5 ms·

> Unless they are _literately_ unemployable, in which case we should consider them disabled at look after them as if we would anybody else with metal or physica

> Unless they are _literately_ unemployable, in which case we should consider them disabled at look after them as if we would anybody else with metal or physical disabilities. Why? People shouldn’t be rewarded for being disagreeable, unwilling to get along with people, and unwilling to work. If they are literally disabled and can’t work at all, that’s one thing. But even people with mental disabilities can be great employees. Rewarding anti-social behavior with “looking after” incentivizes such behavior. Subsidize behavior and you get more of it. Case in point, all of the fake disability people who have unverifiable soft tissue “injuries” that collect disability as a life choice.

bsanr2 7y ago
You would rather have to work with people who have an incentive to behave badly (in order to get fired from jobs they didn't want in the first place), than to just give them enough to live on until they decide how they're going to contribute? Between the disabled and underemployed, there must be more than enough people to seriously jeopardize overall economic stability should destitution force them to action. And where is the role of the employer and the overall culture in fostering a work environment that isn't miserable?
- lliamander 7y ago
  > than to just give them enough to live on until they decide how they're going to contribute? How many will decide not to contribute?
  - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
    If status and social mobility are tied to contributing, I'd guess more than we'd otherwise expect.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    Who cares? We can sustain all of the socially necessary industries of modern civilization with a fraction of the workforce. I don't want to work with people who are working just because they are coerced to work. They get in my way and it debases all of us.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      What an Orwellian use of the word "coerced". There is presently no coercion to work: only the necessity of survival (just as it always has). On the other hand, the future you envision would require the coercion of the productive minority.
      - bsanr2 7y ago
        Human society is not what it was 100, 500, 1000, 10000 years ago. Conjuring a farcical "necessity of survival" is disingenuous in a world where the average worker is hyper-specialized, such that they perform a fraction of the labor directly associated with surviving. On the other hand, since failure to participate in this model - again, wherein a given individual hardly contributes directly to his own survival, but instead supports the society which provides the rest for him, usually far below the value of his work for it - is an existential danger, I think coercion is a fine word for the situation.
        lliamander 7y ago
        > I think coercion is a fine word for the situation. Except the part where simply choosing not to subsidize someone that could contribute to society but does not involves no actual use of force. On the other hand, using the state to force a productive minority to slave away for a willfully unproductive majority does actually involve the use of force. You are literally inverting the meaning of "coercion". Hence the apt description "Orwellian". War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
        bsanr2 7y ago
        >Except the part where simply choosing not to subsidize someone that could contribute to society but does not involves no actual use of force. Of course it does. What are the various exigencies, used to secure hoarded property for an individual against a deprived public, but force? You're unable to see it as such, because it's the status quo, but it's not a necessity for a civilized society, even this civilized society.
  - barbecue_sauce 7y ago
    Does that really matter? Most people who consider themselves to be "contributing" aren't really accomplishing much in the grand scheme of things anyway.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      You don't need to "accomplish much in the grand scheme of things" to provide value to others and feel appreciated.
      - barbecue_sauce 7y ago
        But not to the point where you should guilt others for "not contributing".
        lliamander 7y ago
        I would rather them feel guilty than feel entitled to the fruits of others' labor.
        barbecue_sauce 7y ago
        What fruits? What labor? My point is that most people's labor bears no actual fruit.
        lliamander 7y ago
        Some people are certainly employed in pointless jobs, but the idea that this is true for the majority is doubtful. And for those people who's labor is pointless, the solution is to have more meaningful work, not idleness. I can think of no more pointless form of labor that to toil away for whatever bureaucracy that would be responsible for administering this harebrained scheme.
lliamander 7y ago
Traits like agreeableness, intelligence, and conscientiousness have some genetic components, and may also influenced by early childhood experiences. A severe deficiency in one or more of these traits may be largely outside an individual's control, but nonetheless prevent the individual from integrating into society and achieving stable employment. That said, there is still an element of will there, and we should also still try align incentives to give these individuals the best chance of productive engagement with society. The disability scamming is real (though somewhat complicated by the fact that long term unemployment can result in chronic pain symptoms). I don't think just cutting people a check is necessarily a good idea. I kind of wonder if the problem of unemployable people would be reduced if we removed minimum wage laws.

