6 ms·

I think people are confusing having a job with work. Making things out of epoxy resin takes a lot of work and it's satisfying. If everyone had UBI people would

I think people are confusing having a job with work. Making things out of epoxy resin takes a lot of work and it's satisfying. If everyone had UBI people would absolutely still work a lot. It's just that they wouldn't have to have a job in order not to become destitute.

neltnerb 3y ago
Yeah, I am confused by the idea that not being forced to work to stay alive means your can't (or won't, whatever) find anything of worth to do with your life. Where did that unexamined assumption come from? Do they care about nothing other than standard employment based "work" and so never considered doing something other than staring at a wall when they're not doing it? Family. Friends. Volunteering. Gardening. Games. Hobbies. Learning to play music, or cook, or who knows... studying biochemistry and doing that because it's rewarding and easier to do in a setting with more people in the same place. Or starting a company if that's your thing, or call it an open-X project and build a community that doesn't require "work" to contribute. I'm so confused, why on Earth would the agency to choose be bad, it's so patronizing.
- hackinthebochs 3y ago
  There's some serious class bias going on here. There is a certain segment of the population that will find productive work to do that give their life meaning if left to their own devices. There is another segment that absolutely will become blobs or worse (engage in mischief, anti-social behavior, etc). Those who have only ever known folks from the former category see only positives from a future without the necessity of work. Those who know folks from the latter category, well we fear such a future. Another strange class bias is that those from the (lets call it) "productive" class are absolutely convinced everyone is like them and if only given the opportunity they would be just as productive and fulfilled as they are. Some of us know better.
  - namarie 3y ago
    > There is a certain segment of the population that will find productive work to do that give their life meaning if left to their own devices. There is another segment that absolutely will become blobs or worse (engage in mischief, anti-social behavior, etc). Even if that is true, and I very much doubt that it is, a big chunk of the "productive" segment's work will be to help the other segment. People already do that a lot by volunteering. Imagine how much more people could psychologists, social workers, and others help if they don't have to worry about their own livelihoods?
    - hackinthebochs 3y ago
      I don't find that plausible. People volunteer to help those who naturally garner sympathy (poor, homeless, invalid, etc). There won't be much sympathy for those that don't have the disposition to self-actualize meaning like the "productive" class. On the other hand, those in the unproductive class won't want this kind of "help" either. What we need are new institutions to fill the role of providing social connection and meaning. Things that churches and clubs used to provide. But how to revive those things is its own issue.
      - namarie 3y ago
        > People volunteer to help those who naturally garner sympathy (poor, homeless, invalid, etc). Not really? Plenty of people volunteer to help people in jail, for example. >On the other hand, those in the unproductive class won't want this kind of "help" either. People won't want help to find meaning in their lives? I find it hard to believe. Churches and clubs, as you also said, used to (and still do) help provide people with that as well, so I'm not sure you truly believe it either.
        hackinthebochs 3y ago
        >Not really? Plenty of people volunteer to help people in jail, for example. Of course there are always some number of people that find even unlikely targets sympathetic. But what you're talking about is some kind of widespread movement to help close the meaning gap when something like a third to half of the world is having a crisis of meaning. To have that kind of a movement needs a naturally very sympathetic target, like victims of police brutality. The movement to improve prison conditions is practically non-existent by comparison. I don't find it plausible that the non-self-actualizers will be similarly sympathetic. >Churches and clubs, as you also said, used to (and still do) help provide people with that as well I wasn't talking about "help" like how psychologists provide help to their clients. What I mean is an attractive gathering place where people naturally find connection and meaning. People don't want to be "helped", i.e. being made to feel like a charity case, they want to come by meaning and purpose naturally.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Sure some people will be useless. But they are useless now, in the job, producing barely any "value". Might not even be of their own uselessness, there is plenty of useless jobs to go around. Also, even the "useless" always want more. Even if it is bigger TV and bigger pick-up truck, that would still require work
  - neltnerb 3y ago
