5 ms·

"How do you make a living without a job – can you receive income without working for it? Is it possible, to begin with and then, the hard part, is it ethical?"

by cbanek 9y ago

"How do you make a living without a job – can you receive income without working for it? Is it possible, to begin with and then, the hard part, is it ethical?" What about retirement? social security? disability? You might not be "making a living", but you are getting an income without working for it. Same for investing money. Really "working for it" is a loaded term in and of itself. You might be "working for it" by taking risk, or putting in labor. The author obviously doesn't think any investor is "working for it" by the the tone of the article, but this is precisely what retired america is doing? "If you were raised to believe that work is the index of your value to society – as most of us were – would it feel like cheating to get something for nothing?" I don't think this is the right question at all. People take for granted whatever they have, and likely may feel it's cheating, until they start taking it for granted. I think the more interesting question is, if you could live even if society didn't value what you were doing, and you could do anything (even nothing) and still be provided with everything you need to survive - what would happen to individuals and what would happen to society? People by nature I think are very externally motivated (society, wealth, materialism), and if you didn't make people go to work, would they? If they did, would they still put up with the crappy parts of it? I think what defines a satisfied life is doing things that matter to you, make yourself work, try hard, think, make yourself smile a few years down the road (after you've forgotten the hard parts). But even when you have all the opportunity in the world, some people just procrastinate or fall off the wagon somewhere...

