3 ms·

> huge chunks of people aren't working/govt is paying them to do nothing. This is an objection I don't understand. If I have some solution that can solve some

> huge chunks of people aren't working/govt is paying them to do nothing. This is an objection I don't understand. If I have some solution that can solve some major $PROBLEM, but a side effect of that solution is that some small group of people "get paid to do nothing", I'm completely OK with that. There is, of course, some analysis required (how much waste the "paying to do nothing" consumes, versus the scale of the problem), but I don't have a fundamental issue with it. However, there seems to be people for whom the idea that people could get free stuff is enough to cause them to completely disregard such a solution. Why is the idea of people getting things for free (or "being paid to do nothing") so objectionable to people? Can we not acknowledge that it could be an acceptable downside in some cases?

lordnacho 5y ago
I think I agree with you, but you have to admit it's deeply rooted in people's idea of fairness that everyone's gotta contribute. This is especially the case if you're already a contributor, it's not hard to find someone who will ask why they have to work all day while someone who sits at home gets benefits for nothing. It's really only once it's easy to satisfy all our needs that you can get most people to not care. For instance if there's a machine that only a small number of people needs to operate to service a large crowd.
pjc50 5y ago
It is more important to some people's sense of fairness that other people are forced to work, even if this is ultimately fatal to them, than everyone in society is kept as safe as reasonably possible. This causes so many problems.
PeterisP 5y ago
Perhaps it's coming from a perspective of others who feel that they are being abused as well, treated unfairly and hate their job and would very much like to get paid to do nothing, so if then someone "less deserving" (at least from their perspective) would get the thing that they themselves want but can't have, then that leads to strong feelings of resentment and unfair treatment. "If I can't have it, others shouldn't as well" is not constructive, but a quite widespread, unsurprising perspective.
paul7986 5y ago
You are ok with society changing where you can't just go out to a restaurant after 7pm and finding many services you once enjoyed are now hard to come by or don't exist at all cause there's no people to offer such services? Even those sitting around making money for nothing are going to miss that and sitting around being idle is a good thing for people in terms of emotional and in turn physical health? No doubt we are seeing the affects of what free money (whether it's 50 percent of the cause or more or less) does ..how it changes society ... next time you want a service and it's not readily available like before or doesn't exist at all ..the free money is partly or more to blame!
alphabettsy 5y ago
I think it's seen as an acceptable downside in some cases. Military personnel and public works seem like good examples, but I could be wrong.

lordnacho 5y ago

I think I agree with you, but you have to admit it's deeply rooted in people's idea of fairness that everyone's gotta contribute. This is especially the case if you're already a contributor, it's not hard to find someone who will ask why they have to work all day while someone who sits at home gets benefits for nothing. It's really only once it's easy to satisfy all our needs that you can get most people to not care. For instance if there's a machine that only a small number of people needs to operate to service a large crowd.

pjc50 5y ago

It is more important to some people's sense of fairness that other people are forced to work, even if this is ultimately fatal to them, than everyone in society is kept as safe as reasonably possible. This causes so many problems.

PeterisP 5y ago

Perhaps it's coming from a perspective of others who feel that they are being abused as well, treated unfairly and hate their job and would very much like to get paid to do nothing, so if then someone "less deserving" (at least from their perspective) would get the thing that they themselves want but can't have, then that leads to strong feelings of resentment and unfair treatment. "If I can't have it, others shouldn't as well" is not constructive, but a quite widespread, unsurprising perspective.

paul7986 5y ago

You are ok with society changing where you can't just go out to a restaurant after 7pm and finding many services you once enjoyed are now hard to come by or don't exist at all cause there's no people to offer such services? Even those sitting around making money for nothing are going to miss that and sitting around being idle is a good thing for people in terms of emotional and in turn physical health? No doubt we are seeing the affects of what free money (whether it's 50 percent of the cause or more or less) does ..how it changes society ... next time you want a service and it's not readily available like before or doesn't exist at all ..the free money is partly or more to blame!

alphabettsy 5y ago

I think it's seen as an acceptable downside in some cases. Military personnel and public works seem like good examples, but I could be wrong.