9 ms·

Welcome to the Post-Work Economy

90 points by ALee 11y ago

seibelj 11y ago
The article is a chain of economic fallacies. > Modern economies are increasingly based around information. Information "wants to be free"—as the saying goes—but free things are bad for capitalism, because capitalism is about competition and making profits. Tons of companies are based on providing information. Even if the information is public, sorting it and providing it efficiently has real value (such as google). Others do their own private research and re-sell it. Capitalists use and contribute to open source software. This statement is absurd. > In time, technology is likely to drive many things to "zero marginal cost." Energy, for example, won't be subject to market forces. We'll just have a solar panel on the roof and each kilowatt hour will essentially be free. In this "energy is free" economy, who will be building and providing me with my free solar panels, and then installing and maintaining the electrical system in my home or business? What happens when it's cloudy? This whole article is like a undergraduate philosophy student who thinks he or she has the silver bullet for humanity, if only people would listen!
- c3534l 11y ago
  It's also using the word free in two different senses. Basically in the phrase "wants to be free" that's "free as in freedom, not as in beer." The meaning is that it's difficult to restrict the flow of information and you cannot reverse it. But then the author is claiming that information is free as in it doesn't cost anything. Then he's using the word information in two different ways, confusing "information economy" with data and then invoking some sort of magical osmosis by which an information economy doesn't involve money. Unpacking the chain of reasoning involved just in that single sentence, I see the following assumptions and arguments: we have an "information economy" information wants to be free it doesn't cost anything to produce information an information economy is one that doesn't cost any money to run money is important to capitalism without money capitalism doesn't work since our economy doesn't require money to run, capitalism isn't working
- gaius 11y ago
  Haha I always laugh at people who quote "information wants to be free" out of context. In the original speech in which the phrase was coined, the very next sentence was "information wants to be expensive".
- theptip 11y ago
  > In this "energy is free" economy.. OP said "Zero marginal cost", not "Zero cost". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost Once you have made the capital investment for your solar panel, the electricity it generates is basically free. In economics terms, the marginal cost of an extra kW/h consumed is zero. This is different from the current economy where each marginal kW/h of electricity consumed costs the same price. It's perhaps a bit of an oversimplification for OP to say "Energy won't be subject to market forces", since there will still be a market for solar panels. But the more that solar energy production is decentralized and commoditized, the less there will be a market for the generated energy itself.
npx 11y ago
In terms of GDP per capita, I live in one of the lowest income counties in a state that is well below the national average. I'm not sure if many of the points made in this article would be felt so viscerally by someone living in SF making $100k+/yr, but I found it very interesting. It's worth noting that I have received exactly $0.00 in government subsidization (student loans, disability, unemployment, etc) - I've never applied for or received a penny of it. Perhaps the most interesting thing about rural communities like mine is that the people here who actually make money - farmers - are among the largest recipients of government subsidization in human history due to a subsidy program which was conceived when industrialized agriculture was still a nascent technology. I feel there is a sort of cognitive dissonance when it comes to things like this in that many successful people are where they are in large part due to the governmental aid they've received,but these same people tend to be the most intense detractors of any legislation that would help everyone else. I don't have any good answers and I sensed a bit of naivety in the article, but I feel it made some good points and asked a lot of very important questions.
- brianwawok 11y ago
  You got $0 in government subsidisation? You don't use public roads? The police don't service you? You didn't get a free public education?
  - npx 11y ago
    I meant direct cash-in-your-pocket subsidies like the ones I mentioned, including food stamps. I get what you're saying, the point of that post wasn't woe is me... but the quality of roads, policing, and public education also tends to not be so high in lower income areas. I'm not pretending to have all the answers, but I think we could do much better as a society.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    Do we have to hash this out in every HN thread that touches on economics? These arguments are very weak. Plenty of people don't believe in police. Plenty of people homeschool and / or don't like what government schools have done. The "who will build the roads" trope is so tired that - and I'm not kidding here - one of the ice cream vendors at the Porcupine Festival has a best-selling flavor, "Who will build the rocky roads?"
stretchwithme 11y ago
If all human jobs are eliminated, that means you never have to hire a human to get something accomplished. "But what about those who can't afford the super expensive robots?" you say? If they are too expensive, you'll just have to trade with your fellow humans who also can't afford them, just like you do now. Millions of people all over the world do jobs that are already automated. The Amish even do it right here in the US, if you need a blatant example. Of course, robots will become cheap just like every technology eventually gets cheap. They are only expensive in fantasies where only one variable is allowed to change and all logical consequences are ignored. The reality is that building houses and growing food and transportation and medical care and many other things are all going to get much cheaper. And so will writing code, prototyping new inventions, market assessment, manufacturing and distribution. Anybody that wants to dream up new apps or physical inventions all day will be able to sell to a global market. A global market of bots who filter the millions of new things for the exact needs and desires of their human masters.
