4 ms·

Making something that other people are willing to reward with the fruits of their own labour is about as honest a social measure of worth as you can get outside

Making something that other people are willing to reward with the fruits of their own labour is about as honest a social measure of worth as you can get outside of friends and family.

mumblemumble 6y ago
It's also not something that would be taken away by diverting excess productivity to covering people's basic needs. I can at least imagine a world where doing so spurs a renaissance of creativity and entrepreneurship, because, just like you said, people seem to have an innate need to try and do something productive with their time. If there's a real social fear that I hold, it's that we'd suddenly have supply problems in certain segments of the labor market. I know I, for one, would never have taken that 2nd shift job working in the kitchen of an all night diner if I hadn't needed the money to buy food. I'd have spent that time working on some of the ideas I had for software projects instead.
- ludamad 6y ago
  "I'd have spent that time working on some of the ideas I had for software projects instead." Then this takes off, makes you money, and you are higher class than those who keep their skills "for fun" EDIT: Not sure if this was understood, this was meant on a commentary on how capitalism and class can find its why back into such a system
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    Given the idea I had at the time, probably not. But I'd like to think it would have enriched the lives of myself and others, all the same. In broad strokes, I'm more capitalist than communist, so I don't really disagree with the whole "greed is good" thing. Where I part ways is the unstated - often, I suspect, un-recognized - premise that it's the only good. Money's only useful for what it can buy, and its value has been artificially inflated by a social structure that makes it something that you just can't live without.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      > Money's only useful for what it can buy, and its value has been artificially inflated by a social structure that makes it something that you just can't live without. That's a good point. And makes me think of videogames analogy, particularly MMORPG. In a typical MMO, you need to labor to earn money (known as "grinding") to buy all the stuff you'll need to make progress easier (and/or possible). But at any time, you can just stop, take time off, go explore the places you've been to (i.e. not containing enemies stronger than you can beat), or even just log out and leave your character be for a week. You lose nothing except time and perhaps your rank in some completely optional competition with other players. But your character won't go hungry, won't starve or freeze to death, won't be evicted for not paying taxes. That illustrates the difference between money being useful, versus being necessary. And even if it's only useful and not necessary, that doesn't mean you won't be motivated to earn it - you will want more money if the things you can buy with it are interesting enough.
      - kaybe 6y ago
        That is a very interesting analogy! I'm going to steal that.
throwanem 6y ago
Yes, and that metric is distorted out of all utility by the necessity of maximizing the specifically monetary value of labor, as a condition of survival and stability - and even then, those are frighteningly contingent if they're achievable at all. There are other kinds of value, too.
jjk166 6y ago
If something is enjoyable and rewarding, like making art or an invention, I'd want to do it myself. If a job is unenjoyable and unrewarding, I will use the fruits of my labors to get someone else to do it. I will pay a lot of money to whoever cleans my septic tank. Does that make septic tank cleaners socially valuable, or does that make having a clean septic tank valuable? If a machine can clean the septic tank and no one has to do that task anymore, then I can get what I want without either having to toil myself or convincing someone else to toil.

Making something that other people are willing to reward with the fruits of their own labour is about as honest a social measure of worth as you can get outside of friends and family.

mumblemumble 6y ago

It's also not something that would be taken away by diverting excess productivity to covering people's basic needs. I can at least imagine a world where doing so spurs a renaissance of creativity and entrepreneurship, because, just like you said, people seem to have an innate need to try and do something productive with their time. If there's a real social fear that I hold, it's that we'd suddenly have supply problems in certain segments of the labor market. I know I, for one, would never have taken that 2nd shift job working in the kitchen of an all night diner if I hadn't needed the money to buy food. I'd have spent that time working on some of the ideas I had for software projects instead.

ludamad 6y ago
"I'd have spent that time working on some of the ideas I had for software projects instead." Then this takes off, makes you money, and you are higher class than those who keep their skills "for fun" EDIT: Not sure if this was understood, this was meant on a commentary on how capitalism and class can find its why back into such a system
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  Given the idea I had at the time, probably not. But I'd like to think it would have enriched the lives of myself and others, all the same. In broad strokes, I'm more capitalist than communist, so I don't really disagree with the whole "greed is good" thing. Where I part ways is the unstated - often, I suspect, un-recognized - premise that it's the only good. Money's only useful for what it can buy, and its value has been artificially inflated by a social structure that makes it something that you just can't live without.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    > Money's only useful for what it can buy, and its value has been artificially inflated by a social structure that makes it something that you just can't live without. That's a good point. And makes me think of videogames analogy, particularly MMORPG. In a typical MMO, you need to labor to earn money (known as "grinding") to buy all the stuff you'll need to make progress easier (and/or possible). But at any time, you can just stop, take time off, go explore the places you've been to (i.e. not containing enemies stronger than you can beat), or even just log out and leave your character be for a week. You lose nothing except time and perhaps your rank in some completely optional competition with other players. But your character won't go hungry, won't starve or freeze to death, won't be evicted for not paying taxes. That illustrates the difference between money being useful, versus being necessary. And even if it's only useful and not necessary, that doesn't mean you won't be motivated to earn it - you will want more money if the things you can buy with it are interesting enough.
    - kaybe 6y ago
      That is a very interesting analogy! I'm going to steal that.

throwanem 6y ago

Yes, and that metric is distorted out of all utility by the necessity of maximizing the specifically monetary value of labor, as a condition of survival and stability - and even then, those are frighteningly contingent if they're achievable at all. There are other kinds of value, too.

jjk166 6y ago

If something is enjoyable and rewarding, like making art or an invention, I'd want to do it myself. If a job is unenjoyable and unrewarding, I will use the fruits of my labors to get someone else to do it. I will pay a lot of money to whoever cleans my septic tank. Does that make septic tank cleaners socially valuable, or does that make having a clean septic tank valuable? If a machine can clean the septic tank and no one has to do that task anymore, then I can get what I want without either having to toil myself or convincing someone else to toil.