[logicchains]

>WE SHOULD ALL REDUCE WORK.

>Sorry for the caps but we need to collectively get into this mindset. We're more productive than ever with very little to show for it. We've been having labor outright stolen from us for decades.

Speak for yourself. Not everybody's comfortable spending most of their time lounging around doing nothing that anybody else even values enough to pay for.

[aahhahahaaa]

The thing is... you can have the choice. Sometimes you need the choice, things can go south for any of us. The choice can also free you to take risks... it makes it easier to start a business, it makes it easier to fail.

I've been literally working without an unemployment gap since I've been 14. I worked 60+ hours a week through most of my 20s. I didn't have a choice. It took me half of my life to reach financial stability and normalcy. I still get stressed about healthcare costs despite being healthy. It doesn't have to be this way for anyone.

Even if you want to work all the time, most people aren't being paid appropriately for the time they put in. None of us are really experiencing the benefits of society's dramatically increased productivity.

[WalterBright]

> None of us are really experiencing the benefits of society's dramatically increased productivity.

You're just not seeing it. I remember the days of manual typewriters. Make a mistake, type it over again. Put in an envelope, mail, wait weeks for a reply. Write the letter by hand, even worse.

Today, shoot off a text or email with automatic spellchecking.

Cars need far less maintenance.

TVs are practically free.

My microwave greatly reduces meal prep time.

I could go on and on.

[robertpateii]

Those examples save us minutes but don’t make humans more free or happier or safer. Better examples would be increased lifespans and lower infant mortality. Stuff that ties into the standard of living definition. Which is the point: our standard of living has not increased at the same rate as productivity.

[WalterBright]

Modern cars are a heluva lot safer.

Expected lifespan is quite a bit higher.

You can't expect it to increase at the same rate as productivity, because it asymptotically approaches a limit.

Whether you're happy or not is up to you, not society. People, regardless of their status, tend to be at about the same level of happiness.

[robertpateii]

Are you saying that right now the quality of life for all Americans has reached a its asymptotic limit in regards to productivity?

[WalterBright]

Lifespan asymptotically approaches biological limits, i.e. the rate of progress inevitably slows.

> all

I wish people would stop adding such qualifiers to construct strawmen.

[WalterBright]

I remember my mom helping my dad write his book. She did a lot of the typing. Make revisions, retype the whole book. I thought that was hell even as a child watching her work.

Today, just do the edits, hit [print].

Hours, hours, hours saved.

Ironically, my dad told me in the 70s that the two greatest inventions would be a TV you could hang on the wall and a typewriter where you could edit without retyping the whole thing. To think some people think we don't live in a wonderland!

(He missed the calculator. What a marvelous time saver that was!)

[aahhahahaaa]

Walter You can go on and on, but you're talking about an illusion. You are literally working more and getting paid less than previous generations. It's objective data. People had cars and televisions. Your cellphone doesn't cost the lifetime of productivity gains that are being stolen from you.

[themacguffinman]

Money isn't wealth, money is just a common & convenient representation of wealth. You don't need to look into people's paychecks to see wealth. You can see wealth in the buildings and streets, in health and technology and culture.

People work tirelessly to create & improve that, and you can see that society is improving bit by bit. That's not an illusion.

Stagnant wages likely signify an actual problem in valuation worth fixing, but it's silly to solve that by being less productive. Lowering total productivity may generate lower surplus value for greedy employers, but it's a weak revenge. You still earn less than you should, and society is poorer for it. There are many other ways to address the root issue.

[dbsmith83]

Stolen? Please, spare us the hyperbole. How is it stolen?

[aahhahahaaa]

You're working more and getting paid less than people did, 10, 20, 30 years ago... meanwhile the wealth gap has increased dramatically. Where do you think it's going? It's not hyperbole whatsoever.

[dbsmith83]

Sure things have changed and the wealth gap is a problem, but it is not stealing. If it were, you could take them to court for paying you only min wage and making you work 40 hours.

[fountainofage]

Who said anything about lounging around?

One could read as many books as they like. Learn to play an assortment of musical instruments. Learn woodworking. Sailing. Write novels. Compose songs. Complete their magnum opuses. Master languages. Study art. Create art. Improve their athleticism. And so on.

The list is near endless of things to do.

[logicchains]

>One could read as many books as they like. Learn to play an assortment of musical instruments. Learn woodworking. Sailing. Write novels. Compose songs. Complete their magnum opuses. Master languages. Study art. Create art. Improve their athleticism. And so on.

Those would all be very fun things to do, but very self-focused. I'd love to spend my life writing a novel, except it'd probably be a pretty shitty novel, and it'd be hard for me to find satisfaction in having spent my life on something that contributed very little value to anybody else in society. At least with work I know somebody values what I'm doing.

