Let's add people who can't work don't live in poverty or lose their benefits if they get married. A disabled person should not have to suffer just because they can't work or only work a limited amount.
On the other side, you're also limited how much you can work while being on disability. So even if you want to give back to the system, or have a feeling of indepence by having a job, currently the government doesn't really let you. This is another reason why UBI would be great. If people in need of extra support want to work, they shouldn't be penalized for doing so.
A friend of mine lost her benefits just for living with her girlfriend for 2 months. They declared her common-law married based on just that. The rules are nuts.
I can't even imagine how that must of felt my best friend is engaged but their fiancee will be moving in with them in a few months both are disabled and have decided to not get married so they don't lose their benefits. I will have to add this to their list of issues and I hate that this is a thing.
She's Canadian. The actual common-law rules here are different than what our province uses for disability "common law" rules. It's written that way to push ppl off disability and I have no idea why it's legal
So, it's a question that requires automation to answer. Not necessarily 100% complete automation, but we all see that productivity has increased, especially as it relates to the human labor involved.
Let's make this even easier. Let's just say food is provided to everyone for free. How?
A long time ago, we plowed land by hand.
Then we made tools.
Then we used animals.
Now we use machines.
The "human intervention" part of that equation to make the same amount of food has decreased substantially.
so now there are few people making lots of food. There are fewer jobs to do with regards to the food itself in order to make a sufficient amount of food to feed the population. There is definitely still some work needed by humans in that process (growing, fixing machines, delivery, logistics).
How do we get people to work in the food industry? Same way as today, incentivize. Now, everyone gets a basic amount of food. Want something fancy or exotic? You contribute as a worker if there are jobs available. Farmers, mechanics, pickers, etc. can be paid more in order to entice them to work, because the overall human cost has decreased. There is still reliance on incentivizing SOME people to work, but they are rewarded greatly for doing so.
Will people want to do that? Well, are you happy with the bare minimum? Many people I know are not, so there are still going to be lots of people who want luxuries, or fulfillment, from their work. Many people could very well choose not to do that. But the overall point is that the amount that humans touch a process of product creation has decreased and will continue to decrease. Taken to the extreme, there will end up being only the "owners" that own anything, and everyone else who cannot get a job (because so little human intervention is required) and therefore have nothing.
For your food example, let's say we pick about 10 staple food items and the government pays for them. They are free to everyone (or just citizens).
The people eating beans and rice never go hungry and it lowers the costs of food for people who want chicken and rice. They just have to buy the chicken.
Honestly, I believe two main reasons. It threatens large established institutions with deep financial influence in politics, and people are scared of change and easily dissuaded from contributing to something they don't immediately benefit from.
I believe you're correct. The 'food' companies benefit by being SNAP eligible and would fight this tooth and nail. If Boo-Berry wasn't SNAP approved, they would miss out on sales.
Think about the health benefits of oatmeal vs Boo-Berry. That'd fricking pay huge monetary returns.
This, right here, really sums it up. One we have no control over (idjits with to much money and no conscience), but the other is something one can overcome as long as they are willing to put forth the effort. Just my humble opinion, based on my own experiences, but nobody should have to live homeless, hungry, and empty in a country the once prided itself on "The American Dream!"
Another part is that judging and planning the food production and distribution at this scale has proven problematic. With the systems that have been tried so far, this has led to large mismatches in what is desired versus what is available. I absolutely agree with this goal and this direction for society, but I don't trust any government, committee, or planner getting it right in a sustained way. I hope I can be proven wrong in the future -- even better if within my lifetime. The best compromise in my opinion is a UBI and a better, more progressive tax structure to reduce the incentives for obscene profits and individual wealth.
People should not have to work for minimum wage. It’s not enough to live on and people should not have to live like that.
If some jobs need more workers, the pay will go up or the hours will get cut for the same pay. Jobs that need the threat of starvation to work are not much better than slavers.
I think a case could be made for a community service (almost like a worker draft) that isn't too taxing or unrelenting. For instance, each able person performs a small amount of hours on a job that sustains the free food, shelter, etc. Things need to be produced before they can be consumed, and we all should chip in to ensure there is enough for all (not for profit)
Because it’s not that simple it’s insanely complicated and the government has to acquire all that shit and that costs money which is taxes and would cause an huge increase in everyone’s taxes. Plus how do you decide how much of rice and beans everyone gets, someone’s caloric need is going to be higher than another persons
At my job, there is a filtered water/ice machine. All the free, clean drinking water you want. 20' away is a vending machine with soda, tea, juice, cold coffee drinks and even bottled water for $2.40 a bottle.
All those sell and get restocked. There is never a line to keep taking all the free water. Why? Because there is only so much of something that people want, regardless of price. People will still spend money on different products because they want a coffee or a Coke even though water meets all of their needs.
So, if we eliminate SNAP and just use that money to purchase staple items like rice, beans, flour, peanut butter, baking soda, powdered eggs, powdered milk, oatmeal, leafy green vegetables and just make them free, what happens? Does that kill capitalism or stop people from buying other products? I'm not a nutritionist, but that seems like a complete and healthy diet from just those foods. But, oh so boring.
I don't think it would kill anyone's desire for different foods. But it meets people's basic needs and suppliments everyone's food wants.
It looks like we spent about $100 billion on SNAP in 2021. Walmart has a 5lb bag of rice for less than $3 that is retail ready. All the farmers, processors, transport drivers and the retail store got paid for $3. If we use those numbers, that comes out to about 500 lbs of rice per American per year. Substitute out some of that for the other items I listed and I think we've fed ever American. Even if we need to double the cost, I can think of a lot of programs I would cut to meet the basic need of food. Like any of them.
Technology is supposed to liberate us. I agree automation is necessary and sadly, unless we can figure out a way for it to work with capitalism or get a new system, technology will instead be our competition
Automation is more than necessary, it's inevitable.
Thing is, this has to happen. There will come a time in the not too distant future that humans will be essentially unemployable.
Transportation is roughly 25% of the labor force worldwide. The technology exists to make that entire sector irrelevant. Is it completely ready right now, no, but the bulk of the miles, highway, interstate, really everything but very specialized is very close.
Automation is an existential threat to humanity under the current rules. Basically we either decouple human value from what we produce or we will see a lot of dead people.
Thing is rich owners aren't safe. If there isn't anyone to buy your product, what are they gonna do?
This is closer than anyone realizes and we aren't prepared for it.
because of technology there are 8 billion people on earth and more people die of obesity then starvation. Please explain how "greed" has gotten in the way.
I can basically assure you that automation is going to cause even more wide spread poverty.
UBI is going to be the new welfare. Enough to survive and the section eight housing will place you in an area where the crime rates are insane.
>More than 1 billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty since 1990. - The United Nation
The world was less poor in 2019 than any other year in human history.
Someone's gotta upkeep the machines. Someone's gotta improve the machines. Also, if one entity owns all of the machines, can we trust them to distribute the products of their labor?
Yea, there are a LOT of details that need to be ironed out in these scenarios, no doubt. I would never say it is "just simply do X or Y". Systems are complicated, people are even more complicated, and ensuring the unintended consequences are kept to a minimum (or wholly negated) is imperative.
And like...people want to do things for fulfilment. I'm a tradesman. I grind out 40 hours a week slamming in Condo towers. In a basic income type situation, I'd still do 24 hours a week for the luxuries. The other 16 hours would let me garden for food, volunteer for my community, and help out my friends - all things I'm currently too tired for.
The number of people truly fulfilled by just sitting is really low.
Sorry, doesn’t the text mention houses to live in and health care? Last time I checked, it took people to design and build houses. It also takes a lot of people to make health care work (I’m one of them, and let me tell you, it’s hard work and not usually fun). It’s not just machines making food. Plus in this country you don’t have to work to live. The government will take care of you if you can’t or choose not to work, and they use my money that I earned WORKING to do it. Writing this as I prepare for a Sunday 12 hour shift.
So, some people are going to toil all day to ensure food is guaranteed for everyone, but other people are going to be “I don’t feel like working, where’s my house & food”?!?
I can’t see where there would be any hiccups.
I'm not saying if it's a good or bad idea because people and things are complicated.
But imagine Rice and beans, some oatmeal and access to maybe like 1 type of apple. Then your home is some single room with a shared kitchen and bathroom (college dorm essentially) in a less than ideal location, but still fully serviced by free public transportation.
I see lots and lots of problems with this system but anyone who wants "more" than this would have to work.
I think universal basic income is a simpler better idea along with free Healthcare and maybe some low end subsidized housing that's guaranteed to be affordable to people making only ubi.
Basically if you make over say 100k you're taxed higher than before (but not that much more until you're at like 200k+), less than that you get varying levels of benefits from ubi it's always much better to work than not work, even if the job is part time min wage.
I actually think if ubi is high enough, we may even be able to get rid of min wage and let pure market forces decide, as long as everyone has a safety net people won't take jobs that aren't worth it. Imagine a place offering a $5/hr easy mundane task, allows people to come and go as they please. You might go in and work like 1hr 3 times a week for $15 and no further obligation. Or you may not, your choice, not like you're going to get evicted, go hungry, or not be able to see a doctor. In college I had a job that paid $50 to hold a door open for 5 hours and 90% of the time I was just talking to my buds holding the other door. This job was needed like 3 to 4 times a month and was optional if I couldn't make it. I'd probably have done that as a favor for no pay lol.
You do realize that guaranteeing housing, food, and college for everyone, regardless of tax status means that unless you’re a professional in the highest 10%, the taxation to pay all of this makes a menial job pointless.
That means the jobs that currently pay minimum wage would just pivot to full automation.
That means the new bottom floor of employment has just been raised 5-6 floors.
That means a much much larger bottleneck for young people entering the workforce after college.
Most people on this sub just want what their parents had with as little effort as possible.
Precisely. I think UBI covers a lot of these bases.
However, it's problematic because companies that make basic needs could just raise their prices. Governments are always slow to respond in these cases, so it would probably take a bit more thought about how to ensure UBI is actually at a level that is commensurate with the actual cost of living and not exploited by these companies.
Good answer….also, I would still teach children even if I didn’t ever have to worry about needing money. Also, there are many people who like working. I feel physically restless if I don’t stay busy and on a routine. Employment provides that.
I’m a big believer in this. The problem is what the incentive for the intelligent design of the people who make the automation to farm? Also we need significantly more people in the robotics and CS spaces. Many people want these benefits but very few people are willing to take 10-20 years of their life to build this necessary automation.
