3 ms·

Well, I think technological progress is driven by human ingenuity and not work. I don't think work should be the entrance fee to society. You're saying that if

Well, I think technological progress is driven by human ingenuity and not work. I don't think work should be the entrance fee to society. You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. I should starve (since I can't hunt nor grow vegetables) and I should not have a computer or even electricity. I.e. I should be punished. I don't see how that improves my life or society. I think these ideas rub you the wrong way because your identity is tied to your work. If people see work as a problem rather than a solution then your status would evaporate. The guy working part-time as a dog walker and sleeps through most of it would be on an equal footing to you who work XX hours per week and earns $YYYk dollars per year.

dnadler 5y ago
I think what most people are saying is that if you're not working to feed yourself, then someone else is. And further, it's not fair to ask society to pick up the slack for people who could contribute, but choose not to. In other words: by saying you shouldn't starve for refusing to work, aren't you also saying that someone else should grow your food for you for free?
- bjourne 5y ago
  My job is completely detached from the processes and people that ensure there is food on my table. There is no slack to pick up because there is no contribution. Most software developers are in the exact same position. There is no "contributing" in programming casino sites, optimizing trading algorithms to make fat cats richer, or developing aaa games. Society would be better off if we didn't work.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    Programming casino sites has value because people choose to spend the money that they earn gambling. Society decides which tasks have value and which don’t by whether consumers spend money on the work product produced by those tasks. Now, society’s way of working this out isn’t perfect, but how else should we determine which jobs are adding value and which are not?
    - bjourne 5y ago
      I reject the idea that money determines what has worth. Because believing so leads to absurd conclusions. Like dealing drugs being more valuable than taking care of sick people, or pills against male pattern baldness being more valuable than aids medicines for sub-Saharan Africans, or Jeff Bezos being a million times more valuable than me. In fact, the very idea that money is what decides worth is what got us into this mess in the first place. You ask how we should decide what jobs has "value" and which hasn't. Well, if it isn't obvious that a job has "value" then perhaps it has no value?
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        Obvious to whom, and how do you define ‘value’? I’m not being difficult here, these are tough questions. Allowing the market to decide value is the option we currently have, and seems to be the fairest so far. I am sure that it is not optimal, and it has flaws, but no one has yet convinced me that there is a better model.
        bjourne 5y ago
        Workless societies depend on voluntarism so there is no need to precisely define value. For instance, who decided that creating Linux was valuable use of Linus Torvalds time? In situations where you really have to define value, democratic votes is fairer than "letting the market" (i.e rich people) decide.
        d1sxeyes 5y ago
        > Workless societies depend on voluntarism This presents a workless society as a real thing, rather than a hypothetical. I might be wrong, but I’m not aware of any workless society (apart from hunter gatherer tribes and history). If you have examples of a society that functions fully without work, then please share, I’d be interested to see how you solve volunteering for unpleasant or undesirable tasks that no-one wants.
        5y ago
  - dnadler 5y ago
    I would counter by saying that entertainment is actually valuable. Gambling and playing games are things that people choose to spend their time and money doing because they are fun. (Obviously taking advantages of addiction is immoral, but that’s a whole other bag of worms). As for optimizing trading algos, the counter is that making markets more efficient is also valuable to society at large, and that is what most quants would say they are doing. As you pointed out in some other comments, there are certainly issues with the current system. Though, I don’t think the conclusion is for people to stop working entirely. If that were the case all of these “useless” jobs would go away and we would then ask farmers to give us food in exchange for nothing at all? I think what might be better is offering more incentives for people to work in industries that make a real positive impact on the world. And in lieu of that, people who feel they aren’t contributing in a meaningful way can try to seek out more meaningful work. And we as a society should support *that*.
