5 ms·

YES!!!! Not every job is moral, essential or needed, the idea that 'everyone needs to participate with American capitalism as a worker drone' needs to die.

sulandor 2y ago
though if you do, it's useful to perpetuate the idea and it probably doesn't make much sense to discourage this, especially if you would not want to do it yourself.
anticensor 2y ago
At least America doesn't have an explicit "duty to work" clause in their constitution like Turkey has. It could've been worse.
ihsw 2y ago
[dead]
marcusverus 2y ago
> everyone needs to participate with American capitalism as a worker drone Working a job you don't like is a leaser evil than mooching off of your neighbors. The level of entitlement required to argue the opposite is absolutely mind boggling. How many people have to work full time to support one able-bodied layabout? UBI may make sense in the event of technology-induced mass unemployment, but folks won't tolerate it otherwise. The incentives are simply and universally too bass-ackwards for society to function. They're backwards for the idle (who will find it easier to cut costs than work), for new graduates (who can split living costs with friends and delay entry into the workforce indefinitely), for workers (who would rather rent a trailer and chill than work 40 hours a week and live in the 'burbs and drive a new truck), and for politicians (who will shamelessly promise endless increases in benefits). IMO UBI is a litmus test for basement dwellers, unserious utopians and plain-old first-order thinkers.
- 8note 2y ago
  > new graduates (who can split living costs with friends and delay entry into the workforce indefinitely), This one at least, and probably all of them is stuff that already happens, and their time spent not working is instead spent on improving their communities. I think that's still valuable, and maybe more valueable than making a billionaire slightly richer Ubi compensates all work, rather than just what capitalists are willing to pay for. Id expect a good portion of software engineers to quit in a UBI world, so they can do open source projects instead. The second order effect of putting everyone in the workforce is that nobody is having kids, and there's no community support for people on the edge of homelessness, or with mental health issues, or with drug issues.
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    > This one at least, and probably all of them is stuff that already happens Yes. The system incentives against it, yet and it still happens. Redesign the system so that it incentivizes for it and it'll happen way, way more. The idea that the idle poor are running around "improving their communities is obviously bullshit. The poor already work fewer hours per person, and their communities are universally the most neglected. > UBI compensates all work Capitalism compensates work that someone is willing to pay for--i.e. work that consumers find valuable. UBI compensates "work" playing video games and sleeping until noon. Pretending that the latter is more moral than the former is positively asinine.
- altruios 2y ago
  Working a job you don't like isn't the issue. Working a job that makes the world a worse place because you need to survive is the issue. It IS less evil to do nothing and be fed than to take up arms in a factory that produces produces that people want, but is poison (cigarettes, as an example). Paying people to prevent exploitation from plantation owners is a good thing.
  - creato 2y ago
    A lot of people like cigarettes. The idea that no one would work in a cigarette factory because everyone would see it as morally objectionable and they could afford not to is preposterous.
legitster 2y ago
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx. It's not an inherent function of capitalism. If anything, Marx himself actually pitched communism as boosting overall productivity of society by putting bourgeois to work.
- Detrytus 2y ago
  This stupid adage by Marx has to die. It never works. For one, some people have extraordinary abilities, and will be pissed off if, in exchange for their extraordinary contributions, they only got the income "according to their needs", as defined by government. This basically takes away all the motivation to excel at something. Also, the masses would be discontent because their perceived "needs" are much bigger that their actual ability to produce anything. This is partially remedied by capitalism, where the "greedy capitalist" basically forces them to work harder than they would out of their own free will.
  - altruios 2y ago
    I think you might be mistaken about the ratio of the average person's needs/abilities... a probing question is: do we really need telemarketers to continue to exist (just so people have jobs... and that's better that people receive unwanted calls... because?)? Greed is greed and shouldn't be rewarded. I otherwise basically agree with you... just that most people are basically able and society doesn't need to do things arbitrarily if there is a better (more direct) way... We don't need to be in a constant state of production/consumption - we can take a break and still feed people. We throw out food if we aren't selling it because we'd rather let people starve than get a free loaf of bread... which really just stems from a lack of imagination and empathy. Let's imagine a better world. Imagine and make it so.
    - syockit 2y ago
      Telemarketers are not subsidized. If there is no return on investment for employing them, companies won't employ them at all.