[eggsmediumrare]

Spend more time raising your kids. Volunteer in your community. Restore the environment. Take care of the elderly. Grow healthy food for your neighbours. These all sound much more valuable than my job, but no one is gonna pay me to do it.

And you're making the argument that the effort of aspiring novelists is wasted. It's not. Or else we would have no novels.

[dbsmith83]

There are jobs for all the things you mentioned. There are people who are paid to take care of the elderly, to grow healthy food, and there are even jobs for taking care of the environment.

Also, I think you missed the point about novelists. It is more about if you suck at writing novels, sitting around and writing one for yourself isn't very valuable for society. There are some people who have natural talent, but the average Joe sitting around not working and instead writing a novel for fun will likely not be producing much value--at least, not as much as if he were working.

[eggsmediumrare]

Most jobs like this pay minimum wage and are seasonal or part-time. At least with UBI, you can do it on your terms.

How do you know you suck at writing novels until you try?

[dbsmith83]

Sure they might pay low, but you dont get to just decide the value of your work on your own. At least in a market you get paid for your time put in and there is pressure to deliver value vs. you just deciding to get off of your couch once in a while and still getting paid ubi.

For the writers, I didnt say dont try. There is a difference between trying during spare time while off work vs. doing it as a hobby while not working and thus not contributing to society yet taking money from it.

[robertpateii]

I don’t understand how UBI forces you to stop working at your job. Wouldn’t you potentially be paid even more if everyone who does that job but hates it stops? And the compensation to do it increases to compensate?

[nickff]

UBI means that the empathetic people subsidize the vain and the selfish.

[eggsmediumrare]

In my experience, empathy has an inverse relationship to your position on the org chart.

[robertpateii]

Vain and selfish people probably aren’t going to sit around and live on the basic level. It’s more about providing for the ignored, the sick, and enabling people to take risks in the market without putting their family’s lives at stake.

[throwawaygh]

> At least with work I know somebody values what I'm doing.

...have you talked to your sales guys?

[kamaal]

You will have option to do what you want. That's the whole point.

They won't pay you enough to buy a Ferrari. But it will be enough money to spare time to cook well, exercise and spend time on relationships. Or do whatever you want to do.

Different people want different things. Surely your choice of tech work will be very different when you know losing your job won't starve you to death.

[albatruss]

Suppose that automation has greatly advanced, and our material needs are fulfilled as a given, as if Earth were now our own Eden, tended to by robots. About the only work left for humans to do, that is to say producing goods and services that other humans deem valuable, is researching and developing heroin. The robots don't do this because they know that heroin use is quite harmful to human well-being, but of course we find great value in being high and are willing to pay for the experience, thus creating a market.

In such a scenario, to what extent does working involve the creation of value? Would you, and should you, find satisfaction in performing this labor? And in what ways is it different from working on the next big social media app to dethrone TikTok?

[dbsmith83]

That is a very weirdly specific scenario that won't ever happen, so why bother asking about it? Humans will always find new things to be valuable. There will never be a time when there is no work left except for producing heroin. People will always want what something no one else has, or something that someone else has that they do not. Humans will strive to create new things, thus creating value. I can see you are trying to pigeon-hole the conversation in a social media vs. heroin comparison, but that just isn't a good representation of the issue.

[flavmartins]

This is the economy of Star Trek.

The people on space ships all have a form of UBI and choose a profession so that they can accomplish something of meaning. Space exploration is one of those.

But others turn to art, literature, etc.

[goatlover]

Sure, but how the economy works is not explained. It's basically that first contact was made, humans realized they weren't alone, so war, poverty and money ended within 50 years, somehow. I'm sure it helps to have transporters, replicators and computers approaching AGI. But how everything inside the Federation just works is not discussed. I guess everyone just naturally wants to do what works out for society, somehow.

[jaakl]

You might have here answer to the ”Where is everybody” question. Space is not economically viable. Not for us, not for the others. Not even in a billion years, literally.

[AngryData]

It isn't discussed because the closest equivalent it can be compared to is communism, which is the last thing any network or studio wants to be seen as advocating regardless of how accurate or realistic or good or bad the depiction may be.

[themacguffinman]

That doesn't fill me with confidence. Communism has not been successful, so it's not clear why or how it inexplicably works out well for Star Trek society.

[tropdrop]

You can work as much as you'd like. But which would you rather - being obligated to work 80 hour workweeks as an "integrations architect" for a shadowy .com company that will sell and gut its workforce (including you) in a couple of years so that each VC gets a nice payload from the sale? Or would you rather choose to work 80 hour workweeks on your very own homesteading project, building your house from scratch while not having to worry about the cost of food, receiving just enough for basic sustenance all the while?

I know which I would rather do.

