6 ms·
> Enact a 20-hour work week "Enact" implies the government restricting everyone to working 20 hours per week. That's a violation of our freedom to work as many
by winter_blue 12y ago
> Enact a 20-hour work week
"Enact" implies the government restricting everyone to working 20 hours per week. That's a violation of our freedom to work as many hours as we want.
I do support you in that all of people shouldn't have to work in order to meet the basic needs of life today (food, housing, and connectivity). Agricultural and industrial efficiency and automization has advanced to a point where we can provide these basic needs to 90% of the populace with only 10% of people maintaining/operating these machines.
A lot of people will continue to work 50 or 60 hours, because a lot of humans are naturally inclined to work. They derive pleasure and satisfaction from it. I would myself personally continue working, perhaps even harder than I do now, but would direct my efforts towards things that I enjoy more, and that are potentially more impactful, meaningful, and beneficial to society. Ensuring that everyone's basic needs are met would give people great personal freedom to pursue what they want.
How would we implement this? One possible way is basic income -- although it might be beneficial to incentivize productive and meaningful use of freedom that basic income gives people. We don't want a country where 50% of the population spends time watching soap operas, and eating junk food.
Just some of my thoughts...
- AngrySkillzz 12y agoMaybe, in the same way that industrial safety regulations violate our freedom to work in whatever environment we want.
- Karunamon 12y agoWorking without safety regulation is harmful. Working 21 hours is not.
- josephkern 12y agoDepends on what union you work for ... But heck, even pilots can work a 40 hour week (of actual flight time). I am not sure if there is even a hypothetical union that would limit work time to such a degree (<30 hours). My straw man is burning.
- winter_blue 12y agoIndustrial safety regulations impose restrictions on how you may treat others, not on how you may treat yourself. Those regulations coerce employers into treating their employees well (which is not bad[1]). If you were to privately, in a manner that did not put others at risk, conduct an experiment in your backyard that violated those very safety regulations, I doubt you would get in trouble for it. [1] It's not as bad a thing for government to regulate how individuals treat each other, as it would be if it regulated (passed laws around) how an individual treated himself/herself.
- nightski 12y agoI just can't get behind basic income. It makes sense from a very self-motivated individual's point of view (which many/most on HN are) but if you look at the majority of the country in my opinion most people are not driven this way. I really feel like we would end up with a country where the majority just live on basic income and do nothing. At least now they must contribute to society on a basic level to earn an income, even if it is unsatisfactory (welfare and social programs aside).
- siscia 12y agoThis is something I cannot figure out, people do not get bored after a while of doing nothing ?
- nightski 12y agoThere is a large difference between doing nothing, and doing nothing of value to society. For example, I love to learn. I could spend ages reading books and learning as much as possible for my meager brain to understand about physics and it would be very fulfilling. But unless I apply that knowledge, it really wasn't of much value to anyone (even myself, depending on how you look at it). So why do I deserve to take advantage of all society would provide with basic income (food, shelter, safety, etc..) if I provided nothing in return?
- siscia 12y agoOk, I see, but after you spend 5 years of your life learning you will be able to do a lot of thing. Now, why should you start doing something different from learning ? Maybe because if you do something productive you will product value that will let you to live in a better house, or to learn more... The point is not to let everybody doing nothing of productive, the point is to give to everybody the choice, between doing nothing of productive now vs. bringing values to the society...
- nightski 12y agoI have been surprised over and over again at the powerful force that is doing "just enough" to get by. So many people are affected by it. It's really quite impressive. You know those bars you go to? Restaurants? Theatres? The list goes on. No one would work at those shitty jobs any more. Because 25k is comfortable - why would I work at a shitty job for another few thousand?
- prostoalex 12y agoI haven't seen a model of basic income where math makes sense. If the government has a significant source of non-income revenue (Alaska), the payouts seem to be too trivial ($1,884 annually at yesteryear oil prices). Nice, but not a deal breaker. US on the federal level is so dependent on income tax revenue, that you have to tax income to distribute that income.