freeflight 9y ago
>The author obviously doesn't think any investor is "working for it" by the the tone of the article, but this is precisely what retired america is doing? Because it ain't the investor who's working there it's the capital or isn't that how the saying goes? >People by nature I think are very externally motivated (society, wealth, materialism), and if you didn't make people go to work, would they? If they did, would they still put up with the crappy parts of it? People by nature are also very diverse characters and as such can't be generalized in such a way. Some people need external motivation to live, others see living itself as motivation enough and loathe a high octane lifestyle focused on chasing some external motivation in the form of fulfilling arbitrary productivity quotas to measure their "progress in life". >I think what defines a satisfied life is doing things that matter to you, make yourself work, try hard, think, make yourself smile a few years down the road (after you've forgotten the hard parts). Which assumes there's a "happy ending" if said person just "puts in the work", sorry but that's not how reality works at all. You can endure all you want, put in all the work you want and life can still screw you over big time like it does for, the majority of, people on this planet every single day. If "hard work" is all it would take then we'd be long there, wherever "there" is supposed to be anyway. Because I doubt that out of billions of people working the large majority are simply "slacking it" and "too lazy" to all become successful millionaires, it's far more to do with lack of opportunity and not lack of motivation.
- cbanek 9y ago
  > People by nature are also very diverse characters and as such can't be generalized in such a way. Some people need external motivation to live, others see living itself as motivation enough and loathe a high octane lifestyle focused on chasing some external motivation in the form of fulfilling arbitrary productivity quotas to measure their "progress in life". Of course, this is part of our culture. I don't mean to generalize that all people are hugely driven, but that everyone pretty much has a base line level of external motivation in that we need shelter, food, etc. While not everyone likes a high octane atmosphere (and I wasn't implying they do), suddenly being able to do nothing is not typically a situation most people find themselves in. There's usually school, or a job, or something. There's a definite link between what we do, and our identity and how we see ourselves, and our value. It's easy for people to get depressed and isolated when they do nothing. It's easier for negative habits to set in with fewer checks. As for a "happy ending," we all have the same ending - we die. I think it's not so bad, personally. I meant this more like Warren Buffett's "internal scorecard". There have been studies about what people regret most when they are old, and most of those are losing touch with friends, and regretting not doing things when they had the chance. I wonder how that would change if we were challenged less. Or would we simply challenge ourselves more? (I hope the latter) And just like you think that "there" would be a millionaire, I say it's just being at the end of life, and not having too many regrets.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    >suddenly being able to do nothing is not typically a situation most people find themselves in And when people do find themselves in that situation they have everybody and the world yelling at them to do something "useful" with their time because as you say this has a lot to do with culture. Maybe doing nothing is perfectly fine? I don't see other animals constantly hustling to look "busy" for the sake of looking busy. Let's also keep in mind that most people usually don't just "do nothing", if they have an actual choice then they tend to do things they enjoy which is at least something. >There's a definite link between what we do, and our identity and how we see ourselves, and our value. It's easy for people to get depressed and isolated when they do nothing. It's easier for negative habits to set in with fewer checks. Of course, there is and it is a very simple link: People often excel at the things they enjoy doing, force them to perform tasks they don't enjoy/see a purpose in and you usually make people miserable regardless of the monetary compensation they receive. That's the only way work functions as a "check" to keep people happy if they see an actual purpose/value in it and don't experience it as "working for work's sake" because that might just as well be considered crypto-slavery. In 2013 David Graeber wrote a pretty good piece about this Phenomenon calling it "bullshit jobs" [0]. >And just like you think that "there" would be a millionaire, I say it's just being at the end of life, and not having too many regrets. Sorry I might have misunderstood your point there because I interpreted that part as the usual "American dream" story of "everybody can do it if they just put in the work" which I consider BS not just in the US but pretty much everywhere. >I wonder how that would change if we were challenged less. Or would we simply challenge ourselves more? Keeping up in the rat race takes a lot of time and energy that's why (imho) many people would challenge themselves more once they are freed up from cultural expectations aka the challenges forced on them by society. [0]http://web.archive.org/web/20130818200653/http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://web.archive.org/web/20130818200653/http://strikemag.o...
dragonsky67 9y ago
>>People by nature I think are very externally motivated (society, wealth, materialism)and if you didn't make people go to work, would they? If they did, would they still put up with the crappy parts of it? Is this not just a function of upbringing and experience? There are many creative types for whom motivation is completely internal, that producing the "perfect" symphony is driven by internal desires completely divorced from any acclaim (or criticism) that it may attract. I think the other question that needs to be addressed is that we seem to be specifically talking about paid work. Some of the most difficult "work" I have done recently has been working on clearing and renovating our back yard garden. All unpaid. You only have to look at the actions of the many very rich philanthropists who spend their time working for the greater good. I would admit that in a lot of cases they have gained their wealth through hard work (paid type), but their are many who have inherited wealth and still work (unpaid) long hours for the greater good. I think the big difference between those who when faced with no (paid) work and given the resources to live, who will do nothing and those who will look around for something useful to do will be education. When people are shown that there is useful fulfilling activity that can be done even when you don't have to put bread on the table, and are given the skills to work creatively, I think many, if not most will step up and take on activity (lets call it work) that will extend our society in ways we cannot now imagine.
