3 ms·

Right - that's the point. The jobs which actually need to be done in order for us to feed and clothes ourselves are increasingly done by machines. In some case

Right - that's the point. The jobs which actually need to be done in order for us to feed and clothes ourselves are increasingly done by machines. In some cases overseas labour is cheaper than automation, but we're still progressing there. As a result, because we're clinging to the idea that a person shouldn't eat unless they perform labour, we have to invent more and more categories of employment which become less and less essential - basically, people work in luxury sectors. I don't think we've quite reached the point at which the world can spin without unskilled labour, but I do think we can now afford to compensate it appropriately, and I think that giving the lower classes negotiation power via the basic income is the best way to achieve that.

baddox 11y ago
> because we're clinging to the idea that a person shouldn't eat unless they perform labour I don't understand this way of phrasing the argument. Do people really "cling" to this idea? It sounds equivalent to saying "we're still clinging to the idea that a person shouldn't be in good physical shape unless they exercise and eat well." I don't think many people cling to these ideas in an ethical sense, as if it would be immoral to be healthy without exercising or wealthy without working [0]. The ideas are just reflections of the actual state of the world, even though it might suck. I'd certainly rather be healthy without exercising and wealthy without working, but I don't expect or demand a forceful restructuring of society to satisfy my wishes. [0] Actually, now that I think of it, many people even in this thread do condemn people who become wealthy without working. It's perhaps somewhat ironic.
- stegosaurus 11y ago
  The distinction is that trading labour for money/capital is a creation of society. It's not a natural rule. There are gatekeepers. I can't simply decide to go out and kill some wild animals or whatever and eat, and I can't decide to chop trees down and build a house. Getting a job is not a simple matter of just deciding to do it. By contrast, eating well is, aside from in cases of poverty, completely a matter of free choice.
  - baddox 11y ago
    I don't see that contrast at all. You just said you can't decide to go out and kill wild animals to eat, then followed up by saying that what you eat is completely a matter of free choice.
    - stegosaurus 11y ago
      I'm going to leave this now as I suspect we're not likely to make further progress. Working a job for an employer in order to live is not immutable, people do cling to it - if you think we can't change that, we have nothing further to discuss.

baddox 11y ago

> because we're clinging to the idea that a person shouldn't eat unless they perform labour I don't understand this way of phrasing the argument. Do people really "cling" to this idea? It sounds equivalent to saying "we're still clinging to the idea that a person shouldn't be in good physical shape unless they exercise and eat well." I don't think many people cling to these ideas in an ethical sense, as if it would be immoral to be healthy without exercising or wealthy without working [0]. The ideas are just reflections of the actual state of the world, even though it might suck. I'd certainly rather be healthy without exercising and wealthy without working, but I don't expect or demand a forceful restructuring of society to satisfy my wishes. [0] Actually, now that I think of it, many people even in this thread do condemn people who become wealthy without working. It's perhaps somewhat ironic.

stegosaurus 11y ago
The distinction is that trading labour for money/capital is a creation of society. It's not a natural rule. There are gatekeepers. I can't simply decide to go out and kill some wild animals or whatever and eat, and I can't decide to chop trees down and build a house. Getting a job is not a simple matter of just deciding to do it. By contrast, eating well is, aside from in cases of poverty, completely a matter of free choice.
- baddox 11y ago
  I don't see that contrast at all. You just said you can't decide to go out and kill wild animals to eat, then followed up by saying that what you eat is completely a matter of free choice.
  - stegosaurus 11y ago
    I'm going to leave this now as I suspect we're not likely to make further progress. Working a job for an employer in order to live is not immutable, people do cling to it - if you think we can't change that, we have nothing further to discuss.