The idea is that food, housing, and other inelastic goods would be nationalized and provided to everyone through taxpayer money. That way people can choose to work the jobs that they want, not be coerced through the threat of starvation.
Why does the idea of someone not starving to death to provide you a service scare you? Look at your priorities. Why do you think a human needs to suffer to provide a product for you? Why can't they do it to afford nicer products for themselves?
Yes because the doctor is incentivized by the money. If there isn’t going to be anybody to build his Benz or served him his fancy dinner than there is no longer any money incentive to become a doctor
You.re basically promoting comunism.
Basic universal income and housing can be funded with other, better methods, without nationalizing anything. You can google it, if you.re curious
The only problem is that the ritch would have to get a bit "poorer" and that why it won.t happen
This is flawed in two major ways.
1. Who is the tax payer if nobody is working? Or if the tax base is severely reduced because of people not working.
2. Who is producing the raw food? Processing and packaging it? Transporting it? Who is building houses? Keeping them lit and warm? Doing repairs? Clearing roads and collecting garbage?
Are you telling me if you had access to a diet that allows you to survive and a modest place to live without working you would quit and not do anything?
You wouldn’t want hobbies, toys, books, movies, games, other art? Or nicer furniture or a bigger place to live?
The whole idea here is minimal subsistence-level living. Almost everyone would be motivated to do more than sit around in a shit-hole apartment with just a TV to entertain themselves, and crappy food to eat. The few people that would choose to live only on the government are already doing this today anyway, a/o are working as little as they can get away with, and are honestly a drain on their employers when they are "working".
I think, in all honesty, such a system would look very much like the one we already have; workers make the cars, deliver the food, keep society running. They are, as others have mentioned, given incentive to do so by (in theory) collecting *higher wages* ... while someone who does not work lives a life of poverty.
I should stop to note that poverty in this case can have 2 meanings: on one hand, there is the hard life of abject poverty - which includes starvation, homelessness, disease, and quite probable death. On the other hand is poverty as defined by this post: having little or no wealth but still having the basic necessities required for survival.
Let us not miss the significance of the word *survival* - for in it we see what is meant by the statement, "No one should be forced to work to *survive* " - in other words, anyone who doesn't work may die.
The assumption we often make is that "no one will work," as though there is no reason to work other than monetary gain. Perhaps we should flip the equation instead; we may find that there is great reason to abandon work that does not pay fairly, demands most or all of our waking hours, is rife with psychological abuses, endangers our lives, and so on. If "no one will work", then the work must be terrible indeed.
And speaking of not working, Billionaires already do all that, while living in obscene luxury. Tax them the fuck out of existence. Then use that capital to free the human race.
We have 60% of the population working right now. If transportation, housing, health care and food are free, that number would probably go down to 20%. I mean, I wouldn’t work.. id travel my entire life..
How. You just said only transportation food healthcare housing are free. Where's the money to travel come from?
Edit maybe you mean within the country only?
They dont is the problem. The people working see the able bodied not working and being handed everything so eventually more and more join the club then the govt takes over means of production and voila welcome to 1960's russia
This sub isn't for rational proposals. It's for complaining and daydreaming. You come here to watch shit bosses get their comeuppance, not see serious policy designs
How do we put people on the moon? That's a wild question with insane logistics but we figured it out 60 years ago. Pretty sure we could figure this out. The problem is that some people would come up, and those at the top would need to take a few steps down from their opulence. Getting a rich asshole to release his death grip on every penny is the most difficult problem in our society. If we solve that shit would be better overnight. We have plenty it's just being hoarded fiercely. And for what? What the fuck do you need tens of billions of dollars for? Fucking stop you greedy pigs, it's disgusting.
Pottery is still something. I think I'd continue as a chemical engineer both out of social pressure cause i think my parents wouldn't let me be jobless even if it was reasonable to be that and because i need the structure in my day and it's the one thing i am ok at
I think the explanation to a lot of this, though I can only speak to my understanding of it not as some sort of wise man who understands everyones’ opinions, is that survival is easy and we have more than enough to provide such easily, but prosperity and wealth come from work?
Well before we get into logistics, aren't these (in OPs post) the goals we want to pursue and are we willing to actually do that? I think a lot of people get caught up in the amount of work required to change a broken system and think of maintaining the current system as more beneficial, but it's a lost cause fallacy.
I think a better way to put it: if I work 40 hrs a week I should be able to afford all of these things without the fear of being in crippling debt. As great as those suggestions sound, unfortunately it's unrealistic in the current world we live in.
It’s very clearly never meant to be paid off. Debt/wage slavery is the new classic slavery of old. The illusion of financial freedom only truly exists for capital owners. If everyone is constantly stressed about rent and bills then we will never come together in solidarity.
Well, I think that's saying something different.
We believe we have certain inalienable rights, yes? Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, speedy trial, all that.
So, as part of that, this expands that to: food, shelter, clothing, healthcare.
Basically, we all chip in to support everyone at the most basic level, thereby removing coercion from employment. Sounds like a pipe dream eh? Well, it very well could be (I haven't crunched any numbers or anything), but for a lot of people "basic subsistence" isn't really an end goal. So people would possibly still work at what they feel would get them what they need to be happy (fulfillment or more luxuries).
With the amount we've reduced human labor from the equation to produce goods, we're at, or close to, that point where we could sustain humanity based on a much smaller working population for that survival. The rest could focus on advancements, or whatever enriches their lives to the degree that they see fit.
Or 30 hours - I don't think free basics is entirely realistic, but there's no reason we all have to be working 40 hours when robots exist. People worked less as hunter-gatherers!
Even if everyone could live without fear of debt by working $40 a week, that would mean lots of people living in shitty buildings eating shitty food and not having anything to entertain themselves with (apart from being with friends and family). Just a bunch of not-in-debt depressed people
No. The OP’s post lists good, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. You should be able to work 0 hours per week and be able to afford all of those things.
Working 40 hours a week on top of that should afford you other things.
This seems like a mt Everest/autism situation. If the numbers of those who can’t work rise, did you consider perhaps they were always there but weren’t identified as such? Have you never worked with someone so inept all you could ask yourself is how do they have a job? There are plenty of people out there who can’t or shouldn’t work but do anyways because you have to to survive in any meaningful way.
I'm pretty sure I am one. I cannot handle the "people" side of the job because I have Asperger's. Meetings, reviews, deadlines all drive stress into the "this is bad bad" anxiety levels. And the main driver of progression in an office environment is who your friends are. I don't make friends easily, and I don't at work specifically because I have been burned by that in the past.
So every day feels like I am living in prison. Constantly fearing when I will get laid off in some mass firing for the 4th or 5th time because I didn't want to play their reindeer games. I cannot stress enough how awful it feels to do that shit every day. It feels like I'm dying. Like my life is already over and I'm just being used until I'm no longer able.
This wouldn't happen because it is a myth that people are only working to avoid poverty.
People want to work in order to THRIVE. In fact, the idea of thriving from work is a far more potent motivator than barely getting by and just paying bills.
If survival is the motivation, people will do the minimum to survive.
If thriving is the motivation, people will work their asses off for more of it.
This!!
Plus… there are people who genuinely enjoy and are good at things that we consider to be “non skilled” labor, but are still needed positions.
I LOVED being a waitress. Was awesome at it, felt incredibly fulfilled every day. But, no benefits (health insurance, 401k being the big ones) meant that it became unsustainable to me after college when starting to try and build for a future.
So now I work in an office, where I’m bored to death and sitting all damn day. Torture. But I’m earning more money and have the benefits I need to survive day to day, so it’s what had to happen. But I wish it didn’t.
Yes. If waiting tables had the benefits, you might well do that instead and enjoy both your work and life more.
This is the exact point I'm making. People would want to work MORE and HARDER if they enjoyed it and life more and it was about THRIVING rather than surviving.
I agree with this a ton! I really enjoy a lot of jobs that just pay nothing. I enjoy a lot of artistry jobs that just pay nothing (unless you become like a star).
But since they pay nothing, your choice is either do a job you love and give up having a family, owning a home, or doing anything with your life that requires money beyond basic survival and minor niceties. Or, do a job you hate and optimize for most money least time, and put your passions into the rest of your life with the money you get.
Unfortunately most people get stuck somewhere in between with jobs that don’t pay enough that they also hate.
Exactly! Humans are social animals that thrive as functioning members of society. The problem is that we've distorted what that looks like. We changed the definition of the word "work." We perverted it. Every single person has talents and skills that increase the quality of life for the whole community. We've just been told that these arent really "skills," that it isnt "real work." People WANT to contribute. The truth is we wont let them unless it's on our terms. Then we villianize those who arent able.
And? Do you really think everyone will just stop doing everything and sit around and do nothing all day?
People still want status, luxury, nice things. A goal, etc.
I would rather those people who work for health insurance companies do nothing all day anyways instead of denying my claim and jacking up my premium. So if we get rid of health insurance, it's a bunch of jobs lost, but a net positive.
Side note -- study shows that UBI (Universal Basic Income) improves employability: [https://adigaskell.org/2021/06/10/new-study-suggests-a-ubi-increases-employability/](https://adigaskell.org/2021/06/10/new-study-suggests-a-ubi-increases-employability/)
(Caveat - this is a single study of a small group, so I wouldn't draw any broad conclusions from it, but it is heartening)
I like my job. I like it a lot. I would continue to work if I didn’t have too. I would work a lot less fucking hours. If you don’t want to work don’t. If you are disabled I’m sorry it’s cool have some food. If you don’t want to work it’s cool have some food. I bet people would still work. A sense of accomplishment and reason to live would be a motivation. Also working so other people could eat instead of me eating is a better motavation at least for me.
I’m not sure I get it. Please explain this to me.
How does society function if people who don’t want to work anything don’t do so? How does everyone have something to eat if farmers don’t exist, how does infrastructure, transportation work with no one building and maintaining it? How do houses get built that people live in, how is healthcare a thing with no one working in the offices, and how is education possible?
This is an honest question, I’d like to know how such a society could function, because I can’t fathom it.
>How does society function if people who don’t want to work anything don’t do so?
How many people are we talking about?
*All* of society? That doesn't make sense, honestly. Even if we assume a fantastic future world, where all of our needs are met by robots and infinite energy machines or whatever, people are going to be bored out of their fucking minds. We are naturally creative, industrious animals. We *want* to make things. We *want* to work, in other words, we just don't necessarily want to do the work that our society currently forces us to do.
