves his job.
But my main thoght about the enjoyability is opposite the minimum amount of vacation comes from looking at more unskilled labor.
At the same time, though, I guess there are some white collar schlubs that would rather be working a janitor job. The janitor job, however, doesn't pay as well in money, benefits, or vacation time simply because it's unskilled and supposedly anyone can do it.
Executive, President, doctor, lawyer, etc. etc. all require a lot more training, fewer people can do the jobs and they hold more prestige than a janitor. Then there's public school teachers who need a fair amount of training, few people can probably do the job really well and there's mixed amount of prestige.
This is the type of stuff that comes to my mind when I equate enjoyabiity of a job going reverse to the minimum amount of vacation required.
But yeah, I would how much you enjoy your current job if you're looking to retire as early as you can (with ASAP being relative and determined by your own standards).
I don't mean this statement in any judgmental way. After all, how many of us truly enjoy our jobs to the fullest extent and are just doing it to survive.
That's why jobs are jobs. We're selling our time to do something that at least some segment of society values enough to pay for, whatever reason they value it for.
Lost in this is the idea that work hour count can be used to oppress people as well.
For one, paying people by the hour discourages people from working efficiently. I have to work 8 hours to get paid, even if there's only 4 hours of work to do today.
Also, I know someone who works two jobs, but they're both for the same university, and she's prohibited from working more than 40 hours at both of them combined. And she's too poor to afford an apartment with its own laundry facilities, and has to do laundry at my place or a coin-op.
And, if employers have to offer benefits to all their employees that work 30 hours a week or more? Now they have an incentive to keep people at 29 hours or less, especially on those jobs that wouldn't pay the rent at 40 hours.
The real problem may be that the cost of living has increased faster than wages, so too many people need multiple jobs to make ends meet. And I suppose that could be traced back to the idea that there's less money to go around because Goldman Sachs has it all.