6 ms·

I think everyone who is able should earn their keep. From ants to lions, to survive and live, even if in meager spurts they must put in some work.

by mc32 4mo ago

sosomoxie 4mo ago
Only if wealth will be evenly distributed, otherwise you're just enriching someone else.
- bluefirebrand 4mo ago
  Would you accept "fairly" distributed instead of "evenly"? I think it's fair to say that some jobs do actually deserve to be compensated more highly? Jobs that require special skills and training, or require taking on more responsibility? I don't think the problem is that some work earns different amounts of money. To me it seems that the problem is how much wealth is concentrating in such few hands, because the people doing the work are not being compensated fairly
  - sosomoxie 4mo ago
    I would prefer "evenly" but "fairly" would be better than what we have now. If AI and robots are going to make infinite progress and replace all labor, then I definitely would want "evenly".
    - mc32 4mo ago
      What would keep people from circumventing a roboticized society and forming their own human-based society? Buy good and services produced by other people and avoid and or penalize members who cheat -ostracize them. There can be parallel systems. Pretty much only communist systems prevent non-communist systems from operating. In capitalist systems communist systems that form from time to time fail because members grow disillusioned with the inevitable slackers and because they operate within a greater society can't just send slackers to gulags or re-educational camps.
      - the_af 4mo ago
        In an hypothetical future where society has completely broken down because of extreme concentration of wealth (and means of production and everything) I can see there not being any possibility for a human-based society. In such a doomsday scenario, regular people wouldn't be able to trade anything because they wouldn't be able to produce anything, because all the land will be taken over by the very few ultrarich. Nowhere to live, nowhere to grow food, etc. Essentially surplus population. No government to protect you either, since it will have been coopted by the ultrarich (essentially, them becoming the government). Enforcement could be done by robots, and robots do not revolt or go on strike, nor will they question orders. Maintenance can be done by other robots, harvesting, even health care for the ultrarich. So how (in this admittedly doomsday scenario that I hope won't come to pass) will a human-based society be able function?
        mc32 4mo ago
        Unless expropriation happens the rich can’t simply take over land. They still have to buy it. Ted Turner, Bill Gates still had to buy land from individuals. So unless people sell all their land to these people, there will still be land.
        the_af 4mo ago
        First, let me clarify my dystopian scenario is extreme. I'm aware of this, and I'm not saying it will necessarily come to pass. (edit: removed a wall of text that was repeating my previous comment). What I describe can start gradually, like arguably it may be already happening, and pick up speed after a certain tipping point. After enough automation + concentration of power and wealth has been achieved, then the masks can fall off. And then... > Unless expropriation happens Exactly. If you're completely amoral and powerful, you only buy or ask for permission if the other side has something to bargain with (such as labor or violent revolt). If they don't anymore, and you have all the force in the world, why not simply take whatever you want?
        mc32 4mo ago
    - bluefirebrand 4mo ago
      I don't really want to live in a world where someone bagging groceries makes the exact same living as someone researching cures for cancer I think both of those people have inherent value and I don't think there is anything wrong with bagging groceries, but I don't think the work they do is equally important and it would be unjust to reward their work equally as a result
  - maest 4mo ago
    "fair" involves a value judgement and requires a moral system. "even" is pure mathematics. > I think it's fair to say that some jobs do actually deserve to be compensated more highly? Agreeing with that is easy. Agreeing with which jobs should be compensated more highly is hard. Because everyone has different morality systems. > To me it seems that the problem is how much wealth is concentrating in such few hands I know people who strongly believe Bezos and other billionaires are being <fairly> compensated for the value they've brought to their customers via their businesses.
    - mc32 4mo ago
      Fairness can also be mathematical. Fair chances. No special treatment.
  - 8note 4mo ago
    the jobs that actually need to be paid highly and the ones that do have little relation to each other all those "heroes" and "essential workers" like people running the till at grocery stores should be getting paid a ton
    - mc32 4mo ago
      Low skill jobs are unable to demand a ton of money. In most places they are sadly being replaced by self-serve kiosks where the “worker” gets paid nothing -that’s not entirely true, the shopper gets some of it in the form of a price break and the store gets some in the form of slightly better profits (they run at typically one percent net profit overall).
dyauspitr 4mo ago
Well yes, that how it has always been. But if robots do the labor we don’t have to abide by that nonsense anymore. It’s a paradigm shift. I realize we’re probably not going to see it in our lifetimes but that will be the norm in the future. Also that extremely ingrained mindset of earning your keep is exactly what keeps most of the world working hard while the elite jetset and live a life of pleasure.
- BobbyTables2 4mo ago
  More than a mindset, it also takes quite a bit of money to live in a permanent vacation 24/7, even modestly. Aside from the income, employment also has a way of occupying one’s time. Without that, one would often spend additional funds on various forms of entertainment (books, movies, crafts, travel, etc.)…
  - mc32 4mo ago
    Without direction or a pull in life people tend to self-destruct. Even the wealthy are susceptible to this. Hollywood nepotites are a nice example: they live off their parents's wealth or easily acquired money and self-destroy themselves. They are not engaging in higher pursuits but rather basic degeneration. Not all of course; some do good, productive things.
    - JackMorgan 4mo ago
      It's easy to point to high profile nepotites but I've known plenty of folks from all classes who have self-destructed. It's hardly limited to those with lives of leisure.
    - dyauspitr 4mo ago
      Many people will I think but not most. Also, since we’re talking about fantastical things, you could have lots of things to mitigate this. If someone has a pattern of self-destructive behavior, you could essentially have two robots follow them around everywhere as a more effective ankle bracelet. And they’re specifically tasked with keeping you from trouble and stopping you from ruining your life. Maybe that can replace prisons.
supertroop 4mo ago
In all likelihood you will end up more like a Syrian refugee than mr outdoor survivor manly man.
spaqin 4mo ago
Your abilities, while not taken away, suddenly become close to useless as there's a far cheaper substitute, and rationally there is no point in hiring you for anything. Good luck earning your keep now.

