5 ms·

In this century we should stop worrying so much about job safety and workers and instead care more about humans (regardless of their employment status). We will

by Matumio 11y ago

In this century we should stop worrying so much about job safety and workers and instead care more about humans (regardless of their employment status). We will never run out of useful work. But we should get used to the idea that work is no longer a necessity for bare survival. And that useful work is not always paid for. It's a political problem, and I'm thinking UBI here (unconditional basic income). Don't let existential fears stop anyone from working on the real problems of our time.

monk_e_boy 11y ago
The problem is peoples perception and they think that jobs can be created and that this will solve all their problems. See Trump vs Sanders.
javajosh 11y ago
Totally agreed. The really nice thing about being the first generation to implement UBI is that we'll be able to reap some excellent one-time benefits by being able to dismantle so many specialized programs rendered redundant by UBI. The net effect would be a discount on the UBI -- e.g. people would get $20k but it would only cost $5k more than what the USG currently spends on entitlements. I'd like to see a flat-tax too, but that's just me. :)
scottLobster 11y ago
Unfortunately it's not as simple as a UBI. Give the average person money without structure, instruction or necessity and they cease to be productive in any sense of the word. We'd ironically have less equality, with a minority of motivated individuals at the top doing meaningful work, and a large majority of entitled "dolists" with little dignity at the bottom. Instead I'd propose guaranteed civil service that paid a basic livable salary, such as publicly funded infrastructure projects. But whatever the method, resources should be tied to productivity in some manner. Otherwise we just create a bunch of lottery winners, and many lottery winners sadly don't have the wherewithal to keep their winnings for long.
- c22 11y ago
  > Give the average person money without structure, instruction or necessity and they cease to be productive in any sense of the word. Is there research that backs this assertion? It doesn't match my (anecdotal) observations.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- barrkel 11y ago
  Give the average person money without structure, instruction or necessity and they cease to be productive in any sense of the word I don't think you have evidence to make a statement this strong. We have no idea what would happen because it's never been done before. I think you're projecting an idea you have of people on the margins of productive society onto society as a whole, and I think this is a fundamental mistake. People are status-seeking - that's what people in groups do. Capitalist consumer society measures status in a large part based on how much money you can spend. Remove money from the equation and a substitute marker for status will be found. It could be power, art, popularity, charity, science - anything. What it is we don't know, but it will certainly be something.
  - scottLobster 11y ago
    Perhaps. I'll admit most of my "evidence" is anecdotal, and I've read the studies about giving free money to tribes in Kenya and the Cherokee and how it greatly elevated them in general, although both studies come with serious caveats. My concern is what a long-term infusion would do, and I'm not aware of any research that's even approached that. Give someone who was desperately poor more money and sure it will elevate them, for a time, in large part IMO because they are aware the infusion is temporary and they try to make the most of it (whatever that means to them). Make the infusion constant enough to be taken for granted, and IMO there's be a lot less drive to be productive. When you have food, water, shelter, reasonable comfort and entertainment, what's the drive? Sure some will be motivated by personal passion, fascination, sense of exploration, etc just as they are today. In fact that probably describes most of the posters on this board, and I'd argue that more likely projective argument here is that the AVERAGE person would care about things like art, charity, science, even power and popularity. I don't know where you went to school, and I'm certain this varies from culture to culture, but in my experience the vast majority of students below the post-grad level are in school for two reasons: 1. Someone told them to go and 2. They want a job with a snowball's chance in hell of earning decent money. Those strongly motivated by something other than necessity are few and far between.

by Matumio 11y ago

monk_e_boy 11y ago

The problem is peoples perception and they think that jobs can be created and that this will solve all their problems. See Trump vs Sanders.

javajosh 11y ago

Totally agreed. The really nice thing about being the first generation to implement UBI is that we'll be able to reap some excellent one-time benefits by being able to dismantle so many specialized programs rendered redundant by UBI. The net effect would be a discount on the UBI -- e.g. people would get $20k but it would only cost $5k more than what the USG currently spends on entitlements. I'd like to see a flat-tax too, but that's just me. :)

scottLobster 11y ago

Unfortunately it's not as simple as a UBI. Give the average person money without structure, instruction or necessity and they cease to be productive in any sense of the word. We'd ironically have less equality, with a minority of motivated individuals at the top doing meaningful work, and a large majority of entitled "dolists" with little dignity at the bottom. Instead I'd propose guaranteed civil service that paid a basic livable salary, such as publicly funded infrastructure projects. But whatever the method, resources should be tied to productivity in some manner. Otherwise we just create a bunch of lottery winners, and many lottery winners sadly don't have the wherewithal to keep their winnings for long.

c22 11y ago
> Give the average person money without structure, instruction or necessity and they cease to be productive in any sense of the word. Is there research that backs this assertion? It doesn't match my (anecdotal) observations.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
barrkel 11y ago
Give the average person money without structure, instruction or necessity and they cease to be productive in any sense of the word I don't think you have evidence to make a statement this strong. We have no idea what would happen because it's never been done before. I think you're projecting an idea you have of people on the margins of productive society onto society as a whole, and I think this is a fundamental mistake. People are status-seeking - that's what people in groups do. Capitalist consumer society measures status in a large part based on how much money you can spend. Remove money from the equation and a substitute marker for status will be found. It could be power, art, popularity, charity, science - anything. What it is we don't know, but it will certainly be something.
- scottLobster 11y ago
  Perhaps. I'll admit most of my "evidence" is anecdotal, and I've read the studies about giving free money to tribes in Kenya and the Cherokee and how it greatly elevated them in general, although both studies come with serious caveats. My concern is what a long-term infusion would do, and I'm not aware of any research that's even approached that. Give someone who was desperately poor more money and sure it will elevate them, for a time, in large part IMO because they are aware the infusion is temporary and they try to make the most of it (whatever that means to them). Make the infusion constant enough to be taken for granted, and IMO there's be a lot less drive to be productive. When you have food, water, shelter, reasonable comfort and entertainment, what's the drive? Sure some will be motivated by personal passion, fascination, sense of exploration, etc just as they are today. In fact that probably describes most of the posters on this board, and I'd argue that more likely projective argument here is that the AVERAGE person would care about things like art, charity, science, even power and popularity. I don't know where you went to school, and I'm certain this varies from culture to culture, but in my experience the vast majority of students below the post-grad level are in school for two reasons: 1. Someone told them to go and 2. They want a job with a snowball's chance in hell of earning decent money. Those strongly motivated by something other than necessity are few and far between.