    I agree, for some segment of the population the current definition of "productive" is "meaningful". That's why it will be okay to let people do things they find meaningful. If Priya had preferred to stay with her family, and there was no financial pressure, the situation would be unambiguously better. Her family may have encouraged her to go to study for family pride -- what if studying and living while studying were free for her and her family had no financial pressure for her to get a job and send money home? I struggle to see who benefits here. Maybe she would have preferred to stay home with her family, maybe she has siblings that she will miss, why would it be up to me at all? I don't get to define productive. UBI (or whatever mechanism for providing basic needs) also doesn't mean there is no financial reward for employment. She could still go and study and earn money and send it home to a family that doesn't need it badly except now if the job is automated by GPT4 somehow no one suffers. No harm is done other than that she wasted her time studying this thing, but no one is going to suffer because of bad luck beyond wasted time. There are a number of things that I do think people don't find meaning in doing. Many of these things can be increasingly automated like being a teller or working in a call center, but not all of which can be (for now), like repairing sidewalks. These are a set of things that aren't very fun to do which still need to be done, sure. Oddly the ones I can list off my fingers are not the ones that pay well, so something is certainly not working right on the incentives, sure. I agree that society should reward jobs less if they are meaningful and enjoyable than jobs that no one wants to do, but that's not really how capitalism works. Plenty of people don't tend to do things even they would consider "productive" in their spare time, but how much of that is because they are under constant financial stress and have so little free time? I believe that if basic needs are met people will generally find more genuine sources of meaning, for them, whether or not I consider those things productive. But my opinion isn't important here, that's the patronizing part. I simply do not believe people will sit around and watch TV all day if they are in good health and aren't required to work all the time for security. Or if they do then that's their business, I'd rather try to inspire them to do other things than force them to by withholding food and shelter. Let people be people and learn what makes their human life meaningful to them rather than trying to starve them into action that you consider productive.
    - junofan 3y ago
      I think that is unrealistic. If everyone gets free money the optimal move as an individual is to speculate on assets because everyone else will be. The financial rewards from gambling will be higher than working with much, much less effort. I don’t think many people will find meaning in that world.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > There's some serious class bias going on here. "Class bias" is a really weird word to use here to talk about that. It's class bias to assume that blue-collar workers aren't intrinsically lazy and that they might find meaningful activities to do if they had the time/energy to do so? This is the first time I've ever seen "people need work for meaning, and they literally don't have the inclination/drive to find meaning in their lives unless they're forced to work under the threat of losing their livihoods" represented as solidarity with the working class. I don't think most people would consider that perspective to be synonymous with class consciousness.
    - wizofaus 3y ago
      I think it's more subtle than that - I'd suggest for many of us, regardless of class, the whole reason work gives us meaning is because you know you're providing services that contribute towards society. That knowledge partly comes from seeing that the company you work for (or even run yourself) brings in at least enough revenue to pay its workers' salaries in order for them to enjoy a decent standard living. It's not so hard to believe that a future where there's simply no need for the vast majority of us to work at all will leave many of us feeling like we no longer contribute much towards society, which is likely to be at least somewhat detrimental to our sense of self-worth and purpose etc. But whether that's likely to be a widespread catastrophic issue I don't think anybody really knows. After all, for centuries the undeniable contribution women made towards society was never recognised via a pay cheque.
      - neltnerb 3y ago
        Yes, this will be a major catastrophe if we don't plan ahead. I think it's coming one way or another. For an increasing number of us, the costs of automation will be lower than the cost of living. It will happen quickly. We absolutely need a serious safety net or it will be chaos. And we need to discover another way to find meaning in what we do, or else it will be a mental health catastrophe. I have thought on this long and hard and am confident I can find meaning in my life even if a computer can do what I enjoy more productively. It will take getting used to. It won't be comfortable. It is necessary. It will be very bad if only a tiny fraction of people have financial security.