- paulryanrogers 11y ago
  Well, they'll be cheap as long as energy is cheap. And solar cells are not yet made without fossil fuels.
nateabele 11y ago
This article is terrible. Not only is it full of false comparisons, but every example cited as a supposed failure of capitalism or free markets is actually the direct result of government intervention. A friend challenged me when I mentioned this, so I wrote a full take-down: https://gist.github.com/nateabele/cffa0c54ab0385bbba37 https://gist.github.com/nateabele/cffa0c54ab0385bbba37
- haberman 11y ago
  I watched the video you linked under the text "kids' version", concerning fractional reserve banking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8 I believe that video contains a significant error. Around 13:00-16:00, it claims that a fractional reserve ratio of 9:1 with an initial capitalization of $1111.12 can lead to overall debt of almost $100,000 being issued. I believe this is incorrect and misunderstands how fractional reserve banking works. The video's scenario is that a bank has a $1111.12 capitalization, no depositors, and issues a $10,000 loan to a customer who immediately writes a check for the $10,000 amount (which then gets deposited at another bank). The video seems to think that this bank can continue operating by fulfilling the check with $8888.88 of "debt money" that it just made up. I'm pretty sure that the bank (call it A) has become insolvent and the check will not be able to be deposited at bank B. Bank B has no reason to accept Bank A's IOUs -- they aren't real money. If bank A doesn't have enough hard cash to satisfy the checks written by both its depositors and its loan customers, the bank has become insolvent and has to close its doors. So in reality, the 9:1 ratio means that $1111.12 of real money can only become $10,000 in "debt money", total, not $100,000.
  - rvense 11y ago
    There are no such ratios, money multipliers are a myth. Money is created from nothing when banks lend. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...
    - haberman 11y ago
jpco 11y ago
Sounds like it really wants to differentiate itself from the "old kind of socialism", which has a heritage of thought which already contains a lot of the things mentioned here. And, as with most socialist thought, tends to kick up a lot of cries and moans from the self-professed economists in the room.
- youfunnypeople 11y ago
  >Sounds like it really wants to differentiate itself from the "old kind of socialism"... Technically he's right that UBI is not socialism; it's basically yet another solution for rescuing capitalism from its inherent contradictions. >And, as with most socialist thought, tends to kick up a lot of cries and moans from the self-professed economists in the room. I'm enjoying it mightily. You know you're getting close to the truth when people with aspirations of domination try to attack your ideas.
jondubois 11y ago
I like the idea of basic income but I don't like the idea of raising income tax. I think capital gains tax should be raised and there should be a special tax on passive income. All Passive income sources are essentially small monopolies - If you own an asset from which you derive passive income without having to work at all; the dynamics of this are not so different from a corporation having a monopoly over an industry. At the root, why should some people get paid for doing nothing at all while others get nothing. Doing nothing should have the same market value no matter who you are.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  The simple answer is that they're risking their capital. If someone buys a tent house, they now have an asset that can burn down (insurance only making them partially whole), or get a renter who draws out zero payments for months. Or just the bottom falling out of the market. Risk should be rewarded.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- sunsu 11y ago
  Your idea is basically discouraging (and punishing) saving. You are completely missing the fact that those "savings" are reinvested into the economy via loans, credit, capital, etc.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    Agreed, but so are near zero (or effectively negative) percent interest rates we've had for quite some time now, which coincidentally tends to benefit rent seekers in the economy. Raising taxes on some forms of "passive" income seems not that unreasonable under the current circumstances.
- bsbechtel 11y ago
  Remember capital gains on stocks are levied after a 35% corporate income tax, making the effective rate of taxation 50%.
WizardlySquid 11y ago
The author clearly doesn't understand some extremely basic economic concepts. The world is very far from a completely automated future where the economy is run by magic pixie dust. It might not seem like people actually work when you're a blogger from new york but there are people out there do actual work for a living.
Theodores 11y ago
Paul Mason is a very good television journalist although he has moved away from the BBC to Channel 4. Good that he may be, I don't feel the urge to read any of his books on how the post-Capitalist world is supposed to work out. Recently in an old book shop I found a shelf full of ideas from around the dot com era of how our post-whatever society was going to be. I feel that Paul Mason's books are doomed to go to this same shelf of 'forgotten dreams'.
jokoon 11y ago
Well I'm 30 and have been unemployed all my life. I'm safe at home, trying to make a game. Jobs aren't necessary anymore. That's what the industry and automation are for. In a way, you can say capitalism allows the development of industries, which in the end seems to reduce the necessity of having capitalism in the first place. I didn't read the article, but I always sense there is this weird belief that "people must work and belong to something so that society can function". I can't really express it. What bothers me is that somehow, even after the new deal and social programs, not having a salary or income is seen as some sort of a bad thing, and often, it will be a bad thing for your mental health (isolation, lack of personal goals). I guess that is what people don't like about capitalism, is that it builds an inability for anyone to share and live in communities normally, because the political argument of altruism seems to lead to communism and soviet evils. It's really hard to make a link between capitalism and the lack of fulfillment, despite the increase in wealth, but at some point I'm sure people would prefer an economy which isn't so focused on growth, but rather on long term development.
