4 ms·

Fair. But a soul-crushing job is better than no job, and the question remains as to whether or not mobility into a job of equal requisite skill exists.

timv 10y ago
> a soul-crushing job is better than no job Really? Do you mean: "Being paid to do soul-crushing work is better than not being paid" ? Or: "Doing soul-crushing work is better than having nothing to do" ? The first is an issue of income and the distribution of product (in the GDP sense of product). There is no axiomatic rule that says "you have to have a job to get paid", it's just how our current economy operates. If I owned a farm that produced a variety of food in excess of the needs of my whole family, but was totally operated by self-maintaining robots, would I need to have a job? The robots would produce all the food I need, and I could sell the excess in order to obtain other goods. I guess I could say my job was "farmer" or "grocery salesman" or "robot supervisor", but I wouldn't actually being doing work. If I am a truck driver, and I own my own truck and I make an income by transporting goods, and then I convert my truck to be self-driving so that I no longer need to be the driver, then (if we temporarily ignore external price pressures) I still make the same income as I used to. But I'm just reaping the benefits of my self driving truck, I don't actually "work" anymore (or at least to nowhere near the extent I used to). But if I am a truck driver, and someone else owns the truck and I make an income by being contracted to transport goods, and then they convert my truck to be self-driving so that I no longer need to be the driver, then I no longer make any income, and I'm screwed. The owner of the truck reaps incredible benefits, and I don't actually "work" anymore, but I also don't have an income. That's how things work in our society, but it doesn't have to be that way. There's no universal moral law that says that the first ex-truck-driver should continue to be paid for doing nothing much, but the second ex-truck-driver needs to get off his butt and go find a new soul-crushing job so that he can earn an income. As our economies change to produce more output with fewer workers, there becomes less useful work for the citizens to do, even though GDP is increasing. That ought to be a good thing (economically) - more "stuff we want", less effort to produce it. But it won't actually being a good thing for the general population unless we move to a different model for the distribution of income, so that there's a way for the populace to share in the increased productivity even though their manual labour is no longer needed. That where ideas like "Universal Basic Income" (UBI) come in.
- lmm 10y ago
  > Or: "Doing soul-crushing work is better than having nothing to do" ? Are we sure this isn't true? Are people who don't have to work (e.g. those on permanent disability in the US) more or less happy than comparable people in dead-end soulless jobs?
  - timv 10y ago
    > Are we sure this isn't true? I don't know of any studies, but I suspect there would be some. In addition to the question of "how do we share income in a less-work world?", there is the question "how do we ensure that the are opportunities for everyone to contribute something meaningful to society?" Ideally those questions would connect - we would use our increased product(ivity) to fund a wider range of human endeavours that might not have been considered "economically productive" in previous generations. I don't know what that looks like, but I would hope it means more art and science, rather than more soul crushing, meaningless busy-work.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      Or even, how many researchers are working at McDonald's because their families' circumstances didn't afford them other opportunities, including ability to further their education? Maybe not many, but I feel pretty confident that number is greater than 0.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    While it may be informative, one of the differences between UBI and simply expanding current welfare programs is cultural. Right now, being out of a job is considered shameful, and it's often isolating (since "everyone" else is working while you're not). Even in my holiday-friendlier (compared to the US) EU country, the fact that an unemployed person takes a few days from searching for work to go to the beach is met with scorn. One of the hopes of UBI is that when everyone receives a salary just from being alive, and working earns you extra on top of that, whether one works become more of a choice (like living frugally) instead of a failure, and loneliness is reduced when unemployment isn't an evil to combat, and more people choose to do something else.

timv 10y ago

> a soul-crushing job is better than no job Really? Do you mean: "Being paid to do soul-crushing work is better than not being paid" ? Or: "Doing soul-crushing work is better than having nothing to do" ? The first is an issue of income and the distribution of product (in the GDP sense of product). There is no axiomatic rule that says "you have to have a job to get paid", it's just how our current economy operates. If I owned a farm that produced a variety of food in excess of the needs of my whole family, but was totally operated by self-maintaining robots, would I need to have a job? The robots would produce all the food I need, and I could sell the excess in order to obtain other goods. I guess I could say my job was "farmer" or "grocery salesman" or "robot supervisor", but I wouldn't actually being doing work. If I am a truck driver, and I own my own truck and I make an income by transporting goods, and then I convert my truck to be self-driving so that I no longer need to be the driver, then (if we temporarily ignore external price pressures) I still make the same income as I used to. But I'm just reaping the benefits of my self driving truck, I don't actually "work" anymore (or at least to nowhere near the extent I used to). But if I am a truck driver, and someone else owns the truck and I make an income by being contracted to transport goods, and then they convert my truck to be self-driving so that I no longer need to be the driver, then I no longer make any income, and I'm screwed. The owner of the truck reaps incredible benefits, and I don't actually "work" anymore, but I also don't have an income. That's how things work in our society, but it doesn't have to be that way. There's no universal moral law that says that the first ex-truck-driver should continue to be paid for doing nothing much, but the second ex-truck-driver needs to get off his butt and go find a new soul-crushing job so that he can earn an income. As our economies change to produce more output with fewer workers, there becomes less useful work for the citizens to do, even though GDP is increasing. That ought to be a good thing (economically) - more "stuff we want", less effort to produce it. But it won't actually being a good thing for the general population unless we move to a different model for the distribution of income, so that there's a way for the populace to share in the increased productivity even though their manual labour is no longer needed. That where ideas like "Universal Basic Income" (UBI) come in.

lmm 10y ago
> Or: "Doing soul-crushing work is better than having nothing to do" ? Are we sure this isn't true? Are people who don't have to work (e.g. those on permanent disability in the US) more or less happy than comparable people in dead-end soulless jobs?
- timv 10y ago
  > Are we sure this isn't true? I don't know of any studies, but I suspect there would be some. In addition to the question of "how do we share income in a less-work world?", there is the question "how do we ensure that the are opportunities for everyone to contribute something meaningful to society?" Ideally those questions would connect - we would use our increased product(ivity) to fund a wider range of human endeavours that might not have been considered "economically productive" in previous generations. I don't know what that looks like, but I would hope it means more art and science, rather than more soul crushing, meaningless busy-work.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Or even, how many researchers are working at McDonald's because their families' circumstances didn't afford them other opportunities, including ability to further their education? Maybe not many, but I feel pretty confident that number is greater than 0.
- icebraining 10y ago
  While it may be informative, one of the differences between UBI and simply expanding current welfare programs is cultural. Right now, being out of a job is considered shameful, and it's often isolating (since "everyone" else is working while you're not). Even in my holiday-friendlier (compared to the US) EU country, the fact that an unemployed person takes a few days from searching for work to go to the beach is met with scorn. One of the hopes of UBI is that when everyone receives a salary just from being alive, and working earns you extra on top of that, whether one works become more of a choice (like living frugally) instead of a failure, and loneliness is reduced when unemployment isn't an evil to combat, and more people choose to do something else.