3 ms·

No. Job is a way of manufacturing things people need or want. When you're well off, as a person or as a country, you can always find people or countries who wi

No. Job is a way of manufacturing things people need or want. When you're well off, as a person or as a country, you can always find people or countries who will manufacture things for you. But they will want something back. Your real estate. Your universities. Your best people. It's a high price to pay for a bending phone.

geofft 8y ago
Jobs are one way of manufacturing things people need or want. They're not the only way, unless we're playing semantic games by defining "jobs" in one sentence as "people offering 8h/day of their labor in the free market" and in the next as "people doing things"—and even if we are, let's at least be honest about the difference between "people doing things that are actually inherently productive and efficient" and "people doing things that are inefficient because we want the excuse to pay them for it." Job growth because it enables manufacturing is one thing; job growth because it enables paying people is quite another. As we become more efficient and automated in manufacturing, we'll have to decide what to do when there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. There are ways to continue giving people money to buy the things they need or want—or perhaps enable them to get the things they need or want without money—without requiring them to have jobs, or making that money proportional to the market value of their work. And they seem quite ethical. That's why I say that jobs aren't an inherent good. They're a means to an inherently-good end. That makes them conditionally good, so long as they continue to serve the end. Prioritizing the means over the end would be a mistake. There is no comparable alternative to giving people the things they need or want. I can think of a few (e.g., drugging people, plugging them into the Matrix) and they're unethical.

geofft 8y ago

Jobs are one way of manufacturing things people need or want. They're not the only way, unless we're playing semantic games by defining "jobs" in one sentence as "people offering 8h/day of their labor in the free market" and in the next as "people doing things"—and even if we are, let's at least be honest about the difference between "people doing things that are actually inherently productive and efficient" and "people doing things that are inefficient because we want the excuse to pay them for it." Job growth because it enables manufacturing is one thing; job growth because it enables paying people is quite another. As we become more efficient and automated in manufacturing, we'll have to decide what to do when there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. There are ways to continue giving people money to buy the things they need or want—or perhaps enable them to get the things they need or want without money—without requiring them to have jobs, or making that money proportional to the market value of their work. And they seem quite ethical. That's why I say that jobs aren't an inherent good. They're a means to an inherently-good end. That makes them conditionally good, so long as they continue to serve the end. Prioritizing the means over the end would be a mistake. There is no comparable alternative to giving people the things they need or want. I can think of a few (e.g., drugging people, plugging them into the Matrix) and they're unethical.