sulandor 2y ago

though if you do, it's useful to perpetuate the idea and it probably doesn't make much sense to discourage this, especially if you would not want to do it yourself.

anticensor 2y ago

At least America doesn't have an explicit "duty to work" clause in their constitution like Turkey has. It could've been worse.

ihsw 2y ago

[dead]

marcusverus 2y ago

> everyone needs to participate with American capitalism as a worker drone Working a job you don't like is a leaser evil than mooching off of your neighbors. The level of entitlement required to argue the opposite is absolutely mind boggling. How many people have to work full time to support one able-bodied layabout? UBI may make sense in the event of technology-induced mass unemployment, but folks won't tolerate it otherwise. The incentives are simply and universally too bass-ackwards for society to function. They're backwards for the idle (who will find it easier to cut costs than work), for new graduates (who can split living costs with friends and delay entry into the workforce indefinitely), for workers (who would rather rent a trailer and chill than work 40 hours a week and live in the 'burbs and drive a new truck), and for politicians (who will shamelessly promise endless increases in benefits). IMO UBI is a litmus test for basement dwellers, unserious utopians and plain-old first-order thinkers.

8note 2y ago
> new graduates (who can split living costs with friends and delay entry into the workforce indefinitely), This one at least, and probably all of them is stuff that already happens, and their time spent not working is instead spent on improving their communities. I think that's still valuable, and maybe more valueable than making a billionaire slightly richer Ubi compensates all work, rather than just what capitalists are willing to pay for. Id expect a good portion of software engineers to quit in a UBI world, so they can do open source projects instead. The second order effect of putting everyone in the workforce is that nobody is having kids, and there's no community support for people on the edge of homelessness, or with mental health issues, or with drug issues.
- marcusverus 2y ago
  > This one at least, and probably all of them is stuff that already happens Yes. The system incentives against it, yet and it still happens. Redesign the system so that it incentivizes for it and it'll happen way, way more. The idea that the idle poor are running around "improving their communities is obviously bullshit. The poor already work fewer hours per person, and their communities are universally the most neglected. > UBI compensates all work Capitalism compensates work that someone is willing to pay for--i.e. work that consumers find valuable. UBI compensates "work" playing video games and sleeping until noon. Pretending that the latter is more moral than the former is positively asinine.
altruios 2y ago
Working a job you don't like isn't the issue. Working a job that makes the world a worse place because you need to survive is the issue. It IS less evil to do nothing and be fed than to take up arms in a factory that produces produces that people want, but is poison (cigarettes, as an example). Paying people to prevent exploitation from plantation owners is a good thing.
- creato 2y ago
  A lot of people like cigarettes. The idea that no one would work in a cigarette factory because everyone would see it as morally objectionable and they could afford not to is preposterous.

legitster 2y ago

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx. It's not an inherent function of capitalism. If anything, Marx himself actually pitched communism as boosting overall productivity of society by putting bourgeois to work.

Detrytus 2y ago
This stupid adage by Marx has to die. It never works. For one, some people have extraordinary abilities, and will be pissed off if, in exchange for their extraordinary contributions, they only got the income "according to their needs", as defined by government. This basically takes away all the motivation to excel at something. Also, the masses would be discontent because their perceived "needs" are much bigger that their actual ability to produce anything. This is partially remedied by capitalism, where the "greedy capitalist" basically forces them to work harder than they would out of their own free will.
- altruios 2y ago
  I think you might be mistaken about the ratio of the average person's needs/abilities... a probing question is: do we really need telemarketers to continue to exist (just so people have jobs... and that's better that people receive unwanted calls... because?)? Greed is greed and shouldn't be rewarded. I otherwise basically agree with you... just that most people are basically able and society doesn't need to do things arbitrarily if there is a better (more direct) way... We don't need to be in a constant state of production/consumption - we can take a break and still feed people. We throw out food if we aren't selling it because we'd rather let people starve than get a free loaf of bread... which really just stems from a lack of imagination and empathy. Let's imagine a better world. Imagine and make it so.
  - syockit 2y ago
    Telemarketers are not subsidized. If there is no return on investment for employing them, companies won't employ them at all.