Why do we assume everyone should be working? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#51

Post by edflsafoiewq » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:29 AM UTC

ElProlactin wrote: post #17

> 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 interpreted that to mean "other people should be working because it will enable me personally to buy more stuff (that they produce)", not "each person should be working because working will allow that person to buy themselves more stuff".

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#52

Post by ElProlactin » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:29 AM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #32

ElProlactin wrote: post #17

> 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.

The big question though is: can you have a society in which one group works and another doesn't? Ostensibly, the working group would be the ones who create and/or own all the value that supports the ones who don't.

At least in the US, given how many people complain about the "welfare state", it seems like there's bound to be resentment on both sides.

And that still leaves the question of whether people will feel good enough about the situation to accept it. I could imagine a world in which some segment of the population has sufficient UBI to live a decent life and you'd still lots of people who felt something was missing. Especially in a world dominated by social media, I just don't see large numbers of people on UBI sitting around and writing novels, painting beautiful pictures, making music, etc. I see a lot of people who are restless and unfulfilled.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#53

Post by cantalopes » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:29 AM UTC

Is this a guerilla ad by anthropic ceo?

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#54

Post by simianwords » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:31 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #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 g…

> 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.

sure but the people opposing automation are the people on the left - the socialists and neo-luddities. the ones that are for automation are the billionaires - this makes your class warfare rhetoric more complicated..

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#55

Post by copperx » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:31 AM UTC

yoz-y wrote: post #24

SchemaLoad wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dream society would be where we all just work less hours. Everyone can get a job but doesn't have to burn every workable hour of their life.

This, for some reason makes too much sense. So much so that I’m curious if there is some sort of world wide conspiracy to not do this. If more people were employed during less time, we would also need more administration. Not to mention that there are at least two sectors where there can never be enough employees: medicine and education.

Don't forget about elderly care, which is not a subset of medicine.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#56

Post by Erem » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:32 AM UTC

ElProlactin wrote: post #38

Erem wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Until there's an alternative system that allows people to have their basic needs met without working, unemployment is a problem, and even if you had that system, we have no idea whether or not the masses will be content enough to stay sane and peaceful.

I read the author's post as a paean to letting people who can't contribute above the ever raising bar just exist securely as they please, rather than make whole countries suffer in the attempt to employ them.

You didn't get the same thing? Let me reread it

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#57

Post by locallost » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:32 AM UTC

As for paying people to stay out of the market: there are examples of this already, for instance it might be more beneficial for countries to pay coal miners not to work and spend money on shifting to clean energy sources. But since miners want to keep their jobs, it becomes a political issue and money gets spent trying to save this dying industry. Instead the money should just be given to the working people to not work as a win-win for everyone.

As for everyone needs to work because "I want to get more stuff", well I guess we'll need a leap in human thinking. We once evolved from hunter gatherers into growing our own food, so it might not be hopeless. I think this is an important topic for the future of the world.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#58

Post by simianwords » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:33 AM UTC

Here's a metric for all people that think redistribution will help: if you redistribute the consumption, you will all consume like the average person in India. And I don't think that's what you want.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#59

Post by hamper653 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:33 AM UTC

yoz-y wrote: post #24

SchemaLoad wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dream society would be where we all just work less hours. Everyone can get a job but doesn't have to burn every workable hour of their life.

This, for some reason makes too much sense. So much so that I’m curious if there is some sort of world wide conspiracy to not do this. If more people were employed during less time, we would also need more administration. Not to mention that there are at least two sectors where there can never be enough employees: medicine and education.

Rate of profit = Exploitation rate ÷ (1 + Organic composition of capital)

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#60

Post by yetihehe » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:35 AM UTC

SchemaLoad wrote: post #30

yoz-y wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, for some reason makes too much sense. So much so that I’m curious if there is some sort of world wide conspiracy to not do this. If more people were employed during less time, we would also need more administration. Not to mention that there are at least two sectors where there can never be enough employees: medicine and education.

I think the simplest answer that probably accounts for most of it is just that employees all have overhead, 20 people working full time is more efficient than 40 people working half time. Less HR work, less moving context between people, less office space, less laptops, etc. So I can see how naturally the system has prioritised this way of working, but despite the efficiency I think we need to do something to normali…

40 is probably the most optimal way to extract the most value out of the most people. If only some worked less, there would probably be bigger HR overhead, like you say, plus those individuals would be less communicable. In reality, those companies who extract the most value from their workers are able to outcompete others, so the system stays. If company would pay less to workers (for less time used, half of "normal" employment), they would try to compensate with getting another job just to support themselves, because most workers are typically always on edge of supporting themselves (they move that edge whenever they get more money). If companies paid for less hours, their products would cost too much and couldn't compete with other companies.