4 ms·

Not having "work" in the sense we have today isn't going to lead to plows and bandages ceasing to exist. To that point, there are many people who would, if fre

by beat 10y ago

Not having "work" in the sense we have today isn't going to lead to plows and bandages ceasing to exist. To that point, there are many people who would, if freed from the need to "work for a living", happily be farmers. The happiest people I know are the farm family that provides our CSA food. And they take more pride in their farm than someone riding a tractor to spray Monsanto chemicals all day. They love their work. If someone gave them a million dollars and they would never need money again, they'd still run the farm just as they do now (although they might give the food away). Likewise, doctors! People become doctors to heal the sick, not to get rich. Virtually every doctor I've ever met is completely passionate about their job, frustrated mostly by the money-driven bureaucracy, not the patients. And they were taught by professors who couldn't be any happier than they are, teaching a new generation of doctors how to save lives. Most jobs worth doing would gladly be done for free. If you look at a job and realize that no one would do it if they weren't paid a lot of money (or were desperately trying to stay off the street), you have to wonder if that job should be done at all.

bkmartin 10y ago
"Most jobs worth doing would gladly be done for free. If you look at a job and realize that no one would do it if they weren't paid a lot of money (or were desperately trying to stay off the street), you have to wonder if that job should be done at all." Like garbage men? Or people who work in sewers? Or many of the "dirty jobs" out there? How many of those jobs are important to the function of our society and need to be done but would be grossly understaffed in no one "needed" to work? It is a great utopia to think about if you don't go too deep.
- mordocai 10y ago
  Luckily most of these dirty jobs can and should be done by robots. Though in some cases we may not yet be able to program one advanced enough, we soon will be able to.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  Either automate them (or otherwise redesign them to need a minimum of work: there's no need for hot-water sellers today, for example); or do without (possible for domestic servants, not for garbagemen); or pay lavishly enough that these jobs are tempting even if you've got a basic income already. A world with UBI isn't a world without money and stock markets, after all...
  - bkmartin 10y ago
    But they weren't talking about paying lavishly... it is this idea that we all have no "jobs" and only do things that we want to do... the only way to get people to do undesirable things is to incentivize them in a way that what they get is worth more than the inconvenience of doing that thing... so I agree... some sort of reward... sounds just like what we have now.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      No, what we have now is that people are forced to work at wages they wouldn't accept if they didn't have to; that's vastly different from a world where basic survival is not at risk allowing actual choice.
- beat 10y ago
  Money. It actually matters to have more than just enough to eat and a roof over your head, for many people - which is pretty much what Guaranteed Income and other approaches to the work problem provide. If you have horrible jobs and pay very little for them and the only way you can fill them is by making it a choice between shitty job and starvation, then what's the functional difference between that and slavery?
  - bkmartin 10y ago
    "what's the functional difference between that and slavery?" Ability to exercise your freewill? Aren't we all choosing between work and starving? The difference is freedom and liberty... the ability to choose our work. Why do we need a basic income? Why not just value people's time and give them the dignity they deserve and pay them in a way that they do not need a government handout when they do the 40hrs per week of work that our society has deemed the acceptable level over the last 150 years? People want to earn their keep. It is called dignity.
    - gkya 10y ago
      > Aren't we all choosing between work and starving? Oh yeah. Just like slaves could choose between serving and torture and death.
    - beat 10y ago
      Basic income gives people a real choice - a choice to not work. Not everyone wants to earn their keep (or wants to earn their keep in a way that translates easily to cash, for example artists or ministers). If someone wants more than the basic, though, more than just eating and shelter, they can always go get a job, doing those things that may not be pleasant, but are financially valuable (like picking up the garbage). And since people can choose to not do them in a meaningful way (not just choosing between work and starvation), the jobs will have to start paying real value.
wil421 10y ago
Doctors are a bad comparison. They make tons more money than anyone else and have a satisfying job by helping people. CSA's are different and most families I've met doing it quit some other job to do it. Hell if I didn't want a certain standard of life (one of MY choosing) I'd happily do organic farming and raise animals for food. But I work so I can be happy outside of work and have the freedom to do what interests me. Office jobs are easy, I've done shit jobs for shit pay and burnt out.

by beat 10y ago

bkmartin 10y ago

"Most jobs worth doing would gladly be done for free. If you look at a job and realize that no one would do it if they weren't paid a lot of money (or were desperately trying to stay off the street), you have to wonder if that job should be done at all." Like garbage men? Or people who work in sewers? Or many of the "dirty jobs" out there? How many of those jobs are important to the function of our society and need to be done but would be grossly understaffed in no one "needed" to work? It is a great utopia to think about if you don't go too deep.

mordocai 10y ago
Luckily most of these dirty jobs can and should be done by robots. Though in some cases we may not yet be able to program one advanced enough, we soon will be able to.
clock_tower 10y ago
Either automate them (or otherwise redesign them to need a minimum of work: there's no need for hot-water sellers today, for example); or do without (possible for domestic servants, not for garbagemen); or pay lavishly enough that these jobs are tempting even if you've got a basic income already. A world with UBI isn't a world without money and stock markets, after all...
- bkmartin 10y ago
  But they weren't talking about paying lavishly... it is this idea that we all have no "jobs" and only do things that we want to do... the only way to get people to do undesirable things is to incentivize them in a way that what they get is worth more than the inconvenience of doing that thing... so I agree... some sort of reward... sounds just like what we have now.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    No, what we have now is that people are forced to work at wages they wouldn't accept if they didn't have to; that's vastly different from a world where basic survival is not at risk allowing actual choice.
beat 10y ago
Money. It actually matters to have more than just enough to eat and a roof over your head, for many people - which is pretty much what Guaranteed Income and other approaches to the work problem provide. If you have horrible jobs and pay very little for them and the only way you can fill them is by making it a choice between shitty job and starvation, then what's the functional difference between that and slavery?
- bkmartin 10y ago
  "what's the functional difference between that and slavery?" Ability to exercise your freewill? Aren't we all choosing between work and starving? The difference is freedom and liberty... the ability to choose our work. Why do we need a basic income? Why not just value people's time and give them the dignity they deserve and pay them in a way that they do not need a government handout when they do the 40hrs per week of work that our society has deemed the acceptable level over the last 150 years? People want to earn their keep. It is called dignity.
  - gkya 10y ago
    > Aren't we all choosing between work and starving? Oh yeah. Just like slaves could choose between serving and torture and death.
  - beat 10y ago
    Basic income gives people a real choice - a choice to not work. Not everyone wants to earn their keep (or wants to earn their keep in a way that translates easily to cash, for example artists or ministers). If someone wants more than the basic, though, more than just eating and shelter, they can always go get a job, doing those things that may not be pleasant, but are financially valuable (like picking up the garbage). And since people can choose to not do them in a meaningful way (not just choosing between work and starvation), the jobs will have to start paying real value.

wil421 10y ago

Doctors are a bad comparison. They make tons more money than anyone else and have a satisfying job by helping people. CSA's are different and most families I've met doing it quit some other job to do it. Hell if I didn't want a certain standard of life (one of MY choosing) I'd happily do organic farming and raise animals for food. But I work so I can be happy outside of work and have the freedom to do what interests me. Office jobs are easy, I've done shit jobs for shit pay and burnt out.