3 ms·

> 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 minima

> 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

"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.