3 ms·

"Reduce inequality in income distribution" is the easiest solution that comes to mind with this respect, however I think that is is not the real problem. In tr

by jiiam 10y ago

"Reduce inequality in income distribution" is the easiest solution that comes to mind with this respect, however I think that is is not the real problem. In truth, we are getting to the time where there will be too many people for the amount of work required by the whole humankind to possibly satisfy its needs. We should all embrace this new reality and think of a way in which people can live without working, or in other word, we should solve the economic problem [0]. [0](http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf)

djsumdog 10y ago
I highly agree. We depend so much on consumerism and planned obsolescence. We cannot have infinite expansion/growth. Sooner or later we need to make things that last forever, lower the number of factories (a good thing). It needs to be a huge paradime shift. It also involves some huge technological barriers to be overcome: solving the energy problem, dealing with resource scarcity, etc. But I think if humanity is going to survive another 10,000 years -- we need to see an end to money in general. In the short term, more automation and guaranteed minimum income are a start. Not everyone needs to work. We should be able to focus more on art and culture rather than polluting the world with more plastic shit.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
If the Pareto distribution is true, then "reducing income inequality" devolves to "reducing income."
acscott 10y ago
Cool essay written 1930. If you get a standard income for being a citizen that gives you shelter, food, clothing, healthcare, education. You then will be working for improving the quality of those items. And there will be some people who reproduce without an economic disincentive not to. Citizenship will now be even in more demand. Workers will be motivated not out of fear of losing shelter, healthcare or food. Firing a worker will not have the responsibility of having taken food out their mouth. We already have a population that does not work. As of Mar 2016 there are 16.6 million men age 16 to 65 not disabled not in labor force, and 28.2 million women. (44.8 m total) (from: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab6.htm http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab6.htm) A lot of those are probably those who gave up though. Many though are retired or in school. In 2014 ages 55 to 64, 13.8% were retired. (http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-4/people-who-are-not-in-the-labor-force-why-arent-they-working.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-4/people-who-are-not-in-t...) (Note I consider home responsibilities as working as you would probably have to hire someone to do those if you didn't do them yourself). In 2014, both genders age 25 to 54, 1,479,000 were retired!

by jiiam 10y ago

djsumdog 10y ago

I highly agree. We depend so much on consumerism and planned obsolescence. We cannot have infinite expansion/growth. Sooner or later we need to make things that last forever, lower the number of factories (a good thing). It needs to be a huge paradime shift. It also involves some huge technological barriers to be overcome: solving the energy problem, dealing with resource scarcity, etc. But I think if humanity is going to survive another 10,000 years -- we need to see an end to money in general. In the short term, more automation and guaranteed minimum income are a start. Not everyone needs to work. We should be able to focus more on art and culture rather than polluting the world with more plastic shit.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

If the Pareto distribution is true, then "reducing income inequality" devolves to "reducing income."

acscott 10y ago

Cool essay written 1930. If you get a standard income for being a citizen that gives you shelter, food, clothing, healthcare, education. You then will be working for improving the quality of those items. And there will be some people who reproduce without an economic disincentive not to. Citizenship will now be even in more demand. Workers will be motivated not out of fear of losing shelter, healthcare or food. Firing a worker will not have the responsibility of having taken food out their mouth. We already have a population that does not work. As of Mar 2016 there are 16.6 million men age 16 to 65 not disabled not in labor force, and 28.2 million women. (44.8 m total) (from: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab6.htm http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab6.htm) A lot of those are probably those who gave up though. Many though are retired or in school. In 2014 ages 55 to 64, 13.8% were retired. (http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-4/people-who-are-not-in-the-labor-force-why-arent-they-working.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-4/people-who-are-not-in-t...) (Note I consider home responsibilities as working as you would probably have to hire someone to do those if you didn't do them yourself). In 2014, both genders age 25 to 54, 1,479,000 were retired!