It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ATS Street View 09: Americans Live to Work

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:09 PM
Another week, another sacrifice on the bitter-cold streets of New York City, as our Street View team brings to the topics of ATS to the unsuspecting masses. This week, our team took inspiration from a thread by ATS member GeminiSky, titled: Do you feel like Having to Work is un-natural? In the intentional tourism hotspot of New York City, there seems to be sufficient evidence that most Americans work their tails-off and live to work, while the rest of the world views their bread-earning jobs as the enablement to live.

Standard definition version:

(click to open player in new window)

Watch in full HD

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:17 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Work is unnatural huh?

The Coyote gets out just before sunset and stays out till just before sun up to hunt for it's food in the bitter cold mountains of Nevada.

Ancient Man worked all day from sun up to sun down plowing fields and hunting for meat just so they could survive through the coming winters.

If you think it's unnatural, then explain to me how you're gonna eat, keep warm....

I've heard this theory before...And it's usually peddled by academics who have never really worked a day in their lives.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 22-2-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:19 PM
While I do not mind working, actually I do enjoy it, as long as it is something that I enjoy doing. On the other hand, and where I currently spend my day slaving away, my loyalty has been questioned many times. And, I always reply, loyalty is earned and not expected. I have learned over the years that most corporations truly do not care about their employees, that said, I never have any qualms in putting my employer on the back burner if there is something that myself or my family needs. As far as I am concerned, until corporations get it through their thick heads, that their people need a break, and quit putting expectations on them that the employee is at the employers beck and call 24/7 then productivity will increase. Also, corporate management skills suck. It is a real easy concept, if the management takes care of their people as their primary task, the people will take care of the mission.
edit on 22-2-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:21 PM
Good stuff guys and was pleased to see the British lady was the only one to point out family being more important than work.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:27 PM
Work is not unnatural; having a horribly unbalanced work-play ratio is unnatural.

As I explained in the original thread work only really feels unnatural when you aren't happy with what you're doing or to begin with at all. The 5-day/40 hour work week is about the only thing really unnatural about working, combine that with diminishing returns thanks to inflation/deflation people need to work more just to support their families.

When you are living for the weekend you aren't living your life, people need hobbies and free time to pursue them, we all need time to be able to fully analyze ourselves and our world to grow as people.

edit on 2/22/2011 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Good stuff guys and was pleased to see the British lady was the only one to point out family being more important than work.

That is all well and good, but the reality is that most people today have to work today in order to support that family, ideally it would be great if Mom could stay home and raise her children. I stayed home for 12 years and we were still able to buy a home and get by, wasn't always easy but worth it.

Excellent interview on the Street View as always, love these segments, short, sweet and to the point.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:39 PM

Originally posted by projectvxn

I've heard this theory before...And it's usually peddled by academics who have never really worked a day in their lives.

I object to your crass generalization of teachers, especially college professors. Most of them work their asses off -- I know because I was one. Most have to take hours after work everyday to grade papers and make lesson plans for the next day after spending hours in the classroom.

Teachers, and especially college instructors, are generally overworked and underpaid. Still, we are a group who live to work. Teaching is so rewarding that one doesn't mind the thought and effort it requires.

I get really angry, though, when I hear people saying that the modest, lower-middle-class salaries we receive are too high, and that we should have no right to bargain collectively. Just because we love our work we should not be penalized financially for it. It's not a coincidence that many of the most rewarding jobs, including social work, pay very little. Employers know we will work for love anyway and cash in by skimping on our salaries.
edit on 22-2-2011 by Sestias because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:52 PM
The thread on the subject, about if work is unnatural, had the space to discuss other models of society ie. the Venus Project type with equality, and shared work, volunteering. No one excluded and everyone having access to land and resources as was their birthright. This was not even brought up. Most are indoctrinated in this one model and don't even know its pure and utter slavery.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by Sestias

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Do you know what an academic is? Apparently not

Academics think they can live by theory. And they're surprised when it doesn't work out. I never said anything about teachers.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:32 PM
Yes work is still unnatural as we define it, for instance you mentioned faming as surving, is there alot of famers surving in NYC that farm?
Yes working for a living is unnatural, working for survival is natural, notice how it defined there was no illision
One always tries to manipulate a view, working for a living is a concept of society, if society collaspes are you still working for a living, If money concept collaspe due to poor government math skills, society operates from money, money collaspes society collaspes the grid collaspes, your living your work also collaspes your concept of living collaspes. The answer still remains no

When the power grid went off a few year back, everything came to a stand still. Society waa on a verge of collaspe. People could not work for a living is that natural? They had to find other means to survive which is natural. So working for a living is unnatural yes it is. Working for survival is natural yes it is.
Working for a living for a concept of society in lue of survival is natural, yes it is.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:38 PM
the question should have been phrased "Do you think the amount of time you spend working is unnatural?"

