4 ms·

You're not factoring in the utility created by freeing up the worker to enjoy themselves. They're consuming the same amount of resources, but they're much happi

You're not factoring in the utility created by freeing up the worker to enjoy themselves. They're consuming the same amount of resources, but they're much happier as well.

cousin_it 10y ago
Yeah, that's a good point. Though work could be both positive and negative utility-wise. I guess that depends on the job.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Noseshine 10y ago
Sarcasm? Happy to be laid off? Note that I'm not for keeping people employed in useless jobs, but saying about laid-off workers that "they're much happier" is a little weird to me. It would be good if that was so, and the fact that it isn't to me is an indicator that the system does not work well, because it should be that way - but it isn't.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Well the original argument assumes that the welfare is equivalent to their salary (otherwise they'd be consuming less resources), so yes they'd probably be happier.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    That assumes that all the worker cares about is money. However, not having a job has psychological consequences, and the chances for being able to switch to another job are reduced dramatically the longer one is unemployed. Humans are more concerned about their outlook than their current condition, and the outlook for the unemployed worker is worse than for the employed one.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      If the person knows they will reliably receive the same salary as when they were working, their outlook is at least as good as it was before. And should they wish to improve it, they have plenty of time to explore ways to do so. And certainly people want to feel valued, but there are far better ways to achieve this than doing pointless repetitive work, and not all of them require employment.
  - sverige 10y ago
    I'm not sure that this widespread assumption on HN that most people would continue their education or pursue interesting hobbies if they had sufficient income to not work is correct. Most people would sit around the house, get high and watch the tube. Work provides much more than the goods produced and services rendered. For many or most, it also provides a sense of identity and purpose and well-being. When there's no work available, a lot of that is replaced with negative behaviors, not some noble pursuit of improving humanity. The unhappiness seen in low income neighborhoods isn't solely due to lack of resources. Hell, a lot of times in the U.S. people on welfare are materially better off than farmers who eked out a living during the Depression. What's at least as destructive is the sense that there's no purpose in life. The bright future of AI, robotics, and automation providing a robust supply of material wealth, combined with UBI, will be millions of people sitting stoned or drunk in front of the tv while their children entertain themselves by hacking robot-driven trucks to make them crash into each other.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      I think the people sitting around the house will probably notice that they're not happy, and seek out other things to do. I think the main reason people on welfare don't currently do much is that they can't afford the alternatives. There are also class cultural differences that can make it difficult for them, but I think there are ways to address this. More generally, I think in the absence of material problems, we will have many more resources freed up to address the problem of purposelessness. I do think it's easy to succumb to depression-inducing laziness in the absence of necessity to work (I have experienced this myself), but I think this is a psychological problem that should be addressed directly. >while their children entertain themselves by hacking robot-driven trucks to make them crash into each other. And then those children age in a world where they never have to stop being children.
      - sverige 10y ago
        >And then those children age in a world where they never have to stop being children. That is a truly horrific thought.

You're not factoring in the utility created by freeing up the worker to enjoy themselves. They're consuming the same amount of resources, but they're much happier as well.

cousin_it 10y ago

Yeah, that's a good point. Though work could be both positive and negative utility-wise. I guess that depends on the job.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Noseshine 10y ago

Sarcasm? Happy to be laid off? Note that I'm not for keeping people employed in useless jobs, but saying about laid-off workers that "they're much happier" is a little weird to me. It would be good if that was so, and the fact that it isn't to me is an indicator that the system does not work well, because it should be that way - but it isn't.

aninhumer 10y ago
Well the original argument assumes that the welfare is equivalent to their salary (otherwise they'd be consuming less resources), so yes they'd probably be happier.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  That assumes that all the worker cares about is money. However, not having a job has psychological consequences, and the chances for being able to switch to another job are reduced dramatically the longer one is unemployed. Humans are more concerned about their outlook than their current condition, and the outlook for the unemployed worker is worse than for the employed one.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    If the person knows they will reliably receive the same salary as when they were working, their outlook is at least as good as it was before. And should they wish to improve it, they have plenty of time to explore ways to do so. And certainly people want to feel valued, but there are far better ways to achieve this than doing pointless repetitive work, and not all of them require employment.
- sverige 10y ago
  I'm not sure that this widespread assumption on HN that most people would continue their education or pursue interesting hobbies if they had sufficient income to not work is correct. Most people would sit around the house, get high and watch the tube. Work provides much more than the goods produced and services rendered. For many or most, it also provides a sense of identity and purpose and well-being. When there's no work available, a lot of that is replaced with negative behaviors, not some noble pursuit of improving humanity. The unhappiness seen in low income neighborhoods isn't solely due to lack of resources. Hell, a lot of times in the U.S. people on welfare are materially better off than farmers who eked out a living during the Depression. What's at least as destructive is the sense that there's no purpose in life. The bright future of AI, robotics, and automation providing a robust supply of material wealth, combined with UBI, will be millions of people sitting stoned or drunk in front of the tv while their children entertain themselves by hacking robot-driven trucks to make them crash into each other.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    I think the people sitting around the house will probably notice that they're not happy, and seek out other things to do. I think the main reason people on welfare don't currently do much is that they can't afford the alternatives. There are also class cultural differences that can make it difficult for them, but I think there are ways to address this. More generally, I think in the absence of material problems, we will have many more resources freed up to address the problem of purposelessness. I do think it's easy to succumb to depression-inducing laziness in the absence of necessity to work (I have experienced this myself), but I think this is a psychological problem that should be addressed directly. >while their children entertain themselves by hacking robot-driven trucks to make them crash into each other. And then those children age in a world where they never have to stop being children.
    - sverige 10y ago
      >And then those children age in a world where they never have to stop being children. That is a truly horrific thought.