It's Better to Work Than Lounge

Post by **Martin Hash** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:12 am

It seems obvious that people who agree to start a society share some kind of universal Work Ethic because how long can any society exist that consumes more than it produces? Unless Work Ethic is instilled in later generations, the connection between it & the society's fundamental viability is blurred as more-n-more people assume someone else will be productive and then be forced to share.

Unfortunately, an individual doesn't truly need 10 shirts & 4 TV sets, so if they voluntarily choose to have only 5 shirts & 2 TV sets, they confuse that lack of consumption with production, and assume their responsibility to society is fulfilled. America has an entire generation of Millennials who are under this misconception, so-much-so that they advocate a National Dividend/Basic Income that means they never have to work if they simply cut back on consuming. They insist that "corporations" are doing enough production for everyone. I've never met a corporation, so I don't know how they feel about this strategy, but I've met businessmen and I assure you they don't want obligations, they only want customers. They will be responsible for their own families but don't want random free-riders. Consequently, it's in a society's essential interests to indoctrinate its new members with the concept of Work Ethic. If every Millennial had to pick a bushel of cotton before they could connect to Wifi, the problem would be solved.

Post by **boethius** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:44 pm

What happens when robots do all the work?

Post by **katarn** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:22 pm

I've seen this issue with some of gen z (essentially consisting of anyone graduating from HS this may to babies)- that they are entitled to certain services without working towards their production.

Post by **Okeefenokee** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:00 pm

For right now, living means someone has to work. Someone else can be the one who works.

In the future, living will mean someone will have to provide resources that can't be obtained because there is no work for people.

Neither course has a thought out plan. The transition from one to the other has even less planning done.

The most valuable horses today are race horses, I believe. Let that sink in.

Post by **BjornP** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:42 am

boethius wrote:What happens when robots do all the work?

I am assuming you don't litteraly believe they'll ever do all the work? The day they have robot historians, robot philosophers, robot priests, psychiatrists and social workers who genuinely care and empathize with you, and robot camp counsellors for your kids summer camp is the day that human society will descend into this:

...followed by:

..when the robots realize we've become absolutely useless. Not that I really believe either will ever happen.

Creating things, with our hands and/or our minds is such an ingrained part of our nature, that there will never be human society without humans working. Nevermind that already today things like furniture, home decorations, art, nevermind machines themselves, can all be mass produced... but there is still a market for more hand-crafted designs. There may be human societies in the future, where lots of current manual jobs are no longer neccesary because of increased automation and the way we structure our economies, how wealth is distributed... all that may change radically, and your UBI solution may be part of that. The nature of work may change, but there will always be work, a need for work, because there will always be a need to create.

Post by **Okeefenokee** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:49 am

I think it's naive to think that because there will probably be a small market for human produced goods that that means human labor is safe. I want some Amish furniture. How many can afford it? I can't right now. I don't think a society can survive on it.

Post by **Martin Hash** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:00 am

If "work" simply consisted of learning, that would fulfill the Work Ethic requirement. The OP was focused on the insidious Marxist "from those, to those" aspect of Basic Income/National Dividend.

Post by **boethius** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:53 am

Don't strawman me, bro.

We cross that rubicon long before robot priests.

When 80% of necessities are produced by robots, what do you do with 80% unemployed people? Either you have a UBI, revolution, or genocide.

Post by **Martin Hash** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:32 pm

Nobody owes anybody else money just because they have it and the other person needs it. This contrasts with Marxism which says they do. The OP says that a person who needs money must do something to earn it. Your point about there being no jobs means we must create make-work jobs, whatever those might be (learning?) I'm still a redistribution of wealth guy.

p.s. The future is too difficult to predict, especially where robots/androids are involved.

Post by **SuburbanFarmer** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:21 am

Martin Hash wrote:Nobody owes anybody else money just because they have it and the other person needs it. This contrasts with Marxism which says they do. The OP says that a person who needs money must do something to earn it. Your point about there being no jobs means we must create make-work jobs, whatever those might be (learning?) I'm still a redistribution of wealth guy.

p.s. The future is too difficult to predict, especially where robots/androids are involved.

Disabled/orphaned children.

Checkmate.

It's Better to Work Than Lounge

It's Better to Work Than Lounge

Re: It's Better to Work Than Lounge

Re: It's Better to Work Than Lounge

Re: It's Better to Work Than Lounge

Re: It's Better to Work Than Lounge

Re: It's Better to Work Than Lounge

Re: It's Better to Work Than Lounge

Re: It's Better to Work Than Lounge

Re: It's Better to Work Than Lounge

Re: It's Better to Work Than Lounge