I think everyone who is able should earn their keep. From ants to lions, to survive and live, even if in meager spurts they must put in some work.

by mc32 4mo ago

I think everyone who is able should earn their keep. From ants to lions, to survive and live, even if in meager spurts they must put in some work.

sosomoxie 4mo ago

Only if wealth will be evenly distributed, otherwise you're just enriching someone else.

bluefirebrand 4mo ago
Would you accept "fairly" distributed instead of "evenly"? I think it's fair to say that some jobs do actually deserve to be compensated more highly? Jobs that require special skills and training, or require taking on more responsibility? I don't think the problem is that some work earns different amounts of money. To me it seems that the problem is how much wealth is concentrating in such few hands, because the people doing the work are not being compensated fairly
- sosomoxie 4mo ago
  I would prefer "evenly" but "fairly" would be better than what we have now. If AI and robots are going to make infinite progress and replace all labor, then I definitely would want "evenly".
  - mc32 4mo ago
    What would keep people from circumventing a roboticized society and forming their own human-based society? Buy good and services produced by other people and avoid and or penalize members who cheat -ostracize them. There can be parallel systems. Pretty much only communist systems prevent non-communist systems from operating. In capitalist systems communist systems that form from time to time fail because members grow disillusioned with the inevitable slackers and because they operate within a greater society can't just send slackers to gulags or re-educational camps.
    - the_af 4mo ago
      In an hypothetical future where society has completely broken down because of extreme concentration of wealth (and means of production and everything) I can see there not being any possibility for a human-based society. In such a doomsday scenario, regular people wouldn't be able to trade anything because they wouldn't be able to produce anything, because all the land will be taken over by the very few ultrarich. Nowhere to live, nowhere to grow food, etc. Essentially surplus population. No government to protect you either, since it will have been coopted by the ultrarich (essentially, them becoming the government). Enforcement could be done by robots, and robots do not revolt or go on strike, nor will they question orders. Maintenance can be done by other robots, harvesting, even health care for the ultrarich. So how (in this admittedly doomsday scenario that I hope won't come to pass) will a human-based society be able function?
      - mc32 4mo ago
        Unless expropriation happens the rich can’t simply take over land. They still have to buy it. Ted Turner, Bill Gates still had to buy land from individuals. So unless people sell all their land to these people, there will still be land.
        the_af 4mo ago
        First, let me clarify my dystopian scenario is extreme. I'm aware of this, and I'm not saying it will necessarily come to pass. (edit: removed a wall of text that was repeating my previous comment). What I describe can start gradually, like arguably it may be already happening, and pick up speed after a certain tipping point. After enough automation + concentration of power and wealth has been achieved, then the masks can fall off. And then... > Unless expropriation happens Exactly. If you're completely amoral and powerful, you only buy or ask for permission if the other side has something to bargain with (such as labor or violent revolt). If they don't anymore, and you have all the force in the world, why not simply take whatever you want?
        mc32 4mo ago
  - bluefirebrand 4mo ago
