Live data from Hacker News

The indignity of no work

economist.com

21–30 of 268 posts

Re: The indignity of no work

#21
Whenever I hear the phrase "the dignity of work", I'm reminded of Jeffrey Bernard's quote:

"As if there was something romantic and glamorous about hard work ... if there was something romantic about it, the Duke of Westminster would be digging his own fucking garden, wouldn't he?"

http://www.rense.com/general56/thevirtueofidleness.htm

Re: The indignity of no work

#22
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. There just isn't that much money. Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever wash dishes at a restaurant, no one will pick up trash, no one will spend time wiring your house for internet, or fix your computer, or do a large swath of jobs. The argument that with UBI people will still do that only for more money is crazy, since the taxes would hav…

The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. That's untrue. Switzerland is having a national referendum on whether to offer one, and stipends from oil or casino money, while not enough to live on at this point, already exist in a few places. You may be correct that there's not enough money to give everyone enough to live on, but it's far from sci-fi. (There is plenty of money in the world, it's just tied up in things…

In switzerland it was voted down because it doesn't make economic sense. Look at the numbers, they don't work.

Re: The indignity of no work

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. There just isn't that much money. Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever wash dishes at a restaurant, no one will pick up trash, no one will spend time wiring your house for internet, or fix your computer, or do a large swath of jobs. The argument that with UBI people will still do that only for more money is crazy, since the taxes would hav…

The idea is that technology makes doing anything undesirable totally optional. We made horses obsolete for transport, and now nobody HAS TO ride a horse (99%). You can do it for fun. I would argue that today, most people who ride horses enjoy doing so, where the same could not be said for times before modern transportation.

No, that is not the idea, because automatability and undesirability of tasks are largely unrelated. We will habe to find a way to deal with tasks that are unpleasant but can't be automated.

Re: The indignity of no work

#24
post #9

Everybody in the USSR had job. But these jobs didn't produce any (usually) value to the society. Who wants to have a job like this? You want to do something valuable so you know that what you produce people are willing to pay for (vs. being forced to pay for it). It just seems much more healthy too.

I disagree. I don't think everyone wants or needs a valuable job, and to most people, this is an unobtainable dream. The truth is that most people I've met doing menial jobs are happy doing them IF they have enough money to cover necessities and do something enjoyable outside of work and their employer treats them fairly. This means that in the balance, their life is meaningful, even if their employment isn't.

I also believe job satisfaction is completely independent of a job's contribution or value to society. Cleaning toilets has a definite societal benefit, but it is still menial work that requires little actual skill and is a job most people look for ways out of.

Re: The indignity of no work

#25
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you allow competition the market will do this. Compensation also takes into account the joy the job provides, some jobs are relatively pleasant and thus pay less than some that are much worse. As for automation, I completely disagree - we automate where we can get the biggest gain on output. So if something costs a lot or has high social benefit we should automate it as much as possible so that it can provide more…

Compensation also takes into account the joy the job provides, some jobs are relatively pleasant and thus pay less than some that are much worse. That's not generally my observation of the world. No-skill-required jobs pay less, skill-required jobs pay more. There's a slight bonus for dangerous jobs, but not a heap, relatively speaking. Pleasure derived or not only appears to have an effect on income levels outside o…

Skill determines the size of the labor pool - supply. Less desirable jobs with the same skill requirements will pay more.

Re: The indignity of no work

#26
post #2

> A world in which a healthy adult has the reasonable expectation of earning a decent living while working full-time at a market wage is absolutely a world in which the dignity of work is a useful social value to cultivate. In a world in which that is not a reasonable expectation, the dignity of work can be a harmful concept. Interesting times ahead. It's going to be painful getting there, if we get there at all, but…

The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. There just isn't that much money. Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever wash dishes at a restaurant, no one will pick up trash, no one will spend time wiring your house for internet, or fix your computer, or do a large swath of jobs. The argument that with UBI people will still do that only for more money is crazy, since the taxes would hav…

I don't understand how 'there just isn't that much money' is a meaningful statement in a world where governments can issue more currency. How much money do you propose we need to offer a basic income system?

Re: The indignity of no work

#27
post #2

> A world in which a healthy adult has the reasonable expectation of earning a decent living while working full-time at a market wage is absolutely a world in which the dignity of work is a useful social value to cultivate. In a world in which that is not a reasonable expectation, the dignity of work can be a harmful concept. Interesting times ahead. It's going to be painful getting there, if we get there at all, but…

The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. There just isn't that much money. Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever wash dishes at a restaurant, no one will pick up trash, no one will spend time wiring your house for internet, or fix your computer, or do a large swath of jobs. The argument that with UBI people will still do that only for more money is crazy, since the taxes would hav…

Last I heard, instead of paying taxes, Brunei citizens all get an annual $30k outright. Isn't that real-world, non-sci-fi Basic Income?

Re: The indignity of no work

#28
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. That's untrue. Switzerland is having a national referendum on whether to offer one, and stipends from oil or casino money, while not enough to live on at this point, already exist in a few places. You may be correct that there's not enough money to give everyone enough to live on, but it's far from sci-fi. (There is plenty of money in the world, it's just tied up in things…

In switzerland it was voted down because it doesn't make economic sense. Look at the numbers, they don't work.

What numbers, specifically? You didn't cite any and there haven't been many real-world studies or experiments to produce data on the costs/results of a basic income program. Something this complicated isn't going to be accurately modeled by a couple economists purely using estimates...

Re: The indignity of no work

#29
post #2

> A world in which a healthy adult has the reasonable expectation of earning a decent living while working full-time at a market wage is absolutely a world in which the dignity of work is a useful social value to cultivate. In a world in which that is not a reasonable expectation, the dignity of work can be a harmful concept. Interesting times ahead. It's going to be painful getting there, if we get there at all, but…

The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. There just isn't that much money. Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever wash dishes at a restaurant, no one will pick up trash, no one will spend time wiring your house for internet, or fix your computer, or do a large swath of jobs. The argument that with UBI people will still do that only for more money is crazy, since the taxes would hav…

> The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. There just isn't that much money.

Sorry, but that last part is utterly dumb. There is enough of everything for everyone, money is just one of the abstractions we built for convenience's sake. Most of these abstractions for power have gone out of hand, but I assure you that there exists a theoretical parallel universe where basic income is implemented at a global scale.

Re: The indignity of no work

#30
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. That's untrue. Switzerland is having a national referendum on whether to offer one, and stipends from oil or casino money, while not enough to live on at this point, already exist in a few places. You may be correct that there's not enough money to give everyone enough to live on, but it's far from sci-fi. (There is plenty of money in the world, it's just tied up in things…

In switzerland it was voted down because it doesn't make economic sense. Look at the numbers, they don't work.

There is ~$45 trillion in the world[0] There is ~7 billion people.

That gives ~$6500/person. That seems reasonable. Given if you distributed all money evenly worldwide the profit motive would disappear and things would be bought and sold at cost.

But yes, I've gone waaay into sci-fi.

But, back in the real world, Australia basically has one. So you're full of shit.[1]

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product

[1] http://australia.gov.au/topics/benefits-payments-and-service...

Post reply on HN