4 ms·

What would your alternative suggestion be though? Toil on a farm growing your own vegetables? (nb for me this is in the "don't like doing" and "I'm bad at it" q

What would your alternative suggestion be though? Toil on a farm growing your own vegetables? (nb for me this is in the "don't like doing" and "I'm bad at it" quadrant). And if the implied alternative is to be workable for everyone, we have to magic roads, healthcare etc out of nowhere with no tax dollars.

grecy 9y ago
> What would your alternative suggestion be though? My alternative is only go to work as much as you need to. Food, shelter and some basic enjoyment, not more. That's something like $10-20k per year, at most. Which means you really only need to work 2ish days a week. > And if the implied alternative is to be workable for everyone, we have to magic roads, healthcare etc out of nowhere with no tax dollars. Not no tax dollars, but certainly less. It's clear that if everyone only went to work half as much we'd only need to build half the roads and trains and airports. If every single person went to work only 4/5ths of what they do now. (i.e. 4 days per week instead of 5), The economy would only grow at 4/5ths of what it does now, but otherwise, everything would continue to function more-or-less like it does today. Once you see that, you realize it's also true for 3/5ths or even 2/5ths.
- CJefferson 9y ago
  No, that maths is way off. If everyone went to work 4/5 of what they did now, the economy would contract by 20%, one of the biggest crashes in history.
- adwn 9y ago
  > It's clear that if everyone only went to work half as much we'd only need to build half the roads and trains and airports. Not only is this not "clear", it's also false. To connect two towns, you need 1 road. If everyone only went to work half as often, you still need 1 road – you can't have 0.5 roads. And if people work half as much, but only 4 hours per day, you wouldn't save anything. Sure, with less utilization comes less need for maintainance, but not all wear and tear results from direct use.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    > you can't have 0.5 roads Of course you can. Half a four-lane road is a two-lane road.
    - adwn 9y ago
      Most roads are not four-lane ones. Think residential roads, for example.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        Over time, most cost of a road is maintenance cost, not initial construction. While this probably isn't linear with use, it does scale with use, so that lower use means lower maintenance cost. The cost of a single lane road supporting current usage levels is not an individual less quantum unit of road cost.
    - kerryfalk 9y ago
      Canada's rural roads (read: most of Canada's roads) are already mostly two-lane.
    - lodi 9y ago
      His point is fair though; just replace "road" with "railroad".
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  It could be argued that societies that found themselves with the sorts of lifestyles you espouse (Australian Aboriginals; pre-Columbian indigenous of North America; etc) have all been decimated by societies that toiled.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It's clear that if everyone only went to work half as much we'd only need to build half the roads and trains and airports. Er, no. First, not all existing road/rail/air trips are for work, and, second, more time out of work would quite likely not merely preserve, but increase, non-work trips. > If every single person went to work only 4/5ths of what they do now. (i.e. 4 days per week instead of 5), The economy would only grow at 4/5ths of what it does now That's not at all obvious. The natural naive assumption is that there would be a one-time 20% contraction but after that growth rate would be unaffected; less naively, there's some reason to suspect that the one-time hit would be less, because productiob isn't linear, and the highest value work would be the last displaced. But, more to the point, the general idea that utility is reduced ybbworkong for trade vs. working for one self is not well supported by evidence.
- smcdow 9y ago
  > That's something like $10-20k per year, at most. You are obviously not married. > Which means you really only need to work 2ish days a week. And where do you find these unicorn jobs where you work only two days per week?

grecy 9y ago

> What would your alternative suggestion be though? My alternative is only go to work as much as you need to. Food, shelter and some basic enjoyment, not more. That's something like $10-20k per year, at most. Which means you really only need to work 2ish days a week. > And if the implied alternative is to be workable for everyone, we have to magic roads, healthcare etc out of nowhere with no tax dollars. Not no tax dollars, but certainly less. It's clear that if everyone only went to work half as much we'd only need to build half the roads and trains and airports. If every single person went to work only 4/5ths of what they do now. (i.e. 4 days per week instead of 5), The economy would only grow at 4/5ths of what it does now, but otherwise, everything would continue to function more-or-less like it does today. Once you see that, you realize it's also true for 3/5ths or even 2/5ths.

CJefferson 9y ago
No, that maths is way off. If everyone went to work 4/5 of what they did now, the economy would contract by 20%, one of the biggest crashes in history.
adwn 9y ago
> It's clear that if everyone only went to work half as much we'd only need to build half the roads and trains and airports. Not only is this not "clear", it's also false. To connect two towns, you need 1 road. If everyone only went to work half as often, you still need 1 road – you can't have 0.5 roads. And if people work half as much, but only 4 hours per day, you wouldn't save anything. Sure, with less utilization comes less need for maintainance, but not all wear and tear results from direct use.
- majewsky 9y ago
  > you can't have 0.5 roads Of course you can. Half a four-lane road is a two-lane road.
  - adwn 9y ago
    Most roads are not four-lane ones. Think residential roads, for example.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Over time, most cost of a road is maintenance cost, not initial construction. While this probably isn't linear with use, it does scale with use, so that lower use means lower maintenance cost. The cost of a single lane road supporting current usage levels is not an individual less quantum unit of road cost.
  - kerryfalk 9y ago
    Canada's rural roads (read: most of Canada's roads) are already mostly two-lane.
  - lodi 9y ago
    His point is fair though; just replace "road" with "railroad".
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
It could be argued that societies that found themselves with the sorts of lifestyles you espouse (Australian Aboriginals; pre-Columbian indigenous of North America; etc) have all been decimated by societies that toiled.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> It's clear that if everyone only went to work half as much we'd only need to build half the roads and trains and airports. Er, no. First, not all existing road/rail/air trips are for work, and, second, more time out of work would quite likely not merely preserve, but increase, non-work trips. > If every single person went to work only 4/5ths of what they do now. (i.e. 4 days per week instead of 5), The economy would only grow at 4/5ths of what it does now That's not at all obvious. The natural naive assumption is that there would be a one-time 20% contraction but after that growth rate would be unaffected; less naively, there's some reason to suspect that the one-time hit would be less, because productiob isn't linear, and the highest value work would be the last displaced. But, more to the point, the general idea that utility is reduced ybbworkong for trade vs. working for one self is not well supported by evidence.
smcdow 9y ago
> That's something like $10-20k per year, at most. You are obviously not married. > Which means you really only need to work 2ish days a week. And where do you find these unicorn jobs where you work only two days per week?