4 ms·

> Who cares? Anybody sees a problem with automating away so many jobs that unemployment rises to 50% and beyond? Unemployment is not a problem. It's how we deal

> Who cares? Anybody sees a problem with automating away so many jobs that unemployment rises to 50% and beyond? Unemployment is not a problem. It's how we deal with it that is. You just can't expect everyone to work when machines do all the work. It's amazing how some humans seem to have a complete lack of understanding of human nature. Imagine a world in which 50% of people worked, and the other half lived on basic welfare income. How do you think the 50% that worked would feel about the other half? Do you think perhaps they might feel used? Do you think they might feel like slave labor? Do you think they might feel like the other half was taking advantage of them? Do you think they might be resentful of their earnings being taken away and given to people who don't work? How are things going right now when people have this idea that there's a 99:1 division in society? How do you think people would get along with a 50:50 hard division? Can you imagine a better setup for societal unrest and class warfare? Can you imagine a society in which half the population thinks they're entitled to have the other half work to support them? It'd be like a modern-day version of slavery, setting society up for a civil war. Communism used "the workers!" as one of its foundational elements--now imagine a world in which "the workers" are legally half of the population, and they decide they're tired of being taken advantage of, and they decide to assert themselves and their rights, go on strike, refuse to work, even revolt. And imagine the other half of the population, which thinks they're entitled to be supported by the other half, decides to assert themselves and demand what they think they're entitled to (if they're still capable of doing anything besides sitting in their VR headsets). This is not wild imagination, this is history and human nature applied to your ideas, their logical conclusion. > I see only one solution: abolishing lucrative property Want to have a nice house with a yard to raise your family in? Nope. Panelák for you. Want to work hard, save up, and buy a little cabin on the lake for your retirement? Nope. Too lucrative. > communist scare crow be dammed. Approximately one hundred million people (100,000,000 people) have been killed by Communist regimes. But we're better humans now, right? We'll get it right this time. Just need to put the right people in charge and everything will be fine. Communism doesn't always turn corrupt, I mean, just look at the present-day Communist regimes of China, Cuba, and North Korea. Those governments aren't corrupt or evil, and their citizens are free, healthy, and happy. Nothing to be afraid of. Damn the scarecrows, full speed ahead!

onion2k 10y ago
Imagine a world in which 50% of people worked, and the other half lived on basic welfare income. How do you think the 50% that worked would feel about the other half? The point is that people would choose whether to work or not. Everyone would have that choice - live on a basic, low income, or top it up by working. If you've chosen to work then it's unlikely you'll resent those who choose not to. Furthermore, even if that wasn't the case, think about the number of people who hate their jobs and resent going to work now. Getting that down to 50% of people hating their job would be an improvement.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  You're not thinking logically or rationally. Money does not grow on trees. Economies only work when people do. Taxes come from people working and spending (except property tax, which comes from simply existing). Without enough people working, there would not be sufficient taxes to support the people who are not working. For example, look at Social Security: as the population ages, fewer people are working while more people are receiving. Of course, the Fed can literally create money with the press of a key on a keyboard, but eventually that bubble bursts and takes the economy with it. And all of this is subordinate to human nature, because that rules over everything we do. And basic human nature shows that people fare better and are happier and healthier when they are able to provide for themselves. People are also lazy and will mostly take the path of least resistance. Put those two issues together with a world in which people don't have to work, and you have a recipe for disaster. If your desire for a UBI is driven by compassion, then it is misguided, because it would not be good for people who are healthy and able to support themselves. For people who are disabled, that's a different story, but that wouldn't be a UBI.
dublinben 10y ago
Neither China, Cuba, nor North Korea are communist in any way. You need to update your propaganda.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
First, massive unemployment is coming. There is less and less need for work, there is no escaping it. In the extreme, voluntary work will be enough. That is, nobody really works, except the few that want to contribute. Or perhaps the majority would contribute a couple hours per week. So that's the ideal case. Now what about the transition, where there is too much work to rely on volunteering alone, yet too little for everyone to work full time? One easy solution is to reduce the length of the work-week. Starting with 4 days (32 hours) right now would be a start. Later 3 days. Then 2. (Now that's an average: one could concentrate those work days on the summer or winter when it makes sense.)

onion2k 10y ago

Imagine a world in which 50% of people worked, and the other half lived on basic welfare income. How do you think the 50% that worked would feel about the other half? The point is that people would choose whether to work or not. Everyone would have that choice - live on a basic, low income, or top it up by working. If you've chosen to work then it's unlikely you'll resent those who choose not to. Furthermore, even if that wasn't the case, think about the number of people who hate their jobs and resent going to work now. Getting that down to 50% of people hating their job would be an improvement.

alphapapa 10y ago
You're not thinking logically or rationally. Money does not grow on trees. Economies only work when people do. Taxes come from people working and spending (except property tax, which comes from simply existing). Without enough people working, there would not be sufficient taxes to support the people who are not working. For example, look at Social Security: as the population ages, fewer people are working while more people are receiving. Of course, the Fed can literally create money with the press of a key on a keyboard, but eventually that bubble bursts and takes the economy with it. And all of this is subordinate to human nature, because that rules over everything we do. And basic human nature shows that people fare better and are happier and healthier when they are able to provide for themselves. People are also lazy and will mostly take the path of least resistance. Put those two issues together with a world in which people don't have to work, and you have a recipe for disaster. If your desire for a UBI is driven by compassion, then it is misguided, because it would not be good for people who are healthy and able to support themselves. For people who are disabled, that's a different story, but that wouldn't be a UBI.

dublinben 10y ago

Neither China, Cuba, nor North Korea are communist in any way. You need to update your propaganda.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

First, massive unemployment is coming. There is less and less need for work, there is no escaping it. In the extreme, voluntary work will be enough. That is, nobody really works, except the few that want to contribute. Or perhaps the majority would contribute a couple hours per week. So that's the ideal case. Now what about the transition, where there is too much work to rely on volunteering alone, yet too little for everyone to work full time? One easy solution is to reduce the length of the work-week. Starting with 4 days (32 hours) right now would be a start. Later 3 days. Then 2. (Now that's an average: one could concentrate those work days on the summer or winter when it makes sense.)