Because I do believe that working 50+ hours a week is...especially in this country with the increasingly sh**y jobs with sh**ier salaries, sh**ier benefits, and being stripped of holidays

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:48 PM
Funny how we are born sovereign and then the de facto gubmint wastes no time in depriving us of that birthright by forcing us to register a social security number so that we can be lifelong slaves to the IMF (international bankster gangsters). Forced income tax on your labor is unCONstitutional, people! Woodrow Wilson sold this country out in 1913 with the Federal Reserve aka IMF ("federal" my a**). Are you sick of working to live, yet?

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:05 PM

Who's ship we are all on ?

Who's Capital are we ?

Work has become a main occupation for a Human Being .

300 years ago in England , a person would of worked just over 180 days a year to pay for house , food , clothing and other essentials .

Today same person would have to work just over 230 days to pay for the same .

oh I almost forgot , I am not a person but I have a person .

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by

Another great production...and I am now used to the director's quirky second story shot(s). It's not often you see that in a "man on the street" shoot. Now, I see it as a signature. Well done to everyone.

I found this topic and the interviews, frankly, quite fascinating. Those interviewed were clearly reaching deep, it was obvious they had never asked these questions of themselves. I believe Jesse and D-Cin caused some epiphanies for the people interviewed in this production. This is the stuff from which Peabody Awards arise.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by djtek

the question should have been phrased "Do you think the amount of time you spend working is unnatural?"

Like I said in the other thread, it's excessive amounts of work forced upon people that is unnatural. Work it's self is completely natural. However, 5 days a week, 8 to 10 hours a day, is vastly excessive and only helps keep this overly glutenous economy on its feet.

edit on 22-2-2011 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by projectvxn

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Do you know what an academic is? Apparently not

Academics think they can live by theory. And they're surprised when it doesn't work out. I never said anything about teachers.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Academics... let's go dictionary:

ac·a·dem·ic   /ˌækəˈdɛmɪk/ Show Spelled
[ak-uh-dem-ik] Show IPA

1. of or pertaining to a college, academy, school, or other educational institution, especially one for higher education: academic requirements.


2. pertaining to areas of study that are not primarily vocational or applied, as the humanities or pure mathematics.

Sort of positive

3. theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.


4. learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality.


5. conforming to set rules, standards, or traditions; conventional: academic painting.

Positive if one likes that sort of thing (I don't)

6. acquired by formal education, especially at a college or university: academic preparation for the ministry.

Positive if one likes pulpits & dogma, negative if one doesn't

7. ( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to Academe or to the Platonic school of philosophy.

Meh...PhD's, BA's, BSA's. I'll touch on that later.

8. a student or teacher at a college or university.

Not a bad job, right? Well, perhaps not...

9. a person who is academic in background, attitudes, methods, etc.: He was by temperament an academic, concerned with books and the arts.

Negative or positive.

10. ( initial capital letter ) a person who supports or advocates the Platonic school of philosophy.

I hate repetition.

11. academics, the scholarly activities of a school or university, as classroom studies or research projects: more emphasis on academics and less on athletics.

OK... sure sounds negative, doesn't it? Yes it does. These people that get into that must be either come from extremely rich families who can afford to put them through 'further education' or they are complete fools for going so deep into debt that it'll take 25 years to get their collective heads above water again.

Hi... that's me. The dad who was encouraged by how well his two sons did that he pushed and provided for them both to go to universities. Of the two (who both made the grade), one actually thrived in academia and graduated 'with distinction'. Lovely term, eh? Well, it meant that he won a PhD scholarship to one of Canada's foremost universities and, boy, were those years ever hard on him, but he DID it. He has a PhD, published his thesis and looked upon the academic world for possible opportunities to work towards a full time job teaching, maybe even that holy grail... [color=gold]TENURE .

Yeah... right.

Here's reality, folks:

No-one can handle teaching more than between 8 and 10 classes a week. This is because prep time and marking papers, which is all done at home, takes a huge chunk of time. The pay is minimal, so 8-10 is about what you need to be able to have an apartment and a reasonable living. It varies city to city, college to university, of course;

No classes are more than 4 months at a time. They are contracts and can be dropped at any time by the college or university. You have to re-apply for every term and for each institution. You win some, you lose some, you'd better be ready for change 4 times a year.

One rarely gets all their courses set up at the same college or university and, often, they are in seperate cities. Commuting is a real pain AND costly.

One always has to be ready to move, as the next seies of classes could very well be a thousand miles away (or more).

Contract 'professors' are low paid compared to tenured staff, so financing a car and an apartment in a city may very well be a no-win situation. Buses and trains rule. The schedules had better fit or you're in trouble.

It has been my son's experience that he'd be better off working a steady 40hr/wk minimum wage job flipping burgers at a Micky Dee than he makes as a professor. And that's the bottom line.

