4 ms·

Yes. That is what I'm suggesting. And I am not kidding. Do you disagree?

by Suncho 14y ago

angersock 14y ago
I'm concerned that I'm maybe putting the wrong emphasis on some bit of what you said, because if I'm not then yes, I disagree with you. There is no reason historically that people have not had to work to support themselves, and so to suggest that they not do this suggests either that you desire them all to become layabouts dependent on welfare or that you want them to stop working and die off. Please explain an alternate interpretation of this.
- nostrademons 14y ago
  work != job
- Suncho 14y ago
  I don't want them to die off. I do want them to depend on welfare. Whether they layabout is up to them. Historically, if you go way back, everyone grew/hunted their own food and built their own houses etc. This was a very brittle/brutal existence. Drought, disease, or a cold winter means I might die or my family might die. So we learned to be efficient by dividing up tasks and specializing. This reduced the total amount of work that needed to be done to ensure our survival. Over time, technology (algorithms) continues to get more efficient thereby continuing to reduce the work necessary for survival. Of course, this natural progression eventually leads us to point where the work necessary for our survival is completely automated. We're not there yet, but there will never again be enough jobs that everyone can have one. That's a good thing. It frees people up to do what they want with their time.
  - georgemcbay 14y ago
    "That's a good thing. It frees people up to do what they want with their time." I agree with your premise. IMO, socialism, like or it not, is an inevitable result of a highly technical society. This is a good thing in the long term but it is going to result in decades of horribleness, at least in the US, because so little of the population is going to accept this until it is clearly inevitable.
    - Suncho 14y ago
      Yes. There will be growing pains as we adjust to this new kind of economy. When talking about socialism, it's important to distinguish between goods and services that have a level of scarcity and those that don't. We have the resources to provide food for everyone, but we don't have the resources to provide private jets for everyone. That means there should be a market for private jets. There should always be a market for luxuries. There should never be a market for things we can easily give everyone. As technology advances, old markets will collapse and new markets will rise. The government should provide for its people as much as it can. No more. No less. The good news is that once society recognizes that having a job is optional, we no longer need to worry about silly things like minimum wage, living wage, or unions. You'd be working at a job because: A. You enjoy spending your time that way. B. It pays enough that you're willing to sacrifice your time in order to gain access to luxuries. If a job pays $3 an hour and you don't like it, then don't work at that job. It's in no way tied to your survival.

Yes. That is what I'm suggesting. And I am not kidding. Do you disagree?

by Suncho 14y ago

Yes. That is what I'm suggesting. And I am not kidding. Do you disagree?

I'm concerned that I'm maybe putting the wrong emphasis on some bit of what you said, because if I'm not then yes, I disagree with you. There is no reason historically that people have not had to work to support themselves, and so to suggest that they not do this suggests either that you desire them all to become layabouts dependent on welfare or that you want them to stop working and die off. Please explain an alternate interpretation of this.

nostrademons 14y ago
work != job
Suncho 14y ago
I don't want them to die off. I do want them to depend on welfare. Whether they layabout is up to them. Historically, if you go way back, everyone grew/hunted their own food and built their own houses etc. This was a very brittle/brutal existence. Drought, disease, or a cold winter means I might die or my family might die. So we learned to be efficient by dividing up tasks and specializing. This reduced the total amount of work that needed to be done to ensure our survival. Over time, technology (algorithms) continues to get more efficient thereby continuing to reduce the work necessary for survival. Of course, this natural progression eventually leads us to point where the work necessary for our survival is completely automated. We're not there yet, but there will never again be enough jobs that everyone can have one. That's a good thing. It frees people up to do what they want with their time.
- georgemcbay 14y ago
  "That's a good thing. It frees people up to do what they want with their time." I agree with your premise. IMO, socialism, like or it not, is an inevitable result of a highly technical society. This is a good thing in the long term but it is going to result in decades of horribleness, at least in the US, because so little of the population is going to accept this until it is clearly inevitable.
  - Suncho 14y ago
    Yes. There will be growing pains as we adjust to this new kind of economy. When talking about socialism, it's important to distinguish between goods and services that have a level of scarcity and those that don't. We have the resources to provide food for everyone, but we don't have the resources to provide private jets for everyone. That means there should be a market for private jets. There should always be a market for luxuries. There should never be a market for things we can easily give everyone. As technology advances, old markets will collapse and new markets will rise. The government should provide for its people as much as it can. No more. No less. The good news is that once society recognizes that having a job is optional, we no longer need to worry about silly things like minimum wage, living wage, or unions. You'd be working at a job because: A. You enjoy spending your time that way. B. It pays enough that you're willing to sacrifice your time in order to gain access to luxuries. If a job pays $3 an hour and you don't like it, then don't work at that job. It's in no way tied to your survival.