What If....?

[jetpacklife]

What if everyone one worked a 4 hour work week? Or.. at least a lot more people.

It seems like there would have to be a lot more automated things in our life. It also seems like there would be a lot more leisure time to deal with. What would everyone be doing with such free time?

[brooket]

With the excuses and distractions (used to avoid deep personal reflection, real growth and the pursuit of meaningful, joyful work) removed... it's hard to even imagine how much more real value would be flowing into the world, how much the quality of life could improve for *everyone* over time.

I remember reading books by Robert Anton Wilson and Barbara Marx Hubbard that speculated on this very idea as a real future possibility, not just for a fringe few but for the majority. Though inspired, I dismissed it as futurist fantasy at the time, but Tim Ferriss has brought the fantasy down to earth for me - a) by doing it himself, and b) by laying out such realistic, repeatable steps and useful resources as he has, and so thoroughly yet plainly that I don't feel too overwhelmed, which I usually do when faced with having to actually implement such a grand vision.

[final_id]

Tim's plan requires a few things that proactively forestall that futurist fantasy.

1. disparate values of currencies and of individual workers' time

If all the virtual assistants in India suddenly got up and STOPPED working for someone else, they might make more money for themselves but they wouldn't be there to let you and me outsource. Somewhere, somehow, for a 4HWW to be had by person A, person B has to be in a situation of working by the task or by the hour. Economies being what they are, the market would balance this out to the point that either the wage of the assistant would become too high to make the arrangement desirable; or the automation phenomenon would have to slow down, to the point that only SOME individuals could become owners-who-escape, while other individuals would still be employees-in-cubicles. Though I'm excited that I might become one of the owners-who-escape group, nevertheless as a WHOLE humanity would still include a large percentage of cubicle-victims.

In addition, the disparate value of currencies enables North Americans to vacation "on the cheap" currently in a variety of locales. Tim's travel system is a one-way deal. Nigerians can't "barter up" to come to North America where it's "cheaper," no matter how well they're doing in Lagos. A one-world-order type of good overflowing might mean that we could no longer be the beneficiaries rather than the victims of that imbalance. Vietnamese and Nigerians flood to the Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore; locals happily ply them with the exotic local flavors of hamburgers, hot dogs, Elvis music, and baseball. Locals are "happy" but not empowered to escape their hourly existence because their currency is too cheap. Again, I'm optimistic that I PERSONALLY might reap the benefits of the current system, but again, humanity AS A WHOLE still has winners and losers.

2. Tim's system is founded on a static moment. The internet will change. Maybe everyone will get into Google ad-words, at which point they become less of a cash cow and more of a mandatory minimum. Or maybe Google ad-words will suddenly lose their effectiveness as point-and-click screen-ology becomes obsolete, and think-what-you-want is the new technology, motivated not by advertising in little columns on the left side of a screen but instead by thought-memes reproduced through intelligent application of internet-borne nasal viruses. Or something. I'm optimistic that I might personally reap the benefits of any given system, but you have to be adept at listening to what is currently going on around you and adopting strategies that exploit that situation such that you can stand outside the norm. Consequently, Tim's plan REQUIRES exploitation. Again again, I'm optimistic that I personally might gain something of a niche by standing outside the madding crowd, so I'm glad I found 4HWW. But if I'm outside it, then the crowd exists AND HAS TO EXIST for 4HWW to operate properly.

The noble ideal of one world sharing in profits and universal human good is a great idea. I don't think ANY economic business system contributes to that, precisely because, trade being what it is, and systems being what they are, there is by definition the group who is exploited by the system and the group who are doing the exploiting. Otherwise there's no system.

[James Grey]

What if everyone one worked a 4 hour work week? Or.. at least a lot more people.


What would everyone be doing with such free time?

Surf & drink beer on a beach in a nice 3rd world country surrounded by beautiful people


~James Grey

[jetpacklife]

Tim's plan REQUIRES exploitation.