- cbanek 9y ago
  I don't disagree with any of that - but right now with today's culture, I think it'd be a huge shock. I can only imagine what kind of rap music would be made about UBI. Plus, if people didn't have a job, or have to hustle, they could also further their education, leading back into a virtuous cycle of productivity through better education. Overall I agree with time the culture would definitely shift (probably the value of work would change a lot, not anymore based on $, but maybe more like art?), and the optimist in me thinks that we'd be fine. We might even end up less selfish if there's enough for all. The pessimist in me says that the whole evolutionary nature to compete (even destructively) might take over some people, while other people would wither away with no purpose (kind of like the pax in firefly).
  - 9y ago
dragonsky67 9y ago
I find it interesting that he is asking about the ethics of not working for a living, as if paid work has some moral value, or eating without having to work for it is somehow immoral. By that measure we should all be working like dogs for peanut and we would all be saints. Sorry that doesn't work for me. If your aim in life is to work harder and longer go for it. I'd prefer to work shorter and smarter to get the same result.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
> think the more interesting question is, if you could live even if society didn't value what you were doing, and you could do anything (even nothing) and still be provided with everything you need to survive - what would happen to individuals and what would happen to society Or, as the author put it, >How would human nature change as the aristocratic privilege of leisure becomes the birthright of all? The article doesn't have the tone you're assuming it does.
mvindahl 9y ago
> I think the more interesting question is, if you could live even if society didn't value what you were doing, and you could do anything (even nothing) and still be provided with everything you need to survive - what would happen to individuals and what would happen to society? I think there are historical precedents, at least if you define "society" in a narrower sense. European royalty and nobility in the 18th century, present day natives of Dubai or Saudi Arabia, hereditary upper classes of all times an places. The common denominator being born to affluence and mainly mingling with your subsection of society. The verdict? Seems like people turn out in surprisingly different ways when freed from toiling for basic necessities. Some become great scientists, artists, philosophers or philanthropists. Some become revolutionaries or even international terrorists. Some become insufferable whiners. Some just live a quiet life.
I_am_neo 9y ago
(retirement? social security? disability) You might not be "making a living", but you are getting an income without working for it. We all have worked for those, but the work done to accrue them is not fairly partitioned to all those present, it is not fairly paid for by those whom could afford to, because many will say they have a life style to maintain and that life style is sloth and ignorance of the well to do. Those entitlements you say are enough don't pay shit to live on, and they know that, and we know that. Not enough for good schools warm housing or good food. But they are enough to keep you poor, don't knock it till you try it. Smiles are free but so are empty stomachs and cold fingers
diyseguy 9y ago
> I think the more interesting question is, if you could live even if society didn't value what you were doing, and you could do anything (even nothing) and still be provided with everything you need to survive - what would happen to individuals and what would happen to society? It would be very very hard to find basic services like, a plumber. I know that because I live on an island where most people are retired and reasonably well off. Off-island services are reluctant to take the ferry over because it's too much trouble. I kind of imagine a basic income society would become like that. I believe there are few who would do the grungier work if they didn't have to. We'd all be tired of art and poetry and stuff because we'd have loads and loads of artists. Art is valuable because of its rarity and seeming extravagance in a world pressed for time. But please, I hope basic income happens. I'm weary of our absurd slave work ethic aesthetic. Between robots, Walmart and Amazon, I think its obvious that capitalism is reaching its end-game state. Let's evolve to a new way of living that is more about happiness and less about competing for the dollah.
- glegeza 9y ago
  For what little it's worth, two members of my extended family are plumbers and both do it because they genuinely enjoy it. Both are also self-employed, so there's that. I worked with one of them in my early 20s and "dirty" jobs like that aren't half as unappealing as they seem. The truth is, any kind of basic service like that actually ends up being very social work. People are generally happy to have someone who can come and solve real problems and you tend to develop meaningful relationships with the people that you do work for. I wouldn't call it an objectively worse gig than the contract development I do nowadays, aside from the fact that it paid drastically less. That said, if this actually is a problem then it's one you can solve by paying people more. We skate by right now because the need to work just to survive acts as a kind of economic coercion that tips the balance of power drastically against labor, which in turn allows abusive employers to pay people less than they would have to in a "balanced" labor market. Remove that coercion and people will still do otherwise undesirable jobs if you pay them enough.
  - diyseguy 9y ago
    Not trying to cast any shade on plumbers. Full respect to them, getting under the house, into the crawlspaces with the random wharf rats and other surprises. And they make more than I do, which is already a lot by my standards. Having gone a full three weeks without hot water, I almost want to build a bronze statue of them for the front lawn, that's how much I appreciate what they do. And no doubt, there are people who just generally enjoy fixing things and solving problems. I enjoy that too. However, I imagine in a world where basic needs are met. (Trust me I want this world very much.) I wonder if more money would be enough of a motivator. I sort of imagine this future world divided into two classes of people. Those who want to kill themselves working to get the next greatest iphone every year. And those would rather sit on the porch in a rocking chair enjoying the day. I envision, with basic income, the latter group gaining gradual majority - with people bunking up, combining their basic incomes to support a collective where they go back to farming and other forms of self-sufficiency. The status seekers vs the survivalists.

