4 ms·

> It improves the leverage of the productive middle against the parasitic, progress-averse top of society, and that's a really good thing. I'm certainly inclin

> It improves the leverage of the productive middle against the parasitic, progress-averse top of society, and that's a really good thing. I'm certainly inclined to agree with you. However, many of the people I've discussed this with think the middle wouldn't be so productive if their livelihood didn't depend on it. I usually argue that with automation we don't need as many people working. Imagine a machine is invented that is capable of replacing every facet of human labor. While this is obviously a great invention in our current system it would condemn the majority to insurmountable poverty. This machine is already being invented slowly. With private ownership of the means of production basic income will become a social necessity.

michaelochurch 13y ago
I'm certainly inclined to agree with you. However, many of the people I've discussed this with think the middle wouldn't be so productive if their livelihood didn't depend on it. Most people are stuck in a mindset appropriate to a world where the most productive people are 1.25-1.50x more productive than average ones and reducing variance (bringing everyone to the middle) has expectancy. Now, it's 10x. Everything a company does to detect and punish slackers takes several times more productivity off the best people-- who might drop from 10x to mere 4x-- than it induces gain. To quote Gus Fring, "I don't find fear to be an effective motivator".
saraid216 13y ago
> However, many of the people I've discussed this with think the middle wouldn't be so productive if their livelihood didn't depend on it. I usually argue that with automation we don't need as many people working. I essentially agree. Why do we need people to be productive? Why do we need people working? We do need this, but do we really understand why? What is the moral argument derived from, that we say people must work because otherwise they're lazy? I tried to write out an answer to these, since I have it somewhat in my head, but it's too incoherent to come out as sentences right now, so I'll just leave them here unanswered.

michaelochurch 13y ago

I'm certainly inclined to agree with you. However, many of the people I've discussed this with think the middle wouldn't be so productive if their livelihood didn't depend on it. Most people are stuck in a mindset appropriate to a world where the most productive people are 1.25-1.50x more productive than average ones and reducing variance (bringing everyone to the middle) has expectancy. Now, it's 10x. Everything a company does to detect and punish slackers takes several times more productivity off the best people-- who might drop from 10x to mere 4x-- than it induces gain. To quote Gus Fring, "I don't find fear to be an effective motivator".

saraid216 13y ago

> However, many of the people I've discussed this with think the middle wouldn't be so productive if their livelihood didn't depend on it. I usually argue that with automation we don't need as many people working. I essentially agree. Why do we need people to be productive? Why do we need people working? We do need this, but do we really understand why? What is the moral argument derived from, that we say people must work because otherwise they're lazy? I tried to write out an answer to these, since I have it somewhat in my head, but it's too incoherent to come out as sentences right now, so I'll just leave them here unanswered.