8 ms·

Corollary: it's worth recognizing the number of hidden people who want to do this, but because of the way society has been set up to goad them into "paying work

Corollary: it's worth recognizing the number of hidden people who want to do this, but because of the way society has been set up to goad them into "paying work", can't.

Double_a_92 7y ago
At least some part of your work say to be "paying"... Otherwise you probably wouldn't have food, shelter or other luxury that you might want.
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  In my opinion, none of those things should be contingent on being paid. At least at a minimum level, it should be possible to eat nutritious food, have homely and comfortable shelter, fresh water, warmth, clothing, medical care, everything you need to survive and thrive, just because you're human and society is not barbaric. Then when you work it would be because you want to expand beyond that minimum, or because it's a thing that you want to do, for personal reasons, to serve the community, etc.
  - Faark 7y ago
    Thing is it can be very cheap to "waste" your time and become harder and harder to get out of. I'm kind of trying that at the moment. I totally agree that society should make sure peoples basic needs are met, but don't see a reason why this should not involve trading in some of your time. So yeah, why not having to offer 20h/week to the gov to get all that? This kinda sets a minimum wage while offering everyone a way to fulfill their basic needs. What job/task the gov has/can find for you is another problem, but doesn't seem unsolvable to me.
    - JulianMorrison 7y ago
      The reason not to do that is that (1) it risks creating a serf underclass, and (2) a big part of the point of this is to free up time for people to do things they want to do but are not yet profitable - like study, like art, and like starting a business that isn't able to pay a subsistence salary yet. Which is completely obviated by taking that time away. It's also based in the paradigm of forcing people to do things rather than having faith in their willingness to contribute to the community.
      - Faark 7y ago
        > having faith in their willingness to contribute to the community I feel like my parents subscribe to this view, that this willingness comes naturally for us. It did not. Might have been different a few generations ago, but its easier than ever to live with barely any contact to a community to contribute to. So your paradigm would likely have to "drag along" an increasing number of people. > free up time I didn't go with 40 for a reason :) This number has to be adjusted depending on societies ability, just like a minimum wage. > it risks creating a serf underclass Valid concern, but probably already reality, just harder to classify and right now less done by the gov. UBI/needs provided would kind of do the same, I think. I also don't see keeping some trade aspect making class mobility harder than what we currently have right now.
        JulianMorrison 7y ago
        I think the primary reason people lose their willingness to contribute is living in a situation that is both "unending famine" (from their perspective, not GDP) and "rivalrous" as opposed to "cooperative". Such a situation engenders sharp elbows and hoarding. But it reverses itself soon enough when either the "famine" ends or when cooperation is rewarded rather than stepped upon.
  - Double_a_92 7y ago
    > At least at a minimum level, it should be possible to eat nutritious food, have homely and comfortable shelter, fresh water, warmth, clothing, medical care, everything you need to survive and thrive, just because you're human and society is not barbaric. Where does this minimum level of comfort come from? Somebody has to do that minimal work, and on average everyone should do their share of "paid" work. (By paid I don't strictly mean exchange of currency, but producing value that everyone sees as valuable, i.e. food)
    - JulianMorrison 7y ago
      Right now, society's in a situation where an artificial number of "jobs" are created either by makework companies or by resisting automation of scutwork. If people are freed from the necessity to work useless jobs just to receive subsistence, it will suddenly become both economic and politic to reverse that.
    - cortic 7y ago
      It comes from the legacy of automation and technological advancement created by our ancestors and should be to everyones benefit. Currently this flow of massive wealth is going into the pockets of people who need it the least and no one is asking where it is coming from.
  - leftyted 7y ago
    > In my opinion, none of those things should be contingent on being paid. At least at a minimum level, it should be possible to eat nutritious food, have homely and comfortable shelter, fresh water, warmth, clothing, medical care, everything you need to survive and thrive, just because you're human and society is not barbaric. Where does the food come from? Where does the shelter come from? Where does the heat and the clothes and the medical care come from? They come from other people's labor. Why would other people agree to labor in order to provide these things to you while you provide nothing in return?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
CalRobert 7y ago
Our entire society is built to trap you in to working on things you don't care about to make other people rich. You go to college, get a pile of debt, and now you've lost the freedom to do what you like with your time because you have to optimise for income. Or you don't go to college, don't have debt, but can't afford a reasonable home because the collegiates voted to make it illegal to build new ones, and DEFINITELY don't want any home that isn't gigantic and doesn't have parking. No modest townhouse for you! You decide to follow your dream and get a part time job so with the rest of your time you do a net good for the world, and you get sick. You lacked insurance. You survive, but have learned your lesson and know not to step out of line, especially since you now have huge debts. Every aspect of our lives has become an exercising in maximising profit. And yet most don't seem to feel very wealthy. We run ourselves ragged for the sake of others. Taking as path that means earning less money and more time is considered foolish at best, irresponsible at worst. And we're doing all this to help rip the lungs and heart of our planet apart to help a few lucky psychopaths get a brief hit on the hedonic treadmill before they die, just in time to miss the gen z'ers in a dead world cursing their name. I think it might be better to start with nothing than with the massive negative equity many young people wind up with when starting life.
- bsenftner 7y ago
  For these reasons and more, an increasing number of people choose not to have kids. It feels unethical to bring them into this rat race.