by cbanek 9y ago

freeflight 9y ago

>The author obviously doesn't think any investor is "working for it" by the the tone of the article, but this is precisely what retired america is doing? Because it ain't the investor who's working there it's the capital or isn't that how the saying goes? >People by nature I think are very externally motivated (society, wealth, materialism), and if you didn't make people go to work, would they? If they did, would they still put up with the crappy parts of it? People by nature are also very diverse characters and as such can't be generalized in such a way. Some people need external motivation to live, others see living itself as motivation enough and loathe a high octane lifestyle focused on chasing some external motivation in the form of fulfilling arbitrary productivity quotas to measure their "progress in life". >I think what defines a satisfied life is doing things that matter to you, make yourself work, try hard, think, make yourself smile a few years down the road (after you've forgotten the hard parts). Which assumes there's a "happy ending" if said person just "puts in the work", sorry but that's not how reality works at all. You can endure all you want, put in all the work you want and life can still screw you over big time like it does for, the majority of, people on this planet every single day. If "hard work" is all it would take then we'd be long there, wherever "there" is supposed to be anyway. Because I doubt that out of billions of people working the large majority are simply "slacking it" and "too lazy" to all become successful millionaires, it's far more to do with lack of opportunity and not lack of motivation.

cbanek 9y ago
> People by nature are also very diverse characters and as such can't be generalized in such a way. Some people need external motivation to live, others see living itself as motivation enough and loathe a high octane lifestyle focused on chasing some external motivation in the form of fulfilling arbitrary productivity quotas to measure their "progress in life". Of course, this is part of our culture. I don't mean to generalize that all people are hugely driven, but that everyone pretty much has a base line level of external motivation in that we need shelter, food, etc. While not everyone likes a high octane atmosphere (and I wasn't implying they do), suddenly being able to do nothing is not typically a situation most people find themselves in. There's usually school, or a job, or something. There's a definite link between what we do, and our identity and how we see ourselves, and our value. It's easy for people to get depressed and isolated when they do nothing. It's easier for negative habits to set in with fewer checks. As for a "happy ending," we all have the same ending - we die. I think it's not so bad, personally. I meant this more like Warren Buffett's "internal scorecard". There have been studies about what people regret most when they are old, and most of those are losing touch with friends, and regretting not doing things when they had the chance. I wonder how that would change if we were challenged less. Or would we simply challenge ourselves more? (I hope the latter) And just like you think that "there" would be a millionaire, I say it's just being at the end of life, and not having too many regrets.
- freeflight 9y ago
  >suddenly being able to do nothing is not typically a situation most people find themselves in And when people do find themselves in that situation they have everybody and the world yelling at them to do something "useful" with their time because as you say this has a lot to do with culture. Maybe doing nothing is perfectly fine? I don't see other animals constantly hustling to look "busy" for the sake of looking busy. Let's also keep in mind that most people usually don't just "do nothing", if they have an actual choice then they tend to do things they enjoy which is at least something. >There's a definite link between what we do, and our identity and how we see ourselves, and our value. It's easy for people to get depressed and isolated when they do nothing. It's easier for negative habits to set in with fewer checks. Of course, there is and it is a very simple link: People often excel at the things they enjoy doing, force them to perform tasks they don't enjoy/see a purpose in and you usually make people miserable regardless of the monetary compensation they receive. That's the only way work functions as a "check" to keep people happy if they see an actual purpose/value in it and don't experience it as "working for work's sake" because that might just as well be considered crypto-slavery. In 2013 David Graeber wrote a pretty good piece about this Phenomenon calling it "bullshit jobs" [0]. >And just like you think that "there" would be a millionaire, I say it's just being at the end of life, and not having too many regrets. Sorry I might have misunderstood your point there because I interpreted that part as the usual "American dream" story of "everybody can do it if they just put in the work" which I consider BS not just in the US but pretty much everywhere. >I wonder how that would change if we were challenged less. Or would we simply challenge ourselves more? Keeping up in the rat race takes a lot of time and energy that's why (imho) many people would challenge themselves more once they are freed up from cultural expectations aka the challenges forced on them by society. [0]http://web.archive.org/web/20130818200653/http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://web.archive.org/web/20130818200653/http://strikemag.o...

dragonsky67 9y ago

>>People by nature I think are very externally motivated (society, wealth, materialism)and if you didn't make people go to work, would they? If they did, would they still put up with the crappy parts of it? Is this not just a function of upbringing and experience? There are many creative types for whom motivation is completely internal, that producing the "perfect" symphony is driven by internal desires completely divorced from any acclaim (or criticism) that it may attract. I think the other question that needs to be addressed is that we seem to be specifically talking about paid work. Some of the most difficult "work" I have done recently has been working on clearing and renovating our back yard garden. All unpaid. You only have to look at the actions of the many very rich philanthropists who spend their time working for the greater good. I would admit that in a lot of cases they have gained their wealth through hard work (paid type), but their are many who have inherited wealth and still work (unpaid) long hours for the greater good. I think the big difference between those who when faced with no (paid) work and given the resources to live, who will do nothing and those who will look around for something useful to do will be education. When people are shown that there is useful fulfilling activity that can be done even when you don't have to put bread on the table, and are given the skills to work creatively, I think many, if not most will step up and take on activity (lets call it work) that will extend our society in ways we cannot now imagine.

cbanek 9y ago
I don't disagree with any of that - but right now with today's culture, I think it'd be a huge shock. I can only imagine what kind of rap music would be made about UBI. Plus, if people didn't have a job, or have to hustle, they could also further their education, leading back into a virtuous cycle of productivity through better education. Overall I agree with time the culture would definitely shift (probably the value of work would change a lot, not anymore based on $, but maybe more like art?), and the optimist in me thinks that we'd be fine. We might even end up less selfish if there's enough for all. The pessimist in me says that the whole evolutionary nature to compete (even destructively) might take over some people, while other people would wither away with no purpose (kind of like the pax in firefly).
- 9y ago

dragonsky67 9y ago

I find it interesting that he is asking about the ethics of not working for a living, as if paid work has some moral value, or eating without having to work for it is somehow immoral. By that measure we should all be working like dogs for peanut and we would all be saints. Sorry that doesn't work for me. If your aim in life is to work harder and longer go for it. I'd prefer to work shorter and smarter to get the same result.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