- paulryanrogers 11y ago
  You feel safe (as in comfortable?) in whose home? Some people find it unacceptable to live with their parents/siblings/benefactors indefinitely.
  - jokoon 11y ago
    I live in france, which has had 10% unemployment for a long time now.
- elementalest 11y ago
  "Jobs aren't necessary anymore." What a statement. It rings of naivete. How would you pay for your living expenses? Are you living with someone who pays your living expenses? Do they work? Or are you on social welfare? Who maintains the automation? Who designs these systems? Until robots and AI can do everything (which is a long way away), there's always going to be something that no one wants to do. Getting paid is an incentive to do it. We are also a long way from becoming a non growth focused economy. Until such a time as strong AI and a non growth focused economy become a reality (if ever), jobs are necessary, and always will be. People also like to be useful, to feel like they matter, or be part of something greater than themselves. Jobs are one avenue for this fulfilment. Someone who is intentionally unemployed is not being useful. If you are on welfare, or your supported by family, then you are a burden. Others are required to work, but you choose not to at their expense. Why are you entitled to do what you want, when others can't? That is seen as unfair, so you cop resentment. "I always sense there is this weird belief that "people must work and belong to something so that society can function"." I suspect you believe this to justify your lack of motivation for employment. There is a big epidemic of this type of attitude in Japan (neet's) [1], where young people refuse to work and just live off their families income. It might be different if you had decided to quit your job and make your dream game. You were never employed and don't want to be. I think we are in a weird point in western society, where we are generally more well off than any other time. The basic costs of living are relatively low for a single person, particularly if they live with their parents. A lot of the basic things have become much easier than before. So, its much easier to be unemployed (particularly in welfare based societies), and people will find all sorts of ways to justify their apparent lack of motivation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET
dreamfactory2 11y ago
The UK used to have an unofficial version of UBI in the 70's and 80's when it was feasible, if somewhat difficult, to mooch off the benefits system, including getting reasonable low end accommodation. This had a kind of freakonomics effect on the wider economy that we can see today. It's how nearly all musicians, artists, designers, actors etc were surviving during those decades and why they didn't end up abandoning their dreams to office jobs. That 'Withnail & I' existence certainly wasn't one that many others would choose due to the low income and otherwise tawdry lifestyle, but it was actually the engine for the big success story behind UK culture - which has turned out to be one of its biggest exports and biggest draws. The reason London is now seen at the world's coolest city where everybody wants to come to study, live, invest, and set up shop is its cultural capital and that can be traced back to the fact that all of the people running clubs, fashion designers, and musicians etc were enabled off that benefits system.
teslaberry 11y ago
the post work
teslaberry 11y ago
the 'post-work' meme is in part doing double duty with an ulterior motive. the western nations of europe and the united states are highly over-indebted, with particular respect to public pensions and social security. there is no way this money can be paid back without hyperinflation of sorts. and of course, the modern central banking system understands how to string along stagflation as long as possible using the emerging markets model for finding a debt sink to mop up western national debt. ( creating debt in the third world and letting it trade 'up' for u.s. debt and euro debt every time there is an emerging markets credit crisis where people sell emerging market debt to trade for u.s. debt, or sell u.s. debt to obtain u.s. dollars which is 0% yielding u.s. debt ) the thing is , 'post-work' and these other memes like 'universal basic income' are just methods of promoting the idea of a generalized welfare system that will replace existing larger PUBLIC obligations to provide social security and public pensions to the public. just look at greece. they call it 'haircuts'. the problem is that you cannot take away pensions and social security , or even MENTION THE IDEA of reducing these legally obligated payments because it is politically untoucheable. HOWEVER, you can introduce a positive meme of money for everyone, and then get the general publics support for the idea. THEN , AFTER you gave this general support , you use the support to help CUT REDUCE and ELIMINATE much of the public pensions and social security obligations. for example, the idea of 'means testing' social security sounds horrible to most fixed income recipients of s.s. ALL 60 MILLION OF THEM. however, once you get a whole new generation of people on board with the idea of EVERYONE GETTING PAYMENTS, it becomes politically easier to force very large cuts on the social security recipients even while you CONTINUE TO CHARGE S.S. TAXES at an increasing rate relative to stagnating incomes ( taxes effectively increase if they stay the same while incomes stagnate over a long period of time while inflation of cogs goes up ) this meme of universal basic income was not necessarily crafted by the neoliberal market fundamentalists that are seeking to feudalize the fixed income recipient class, but it is, ironically, being co-opted by them as a welfare smokescreen to GUT legally mandated public payments to the classes of people that actually paid and continue to pay into them.