Academia, while it's still viewed as the key to a better paying job somewhere, don't be fooled. The better jobs are gained by being trained in the 'Trades'. Go to college, learn to be a plumber or electrician, and you just might have a brighter future that those who focus on Academia. Butt-crack under a sink is the real flag of success.

Don't misunderstand me, though. It's the way it is because of economics. We still need academics simply because they are the one out of a thousand who will eventually become pillars of country and community. Would you trust Joe the plumber to be Chief Justice? Really?

Anyways... the system is stacked against academics today, and, imo, not worth all the time and effort it requires to attain that PhD. Leave it for the very wealthy kids. The ones that never need to work a day in their lives anyways. Win/win and life-long frat parties. Woot!

But, be very careful when you're talking to a lower middle class man or woman who fought all the way to a PhD. Don't be making him or her out to be a lazy so-and-so, because that's just not right. If you think it's so easy to pull off, then please prove it to me, because that's not what I saw over the 8 years it took my son. Not then and not now.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 22/2/11 by masqua because: sp

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:57 PM
First, I have to say that none of the people interviewed in the video actually answered THE QUESTION. They stepped around the question and rationalized it instead of really considering it. They also seemed to give half-assed answers... almost like telling themself/others what they wanted to hear.

OF COURSE, it's "natural" to work WITHIN our system. But looking at the entire course of human history and the lives of other species?


First though... we must define "natural" because it's one of those words that's thrown around quite loosely without clear definition. The way I'm using it (and I believe others mean to or should mean to use it) is considering whether humans are biologically, socially, mentally, spiritually, anthropologically driven to work. We must also define "work". Is this work IN GENERAL? Is this only work for a wage/salary? Does this include ANY kind of work towards ANYTHING? The manner in which this should be taken is humans working wage/salaried jobs to gain money to spend in the marketplace. With these definitions in mind... I must say that work is NOT inherently natural, but instead is a relatively recent cultural development which is REQUIRED in our civilization but not required for our species automatically or inevitably. We are a civilization which keeps things... all kinds of things... under lock and key. We have strong and rigid notions of property... we own things, money, land, animals, etc. This intense notion of ownership is completely ALIEN to say, tribal or band societies. For over 90% of modern human history, we did NOT work jobs, we did not NEED money, we did not OWN things, people did not OWN us, our time, or our labors. This is an ideal we have sadly lost in this machine of civilization which has taken us all for a ride... yet rarely does anybody really question where we're going and what we're riding in.... for it is a mindless self-serving system which does not necessarily cater to humans or ecosystems but rather requires that humans/ecosystems cater to IT. So OF COURSE, if you accept the reigning system/civilization and you are thinking WITHIN that paradigm then yes, work is "natural". But if you take a holistic view of reality, the world, the universe, humanity... then work is not natural... or at the very least is neither natural nor unnatural but merely is. In which case... I think deep down most people are dissatisfied with mandatory work and the monetary system.

Here are some pennies for the thoughts of those of you who believe we somehow have it 100% better today because we work sh*t jobs...

Medieval Peasants may have had more vacation time than the average American worker:

Egyptian slaves were actually kind of similar to modern workers:

Hunter-gatherer societies worked less than we do and their work was more like play:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:13 PM
Hey Guys,

Just came back Pretty surprised my thread got recognized but thank you nonetheless

Great video and keep up the good work!

Kind Regards,


posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:18 PM
Work is the most natural thing on earth. Every human and animal is working in one form or another most of the time.Our hobbies, our sports, our games all some form of work that leads to self improvement. Even in our sleep our subconscious is working to understand metabolize the day and recharge our bodies to work more.

I think NOT working is unnatural. And in my opinion modern society with its Television and other distractions that serve no purpose whatsoever and give no mental or physical reward is one of the most depressing things. Try going home from work,work to clean up, then work on a hobby for awhile instead of watching American Idol. You'll feel much better I would imagine because working IS natural.

Now if we're talking about working in the pure sense of a job to make money it is still natural but ignores the greater scope of the human tenancy to work.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:37 PM
I don't think working eight-hour days is natural and many Americans work longer than a 40 hour week. I think creativity should be natural and most Americans do not have the time to pursue their true interests. I believe Geminisky was referring to the mundane 40-hour work week. Does two days really seem to be enough time off? If people were so happy working 40 hour shifts, they wouldn't feel such exhilaration come Friday. OF course we all have to do something, but when it feels like work, it's unfulfulling. A lady from Peru told me that when her family cleaned, it was only, until noon "And that's it!"

If we knew what perfect balance in our lives felt like, I think many would be disappointed in the way they live their lives. There's really not a perfect balance, because we don't have a model yet of that balance and as a society, we have become so much more compartmentalized.

I don't think there is anything wrong with working for a goal, but there must be time off for creativity, because it's creativity that actually has given us so much.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in