Well, he does first say eleminate and automate. For me, I think I can get down to 4 hours without out sourcing. I certainly don't think I'm exploiting anyone. I've on the end of 3 weeks of traveling. I've mostly been managing my business with about a 1/2 hour of internet a day. (I've also been making more money than ever!) And, the only thing that I have out sourced is the feeding of my cats and watering my plants while I'm away!

Luckly, I've been in places where there are NOT a lot of people. If everyone had more free time and wanted to travel, these places would be even more over run.

Ultimately, I think that a lot of people have more free time than they need, they just don't have the real desire to travel and live on a foreign beach. I'll probably eventually be in that boat as well. After this trip, I'm going to need a real vacation (doing nothing!)

[wildsoul]

I don't think 4HWW is about exploitation of people.
It's about exploitation of existing economic differences.

Outsourcers set their own rates, based on the going-rate in their country.

In a way, they are exploiting those economic differences too. They are able to effectively win business in other markets, that pay higher than what they can earn locally or in greater abundance than might be available for them locally.

It's simply capitalism. I don't think it's exploitation.

[final_id]

Oh I definitely agree that it's "simply capitalism" and, in so far as you accept the rules of free trade, therefore nobody's being inappropriately exploited. I didn't say that. (Though, if one questions the value as a moral code of capitalism and free trade, which I do, then you can go further into the debate. But that's a different topic.)

I just think that if every single human on the planet were able to implement something like it, then we would NOT achieve "one world order" of happiness. One post here suggests "golly, if we could just get everyone on this boat, everyone in the world, then we'd all be better off." I disagree for two reasons. First reason, we can't get "everyone," because there HAS to be economic disparity (currently manifested in differential global currencies) in order for person A to successfully outsource but still gain a profit from it. Second reason, if there is EVER a "system" in which one group wins and another loses (cf. First reason), then there's no way for both groups to win in that system.

I don't disagree that Tim's plan is a great idea for ME. I just wonder why we here in North America think of it as something that will propagate world peace, beauty, understanding, religious tolerance, and profit for all. It CAN'T be profit for all, if by definition what I'm doing is TAKING profit from my customers and also (by tricky exchange rate control) using someone else to do work at a lower rate than it would cost me to do it.

There can be no benefit to all, when some benefit off of others. Simple concept. Runs straight in the face of traditional North American college economics, of course, where they teach the assumption that profit and trade benefit all parties. But look where that assumption has gotten us ...

[MuseMojo]

There can be no benefit to all, when some benefit off of others. Simple concept. Runs straight in the face of traditional North American college economics, of course, where they teach the assumption that profit and trade benefit all parties. But look where that assumption has gotten us ...

"Gee mister peasant, living your brutal life in India, I don't think that you're going to receive any benefit by getting paid for building my widget. You're better off starving and living a backbreaking, short life like your forefathers have for millennia before you."

Are you serious??

The assumption that voluntary exchange of trade (and the right to the resulting profits) benefits both parties, has enabled billions of people over the past century to improve their lives. That's where that assumption has gotten us. It's improved more peoples lives than all the altruistic impulses and good intentions of the previous 20 millennia.

Peasants lead dreary, short, brutal lives. They aren't fools. When they see an opportunity to make 'exploitive' wages in the cities manufacturing widgets for 14 hours a day or by learning English and answering phones for some rich westerner they grab at it with both hands because it's far better than what they have as peasants!

US schools aren't teaching just how horrible life was prior to the rise of modern capitalism and industrialization. The USUAL numbers of homeless in American and European cities during the 1800's was 10-20%! Now it's around 0.4%, still shameful, but one hell of a lot better than is was before. And don't get me started on the plight of women and infant mortality rates prior to industrialization & modern capitalism...

