3 ms·

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 a

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?

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?