5 ms·

>> The most prominent example is playing instruments. Like half of kids learn to play an instrument at some point, but hardly any of them keep up with it when t

>> The most prominent example is playing instruments. Like half of kids learn to play an instrument at some point, but hardly any of them keep up with it when they are adults. Why do you think so many fail to keep up with an instrument as an adult? Oh that's right, upon entering adulthood we figure out that we have to dump 40+ hours into earning pennies while the company we work for earns millions. Earning even a basic income is the real time sink. What most people do all day long, at least 5 days a week, is the real busywork. Society would be much improved if every adult spent a good chunk of their time in the arts. Yet we continue to pretend that if every adult doesn't spend 40 hours doing corporate busywork that the economy would fall apart.

chii 11y ago
Who's going to clean the toilets, wash the dishes and plant the food, of everybody is just doing the arts?
- jackvalentine 11y ago
  Who said its a binary choice? Quite a lot of jobs have loads of empty hours useless to you and the company that would be better spent elsewhere.
- lmm 11y ago
  There's not 40 hours/week/person worth of that kind of thing that needs doing. I'm not saying no-one should be working, but a France-style cap of 35 or 28 hours a week would be a good move.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Farming used to be a farmer for every four or five people. Now its more like 1:1000. That's been automated to an extreme. Service industry is hard to automate - though we've done a good start with the dishwasher. Only 1 fulltime guy needed for every 100 people or so? That's pretty good progress. So yeah, we'll always need folks for services. And we'll have to pay them well in future! That's seems a pretty good future to me.
- riskable 11y ago
  You're asking the wrong question. Here's the real one: Who's going to pay for everyone else to have free time? That's really what you're implying here: It's an underlying theme stemming from the assumption that we must have an economy based solely on the output of individuals. What if all economic output comes from machines doing all the work? Why would people clean toilets or wash dishes if they didn't have to? Wouldn't their time be better spent on their hobbies (e.g. art)?
  - chii 11y ago
    > What if all economic output comes from machines doing all the work? If that were the case, then you're saying we abolish property ownership? Because i don't see how else can everyone benefit in such a system.
    - riskable 11y ago
      I honestly have no idea how it would work or even if it could work. For all I know as wealth concentrates towards the owners of automation our society could collapse and we all end up stuck in a perpetual agrarian society with no easily accessible energy source or metals to ever get advanced technology ever again. The only way out that I see is something like Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) along with socialized medicine. Everyone gets a handout from the government that's enough to live a decent life. Food and shelter could be free; which would make sense if agriculture is 100% automated (why let all the profits and control be saddled into only a handful of people?). Then everyone that wants to can compete for making more money via their passions and hobbies or, for the few that can do it, actual work/employment.
  - developer2 11y ago
    Regarding machines, we already have that example set in stone. The explosion of computers in the 90's had many thinking we'd have to work less hours because so many office tasks would be finished far more quickly. Of course that didn't happen; the efficiency gain just meant we piled more work on every person who's job was made easier by a computer. In cases where there wasn't enough work to keep the existing number of employees busy, we laid people off and had fewer people working for the company performing the same amount of work (or more). The number of hours expected of an employee is hardcoded for employers. Whether it's 20-something hours or 40 hours depending on your region, this is essentially a fixed number that will probably never change.

chii 11y ago

Who's going to clean the toilets, wash the dishes and plant the food, of everybody is just doing the arts?

jackvalentine 11y ago
Who said its a binary choice? Quite a lot of jobs have loads of empty hours useless to you and the company that would be better spent elsewhere.
lmm 11y ago
There's not 40 hours/week/person worth of that kind of thing that needs doing. I'm not saying no-one should be working, but a France-style cap of 35 or 28 hours a week would be a good move.
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Farming used to be a farmer for every four or five people. Now its more like 1:1000. That's been automated to an extreme. Service industry is hard to automate - though we've done a good start with the dishwasher. Only 1 fulltime guy needed for every 100 people or so? That's pretty good progress. So yeah, we'll always need folks for services. And we'll have to pay them well in future! That's seems a pretty good future to me.
riskable 11y ago
You're asking the wrong question. Here's the real one: Who's going to pay for everyone else to have free time? That's really what you're implying here: It's an underlying theme stemming from the assumption that we must have an economy based solely on the output of individuals. What if all economic output comes from machines doing all the work? Why would people clean toilets or wash dishes if they didn't have to? Wouldn't their time be better spent on their hobbies (e.g. art)?
- chii 11y ago
  > What if all economic output comes from machines doing all the work? If that were the case, then you're saying we abolish property ownership? Because i don't see how else can everyone benefit in such a system.
  - riskable 11y ago
    I honestly have no idea how it would work or even if it could work. For all I know as wealth concentrates towards the owners of automation our society could collapse and we all end up stuck in a perpetual agrarian society with no easily accessible energy source or metals to ever get advanced technology ever again. The only way out that I see is something like Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) along with socialized medicine. Everyone gets a handout from the government that's enough to live a decent life. Food and shelter could be free; which would make sense if agriculture is 100% automated (why let all the profits and control be saddled into only a handful of people?). Then everyone that wants to can compete for making more money via their passions and hobbies or, for the few that can do it, actual work/employment.
- developer2 11y ago
  Regarding machines, we already have that example set in stone. The explosion of computers in the 90's had many thinking we'd have to work less hours because so many office tasks would be finished far more quickly. Of course that didn't happen; the efficiency gain just meant we piled more work on every person who's job was made easier by a computer. In cases where there wasn't enough work to keep the existing number of employees busy, we laid people off and had fewer people working for the company performing the same amount of work (or more). The number of hours expected of an employee is hardcoded for employers. Whether it's 20-something hours or 40 hours depending on your region, this is essentially a fixed number that will probably never change.