3 ms·

> To me anti-work is the recognition that forced wage labor is not acceptable, and that technological advancement and automation should enable greater freedom f

> To me anti-work is the recognition that forced wage labor is not acceptable, and that technological advancement and automation should enable greater freedom for individuals to spend their time how they choose. We could already have this reality today if we just implemented a universal basic income, but until the boomers retire from office that's just not happening. It's not acceptable, but it is necessary. People always point to increasing automation and productivity, but they gloss over the fact that those aren't uniform. Most of the economy is only more productive because of other parts of the economy. A trucker today is only more productive because the stuff in their truck is more valuable, not because anything has changed about the job. We need just as many truckers, if not more, now that their 'productivity' us up. There are tons of jobs no one wants to do, but everyone needs done. What keeps wages in check for those jobs is that 1) they are low skilled and 2) people have to work, so the segment of people that have been unable to make themselves valuable in other ways trickle down into those functions. It's a harsh and shitty reality, but, until we have a big population of people laying around that love scrubbing shit off walls and drowning baby chickens, this is where we're at. It's wild to me that people don't see this. Literally every utopian uprising has been followed by an immediate famine. All that being said, uniform supplemental income isn't necessarily bad, but there is definitely a threshold where the harms out-weight the benefits, even for those it is intended to help.

JSavageOne 5y ago
> There are tons of jobs no one wants to do, but everyone needs done. If these jobs truly are necessary, then wages would rise to the point where people would be attracted to do them. If truck driving paid as much as FAANG software engineering, I assure you there'd be no shortage of truck drivers (even if it required grinding a trucker Leetcode). Higher wages further incentivize automation, or alternative means of coping. Truck driving for example will most definitely be automated within the next decade or two. If chickens became so expensive, then more people would opt for vegetables and subsistence farming (actually I heard it's feasible to have a pet chicken in one's apartment. There's your morning eggs).
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > If these jobs truly are necessary, then wages would rise to the point where people would be attracted to do them. If truck driving paid as much as FAANG software engineering, I assure you there'd be no shortage of truck drivers (even if it required grinding a trucker Leetcode). This is exactly the problem though. The costs for all of those basic necessities that aren't fun go up relative to everything else. Most of the things poor people rely on fall into this category.
  - JSavageOne 5y ago
    This would not disproportionately harm poor people. In fact, poor people would be significantly better off due to the increased income from UBI + higher wages. Poor people are the ones doing those sh*tty jobs you're complaining about wages rising for. Those at the bottom would have their incomes multiplied. Actually those at the bottom are homeless, and UBI would virtually eliminate involuntary homelessness, so the idea that UBI makes poor people off is ludicrous and divorced from reality.
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      > In fact, poor people would be significantly better off due to the increased income from UBI + higher wages You're assuming two things that exclude each other. Wages will only rise if some people drop out of the workforce, lowering supply. Those who drop out then don't benefit from the raising wages, and only end up paying increased costs. The likely result is a kind of bullwhip, where people drop out, prices and wages rise, the value of the UBI diminishes, this forces the people who dropped out right back into the shitty jobs they left a year or two prior, now with the relative prices of many goods jacked up until a new equilibrium is found. Depending on the UBI the new equilibrium may be better for them, it may be worse, but, as of now, some people will be forced to do those shitty jobs. No amount of Government intervention will prevent low skilled labor from being low paid relative to other goods. Market competition just won't allow it.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  Why would the cost of those unpopular jobs go up? If a company can't find anyone at "market rates" they can just get temporary foreign workers and never raise the wage. As long as everyone is cashing in on the cheaper tfws the price never goes up and they never need to hire anyone at a riser wage. All these market conditions for wages don't work with all the policies set in place to depress worker wage increase.

JSavageOne 5y ago

> There are tons of jobs no one wants to do, but everyone needs done. If these jobs truly are necessary, then wages would rise to the point where people would be attracted to do them. If truck driving paid as much as FAANG software engineering, I assure you there'd be no shortage of truck drivers (even if it required grinding a trucker Leetcode). Higher wages further incentivize automation, or alternative means of coping. Truck driving for example will most definitely be automated within the next decade or two. If chickens became so expensive, then more people would opt for vegetables and subsistence farming (actually I heard it's feasible to have a pet chicken in one's apartment. There's your morning eggs).

BobbyJo 5y ago
> If these jobs truly are necessary, then wages would rise to the point where people would be attracted to do them. If truck driving paid as much as FAANG software engineering, I assure you there'd be no shortage of truck drivers (even if it required grinding a trucker Leetcode). This is exactly the problem though. The costs for all of those basic necessities that aren't fun go up relative to everything else. Most of the things poor people rely on fall into this category.
- JSavageOne 5y ago
  This would not disproportionately harm poor people. In fact, poor people would be significantly better off due to the increased income from UBI + higher wages. Poor people are the ones doing those sh*tty jobs you're complaining about wages rising for. Those at the bottom would have their incomes multiplied. Actually those at the bottom are homeless, and UBI would virtually eliminate involuntary homelessness, so the idea that UBI makes poor people off is ludicrous and divorced from reality.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    > In fact, poor people would be significantly better off due to the increased income from UBI + higher wages You're assuming two things that exclude each other. Wages will only rise if some people drop out of the workforce, lowering supply. Those who drop out then don't benefit from the raising wages, and only end up paying increased costs. The likely result is a kind of bullwhip, where people drop out, prices and wages rise, the value of the UBI diminishes, this forces the people who dropped out right back into the shitty jobs they left a year or two prior, now with the relative prices of many goods jacked up until a new equilibrium is found. Depending on the UBI the new equilibrium may be better for them, it may be worse, but, as of now, some people will be forced to do those shitty jobs. No amount of Government intervention will prevent low skilled labor from being low paid relative to other goods. Market competition just won't allow it.
LegitShady 5y ago
Why would the cost of those unpopular jobs go up? If a company can't find anyone at "market rates" they can just get temporary foreign workers and never raise the wage. As long as everyone is cashing in on the cheaper tfws the price never goes up and they never need to hire anyone at a riser wage. All these market conditions for wages don't work with all the policies set in place to depress worker wage increase.