|
Let's not forget the other "important" parts of employment and work that factor into whether or not you're allowed (by society) to provide for yourself. Such as; appeasement of the boss's personal whims, pretending to be a team player, pretending to like golf, wearing uncomfortable dress clothing even in positions where you do not interact with clients, lying outright to every HR rep in history that your "greatest weakness" is that you just care too much, working through sickness, working on your vacation (if you even get one), pretending to work every minute of every day at a desk job in which your actual job only "happens" in the first quarter of the year, or any number of other bullshit things we do to be allowed to survive.
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
on the left posted:What do the people seeking self-fulfillment have to offer to the portion of humanity who is doing all the work that is not fulfilling? Why should they be concerned with what they have to "offer" them at all? Why should you be concerned, as long as there is enough to go around? If nobody needs to work, unpleasant jobs will pay a great deal more then they do today, or they won't be done. If they need to be done, the pay has to increase until someone is up for it. I'd happily do sewer work if it would pay me the kind of money I'd need to go on nice vacations every year. European style, not our "oh a weekend here" nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Describe a world in which nobody needs to work, yet which still has unpleasant jobs that need to be done. Or any jobs, for that matter. You mean one that provides a minimum income for all citizens? It's pretty self-explanatory. People can provide for themselves through the mincome, and would only "need" to work if they wanted more material goods and luxuries. And even then, only so much as they desired. Automation would be a net good for society (as less and less jobs would be required to run it effeciently), instead of just a job killing sword of Damocles over the heads of the working class.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:But who is making the stuff that you buy with your minimum income? How does society afford it? Is it all robots made by robots? That's the part that doesn't work imo. Most manufacturing is currently done via automation, but that's really beside the point. Most people would still seek work solely because luxuries are awesome. But the key difference is that you don't fear losing your job so much that you'll let sexual harassment, abuse, degradation, humiliation or hostility slide. The owning and management classes will have lost their leverage that makes dealing with the workplace such a pain in the rear end. As for paying for mincome? Proper taxation on capital gains, earned income and estate taxes. Pretty simple, but politically impossible in the current environment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sure, entrepreneurship is risky, but you seem to be expressing the attitude that you've failed before you begin so you might as well resign yourself to drudgery and that imo is more naive than asking someone "why not" when they say they can't do what they love. Entrepreneurship is typically ruinous if you're not well off to start with. If you have a family, it's flat out irresponsible.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Entrepreneurship encompasses a mind boggling range of projects with very different requirements of capital, time input, expertise, etc. How can you confidently assert that as a generality it's irresponsible if you have a family? Because the subject was "replacing your job with entrepreneurship". Pissing around on Etsy in your free time isn't likely to pay the bills on its own.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If only there were some kind of systems available by which people with good ideas could somehow secure financial backing to put them into action. Why, it would be so revolutionary, I'm sure you could make multiple television shows about it. Being a dancing monkey for a group of billionares to judge with an audience of millions isn't exactly a positive thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, I was being a little facetious there. You do realize there are venture capitalists that don't have TV shows, yes? Venture capitalism is the antithesis of "work". The work is typically already done and the product already polished (not to mention a solid business plan...better know how to navigate the world of finance and business before you even bother Mr./Ms. Artist!) before they'll even consider touching it. Angel Investors and Crowdfunding are much more likely to help get an idea off the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:We are so far from post-scarcity that it is shockingly naive to even consider the concept as likely to develop any time soon. We can't even manage to reliably feed and house the entire population of any first world country you care to name. I suppose it might look like-post scarcity if you believe that the perspective of a middle-class American in a good city working a job that pays well is a universal experience shared by everyone. We absolutely have the resources to be post scarcity in the United States, but not the will to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:If by 'post-scarcity' you mean 'glowing golden paradise supported on the backs of the third world'... There are absolutely enough resources in America alone to support food, shelter and clean water for its population. Anything in addition to that isn't (or at least shouldn't) what's being talked about. No poo poo we can't support a lavish lifestyle with a Hummer in the driveway of a McMansion for everyone. But terrible for the environment as they may be, we won't be running out of coal or natural gas in this country for a very long time. Basic needs should be met, and it's possible to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
Typo posted:This doesn't qualify as a post-scarce society In that case, I was wrong. But why argue for a post-scarcity society until these basics (which are possible) are met?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 18:51
|
|