7 ms·
> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. For a large number of people not working is likely to directly lead to lit
by avl999 6y ago
> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable.
For a large number of people not working is likely to directly lead to literally death. For most people it is not a choice at all.
- HuwytNashi_002 6y agoThat's true of all living things. It's a choice. You can sit there and twiddle your thumbs until entropy does its thing, or you can choose to work against it. You can hunt, gather, and farm. Or you can do something in exchange for credits to get food from other people who do.
- avl999 6y agoI have no interest in an academic debate about choice. Most reasonable people will agree that having a "choice" between x and the end of your existence (in most cases in extremely painful and excruciating way) is no choice at all.
- elindbe3 6y agoAt least if we're talking about the US (and probably EU as well), it isn't the choice between life and death. Anyone can go be homeless in California and get a couple hundred a month in food stamps and medicaid. Or panhandle a few hundred a month from tourists. I agree you shouldn't literally die if you choose not to work in a first world country, but you should only receive the bare minimum to keep you alive (e.g. a tent, basic medical treatment and a steady diet of government cheese).
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoBiological needs are a fact of life, its not something farmers invented so people would buy their food.
- Iv 6y agoIn rich countries, less than 1% of the population work on agriculture. We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work. The fact that starvation is possible in a rich country is by design. It is not a necessary fact of the economy.
- taxcoder 6y agoWhile that is an incredible number, have you factored in any workers for agricultural supplies and equipment, or for processing, distribution, or preparation?
- Iv 6y agoIf you count the whole field of agriculture, which would include most supplies producers and processing, you reach ~2% of the population (in France, I took my country as a reference, as I know it is a net exporter of food). I don't consider preparation to be necessary because if the food is free, I can wash the potatoes myself or even make my own bread.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> I don't consider preparation to be necessary because if the food is free, I can wash the potatoes myself or even make my own bread. Who provides the water? who provides the rest of the inputs for bread? There are a lot of things that need to be done to provide a basic standard of living, even if 1% of the society are slaves who labor in the fields for the benefit of the other 99%.
- Iv 6y agoOh yes, to be comfortable you need far more than just food, I agree. My point is that we are far past the point where mere survival requires the whole population to work fulltime. Collective choices are made with the assumption that everyone should work but we have the means to create an entirely different society.