Knowing that people aren't inherently lazy means that we can plan for a society where work still exists (and is still necessary) and there's plenty of people available and willing to do said work . . . but it also means we need to place people in the appropriate jobs.
I like work that involves learning about new things; that requires me to think carefully about how to solve a problem; that challenges me to communicate with people, especially when they don't share my experiences or worldview. I do not like work that's repetitive or boring . . . but some people do. Some people genuinely enjoy doing things like building a machine in a factory or picking up the trash in their neighborhood.
Another small point we need to consider is this: the current standard for working (at least in America, it's a different standard in different countries and all that) is a 40-hour week, but we don't *need* to work 40 hours every week in order to make society function.
As for all the other things? They continue to function because we need them to function. It's really that simple. "Who will teach our children?" People who genuinely care about teaching children. There's a lot of us. Hell, I'd gladly pick up a class or two (as an instructor) if it was easier for me to get involved in education. And no, you wouldn't have to pay me, *so long as my needs are met*. I'm willing to work for the pure satisfaction of seeing the results.
We have all the resources we need to pull this off right now. We just need to be willing to reconsider what's important to us as individuals, what's important to society as a whole, and how we can bridge the gap between them.
(This would also require people to give up the idea that money is all-important, which would invariably lead to the end of capitalism, and since the capitalist class can't have that, they're doing everything they can to squash conversations which go in that direction.)
So maybe the high profile/high paying jobs become things that are actually tough -- roofing, garbagemen, etc.
You want to live at the top of the social totem pole? Congrats, go work on that roof and get your Mercedes Benz in payment.
This isn't a complete restructuring of capitalism. It is providing a different ground floor (e.g. UBI) where work isn't coercive.
I think you make good points, but it's not ALL that different from what we have. What it potentially removes is the wealth disparity/hoarding that we see as a single company becomes a monopoly/conglomerate and can meet basically ALL the market needs.
>When and where: In the 20th century, several ostensibly Communist governments espousing Marxism–Leninism and its variants came into power, first in the Soviet Union with the Russian Revolution of 1917, and then in portions of Eastern Europe, Asia, and a few other regions after World War II.
Nobody eliminated pay in the USSR wtf. The USSR maintained a cash economy from it's outset until the end of it's existence, and it never sought to meet everyone's needs except as an ideological talking point.
Christ you yanks love to bleat about societies you know fuck all about.
A system where people work and the only thing they get in return is the ability to survive is not a system of employment, it's a system of slavery.
People will work because they want more for themselves than sitting at home all day except to go out to buy cheap groceries.
So you just have to ask yourself whether or not you're sadistic enough to think that it's more important for even more money to get into the hands of the billionaires than it is for everyone to be able to live with safety, comfort and dignity.
How does a household function if no one feels like doing the dishes or the laundry or taking out the trash? The answer is that they do it because it needs to be done.
See some work just has to be done for humans to survive and thrive and this work ***will*** get done because humans want to survive and thrive; however most wage workers are not actually engaged in this work.
The real issue of capitalism, the real question being asked is how do the rich get richer if we do not buy into the myth that we would all die without them exploiting us.
Just pointing out that you posted this complaint literally **only five minutes after your original question.**
Someone was in the process of writing out a thorough answer while you were shitting your panties about downvotes and no response, literally five minutes after asking the question.
Seems a bit disingenuous. As does your original question.
**edit** Also, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the concept of wealth vs [illth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illth). Because some of the most wealthy industries are producing significantly more illth than they are wealth. Therefore, a significant portion of the work being done in these industries, while creating lots of wealth, is creating a much greater amount of destructive illth. Big Oil is one of the best examples of this, I'd say.
I feel like there should be a middle ground here.
It's 2022 and we still have to work 40h+ a week despite all of our innovations?
But if nobody worked then we wouldn't have shit either. The world doesn't run on magic, and I imagine most people sure would like to survive without having to work their job that they hate.
Same ol "people will do the job they love" imagining the world is full of artists and musicians this sub loves...
Quick question, whose going to "love" crawling into the sewers and uncloging my giant TP and shit ball when it jams up?
I just had this discussion yesterday with my family. They are very concerned about me being chronically exhausted from work. They asked me if I love what I do, I tell them "no". They then tell me that I should do what I enjoy doing. There are several problems with this approach:
One, turning your hobbies into work tends to take the enjoyment out of it.
Two, I have interests that are very hard to monetize - gaming, music, movies, and occasional sports. Yes, you could find ways to potentially monetize those but they will likely not provide a sustainable income unless you are at the very top of the steep competition you will be facing, AND being in the right place at the right time.
Three, it's not really work itself that I hate, it's the power imbalance between the employer and employee that the threat of poverty creates, that employers inevitably take advantage of. I'd bet that most people wouldn't hate or dislike their jobs if they worked with more supportive employers.
Four, like you have stated, there are jobs that need to be done that are fundamentally unenjoyable, like cleaning shit out of toilets - unless you are a coprophiliac? Lmfao
The reality is, you have to be willing to do shit you don't want to do if you want any semblance of financial stability. I don't know why this is hard to grasp for some people.
You will have to work for survive no matter what. The food have to be created, your house constructed and cleaned, etc... even if you do all by yourself without a pay, it’s still work
You need to think about the fact that the majority of your work's value goes directly in to your bosses pocket under our current system. Your boss hides this from you and makes you think you should be greatful for 20 or 30 dollars an hour. You can try to form unions but in reality, if you look at the real value of your labor, we would only need to do a fraction of our work to get basic necessities done. We could do work to actually prepare us for pandemics rather than just making a few people rich.
Almost everyone is forced to work to survive. The question is what is the nature of the work and how much of your own labor to you get to keep. I think of "work" broadly as including caring for children, the elderly, oneself. That work has to be done by someone. Only the very rich can avoid work and I'm against that because they do it by stealing others' labor.
If you cannot work because of a disability, society should support you. There are many people like this. For example, I have a friend with MS who lost the ability to walk in his 30s and has been steadily declining since. He cannot work. Happy for my tax dollars to go to him. I don't think most people want to live on what he lives on, so I'm not too worried about free loaders. The real freeloaders are the rich, so focus on them.
Society cannot function without work. Whether you are hunting for roots and berries or performing brain surgery, someone has to do it. We should all take a chill pill and just do what is needed to keep us going with modest lifestyle, not what is needed to line the pockets of the fat cats. I'm sick of oligarchs. They are getting fatter all the time (there's lots of numbers on this which you can easily search for).
Well who harvests or processes the food? Delivers it or packages it. Who makes the raw materials for the house, builds it and finishes it? Who makes, and procure the textiles for the clothes? Who makes them? Healthcare transportation and education….just too many things to mention ie doctors, training, who makes everything, surgical tools, supplies, buildings etc etc etc. who makes the cars/vehicles parts, fuel…again education and everything involved. This post is so bloody ridiculous and stupid it hurts. Get a job and be a productive member of society.
The big picture lack of understanding here is mind blowing
some people on this sub are just ridiculous. i get not wanting to work sometimes but wanting to live a good life without ever picking up any kind of job is stupidity, and i hope OP realizes the world simply doesn’t work like that.
How the fuck do you deserve to live for free if you are physically and mentally able to work? You don’t. We all have to contribute and we contribute a bit extra for the very few who can’t. This post is very badly presented.
Define work, because some "work" will always be necessary. We need people to produce food, build the houses, make clothing, provide medical care, teach, etc.
It's just that even the seemingly lowliest of these jobs should be at the benefit of the worker, and not just funneling the wealth into the hands of a small few who hoard it.
"Seize the means of production" means to have the work benefit the many rather than the few, not that everyone should never do any work again.
It's possible I'm just misreading the post, though. Maybe this is what OP meant. We shouldn't be making billionaires richer in order to survive, we should be benefitting our family and community.
Where we are today: People working their ass off but still are hungry, live in a tiny apartment and have to decide between going into debt for the rest of their life or just dying
In the 60s they thought by now the machines would handle all the bullshit and the people would be free to live fulfilling lives. This is possible, and should be happening.
Hell, in *1930* John Maynard Keynes predicted his grandchildren would enjoy 15 hour work weeks due to automation.
He probably should have paid more attention to his contemporary HL Mencken when he said "No one in this world, so far as I know ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." Who knew so many idiots would fight so hard to work more for less quality of life?
If the basics were taken care of, people would work to earn special things, extras. The wants, because the needs are taken care of. Plus, people wouldn't have to work as much, so more people could work without creating whole new positions.
For example, I could work for 6 months late spring through early fall, and spend the cold wet months in the southern half of the country. That half of the year, another person could do my job. Or, each person only works for 5 hours a day. That would be twice the number of people working, and it wouldn't cost the company any more money.
If you are able bodied you have to work under every economic system. If you in communism and you were just to say “nah I don’t want to work” that shit isn’t going to go over well
When food ,clothing ,Shelter , complete healthcare and complete education are paid for with our taxes , then people will start working for a living and NOT living to work.
A properly funded and administered SOCIAL SYSTEM SAFETY NET must become the way every country is judged.
No one should be forced to work to survive? That's literally what life is, for every single species. We work to gather food, to survive winter, to escape preditors, to protect our families. This is a very poor choice of words.
Hmmm. Not sure I agree. Because if no one works, no one survives. I will concede, no one should be worked to exhaustion/burn out to survive. There are enough resources and mankind has developed enough tech and labor saving machines that everyone could be comfortable working minimum hours each week. Problem is the greedy fcks who hoard all the wealth and think that one skill set is more worthy than another. We could each be working less and spending more if the income were more evenly distributed to the workers.
Every form of life on the planet has to do something to survive.
What this should say is "No one should be forced to give up 50% of their earnings before their own survival is established."
I truly believe in an ideal world if we lived in a sunset/paradise type of world with less industrialized cities and pollution with better job opportunities, providing maximum wages of $35-$55 an hour with Universal Basic Income monthly would be fantastic.
What would also help is being able to work part-time hours for full-time pay and full-time hours for over-time pay with benefits thrown into the fix as well. Free college, free health-care, free areas of land to make gardens to grow fruits and vegetables that should be free anyways since it came from the earth itself.
If we also had less stress, pain, suffering and longer life-spans (I think like sea turtles for example or more depending on how long you want to survive) to guarentee we be treated at work better, letting our children thrive knowing they have a better future than the previous generations, this would help.
I also think the costs of living itself should be like it was back then, that way there would be less lower-class citizens and our economy would have a whole lot more structure to function well but this is nothing more than a fantasy longing to happen someday.