neltnerb 3y ago

Yeah, I am confused by the idea that not being forced to work to stay alive means your can't (or won't, whatever) find anything of worth to do with your life. Where did that unexamined assumption come from? Do they care about nothing other than standard employment based "work" and so never considered doing something other than staring at a wall when they're not doing it? Family. Friends. Volunteering. Gardening. Games. Hobbies. Learning to play music, or cook, or who knows... studying biochemistry and doing that because it's rewarding and easier to do in a setting with more people in the same place. Or starting a company if that's your thing, or call it an open-X project and build a community that doesn't require "work" to contribute. I'm so confused, why on Earth would the agency to choose be bad, it's so patronizing.

hackinthebochs 3y ago
There's some serious class bias going on here. There is a certain segment of the population that will find productive work to do that give their life meaning if left to their own devices. There is another segment that absolutely will become blobs or worse (engage in mischief, anti-social behavior, etc). Those who have only ever known folks from the former category see only positives from a future without the necessity of work. Those who know folks from the latter category, well we fear such a future. Another strange class bias is that those from the (lets call it) "productive" class are absolutely convinced everyone is like them and if only given the opportunity they would be just as productive and fulfilled as they are. Some of us know better.
- namarie 3y ago
  > There is a certain segment of the population that will find productive work to do that give their life meaning if left to their own devices. There is another segment that absolutely will become blobs or worse (engage in mischief, anti-social behavior, etc). Even if that is true, and I very much doubt that it is, a big chunk of the "productive" segment's work will be to help the other segment. People already do that a lot by volunteering. Imagine how much more people could psychologists, social workers, and others help if they don't have to worry about their own livelihoods?
  - hackinthebochs 3y ago
    I don't find that plausible. People volunteer to help those who naturally garner sympathy (poor, homeless, invalid, etc). There won't be much sympathy for those that don't have the disposition to self-actualize meaning like the "productive" class. On the other hand, those in the unproductive class won't want this kind of "help" either. What we need are new institutions to fill the role of providing social connection and meaning. Things that churches and clubs used to provide. But how to revive those things is its own issue.
    - namarie 3y ago
      > People volunteer to help those who naturally garner sympathy (poor, homeless, invalid, etc). Not really? Plenty of people volunteer to help people in jail, for example. >On the other hand, those in the unproductive class won't want this kind of "help" either. People won't want help to find meaning in their lives? I find it hard to believe. Churches and clubs, as you also said, used to (and still do) help provide people with that as well, so I'm not sure you truly believe it either.
      - hackinthebochs 3y ago
        >Not really? Plenty of people volunteer to help people in jail, for example. Of course there are always some number of people that find even unlikely targets sympathetic. But what you're talking about is some kind of widespread movement to help close the meaning gap when something like a third to half of the world is having a crisis of meaning. To have that kind of a movement needs a naturally very sympathetic target, like victims of police brutality. The movement to improve prison conditions is practically non-existent by comparison. I don't find it plausible that the non-self-actualizers will be similarly sympathetic. >Churches and clubs, as you also said, used to (and still do) help provide people with that as well I wasn't talking about "help" like how psychologists provide help to their clients. What I mean is an attractive gathering place where people naturally find connection and meaning. People don't want to be "helped", i.e. being made to feel like a charity case, they want to come by meaning and purpose naturally.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Sure some people will be useless. But they are useless now, in the job, producing barely any "value". Might not even be of their own uselessness, there is plenty of useless jobs to go around. Also, even the "useless" always want more. Even if it is bigger TV and bigger pick-up truck, that would still require work
- neltnerb 3y ago
  I agree, for some segment of the population the current definition of "productive" is "meaningful". That's why it will be okay to let people do things they find meaningful. If Priya had preferred to stay with her family, and there was no financial pressure, the situation would be unambiguously better. Her family may have encouraged her to go to study for family pride -- what if studying and living while studying were free for her and her family had no financial pressure for her to get a job and send money home? I struggle to see who benefits here. Maybe she would have preferred to stay home with her family, maybe she has siblings that she will miss, why would it be up to me at all? I don't get to define productive. UBI (or whatever mechanism for providing basic needs) also doesn't mean there is no financial reward for employment. She could still go and study and earn money and send it home to a family that doesn't need it badly except now if the job is automated by GPT4 somehow no one suffers. No harm is done other than that she wasted her time studying this thing, but no one is going to suffer because of bad luck beyond wasted time. There are a number of things that I do think people don't find meaning in doing. Many of these things can be increasingly automated like being a teller or working in a call center, but not all of which can be (for now), like repairing sidewalks. These are a set of things that aren't very fun to do which still need to be done, sure. Oddly the ones I can list off my fingers are not the ones that pay well, so something is certainly not working right on the incentives, sure. I agree that society should reward jobs less if they are meaningful and enjoyable than jobs that no one wants to do, but that's not really how capitalism works. Plenty of people don't tend to do things even they would consider "productive" in their spare time, but how much of that is because they are under constant financial stress and have so little free time? I believe that if basic needs are met people will generally find more genuine sources of meaning, for them, whether or not I consider those things productive. But my opinion isn't important here, that's the patronizing part. I simply do not believe people will sit around and watch TV all day if they are in good health and aren't required to work all the time for security. Or if they do then that's their business, I'd rather try to inspire them to do other things than force them to by withholding food and shelter. Let people be people and learn what makes their human life meaningful to them rather than trying to starve them into action that you consider productive.
  - junofan 3y ago
    I think that is unrealistic. If everyone gets free money the optimal move as an individual is to speculate on assets because everyone else will be. The financial rewards from gambling will be higher than working with much, much less effort. I don’t think many people will find meaning in that world.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > There's some serious class bias going on here. "Class bias" is a really weird word to use here to talk about that. It's class bias to assume that blue-collar workers aren't intrinsically lazy and that they might find meaningful activities to do if they had the time/energy to do so? This is the first time I've ever seen "people need work for meaning, and they literally don't have the inclination/drive to find meaning in their lives unless they're forced to work under the threat of losing their livihoods" represented as solidarity with the working class. I don't think most people would consider that perspective to be synonymous with class consciousness.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    I think it's more subtle than that - I'd suggest for many of us, regardless of class, the whole reason work gives us meaning is because you know you're providing services that contribute towards society. That knowledge partly comes from seeing that the company you work for (or even run yourself) brings in at least enough revenue to pay its workers' salaries in order for them to enjoy a decent standard living. It's not so hard to believe that a future where there's simply no need for the vast majority of us to work at all will leave many of us feeling like we no longer contribute much towards society, which is likely to be at least somewhat detrimental to our sense of self-worth and purpose etc. But whether that's likely to be a widespread catastrophic issue I don't think anybody really knows. After all, for centuries the undeniable contribution women made towards society was never recognised via a pay cheque.
    - neltnerb 3y ago
      Yes, this will be a major catastrophe if we don't plan ahead. I think it's coming one way or another. For an increasing number of us, the costs of automation will be lower than the cost of living. It will happen quickly. We absolutely need a serious safety net or it will be chaos. And we need to discover another way to find meaning in what we do, or else it will be a mental health catastrophe. I have thought on this long and hard and am confident I can find meaning in my life even if a computer can do what I enjoy more productively. It will take getting used to. It won't be comfortable. It is necessary. It will be very bad if only a tiny fraction of people have financial security.