Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do we assume everyone should be working?

wilsoniumite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#81

Post by matheusmoreira »

sscaryterry wrote: post #80
matheusmoreira wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Scarcity can and is manipulated, see de Beers!

Yes. All forms of artificial scarcity must be declared to be literally illegal. Diamonds are nothing, we've got the entire intellectual property industry to contend with.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#82

Post by cognitiveinline »

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #61
dostick wrote: post #14

UBI is the inevitable future. We are now living in a time period in history when we wait for government bureaucrats to finally realise that UBI is a right and not a privilege. At this moment more than half of employment can be classified as “bullshit jobs” - inconsequential that would make no difference if they disappeared one day, created to satisfy the requirements of the capitalist economy. We have been productive…

UBI is inherently inflationary and as far as I can tell there's no solution to that problem.

Inflation isn't a bad thing if everyone particpates in it. The world of hoarding is passe in UBI world.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#83

Post by dwb »

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…

Socialists want to seize the means of production in order to democratise it and move towards communism, which is exactly a post-scarcity post-state destruction of the [capitalist] economy. It is entirely compatible with giving everyone AI and a replicator - the free association of producers and all that. Marx would disagree that you can skip the state part on your way to communism, sure, and I think he’s probably right, but maybe not.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#84

Post by matheusmoreira »

dwb wrote: post #83
matheusmoreira wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Socialists want to seize the means of production in order to democratise it and move towards communism, which is exactly a post-scarcity post-state destruction of the [capitalist] economy. It is entirely compatible with giving everyone AI and a replicator - the free association of producers and all that. Marx would disagree that you can skip the state part on your way to communism, sure, and I think he’s probably rig…

> in order to democratise it

Don't believe that even for a second.

> move towards communism

Has never happened, and I don't believe it ever will.

We have better chances of collapsing capitalism from within.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#85

Post by plastic3169 »

anon48293 wrote: post #10

It might be a net loss to the economy, true. But to me it’s about you trying to contribute. I don’t want to give my hard earned tax money to some lazy dude not working and smoking weed all day. But if said guy worked as many hours as I did, just not profitably but through a sponsored job, I’d be fine with sponsoring him with my money. Because he’s still contributing. He is still adding value, even if not as much as s…

There is also the category of people who have enough capital to not to work. This group of people have detached their activity from their income. They can be very active or lazy and it does not make a big difference. You are working to pay their dividends.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#86

Post by ozim »

Feels like related to [0].

Looks shallowly philosophical, based on "me and my friend". Equating "economy" to some small subset of white collar work.

Have to say world is much bigger place and there are other jobs than filling in tables in Excel spreadsheet.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49232221

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#87

Post by 317070 »

hamper653 wrote: post #70
317070 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you adjust for all ways people receive minimum income benefits, not just the 'final resort' one, you get > In Belgium, roughly 4.35 million adults (aged 18 and older) are not working out of an adult population of about 9.5 million, around 45%. Of those, roughly 3.95 million or 40% receive government income above the leefloon.

Are you counting retired workers?

Absolutely.

Do note that in the US (and loads of countries) people save for their own retirement, whereas in Belgium the government pays the retirement in a "workers today pay retirees today" system.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#88

Post by 317070 »

sscaryterry wrote: post #75
317070 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm sure its saying living loan (could be grant in this context) or assistance and not "pay to stay alive".

"Loon" is Dutch for wage. A loan would be "lening", even though "loon" and loan sound exactly the same.

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#89

Post by pixelready »

contingencies wrote: post #20
dostick wrote: post #14

UBI is the inevitable future. We are now living in a time period in history when we wait for government bureaucrats to finally realise that UBI is a right and not a privilege. At this moment more than half of employment can be classified as “bullshit jobs” - inconsequential that would make no difference if they disappeared one day, created to satisfy the requirements of the capitalist economy. We have been productive…

Indeed. As I see it (and I have lived in socialist and capitalist countries as well as developing countries) there are really only two problems. 1. People in power don't want the system to change because it's a threat to their position. 2. People with low education and no means to support their own kids keep having large families. We can solve #1 by just vetoing the current government and replacing it. But #2 is diff…

As I see it #1 is the real problem. People whose sense of self worth is intimately tied to having authority over others don’t take kindly to it being threatened, and have many tools at their disposal to punish those who try.

As for #2, as salient as the intro sequence to Idiocracy was, it seems like the only thing I’m hearing about recently is how far under the population replacement rate all developed countries already are. If we can set aside the tribalism long enough to start seeing them as our (society’s) kids, then it just becomes another distribution / investment problem being blocked by #1 (corrupt extractive leadership)

Re: Why do we assume everyone should be working?

#90

Post by hamper653 »

317070 wrote: post #87
hamper653 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you counting retired workers?

Absolutely. Do note that in the US (and loads of countries) people save for their own retirement, whereas in Belgium the government pays the retirement in a "workers today pay retirees today" system.

Are you also counting workers on vacation? On a weekend? At home after their shift?
Post reply on HN