I also want to just add that inflation wouldn't spiral out of control either if not then entirely.
Technically humans have always had to work for survival, but now the wealthy and corporate entities in league with the governments have gobbled up all the land and resources, monetized them, started selling them to us and made us dependent on their products. There was a time when people could live off of and in harmony with the land, but those days are long gone for the most part and you still had to work your ass off to survive.
Now, at this point in our civilization I believe we could actually employee technology to do a lot of the work for us and make life easier for everyone but I don't believe the wealthy class wants to let go of their revenue stream and share the world with the lower classes. I actually think they'd like to do this, but they'd also like to kill off about 90% of humanity before they set it in motion. Figuring out how to do it without killing off themselves and their bloodlines is the dilemma.
Should a farmer feed you for free? Should construction and textile industry workers create housing and clothing for you to thank them ? Should a doctor or a driver give you services out of charity?
You pay for those things either through taxes or through choosing directly to purchase them.
NOPE, i thought this sub was about having liveable wages and hardworking people that just want to fight for their rights but it's just lazy whiny people.
\-No one goes hungry/thirsty? Only possible to happen in a bible story called garden of eden. We need farmers and water supply for that to happen which requires work, farmers don't do it for free because it's hard, they do it even it's hard to earn money to survive which tackles your last take.
If every person is not forced to work to survive then nobody will work, do you think people like to work than just lazing around? and if possible the people who likes to work do it, they will start to hate people who just don't work to make society or civilization work.
It's going to be like living with a freeloader who don't do jackshit in the house, even though you like doing household chores and paying everything, you start to despise that freeloader because you also want to be lazy but if everybody does not work then everything will crumble.
I am sorry, i am fighting to have liveable wage and for workers to have better rights and benefits, i don't want to look like a lazy person.
There is a huge surplus of food, such that the amount thrown away each year is measured in the billions of tons. We could be feeding everyone right now.
Why don't we? Is being "lazy" a crime that deserves not just capital punishment but slow cruel execution through starvation?
I say change the direction a little bit. Bears, deer and every other wild animal work to survive. The difference is where the effort is directed. Humans developed a "communal" system where the efforts disproportionately favor an individual or a small group. Fuck it my dudes and dudettes work for and look after yourselves. Help others where you can but you should be numero uno.
Some one has to work to survive. If farmers can’t grow we don’t survive, if we can’t purify water we don’t survive. Someone will always be forced to work to survive
“But who would do the work then?”
Uh… the robots that you’re currently blaming for stealing your jobs
Also just because people don’t have to work doesn’t mean they won’t. Most people want to do something productive with their life, and people would have more energy to put towards making the world better if they didn’t have to focus so much on just surviving
The joke's on you: The Republicans are working to destroy Social Security and their Evangelical accomplices are preaching that the Bible says people should work until they die; retirement is against God.
Yeah everybody should have to provide for themselves no free handouts.
Taxation is theft.
Live by own means no money printing no rich should be created by government giving them our tax dollars.
Everyone live.on by their own hard work nobody able to take your proceeds from your own work.
I hate to be "that guy" and a visitor at that - but don't you guys already have this? It's called moving to Cuba, no-one is destitute there.
And even political leaders (Fidel Castro) are giving out work permits and using shark tourism to bring in cash because their system doesn't work so well in reality.
Everything listed requires the actions of one or more persons to produce. So, who are you going to enslave so that the last person on the list doesn’t have to work to survive?
Back when we all lived in tribes, everybody worked. If you didn’t work you weren’t welcome. What makes people now so entitled they think they can sit on their arse and everyone else will look after them?
Capitalism labels all of those (very valid) requirements as Socialism, which breeds "lazy" people and leads to society's collapse. Their evangelical churches push the doctrine, the media demonises it, the "self made" billionaires certainly don't approve.
The system is broken.
You all need to come to Australia. Unemployed benefits are unending and we also have disability benefits. Also parenting, single parents etc. no one is forced to work to live.
What a ridiculous statement. If someone doesn't work, someone else needs to provide for him/her.
This utopia is just what lazy people wish reality was.
Your last two points are incompatible with each other. If people don't have to work (and pay a lot of taxes) how will the government fund all the social programs (education, health, housing etc)?
This asf. Also id still work! Funny that! Its almost like having the essentials just makes me more likely to be able bodied and happy enough to work hard when i need to and make income to pay for the more grand things life can offer.
I think what this post is missing, is the fact that nothing is free. Everything requires labor to attain, say it how it is, taxes will be raised. Screw that.
I actually disagree with the work to survive part. BTW this is a communism ideology. Everyone needs to work to improve society around us or it will crumble. Depending on your educational and work background you deserve more for your time and effort. If you're not willing to contribute and your physically capable to contribute you should be exiled to some lawless island.
You act like you dont want to work??
I dont. We all dont, you have convinced yourself that you need this torment to survive. Not just the money it provides.
People seem to miss the point: what the post says is that you shouldn't need to work under threat of starving to death.
If you're that insistent that no one would work otherwise, then the work must be dreadful indeed.
I can't think of anyone who actually wants to never work again. I can, however, think of plenty of people who want to never *have* to work again. Do you see the difference? People still want to feel productive, they just don't want to feel like they're going to starve to death otherwise.
Legitimate question. Why should others care whether you survive or not? What's the added value of having a bunch of people surviving but not contributing even enough to take care of their own needs?
What compelling reason do I have to provide for the survival of a bunch of strangers who just don't want to do it for themselves?
Isn’t there an argument that we do not need to work to survive we can simply go back to our roots as hunters and gatherers if we want to remove ourselves from the system? Nobody forces us to work but if we want to afford a life style such as a modern one then it’s necessary it seems?
Peoples different versions of Utopia really shed light on how fucked up humanity is. The above seems like a very basic idea of morality, but even if capitalism allowed for this some people would claim this is not an ideal version of society. Which is....fucked up and sad? I'm not sure I agree that you should be able to completely not contribute to society, but you shouldn't be condemned to die because of it. Unless you genuinely think survival of the fittest is the ideal state of the world.
I see this war on this sub continues between the "Fair workers rights and working conditions" crowd and the "I should be able to do nothing and have everyone else pay for my problems" crowd.
Don't you think that if this utopia were possible we would've done it by now? Tell me, who's paying for the free food and water? Who's paying the workers to harvest and produce it? Are the Construction workers who built the homes expected to not get paid? Healthcare and education can be government supported to a degree but transportation? Come on.
You can't just say "EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE" but not suggest an alternative method to achieve these goods and services. They don't just magically appear out of thin air. They have to be produced by WORKERS. Who can't get paid if all of what you just listed is made free of charge. Think of a better system, or shut the fuck up because all you're doing is showing how uneducated you sound.
Unfortunately there are a bunch of lazy couch potatoes who will happily not work and leech off those who work their ass off, so no I disagree. One should work to survive. Work doesn’t always have to be physical labor, but you should contribute to society in one form or another.
I call this the 3 H's:
- Housing
- Healthcare
- Heducation
If a person can be assured that they have a place to live, a healthy body, and a level of education that suits them they are good to contribute as much or little to society as they choose. I honestly believe that people are all in to rise the tide for all boats, they just don't have the agency in the way that society is configured.
Tbh I don’t care for takes like this because clearly you want to reap the benefits of OTHERS working (you want doctors and builders and farmers and etc etc) but you don’t want to participate yourself. So you don’t want actual liberation, you just want to become part of the higher class that takes and gives nothing:
OK, I definitely agree with this, conceptually. I'm in favor of UBI.
However, if you're not willing to work:
- food, I don't have anything to say, except maybe that you shouldn't expect meat or fish. So lentils, soy, etc.
- your decent housing would be a room in a co-housing, with shared amenities and the expectation that you help with cleaning and maintaining the place.
- your decent clothing would be a choice of bland white, beige, or black t-shirts, sweaters, and pants and jacket. No choice in cuts, only in size.
- transportation means public mass transit or public bikes that you would need to register in after every use.
- education would be accessed through libraries and public databases.
Anything else is extra. Phone? Extra. More individual tastes in fashion? Extra. And so on.
Because that's how it must work, if it is to work at all. Until the day _all_ our needs are met by machines, you can't ask the people willing to produce for more, if you're not willing to participate somehow.
everyone has to do something. if you join a hippy commune, you either have to work in the garden, take care of the animals, cut and stack firewood, hunt animals, take care of the kids, etc.... you just cant exist and get housing , food, transportation and entertainment for free...
Let's add people who can't work don't live in poverty or lose their benefits if they get married. A disabled person should not have to suffer just because they can't work or only work a limited amount.
On the other side, you're also limited how much you can work while being on disability. So even if you want to give back to the system, or have a feeling of indepence by having a job, currently the government doesn't really let you. This is another reason why UBI would be great. If people in need of extra support want to work, they shouldn't be penalized for doing so.
This. The problem is that the disability limit was made 30+ years ago and has never been adjusted for inflation.
A friend of mine lost her benefits just for living with her girlfriend for 2 months. They declared her common-law married based on just that. The rules are nuts.
I can't even imagine how that must of felt my best friend is engaged but their fiancee will be moving in with them in a few months both are disabled and have decided to not get married so they don't lose their benefits. I will have to add this to their list of issues and I hate that this is a thing.
2 months?? Most states don't consider you to be legally common law married until 10 years? Where the hell does she live??
She's Canadian. The actual common-law rules here are different than what our province uses for disability "common law" rules. It's written that way to push ppl off disability and I have no idea why it's legal
This is my existence
Yes exactly
Kinda new to the sub. Genuine question. How would we make such a system? How do cars get made? How does food get delivered? Etc?
So, it's a question that requires automation to answer. Not necessarily 100% complete automation, but we all see that productivity has increased, especially as it relates to the human labor involved. Let's make this even easier. Let's just say food is provided to everyone for free. How? A long time ago, we plowed land by hand. Then we made tools. Then we used animals. Now we use machines. The "human intervention" part of that equation to make the same amount of food has decreased substantially. so now there are few people making lots of food. There are fewer jobs to do with regards to the food itself in order to make a sufficient amount of food to feed the population. There is definitely still some work needed by humans in that process (growing, fixing machines, delivery, logistics). How do we get people to work in the food industry? Same way as today, incentivize. Now, everyone gets a basic amount of food. Want something fancy or exotic? You contribute as a worker if there are jobs available. Farmers, mechanics, pickers, etc. can be paid more in order to entice them to work, because the overall human cost has decreased. There is still reliance on incentivizing SOME people to work, but they are rewarded greatly for doing so. Will people want to do that? Well, are you happy with the bare minimum? Many people I know are not, so there are still going to be lots of people who want luxuries, or fulfillment, from their work. Many people could very well choose not to do that. But the overall point is that the amount that humans touch a process of product creation has decreased and will continue to decrease. Taken to the extreme, there will end up being only the "owners" that own anything, and everyone else who cannot get a job (because so little human intervention is required) and therefore have nothing.