[waheoo]

If you were steelmanning the argument you would understand they mean reduce required work.

Your always welcome to work harder for more.

The problem is, there is quite literally not enough valid, useful, and productive work to go around.

We've reached a point there isn't enough work for everyone to do. What does that mean if you want to work full time?

It means you're taking work away from someone else.

I don't think anyone minds that, what they mind is that you're also taking their livelihood away.

If there isn't enough work, but there is enough resources, what does that tell you about the system?

Either those who can't secure work will suffer, or we need to redistribute the outputs of those who can secure work.

Its a really basic question whether you agree with ubi or not:

Do you want people to suffer so you can work full time? Or would you rather everyone gets what they need, and we work for what we want.

[themacguffinman]

This is not how a market economy works. There's no preordained pool of work that you can run out of. It's practically nonsense to say there's not enough work to go around.

People always want more, and you can always find work fulfilling those wants. There's always demand for stuff. Can you honestly look around you right now and think "there isn't much room for improvement"? Well, people need to work to improve stuff, that's useful and valuable work. Do you really think "welp, my life doesn't have any more problems to solve". Well, people need to work to solve those problems, that's useful and valuable work.

Whether or not people are given what they need to survive is irrelevant to UBI. Welfare does that. What makes UBI worse is that it provides no incentive to work and create value, and that's a tremendous waste of human capital and it worsens inequality.

[Shacklz]

> There's no preordained pool of work that you can run out of.

But this is a point the article somewhat addresses - the graph for marketing-budgets shows that pretty nicely in my opinion.

At some points, its just easier to make more money/profits by trying to increase demand for your product than by improving it (or reducing costs of its production). And I think that's what we're seeing more and more on an ever increasing scale right now: "Actually productive" jobs (e.g. manufacturing) are already outsourced, and the gains from the cost-savings are spent on e.g. marketing.

This might make sense economically (in terms of profits, emplyoment), but arguably less from a "benefit-for-society" point of view.

I think David Graeber adresses this quite nicely (but rather aggressively) with his 'Bullshit Job'-theory.

[themacguffinman]

As you said yourself, UBI's increased demand doesn't really help from a "benefit-for-society" point of view, which is the only point of view that matters. We don't encourage people to maximize profits because money is good, we do it because you usually need to create actual value/benefit in order to do so. When something makes sense economically but doesn't benefit society, that's an economic failure.

I have heard about the Bullshit Jobs theory and I find it unconvincing (I admit I haven't read the whole book). The meaningfulness and value of a job is not determined by the laborer - as suggested by the "do you think your job makes a meaningful contribution to the world" surveys he cites - but by the employer.

The value of something has always been determined by other people who want it. It doesn't matter what David Graeber and his unhappy laborers think or say, something isn't bullshit just because they say it is. Many of the examples he mentions (doormen, content curators, PR) are valuable things that people want enough to pay for, yet his opaque judgment deems them "bullshit" simply because he or someone else thinks they're worthless.

History shows us economies that failed because some people thought they could plan them with isolated judgments of what society should value. UBI as a solution for Bullshit Jobs follows in the same tradition by personally judging whole swaths of jobs to have no value, then proposing a plan to get rid of them.

[waheoo]

Doormen is precisely the definition of bullshit.

Thats why the definition is what it is. He knows it's a subjective phrase that means many different things to many different people. He also admits there will be some people who find value in the same job someone else does not.

I think it's a bit strange to hinge your opinion on this definition though, its really only defined that way so it doesn't piss people off, the book isn't about how you define bullshit jobs, the book is about what we should do now we know they exist.

Which you're sort of ignoring.

What do you think we should do since we do know bullshit jobs exist.

[themacguffinman]

But bullshit jobs don't exist, which is my point that you're ignoring. Jobs that people in society value could never be bullshit. Quite arrogant of you to assume that the work that some do is bullshit and challenge me to do something about it. I don't really care what anyone calls "bullshit", the concept is nonsense because the value of work is determined by the people who want it. I don't plan to get rid of such work.

[waheoo]

I'm sorry but this is simply not true.

Look at a basic case, a single farmer is able to produce enough food for 100 people.

There is no need for 99 people to work for there food in this simplistic case.

Yes, these people may want iPhones, and maybe they need to work for them, but the basic income component is covered by a single farmer.

I'm not saying there is some static pool of work available.

I am saying there is a static pool of life sustaining work available.

This is why ubi works mathematically, and people not working are not a problem, for the maths.

> Whether or not people are given what they need to survive is irrelevant to UBI. Welfare does that.

What are you talking about, this is the point. And no, welfare does not do that adequately. Welfare is an incredibly inefficient means of wealth distribution.

