The origins of the seven-day week, its biblical roots and the balance between work and rest are shared by author Mark Gerson, who says modern studies support the idea of a productivity ceiling.
Volunteering and child-rearing doesn’t really build a mansion or yacht now does it?
How much volunteer work is necessary only because the agencies that should have and would have done those things have been shut down to fund tax cuts for the rich?
Or even more directly because the problems being addressed are a direct consequence of government policies instituted solely to benefit a handful of wealthy donors?
How many of those programs would even need to exist if more people volunteered… voluntarily? Wouldn’t have needed to tax people from the get-go. Let alone tax people then tax cut for the rich.
Why should ordinary people already burdened with responsibilities donate their precious time and energy just so that some rich fucks can hang on to even more of the wealth they neither need nor deserve?
Yes spite your local community and the people around you to shake your fist at the rich people who live nowhere near you!
How dare they do something somewhere else!
Meanwhile dumbfucks like me bike/walk their community and clean up the parks on a pretty consistent basis so that we don’t have to pay some company (that’s inevitably owned by a rich person mind you) to contract with the HOA and do some menial task. WOE IS ME! THE SHAME! How dare I help my community!
Edit: Your mentality is that if you let your community suffer, you refuse to volunteer and do nothing at all… that you might happen to get more taxes to “fix” the issues that volunteers could have handled. So this drives up tax costs… Just for ~325 people (or less if local government) in government to figure out a way to alter and move that money into their pockets. Could have just stopped the money flow from the get-go and kept it in your pocket.
I didn’t change the topic at all though did I? I stated one thing which was that the stated stuff in the article doesn’t necessarily make the rich richer… and implied heavily that it could even make them poorer… since you know… taking time away from actual jobs to do the things that the religious nutters are recommending in this article would meet the criteria.
But you see… the lemmy hivemind can’t comprehend that nuance. So here we are. People blaming me for something that I never said.
It’s funny, apparently your elementary school didn’t teach you all that much either did they? Would seem that I chose to phrase it that way on purpose since… well… you know it’s weird to put the terms next to each other like that right? Might lead a reader to actually think about the concepts and infer some meanings that the author might have been trying to impart.
But that’s okay. You’ll do better next time!
But here, let me barney style it for you. If you work for a living… and have to pay taxes for a service that’s occurring rather than volunteering and handling it yourself, you are in a sense volunteering… in an involuntary manner, your pay to pay for that service!
Your apologetics is unbecoming. The article is intentionally written to promote the notion that a 40-hour work week is unbiblical, and the line you’ve cited is included to give plausible deniability to anyone who says otherwise.
If you take into account any “activity [that] is demanding, consistent and productive” most people are already “working” way more than 55 hours a week, especially if they’re a parent. To suggest otherwise is profoundly ignorant or disingenuous. This suggests an ulterior motive: begin manufacturing consent to get rid of weekly work hour limits.
Negative. Opposite intention… It takes more than 15 hours a week to raise a child properly. I would argue this is a good stance to reduce the workload on people as far as “jobs” go.
You don’t need to argue random bullshit. Take their argument, and take it to the logical extreme. Done. Now they have to admit that the 40 hour work-week for jobs is excessive.
Edit: Basically make the looney religious nuts eat their words… in case that wasn’t clear.
You took the rage bait. You took their article to mean something when you can easily make it mean EXACTLY what your point is. You’re just too into arguing with random people on the internet to realize it.
Someone didn’t read the article before taking the rage-bait!
Volunteering and child-rearing doesn’t really build a mansion or yacht now does it?
How much volunteer work is necessary only because the agencies that should have and would have done those things have been shut down to fund tax cuts for the rich?
Or even more directly because the problems being addressed are a direct consequence of government policies instituted solely to benefit a handful of wealthy donors?
How many of those programs would even need to exist if more people volunteered… voluntarily? Wouldn’t have needed to tax people from the get-go. Let alone tax people then tax cut for the rich.
Why should ordinary people already burdened with responsibilities donate their precious time and energy just so that some rich fucks can hang on to even more of the wealth they neither need nor deserve?
Yes spite your local community and the people around you to shake your fist at the rich people who live nowhere near you!
How dare they do something somewhere else!
Meanwhile dumbfucks like me bike/walk their community and clean up the parks on a pretty consistent basis so that we don’t have to pay some company (that’s inevitably owned by a rich person mind you) to contract with the HOA and do some menial task. WOE IS ME! THE SHAME! How dare I help my community!
Edit: Your mentality is that if you let your community suffer, you refuse to volunteer and do nothing at all… that you might happen to get more taxes to “fix” the issues that volunteers could have handled. So this drives up tax costs… Just for ~325 people (or less if local government) in government to figure out a way to alter and move that money into their pockets. Could have just stopped the money flow from the get-go and kept it in your pocket.
Funny how you changed the topic from an arm of the corporate media haranguing people to volunteer to people freely choosing to volunteer…
I didn’t change the topic at all though did I? I stated one thing which was that the stated stuff in the article doesn’t necessarily make the rich richer… and implied heavily that it could even make them poorer… since you know… taking time away from actual jobs to do the things that the religious nutters are recommending in this article would meet the criteria.
But you see… the lemmy hivemind can’t comprehend that nuance. So here we are. People blaming me for something that I never said.
You know what a job is though right?
Volunteered voluntarily? You should go back and finish elementary school.
Yay ad hominem!
It’s funny, apparently your elementary school didn’t teach you all that much either did they? Would seem that I chose to phrase it that way on purpose since… well… you know it’s weird to put the terms next to each other like that right? Might lead a reader to actually think about the concepts and infer some meanings that the author might have been trying to impart.
But that’s okay. You’ll do better next time!
But here, let me barney style it for you. If you work for a living… and have to pay taxes for a service that’s occurring rather than volunteering and handling it yourself, you are in a sense volunteering… in an involuntary manner, your pay to pay for that service!
HUZZAH! Almost like words can have meaning!
I love how condescending you’re trying to be!
I return what I get.
Your apologetics is unbecoming. The article is intentionally written to promote the notion that a 40-hour work week is unbiblical, and the line you’ve cited is included to give plausible deniability to anyone who says otherwise.
If you take into account any “activity [that] is demanding, consistent and productive” most people are already “working” way more than 55 hours a week, especially if they’re a parent. To suggest otherwise is profoundly ignorant or disingenuous. This suggests an ulterior motive: begin manufacturing consent to get rid of weekly work hour limits.
Negative. Opposite intention… It takes more than 15 hours a week to raise a child properly. I would argue this is a good stance to reduce the workload on people as far as “jobs” go.
You don’t need to argue random bullshit. Take their argument, and take it to the logical extreme. Done. Now they have to admit that the 40 hour work-week for jobs is excessive.
Edit: Basically make the looney religious nuts eat their words… in case that wasn’t clear.
Is your reading comprehension ok?
That’s MY point
So you agree that what you wrote in your original comment is a bullshit defense of a bullshit article?
Yours clearly isn’t.
You took the rage bait. You took their article to mean something when you can easily make it mean EXACTLY what your point is. You’re just too into arguing with random people on the internet to realize it.
Y’all are crazy.