What if everyone spent every waking hour making really cool things? How cool would that be? Well consider also that there would be no hours spent enjoying anything created because everyone would be creating not enjoying.

Are the things actually cool if no one gets to enjoy them?
6-day weeks used to be normal. Then 5-day weeks became normal. It's past time for 4-day weeks to become normal. There's just so much stuff being created, and increasingly by machines. Humans need more time to actually enjoy all the stuff and life itself. We need to shift gears.
But what about all the jobs going unfilled? Paying people more per hour for fewer total hours per week would make many jobs more attractive, and the people filling those jobs would be less exhausted and more productive. Plus they'd have more time as consumers to create more jobs.
A lot of time is wasted doing things that no one need do and that machines could do instead, and a lot of time isn't available to do all that needs doing and to enjoy what all gets done. It's time to find a new 4-day balance just as we did decades ago with the 5-day 40-hour week.
It's not about being lazy, just as it wasn't back then when people working 60-hr weeks thought 40 hours was just pure laziness. This is about maximizing productivity and also well-being. It's about realizing that the point of breadmaking is to eat it, and its enjoyment has value.
The hours of our lives are limited. None of us know how many total hours of life we have. Should we really spend so many of them just proving our right to exist? Or is our right to exist inherent, and our time so valuable that wages should be higher and our weekends longer?
As we look at how things could be different now and in the years ahead, I hope work as a value in of itself is eroded. What matters is what's actually getting done, and how much we actually get to enjoy what gets done. Automation should be seen as a goal to create more free time.
As long as people fear automation because life is tied to work, we won't automate as much as we should, and people won't benefit as they should with less work and more time. We have to manually make that change with unconditional basic income operating as an automation dividend.
With bare survival no longer coupled to work, that will not lead to less of what we need done getting done. Stuff will still get done. The stuff no one likes to do may need to pay more though, or get automated, or involve fewer hours per week, all of which are positive outcomes.
We as humans are not beasts of burden. We have the technology to accomplish more with less time and fewer resources. But there exists a culture that worships work itself as a kind of god and that's willing to even sacrifice humans at its altar. We have to defeat this god.
The best way to defeat a god is to no longer believe in it. Evidence will not kill it because it exists on faith. I don't know what will erode this faith, but I'm hoping that shorter work weeks, automation, and UBI will play a role.

To defeat Work, we have so much work to do.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Scott Santens 🧢⬆️🏄‍♂️

Scott Santens 🧢⬆️🏄‍♂️ Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @scottsantens

Jan 11
Interesting threat. Basically, Mitch is like "Look here, everyone. If you make it easier to debate and vote on legislation, we're going to start debating and voting on legislation, and none of us here want that, right?"

Mitch is framing it like a bad thing, for Congress to actually debate and vote on bills, because some votes could make legislators look bad to their constituents, but the lack of that is exactly the problem. If a lawmaker votes yes on unpopular laws, then voters SHOULD fire them.
Right now, elections have less teeth, which is helping drive polarization. People just vote for their favorite team, and because of gridlock, people win based on what they say. If they start actually doing unpopular things, that could change who people actually vote for.
Read 4 tweets
Nov 6, 2021
I chatted with @JENFL23 the other day about UBI, MMT, ranked-choice voting, the @Fwd_Party, and about incentives in general and how what @AndrewYang is trying to do is to get people excited about reforming systems with reforms that don't typically excite.

Getting people excited about the possibility of starting to receive $1,000 a month is a lot easier than getting people excited about the prospect of being able to vote for more than one candidate, and ranking them to convey preferences. But the former may just require the latter.
To those not steeped in politics, especially those turned off by it, it's really challenging to get people excited about reforming a process they aren't interested in, but we need to try, and that's what Yang is attempting to do. He's trying to mobilize the disengaged.
Read 6 tweets
Oct 21, 2021
We must break out of our current understanding of taxing to spend that limits our ability to spend, when the only real limits we have are our real capacity limits. The issue isn't lack of money. It's what to do in addition to spending to manage inflation.

vocal.media/theSwamp/why-w… Image
We are watching what happens in real-time of this belief that we can't somehow afford $3.5 trillion in spending, despite being our own currency issuer. Means-tested stuff gets more means-tested. Stuff gets axed. Other stuff expires faster. It's the wrong discussion to be having.
We shouldn't be arguing over what to save and what to cut and what to trim. The debate should be on how to best design the programs, and then how to best manage the impacts of that spending on the economy. What kind and amount of taxes? How to best improve supply chain issues?
Read 4 tweets
Oct 11, 2021
67% of over 1,000 Americans surveyed in new poll support #UBI. Support was strongest among Democrats (82%), Gen Z (79%), Finance and Insurance (71%), non-college grads (71%), and those earning under $25,000 (77%).

skynova.com/blog/what-woul… Image
The top benefit of UBI according to those surveyed was that it would decrease both poverty and inequality, and help those with poor health and disabilities.

The top concerns were that it would reduce the incentive to work and increase the national debt by costing too much. Image
When asked how people would use their UBI, most people said they'd save it for retirement, or save it for emergencies, or buy groceries, or pay off debt.

GenZ with the strongest support for UBI is the most likely to pay off student loan debt with it.

13% would buy a house. 🏡 Image
Read 5 tweets
Oct 9, 2021
We just ran a huge unemployment experiment. Half the states reduced UI, it didn't increase employment compared to the states that kept UI. Then the UI expired and it didn't increase employment. Obviously UI isn't the issue but they REALLY want to force people to accept low wages.
These people want so badly to exploit others for their own benefit, that they don't seem to see that they're making things worse for themselves too. You can't cut incomes in a consumer economy and expect employment to rocket up. Consumer spending is what fuels our economy.
If we want to increase employment, we need to realize a pandemic still exists, and that's the main issue to tackle. We also need to make sure everyone has money to spend, and that they can afford things like child care to make employment make sense.

We should also automate more.
Read 6 tweets
Sep 13, 2021
I've never spent longer writing anything than I have writing this article. I'm excited today to finally present to you my explanation of why we need Modern Monetary Theory (#MMT) and why it needs Universal Basic Income (#UBI).


#longreads @StephanieKelton Image
Targeting does nothing but create unnecessary bureaucracy, stigma, and holes for people in need to fall through. Pay 'em all and let taxes sort 'em out. Utilizing taxation instead of means-testing as a tool to shape policy leads to better outcomes with fewer errors of exclusion. Image
When it comes to federal policies, going from "can we pay for it?" to "can we resource it?" is the mindset shift needed to achieve a human-centered eco-friendly resource-based economy built with a mindset of abundance on a foundation of human rights.

vocal.media/theSwamp/why-w… #MMT Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!