4 ms·

One idea I've toyed with is that unemployment is actually a societal refusal to help eachother. Yes we all need sustenance, but consider something like this If

One idea I've toyed with is that unemployment is actually a societal refusal to help eachother. Yes we all need sustenance, but consider something like this If I'm laid off I can choose to still program. If I don't my time might simply be wasted (eg on videogames, netflix, or even job applications). But I can also choose to continue to program. Maybe by helping local businesses, contributing to FOSS etc. While I understand the near impossibility of it all, but we actually could continue to have lots of good things so long as folks refuse to stop working even if told they're no longer employed. Obviously this fails the moment some unit in the chain refuses to participate, but I think in small ways it can actually blunt the pain felt in recessions/depressions by creating small communes of collusion amongst your social circle. You collude together to ensure that eachother gets what they need, at least amongst the valuable skills in the circle.

TheHappyOddish 4y ago
> If I don't my time might simply be wasted (eg on videogames, netflix, or even job applications). So how many hours per week do you believe we should be allowed to waste whilst still being a valid member of society?
toomuchtodo 4y ago
How do they pay for food, housing, and healthcare in this model? A family member who is retired performs volunteer work (adjacent industry to what they did while employed) because their Social Security comfortably covers all of their expenses (and Medicare covers their healthcare). Without these age tested basic income and benefits (and me providing no cost housing), this would not be an option. They would be toiling in a bullshit job.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  It's meant as a stop gap not to ride out a temporary situation like a recession or depression, not a permanent perfect solution. But for example, if someone gets foreclosed on, up to some limit they can still reside with the pool, but perhaps now they're doing labor work for everyone, or they're being a child caretaker, or cooking etc.. ideally they have some trade skills to contribute. I agree that the global economy and contemporary life has become sufficiently complex that it would not just be a non-change, but my point is kind like why do we have so many homeless families being kicked out, only for the house to sit empty (often rapidly depreciating for lack of maintenance) etc, sometimes its about seeing that if you contribute to the decline, your own decline becomes inevitable.
  - kmonsen 4y ago
    Sadly there is no evidence for any of what your are saying. I would think all super powerful people in history have contributed to someone's define without their own becoming inevitable. It sounds like how you wish he world to be, not how it is.
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      > someone's define without their own becoming inevitable. Is there a typo in there? I'm not getting it.
      - kmonsen 4y ago
        Someone's decline. Sorry autocorrect. I'm just saying there is no karma in the real world.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
skybrian 4y ago
One difficulty is that many societies are very individualistic. People are isolated. It's not enough to say that your skills are valuable in the abstract. There needs to be work that's obviously worth doing, and this requires either demonstrated demand or a leap of faith. This is fairly unlikely for someone who is depressed. Enthusiasm is very important and often in short supply. Also, entitled customers will repel volunteer labor. Being paid is in part compensation for putting up with annoying strangers.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > a leap of faith. This is absolutely the case. It takes "second" (or more like 100th) order thinking to recognize that you're part of an ecosystem that will be less well if you stop contributing just because you're not being paid. The faith part is that you will continue to have your needs (not necessarily wants) met through reciprocity -- which is a basic human psychological trait, so not the worst gamble.
guerrilla 4y ago
People would do that if they could afford to... They need to be able to survive though. So it's rather our refusal to help them than their "refusal" to do anything...
visarga 4y ago
> creating small communes of collusion amongst your social circle. You collude together to ensure that eachother gets what they need, at least amongst the valuable skills in the circle Exactly. What are a bunch of unemployed, skilled people with unmet needs to do? Sit on their hands and be content to get their UBI? No, you help yourself, and try to be part of a community that does the same. People can build, fix, teach, heal, transport, cultivate, we just need resources to do that, with a little help we can do most of it on our own. Probably we will benefit from smart materials, better batteries, robots and AIs that can help us be self reliant faster. It will be easier for the state to have a self reliant population. But some things will still need to remain, like chip factories, large industries and training the AI models.
itronitron 4y ago
If a person is laid off from a job as a programmer, then they might consider that programming is actually a waste of their time. Furthermore, by contributing to FOSS or volunteering your programming skills you are devaluing other programmers' careers.

TheHappyOddish 4y ago

> If I don't my time might simply be wasted (eg on videogames, netflix, or even job applications). So how many hours per week do you believe we should be allowed to waste whilst still being a valid member of society?

toomuchtodo 4y ago

How do they pay for food, housing, and healthcare in this model? A family member who is retired performs volunteer work (adjacent industry to what they did while employed) because their Social Security comfortably covers all of their expenses (and Medicare covers their healthcare). Without these age tested basic income and benefits (and me providing no cost housing), this would not be an option. They would be toiling in a bullshit job.

maerF0x0 4y ago
It's meant as a stop gap not to ride out a temporary situation like a recession or depression, not a permanent perfect solution. But for example, if someone gets foreclosed on, up to some limit they can still reside with the pool, but perhaps now they're doing labor work for everyone, or they're being a child caretaker, or cooking etc.. ideally they have some trade skills to contribute. I agree that the global economy and contemporary life has become sufficiently complex that it would not just be a non-change, but my point is kind like why do we have so many homeless families being kicked out, only for the house to sit empty (often rapidly depreciating for lack of maintenance) etc, sometimes its about seeing that if you contribute to the decline, your own decline becomes inevitable.
- kmonsen 4y ago
  Sadly there is no evidence for any of what your are saying. I would think all super powerful people in history have contributed to someone's define without their own becoming inevitable. It sounds like how you wish he world to be, not how it is.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    > someone's define without their own becoming inevitable. Is there a typo in there? I'm not getting it.
    - kmonsen 4y ago
      Someone's decline. Sorry autocorrect. I'm just saying there is no karma in the real world.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

skybrian 4y ago

One difficulty is that many societies are very individualistic. People are isolated. It's not enough to say that your skills are valuable in the abstract. There needs to be work that's obviously worth doing, and this requires either demonstrated demand or a leap of faith. This is fairly unlikely for someone who is depressed. Enthusiasm is very important and often in short supply. Also, entitled customers will repel volunteer labor. Being paid is in part compensation for putting up with annoying strangers.

maerF0x0 4y ago
> a leap of faith. This is absolutely the case. It takes "second" (or more like 100th) order thinking to recognize that you're part of an ecosystem that will be less well if you stop contributing just because you're not being paid. The faith part is that you will continue to have your needs (not necessarily wants) met through reciprocity -- which is a basic human psychological trait, so not the worst gamble.

guerrilla 4y ago

People would do that if they could afford to... They need to be able to survive though. So it's rather our refusal to help them than their "refusal" to do anything...

visarga 4y ago

> creating small communes of collusion amongst your social circle. You collude together to ensure that eachother gets what they need, at least amongst the valuable skills in the circle Exactly. What are a bunch of unemployed, skilled people with unmet needs to do? Sit on their hands and be content to get their UBI? No, you help yourself, and try to be part of a community that does the same. People can build, fix, teach, heal, transport, cultivate, we just need resources to do that, with a little help we can do most of it on our own. Probably we will benefit from smart materials, better batteries, robots and AIs that can help us be self reliant faster. It will be easier for the state to have a self reliant population. But some things will still need to remain, like chip factories, large industries and training the AI models.

itronitron 4y ago

If a person is laid off from a job as a programmer, then they might consider that programming is actually a waste of their time. Furthermore, by contributing to FOSS or volunteering your programming skills you are devaluing other programmers' careers.