90 points by ALee 11y ago

The article is a chain of economic fallacies. > Modern economies are increasingly based around information. Information "wants to be free"—as the saying goes—but free things are bad for capitalism, because capitalism is about competition and making profits. Tons of companies are based on providing information. Even if the information is public, sorting it and providing it efficiently has real value (such as google). Others do their own private research and re-sell it. Capitalists use and contribute to open source software. This statement is absurd. > In time, technology is likely to drive many things to "zero marginal cost." Energy, for example, won't be subject to market forces. We'll just have a solar panel on the roof and each kilowatt hour will essentially be free. In this "energy is free" economy, who will be building and providing me with my free solar panels, and then installing and maintaining the electrical system in my home or business? What happens when it's cloudy? This whole article is like a undergraduate philosophy student who thinks he or she has the silver bullet for humanity, if only people would listen!

c3534l 11y ago
It's also using the word free in two different senses. Basically in the phrase "wants to be free" that's "free as in freedom, not as in beer." The meaning is that it's difficult to restrict the flow of information and you cannot reverse it. But then the author is claiming that information is free as in it doesn't cost anything. Then he's using the word information in two different ways, confusing "information economy" with data and then invoking some sort of magical osmosis by which an information economy doesn't involve money. Unpacking the chain of reasoning involved just in that single sentence, I see the following assumptions and arguments: we have an "information economy" information wants to be free it doesn't cost anything to produce information an information economy is one that doesn't cost any money to run money is important to capitalism without money capitalism doesn't work since our economy doesn't require money to run, capitalism isn't working
gaius 11y ago
Haha I always laugh at people who quote "information wants to be free" out of context. In the original speech in which the phrase was coined, the very next sentence was "information wants to be expensive".
theptip 11y ago
> In this "energy is free" economy.. OP said "Zero marginal cost", not "Zero cost". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost Once you have made the capital investment for your solar panel, the electricity it generates is basically free. In economics terms, the marginal cost of an extra kW/h consumed is zero. This is different from the current economy where each marginal kW/h of electricity consumed costs the same price. It's perhaps a bit of an oversimplification for OP to say "Energy won't be subject to market forces", since there will still be a market for solar panels. But the more that solar energy production is decentralized and commoditized, the less there will be a market for the generated energy itself.

