3 ms·

I don't see how your statement contradicts his. The fact that other people will rush in to fill the void doesn't change the fact that tons of people will still

by csallen 10y ago

I don't see how your statement contradicts his. The fact that other people will rush in to fill the void doesn't change the fact that tons of people will still be sitting at home playing video games. Hence his statement about a big chunk of labor remaining unused is still true. Also, there's absolutely no guarantee that job opportunities will become more attractive at a rate that matches the attractiveness of video games. It's not hard to imagine a world 20 years from now in which millions of people spend 12+ hours a day in what essentially amounts to the Matrix, slaying dragons, shooting bad guys, and saving princesses. You might say to them, "Go out and get a job! There's no competition! You could make great money!" To which they could very logically reply, "Why would I need lots of money for? I'm perfectly happy right now."

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Ready Player One comes to mind.
Teever 10y ago
But are they really a chunk of labour? Like if people that chose to not work and play video games are a chunk of unused labour than so are unemployed alcoholics. It's kind of a self-selecting thing, do you really want the people that don't want to work?
- csallen 10y ago
  If the economists in the article are to be believed, these aren't simply "people that don't want to work." They're people who ordinary have always worked, but are now being actively persuaded not to by this new force known as video games. So it's not analogous to alcoholics being alcoholics. It's better compared to the introduction of a wholly new drug into society, which has subsequently altered the behavior of a heretofore normal, hard-working, non-addicted segment. Secondly, while it may seem appropriate to deride these people as useless and lazy ne'er-do-wells, that characterization isn't apt. It's not as if they're living lives of misery, unable to overcome some base desire to pull themselves out of it. Quite the contrary: they're happier than the rest of us. They're looking at the options that society has presented them with, and making a perfectly logical choice to spend their days engaged in meaningful, rewarding, social, challenging, and fulfilling activity -- in a fantasy world. Why would they go to work at dead end jobs if they have the option not to?

by csallen 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago

Ready Player One comes to mind.

Teever 10y ago

But are they really a chunk of labour? Like if people that chose to not work and play video games are a chunk of unused labour than so are unemployed alcoholics. It's kind of a self-selecting thing, do you really want the people that don't want to work?

csallen 10y ago
If the economists in the article are to be believed, these aren't simply "people that don't want to work." They're people who ordinary have always worked, but are now being actively persuaded not to by this new force known as video games. So it's not analogous to alcoholics being alcoholics. It's better compared to the introduction of a wholly new drug into society, which has subsequently altered the behavior of a heretofore normal, hard-working, non-addicted segment. Secondly, while it may seem appropriate to deride these people as useless and lazy ne'er-do-wells, that characterization isn't apt. It's not as if they're living lives of misery, unable to overcome some base desire to pull themselves out of it. Quite the contrary: they're happier than the rest of us. They're looking at the options that society has presented them with, and making a perfectly logical choice to spend their days engaged in meaningful, rewarding, social, challenging, and fulfilling activity -- in a fantasy world. Why would they go to work at dead end jobs if they have the option not to?