4 ms·

Why not simply allocate social resources such that people who are not needed for work simply don't have to work? There's been quite some hand wringing over thi

Why not simply allocate social resources such that people who are not needed for work simply don't have to work? There's been quite some hand wringing over this issue in the UK in recent years with people on long term sickness welfare or other long term welfare programs. The populist view is that these people "should" be working and don't "deserve" to be subsidized full time because they haven't "contributed" to the system. But if they are genuinely of as little use to the workforce as it seems, does such a stigma to not working really make any sense?

chii 12y ago
> But if they are genuinely of as little use to the workforce as it seems, does such a stigma to not working really make any sense? in the natural world, if they are genuinely of as little use, they "should die", for the resources to keep them alive is more than the "profit" that they can generate. This is becoming more and more true with more and more automation - the cost of resources to keep somebody alive is getting to a point where their contributions don't really cover it. I dont know if there is a real solution to this problem.
- rblatz 12y ago
  The issue (well there are lots of issues but this one is pertinent to this discussion) with that line of thinking is when people in general become so inefficient compared to machines that it's more efficient and profitable to get rid of the people entirely since machines are so much more efficient.
- FD3SA 12y ago
  And yet, in the natural world, you will find that taking their lives will be quite difficult, and will reveal the forgotten strength they possess which the modern industrial economy does not value: survival. It is easy to get caught up in hypotheticals, and forget that we are all primates in rags scrambling to survive.

4 ms·

Why not simply allocate social resources such that people who are not needed for work simply don't have to work? There's been quite some hand wringing over thi

by petercooper 12y ago

chii 12y ago
> But if they are genuinely of as little use to the workforce as it seems, does such a stigma to not working really make any sense? in the natural world, if they are genuinely of as little use, they "should die", for the resources to keep them alive is more than the "profit" that they can generate. This is becoming more and more true with more and more automation - the cost of resources to keep somebody alive is getting to a point where their contributions don't really cover it. I dont know if there is a real solution to this problem.
- rblatz 12y ago
  The issue (well there are lots of issues but this one is pertinent to this discussion) with that line of thinking is when people in general become so inefficient compared to machines that it's more efficient and profitable to get rid of the people entirely since machines are so much more efficient.
- FD3SA 12y ago
  And yet, in the natural world, you will find that taking their lives will be quite difficult, and will reveal the forgotten strength they possess which the modern industrial economy does not value: survival. It is easy to get caught up in hypotheticals, and forget that we are all primates in rags scrambling to survive.