    - bjourne 5y ago
      Your counter-argument to my examples of worthless work is "well, actually, that work is valuable!" The reason why you use this argument is because we are so conditioned to believe that money is the same thing as value. Thus, by definition, every work is valuable because someone pays. Try and think of it from a utilitarian perspective. Is some aaa game creating or destroying more happiness? Is it a net positive for society? For some games perhaps the answer is yes, for others it is no. Children getting obese from sedentary lifestyle and not socialising with friends is certainly a large cost. > If that were the case all of these “useless” jobs would go away and we would then ask farmers to give us food in exchange for nothing at all? Sure.
      - dnadler 5y ago
        Well, yes, people find the work in your examples valuable. I can say that for sure because they are willing to spend their money on it. > Sure. Ha, then the farmers would say "no" and you'd starve to death?
NoPicklez 5y ago
That's not true. You might have invented electricity or the computer through ingenuity, but who is going to build the infrastructure that supports it? Who is going to build the poles in your suburb to get the electricity to you? Who is going to build the telecommunications infrastructure and maintain it such that if it breaks there is someone there to fix it?
- bjourne 5y ago
  How come volunteer fire departments exist?
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    I think most volunteer fire fighters have other jobs. https://www.quora.com/I-dont-understand-volunteer-firefighters-Do-they-also-have-another-job-If-so-how-do-they-have-time-to-be-firefighters https://www.quora.com/I-dont-understand-volunteer-firefighte...
    - bjourne 5y ago
      That doesn't answer my question, does it?
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        In the most literal sense no, but I think it does address your point. Honestly it’s an odd example to pick because there are paid firefighters too - why would you need to pay firefighters if enough people are willing to do it for free?
        bjourne 5y ago
        "How come volunteer fire departments exist?" is a rethorical quesiton. Whether volunteer firefighters have other jobs is beside the point. Clearly, useful tasks can be executed without a work context. The reason you need to pay firefighters is because society is work-centric.
d1sxeyes 5y ago
> You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. If you can’t hunt or grow vegetables, you should perform some other task that society thinks is valuable, and share your part of collective responsibility that way. Exploitation is already a big enough issue without us making it worse. Brave New World describes very well exactly what would happen - we would end up with worker castes and ruler castes. I see the work already moving in this direction and it is sad. I have absolutely no problems with people choosing to work fewer hours or in less lucrative professions, provided they are not expecting society to pick up their slack. Don’t forget that for every farmer in the fields, you also need some sort of supply chain and distribution network, you need people to build the trucks and drive them, you need people to gather the resources needed to build trucks, you need the folks drilling for oil and those working at the oil refineries, as well as the ships that bring the oil to where it’s needed (as well as folks gathering the resources and turning them into ship parts etc.) We can afford this now because everyone who buys a vegetable in a shop pays a tiny fraction of all these costs. If nobody had to pay for vegetables any more, it’s not just the farmer who is working ‘for free’. This is just one small product, and the simplest example I could think of. I would imagine that computers and the internet would have significantly more people who would need to work for free in order for you to have a computer.
- bjourne 5y ago
  > No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. I didn't write anything even resembling that. If that is your interpretation then continuing the discussion with you is meaningless.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    OK, happy to strike that line and we can stop putting words in each other’s mouths. What’s your opinion about the rest of my argument?
    - 5y ago