bsanr2 7y ago

You would rather have to work with people who have an incentive to behave badly (in order to get fired from jobs they didn't want in the first place), than to just give them enough to live on until they decide how they're going to contribute? Between the disabled and underemployed, there must be more than enough people to seriously jeopardize overall economic stability should destitution force them to action. And where is the role of the employer and the overall culture in fostering a work environment that isn't miserable?

lliamander 7y ago
> than to just give them enough to live on until they decide how they're going to contribute? How many will decide not to contribute?
- SuoDuanDao 7y ago
  If status and social mobility are tied to contributing, I'd guess more than we'd otherwise expect.
- danharaj 7y ago
  Who cares? We can sustain all of the socially necessary industries of modern civilization with a fraction of the workforce. I don't want to work with people who are working just because they are coerced to work. They get in my way and it debases all of us.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    What an Orwellian use of the word "coerced". There is presently no coercion to work: only the necessity of survival (just as it always has). On the other hand, the future you envision would require the coercion of the productive minority.
    - bsanr2 7y ago
      Human society is not what it was 100, 500, 1000, 10000 years ago. Conjuring a farcical "necessity of survival" is disingenuous in a world where the average worker is hyper-specialized, such that they perform a fraction of the labor directly associated with surviving. On the other hand, since failure to participate in this model - again, wherein a given individual hardly contributes directly to his own survival, but instead supports the society which provides the rest for him, usually far below the value of his work for it - is an existential danger, I think coercion is a fine word for the situation.
      - lliamander 7y ago
        > I think coercion is a fine word for the situation. Except the part where simply choosing not to subsidize someone that could contribute to society but does not involves no actual use of force. On the other hand, using the state to force a productive minority to slave away for a willfully unproductive majority does actually involve the use of force. You are literally inverting the meaning of "coercion". Hence the apt description "Orwellian". War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
        bsanr2 7y ago
        >Except the part where simply choosing not to subsidize someone that could contribute to society but does not involves no actual use of force. Of course it does. What are the various exigencies, used to secure hoarded property for an individual against a deprived public, but force? You're unable to see it as such, because it's the status quo, but it's not a necessity for a civilized society, even this civilized society.
- barbecue_sauce 7y ago
  Does that really matter? Most people who consider themselves to be "contributing" aren't really accomplishing much in the grand scheme of things anyway.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    You don't need to "accomplish much in the grand scheme of things" to provide value to others and feel appreciated.
    - barbecue_sauce 7y ago
      But not to the point where you should guilt others for "not contributing".
      - lliamander 7y ago
        I would rather them feel guilty than feel entitled to the fruits of others' labor.
        barbecue_sauce 7y ago
        What fruits? What labor? My point is that most people's labor bears no actual fruit.
        lliamander 7y ago
        Some people are certainly employed in pointless jobs, but the idea that this is true for the majority is doubtful. And for those people who's labor is pointless, the solution is to have more meaningful work, not idleness. I can think of no more pointless form of labor that to toil away for whatever bureaucracy that would be responsible for administering this harebrained scheme.

lliamander 7y ago

Traits like agreeableness, intelligence, and conscientiousness have some genetic components, and may also influenced by early childhood experiences. A severe deficiency in one or more of these traits may be largely outside an individual's control, but nonetheless prevent the individual from integrating into society and achieving stable employment. That said, there is still an element of will there, and we should also still try align incentives to give these individuals the best chance of productive engagement with society. The disability scamming is real (though somewhat complicated by the fact that long term unemployment can result in chronic pain symptoms). I don't think just cutting people a check is necessarily a good idea. I kind of wonder if the problem of unemployable people would be reduced if we removed minimum wage laws.