[deleted]
The Future of Not Working
171–180 of 279 posts
Re: The Future of Not Working
#172Imagine life where you enjoy your work so much that it becomes your hobby. And here's our solution: we're seeking for rockstar developers to join us in Hong Kong! Email me for more details: rasmus.kors@compareglobalgroup.com
Re: The Future of Not Working
#173Imagine life where you enjoy your work so much that it becomes your hobby. And here's our solution: we're seeking for rockstar developers to join us in Hong Kong! Email me for more details: rasmus.kors@compareglobalgroup.com
I can't tell if this is satire or spam - I guess that's the hallmark of good satire.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#174With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…
> Mandate reversible sterilization at birth. This sounds like an absolutely atrocious idea ripe for corruption. It would be only a matter of time before those programs target the poor, those who whose political views, religious views, or ethnic origins are unwanted or inconvenient.
People used to do this during the original "Progressive era" im American history. The people who ended up targeted were poor and black. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
Re: The Future of Not Working
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very classist attitude founded on a view of economic activity that pertained to human history only over a short period of tube and otherwise is a completely unrealistic view of the human condition. Humans are amazing creatures. Moreover there is no limit to the work that can be done, there is always something else that can or should be done should the labor become available. I can assure you, people will not…
While I dont agree with everything this comment or said, I definitely see that most people in the US (because that's where I live) are typically either tellers, paper pushers, execs... Hardly anyone does anything actually meaningful it seems. There is like 3% that seems to be in endeavor fields like science, exploration, invention... But most of what I see is completely meaningless drone work.
"Meaningless drone work" needs to get done just as much as "science, exploration and invention." Just because it's work that seems tedious and boring to you doesn't mean it's not valuable to either the person paying for it or the person doing it.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#176I don't get it. Do they expect that smart people will work and pay huge taxes and the rest can just stay home and receive money for doing nothing? Working people can just move abroad and avoid paying those taxes.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm not against cash transfers, but I feel like they can't solve everything, having a bit more money won't necessarily cause hospitals or schools to appear, so I think that some non-cash support will continue to be necessary to provide expertise that they couldn't obtain on the free market.
Part of the arrogance of the current providers of non-cash support is their foreign, detached judgement that hospitals or schools are the best ways to help people. As if we can just transport shiny buildings to the third world and magically solve all the problems there because those buildings work great in the first world.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#178With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…
You don't need mandatory sterilizatiion. Men are scared enough of unwanted pregnancy. Just offer free VASALGEL procedure on and off for anybody and the problem will solve itself. Now we just need the procedure to become legal in the us, but i'm very eager to use it myself and have high hopes for it.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I dont agree with everything this comment or said, I definitely see that most people in the US (because that's where I live) are typically either tellers, paper pushers, execs... Hardly anyone does anything actually meaningful it seems. There is like 3% that seems to be in endeavor fields like science, exploration, invention... But most of what I see is completely meaningless drone work.
"Meaningless drone work" needs to get done just as much as "science, exploration and invention." Just because it's work that seems tedious and boring to you doesn't mean it's not valuable to either the person paying for it or the person doing it.
Does it though? Look at the health insurance industry, Aetna pulls in $15B and has $3B in overhead. Couldn't automation cut out (nearly) all the people involved in that overhead. They spent $20 million pulling levers to get a better deal for themselves in Washington alone. This is worse than drone work, it's drone work that kills people.
Re: The Future of Not Working
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is solvable in simplistic terms. It is not solvable by throwing money at it. It just an dumb attempt to guilt people and further this constant bemoaning there are some super rich people in our world. Most people are poor because of their government. Either through corruption, lack of property rights, or wars both internal and external. We cannot fix poverty in this world until people are guaranteed freedom and saf…
How do you define simplistic terms? If you were hungry and someone gave you enough money to eat, that would be a solution regardless of how corrupt your government. I don't know where you live but I'm in the U.S. where it's obvious the number of jobs is going to decline relative to the number of people who need them. Resources won't necessarily decline along with the jobs so I see this as not just applicable to the d…
> How do you define simplistic terms? If you were hungry and someone gave you enough money to eat, that would be a solution regardless of how corrupt your government.
Let's work through an example.
North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world, and many people starve there every year. It's also a ruthlessly oppressive totalitarian state; the government decides who can enter and leave the country. The government also runs the entire economy, and directs most of it toward military spending. This is all because the country is essentially under the total control of a single person whose father and grand father decided they like things this way, and the geopolitical situation happened to work out in their favor from 1950 to the present.
Suppose you've got an infinite pile of money to give to North Koreans to solve their problems with not having enough food to eat. It's illegal for you to enter that country without permission and illegal for the North Koreans to accept money from foreigners. So how do you give them the money?
Let's assume you can give them the money; that you have a big cargo plane you can fly over North Korea and can throw money out the back of and be certain that a deserving poor starving person will receive it. Where is the deserving poor starving person going to go to buy food? There's no private farm to shop at. The government run stores aren't going to take this foreign money. They're stuck with whatever the government dictates will be produced, which is obviously not enough food.
Ignore that problem and assume the shopkeeper or the farmer would take the money. What are they going to do with it? Private property is basically illegal in North Korea, so it's not like the farmer is going to save his money to make a better farm that can feed more people. He can only spend money in state run enterprises, which all feed directly into the government, and the government spends it all on Kalishnakov rifles, nuclear weapons programs, and weird foreign assassinations. These things are not great for solving the problems of starvation and poverty.
North Korea is the most extreme example, but lots of poor countries have problems like this that cannot be solved by simply throwing money out the back of a cargo plane. Poor societies often need to change to become not-poor.