Less Work; More Free?

[KropotkinKomrade]

Money buys a portion of lifetime in the form of wages and salaries. The extent of this portion is determined by how inexpensively one is willing to live. The less financial obligations one has, the more free time is available because the need to work is lessened. (Work is not inherently bad, but employment is inherently exploitative).

Does working less (in the form of employment) mean living more freely?

What are some clever ways to live inexpensively and perhaps more freely?

[Spawn of Stalin]

I definitely feel more free when I'm unemployed. Unfortunately I also feel more hungry, not to mention bored.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Money buys a portion of lifetime in the form of wages and salaries. The extent of this portion is determined by how inexpensively one is willing to live. The less financial obligations one has, the more free time is available because the need to work is lessened. (Work is not inherently bad, but employment is inherently exploitative).

Does working less (in the form of employment) mean living more freely?

What are some clever ways to live inexpensively and perhaps more freely?If you have a choice between the two - all else being equal, go for the money. Being poor sucks - you end up spending more money, and don't have a stable life so all that extra free-time from not working ends up being spent at laundry-mats, public transportation depots, traffic-court, and 6 hour sessions in the free-clinic's waiting room.

[FreeFocus]

Working less might make you feel more free in the short-term, but the reality is that you're being ensnared by capitalism even more. You'll be further in debt and things will crumble. It's not a wise choice to opt for working less when those are the results.

[KropotkinKomrade]

Living inexpensively does not entail being impoverished. One can still work just enough to afford necessary expenses such as health insurance, rent or mortgage payments, food, and be able to save some money. One can also choose to forgo unnecessary expenses such as eating out, going to bars and movies, coffee, cigarettes, new clothes, and other unessential costs. One can still enjoy life and be social without "going out" in the sense of spending money.

This does not require one to go into debt. Debt is perhaps modern slavery, more or less.

For example... owning a car has many expenses; insurance and gas are fairly inescapable, parking and repairs are other possible expenses you might incur. If you live within 5 miles of the place you work, (granted many do not, but also many do), you do not need to own a car because you can just ride a bike. By not owning a car, you can save yourself perhaps $1000 or more annually.

There are many ways to live inexpensively, and thus be able to work less.

[FreeFocus]

I'm all for cutting out wasteful spending like cigarettes/alcohol/drugs and stuff (and indeed I roll my eyes when people blow money on this and then turn around and talk about "tough times"), but not having a car, especially if you live outside of cities with a good transportation system, is a serious hassle. I agree that living inexpensively is not the same as being impoverished. But still, having a little bit more free time is not the same as not living under the boot of capitalism.

This should be encouraged (saving money is always a good thing, and more free time allows you to do more productive things), but it isn't a replacement for a solid anti-capitalist program, which we should be clear about.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I like this, OC!

Personally, I make a direct link between money and labor time which means that for every $6.25 I waste, I have to work an hour. Also, I'm capped at making $1k a month. This has the following effect. First, I tend to buy things mostly out of need and not want. For example, I do not go to a mall to see if I like anything. I tend to go to the dollar store to find what I need such as a toothbrush (6 for $1). If I do happen to see something I want while I'm out or want to do something expensive for fun, I make the direct relationship between money and labor time. So, if I want roast pork, rice and beans, and yucca for $7.48 from the PR restaurant down the road, I ask myself, "Is this meal worth me working a little over an hour for it?" In the prior example, I think it is sometimes, especially since the servings are large enough for three meals. However, when considering more expensive dinners such as at Gloria Estefan's Bongos where a ropa vieja can easily cost $15 (aka 2.4 hours of my labor time) for some shit that I can make better at home for less than hour of labor time? And on top of that I have to pay tip? Fuck that.