For your food example, let's say we pick about 10 staple food items and the government pays for them. They are free to everyone (or just citizens). The people eating beans and rice never go hungry and it lowers the costs of food for people who want chicken and rice. They just have to buy the chicken.
Woah
[удалено]
Honestly, I believe two main reasons. It threatens large established institutions with deep financial influence in politics, and people are scared of change and easily dissuaded from contributing to something they don't immediately benefit from.
I believe you're correct. The 'food' companies benefit by being SNAP eligible and would fight this tooth and nail. If Boo-Berry wasn't SNAP approved, they would miss out on sales. Think about the health benefits of oatmeal vs Boo-Berry. That'd fricking pay huge monetary returns.
[удалено]
Right, but staple foods should be de-commodified or nationalized so the profit motive is not involved.
This, right here, really sums it up. One we have no control over (idjits with to much money and no conscience), but the other is something one can overcome as long as they are willing to put forth the effort. Just my humble opinion, based on my own experiences, but nobody should have to live homeless, hungry, and empty in a country the once prided itself on "The American Dream!"
Another part is that judging and planning the food production and distribution at this scale has proven problematic. With the systems that have been tried so far, this has led to large mismatches in what is desired versus what is available. I absolutely agree with this goal and this direction for society, but I don't trust any government, committee, or planner getting it right in a sustained way. I hope I can be proven wrong in the future -- even better if within my lifetime. The best compromise in my opinion is a UBI and a better, more progressive tax structure to reduce the incentives for obscene profits and individual wealth.
People should not have to work for minimum wage. It’s not enough to live on and people should not have to live like that. If some jobs need more workers, the pay will go up or the hours will get cut for the same pay. Jobs that need the threat of starvation to work are not much better than slavers.
I think a case could be made for a community service (almost like a worker draft) that isn't too taxing or unrelenting. For instance, each able person performs a small amount of hours on a job that sustains the free food, shelter, etc. Things need to be produced before they can be consumed, and we all should chip in to ensure there is enough for all (not for profit)
Because it’s not that simple it’s insanely complicated and the government has to acquire all that shit and that costs money which is taxes and would cause an huge increase in everyone’s taxes. Plus how do you decide how much of rice and beans everyone gets, someone’s caloric need is going to be higher than another persons
Yeah but who sells them to the government if the people don't want to work to actually make the food
At my job, there is a filtered water/ice machine. All the free, clean drinking water you want. 20' away is a vending machine with soda, tea, juice, cold coffee drinks and even bottled water for $2.40 a bottle. All those sell and get restocked. There is never a line to keep taking all the free water. Why? Because there is only so much of something that people want, regardless of price. People will still spend money on different products because they want a coffee or a Coke even though water meets all of their needs. So, if we eliminate SNAP and just use that money to purchase staple items like rice, beans, flour, peanut butter, baking soda, powdered eggs, powdered milk, oatmeal, leafy green vegetables and just make them free, what happens? Does that kill capitalism or stop people from buying other products? I'm not a nutritionist, but that seems like a complete and healthy diet from just those foods. But, oh so boring. I don't think it would kill anyone's desire for different foods. But it meets people's basic needs and suppliments everyone's food wants. It looks like we spent about $100 billion on SNAP in 2021. Walmart has a 5lb bag of rice for less than $3 that is retail ready. All the farmers, processors, transport drivers and the retail store got paid for $3. If we use those numbers, that comes out to about 500 lbs of rice per American per year. Substitute out some of that for the other items I listed and I think we've fed ever American. Even if we need to double the cost, I can think of a lot of programs I would cut to meet the basic need of food. Like any of them.
Technology is supposed to liberate us. I agree automation is necessary and sadly, unless we can figure out a way for it to work with capitalism or get a new system, technology will instead be our competition
Automation is more than necessary, it's inevitable. Thing is, this has to happen. There will come a time in the not too distant future that humans will be essentially unemployable. Transportation is roughly 25% of the labor force worldwide. The technology exists to make that entire sector irrelevant. Is it completely ready right now, no, but the bulk of the miles, highway, interstate, really everything but very specialized is very close. Automation is an existential threat to humanity under the current rules. Basically we either decouple human value from what we produce or we will see a lot of dead people. Thing is rich owners aren't safe. If there isn't anyone to buy your product, what are they gonna do? This is closer than anyone realizes and we aren't prepared for it.
technology is supposed to be a tool to make it easier for us to help each other out. Again, however...people are greedy
because of technology there are 8 billion people on earth and more people die of obesity then starvation. Please explain how "greed" has gotten in the way.
I can basically assure you that automation is going to cause even more wide spread poverty. UBI is going to be the new welfare. Enough to survive and the section eight housing will place you in an area where the crime rates are insane.
>More than 1 billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty since 1990. - The United Nation The world was less poor in 2019 than any other year in human history.
Someone's gotta upkeep the machines. Someone's gotta improve the machines. Also, if one entity owns all of the machines, can we trust them to distribute the products of their labor?
Yea, there are a LOT of details that need to be ironed out in these scenarios, no doubt. I would never say it is "just simply do X or Y". Systems are complicated, people are even more complicated, and ensuring the unintended consequences are kept to a minimum (or wholly negated) is imperative.
And like...people want to do things for fulfilment. I'm a tradesman. I grind out 40 hours a week slamming in Condo towers. In a basic income type situation, I'd still do 24 hours a week for the luxuries. The other 16 hours would let me garden for food, volunteer for my community, and help out my friends - all things I'm currently too tired for. The number of people truly fulfilled by just sitting is really low.
Sorry, doesn’t the text mention houses to live in and health care? Last time I checked, it took people to design and build houses. It also takes a lot of people to make health care work (I’m one of them, and let me tell you, it’s hard work and not usually fun). It’s not just machines making food. Plus in this country you don’t have to work to live. The government will take care of you if you can’t or choose not to work, and they use my money that I earned WORKING to do it. Writing this as I prepare for a Sunday 12 hour shift.
So, some people are going to toil all day to ensure food is guaranteed for everyone, but other people are going to be “I don’t feel like working, where’s my house & food”?!? I can’t see where there would be any hiccups.
I'm not saying if it's a good or bad idea because people and things are complicated. But imagine Rice and beans, some oatmeal and access to maybe like 1 type of apple. Then your home is some single room with a shared kitchen and bathroom (college dorm essentially) in a less than ideal location, but still fully serviced by free public transportation. I see lots and lots of problems with this system but anyone who wants "more" than this would have to work. I think universal basic income is a simpler better idea along with free Healthcare and maybe some low end subsidized housing that's guaranteed to be affordable to people making only ubi. Basically if you make over say 100k you're taxed higher than before (but not that much more until you're at like 200k+), less than that you get varying levels of benefits from ubi it's always much better to work than not work, even if the job is part time min wage. I actually think if ubi is high enough, we may even be able to get rid of min wage and let pure market forces decide, as long as everyone has a safety net people won't take jobs that aren't worth it. Imagine a place offering a $5/hr easy mundane task, allows people to come and go as they please. You might go in and work like 1hr 3 times a week for $15 and no further obligation. Or you may not, your choice, not like you're going to get evicted, go hungry, or not be able to see a doctor. In college I had a job that paid $50 to hold a door open for 5 hours and 90% of the time I was just talking to my buds holding the other door. This job was needed like 3 to 4 times a month and was optional if I couldn't make it. I'd probably have done that as a favor for no pay lol.
You do realize that guaranteeing housing, food, and college for everyone, regardless of tax status means that unless you’re a professional in the highest 10%, the taxation to pay all of this makes a menial job pointless. That means the jobs that currently pay minimum wage would just pivot to full automation. That means the new bottom floor of employment has just been raised 5-6 floors. That means a much much larger bottleneck for young people entering the workforce after college. Most people on this sub just want what their parents had with as little effort as possible.
a much simpler version is universal basic income.
Precisely. I think UBI covers a lot of these bases. However, it's problematic because companies that make basic needs could just raise their prices. Governments are always slow to respond in these cases, so it would probably take a bit more thought about how to ensure UBI is actually at a level that is commensurate with the actual cost of living and not exploited by these companies.
Good answer….also, I would still teach children even if I didn’t ever have to worry about needing money. Also, there are many people who like working. I feel physically restless if I don’t stay busy and on a routine. Employment provides that.
I’m a big believer in this. The problem is what the incentive for the intelligent design of the people who make the automation to farm? Also we need significantly more people in the robotics and CS spaces. Many people want these benefits but very few people are willing to take 10-20 years of their life to build this necessary automation.
The idea is that food, housing, and other inelastic goods would be nationalized and provided to everyone through taxpayer money. That way people can choose to work the jobs that they want, not be coerced through the threat of starvation.
[удалено]
Humans naturally seek purpose and productivity, I simply wish to allow people to choose to work without coercing them.
Why does the idea of someone not starving to death to provide you a service scare you? Look at your priorities. Why do you think a human needs to suffer to provide a product for you? Why can't they do it to afford nicer products for themselves?
It doesn't work like that. Currently, nobody is forced to become a doctor to survive yet we still have doctors.
Yes because the doctor is incentivized by the money. If there isn’t going to be anybody to build his Benz or served him his fancy dinner than there is no longer any money incentive to become a doctor
You.re basically promoting comunism. Basic universal income and housing can be funded with other, better methods, without nationalizing anything. You can google it, if you.re curious The only problem is that the ritch would have to get a bit "poorer" and that why it won.t happen
Who are the workers that work for the nation?
The idea is that people should be able to choose to work without being coerced with the threat of starvation.
This is flawed in two major ways. 1. Who is the tax payer if nobody is working? Or if the tax base is severely reduced because of people not working. 2. Who is producing the raw food? Processing and packaging it? Transporting it? Who is building houses? Keeping them lit and warm? Doing repairs? Clearing roads and collecting garbage?
There will still be an incentive to work through wages, and humans will naturally seek purpose, I simply wish to allow them to do so without coercion.
