7 ms·
> It's interesting how quality of life baselines have increased so much in the last century. From John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchi
by throw0101b 3y ago
> It's interesting how quality of life baselines have increased so much in the last century.
From John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" (1930):
> > Now it is true that the needs of human beings may seem to be insatiable. But they fall into two classes --those needs which are absolute in the sense that we feel them whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be, and those which are relative in the sense that we feel them only if their satisfaction lifts us above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows. Needs of the second class, those which satisfy the desire for superiority, may indeed be insatiable; for the higher the general level, the higher still are they. But this is not so true of the absolute needs-a point may soon be reached, much sooner perhaps than we are all of us aware of, when these needs are satisfied in the sense that we prefer to devote our further energies to non-economic purposes.
* http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf
- keiferski 3y agoYes, which is why I don’t think any “post-work” society will ever happen on a mass scale. People will invent jobs if they feed a social need.
- V__ 3y agoThere was a line in the show Orville which stuck with me. The gist was: In a post scarcity society people started to value other for their compassion and "work ethic". If someone wants to read all day and learn, or be a bartender etc. then that is all the same, only laziness and not pursuing something was looked down upon.
- sdwr 3y agoA post-scarcity society is kind of a present-day reality for people with enough $$$ in the bank (including Seth McFarlene). Maybe that's the attitude he's cultivated. He's certainly no stranger to labors of love - I just found his old-school-crooner-style albums on youtube last week.
- Kye 3y agoHis entire life and career was centered on getting Fox to pay to make his Star Trek fanfic into a TV show. Orville is a lot better than I would have expected.
- beepbooptheory 3y agoWhy does that follow though? Why not just say: in the absence of labor, people would still like to make and do nice things for people to consume. Like, you know, enjoying life and sharing with others. A "job" is not a spontaneous effect of a desire, its not a natural thing, but simply a formalization step in capitalism for the sake of exchanging labor for pay. "Post-work" generally doesn't mean "nobody can work anymore," its more "nobody needs to work anymore." People will always "work" insofar as that just means to live, learn, and share fruits of our skill and creativity.
- christophilus 3y agoEvery economic system we’ve ever observed had jobs. Communism, socialism, feudalism, tribalism… Human civilization has and probably will always have roles which are essentially responsibilities for ensuring some good or service is consistently available to the community. That’s a job in my book, regardless of the economic system.
- ghaff 3y agoDoesn't even need to be a formal economic system. I can pretty much guarantee that a random paleolithic tribe had some people who were better hunters, people who gathered edibles, leaders, etc.
- pixl97 3y agoWhat is interesting in these threads is that we as humans cannot seem to even imagine a post work society, much less how we'd ever accomplish one.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago> A "job" is not a spontaneous effect of a desire, its not a natural thing, but simply a formalization step in capitalism for the sake of exchanging labor for pay. In any system including moderate technological complexity (e.g. roads, sewage disposal systems) there will be tasks that are useful, or even necessary, for a community but that nevertheless have low intrinsic rewards. Providing extrinsic rewards (e.g. money) in exchange for doing these tasks has nothing to do with capitalism. What may have something to do with capitalism is whether or not people need to exchange their labor for goods or money in order to remain alive. In a system where this is no longer necessary, finding the right kinds of rewards and/or motivational culture to get people to do unpleasant tasks that still need to be done will be a challenge, I suspect.
- guerrilla 3y agoThis doesn't follow because the assumption that it has to take the form of consumption is unwarrented. People have competed to be the most ascetic or otherwise most virtuous or holy on massive scales before. Certain kinds of religious people, activists, hippies and the like still do. It could be the culture again.
- nradov 3y agoMost regular people don't like being miserable. The ascetics have always been a tiny minority in every culture.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- guerrilla 3y agoThere's nothing miserable about minimalism, quite the opposite. There's a joy from freedom and peace from reduced stress. It's the hamster wheel and packratting that causes misery.
- BurningFrog 3y ago"Jobs" exist because division of labor is an enormous generator of human welfare. If I have to grow my own food, compose and perform my own music, build my own housing and vehicles, life will be shit. If we do have division of labor and pay each other for the work, we've reinvented capitalism. If we don't pay each other, the incentives are very strong to be a free-rider.
- survirtual 3y agoThere are countless models available beyond this black and white, boxed thinking. The dichotomy presented between capitalism as the byproduct of division of labor and the inevitability of free-riding in its absence paints a rather stark picture. However, this view presumes a rigidity in human motivation and socio-economic structures that simply does not account for the complex tapestry of human innovation. Life is not relegated to the binary of paying or not paying for services. Consider that human motivation is not solely hinged on material compensation but also on intrinsic rewards—personal growth, satisfaction, and the joy of contributing to something larger than oneself. The potential for human societies to organize around principles that value these intrinsic motivations equally, if not more than the extrinsic, suggests that the welfare generated by division of labor need not be confined within the traditional frameworks of capitalism. A more nuanced approach considers economies as organic, adaptable, and evolutionary entities that can incorporate diverse motivational drivers, beyond just financial incentives. In such systems, the fear of free-riding is mitigated not by imposing structures but by fostering a culture where communal contribution is as valued as individual success. This shifts the focus from a simplistic labor-for-pay model to a more expansive, dynamic model that embraces a spectrum of motivations and rewards.
- BurningFrog 3y agoDid... an AI write this?
- pixl97 3y agoIs it incorrect? Is this the future we are bound to? Anytime someone writes beyond the 5th grade level we accuse the writer of being artificial?