dnadler 5y ago

I think what most people are saying is that if you're not working to feed yourself, then someone else is. And further, it's not fair to ask society to pick up the slack for people who could contribute, but choose not to. In other words: by saying you shouldn't starve for refusing to work, aren't you also saying that someone else should grow your food for you for free?

bjourne 5y ago
My job is completely detached from the processes and people that ensure there is food on my table. There is no slack to pick up because there is no contribution. Most software developers are in the exact same position. There is no "contributing" in programming casino sites, optimizing trading algorithms to make fat cats richer, or developing aaa games. Society would be better off if we didn't work.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  Programming casino sites has value because people choose to spend the money that they earn gambling. Society decides which tasks have value and which don’t by whether consumers spend money on the work product produced by those tasks. Now, society’s way of working this out isn’t perfect, but how else should we determine which jobs are adding value and which are not?
  - bjourne 5y ago
    I reject the idea that money determines what has worth. Because believing so leads to absurd conclusions. Like dealing drugs being more valuable than taking care of sick people, or pills against male pattern baldness being more valuable than aids medicines for sub-Saharan Africans, or Jeff Bezos being a million times more valuable than me. In fact, the very idea that money is what decides worth is what got us into this mess in the first place. You ask how we should decide what jobs has "value" and which hasn't. Well, if it isn't obvious that a job has "value" then perhaps it has no value?
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      Obvious to whom, and how do you define ‘value’? I’m not being difficult here, these are tough questions. Allowing the market to decide value is the option we currently have, and seems to be the fairest so far. I am sure that it is not optimal, and it has flaws, but no one has yet convinced me that there is a better model.
      - bjourne 5y ago
        Workless societies depend on voluntarism so there is no need to precisely define value. For instance, who decided that creating Linux was valuable use of Linus Torvalds time? In situations where you really have to define value, democratic votes is fairer than "letting the market" (i.e rich people) decide.
        d1sxeyes 5y ago
        > Workless societies depend on voluntarism This presents a workless society as a real thing, rather than a hypothetical. I might be wrong, but I’m not aware of any workless society (apart from hunter gatherer tribes and history). If you have examples of a society that functions fully without work, then please share, I’d be interested to see how you solve volunteering for unpleasant or undesirable tasks that no-one wants.
        5y ago
- dnadler 5y ago
  I would counter by saying that entertainment is actually valuable. Gambling and playing games are things that people choose to spend their time and money doing because they are fun. (Obviously taking advantages of addiction is immoral, but that’s a whole other bag of worms). As for optimizing trading algos, the counter is that making markets more efficient is also valuable to society at large, and that is what most quants would say they are doing. As you pointed out in some other comments, there are certainly issues with the current system. Though, I don’t think the conclusion is for people to stop working entirely. If that were the case all of these “useless” jobs would go away and we would then ask farmers to give us food in exchange for nothing at all? I think what might be better is offering more incentives for people to work in industries that make a real positive impact on the world. And in lieu of that, people who feel they aren’t contributing in a meaningful way can try to seek out more meaningful work. And we as a society should support *that*.
  - bjourne 5y ago
    Your counter-argument to my examples of worthless work is "well, actually, that work is valuable!" The reason why you use this argument is because we are so conditioned to believe that money is the same thing as value. Thus, by definition, every work is valuable because someone pays. Try and think of it from a utilitarian perspective. Is some aaa game creating or destroying more happiness? Is it a net positive for society? For some games perhaps the answer is yes, for others it is no. Children getting obese from sedentary lifestyle and not socialising with friends is certainly a large cost. > If that were the case all of these “useless” jobs would go away and we would then ask farmers to give us food in exchange for nothing at all? Sure.
    - dnadler 5y ago
      Well, yes, people find the work in your examples valuable. I can say that for sure because they are willing to spend their money on it. > Sure. Ha, then the farmers would say "no" and you'd starve to death?

NoPicklez 5y ago

That's not true. You might have invented electricity or the computer through ingenuity, but who is going to build the infrastructure that supports it? Who is going to build the poles in your suburb to get the electricity to you? Who is going to build the telecommunications infrastructure and maintain it such that if it breaks there is someone there to fix it?

bjourne 5y ago
How come volunteer fire departments exist?
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  I think most volunteer fire fighters have other jobs. https://www.quora.com/I-dont-understand-volunteer-firefighters-Do-they-also-have-another-job-If-so-how-do-they-have-time-to-be-firefighters https://www.quora.com/I-dont-understand-volunteer-firefighte...
  - bjourne 5y ago
    That doesn't answer my question, does it?
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      In the most literal sense no, but I think it does address your point. Honestly it’s an odd example to pick because there are paid firefighters too - why would you need to pay firefighters if enough people are willing to do it for free?
      - bjourne 5y ago
        "How come volunteer fire departments exist?" is a rethorical quesiton. Whether volunteer firefighters have other jobs is beside the point. Clearly, useful tasks can be executed without a work context. The reason you need to pay firefighters is because society is work-centric.

d1sxeyes 5y ago

> You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. If you can’t hunt or grow vegetables, you should perform some other task that society thinks is valuable, and share your part of collective responsibility that way. Exploitation is already a big enough issue without us making it worse. Brave New World describes very well exactly what would happen - we would end up with worker castes and ruler castes. I see the work already moving in this direction and it is sad. I have absolutely no problems with people choosing to work fewer hours or in less lucrative professions, provided they are not expecting society to pick up their slack. Don’t forget that for every farmer in the fields, you also need some sort of supply chain and distribution network, you need people to build the trucks and drive them, you need people to gather the resources needed to build trucks, you need the folks drilling for oil and those working at the oil refineries, as well as the ships that bring the oil to where it’s needed (as well as folks gathering the resources and turning them into ship parts etc.) We can afford this now because everyone who buys a vegetable in a shop pays a tiny fraction of all these costs. If nobody had to pay for vegetables any more, it’s not just the farmer who is working ‘for free’. This is just one small product, and the simplest example I could think of. I would imagine that computers and the internet would have significantly more people who would need to work for free in order for you to have a computer.

bjourne 5y ago
> No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. I didn't write anything even resembling that. If that is your interpretation then continuing the discussion with you is meaningless.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  OK, happy to strike that line and we can stop putting words in each other’s mouths. What’s your opinion about the rest of my argument?
  - 5y ago