[zarkov99]

I am trying to see your point, though obviously I failed, and to be honest, I still do not fully understand where you are coming from. I do not see a problem with inequality. Its unavoidable. In fact, I am very happy that there are people out there more productive than me in some field, perhaps I will have something to offer to them by being more productive than them in some other field, and we can trade for mutual benefit.

[jokoon]

I'm coming from the view of /r/antiwork and the "bullshit jobs" book by David Graeber.

> I do not see a problem with inequality.

Income inequality and social inequality are problems, maybe not to you, but is it for many people around the world. It causes political tensions and many other problem: sanitary, social, environmental, etc.

I'm essentially talking about measured productivity, the meaning of productivity for people and if it can really fit into their lives. Productivity can have this sort of robotized meaning, soul-less meaning of how humans are being valued as individuals. Productivity is not the same for a musician, a fast food employee a writer, a programmer, a mechanic, a teacher, etc.

I'm not denying that a lot of people are thriving in their work, happy about it, and always eager to share how happy they are, but in times of inequality, it's not always so rosy for everyone.

Maybe your view of the world is one of a dominant, and you refuse to acknowledge it because you have all the good reasons. And it's understandable to be self-centered when all is good. But no man is an island.

If you put COVID and climate in perspective, you can see that the productivity model is outdated and requires some change. There is food for everyone, everything is built, so why should work be mandatory to get food and shelter? The individualism and libertarian ideals cannot work for everyone. It's unfair to tell people "you must create value if you want to eat". Philosophically it doesn't make sense, because food is everywhere.

Maybe I'm projecting a lot of my opinions through my own issues, but in a way, I'm expressing my concerns because I can, and I do.

[zarkov99]

If I understand you then, and I am not sure I do, you are saying you do not like discussing productivity because there are people who are less productive, for whatever reason, and they should not be penalized, in terms of access to resources, in relation to their more productive peers? If that is the case, then how do you propose resources should be divided?

[jokoon]

Once you set up a basic income, that is given without conditions, productivity is a bonus, not a requirement. Basic resources like food and shelter are quite abundant in our times.

I have no problem with people being productive, but I'm not okay with productive people imposing their productivity on other less productive people, in the form of social filtering, unemployment, elitism, etc.

The last 100 years have seen amazing increase of productivity thanks to technology, not thanks to methods of resource management.

Climate will exacerbate inequalities, and I think productivity doesn't really matter anymore, since a lot of jobs seem wasteful of resources, yet they are still valued for no good reason. Many people who are high earners often have trouble understanding the meaning of what they do, while other in poverty would appreciate being given a fair access to basic resources, without feeling guilty of not being a productive member of society.

It's funny because Milton Friedman advocated for a basic income, or a negative income tax, so it's quite compatible with capitalist values. The problem is not really capitalism per se, it's more how we value the necessity of effort and mutual help. Rejecting the weak doesn't lead to healthy values.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is a quote from Marx, but also used by Kennedy.

[zarkov99]

First let me say I too support basic income, so to some degree we are in agreement. What I am really disturbed by is by the resentment I read into your argument. Productive people aren't imposing anything, in fact they are the reason why we can even contemplate something as insane as basic income. All the marvels of the last 100 years are because of productive people and all of us should be immensely grateful to the titans who made it happen. You write about fairness, but there is nothing fair about taking things from people who produce them and giving them, for free, to people who do not. There is compassion, sure, and perhaps in the long run, as most people's economic value trends to 0, we will have no choice, but describing communism as basic fairness is deeply intellectually dishonest.

[jokoon]

> All the marvels of the last 100 years are because of productive people

How so? Those people were paid, why should they be also be thanked on top of what they gained?

The world is unfair by definition.

Why should things not be given for free? That's the premise of the basic income you agreed on.

I never really encouraged for communism either, and never said it would be fair.

[zarkov99]

> Those people were paid, why should they be also be thanked on top of what they gained?

Because there isn't enough money in the history of the world to compensate say the inventors of vaccines. Or electricity. Or the computer. Or the combustion engine.

There is no problem with giving things for free, as long as the giving is voluntary. There is an enormous problem with taking things by force from a group so you can give them to another.