4 ms·

How many kids would slog through college and medical school out of purely altruistic reasons? I think 5% of those that enter the medical profession? And that

by DougN7 11y ago

How many kids would slog through college and medical school out of purely altruistic reasons? I think 5% of those that enter the medical profession? And that cook who makes a meal for a whole restauant? Who cleans his dishes and tables when he's done? And almost nobody would volunteer to be a shoe salesman. This cherry-picked utopian view works for a 5% of the economy and workers out there. But not in reality that I've experienced.

akgerber 11y ago
In the context of a basic income, being a doctor will still convey wealth and status, in addition to altruistic satisfaction. Perhaps no one would be a dishwasher for a price people are willing to pay, and restaurants have people bring or wash their own dishes. Would that be terrible? I would feel good about that, personally. Or people would wash dishes because they wanted more money, as I did in high school, despite being provided with food, clothes, shelter, a computer, and access to a car by my parents. And there are plenty of people out there that are very passionate about shoes, and would share that enthusiasm Basic income wouldn't mean the end of work— just the end of people being forced to work by fear of homelessness. That just means people would clean septic tanks because they'd get paid a lot of money so they can buy motorcycles or take awesome vacations or whatever, and septic tank installers would have to compete to offer good working conditions so that an unpleasant but necessary task is palatable enough that people would be glad to do it in exchange for good enough money.
- DougN7 11y ago
  I guess I'm not talking about basic income as much as money not being a good motivator for work. Basic income might become necessary if there aren't enough jobs to go around to keep people alive. But until that point, where machines do all the work, it's not feasible. >And there are plenty of people out there that are very passionate about shoes, and would share that enthusiasm How many would sit in the mall for 40 hours per week? That's the fallacy -- that enough people like doing something so much that they would do it enough to make up for the hordes of people that would stop doing it if not paid. > people bring or wash their own dishes Who will make the dishes? And the dish washing detergent? And the bottles to hold the detergent? And the refinery to make the plastic for the bottles? And dig up the stuff to supply the refinery? And construct the refinery? This is why so many -ism's are a seductive idea, but don't work in reality, because the narrative focuses on just the last step or so of a very long supply chain full of unpleasant work for someone else.

by DougN7 11y ago

akgerber 11y ago

In the context of a basic income, being a doctor will still convey wealth and status, in addition to altruistic satisfaction. Perhaps no one would be a dishwasher for a price people are willing to pay, and restaurants have people bring or wash their own dishes. Would that be terrible? I would feel good about that, personally. Or people would wash dishes because they wanted more money, as I did in high school, despite being provided with food, clothes, shelter, a computer, and access to a car by my parents. And there are plenty of people out there that are very passionate about shoes, and would share that enthusiasm Basic income wouldn't mean the end of work— just the end of people being forced to work by fear of homelessness. That just means people would clean septic tanks because they'd get paid a lot of money so they can buy motorcycles or take awesome vacations or whatever, and septic tank installers would have to compete to offer good working conditions so that an unpleasant but necessary task is palatable enough that people would be glad to do it in exchange for good enough money.

DougN7 11y ago
I guess I'm not talking about basic income as much as money not being a good motivator for work. Basic income might become necessary if there aren't enough jobs to go around to keep people alive. But until that point, where machines do all the work, it's not feasible. >And there are plenty of people out there that are very passionate about shoes, and would share that enthusiasm How many would sit in the mall for 40 hours per week? That's the fallacy -- that enough people like doing something so much that they would do it enough to make up for the hordes of people that would stop doing it if not paid. > people bring or wash their own dishes Who will make the dishes? And the dish washing detergent? And the bottles to hold the detergent? And the refinery to make the plastic for the bottles? And dig up the stuff to supply the refinery? And construct the refinery? This is why so many -ism's are a seductive idea, but don't work in reality, because the narrative focuses on just the last step or so of a very long supply chain full of unpleasant work for someone else.