npx 11y ago

In terms of GDP per capita, I live in one of the lowest income counties in a state that is well below the national average. I'm not sure if many of the points made in this article would be felt so viscerally by someone living in SF making $100k+/yr, but I found it very interesting. It's worth noting that I have received exactly $0.00 in government subsidization (student loans, disability, unemployment, etc) - I've never applied for or received a penny of it. Perhaps the most interesting thing about rural communities like mine is that the people here who actually make money - farmers - are among the largest recipients of government subsidization in human history due to a subsidy program which was conceived when industrialized agriculture was still a nascent technology. I feel there is a sort of cognitive dissonance when it comes to things like this in that many successful people are where they are in large part due to the governmental aid they've received,but these same people tend to be the most intense detractors of any legislation that would help everyone else. I don't have any good answers and I sensed a bit of naivety in the article, but I feel it made some good points and asked a lot of very important questions.

brianwawok 11y ago
You got $0 in government subsidisation? You don't use public roads? The police don't service you? You didn't get a free public education?
- npx 11y ago
  I meant direct cash-in-your-pocket subsidies like the ones I mentioned, including food stamps. I get what you're saying, the point of that post wasn't woe is me... but the quality of roads, policing, and public education also tends to not be so high in lower income areas. I'm not pretending to have all the answers, but I think we could do much better as a society.
- jMyles 11y ago
  Do we have to hash this out in every HN thread that touches on economics? These arguments are very weak. Plenty of people don't believe in police. Plenty of people homeschool and / or don't like what government schools have done. The "who will build the roads" trope is so tired that - and I'm not kidding here - one of the ice cream vendors at the Porcupine Festival has a best-selling flavor, "Who will build the rocky roads?"

stretchwithme 11y ago

If all human jobs are eliminated, that means you never have to hire a human to get something accomplished. "But what about those who can't afford the super expensive robots?" you say? If they are too expensive, you'll just have to trade with your fellow humans who also can't afford them, just like you do now. Millions of people all over the world do jobs that are already automated. The Amish even do it right here in the US, if you need a blatant example. Of course, robots will become cheap just like every technology eventually gets cheap. They are only expensive in fantasies where only one variable is allowed to change and all logical consequences are ignored. The reality is that building houses and growing food and transportation and medical care and many other things are all going to get much cheaper. And so will writing code, prototyping new inventions, market assessment, manufacturing and distribution. Anybody that wants to dream up new apps or physical inventions all day will be able to sell to a global market. A global market of bots who filter the millions of new things for the exact needs and desires of their human masters.

paulryanrogers 11y ago
Well, they'll be cheap as long as energy is cheap. And solar cells are not yet made without fossil fuels.

nateabele 11y ago

This article is terrible. Not only is it full of false comparisons, but every example cited as a supposed failure of capitalism or free markets is actually the direct result of government intervention. A friend challenged me when I mentioned this, so I wrote a full take-down: https://gist.github.com/nateabele/cffa0c54ab0385bbba37 https://gist.github.com/nateabele/cffa0c54ab0385bbba37

haberman 11y ago
I watched the video you linked under the text "kids' version", concerning fractional reserve banking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8 I believe that video contains a significant error. Around 13:00-16:00, it claims that a fractional reserve ratio of 9:1 with an initial capitalization of $1111.12 can lead to overall debt of almost $100,000 being issued. I believe this is incorrect and misunderstands how fractional reserve banking works. The video's scenario is that a bank has a $1111.12 capitalization, no depositors, and issues a $10,000 loan to a customer who immediately writes a check for the $10,000 amount (which then gets deposited at another bank). The video seems to think that this bank can continue operating by fulfilling the check with $8888.88 of "debt money" that it just made up. I'm pretty sure that the bank (call it A) has become insolvent and the check will not be able to be deposited at bank B. Bank B has no reason to accept Bank A's IOUs -- they aren't real money. If bank A doesn't have enough hard cash to satisfy the checks written by both its depositors and its loan customers, the bank has become insolvent and has to close its doors. So in reality, the 9:1 ratio means that $1111.12 of real money can only become $10,000 in "debt money", total, not $100,000.
- rvense 11y ago
  There are no such ratios, money multipliers are a myth. Money is created from nothing when banks lend. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...
  - haberman 11y ago

jpco 11y ago

Sounds like it really wants to differentiate itself from the "old kind of socialism", which has a heritage of thought which already contains a lot of the things mentioned here. And, as with most socialist thought, tends to kick up a lot of cries and moans from the self-professed economists in the room.