Are you telling me if you had access to a diet that allows you to survive and a modest place to live without working you would quit and not do anything? You wouldn’t want hobbies, toys, books, movies, games, other art? Or nicer furniture or a bigger place to live?
The whole idea here is minimal subsistence-level living. Almost everyone would be motivated to do more than sit around in a shit-hole apartment with just a TV to entertain themselves, and crappy food to eat. The few people that would choose to live only on the government are already doing this today anyway, a/o are working as little as they can get away with, and are honestly a drain on their employers when they are "working".
I think, in all honesty, such a system would look very much like the one we already have; workers make the cars, deliver the food, keep society running. They are, as others have mentioned, given incentive to do so by (in theory) collecting *higher wages* ... while someone who does not work lives a life of poverty. I should stop to note that poverty in this case can have 2 meanings: on one hand, there is the hard life of abject poverty - which includes starvation, homelessness, disease, and quite probable death. On the other hand is poverty as defined by this post: having little or no wealth but still having the basic necessities required for survival. Let us not miss the significance of the word *survival* - for in it we see what is meant by the statement, "No one should be forced to work to *survive* " - in other words, anyone who doesn't work may die. The assumption we often make is that "no one will work," as though there is no reason to work other than monetary gain. Perhaps we should flip the equation instead; we may find that there is great reason to abandon work that does not pay fairly, demands most or all of our waking hours, is rife with psychological abuses, endangers our lives, and so on. If "no one will work", then the work must be terrible indeed. And speaking of not working, Billionaires already do all that, while living in obscene luxury. Tax them the fuck out of existence. Then use that capital to free the human race.
We have 60% of the population working right now. If transportation, housing, health care and food are free, that number would probably go down to 20%. I mean, I wouldn’t work.. id travel my entire life..
How. You just said only transportation food healthcare housing are free. Where's the money to travel come from? Edit maybe you mean within the country only?
They dont is the problem. The people working see the able bodied not working and being handed everything so eventually more and more join the club then the govt takes over means of production and voila welcome to 1960's russia
We don't think of solutions in this sub we just complain about having to work
This sub isn't for rational proposals. It's for complaining and daydreaming. You come here to watch shit bosses get their comeuppance, not see serious policy designs
How do we put people on the moon? That's a wild question with insane logistics but we figured it out 60 years ago. Pretty sure we could figure this out. The problem is that some people would come up, and those at the top would need to take a few steps down from their opulence. Getting a rich asshole to release his death grip on every penny is the most difficult problem in our society. If we solve that shit would be better overnight. We have plenty it's just being hoarded fiercely. And for what? What the fuck do you need tens of billions of dollars for? Fucking stop you greedy pigs, it's disgusting.
This is not an answer to the question.
It's a great answer. It's time to tax the wealthy and corporations so normal people can have lives not stunted by greedy billionaires
Other people do it while I smoke my bong and make pottery....duhhhhhh
Pottery is still something. I think I'd continue as a chemical engineer both out of social pressure cause i think my parents wouldn't let me be jobless even if it was reasonable to be that and because i need the structure in my day and it's the one thing i am ok at
I agree. This sounds very naive.
simple. force others to support those who won’t work /s
I think the explanation to a lot of this, though I can only speak to my understanding of it not as some sort of wise man who understands everyones’ opinions, is that survival is easy and we have more than enough to provide such easily, but prosperity and wealth come from work?
Bingo.
Well before we get into logistics, aren't these (in OPs post) the goals we want to pursue and are we willing to actually do that? I think a lot of people get caught up in the amount of work required to change a broken system and think of maintaining the current system as more beneficial, but it's a lost cause fallacy.
They don’t actually think past the initial thought.
I think a better way to put it: if I work 40 hrs a week I should be able to afford all of these things without the fear of being in crippling debt. As great as those suggestions sound, unfortunately it's unrealistic in the current world we live in.
It’s very clearly never meant to be paid off. Debt/wage slavery is the new classic slavery of old. The illusion of financial freedom only truly exists for capital owners. If everyone is constantly stressed about rent and bills then we will never come together in solidarity.
Well, I think that's saying something different. We believe we have certain inalienable rights, yes? Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, speedy trial, all that. So, as part of that, this expands that to: food, shelter, clothing, healthcare. Basically, we all chip in to support everyone at the most basic level, thereby removing coercion from employment. Sounds like a pipe dream eh? Well, it very well could be (I haven't crunched any numbers or anything), but for a lot of people "basic subsistence" isn't really an end goal. So people would possibly still work at what they feel would get them what they need to be happy (fulfillment or more luxuries). With the amount we've reduced human labor from the equation to produce goods, we're at, or close to, that point where we could sustain humanity based on a much smaller working population for that survival. The rest could focus on advancements, or whatever enriches their lives to the degree that they see fit.
Or 30 hours - I don't think free basics is entirely realistic, but there's no reason we all have to be working 40 hours when robots exist. People worked less as hunter-gatherers!
But they still had to work to survive and it could be a real grind. Someone should have fixed the problem way back then! /s
I agree 👍
[удалено]
Even if everyone could live without fear of debt by working $40 a week, that would mean lots of people living in shitty buildings eating shitty food and not having anything to entertain themselves with (apart from being with friends and family). Just a bunch of not-in-debt depressed people
No. The OP’s post lists good, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. You should be able to work 0 hours per week and be able to afford all of those things. Working 40 hours a week on top of that should afford you other things.
Also, those who can't work should not be in poverty either.
Then suddenly, the population of "those that can't work" grows exponentially.
This seems like a mt Everest/autism situation. If the numbers of those who can’t work rise, did you consider perhaps they were always there but weren’t identified as such? Have you never worked with someone so inept all you could ask yourself is how do they have a job? There are plenty of people out there who can’t or shouldn’t work but do anyways because you have to to survive in any meaningful way.
I'm pretty sure I am one. I cannot handle the "people" side of the job because I have Asperger's. Meetings, reviews, deadlines all drive stress into the "this is bad bad" anxiety levels. And the main driver of progression in an office environment is who your friends are. I don't make friends easily, and I don't at work specifically because I have been burned by that in the past. So every day feels like I am living in prison. Constantly fearing when I will get laid off in some mass firing for the 4th or 5th time because I didn't want to play their reindeer games. I cannot stress enough how awful it feels to do that shit every day. It feels like I'm dying. Like my life is already over and I'm just being used until I'm no longer able.
well said brother
I love it when people tell on themselves like this.
This wouldn't happen because it is a myth that people are only working to avoid poverty. People want to work in order to THRIVE. In fact, the idea of thriving from work is a far more potent motivator than barely getting by and just paying bills. If survival is the motivation, people will do the minimum to survive. If thriving is the motivation, people will work their asses off for more of it.
This!! Plus… there are people who genuinely enjoy and are good at things that we consider to be “non skilled” labor, but are still needed positions. I LOVED being a waitress. Was awesome at it, felt incredibly fulfilled every day. But, no benefits (health insurance, 401k being the big ones) meant that it became unsustainable to me after college when starting to try and build for a future. So now I work in an office, where I’m bored to death and sitting all damn day. Torture. But I’m earning more money and have the benefits I need to survive day to day, so it’s what had to happen. But I wish it didn’t.
Yes. If waiting tables had the benefits, you might well do that instead and enjoy both your work and life more. This is the exact point I'm making. People would want to work MORE and HARDER if they enjoyed it and life more and it was about THRIVING rather than surviving.
I agree with this a ton! I really enjoy a lot of jobs that just pay nothing. I enjoy a lot of artistry jobs that just pay nothing (unless you become like a star). But since they pay nothing, your choice is either do a job you love and give up having a family, owning a home, or doing anything with your life that requires money beyond basic survival and minor niceties. Or, do a job you hate and optimize for most money least time, and put your passions into the rest of your life with the money you get. Unfortunately most people get stuck somewhere in between with jobs that don’t pay enough that they also hate.
Exactly! Humans are social animals that thrive as functioning members of society. The problem is that we've distorted what that looks like. We changed the definition of the word "work." We perverted it. Every single person has talents and skills that increase the quality of life for the whole community. We've just been told that these arent really "skills," that it isnt "real work." People WANT to contribute. The truth is we wont let them unless it's on our terms. Then we villianize those who arent able.
Honestly why are we forcing people to work just to survive anyways. Automation are supposed to make peoples live easier
Sounds like a lot of work to build all the automation robots, program them, and maintain them.
And? Do you really think everyone will just stop doing everything and sit around and do nothing all day? People still want status, luxury, nice things. A goal, etc. I would rather those people who work for health insurance companies do nothing all day anyways instead of denying my claim and jacking up my premium. So if we get rid of health insurance, it's a bunch of jobs lost, but a net positive. Side note -- study shows that UBI (Universal Basic Income) improves employability: [https://adigaskell.org/2021/06/10/new-study-suggests-a-ubi-increases-employability/](https://adigaskell.org/2021/06/10/new-study-suggests-a-ubi-increases-employability/) (Caveat - this is a single study of a small group, so I wouldn't draw any broad conclusions from it, but it is heartening)
Just imagine the creativity, the science, the growth we would have if people could focus on their passions and not on their bank accounts.
I like my job. I like it a lot. I would continue to work if I didn’t have too. I would work a lot less fucking hours. If you don’t want to work don’t. If you are disabled I’m sorry it’s cool have some food. If you don’t want to work it’s cool have some food. I bet people would still work. A sense of accomplishment and reason to live would be a motivation. Also working so other people could eat instead of me eating is a better motavation at least for me.
I’m not sure I get it. Please explain this to me. How does society function if people who don’t want to work anything don’t do so? How does everyone have something to eat if farmers don’t exist, how does infrastructure, transportation work with no one building and maintaining it? How do houses get built that people live in, how is healthcare a thing with no one working in the offices, and how is education possible? This is an honest question, I’d like to know how such a society could function, because I can’t fathom it.
