5 ms·

We have a government that sees the unemployed as vermin, rats to be extinguished. A government with a puritanical "work will set you free" mindset. I'll give y

• slirpee 11y ago
  > Working is a means to an end, survival. Ugh. I find this idea very distasteful. Admittedly my view is tainted by depression, so it hurts extra to be told my only reason to do work I don't like, is so I can keep experiencing a life I don't like. (But, I am apparently still here because I don't entirely dislike it, and/or have hope it will get better.) I do recognize being upset about this may be seen as childish, naive, or entitled, but... > There seems to be this theory that everyone should be happy, it's pure myth. Life never has worked like that for the majority of the population in any historical system. I think you're missing the point, or at least something I think about. We're living in an increasingly efficient, automated, bountiful, and wealthy world; why do we have to stick to any "historical system" that sucked for 99.9% of all humans who have ever lived? You "did your time", so every other human after you should have to as well? I don't know what the point of progress as a society is, if it does not result in improving the happiness of the people. Now, if you want to argue that unpleasant but necessary work actually improves happiness, or that people need to find their own happiness through spiritualism/religion etc., I could see some merit. But I'm reading basically "Life will always be shitty, shut up and get back to work so you can survive another day of your shitty life." Which seems like pointless, soul-crushing, circular logic I'm not willing to accept. Which again, may be naivety/depression on my part.
  • Ntrails 11y ago
    We're living in an increasingly efficient, automated, bountiful, and wealthy world; why do we have to stick to any "historical system" that sucked for 99.9% of all humans who have ever lived? There is nothing in the universe that implies life was ever meant to be anything but a struggle to keep surviving. Mainly because the alternative is considered worse (the fact that considering otherwise is often brushed off as mental illness indicates how embedded this attitude is). Your initial assumption seems to be that life is about being happy, and the only things you do should make you happy. I question where that came from? If reality isn't soul crushing[1], well, you and I see a different reality. Simply wishing it weren't so won't change it. I'm unwilling to accept statements of "the world will magically become a place of fairy tales where no one goes hungry, everyone enjoys their days, and life is fair." I'd be frankly shocked if we could even manage the basics like "No one should die of diseases we cured in the 1800s". I don't think depression plays a part, I don't even think it's naivety per se. It's an attitude thing really, I'm pretty bleak. However, I believe my position to be consistent with the world as it is, rather than as we might wish it to be. If wishes were wings and all that... [1] No statements of souls being a real thing was meant.
    • slirpee 11y ago
      > There is nothing in the universe that implies life was ever meant to be anything but a struggle to keep surviving. "Meant to" implies some intelligence other than our own guiding life and the universe, I think. Do you posit such a thing? I happen to believe in one, which may have something to do with assumptions and attitudes I've expressed. So, are you one of the ones that considers death worse than "struggling to survive"? Why? > Simply wishing it weren't so won't change it. True on some levels, and yet I'm arguing we are the most empowered we have ever been, to actually change it. If we achieve the "Star Trek" future of cheap food replicators etc. we will be even more so. Would you argue we shouldn't look forward to such things, because "life is meant to be a struggle where most people barely survive"? > I'd be frankly shocked if we could even manage the basics like "No one should die of diseases we cured in the 1800s". That's one of the things we can change. I'm not going to argue about how realistic that is, or how it should be done. I guess the essence of the differences between you and me/others, is that you seem unwilling to even give it much consideration. Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility of aligning "the world as we might wish it to be" with "the world as it is"?
• unicornporn 11y ago
  > I'll give you that, as a somewhat tinted perspective on the governments views, but I'm not sure where you want to go with it? Every government aims for minimal unemployment, it's one of their key tasks - to get people into work. I'm not sure you'll find anyone willing to say "You can work if you want to [you can leave your old friends behind], otherwise here just live on other peoples taxes". Every government also knows that we will, in the foreseeable future, have unemployed people and that their numbers will increase. (Mostly) not because these people don't want to work or aren't the entrepreneurs they should be, but simply because we are constantly rationalizing and automating our societies and less and human work is needed to keep the machine running. So, the question is: how should we treat this pool of workless people that will always exist? My suggestion is: not like shit. I'm in Sweden, and seen from an international perspective (although I'm not content) we are quite helpful to these people. Basic income might be a solution, but that will most likely make dirty and simple work look extremely unattractive. It will drive up the prices for the kind of work that we are normally used to paying next to nothing for. That wont be politically popular at all. > Please do define for me a system where the jobs are all lovely and nobody has to do anything they don't want to do. There seems to be this theory that everyone should be happy, it's pure myth. Life never has worked like that for the majority of the population in any historical system. No, but please remember that there is also a lot (historically) that hasn't worked the way things work right now. The technical advances and rationalizing potentials are gigantic and have the potential to reduce working hours drastically.
  • stegosaurus 11y ago
    "that will most likely make dirty and simple work look extremely unattractive. It will drive up the prices for the kind of work that we are normally used to paying next to nothing for. That wont be politically popular at all" Yes! Exactly. This is the failure that people don't seem to understand; the idea that taxes pay for welfare, that it's a simple redistribution. The reality is much more complex. We deliberately make living without labouring difficult so that the rich get their luxuries. You cannot have extreme wealth without poor people; you need an army of little ones to do anything that a robot can't do yet. Your taxes do not pay anywhere close to the amount you benefit from the existence of the working classes.
• stegosaurus 11y ago
  Ehhhh... I don't really know where to start here. We have viewpoints and value systems that differ on the most basic level. I don't give a single fuck for the historical system. The historical system is a system of rich and poor, of serfs and lords, full of exploitation at every level. Forget about it. 'Living on other peoples taxes' is total nonsense. It posits a world within which my work allows you to be lazy when that is not the case at all. You can be lazy regardless of whether or not I work in the vast majority of cases. Very few jobs are actually essential and even fewer are useful to the 'lazy' person (because they would not be wealthy enough to patronise restaurants, take luxury holidays, drive flash cars, etc.) The UK has a ton of housing stock. It exists, it's there. We need a bit more, but generally, people work in order to pay a wealthy landlord; they don't work because the home needs any labour in order for it to persist. We do need some level of labour in order for society to continue. But I argue that we don't need to force people by withholding (yes, withholding. not failing to present them - land ownership is a withholding of the commons) basics from them. People will work anyway because they want more. The bottom level doesn't have to be serf status. Money is a distraction. It is the current way of distributing resources. It doesn't have to be. There is a distinction between giving people the opportunity to work and therefore increase their wealth; and forcing them to work by withholding things and renting it back to them. The former is great! The latter is evil.
  • mindslight 11y ago
    Money itself isn't so terrible. It's a fungible unit of value. People are always going to engage in private transactions. Getting rid of money would just make the second side of the transaction more subjective and therefore less efficient. (yes, markets getting more efficient combined with the baked in assumptions are why the system is coming unglued. but that doesn't mean trying to make them less efficient will fix it) The real problem is, as you said, extremely high rent (even if you "buy") just for a place to exist. This puts labor in an extremely weak negotiating position (people being worried about losing their jobs!), which any true free market proponent should be against. Imagine how things would change if a minimum wage worker made enough in a few months to cover their expenses for a year IF they mostly stayed home, ate inexpensive food, didn't buy more clothes/gadgets, etc. Run the numbers with current prices and you'll see that this isn't some planned economy dream, but pretty close to current conditions if the rent paid to banks (on money they're mostly allowed to conjure from thin air) were taken out of the picture! Gosh after several months of work and no longer under duress, workers might even be in a position to demand a raise!