youfunnypeople 11y ago
>Sounds like it really wants to differentiate itself from the "old kind of socialism"... Technically he's right that UBI is not socialism; it's basically yet another solution for rescuing capitalism from its inherent contradictions. >And, as with most socialist thought, tends to kick up a lot of cries and moans from the self-professed economists in the room. I'm enjoying it mightily. You know you're getting close to the truth when people with aspirations of domination try to attack your ideas.

jondubois 11y ago

I like the idea of basic income but I don't like the idea of raising income tax. I think capital gains tax should be raised and there should be a special tax on passive income. All Passive income sources are essentially small monopolies - If you own an asset from which you derive passive income without having to work at all; the dynamics of this are not so different from a corporation having a monopoly over an industry. At the root, why should some people get paid for doing nothing at all while others get nothing. Doing nothing should have the same market value no matter who you are.

merpnderp 11y ago
The simple answer is that they're risking their capital. If someone buys a tent house, they now have an asset that can burn down (insurance only making them partially whole), or get a renter who draws out zero payments for months. Or just the bottom falling out of the market. Risk should be rewarded.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
sunsu 11y ago
Your idea is basically discouraging (and punishing) saving. You are completely missing the fact that those "savings" are reinvested into the economy via loans, credit, capital, etc.
- mistermann 11y ago
  Agreed, but so are near zero (or effectively negative) percent interest rates we've had for quite some time now, which coincidentally tends to benefit rent seekers in the economy. Raising taxes on some forms of "passive" income seems not that unreasonable under the current circumstances.
bsbechtel 11y ago
Remember capital gains on stocks are levied after a 35% corporate income tax, making the effective rate of taxation 50%.

WizardlySquid 11y ago

The author clearly doesn't understand some extremely basic economic concepts. The world is very far from a completely automated future where the economy is run by magic pixie dust. It might not seem like people actually work when you're a blogger from new york but there are people out there do actual work for a living.

Theodores 11y ago

Paul Mason is a very good television journalist although he has moved away from the BBC to Channel 4. Good that he may be, I don't feel the urge to read any of his books on how the post-Capitalist world is supposed to work out. Recently in an old book shop I found a shelf full of ideas from around the dot com era of how our post-whatever society was going to be. I feel that Paul Mason's books are doomed to go to this same shelf of 'forgotten dreams'.

jokoon 11y ago

Well I'm 30 and have been unemployed all my life. I'm safe at home, trying to make a game. Jobs aren't necessary anymore. That's what the industry and automation are for. In a way, you can say capitalism allows the development of industries, which in the end seems to reduce the necessity of having capitalism in the first place. I didn't read the article, but I always sense there is this weird belief that "people must work and belong to something so that society can function". I can't really express it. What bothers me is that somehow, even after the new deal and social programs, not having a salary or income is seen as some sort of a bad thing, and often, it will be a bad thing for your mental health (isolation, lack of personal goals). I guess that is what people don't like about capitalism, is that it builds an inability for anyone to share and live in communities normally, because the political argument of altruism seems to lead to communism and soviet evils. It's really hard to make a link between capitalism and the lack of fulfillment, despite the increase in wealth, but at some point I'm sure people would prefer an economy which isn't so focused on growth, but rather on long term development.

