4 ms·
> Not everyone has a useful function in society. It's a total fallacy that jobs are available for all and that it's a good metric for the success of a society.
by user24 13y ago
> Not everyone has a useful function in society. It's a total fallacy that jobs are available for all and that it's a good metric for the success of a society.
Ah right, I misunderstood your comment. You're taking the position that it's always been like this and the wall marts and amazons of this world are not part of the reason things are like this, and moreover you're saying that societies can be considered successful even with high or rising unemployment.
It seemed to me like you were acknowledging that unemployment was rising and saying that people just had to get used to being jobless.
Have I now understood your position correctly?
- spongle 13y agoSpot on - yes you have.
- user24 13y agoI'm intrigued as to how a society could be considered successful (or sustainable) with rising unemployment. Let's see. My axioms (and bear in mind these are written in half an hour) are: 1) People cannot ever be equal. 2) Things are not of equal value. 3) People need and want things. 4) It is not possible for everyone to have everything they want. 5) People want to own things. 6) It would be simpler if people did not want to own things ;) 7) People are fickle. 8) Given 5 and 7, trade will naturally arise. 9) Barter is impractical at scale 10) Barter is impractical across nonlocal distances. 11) Given 8, 9 and 10, money will naturally arise as a token for items. 12) People do not have a constant natural supply of valuable items. 13) People do have a constant natural supply of time and energy, at least for as long as it matters. 14) To gain money, people can sell their items 15) To gain money, people can sell their time and energy 16) Given 12, 13, and 15, jobs will naturally arise as a way to gain money. At this point I start asking questions that are beyond my knowledge of economics. a) How does money stop having a hard relationship with the items it originally represented (aka the "Why can't I get five pounds of gold for my fiver any more" question)? b) How is the value of money set? c) If money is subject to (a), then doesn't trade in money critically undermine the value of money? But those notwithstanding, how do you rate my reasoning as to why jobs are essential to society? edit: perhaps I've only demonstrated that jobs are one way to gain wealth. That's what I'm asking really. Assuming I've not made some huge error with my axioms, what is your number (17) that allows people to acquire money without selling items or their time and energy?
- spongle 13y agoReasoning is sound. however have you considered charity and socialism (particularly marxism-leninism)?
- capisce 13y ago17) Machines increasingly produce items in a cheaper, safer, and more robust way than people 18) In time there will be nothing worth paying a person for that a machine can't do cheaper or better 19a) People will need to work less and less as a result, and are free to pursue hobbies, be creative, enjoy nature, socialize more, and be less stressed and overall healthier as a result (if the benefits of distributed efficiency are evenly distributed) 19b) People will go hungry and homeless due to not having a source of income because of a system set in place by ignorant voters scared of socialism and communism 20) Utopia or dystopia? We choose
- user24 13y agoWe've chosen 19b so far. I disagree with 18. Would agree if "nothing" changed to "fewer things". I'm thinking of all manner of things; art, theatre, sex, the social aspect of chatting to your butcher, making better machines, responding to new market needs, etc. Machines can't replace all things, but I agree that there are lots that they can. I suppose if "cheaper or better" are mutually exclusive then I might agree with 18. 19c) People will try socialism or communism and end up being yet another depressing case study in a "failed political ideologies" book.