In response to your question regarding working less for more freedom, once I graduate, I plan to find a teaching job at a university so I can work nine months out of the year. Winter breaks and summer vacations will be my life. Plus, teaching 4 classes a semester isn't much work at all if you enjoy it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Living inexpensively does not entail being impoverished. One can still work just enough to afford necessary expenses such as health insurance, rent or mortgage payments, food, and be able to save some money.Please do tell, I've been struggling for over 10 years and don't believe most people have the "luxury" to decided to "live inexpensively or not" - about 50% of my income goes to paying for my apartment (which is about average for a low-rent apartment), I take public transportation everywhere, have no health coverage and haven't seen a doctor since the twin towers were standing. If I had the luxury to choose, I'd take the money and less time because having more money would bring a lot more stability into my life which would in turn make everything else easier.


One can also choose to forgo unnecessary expenses such as eating out, going to bars and movies, coffee, cigarettes, new clothes, and other unessential costs. One can still enjoy life and be social without "going out" in the sense of spending money.Again, that's not really much of a choice for a lot of people. With a steady rise in the rate of exploitation in this country (lower wages or more work for the same wages) and wage stagnation for a generation, immigrants in my neighborhood don't go to thrift stores because it's trendy or they are trying to cut back - it's all that they can do to keep up.

I make about $1,200 a month and may part of the rent is $572. That may seem like then I have $600 to spend, but we get paid twice a month, so when I pay the rent then I have no money for part of the month, or, if I had some left over from the previous month, I have to buy food and pay bills with that and then I've already spent my next paycheck before I even get it.

I'm not struggling as bad as many people are and I'm not and starving myself or wearing rags, the non-rent money does allow me to go out and spend some money on non-essentials, but it's also not enough to save up in any meaningful way. I try and keep a cushion of one whole months rent in may savings at all times, but that has basically become my "credit" to myself. Invariably, whenever I get a little ahead something happens like a tooth cavity or an appliance breaks or whatnot and I have to spend what I have saved on some emergency.


This does not require one to go into debt. Debt is perhaps modern slavery, more or less. It's like being an American Serf: we don't have a noble who controls us, we have a bank and credit card debt because so many of us have to live paycheck to paycheck. It's like I'd almost rather work for my landlord for 2 weeks rather than having 2 weeks worth of my wages go right into his pocket each month.

I never had credit card debt or any debts until I got laid off for 6 months. It took me years to recover from 6 months of that. It's possible to "live" cheaply, but frankly it kinds of pisses me off because for most people, it's not a choice.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I actually think I partially disagree with what I said before, I'm not more free when I'm unemployed at all because as I said before, being unemployed is boring, because there is fuck all to do. I have a pretty decent job, I work 40 hours a week which earns me around £350 after tax, I work a bunch of overtime which is time and a half or double time on weekends, plus bonuses. Now thinking back to the days when I was living on £50 a week JSA, I definitely have a lot more freedom now, I can spend money on expensive things on a whim and it doesn't mean shit because I'm never more than 7 days away from payday, I can take my girl out to dinner a couple times a week, I can go on holiday. I know this is a pretty superficial view of "freedom", but those things which I can do, people in the dole queue can't, the only freedom they have that I don't is the freedom to get out of bed whenever they want. And as somebody else mentioned, being in debt (which I would argue most unemployed people are) is the complete opposite of freedom, I'm 100% debt free, the only bills I have to pay are gas, electricity, water and rent, I have about as much freedom as anyone can reasonably expect under capitalism, and it's because I have a job. Being poor sucks, living on the cheap is okay but only if you choose to do it, being forced to live on the cheap because you are unemployed is extremely degrading and depressing.

[KropotkinKomrade]

It appears that having money equates to being more free, because not only do you not spend all your time working, but you also have more options in terms of what you then do with your time.