    I don't really want to live in a world where someone bagging groceries makes the exact same living as someone researching cures for cancer I think both of those people have inherent value and I don't think there is anything wrong with bagging groceries, but I don't think the work they do is equally important and it would be unjust to reward their work equally as a result
- maest 4mo ago
  "fair" involves a value judgement and requires a moral system. "even" is pure mathematics. > I think it's fair to say that some jobs do actually deserve to be compensated more highly? Agreeing with that is easy. Agreeing with which jobs should be compensated more highly is hard. Because everyone has different morality systems. > To me it seems that the problem is how much wealth is concentrating in such few hands I know people who strongly believe Bezos and other billionaires are being <fairly> compensated for the value they've brought to their customers via their businesses.
  - mc32 4mo ago
    Fairness can also be mathematical. Fair chances. No special treatment.
- 8note 4mo ago
  the jobs that actually need to be paid highly and the ones that do have little relation to each other all those "heroes" and "essential workers" like people running the till at grocery stores should be getting paid a ton
  - mc32 4mo ago
    Low skill jobs are unable to demand a ton of money. In most places they are sadly being replaced by self-serve kiosks where the “worker” gets paid nothing -that’s not entirely true, the shopper gets some of it in the form of a price break and the store gets some in the form of slightly better profits (they run at typically one percent net profit overall).

dyauspitr 4mo ago

Well yes, that how it has always been. But if robots do the labor we don’t have to abide by that nonsense anymore. It’s a paradigm shift. I realize we’re probably not going to see it in our lifetimes but that will be the norm in the future. Also that extremely ingrained mindset of earning your keep is exactly what keeps most of the world working hard while the elite jetset and live a life of pleasure.

BobbyTables2 4mo ago
More than a mindset, it also takes quite a bit of money to live in a permanent vacation 24/7, even modestly. Aside from the income, employment also has a way of occupying one’s time. Without that, one would often spend additional funds on various forms of entertainment (books, movies, crafts, travel, etc.)…
- mc32 4mo ago
  Without direction or a pull in life people tend to self-destruct. Even the wealthy are susceptible to this. Hollywood nepotites are a nice example: they live off their parents's wealth or easily acquired money and self-destroy themselves. They are not engaging in higher pursuits but rather basic degeneration. Not all of course; some do good, productive things.
  - JackMorgan 4mo ago
    It's easy to point to high profile nepotites but I've known plenty of folks from all classes who have self-destructed. It's hardly limited to those with lives of leisure.
  - dyauspitr 4mo ago
    Many people will I think but not most. Also, since we’re talking about fantastical things, you could have lots of things to mitigate this. If someone has a pattern of self-destructive behavior, you could essentially have two robots follow them around everywhere as a more effective ankle bracelet. And they’re specifically tasked with keeping you from trouble and stopping you from ruining your life. Maybe that can replace prisons.

supertroop 4mo ago

In all likelihood you will end up more like a Syrian refugee than mr outdoor survivor manly man.

spaqin 4mo ago

Your abilities, while not taken away, suddenly become close to useless as there's a far cheaper substitute, and rationally there is no point in hiring you for anything. Good luck earning your keep now.