4 ms·

It's not really clear how having people "selling loose cigarettes" helps us all become richer. But that _is_ a perfect example of an invented, demeaning occupa

by jclulow 10y ago

It's not really clear how having people "selling loose cigarettes" helps us all become richer. But that _is_ a perfect example of an invented, demeaning occupation that nobody needs to be doing. Just because somebody in another country might be trying to scrape together a living that way, because there are no better options, doesn't make it _good_. We're building better labour saving devices all the time, but that has a human cost. When the long haul trucking industry is inevitably automated, it's frankly callous and unfeeling to suggest that we'll all be richer by forcing those former drivers to become the domestic servants of "more productive people".

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Selling loose cigarettes provides convenience for folks who smoke rarely and don't want to carry a full pack. So does making tacos, cleaning houses, etc. We all become richer because we have more tacos, cleaner houses, etc. Wealth is goods and services. You seem to disagree with me about shared obligations; you think that some folks deserve to be able to live off the productive output of others and provide nothing in return. I think all people should contribute to society as best they are able - "from each according to his abilities" was an important part of Marxism. That's fine - just recognize that "I don't want people to work" is a very different claim from "there already aren't enough jobs to go around".
- thatcat 10y ago
  Passive income is already 30% of income, with the majority going to the "productive class" via capital income [0]. These people still find ways to be productive and contribute despite their free time. People become addicted to things precisely when they don't have meaning in their lives. If you remove the obligation of their time to meaningless work, you give them an opportunity to find meaningful productivity which can be of greater benefit. The full quote is: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need!"[2]-Marx [0]https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/the-ubi-already-exists-for-the-1-d3a49fad0580#.ht5wz4ecy [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13303420 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs#Origin_of_the_phrase
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Many of those folks (typically called "retirees") are not currently productive. They have instead shifted consumption forward into the future - they were productive at age 30 but are now unproductive at age 70. But I'm a bit confused what this has to do with the 1%, who typically gain capital income by managing companies that they own. How is that unproductive?
    - thatcat 10y ago
      Which folks? Did you read the referenced article? 1% are those making most of the capital (passive) income so those were the productive passive earners I referred to. At this point, if they work, it's because they're choosing to - which is proof that passive income does not inherently slow productivity.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        According to that article, 75% of capital income does not go to the rich. Significant chunks of capital income consist of (unrealized) increases in the appraised value of homes. At this point, if they work, it's because they're choosing to - which is proof that passive income does not inherently slow productivity. Is this really correct? Do you think that a trust fund baby would not become more productive if they lost their trust fund and needed to find a job? Do you really believe that exactly zero rich people choose not to work because they don't have to?
        croon 10y ago
        > Is this really correct? Do you think that a trust fund baby would not become more productive if they lost their trust fund and needed to find a job? Do you really believe that exactly zero rich people choose not to work because they don't have to? He was arguing under your premise that passive income equalled productivity. If you now suggest that they would be more productive without their money, why should "having money" be rewarded like it is? An automated machine doing a job gives money to the person owning the machine, who does exactly as much work as the unemployed person who lost their job to that machine.
- lastyearman 10y ago
  What if it turns out that having more equal society and less of these demeaning jobs is better for everyone, including the productive people?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    If you want to make the argument that a society with a leisure class and a working class is somehow better for everyone, go ahead and do it. But that's unrelated to the argument I was making. I was simply disputing a claim that we don't have enough jobs. We do, people simply refuse to do them.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >Wealth is goods and services. Wealth is matter, energy, information, and time arranged together in various ways. Leisure, the ability to spend time outside a "work or die" event-loop is a kind of wealth, one that most people have far too little of right now. You seem to be eliding leisure from your notion of wealth, and thus proposing that leisure be eliminated wherever possible. A lot of people disagree with that.

by jclulow 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Selling loose cigarettes provides convenience for folks who smoke rarely and don't want to carry a full pack. So does making tacos, cleaning houses, etc. We all become richer because we have more tacos, cleaner houses, etc. Wealth is goods and services. You seem to disagree with me about shared obligations; you think that some folks deserve to be able to live off the productive output of others and provide nothing in return. I think all people should contribute to society as best they are able - "from each according to his abilities" was an important part of Marxism. That's fine - just recognize that "I don't want people to work" is a very different claim from "there already aren't enough jobs to go around".

thatcat 10y ago
Passive income is already 30% of income, with the majority going to the "productive class" via capital income [0]. These people still find ways to be productive and contribute despite their free time. People become addicted to things precisely when they don't have meaning in their lives. If you remove the obligation of their time to meaningless work, you give them an opportunity to find meaningful productivity which can be of greater benefit. The full quote is: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need!"[2]-Marx [0]https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/the-ubi-already-exists-for-the-1-d3a49fad0580#.ht5wz4ecy [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13303420 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs#Origin_of_the_phrase
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Many of those folks (typically called "retirees") are not currently productive. They have instead shifted consumption forward into the future - they were productive at age 30 but are now unproductive at age 70. But I'm a bit confused what this has to do with the 1%, who typically gain capital income by managing companies that they own. How is that unproductive?
  - thatcat 10y ago
    Which folks? Did you read the referenced article? 1% are those making most of the capital (passive) income so those were the productive passive earners I referred to. At this point, if they work, it's because they're choosing to - which is proof that passive income does not inherently slow productivity.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      According to that article, 75% of capital income does not go to the rich. Significant chunks of capital income consist of (unrealized) increases in the appraised value of homes. At this point, if they work, it's because they're choosing to - which is proof that passive income does not inherently slow productivity. Is this really correct? Do you think that a trust fund baby would not become more productive if they lost their trust fund and needed to find a job? Do you really believe that exactly zero rich people choose not to work because they don't have to?
      - croon 10y ago
        > Is this really correct? Do you think that a trust fund baby would not become more productive if they lost their trust fund and needed to find a job? Do you really believe that exactly zero rich people choose not to work because they don't have to? He was arguing under your premise that passive income equalled productivity. If you now suggest that they would be more productive without their money, why should "having money" be rewarded like it is? An automated machine doing a job gives money to the person owning the machine, who does exactly as much work as the unemployed person who lost their job to that machine.
lastyearman 10y ago
What if it turns out that having more equal society and less of these demeaning jobs is better for everyone, including the productive people?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  If you want to make the argument that a society with a leisure class and a working class is somehow better for everyone, go ahead and do it. But that's unrelated to the argument I was making. I was simply disputing a claim that we don't have enough jobs. We do, people simply refuse to do them.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Wealth is goods and services. Wealth is matter, energy, information, and time arranged together in various ways. Leisure, the ability to spend time outside a "work or die" event-loop is a kind of wealth, one that most people have far too little of right now. You seem to be eliding leisure from your notion of wealth, and thus proposing that leisure be eliminated wherever possible. A lot of people disagree with that.