> think the more interesting question is, if you could live even if society didn't value what you were doing, and you could do anything (even nothing) and still be provided with everything you need to survive - what would happen to individuals and what would happen to society Or, as the author put it, >How would human nature change as the aristocratic privilege of leisure becomes the birthright of all? The article doesn't have the tone you're assuming it does.

mvindahl 9y ago

> I think the more interesting question is, if you could live even if society didn't value what you were doing, and you could do anything (even nothing) and still be provided with everything you need to survive - what would happen to individuals and what would happen to society? I think there are historical precedents, at least if you define "society" in a narrower sense. European royalty and nobility in the 18th century, present day natives of Dubai or Saudi Arabia, hereditary upper classes of all times an places. The common denominator being born to affluence and mainly mingling with your subsection of society. The verdict? Seems like people turn out in surprisingly different ways when freed from toiling for basic necessities. Some become great scientists, artists, philosophers or philanthropists. Some become revolutionaries or even international terrorists. Some become insufferable whiners. Some just live a quiet life.

I_am_neo 9y ago

(retirement? social security? disability) You might not be "making a living", but you are getting an income without working for it. We all have worked for those, but the work done to accrue them is not fairly partitioned to all those present, it is not fairly paid for by those whom could afford to, because many will say they have a life style to maintain and that life style is sloth and ignorance of the well to do. Those entitlements you say are enough don't pay shit to live on, and they know that, and we know that. Not enough for good schools warm housing or good food. But they are enough to keep you poor, don't knock it till you try it. Smiles are free but so are empty stomachs and cold fingers

diyseguy 9y ago

> I think the more interesting question is, if you could live even if society didn't value what you were doing, and you could do anything (even nothing) and still be provided with everything you need to survive - what would happen to individuals and what would happen to society? It would be very very hard to find basic services like, a plumber. I know that because I live on an island where most people are retired and reasonably well off. Off-island services are reluctant to take the ferry over because it's too much trouble. I kind of imagine a basic income society would become like that. I believe there are few who would do the grungier work if they didn't have to. We'd all be tired of art and poetry and stuff because we'd have loads and loads of artists. Art is valuable because of its rarity and seeming extravagance in a world pressed for time. But please, I hope basic income happens. I'm weary of our absurd slave work ethic aesthetic. Between robots, Walmart and Amazon, I think its obvious that capitalism is reaching its end-game state. Let's evolve to a new way of living that is more about happiness and less about competing for the dollah.

glegeza 9y ago
For what little it's worth, two members of my extended family are plumbers and both do it because they genuinely enjoy it. Both are also self-employed, so there's that. I worked with one of them in my early 20s and "dirty" jobs like that aren't half as unappealing as they seem. The truth is, any kind of basic service like that actually ends up being very social work. People are generally happy to have someone who can come and solve real problems and you tend to develop meaningful relationships with the people that you do work for. I wouldn't call it an objectively worse gig than the contract development I do nowadays, aside from the fact that it paid drastically less. That said, if this actually is a problem then it's one you can solve by paying people more. We skate by right now because the need to work just to survive acts as a kind of economic coercion that tips the balance of power drastically against labor, which in turn allows abusive employers to pay people less than they would have to in a "balanced" labor market. Remove that coercion and people will still do otherwise undesirable jobs if you pay them enough.
- diyseguy 9y ago
  Not trying to cast any shade on plumbers. Full respect to them, getting under the house, into the crawlspaces with the random wharf rats and other surprises. And they make more than I do, which is already a lot by my standards. Having gone a full three weeks without hot water, I almost want to build a bronze statue of them for the front lawn, that's how much I appreciate what they do. And no doubt, there are people who just generally enjoy fixing things and solving problems. I enjoy that too. However, I imagine in a world where basic needs are met. (Trust me I want this world very much.) I wonder if more money would be enough of a motivator. I sort of imagine this future world divided into two classes of people. Those who want to kill themselves working to get the next greatest iphone every year. And those would rather sit on the porch in a rocking chair enjoying the day. I envision, with basic income, the latter group gaining gradual majority - with people bunking up, combining their basic incomes to support a collective where they go back to farming and other forms of self-sufficiency. The status seekers vs the survivalists.