paulryanrogers 11y ago
You feel safe (as in comfortable?) in whose home? Some people find it unacceptable to live with their parents/siblings/benefactors indefinitely.
- jokoon 11y ago
  I live in france, which has had 10% unemployment for a long time now.
elementalest 11y ago
"Jobs aren't necessary anymore." What a statement. It rings of naivete. How would you pay for your living expenses? Are you living with someone who pays your living expenses? Do they work? Or are you on social welfare? Who maintains the automation? Who designs these systems? Until robots and AI can do everything (which is a long way away), there's always going to be something that no one wants to do. Getting paid is an incentive to do it. We are also a long way from becoming a non growth focused economy. Until such a time as strong AI and a non growth focused economy become a reality (if ever), jobs are necessary, and always will be. People also like to be useful, to feel like they matter, or be part of something greater than themselves. Jobs are one avenue for this fulfilment. Someone who is intentionally unemployed is not being useful. If you are on welfare, or your supported by family, then you are a burden. Others are required to work, but you choose not to at their expense. Why are you entitled to do what you want, when others can't? That is seen as unfair, so you cop resentment. "I always sense there is this weird belief that "people must work and belong to something so that society can function"." I suspect you believe this to justify your lack of motivation for employment. There is a big epidemic of this type of attitude in Japan (neet's) [1], where young people refuse to work and just live off their families income. It might be different if you had decided to quit your job and make your dream game. You were never employed and don't want to be. I think we are in a weird point in western society, where we are generally more well off than any other time. The basic costs of living are relatively low for a single person, particularly if they live with their parents. A lot of the basic things have become much easier than before. So, its much easier to be unemployed (particularly in welfare based societies), and people will find all sorts of ways to justify their apparent lack of motivation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET

dreamfactory2 11y ago

The UK used to have an unofficial version of UBI in the 70's and 80's when it was feasible, if somewhat difficult, to mooch off the benefits system, including getting reasonable low end accommodation. This had a kind of freakonomics effect on the wider economy that we can see today. It's how nearly all musicians, artists, designers, actors etc were surviving during those decades and why they didn't end up abandoning their dreams to office jobs. That 'Withnail & I' existence certainly wasn't one that many others would choose due to the low income and otherwise tawdry lifestyle, but it was actually the engine for the big success story behind UK culture - which has turned out to be one of its biggest exports and biggest draws. The reason London is now seen at the world's coolest city where everybody wants to come to study, live, invest, and set up shop is its cultural capital and that can be traced back to the fact that all of the people running clubs, fashion designers, and musicians etc were enabled off that benefits system.

teslaberry 11y ago

the post work

teslaberry 11y ago

the 'post-work' meme is in part doing double duty with an ulterior motive. the western nations of europe and the united states are highly over-indebted, with particular respect to public pensions and social security. there is no way this money can be paid back without hyperinflation of sorts. and of course, the modern central banking system understands how to string along stagflation as long as possible using the emerging markets model for finding a debt sink to mop up western national debt. ( creating debt in the third world and letting it trade 'up' for u.s. debt and euro debt every time there is an emerging markets credit crisis where people sell emerging market debt to trade for u.s. debt, or sell u.s. debt to obtain u.s. dollars which is 0% yielding u.s. debt ) the thing is , 'post-work' and these other memes like 'universal basic income' are just methods of promoting the idea of a generalized welfare system that will replace existing larger PUBLIC obligations to provide social security and public pensions to the public. just look at greece. they call it 'haircuts'. the problem is that you cannot take away pensions and social security , or even MENTION THE IDEA of reducing these legally obligated payments because it is politically untoucheable. HOWEVER, you can introduce a positive meme of money for everyone, and then get the general publics support for the idea. THEN , AFTER you gave this general support , you use the support to help CUT REDUCE and ELIMINATE much of the public pensions and social security obligations. for example, the idea of 'means testing' social security sounds horrible to most fixed income recipients of s.s. ALL 60 MILLION OF THEM. however, once you get a whole new generation of people on board with the idea of EVERYONE GETTING PAYMENTS, it becomes politically easier to force very large cuts on the social security recipients even while you CONTINUE TO CHARGE S.S. TAXES at an increasing rate relative to stagnating incomes ( taxes effectively increase if they stay the same while incomes stagnate over a long period of time while inflation of cogs goes up ) this meme of universal basic income was not necessarily crafted by the neoliberal market fundamentalists that are seeking to feudalize the fixed income recipient class, but it is, ironically, being co-opted by them as a welfare smokescreen to GUT legally mandated public payments to the classes of people that actually paid and continue to pay into them.