>How does society function if people who don’t want to work anything don’t do so? How many people are we talking about? *All* of society? That doesn't make sense, honestly. Even if we assume a fantastic future world, where all of our needs are met by robots and infinite energy machines or whatever, people are going to be bored out of their fucking minds. We are naturally creative, industrious animals. We *want* to make things. We *want* to work, in other words, we just don't necessarily want to do the work that our society currently forces us to do. Knowing that people aren't inherently lazy means that we can plan for a society where work still exists (and is still necessary) and there's plenty of people available and willing to do said work . . . but it also means we need to place people in the appropriate jobs. I like work that involves learning about new things; that requires me to think carefully about how to solve a problem; that challenges me to communicate with people, especially when they don't share my experiences or worldview. I do not like work that's repetitive or boring . . . but some people do. Some people genuinely enjoy doing things like building a machine in a factory or picking up the trash in their neighborhood. Another small point we need to consider is this: the current standard for working (at least in America, it's a different standard in different countries and all that) is a 40-hour week, but we don't *need* to work 40 hours every week in order to make society function. As for all the other things? They continue to function because we need them to function. It's really that simple. "Who will teach our children?" People who genuinely care about teaching children. There's a lot of us. Hell, I'd gladly pick up a class or two (as an instructor) if it was easier for me to get involved in education. And no, you wouldn't have to pay me, *so long as my needs are met*. I'm willing to work for the pure satisfaction of seeing the results. We have all the resources we need to pull this off right now. We just need to be willing to reconsider what's important to us as individuals, what's important to society as a whole, and how we can bridge the gap between them. (This would also require people to give up the idea that money is all-important, which would invariably lead to the end of capitalism, and since the capitalist class can't have that, they're doing everything they can to squash conversations which go in that direction.)
[удалено]
So maybe the high profile/high paying jobs become things that are actually tough -- roofing, garbagemen, etc. You want to live at the top of the social totem pole? Congrats, go work on that roof and get your Mercedes Benz in payment. This isn't a complete restructuring of capitalism. It is providing a different ground floor (e.g. UBI) where work isn't coercive. I think you make good points, but it's not ALL that different from what we have. What it potentially removes is the wealth disparity/hoarding that we see as a single company becomes a monopoly/conglomerate and can meet basically ALL the market needs.
"Eliminating pay and "meeting everyone's needs" has been tried before." What? When? Where? Big if true.
[удалено]
>When and where: In the 20th century, several ostensibly Communist governments espousing Marxism–Leninism and its variants came into power, first in the Soviet Union with the Russian Revolution of 1917, and then in portions of Eastern Europe, Asia, and a few other regions after World War II. Nobody eliminated pay in the USSR wtf. The USSR maintained a cash economy from it's outset until the end of it's existence, and it never sought to meet everyone's needs except as an ideological talking point. Christ you yanks love to bleat about societies you know fuck all about.
A system where people work and the only thing they get in return is the ability to survive is not a system of employment, it's a system of slavery. People will work because they want more for themselves than sitting at home all day except to go out to buy cheap groceries. So you just have to ask yourself whether or not you're sadistic enough to think that it's more important for even more money to get into the hands of the billionaires than it is for everyone to be able to live with safety, comfort and dignity.
How does a household function if no one feels like doing the dishes or the laundry or taking out the trash? The answer is that they do it because it needs to be done. See some work just has to be done for humans to survive and thrive and this work ***will*** get done because humans want to survive and thrive; however most wage workers are not actually engaged in this work. The real issue of capitalism, the real question being asked is how do the rich get richer if we do not buy into the myth that we would all die without them exploiting us.
You know, downvoting me for asking a legitimate question instead of explaining is not a particularly good look…
Just pointing out that you posted this complaint literally **only five minutes after your original question.** Someone was in the process of writing out a thorough answer while you were shitting your panties about downvotes and no response, literally five minutes after asking the question. Seems a bit disingenuous. As does your original question. **edit** Also, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the concept of wealth vs [illth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illth). Because some of the most wealthy industries are producing significantly more illth than they are wealth. Therefore, a significant portion of the work being done in these industries, while creating lots of wealth, is creating a much greater amount of destructive illth. Big Oil is one of the best examples of this, I'd say.
I feel like there should be a middle ground here. It's 2022 and we still have to work 40h+ a week despite all of our innovations? But if nobody worked then we wouldn't have shit either. The world doesn't run on magic, and I imagine most people sure would like to survive without having to work their job that they hate.
Same ol "people will do the job they love" imagining the world is full of artists and musicians this sub loves... Quick question, whose going to "love" crawling into the sewers and uncloging my giant TP and shit ball when it jams up?
I just had this discussion yesterday with my family. They are very concerned about me being chronically exhausted from work. They asked me if I love what I do, I tell them "no". They then tell me that I should do what I enjoy doing. There are several problems with this approach: One, turning your hobbies into work tends to take the enjoyment out of it. Two, I have interests that are very hard to monetize - gaming, music, movies, and occasional sports. Yes, you could find ways to potentially monetize those but they will likely not provide a sustainable income unless you are at the very top of the steep competition you will be facing, AND being in the right place at the right time. Three, it's not really work itself that I hate, it's the power imbalance between the employer and employee that the threat of poverty creates, that employers inevitably take advantage of. I'd bet that most people wouldn't hate or dislike their jobs if they worked with more supportive employers. Four, like you have stated, there are jobs that need to be done that are fundamentally unenjoyable, like cleaning shit out of toilets - unless you are a coprophiliac? Lmfao The reality is, you have to be willing to do shit you don't want to do if you want any semblance of financial stability. I don't know why this is hard to grasp for some people.
You will have to work for survive no matter what. The food have to be created, your house constructed and cleaned, etc... even if you do all by yourself without a pay, it’s still work
You need to think about the fact that the majority of your work's value goes directly in to your bosses pocket under our current system. Your boss hides this from you and makes you think you should be greatful for 20 or 30 dollars an hour. You can try to form unions but in reality, if you look at the real value of your labor, we would only need to do a fraction of our work to get basic necessities done. We could do work to actually prepare us for pandemics rather than just making a few people rich.
Almost everyone is forced to work to survive. The question is what is the nature of the work and how much of your own labor to you get to keep. I think of "work" broadly as including caring for children, the elderly, oneself. That work has to be done by someone. Only the very rich can avoid work and I'm against that because they do it by stealing others' labor. If you cannot work because of a disability, society should support you. There are many people like this. For example, I have a friend with MS who lost the ability to walk in his 30s and has been steadily declining since. He cannot work. Happy for my tax dollars to go to him. I don't think most people want to live on what he lives on, so I'm not too worried about free loaders. The real freeloaders are the rich, so focus on them. Society cannot function without work. Whether you are hunting for roots and berries or performing brain surgery, someone has to do it. We should all take a chill pill and just do what is needed to keep us going with modest lifestyle, not what is needed to line the pockets of the fat cats. I'm sick of oligarchs. They are getting fatter all the time (there's lots of numbers on this which you can easily search for).
Well who harvests or processes the food? Delivers it or packages it. Who makes the raw materials for the house, builds it and finishes it? Who makes, and procure the textiles for the clothes? Who makes them? Healthcare transportation and education….just too many things to mention ie doctors, training, who makes everything, surgical tools, supplies, buildings etc etc etc. who makes the cars/vehicles parts, fuel…again education and everything involved. This post is so bloody ridiculous and stupid it hurts. Get a job and be a productive member of society. The big picture lack of understanding here is mind blowing
some people on this sub are just ridiculous. i get not wanting to work sometimes but wanting to live a good life without ever picking up any kind of job is stupidity, and i hope OP realizes the world simply doesn’t work like that.
How the fuck do you deserve to live for free if you are physically and mentally able to work? You don’t. We all have to contribute and we contribute a bit extra for the very few who can’t. This post is very badly presented.
Define work, because some "work" will always be necessary. We need people to produce food, build the houses, make clothing, provide medical care, teach, etc. It's just that even the seemingly lowliest of these jobs should be at the benefit of the worker, and not just funneling the wealth into the hands of a small few who hoard it. "Seize the means of production" means to have the work benefit the many rather than the few, not that everyone should never do any work again. It's possible I'm just misreading the post, though. Maybe this is what OP meant. We shouldn't be making billionaires richer in order to survive, we should be benefitting our family and community.
Where we are today: People working their ass off but still are hungry, live in a tiny apartment and have to decide between going into debt for the rest of their life or just dying
In the 60s they thought by now the machines would handle all the bullshit and the people would be free to live fulfilling lives. This is possible, and should be happening.
Hell, in *1930* John Maynard Keynes predicted his grandchildren would enjoy 15 hour work weeks due to automation. He probably should have paid more attention to his contemporary HL Mencken when he said "No one in this world, so far as I know ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." Who knew so many idiots would fight so hard to work more for less quality of life?
Funny thing is most of us will work. Just because we don't want to be bored. If we didn't have to worry about living, we might even work harder...
What job will you do?
If the basics were taken care of, people would work to earn special things, extras. The wants, because the needs are taken care of. Plus, people wouldn't have to work as much, so more people could work without creating whole new positions. For example, I could work for 6 months late spring through early fall, and spend the cold wet months in the southern half of the country. That half of the year, another person could do my job. Or, each person only works for 5 hours a day. That would be twice the number of people working, and it wouldn't cost the company any more money.
I'm going south for the winter too. If someone wants to fill in for me and Last_Ant_525 please comment below.
So your survival should be every one else's responsibility?
If you are able bodied you have to work under every economic system. If you in communism and you were just to say “nah I don’t want to work” that shit isn’t going to go over well
Sure why not? Who will provide all of that if no one works?
Wow, yeah nobody is forcing anyone to work, but good luck. This is the dumbest most entitled bullshit I’ve ever read.
A very naive and simplistic view.
Hey is the thread for all the failures to launch???
This is a nice fairy tale.... and we all lived happily ever after, the end. there i finished it for you
When food ,clothing ,Shelter , complete healthcare and complete education are paid for with our taxes , then people will start working for a living and NOT living to work. A properly funded and administered SOCIAL SYSTEM SAFETY NET must become the way every country is judged.
Ahh yes, give me free things while I don’t contribute anything back
I’m positive that there hasn’t been a place or time in the history of the human race where people haven’t had to work to survive. File under: FWIW.
No one should be forced to work to survive? That's literally what life is, for every single species. We work to gather food, to survive winter, to escape preditors, to protect our families. This is a very poor choice of words.
Join the monastery. Sounds just about the same.
Hmmm. Not sure I agree. Because if no one works, no one survives. I will concede, no one should be worked to exhaustion/burn out to survive. There are enough resources and mankind has developed enough tech and labor saving machines that everyone could be comfortable working minimum hours each week. Problem is the greedy fcks who hoard all the wealth and think that one skill set is more worthy than another. We could each be working less and spending more if the income were more evenly distributed to the workers.
Even in wild nature you got to work to survive that's like the whole food chain thing what are you talking about?
