[kphild]

And there is zero effort put into figuring out a better system, since those in position of wealth and power don't have an incentive to change what feeds them.

With less than 5% people employed in agriculture [1], it must be possible to allocate resources in a way that does not require most people to waste their lives in jobs. The universal basic income, for instance, would achieve that without abolishing capitalism.

The only problem are people who glorify employment.

[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?order=wba... (I speak of developed countries only)

[ctdonath]

Just 5% of people are employed in agriculture precisely because "those in position of wealth and power" DID allocate resources in a way that does not require most people to waste their lives toiling in fields. Without such high-profit motivation to invest in advanced research & infrastructure projects, we'd still be stuck with most people working in agriculture the hard way.

Glorify employment? The socioeconomic world is as good as it is because most people are employed, doing something which contributes to maintenance and advancement of society & technology. By glorifying unemployment, you're proposing removing the efforts which maintain our socioeconomic position & direction, soon leaving us with insufficient effort to even maintain a status quo.

"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else — if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing." "A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!" - Alice In Wonderland

The resources of which you speak are, on the whole, perishable consumables. Remember: any society is 3 food-sparse days from violent breakdown. We have to work hard to keep things as they are, and twice as hard to get to where we want to go. Cutting workforce in half means the remaining workers must work twice as hard just to keep everyone as they are, and four times harder if any real progress is desired. Universal basic income means those not earning it are supported by those who do - reducing the incentive to work at all. You say "*it must be possible to allocate resources..." - it isn't, short of incentivising tremendous work times high risk with expectations of huge payoff.

[_flag]

> The socioeconomic world is as good as it is because most people are employed, doing something which contributes to maintenance and advancement of society & technology.

Can you justify this? If we use the US as an example and look at the most common jobs, we find that over 4 million people are employed as salespersons, another 3 million as cashiers, followed by 3 million people employed serving food (including fast food), etc. [1]

As the population has been moved away from agriculture, and recently manufacturing, they have become increasingly employed in the service sector. These people are not creating and advancing the technology of tomorrow, they are preforming basic tasks that could easily be done by the customers themselves (eg. automated checkouts).

What's more, there is now millions of people employed in areas such as advertising and sales, where people are essentially tasked with manufacturing wants and increasing the amount of money people spend, which not only defeats the entire basis of a functioning economic system (rational consumers making rational choices), but ensures that additional numbers of people are employed in the manufacture of superfluous goods that people are deceived into buying.

Is there any indication that if we seriously consider what is and isn't necessary in our society, the working population couldn't easily be cut by half without any kind of imminent collapse?

1. http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%...

edit: spelling

[ctdonath]

Sure I can justify this. You present 10,000,000 employed people working jobs which could, conceivably, be automated. Do you seriously think that given technology currently applicable, their employers would not replace those people with machines in a heartbeat if the latter were cheaper? Sure, you can hypothesize about how that should be the case, but you would overlook a multitude of realities that indeed render the human worker superior to the automated alternatives.

I dislike human-clerk checkouts at stores. Nothing against people per se, but as a high-tech introvert I'd rather do it myself - exactly as you suggest. Sure, the technology is there; heck, Walmart even has a phone-based self-scanner so you can do 95% of checkout before you even get to the self-serve register for final payment. The technology sounds great on paper and in rhetoric, but in reality it sucks (despite my valiant concerted efforts to be a automation-supporting customer). Standard self-checkout chokes on the bottle of wine ("Human clerk, is customer over 21?" Uh, yeah, I'm greying with two kids in tow, of course I'm of age). Phone-based on-the-go checkout is time consuming (stop, turn on phone (again), tap Scan, point camera, wait for slow auto-focus, wait for crappy in-store wireless connection to function, get to payment station, get selected for another 15-minute "you've been selected for a compliance check" which confuses human staff every time). Never mind shoplifting, mis-scans, and a host of other problems. Those ten million "technology replaceable staff" are still employed because they're better at the work than technology, and relieving them of their duties does NOT make their freed-up wages available for confiscation & redistribution as "living wages" to the now-unemployed former workers (it's going to technology costs and high-tech maintenance staff). That's 10M people "contributing to maintenance of society".

As for manufacturing wants and increasing money spent vs. consumers making rational choices? I'm watching a startup put serious money into marketing staff; the product is [r]evolutionary and WILL "advance society & technology", but isn't going anywhere without convincing a lot of people to buy it, and the staff IS earning their significant wages by doing so. Oh sure, there's a lot of sales of superfluous goods out there, but even that helps fill out & support an infrastructure which gets vital goods to a broad clientele: Walmart isn't going to get five pounds of bread flour on a shelf for $1.89 without the delivery system greased with the profits from the "cheap crap" they're famous for; in comparison, that same sack of flour would cost about $5 at everything-is-perfect Whole Foods.

Indication that considering what is and isn't necessary in society could "liberate" half the population? Yeah: every society that tried it, like the Soviet Union (hint: they'd kill people for trying to leave).

[_flag]

I gave an example of an automated checkout, but my point was not that the jobs I mentioned could all be automated -- my point was that they are not necessary. When I say "necessary", I don't mean that they aren't necessary to increase corporate profits (salesman, which I mentioned, certainly are), I mean they are not necessary to ensure a stable and functioning society. The example I gave with automated checkouts is not to demonstrate that automated checkouts are _better_ than human workers -- human workers are and will likely be far more capable than machines at running checkouts for a long time. My point is that they _could_ be replaced, and that if society decided that increasing human liberty was a more important goal than certain small inconveniences at the checkout, they _would_ be replaced.

So yes, these people are "contributing to the maintenance of society", but there are conceivable alternatives that would give these individuals (and society as a whole) more liberty, and would only require some small inconveniences.

The anecdote you give of your startup which needs advertising to get off the ground is beside the point. Perhaps your startup is revolutionary, and perhaps it needs some advertising to get off the ground, but this doesn't change the fact that most advertising is simply misinformation. Television commercials which make use of lush landscapes and half-naked women to sell cars don't create rational consumers, and without rational consumers you cannot have a functioning market. If advertising was simply a way in which companies communicated well-reasoned facts about products, and came with a balanced analysis of a product and its competitors, then we could argue that advertising was working towards creating a functioning market system. Until then, advertising will simply favour those with the largest advertising budgets and those who are best at disinformation, and so it's difficult to argue it is contributing to society.

> Indication that considering what is and isn't necessary in society could "liberate" half the population? Yeah: every society that tried it, like the Soviet Union (hint: they'd kill people for trying to leave).

This is really cheap rhetoric -- and not even accurate. If I'm arguing for a society where people are liberated from work, why are you using the Soviet Union, a dictatorship where everyone worked all the time, as some kind of counterpoint? Not everything that contradicts the status-quo is totalitarian communism, you know.

Besides, the points I'm trying to make aren't even original. There are serious proposals that have been made for why society should move to a 20-hour work week to address things ranging from rising levels of depression to climate change. [1]

[1] http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/21-hours

[ctdonath]

Simple wrap-up: society won't move to a 20-hour work week because those who do will become jealous of those who don't, desiring unto "necessity" those things the 40- (and 60-, and 80-) hour worker can afford.

You can live on a very very small income right now. I figure an intelligent frugal life can suffice at $10/day. But you don't, because you won't give up what you don't need.