Corollary: it's worth recognizing the number of hidden people who want to do this, but because of the way society has been set up to goad them into "paying work", can't.

Double_a_92 7y ago

At least some part of your work say to be "paying"... Otherwise you probably wouldn't have food, shelter or other luxury that you might want.

JulianMorrison 7y ago
In my opinion, none of those things should be contingent on being paid. At least at a minimum level, it should be possible to eat nutritious food, have homely and comfortable shelter, fresh water, warmth, clothing, medical care, everything you need to survive and thrive, just because you're human and society is not barbaric. Then when you work it would be because you want to expand beyond that minimum, or because it's a thing that you want to do, for personal reasons, to serve the community, etc.
- Faark 7y ago
  Thing is it can be very cheap to "waste" your time and become harder and harder to get out of. I'm kind of trying that at the moment. I totally agree that society should make sure peoples basic needs are met, but don't see a reason why this should not involve trading in some of your time. So yeah, why not having to offer 20h/week to the gov to get all that? This kinda sets a minimum wage while offering everyone a way to fulfill their basic needs. What job/task the gov has/can find for you is another problem, but doesn't seem unsolvable to me.
  - JulianMorrison 7y ago
    The reason not to do that is that (1) it risks creating a serf underclass, and (2) a big part of the point of this is to free up time for people to do things they want to do but are not yet profitable - like study, like art, and like starting a business that isn't able to pay a subsistence salary yet. Which is completely obviated by taking that time away. It's also based in the paradigm of forcing people to do things rather than having faith in their willingness to contribute to the community.
    - Faark 7y ago
      > having faith in their willingness to contribute to the community I feel like my parents subscribe to this view, that this willingness comes naturally for us. It did not. Might have been different a few generations ago, but its easier than ever to live with barely any contact to a community to contribute to. So your paradigm would likely have to "drag along" an increasing number of people. > free up time I didn't go with 40 for a reason :) This number has to be adjusted depending on societies ability, just like a minimum wage. > it risks creating a serf underclass Valid concern, but probably already reality, just harder to classify and right now less done by the gov. UBI/needs provided would kind of do the same, I think. I also don't see keeping some trade aspect making class mobility harder than what we currently have right now.
      - JulianMorrison 7y ago
        I think the primary reason people lose their willingness to contribute is living in a situation that is both "unending famine" (from their perspective, not GDP) and "rivalrous" as opposed to "cooperative". Such a situation engenders sharp elbows and hoarding. But it reverses itself soon enough when either the "famine" ends or when cooperation is rewarded rather than stepped upon.
- Double_a_92 7y ago
  > At least at a minimum level, it should be possible to eat nutritious food, have homely and comfortable shelter, fresh water, warmth, clothing, medical care, everything you need to survive and thrive, just because you're human and society is not barbaric. Where does this minimum level of comfort come from? Somebody has to do that minimal work, and on average everyone should do their share of "paid" work. (By paid I don't strictly mean exchange of currency, but producing value that everyone sees as valuable, i.e. food)
  - JulianMorrison 7y ago
    Right now, society's in a situation where an artificial number of "jobs" are created either by makework companies or by resisting automation of scutwork. If people are freed from the necessity to work useless jobs just to receive subsistence, it will suddenly become both economic and politic to reverse that.
  - cortic 7y ago
    It comes from the legacy of automation and technological advancement created by our ancestors and should be to everyones benefit. Currently this flow of massive wealth is going into the pockets of people who need it the least and no one is asking where it is coming from.
- leftyted 7y ago
  > In my opinion, none of those things should be contingent on being paid. At least at a minimum level, it should be possible to eat nutritious food, have homely and comfortable shelter, fresh water, warmth, clothing, medical care, everything you need to survive and thrive, just because you're human and society is not barbaric. Where does the food come from? Where does the shelter come from? Where does the heat and the clothes and the medical care come from? They come from other people's labor. Why would other people agree to labor in order to provide these things to you while you provide nothing in return?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

CalRobert 7y ago

Our entire society is built to trap you in to working on things you don't care about to make other people rich. You go to college, get a pile of debt, and now you've lost the freedom to do what you like with your time because you have to optimise for income. Or you don't go to college, don't have debt, but can't afford a reasonable home because the collegiates voted to make it illegal to build new ones, and DEFINITELY don't want any home that isn't gigantic and doesn't have parking. No modest townhouse for you! You decide to follow your dream and get a part time job so with the rest of your time you do a net good for the world, and you get sick. You lacked insurance. You survive, but have learned your lesson and know not to step out of line, especially since you now have huge debts. Every aspect of our lives has become an exercising in maximising profit. And yet most don't seem to feel very wealthy. We run ourselves ragged for the sake of others. Taking as path that means earning less money and more time is considered foolish at best, irresponsible at worst. And we're doing all this to help rip the lungs and heart of our planet apart to help a few lucky psychopaths get a brief hit on the hedonic treadmill before they die, just in time to miss the gen z'ers in a dead world cursing their name. I think it might be better to start with nothing than with the massive negative equity many young people wind up with when starting life.

bsenftner 7y ago
For these reasons and more, an increasing number of people choose not to have kids. It feels unethical to bring them into this rat race.