I find that extremely difficult to analyze. The working ethos of people of a nation tends to be heterogeneous, I suspect by religious, climatic, geological and social conditions. Compulsory education is a very big influencing factor here. If you missed one or more days in school, you would have a guilty conscience, a fear of missing something important. There was something reprehensible about staying away from school out of laziness or unwillingness. One endangered one's grades, etc.
I think that school time is very much a habit in later adult life, and that lack of work and recognition of labour should feel similar to school. I suspect that in earlier agricultural societies, before industrialisation, the absence from work automatically showed the consequences, for example because the harvest suffered or the cows in the barn got a milk jam. Natural consequences are much easier to understand than artificial ones. The sequence of the artificial consequences often takes place in time shifts and is more difficult to comprehend.
The incentive to obtain value through work is certainly different from person to person. I think this may be due to the consequences that someone felt naturally or artificially, or his interpretation of them.
Work, as you also mention, is not just gainful employment, but everything that has to do with human activity. I think that the choice of gainful employment alone as an incentive to do something is an error. One may achieve the greatest productivity here and the most material wealth, but very probably it makes us psychologically very vulnerable.
So it may seem that the materially saturated have an advantage. But we know that this is only a supposed advantage. Saturation has long been reached at a certain level and everything beyond that is superfluous.
I'm sorry, I didn't watch the film as you suggested. I might make up for that. I probably didn't pick up your own thread either, but just threw some of my thoughts into it.
No, you did understand what I meant, and I completely agree. That's worth. I thanks precisely that this is something difficult, very difficult, to analyze, because that way we don't have anyone who thinks is a god and wants to control such variables.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Thank you, @vieira.
... you are right. There is no controlling from a single persons perspective with all the variables.
I start to dislike and avoid all those simple and straightforward talks about society/politics. .. Luxury of getting old. ;-)
Got kind of lonely here on steemit, doesn't it?
They are luxuries of living in a stable country.
So... I would not say that, but maybe.
On the other hand, I think that all kind of topics are good.
Although I mistakenly used the same words as blank canvas, I meant something completely different. It is the short-sighted talk, born out of anger or ignorance, of people who believe that with strong words and a strong hand everything necessary is said and can be achieved.
No, not a luxury just because of a stable situation, but the mixture of material abundance, the contemplation of one's own family past, the mistakes of youth and the experiences of social work that give me a thorough insight into my society.
From my point of view it needs high skills to talk about politics and society in a way which does not lead to fruitless discussions. Which, from my observation, it does in most of the times.
Your texts are an exception, I find. I mean it.