Radically cutting your expenses means having more discretionary income. For example, my rent is $200 a month, utilities included because I live with six people in a three bedroom house. We have a garden, and we grow about 1/6 of the vegetables we consume. I am on food stamps, as are four of my roommates. We each get $200 a month on food stamp debit cards, that's $1000 a month for food for our house. Minimum wage is $8.50 in Oregon. If I work 20 hours a week, that's $170 a week, about $140 after taxes, and roughly $560 a month. $200 goes to rent and utilities, my food needs are usually covered by my $200 food stamp allotment, I don't go out to eat, about $35 a month to buy supplies to brew 5 gallons of beer, and maybe $50 in miscellaneous expenses. Still I'm left with $275 to save each month working only 20 hours a week. In order to do this I give up having my own room, and receive social stigma for being on food stamps, but it's worth it because I work half as much as most people and still manage to save.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It appears that having money equates to being more free, because not only do you not spend all your time working, but you also have more options in terms of what you then do with your time.

Radically cutting your expenses means having more discretionary income. For example, my rent is $200 a month, utilities included because I live with six people in a three bedroom house. We have a garden, and we grow about 1/6 of the vegetables we consume. I am on food stamps, as are four of my roommates. We each get $200 a month on food stamp debit cards, that's $1000 a month for food for our house. Minimum wage is $8.50 in Oregon. If I work 20 hours a week, that's $170 a week, about $140 after taxes, and roughly $560 a month. $200 goes to rent and utilities, my food needs are usually covered by my $200 food stamp allotment, I don't go out to eat, about $35 a month to buy supplies to brew 5 gallons of beer, and maybe $50 in miscellaneous expenses. Still I'm left with $275 to save each month working only 20 hours a week. In order to do this I give up having my own room, and receive social stigma for being on food stamps, but it's worth it because I work half as much as most people and still manage to save.

Again, I just find this logic to be a little offensive considering 25-50% unemployment for urban black males, unemployment for youth in general. Are poor and underemployed black kids in Oakland "more free" than the yuppies gentrifying their communities? No it seems like the more money and the higher position you have in this society, the more free you are. In the bay area, it's yuppies I see sitting in coffee shops all day and going out for long lunches and working at their own pace because they are professionals and treated more like humans that the working-poor. In addition, numerous studies have come out recently demonstrating that the poorer you are, the more expenses you have... people living paycheck to paycheck can't afford to stock up on food and so they spend more that if they had more money and went bulk shopping at costco or something, the poor are targeted more for traffic infractions and parking tickets, the poor are slapped with more banking fines and credit card penalties than people who are better off. I think most banks allow free banking if you keep over $1,000-1,500 in the bank - they charge a "service fee" if you keep less.

The poor get the shit-end of the stick in this society and so people "choosing" to be working-poor is just kind of insulting considering the economic context we find ourselves in right now.

Well maybe it's regional too - Oregon has the 2nd highest minimum wage in the country and a very low cost of living. A one bedroom apartment in Oakland is about $1,000/month on the low-end - much higher in San Francisco.

But on your above plan, what happens if your heater breaks, you slip and break a leg? $275 would cover medical expenses?

[ev]

This is a capitalist society, capital is money, money is freedom, the elites with the most money are essentially free, we work for them, they shit on us..

[Spawn of Stalin]

It appears that having money equates to being more free, because not only do you not spend all your time working, but you also have more options in terms of what you then do with your time.

Radically cutting your expenses means having more discretionary income. For example, my rent is $200 a month, utilities included because I live with six people in a three bedroom house. We have a garden, and we grow about 1/6 of the vegetables we consume. I am on food stamps, as are four of my roommates. We each get $200 a month on food stamp debit cards, that's $1000 a month for food for our house. Minimum wage is $8.50 in Oregon. If I work 20 hours a week, that's $170 a week, about $140 after taxes, and roughly $560 a month. $200 goes to rent and utilities, my food needs are usually covered by my $200 food stamp allotment, I don't go out to eat, about $35 a month to buy supplies to brew 5 gallons of beer, and maybe $50 in miscellaneous expenses. Still I'm left with $275 to save each month working only 20 hours a week. In order to do this I give up having my own room, and receive social stigma for being on food stamps, but it's worth it because I work half as much as most people and still manage to save.

