3 ms·
> I was talking to a friend of mine and I asked this. She said “of course everyone should be working, I mean, I’d like to be able to buy more stuff” This sound
by ElProlactin 2mo ago
> I was talking to a friend of mine and I asked this. She said “of course everyone should be working, I mean, I’d like to be able to buy more stuff”
This sounds like the type of thing you hear from a person sipping a rare single-origin pour-over after their pilates class in Palo Alto.
In the real world, the average person would probably tell you something like "of course everyone should be working, I mean, I need to pay my rent, electricity bill, buy food, etc.".
Most people in this world work because they need to earn money to pay for basic necessities of life, not because they want to buy more stuff.
> Here is a very simple statement which may sound a bit mean: it is entirely feasible that giving a job to a “stupid” person, regardless of how much we try and train them, might cost the economy more than we benefit, in aggregate.
The economy is not society, though, and having a bunch of unhappy people who are poor and have nothing to do is probably not good for a country's well-being.
Until there's an alternative system that allows people to have their basic needs met without working, unemployment is a problem, and even if you had that system, we have no idea whether or not the masses will be content enough to stay sane and peaceful.
- andsoitis 2mo ago> Until there's an alternative system that allows people to have their basic needs met without working, unemployment is a problem Imagine there’s a ratio of that category of people that’s a more optimal ratio than zero.
- ElProlactin 2mo agoThe big question though is: can you have a society in which one group works and another doesn't? Ostensibly, the working group would be the ones who create and/or own all the value that supports the ones who don't. At least in the US, given how many people complain about the "welfare state", it seems like there's bound to be resentment on both sides. And that still leaves the question of whether people will feel good enough about the situation to accept it. I could imagine a world in which some segment of the population has sufficient UBI to live a decent life and you'd still lots of people who felt something was missing. Especially in a world dominated by social media, I just don't see large numbers of people on UBI sitting around and writing novels, painting beautiful pictures, making music, etc. I see a lot of people who are restless and unfulfilled.
- Erem 2mo agoI think you are reproducing in your own words the exact point the author was trying to make
- ElProlactin 2mo agoI don't read that at all in anything he wrote.
- Erem 2mo ago> Until there's an alternative system that allows people to have their basic needs met without working, unemployment is a problem, and even if you had that system, we have no idea whether or not the masses will be content enough to stay sane and peaceful. I read the author's post as a paean to letting people who can't contribute above the ever raising bar just exist securely as they please, rather than make whole countries suffer in the attempt to employ them. You didn't get the same thing? Let me reread it
- jochem9 2mo agoI also got out of the article that we shouldn't let people work who shouldn't work (the water as a resource vs labor as a resource comparison). That implies those people are provided for in a different way than wages.
- yen223 2mo agoIt's legit funny how often this occurs. We just like to argue it seems
- 317070 2mo ago> if you had that system, we have no idea whether or not the masses will be content enough to stay sane and peaceful. Belgium, the Netherlands and a lot of European countries, have a "leefloon" or "bijstand". It is a monthly payment from the government if you have no other sources of income or wealth. The name means it is "pay to stay alive". It's not a lot (1518.29 dollars today for a single person), but allows for the necessities. So what happens is not _really_ unknown.
- ElProlactin 2mo agoQuick AI research: the number of people receiving minimum income benefits in European countries represents under 5% of the population. So I don't think that tells you what happens to society when this becomes a primary source of income for a significant minority if not the majority of people.
- 317070 2mo agoIf you adjust for all ways people receive minimum income benefits, not just the 'final resort' one, you get > In Belgium, roughly 4.35 million adults (aged 18 and older) are not working out of an adult population of about 9.5 million, around 45%. Of those, roughly 3.95 million or 40% receive government income above the leefloon.
- edflsafoiewq 2mo agoI interpreted that to mean "other people should be working because it will enable me personally to buy more stuff (that they produce)", not "each person should be working because working will allow that person to buy themselves more stuff".
- xtiansimon 2mo ago> “…bunch of unhappy people who are poor and have nothing to do is probably not good for a country's well-being.” Which I believe lead directly to T in p45. I have family in WI and it’s about jobs. What’s more, they’re tired of ‘costal elites’ and ‘we live in a global economy; nothing we can do about offshoring.’
- IAmBroom 2mo ago> Most people in this world work because they need to earn money to pay for basic necessities of life, not because they want to buy more stuff. Most people make more than subsistence incomes; ergo, they are working for more than basic necessities.