> What makes UBI worse is that it provides no incentive to work and create value, and that's a tremendous waste of human capital

I have zero concerns about the incentive to work, that is a fud argument that doesn't hold up when looking at the studies we've seen. Work is meaningful in and of itself, you don't need to be paid to receive reward from it.

> and it worsens inequality.

This is what I'm afraid of too and have not heard any ubi proponents address this in any meaningful manner.

Ubi would quite likely create a proletarian class.

On the flip side, I'm not really sure how this is very different from what we have with capitalism right now.

At least with ubi welfare is adequately taken care of.

[machiaweliczny]

You simplistic case is too simplistic. Assumes that advanced tech required for such farming comes from nowhere. Now for farmer to produce so much you need GPS (ability to build and maintain one), oil/energy, millitary power, modified grains, etc. to have this you need some people who spend more on thinking rather than being most of waking day the in field, so you need all the support jobs.

From my POV having job as au pair for example is still better than working hard in the field.

IMO we should focus on reducing much duplication od work, so I am happy that OSS, Wikipedia, SciHub, KhanAcademy, MIT, translations services, open hardware design and similar efforts are in progress.

IMO more focus should be shifted into education. I guess education problem isn't solved in western rich countries only because it's easier to brain drain from less developed ones, so people don't feel the pain.

When this will start I hope they start taxing more at very top and shift economy to more valuable stuff than zero-sum Tinder clones.

BTW in my country(Poland) they introduced small version of UBI (like 500$ per child per month for family). It cost 5% of whole country budget. It's quite controversial but IMO it was good move but we still need to see long term impact.

[abootstrapper]

Then get a job, a hobby, or volunteer. Contribute to open source projects. Create a startup. Spend more time with your kids. Take care of your aging parents. Sit around and play video games. UBI creates so many opportunities.

[airstrike]

...And get outcompeted by the next country over

[throwawaygh]

"Caring for the elderly is a weakness."

[airstrike]

"Putting words in people's mouths is fun"

Caring about the elderly is entirely besides the point I'm making

[themacguffinman]

No, but a massive, disproportional share of your population caring for the elderly is a real weakness. A market economy would weigh and value "caring for the elderly" in balance with other priorities, whilst UBI volunteers are free to care for the elderly too much, sacrificing limited resources that are needed to keep a society competitive in other areas.

[Bootwizard]

Isn't it better to be happy than to be "the best"? Would you really rather draw meaning in life from your country's position in the global economy than from your own happiness? Do you even matter at that point as a human being or are you just a gear in the machine to crank up the economy of your country. You're disposable.

[themacguffinman]

That's a rather emotional and wishful take on the matter. There are real benefits to staying competitive in the global economy. Countries with weak economies have less resources to invest in the health and happiness of their citizens. They are less resilient to crises. They are easily exploited by others and more susceptible to corruption. They lack the geopolitical strength to achieve long term goals that would benefit their citizens.

Building the #1 best economy obviously shouldn't be one's sole purpose in life. But if you really think it doesn't matter at all, why not leave the developed nation you probably live in and find happiness in the third world. Or just ask one of the many people who seek a better life in the first world every year.

There's a troubling number of people in this thread who seem think that wealth creation and strong economies is some pointless goal that we've been tricked into caring about. Let's not forget that we work to build wealth for ourselves and our children. We've already worked so hard to build wealth into our buildings and streets and health and technology and culture. Apparently that's why you can dismiss the value of a strong economy from the comfort of your laptop/desk in the first place.

[jacobkania]

Question though: would companies just move to Brazil, which doesn’t have UBI, and save all of the money from the now-even-more-expensive American workers? Maybe not immediately, if there are more skilled workers in the US than Brazil, but over time I’d worry about high value companies just leaving.

So you’d need to prevent that, but in order to prevent it you’d have to become somewhat isolationist, right? Sounds bad.

Though I’m curious if anyone has thought about how to prevent all of the expensive skilled jobs from leaving.

[burntoutfire]

> Isn't it better to be happy than to be "the best"?

Have you played Civilization? If you don't strive to be "the best", eventually you're the guys with spears or even muskets being bombed by F-15s. In other words, lag behind the leaders for long enough and you can say goodbye to your freedom. That's basically how the XVI-XIX century colonization happened.

[abootstrapper]

Giving everyone the ability to exercise their creativity, pursue their passions, take care of their families, while simultaneously eliminating poverty would make the US less competitive globally? I just don't see how.

[airstrike]

You're only looking at the idealistic pros and none of the cons. Competition is about who's working the hardest. Imagine two companies, Company A in which workers are extremely hard working and Company B which workers are free to pursue their passions and only work when they want to. Which one do you think wins out in the long run? And I'm not talking about a version of Company A in which everyone is unhappy, worked to death, etc. I'm just saying more work = more productivity, which is what competition is about