The thing is, freedom from (full time) work has little to do with happiness. Sure, you might have five gallons of home brew, but what else are you left with? You work 20 hours, which averages out at 4 a day across the working week, you sleep for 8 hours, so what are you going to do with the 12 hours you're left with? Keeping in mind you have little money and are on food stamps, it's just depressing. I assume you won't be able to afford to buy many books to keep you occupied, or cable TV, you also won't be able to afford to spend much time on the phone, and whenever you leave the house you're almost always limited to free activities. What is your reasoning behind this anyway? Do you really think that having an additional 20 hours a week to sit around and do nothing makes you more free than everyone else? I mean it's entirely up to you, work is voluntary after all, but there is a good reason why most people choose to work as many hours as possible, it does lead to a better life. And hey, you have zero freedoms anyway.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

"Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks." - Karls Marx

[Jimmie Higgins]

I can totally understand wanting more free-time and wanting to work as little as possible and I think if it were the 1960s, that would be more possible (and why the Hippies were able to live off of panhandling and piling up into a house together) but since the 1970s, the rate of exploitation has increased to such a point that many people are not even able to get a 40 hour 9-5 job. More often people are working as temps, service workers and given 25 hours and week and then have to take another part-time job or two (or sell drugs) to make ends meet.

EDIT: so if you work part time, it's very hard to survive in the long-term (more prone to illness, debt, and economic-related stress) but if you have a more full-time job, they expect you to "take your work home," and put in extra effort because "you're just lucky to have the job" - basically they are putting us into competition with each-other to squeeze-out surplus value while making us think it's all our voluntary choice to work harder for less.

So really, as workers, we're screwed either way as long as the bosses set the terms and unless we resist this individual economic competition and fight collectivity to set more humane terms at work.

[gorillafuck]

People who work more generally work more because they need the money, not because they're luxurious.

[Political_Chucky]

I've been living off unemployment just to survive for the past 6 months. I have more time, but I end up spending more money sometimes and its not anymore free then if I did have a job. :( My life seems broken now.

[KropotkinKomrade]

“Labour” by its very nature is unfree, unhuman, unsocial activity, determined by private property and creating private property. – Marx

Work under capitalism is unfree, but I don’t believe that work (productive activity) is fundamentally bad, and neither did Marx. Like Marx, I believe that our true human nature, our species-being, our self-actualization, is comprised of two essential human characteristics; our social relationships, and our productive activity.

“Human productive activity is social in nature. This is true in a number of different respects. Much of what we produce is produced with other people either directly or indirectly. We produce with other people directly when we work with them to produce a particular good. We produce with other people indirectly when we use the products of their labor in producing goods ourselves…

Human beings find productive activity intrinsically satisfying. In part this is because productive activity allows us to develop and exercise our capacities, faculties, and abilities. Central to Marx’s account of human nature is the notion that human beings are not slugs. We enjoy work that challenges and stimulates us to more effectively produce better products. And, when we can do work of this sort, we prefer work to rest. Indeed, the forms of recreation we most enjoy—when we are not entirely tired out— also challenge and stimulates us… Human productive activity is also intrinsically satisfying because it transforms our environment, making what is sometimes a difficult natural habitat into a partly human creation, one that is both fitted to us and our own…”
Marc Stier Marx’s Theory of Human Nature: Alienation and Productive Activity

Not only are proper social relationships necessary in terms of productive activity, but also in terms of a sense of belonging and self-actualization. We need community in our life. Community supports our social needs and stimulates us to better ourselves.

So what do I do with an extra 20 hours a week not spent doing alienating work? I like to spend that time with my community doing productive activities like growing food, or challenging myself to be better. I wish that I could spend all of my time with my community doing productive activities that provide us with enough to survive. Perhaps it is still possible.