The concept that individuals can make up their own minds about what work they will accept or can pursue and who they can trade their skills with, and that they have the RIGHT to KEEP the profit from that work is still revolutionary in many areas. And bitterly opposed by those who have status and control in agrarian & tribal societies.

Let's worry about the sustainablility of the system when there are no more starving peasant women grubbing with their hands in the fields and dying at 43 from old age and overwork.

You want to help people? Create a muse and LET THEM WORK!!!!!!!!

==================

Ok, the rise of the scientific method as a major source of authority has also had a major positive impact on the lives of those same billions, but that's a topic for another post. Trade, capitalism and science have all grown up together.

[final_id]

Naw, you missed my point. I certainly do think that the life of an Indian peasant without opportunity for working in a nice clean VA office is probably a lot worse. But we shouldn't congratulate ourselves too heartily. I'm just skeptical about the merit of "trade" (or economics, or the free market) as a force "for good." It's not necessarily. It's a force FOR PROFIT for a SELECT FEW. And that "benefit" doesn't necessarily transmit to all participants, nor is it automatically transferred across the whole globe as some kind of magic dust that just emanates every time someone hands over some money.

Any one given Indian "peasant" surely benefits from the voluntary exchange of labor for profit. He chose that, in so far as it seemed to him to be a good choice FROM AMONG A LIMITED SET OF OPTIONS. But as a whole, his society either (a) slowly moves toward parity with (for example) the USA because so much demand for Indian assistants drives their prices up, currency improves, etc. or (b) slowly bifurcates, further enfranchising a small portion to be more and more like the USA as a larger portion becomes more and more disenfranchised. With outcome (a), eventually (and quite soon?) there's no benefit to Americans outsourcing to India -- the price becomes prohibitive. So we seek somewhere else, like Argentina or Guam or whatever, and again the process happens there. Meanwhile the Indians grow to be more like the USA, wishing to outsource but being unable to, because their currency isn't as strong as ours. In all, there is no total overall "gain" to work-for-money in the WHOLE global economy; just individual gains or losses. We Americans happen to be lucky that our currency is the stronger of the pair right now (and probably will remain that way for a while) and therefore we can choose to try to eliminate money-for-time-worked in order to gain automation. The Indian assistants, please remember, are all working by task or by time, and any outsourcing they do cannot be BACK to the USA because of the currency discrepancy.

What you're saying, basically, is, "Work for all is good; indolence for all is bad; given that we provide the Indians an opportunity to put out effort to gain our money, we must be doing them something like a good favor." Not true. If that were true, then we should all be thankful for our boring jobs, and not trying to get the HELL OUT OF THEM. What outsourcing to India does, is saddle THEM with exactly what WE don't want.

This isn't "overall total benefit." It might be better, individual by individual, for SOME participants, but as a global whole, all it does is transfer a problem (maldistribution of resources among the human populace) from one sucker to another. I'm glad to stop being the sucker and make some dude in Bangalore suck it up for a while, don't get me wrong. I'm just questioning the wisdom of claiming that somehow a new world order of happiness and prosperity will result from merely transferring my problem from locale A to locale B.

What tends to get lost in these arguments, are the ASSUMPTIONS. For example, your post states several times something akin to "work is good." Yet that is exactly contrary to Tim's basic premise, that we must AVOID work for work's sake. I disagree with "work is good." I think work is merely a tool, a means to an end. If I get to do LESS work for the same reward as what I used to get for MORE work, then that's good, and hence by implication WORK IS ACTUALLY QUITE BAD.

To suggest "they should be thankful" for the opportunity to be our lackeys is rather patronizing, in fact. Sure, it's better for some that they no longer work painfully hard hours in a field, or shoveling insides of latrines, or some such. But that still doesn't mean it's better for us to foist our problems off on them at a disproportionate rate of return rather than more "morally" doing it ourselves: if I were paid to do it, I'd get $25 an hour; they get $8, thanks to exchange rates WHICH THEY DID NOT CHOOSE, and buying power being what it is, they actually get LESS than we do in some instances (considering, for example, the deleterious health conditions of living there, or the lack of public facilities, or the increased crime, or whatever -- their cost-per-benefit will be worse than in the developed world; otherwise we'd be moving there in droves, rather than vice versa). Their work lives are improved, but not to the extent that ours are.

