• 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    People can finally work on things that interest them! No more corporate overlords telling you what to produce.

      • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Too bad we don’t have any millionaire toilet cleaners or garbage collectors, even though we NEED them.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          But that’s an entirely different premise than “nobody needs to work”…

          • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Who said “nobody needs to work”?

            The actual premise is that your labor shouldn’t be exploited to produce products for the sole purpose of producing products, which make a few people rich while you get nothing. If we’re working to keep necessary services functioning, thats a different story. We can all do that as a society without a business/corporation telling us to do it.

                  • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    “We want the zero hour work week!” Vs “nobody needs to work”

                    “We want the zero hour work week!” implies a desire to reduce the standard work week to zero hours. It suggests people still want to work and contribute value through their work, just with fewer required work hours.

                    “Nobody needs to work” is a broader statement that questions whether work itself is necessary. It could be interpreted as meaning that people should not be obligated or required to work at all, and that their basic needs should still be met without contributing labor.

                    Overall, the first sentence focuses more on reducing work hours while still valuing work itself. The second calls into question whether work is inherently needed for people to live and thrive. Both discuss reducing the role of work, but they have slightly different philosophical implications.