3 ms·

The folks working on farms, few though they are in the modern world, deserve compensation. What will the people not working on the farm do to deserve the fruits

The folks working on farms, few though they are in the modern world, deserve compensation. What will the people not working on the farm do to deserve the fruits of their labor? Whatever it will be, will be work. Same for the folks building houses, and all the rest of modern infrastructure that we depend upon to live.

jerojero 4y ago
I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't compensate people doing labour that is required. I think the problem is that we don't really have a societal model that is doing its hardest to cover these needs first before other ones. If we used the money we spend on, say, entertainment or high-end mobile phone industry on R&D regarding farms and food yield and distribution we might see lots more advancements in this area. But that's not really something that is desirable in our modern economies; for people in the USA and most of the developed world we don't really need to invest any more in solving hunger because we are really not hungry anymore. And the ones that are hungry we don't really acknowledge as a big problem, although they exist. Housing on the other hand, it's really interesting to think of this problem because acquiring a house has gotten much more difficult even though our capabilities to build houses have increased so much. This seems to be a problem in how we are deciding the prices of houses rather than a pure "we need to pay for materials and construction costs". So although these people deserve to be compensated, we are in no way paying the "right" prices. I reckon for food we are actually paying less money than we should be paying for some products (counting externalities that are derived from our current methods of production) and for housing we are paying more than the actual material and labour cost of the construction. All in all, it seems prices and cost of living is kind of whacky in modern societies.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "If we used the money we spend on, say, entertainment or high-end mobile phone industry on R&D regarding farms and food yield and distribution we might see lots more advancements in this area." There are massive sums invested in agricultural R&D. Some of this does include a focus on poorer markets. We also heavily subsidize many crops to be competitive on the global market, thus exporting to poorer nations (overall that might be a bad thing, stunting their economic growth).
sweetheart 4y ago
> do to deserve the fruits of their labor This is the issue. No one needs to do anything to deserve access to food, shelter, clothing, etc. I think you're framing it something like lazy people vs. people who work hard, which I don't think we need to do. If we ever lived in world where we could all access unlimited food, shelter, etc. then do you think people would still have to do stuff to actually "earn" access to it? Why or why not? The issue I had in my original comment was that the OP suggested merely _wanting_ to live in that world, where we are all handed the ingredients for a happy life at 0 cost, is childish. I can't fathom thinking that someone wanting to live a happy life without needing to toil is _childish_
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  It is childish to want to fly to America from Europe in 1700 and get upset that it is not possible. That is what I meant: "want" as a present demand, as seen in some dictionaries.[1] I should have been more clear about this as it seems to have become the point of contention. But see my later point about the carying capacity for why this is an unreasonable future want as well. [1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/want https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/want
- flerchin 4y ago
  They do need to do something though. Why would the farmer work harder than he has to feed his own family? He can produce just enough food for himself and relax. Why would the people building houses build an extra one? We do not live in a world with unlimited food and shelter.
  - sweetheart 4y ago
    Yeah I know, I wasn’t saying we do live in that world. I’m continuing to say that _wanting_ to live in that world isn’t childish. Wanting to live in a world where we are all handed food, medicine, shelter, etc. for free seems like something we should all obviously be in favor of achieving eventually. Instead, there seem to be some people who view this ideal as childish, as if even if there are enough resources for everyone, one ought to have to work to earn access to those resources, which just seems cruel and domineering.

jerojero 4y ago

I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't compensate people doing labour that is required. I think the problem is that we don't really have a societal model that is doing its hardest to cover these needs first before other ones. If we used the money we spend on, say, entertainment or high-end mobile phone industry on R&D regarding farms and food yield and distribution we might see lots more advancements in this area. But that's not really something that is desirable in our modern economies; for people in the USA and most of the developed world we don't really need to invest any more in solving hunger because we are really not hungry anymore. And the ones that are hungry we don't really acknowledge as a big problem, although they exist. Housing on the other hand, it's really interesting to think of this problem because acquiring a house has gotten much more difficult even though our capabilities to build houses have increased so much. This seems to be a problem in how we are deciding the prices of houses rather than a pure "we need to pay for materials and construction costs". So although these people deserve to be compensated, we are in no way paying the "right" prices. I reckon for food we are actually paying less money than we should be paying for some products (counting externalities that are derived from our current methods of production) and for housing we are paying more than the actual material and labour cost of the construction. All in all, it seems prices and cost of living is kind of whacky in modern societies.

giantg2 4y ago
"If we used the money we spend on, say, entertainment or high-end mobile phone industry on R&D regarding farms and food yield and distribution we might see lots more advancements in this area." There are massive sums invested in agricultural R&D. Some of this does include a focus on poorer markets. We also heavily subsidize many crops to be competitive on the global market, thus exporting to poorer nations (overall that might be a bad thing, stunting their economic growth).

sweetheart 4y ago

> do to deserve the fruits of their labor This is the issue. No one needs to do anything to deserve access to food, shelter, clothing, etc. I think you're framing it something like lazy people vs. people who work hard, which I don't think we need to do. If we ever lived in world where we could all access unlimited food, shelter, etc. then do you think people would still have to do stuff to actually "earn" access to it? Why or why not? The issue I had in my original comment was that the OP suggested merely _wanting_ to live in that world, where we are all handed the ingredients for a happy life at 0 cost, is childish. I can't fathom thinking that someone wanting to live a happy life without needing to toil is _childish_

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
It is childish to want to fly to America from Europe in 1700 and get upset that it is not possible. That is what I meant: "want" as a present demand, as seen in some dictionaries.[1] I should have been more clear about this as it seems to have become the point of contention. But see my later point about the carying capacity for why this is an unreasonable future want as well. [1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/want https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/want
flerchin 4y ago
They do need to do something though. Why would the farmer work harder than he has to feed his own family? He can produce just enough food for himself and relax. Why would the people building houses build an extra one? We do not live in a world with unlimited food and shelter.
- sweetheart 4y ago
  Yeah I know, I wasn’t saying we do live in that world. I’m continuing to say that _wanting_ to live in that world isn’t childish. Wanting to live in a world where we are all handed food, medicine, shelter, etc. for free seems like something we should all obviously be in favor of achieving eventually. Instead, there seem to be some people who view this ideal as childish, as if even if there are enough resources for everyone, one ought to have to work to earn access to those resources, which just seems cruel and domineering.