So, sure, one or another single dude gets to be an Indian who is better off than he was as an Indian before becoming an assistant. But he's still not an American. Or, more accurately, he still doesn't have the benefits that Americans do -- better exchange rates, living in the developed west, clean drinking water. For the initial suggestion to hold true, then we'd have to be FREEING him from constraints of time-for-money type work, but what we're actually doing is FURTHER CONSTRAINING HIM.

I realize I'm stating things that traditional Adam-Smith-style economics tend to ignore. But Smith assumed a benevolent "hand" of the market, a type of common interest among all participants in a single over-arching moral good, in which poverty would not go untended, and if there were some unforeseen circumstance among the players (say, one dude got the flu) then they wouldn't all just willy-nilly attack him when he was down like so many rabid starving wolves. We're being rabid starving wolves in our quest for assitants. I certainly intend to do it, but don't pretend it's "good" for them to have to be our assistants rather than the other way 'round. Were you volunteering to do it at $8 an hour and get paid in Rupees without a 401-K? If so, please let me know your email address and I'll set you right to work Mr. Friday.

But I bet you're not willing to take that deal. Because it's the sort of thing most people don't want. The reason we in the West don't want it, is that it isn't desirable to us. We who've read Tim's book have figured out a few tricks to getting out of having to do that time-for-money type of work. Lucky us, unlucky Indians ...

My post initially addressed the first question in this thread, with "what if everyone ...". I took that to mean, "everyone on the planet." And my only point was, no, I don't think there'd be all that free leisure going 'round. It WOULD be great if automation would ease the pain all of us suffer in our UNchosen lines of work (reminds me of when I was waiting tables; no, I did not "choose to work here," I HAD TO work there), and I do see that, to some extent, there could be an overall gain to human wellbeing. But Tim's method is not so much, to spread automation evenly among the whole of the deserving human species; but rather to take advantage of automation by DE-automating certain locations (those with lower exchange rates for weak currencies) and SUPER-automating other locations (those that benefit from those lower currencies). We foist our automation off onto them. Sure, it's better for them than digging ditches. But it's still work WE don't WANT to do, so we really shouldn't pretend that THEY "want" it either.

[vmgbpo]

At one time, not so long ago, clerks were employed to copy out everything from bank transactions to meeting minutes. Now these processes are completely automated and the people who would be clerks do other things. Nature abhors a vacuum - something will fill in the void and that's what progress is all about.

I must say, I'm particular to James Gray's suggestion - because nothing Tim teaches in the 4 Hour Work Week is about exploitation but rather about liberation - for all parties concerned.

[clanshrapnel]

...Sure, it's better for them than digging ditches. But it's still work WE don't WANT to do, so we really shouldn't pretend that THEY "want" it either.

I know this is an old post, lol, but tell me this... if Bill Gates were to offer you $200 to spend 5 minutes to pick up his coat at coat check so he wouldn't have to waste his time doing it, would you do it?

For him, he can do more productive things with his time for $200 if he's working rather than getting up to get his coat. And for you, well, I don't think there's many people on this planet, save for Warren Buffet, that would find that to be a waste of his time.

In respect to your statements, yes, the task is work that Bill Gates wouldn't want to do (he loses more money picking up his coat than to pay you $200), but you can bet I and just about anybody else on this forum would want to do this task for $200.

Is it enslaving me to de-automation for my life? Not if I take that $200 and invest it in my own muse and well-being. Who is to say the people in India don't take the money they earn, further enhance their productivity with that new investment money, and then go live better lives after? Isn't living in better conditions already an investment in yourself to do better things with your time?