The Future of Not Working

Here's how I think the only possible way this will ever be realized: A non-profit organization will have one of the highest (top 10 to pick an arbitrary number) net-worths of any company on earth.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#5

Post by hackathonguy » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 9:31 PM UTC

"One estimate, generated by Laurence Chandy and Brina Seidel of the Brookings Institution, recently calculated that the global poverty gap — meaning how much it would take to get everyone above the poverty line — was just $66 billion. That is roughly what Americans spend on lottery tickets every year, and it is about half of what the world spends on foreign aid."

Love this.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#6

Post by Clubber » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 9:33 PM UTC

The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Once they no longer have to, they will lobby the government to continue to lower taxes and squawk about laziness, welfare queens, and all that garbage.

This will go on for a few decades until there is an uprising of sorts, then those with the money will return to giving everyone else crumbs, or just enough to quell the uprisings. This will probably go on perpetually.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#7

Post by einars » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 9:42 PM UTC

hackathonguy wrote: post #5

"One estimate, generated by Laurence Chandy and Brina Seidel of the Brookings Institution, recently calculated that the global poverty gap — meaning how much it would take to get everyone above the poverty line — was just $66 billion. That is roughly what Americans spend on lottery tickets every year, and it is about half of what the world spends on foreign aid." Love this.

I also liked this:

A vast majority of aid — 94 percent — is noncash. Donor resistance is one reason for this; it is not easy to persuade American oligarchs, British inheritors and Japanese industrialists to fork over their money to the extremely poor to use as they see fit. “There’s the usual worries about welfare dependency, the whole ‘Give a man a fish’ thing,” said Amanda Glassman, a public health and development expert at the Center for Global Development. “It’s so powerful. It’s really a basic psychological feature of the landscape. You’ll start drinking. You’ll start lying around at home because you’re getting paid.”

...

If cash transfers flourished, “the whole aid industry would have to fire itself.”

Re: The Future of Not Working

#8

Post by spyckie2 » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 9:45 PM UTC

The article's title is misleading - it is not about not working, it's about giving money directly to poor villages for 12 years to provide what is similar to basic income but meeting fundamentally different needs in a very different part of the world. That said, I think it is a fascinating anthropological read.

We often do not realize how many layers of wealth we had to stand on to possess our current wealth.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#9

Post by laser » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 9:45 PM UTC

Dagwoodie wrote: post #4

Here's how I think the only possible way this will ever be realized: A non-profit organization will have one of the highest (top 10 to pick an arbitrary number) net-worths of any company on earth.

Like a government?

Re: The Future of Not Working

#10

Post by HeavenBanned » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 9:45 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #6

The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Once they no longer have to, they will lobby the government to continue to lower taxes and squawk about laziness, welfare queens, and all that garbage. This will go on for a few decades until there is an uprising of sorts, then those with the money will return to giving everyone else crumbs, or just enough to quell the uprisings.…

>or just enough to quell the uprisings.

There's actually an economic model for this "sweet spot" wherein the rich can maximize their profits to the breaking point before revolt happens believe it or not, and it's widely taught in Capitalist universities as a very reliable and worthy economic tool to ensure the rich stay rich without reprieve. Though the way they frame it is not malicious or neo-feudalistic, it's as a way of promoting "stability." Capitalism=Feudalism with makeup.