5 ms·

> or when they’re so bad that people might actually die Care to elaborate? Am I understanding correctly that the implication here is that there is some conditi

> or when they’re so bad that people might actually die Care to elaborate? Am I understanding correctly that the implication here is that there is some condition for which a software engineer having a union agreement could prevent that worker from dying?

NewJazz 13d ago
Or prevent that worker's work output from killing innocent, uh... Externalities. Folks. Animals. Ecosystems.
Arubis 13d ago
Yes, certainly: the ability to say “no” to abusive labor conditions without risk of irreversibly losing any source of income while living in a society that treats lack of income as deserving of whatever pains and suffering come with it. The word “any” is doing a lot of work here—I’m implying a denylist or “social credit score” or other way of persisting punishment against an individual beyond mere job loss. You’re right that we’re not there right now. We’re in the wide middle and still closer to the “we have lots of bargaining power because we’re in demand” end of the continuum—_directionally_ it does not feel that way, but we don’t have a ton of folks dying of Boolean lung in the code mines. But I’d not rule out the possibility. The range of possible human experiences is vast.
- aliasxneo 13d ago
  > living in a society that treats lack of income as deserving of whatever pains and suffering What does the opposite society look like? Universal income?
  - AndrewKemendo 13d ago
    It looks like a healthy extended family where resources are shared towards a common goal of health and liberty.
    - aliasxneo 13d ago
      What if health and liberty to someone looks like them not providing any net positive to society? What compels someone to work 12 hours a day to share those resources with such a person?
      - MrDrMcCoy 13d ago
        Some people look to the nice things they have and think to themselves "I want everyone to have these things."
        aliasxneo 13d ago
        No argument there. The question is whether history shows us that that represents a majority or minority of people.
      - AndrewKemendo 13d ago
        Sounds like an unhealthy person and situation such that 12 hours of labor is mandatory Step one would be to help them get into a situation where that wasn’t true
        aliasxneo 13d ago
        If enough people decide they want to spend their liberty not working, then the 12 hours is a necessity, not something "unhealthy" about the person.
        AndrewKemendo 13d ago
        Sounds like you’ve got your world model rock solid
        aliasxneo 13d ago
        It mostly just feels like basic maths, not really a world model. Productivity is a finite resource. If there's a deficit in productivity, people will necessarily suffer and, in the worst case, die. The problem is world views that suggest giving everyone a free choice that enough people will choose productivity while everyone else chooses leisure. I'd be more apt to believe it if we had evidence of it being a natural outcome.
  - Arubis 13d ago
    I’m not even sure that’s a useful question. It almost points at “what’s the other end of the continuum so we can discuss points on the axis”, which _is_ useful, but I’m not even convinced that “merely” treating those without income as deserving pain is at an end of a continuum itself. It’s a point upon it; things could be worse yet. Instead let’s break away from opposites and into pieces. What would be _different_ in a society that doesn’t judge harshly the less fortunate? I’d suggest that would include ensuring that nobody starves or sleeps on the street for want of work.
  - Lutger 12d ago
    Richard Rorty describes liberalism as the idea that cruelty is the worst thing that exists. Cruelty, of course, has just as many forms as suffering. Universal income protects only basic needs and it does so in part. Even if you have income, you need to have housing, clean water, food that isn't poisened and some form of healthy environment to live a good life: income doesn't guarantee it. On the other end of the income spectrum is the unlimited amassing of wealth. After some point, wealth turns into power. For example, Musk is able to buy twitter influencing public opinion, and Starlink can make or break the battlefield. If we are talking only about income, I think we would need both a minimum (universal) income and a maximum (a cap on wealth). If we do not, then we will eventually lose democracy.

NewJazz 13d ago

Or prevent that worker's work output from killing innocent, uh... Externalities. Folks. Animals. Ecosystems.

Arubis 13d ago

Yes, certainly: the ability to say “no” to abusive labor conditions without risk of irreversibly losing any source of income while living in a society that treats lack of income as deserving of whatever pains and suffering come with it. The word “any” is doing a lot of work here—I’m implying a denylist or “social credit score” or other way of persisting punishment against an individual beyond mere job loss. You’re right that we’re not there right now. We’re in the wide middle and still closer to the “we have lots of bargaining power because we’re in demand” end of the continuum—_directionally_ it does not feel that way, but we don’t have a ton of folks dying of Boolean lung in the code mines. But I’d not rule out the possibility. The range of possible human experiences is vast.

aliasxneo 13d ago
> living in a society that treats lack of income as deserving of whatever pains and suffering What does the opposite society look like? Universal income?
- AndrewKemendo 13d ago
  It looks like a healthy extended family where resources are shared towards a common goal of health and liberty.
  - aliasxneo 13d ago
    What if health and liberty to someone looks like them not providing any net positive to society? What compels someone to work 12 hours a day to share those resources with such a person?
    - MrDrMcCoy 13d ago
      Some people look to the nice things they have and think to themselves "I want everyone to have these things."
      - aliasxneo 13d ago
        No argument there. The question is whether history shows us that that represents a majority or minority of people.
    - AndrewKemendo 13d ago
      Sounds like an unhealthy person and situation such that 12 hours of labor is mandatory Step one would be to help them get into a situation where that wasn’t true
      - aliasxneo 13d ago
        If enough people decide they want to spend their liberty not working, then the 12 hours is a necessity, not something "unhealthy" about the person.
        AndrewKemendo 13d ago
        Sounds like you’ve got your world model rock solid
        aliasxneo 13d ago
        It mostly just feels like basic maths, not really a world model. Productivity is a finite resource. If there's a deficit in productivity, people will necessarily suffer and, in the worst case, die. The problem is world views that suggest giving everyone a free choice that enough people will choose productivity while everyone else chooses leisure. I'd be more apt to believe it if we had evidence of it being a natural outcome.
- Arubis 13d ago
  I’m not even sure that’s a useful question. It almost points at “what’s the other end of the continuum so we can discuss points on the axis”, which _is_ useful, but I’m not even convinced that “merely” treating those without income as deserving pain is at an end of a continuum itself. It’s a point upon it; things could be worse yet. Instead let’s break away from opposites and into pieces. What would be _different_ in a society that doesn’t judge harshly the less fortunate? I’d suggest that would include ensuring that nobody starves or sleeps on the street for want of work.
- Lutger 12d ago
  Richard Rorty describes liberalism as the idea that cruelty is the worst thing that exists. Cruelty, of course, has just as many forms as suffering. Universal income protects only basic needs and it does so in part. Even if you have income, you need to have housing, clean water, food that isn't poisened and some form of healthy environment to live a good life: income doesn't guarantee it. On the other end of the income spectrum is the unlimited amassing of wealth. After some point, wealth turns into power. For example, Musk is able to buy twitter influencing public opinion, and Starlink can make or break the battlefield. If we are talking only about income, I think we would need both a minimum (universal) income and a maximum (a cap on wealth). If we do not, then we will eventually lose democracy.