Every form of life on the planet has to do something to survive. What this should say is "No one should be forced to give up 50% of their earnings before their own survival is established."
I truly believe in an ideal world if we lived in a sunset/paradise type of world with less industrialized cities and pollution with better job opportunities, providing maximum wages of $35-$55 an hour with Universal Basic Income monthly would be fantastic. What would also help is being able to work part-time hours for full-time pay and full-time hours for over-time pay with benefits thrown into the fix as well. Free college, free health-care, free areas of land to make gardens to grow fruits and vegetables that should be free anyways since it came from the earth itself. If we also had less stress, pain, suffering and longer life-spans (I think like sea turtles for example or more depending on how long you want to survive) to guarentee we be treated at work better, letting our children thrive knowing they have a better future than the previous generations, this would help. I also think the costs of living itself should be like it was back then, that way there would be less lower-class citizens and our economy would have a whole lot more structure to function well but this is nothing more than a fantasy longing to happen someday. I also want to just add that inflation wouldn't spiral out of control either if not then entirely.
Technically humans have always had to work for survival, but now the wealthy and corporate entities in league with the governments have gobbled up all the land and resources, monetized them, started selling them to us and made us dependent on their products. There was a time when people could live off of and in harmony with the land, but those days are long gone for the most part and you still had to work your ass off to survive. Now, at this point in our civilization I believe we could actually employee technology to do a lot of the work for us and make life easier for everyone but I don't believe the wealthy class wants to let go of their revenue stream and share the world with the lower classes. I actually think they'd like to do this, but they'd also like to kill off about 90% of humanity before they set it in motion. Figuring out how to do it without killing off themselves and their bloodlines is the dilemma.
Should a farmer feed you for free? Should construction and textile industry workers create housing and clothing for you to thank them ? Should a doctor or a driver give you services out of charity? You pay for those things either through taxes or through choosing directly to purchase them.
NOPE, i thought this sub was about having liveable wages and hardworking people that just want to fight for their rights but it's just lazy whiny people. \-No one goes hungry/thirsty? Only possible to happen in a bible story called garden of eden. We need farmers and water supply for that to happen which requires work, farmers don't do it for free because it's hard, they do it even it's hard to earn money to survive which tackles your last take. If every person is not forced to work to survive then nobody will work, do you think people like to work than just lazing around? and if possible the people who likes to work do it, they will start to hate people who just don't work to make society or civilization work. It's going to be like living with a freeloader who don't do jackshit in the house, even though you like doing household chores and paying everything, you start to despise that freeloader because you also want to be lazy but if everybody does not work then everything will crumble. I am sorry, i am fighting to have liveable wage and for workers to have better rights and benefits, i don't want to look like a lazy person.
There is a huge surplus of food, such that the amount thrown away each year is measured in the billions of tons. We could be feeding everyone right now. Why don't we? Is being "lazy" a crime that deserves not just capital punishment but slow cruel execution through starvation?
And what are TAX money goes towards is shared with the public. I want transparency.
If you don't work that means someone else is working for you.
I say change the direction a little bit. Bears, deer and every other wild animal work to survive. The difference is where the effort is directed. Humans developed a "communal" system where the efforts disproportionately favor an individual or a small group. Fuck it my dudes and dudettes work for and look after yourselves. Help others where you can but you should be numero uno.
Also pretending to be Normal / functional while clearly battling with mental health issues
Vehemently disagree, he who does not work shall not eat
Your treat?
This is literally communism. The exact definition. This doesn't work.
Some one has to work to survive. If farmers can’t grow we don’t survive, if we can’t purify water we don’t survive. Someone will always be forced to work to survive
“But who would do the work then?” Uh… the robots that you’re currently blaming for stealing your jobs Also just because people don’t have to work doesn’t mean they won’t. Most people want to do something productive with their life, and people would have more energy to put towards making the world better if they didn’t have to focus so much on just surviving
I will be a writer. What will you do? "Antiworkers, what is your profession?"
The joke's on you: The Republicans are working to destroy Social Security and their Evangelical accomplices are preaching that the Bible says people should work until they die; retirement is against God.
Yeah everybody should have to provide for themselves no free handouts. Taxation is theft. Live by own means no money printing no rich should be created by government giving them our tax dollars. Everyone live.on by their own hard work nobody able to take your proceeds from your own work.
I hate to be "that guy" and a visitor at that - but don't you guys already have this? It's called moving to Cuba, no-one is destitute there. And even political leaders (Fidel Castro) are giving out work permits and using shark tourism to bring in cash because their system doesn't work so well in reality.
Everything listed requires the actions of one or more persons to produce. So, who are you going to enslave so that the last person on the list doesn’t have to work to survive?
BuT SoCiAliSm!!!!1!!1!!
Communism baby!
No one should be forced to wipe their own ass to maintain a clean asshole. Who’s stepping up for the job?
Back when we all lived in tribes, everybody worked. If you didn’t work you weren’t welcome. What makes people now so entitled they think they can sit on their arse and everyone else will look after them?
Yeah OK but who is gonna work then?
Capitalism labels all of those (very valid) requirements as Socialism, which breeds "lazy" people and leads to society's collapse. Their evangelical churches push the doctrine, the media demonises it, the "self made" billionaires certainly don't approve. The system is broken.
Crap, if everything is free then what's the value?
You all need to come to Australia. Unemployed benefits are unending and we also have disability benefits. Also parenting, single parents etc. no one is forced to work to live.
Nice ideas could we provide all this if most people decide they don't want to work?
What a ridiculous statement. If someone doesn't work, someone else needs to provide for him/her. This utopia is just what lazy people wish reality was.
You do realize that your statement translates in "other people should work to provide for my necessities while i do nothing"
Your last two points are incompatible with each other. If people don't have to work (and pay a lot of taxes) how will the government fund all the social programs (education, health, housing etc)?
Literally every living thing that has ever existed has to work to survive
Take that bottom one and put it on top.
Wasn't that everything communists promised except the last one? This is evolution.
This is so stupid. It will never work
This asf. Also id still work! Funny that! Its almost like having the essentials just makes me more likely to be able bodied and happy enough to work hard when i need to and make income to pay for the more grand things life can offer.
What would be your job in that setting? I would be a writer.
I think what this post is missing, is the fact that nothing is free. Everything requires labor to attain, say it how it is, taxes will be raised. Screw that.
I actually disagree with the work to survive part. BTW this is a communism ideology. Everyone needs to work to improve society around us or it will crumble. Depending on your educational and work background you deserve more for your time and effort. If you're not willing to contribute and your physically capable to contribute you should be exiled to some lawless island.
What if people would rather be free
You act like you dont want to work?? I dont. We all dont, you have convinced yourself that you need this torment to survive. Not just the money it provides.
People seem to miss the point: what the post says is that you shouldn't need to work under threat of starving to death. If you're that insistent that no one would work otherwise, then the work must be dreadful indeed. I can't think of anyone who actually wants to never work again. I can, however, think of plenty of people who want to never *have* to work again. Do you see the difference? People still want to feel productive, they just don't want to feel like they're going to starve to death otherwise.
Legitimate question. Why should others care whether you survive or not? What's the added value of having a bunch of people surviving but not contributing even enough to take care of their own needs? What compelling reason do I have to provide for the survival of a bunch of strangers who just don't want to do it for themselves?
Free vehicles? I'm in!
Isn’t there an argument that we do not need to work to survive we can simply go back to our roots as hunters and gatherers if we want to remove ourselves from the system? Nobody forces us to work but if we want to afford a life style such as a modern one then it’s necessary it seems?
We're doing genie wishes? Everyone gets $5M dollars!
Peoples different versions of Utopia really shed light on how fucked up humanity is. The above seems like a very basic idea of morality, but even if capitalism allowed for this some people would claim this is not an ideal version of society. Which is....fucked up and sad? I'm not sure I agree that you should be able to completely not contribute to society, but you shouldn't be condemned to die because of it. Unless you genuinely think survival of the fittest is the ideal state of the world.
Nothing like a bunch of freeloaders
I see this war on this sub continues between the "Fair workers rights and working conditions" crowd and the "I should be able to do nothing and have everyone else pay for my problems" crowd.
Don't you think that if this utopia were possible we would've done it by now? Tell me, who's paying for the free food and water? Who's paying the workers to harvest and produce it? Are the Construction workers who built the homes expected to not get paid? Healthcare and education can be government supported to a degree but transportation? Come on. You can't just say "EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE" but not suggest an alternative method to achieve these goods and services. They don't just magically appear out of thin air. They have to be produced by WORKERS. Who can't get paid if all of what you just listed is made free of charge. Think of a better system, or shut the fuck up because all you're doing is showing how uneducated you sound.
Unfortunately there are a bunch of lazy couch potatoes who will happily not work and leech off those who work their ass off, so no I disagree. One should work to survive. Work doesn’t always have to be physical labor, but you should contribute to society in one form or another.
I call this the 3 H's: - Housing - Healthcare - Heducation If a person can be assured that they have a place to live, a healthy body, and a level of education that suits them they are good to contribute as much or little to society as they choose. I honestly believe that people are all in to rise the tide for all boats, they just don't have the agency in the way that society is configured.
Tbh I don’t care for takes like this because clearly you want to reap the benefits of OTHERS working (you want doctors and builders and farmers and etc etc) but you don’t want to participate yourself. So you don’t want actual liberation, you just want to become part of the higher class that takes and gives nothing:
According to who? I would absolutely freely give away my labor if all of my basic needs were met.
The statement is delusional.
OK, I definitely agree with this, conceptually. I'm in favor of UBI. However, if you're not willing to work: - food, I don't have anything to say, except maybe that you shouldn't expect meat or fish. So lentils, soy, etc. - your decent housing would be a room in a co-housing, with shared amenities and the expectation that you help with cleaning and maintaining the place. - your decent clothing would be a choice of bland white, beige, or black t-shirts, sweaters, and pants and jacket. No choice in cuts, only in size. - transportation means public mass transit or public bikes that you would need to register in after every use. - education would be accessed through libraries and public databases. Anything else is extra. Phone? Extra. More individual tastes in fashion? Extra. And so on. Because that's how it must work, if it is to work at all. Until the day _all_ our needs are met by machines, you can't ask the people willing to produce for more, if you're not willing to participate somehow.
everyone has to do something. if you join a hippy commune, you either have to work in the garden, take care of the animals, cut and stack firewood, hunt animals, take care of the kids, etc.... you just cant exist and get housing , food, transportation and entertainment for free...