4 ms·

> Calling work non-voluntary reveals more about the author than it does about the system they describe: that they feel that they have no choice. Assuming I don

> Calling work non-voluntary reveals more about the author than it does about the system they describe: that they feel that they have no choice. Assuming I don’t want to starve to death, what are my other options? I could beg, although that’s still work in the sense that I’d be trading my time for money. I could go around to places that offer free meals to homeless people, but that seems unreliable. And I could steal money or food. That’s about all I can think of. I suppose that’s technically a “choice”, but only by the most ruthlessly literal definition.

smnrchrds 6y ago
> Assuming I don’t want to starve to death, what are my other options? Welfare in most developed countries is enough not to starve and not to become fully homeless. But in many countries, it does not go one inch beyond this. Subsisting on welfare is indeed a very uncomfortable life. But it is not literal starvation to death.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  As far as I’m aware, all welfare in the US (e.g. SNAP and unumeployment benefits) have some sort of work as an eligibility requirement. I suppose you could add “move to a country with a better social safety net” to the list. But it doesn’t change the overall point, which is that every alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    > very alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down. Oh, yes, absolutely. But this is moving the goalpost. The question was not whether one could stop working without having to make changes to their lifestyle. The question was whether one could stop working without literally starving to death. In most developed countries, the answer is yes. No one really starves to death due to poverty in developed nations anymore. I am not too familiar with the situation with the poverty in the US. Do people there still die from poverty-induced starvation in the 21st century?
    - djrobstep 6y ago
      Check out the correlation between poverty and lower life expectancy, and it will become clear that poverty is indeed a death sentence (not to mention its effects on quality of life).
      - smnrchrds 6y ago
        Again, you are absolutely right, but moving the goalpost once more. The lower life expectancy is not due to starvation to death. It is mostly a result of health issues, which is in all likelihood more due to the lack of access to healthcare than food.
        nobody9999 6y ago
        > It is mostly a result of health issues, which is in all likelihood more due to the lack of access to healthcare than food. Is it? What statistics do you have to support that? And do those statistics track poor nutrition due to poverty as a component, or do they just ignore that?
      - burntoutfire 6y ago
        Correlation is not causation, it doesn't really explain anything... I thought that by 2020 at least people on HN get that.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      My entire contribution to this thread has been an attempt to move the goalposts :) If the question is “is it possible to stop working without literally starving to death?” the answer is trivially yes, but I don’t think that’s particularly interesting. Getting thrown in jail will get you fed without working. But most people would consider that an absurd tradeoff. So we pretend it’s not an option, moving the goalposts in order to have a more interesting discussion about how to stop working without upending your life or withdrawing from society.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  - neolog 6y ago
    I don't know what this website is, it might be bs but google found this: > more than a third of the country still lives in an area where able-bodied adults are exempt food stamp work requirements. https://thefga.org/waivers-gone-wild/ https://thefga.org/waivers-gone-wild/
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > I suppose you could add “move to a country with a better social safety net” to the list. How many countries allow people to move there for the purpose of collecting public assistance?
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      Just board a boat in Turkey and you will see. Somewhat risky, true.
- phkahler 6y ago
  >> Welfare in most developed countries is enough not to starve and not to become fully homeless. Right, because even that requires someone do work to support people on welfare. >> Subsisting on welfare is indeed a very uncomfortable life. But it is not literal starvation to death. It would lead to quick death if we all tried to live that way at once.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Assuming I don’t want to starve to death, what are my other options? Well that's the rub, you don't want to work, you want to eat. The food has to come from somewhere. Even if you were a forager, other animals want to eat the same food. > I suppose that’s technically a “choice”, but only by the most ruthlessly literal definition. "Technically correct, the best kind of correct." More seriously we are talking about survival and food. Its hard to imagine a more ruthless domain of inquiry.
elindbe3 6y ago
Buy a one way ticket to Southern California, buy a tent and apply for SNAP and Medicaid.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

smnrchrds 6y ago

> Assuming I don’t want to starve to death, what are my other options? Welfare in most developed countries is enough not to starve and not to become fully homeless. But in many countries, it does not go one inch beyond this. Subsisting on welfare is indeed a very uncomfortable life. But it is not literal starvation to death.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
As far as I’m aware, all welfare in the US (e.g. SNAP and unumeployment benefits) have some sort of work as an eligibility requirement. I suppose you could add “move to a country with a better social safety net” to the list. But it doesn’t change the overall point, which is that every alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  > very alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down. Oh, yes, absolutely. But this is moving the goalpost. The question was not whether one could stop working without having to make changes to their lifestyle. The question was whether one could stop working without literally starving to death. In most developed countries, the answer is yes. No one really starves to death due to poverty in developed nations anymore. I am not too familiar with the situation with the poverty in the US. Do people there still die from poverty-induced starvation in the 21st century?
  - djrobstep 6y ago
    Check out the correlation between poverty and lower life expectancy, and it will become clear that poverty is indeed a death sentence (not to mention its effects on quality of life).
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      Again, you are absolutely right, but moving the goalpost once more. The lower life expectancy is not due to starvation to death. It is mostly a result of health issues, which is in all likelihood more due to the lack of access to healthcare than food.
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        > It is mostly a result of health issues, which is in all likelihood more due to the lack of access to healthcare than food. Is it? What statistics do you have to support that? And do those statistics track poor nutrition due to poverty as a component, or do they just ignore that?
    - burntoutfire 6y ago
      Correlation is not causation, it doesn't really explain anything... I thought that by 2020 at least people on HN get that.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    My entire contribution to this thread has been an attempt to move the goalposts :) If the question is “is it possible to stop working without literally starving to death?” the answer is trivially yes, but I don’t think that’s particularly interesting. Getting thrown in jail will get you fed without working. But most people would consider that an absurd tradeoff. So we pretend it’s not an option, moving the goalposts in order to have a more interesting discussion about how to stop working without upending your life or withdrawing from society.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
- neolog 6y ago
  I don't know what this website is, it might be bs but google found this: > more than a third of the country still lives in an area where able-bodied adults are exempt food stamp work requirements. https://thefga.org/waivers-gone-wild/ https://thefga.org/waivers-gone-wild/
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > I suppose you could add “move to a country with a better social safety net” to the list. How many countries allow people to move there for the purpose of collecting public assistance?
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Just board a boat in Turkey and you will see. Somewhat risky, true.
phkahler 6y ago
>> Welfare in most developed countries is enough not to starve and not to become fully homeless. Right, because even that requires someone do work to support people on welfare. >> Subsisting on welfare is indeed a very uncomfortable life. But it is not literal starvation to death. It would lead to quick death if we all tried to live that way at once.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Assuming I don’t want to starve to death, what are my other options? Well that's the rub, you don't want to work, you want to eat. The food has to come from somewhere. Even if you were a forager, other animals want to eat the same food. > I suppose that’s technically a “choice”, but only by the most ruthlessly literal definition. "Technically correct, the best kind of correct." More seriously we are talking about survival and food. Its hard to imagine a more ruthless domain of inquiry.

elindbe3 6y ago

Buy a one way ticket to Southern California, buy a tent and apply for SNAP and Medicaid.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]