[deleted]
Why do we assume everyone should be working?
31–40 of 123 posts
Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?
#32> I was talking to a friend of mine and I asked this. She said “of course everyone should be working, I mean, I’d like to be able to buy more stuff” This sounds like the type of thing you hear from a person sipping a rare single-origin pour-over after their pilates class in Palo Alto. In the real world, the average person would probably tell you something like "of course everyone should be working, I mean, I need to…
> Until there's an alternative system that allows people to have their basic needs met without working, unemployment is a problem
Imagine there’s a ratio of that category of people that’s a more optimal ratio than zero.
Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?
#33Clearly he is not a socialist LOL
I disagree with almost all is written here, and not because I'm a socialist but because art and poetry and philosophy exist ...
Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?
#34> I was talking to a friend of mine and I asked this. She said “of course everyone should be working, I mean, I’d like to be able to buy more stuff” This sounds like the type of thing you hear from a person sipping a rare single-origin pour-over after their pilates class in Palo Alto. In the real world, the average person would probably tell you something like "of course everyone should be working, I mean, I need to…
I think you are reproducing in your own words the exact point the author was trying to make
Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?
#35I don't think this is necessarily the assumption. The US labor force is less than 170 million [1], so less than half of society is in the labor force, and that includes unemployed. The total labor force participation rate (so we exclude institutionalized peoples, children, etc) is about 60%.
And while there's plenty of push about lowering unemployment and so on, I don't think the concept of getting more people into the labor force, or back into it, is pushed by any group at all. On the contrary the push for immigration is largely shrugging our shoulders at the fact half of society isn't in the labor force.
Of course if somebody isn't in the labor force they still need to find some means to provide for themselves, but I think that's quite different than the assumption everybody should be working.
Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?
#36How is this not the exact same stance that the far right has on immigrants and criminals? Exclusion is a greedy short-term strategy. Are you also against public schools? I mean surely, the conclusion of your reasoning is that a lot of those students aren't going to participate in the labor market. Why bother?
I read it completely differently, and I was expecting a mention to UBI any line soon.
Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?
#37Clearly he is not a socialist LOL I disagree with almost all is written here, and not because I'm a socialist but because art and poetry and philosophy exist ...
> I disagree...because art and poetry and philosophy exist
Can you expand your point? I don't see how their existence leads to disagreeing with the author, and in fact I see the opposite.
Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?
#38> I was talking to a friend of mine and I asked this. She said “of course everyone should be working, I mean, I’d like to be able to buy more stuff” This sounds like the type of thing you hear from a person sipping a rare single-origin pour-over after their pilates class in Palo Alto. In the real world, the average person would probably tell you something like "of course everyone should be working, I mean, I need to…
I think you are reproducing in your own words the exact point the author was trying to make
I don't read that at all in anything he wrote.
Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?
#39> does economics support that statement always?
Economics itself is the enemy. It is the source of that statement. It's so ubiquitous that we cannot even conceive of a life without it. The friend wanted scarce things, so naturally she wanted everyone in society working to produce those things for her.
Economics arise out of scarcity. There is not enough for everyone, therefore we must economize, we must decide who gets the limited amount of goods and resources.
We assume everyone should be working because if they aren't they are getting resources without contributing back their own resources, such as their limited time, body and cognition. That's an inherent unfairness, and is the "they're getting a free pass" sentiment that's all too common. I'm working, why aren't they?
To fix this, we must somehow achieve the fabled post scarcity society. Automate everything so thoroughly the price of everything becomes literally zero. This destroys the economy. It doesn't matter anymore whether people are working. There is no further need to economize if everything is abundant.
"I mean, I’d like to be able to buy more stuff" must still be satisfied, except she doesn't even need to buy it any longer, it just sort of materializes like it grows on trees. That is the dream.
Necessary technological upheaval aside, the one major roadblock to achieving the dream is artificial scarcity. We've got corporations conjuring up scarcity where there is none. The internet is the closest to artificial scarcity we've ever been, and it is so subversive it destroys their business models. The entire intellectual property industry must be wiped out if the dream is to be achieved.
Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?
#40This ideas was last examined in Germany around 1930. They landed on a term for these "stupid" people, namely "useless eaters". Then they committed genocide.
Indeed, the rhetoric is uncanny.