3 ms·

I wonder what the breakdown is between people who, if all their needs were satisfied at some agreed-upon level, would choose to engage in activities that produc

by smeej 4y ago

I wonder what the breakdown is between people who, if all their needs were satisfied at some agreed-upon level, would choose to engage in activities that produce something or who wouldn't. And of the ones who wouldn't, what would their reasons be? For some, I can imagine a great taste for art and travel and appreciation, which isn't "productive" per se, but is self-motivational. For others, perhaps trauma of various kinds makes the prospect of producing anything and subjecting it to scrutiny overwhelming. I'm sure there are some people who truly are just plain lazy, but I think if people truly don't want to do anything, there's usually a reason, and if that reason were overcome, most people, just because they're humans, would want to do something.

Ajedi32 4y ago
Most people would want to do something but not necessarily something useful. Just think about what hobbies people have, and ask yourself what percentage of those are as economically valuable as what those same people do in their day jobs. I'd suggest there are almost no cases like that, otherwise those people would quit their jobs and spend all that time on their hobbies instead. (And indeed, some have.)
- kazen44 4y ago
  also, does everything requires to be economically valuable? Not everything is about abstrac economic value. Humans have other needs which need to be met, like social interaction and leisure.
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    Sure, but you have to realize there's a trade off there. If you reduce the incentive to work in order to enable more social interaction and leisure, that's going to come at the expense of productivity, resulting in a diminished economic "standard of living" across the board. It also puts you at a competitive disadvantage with other societies which don't implement those reduced incentives. Now maybe that price is indeed worth it, but I think that's a decision that should be left up to each individual, not imposed at the societal level via UBI or something similar. If any particular person decides it's worth taking the economic hit in order to work less, or on something that's less economically valuable, that's completely up to them.
- smeej 4y ago
  Yeah, that's what in was trying to get at by just saying "something." I was thinking of any activity where, at the end, something exists that didn't before. I think there's probably a giant swath of people who would want to make things for the enjoyment they get from making them. I have to disagree about hobbies, though. I think a lot of people intentionally choose not to monetize their hobbies, lest the pressure of making money infect the joy of the hobby itself.
npteljes 4y ago
> I wonder what the breakdown is between people who, if all their needs were satisfied at some agreed-upon level, would choose to engage in activities that produce something or who wouldn't. I really wonder too. I like UBI for example for this reason. I'd think addictions would wreak havoc among these people too though, because addictive things wait around every corner of society, promising to make the bad feelings go away. Nevertheless I think it would be a worthy effort to have a system that doesn't let people stoop down below a specific level.

by smeej 4y ago

Ajedi32 4y ago

Most people would want to do something but not necessarily something useful. Just think about what hobbies people have, and ask yourself what percentage of those are as economically valuable as what those same people do in their day jobs. I'd suggest there are almost no cases like that, otherwise those people would quit their jobs and spend all that time on their hobbies instead. (And indeed, some have.)

kazen44 4y ago
also, does everything requires to be economically valuable? Not everything is about abstrac economic value. Humans have other needs which need to be met, like social interaction and leisure.
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  Sure, but you have to realize there's a trade off there. If you reduce the incentive to work in order to enable more social interaction and leisure, that's going to come at the expense of productivity, resulting in a diminished economic "standard of living" across the board. It also puts you at a competitive disadvantage with other societies which don't implement those reduced incentives. Now maybe that price is indeed worth it, but I think that's a decision that should be left up to each individual, not imposed at the societal level via UBI or something similar. If any particular person decides it's worth taking the economic hit in order to work less, or on something that's less economically valuable, that's completely up to them.
smeej 4y ago
Yeah, that's what in was trying to get at by just saying "something." I was thinking of any activity where, at the end, something exists that didn't before. I think there's probably a giant swath of people who would want to make things for the enjoyment they get from making them. I have to disagree about hobbies, though. I think a lot of people intentionally choose not to monetize their hobbies, lest the pressure of making money infect the joy of the hobby itself.

npteljes 4y ago

> I wonder what the breakdown is between people who, if all their needs were satisfied at some agreed-upon level, would choose to engage in activities that produce something or who wouldn't. I really wonder too. I like UBI for example for this reason. I'd think addictions would wreak havoc among these people too though, because addictive things wait around every corner of society, promising to make the bad feelings go away. Nevertheless I think it would be a worthy effort to have a system that doesn't let people stoop down below a specific level.