Why do we assume everyone should be working?

Post by tjwebbnorfolk » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:45 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #67

simianwords wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ar…

> the socialists Every socialist wants post scarcity deep down. In fact, it's what Marx promised them since the beginning. Socialism is an ideological and practical dead end. They must be resisted at all costs. It's still an economic model. They won't destroy the economy, they will centralize it in the hands of the state. Don't seize the means of production, distribute them . Give everyone an AI and a replicator. Per…

Post by hamper653 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:47 AM UTC

simianwords wrote: post #41

andreapaiola wrote: post #33

Clearly 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 ...

it would be naive to assume that you would be paid to be an artist or poet in a socialism as opposed to a farmer

Post by sscaryterry » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:49 AM UTC

317070 wrote: post #48

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…

> if you had that system, we have no idea whether or not the masses will be content enough to stay sane and peaceful. Belgium, the Netherlands and a lot of European countries, have a "leefloon" or "bijstand". It is a monthly payment from the government if you have no other sources of income or wealth. The name means it is "pay to stay alive". It's not a lot (1518.29 dollars today for a single person), but allows for…

Post by SchemaLoad » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:51 AM UTC

yetihehe wrote: post #60

SchemaLoad wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by tjwebbnorfolk » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:54 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #76

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Economics itself is the enemy. Economics arise out of scarcity. Scarcity is a timeless fact of life in a finite world, it's not some abstract invention by "economics". The problem isn't that more people want more things than they can have. The hardest possible life is that of a single human alone on a planet abundant in all natural resources. People and our inventions and our work and our ambitions to improve thing…

> Scarcity is a timeless fact of life in a finite world I agree, and I think the rest of your post contains the key idea: > reduce scarcity Scarcity will never be zero, and it doesn't need to be. It just needs to be infinitesimal, close enough to zero for economics to become irrelevant.