4 ms·

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 soci

by 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.

by Faark 7y ago

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.