[mistaken]

I don't think that having jobs is the problem. A lot of people can benefit from having jobs. Ideally a workplace should provide a way to develop people, a stable income and clear goals. It is also less risky for the employer (doesn't have to search for someone when a task needs to be done) and the employees (stable income). I personally like to work in an environment where I can decide what has to be done, how to do it, but many people wouldn't want to take this responsibility or would have a far less incentive to work if they don't have to earn a living. In an utopia perhaps we could abolish jobs, if everybody knew what they wanted to do and what they were good at.

[rorykoehler]

The issue is that from birth most of us are conditioned, through education and culture to not take this responsibility. Most of those who beat the trap have their passion squeezed from them through poverty or dreary corporate jobs that consume them.

You wouldn't believe how many people ask me what people would do if they didn't have to work due to guaranteed basic income or some such. Why do I even have to answer that question. People can do whatever they want. It's not my or the systems job to to tell people what to do. If a person is lazy and the only way they can get motivated is by the threat of starving then that's their problem however I would still much prefer to live in a world were people have the option to be lazy and not faced a threat to their basic survival than what we have now where people are highly driven, working multiple jobs, but socio-economic circumstances mean they are trapped in a poverty cycle they can't escape from.

I agree with your premise regarding the workplace providing a way to develop people and to give people a chance to organize around clear goals however I also think this should be decoupled from income stability. Any income earned in the workplace would be a bonus on top of the bare minimum needed to survive which should be provided. How can we say we are civilized when we let people starve, be homeless and deny them access to medical help when they need it because they aren't wealthy enough. The world as it is now is so absurd. Someday (soon I hope) we will look back on this period in human history with bemusement.

[jsudhams]

Great point. I think with robotics and other automations we will get minimum wages and work / art or other efforts will give bonus. Kaliyug in vedas mentioned a 10000 years period where everything will great with everyone happily living with others with out wars and fights. I strongly believe if all countries work together we can make it happen. I think corporates in current methodology done their job and move on two new model which will be that profits be used for bonus and for basic wages for all method.

[rorykoehler]

I think part of the progression will be to get rid of the concept of countries as we know them today. Fixed geo-economic and geo-social boundaries are counter-productive to progress at this point in history but it will be very difficult to dismantle the structures we have in place. Thankfully we can already see the green shoots of this the EU and to a lesser extent North America but I suspect turmoil lay ahead as Nation Union superpowers' needs and wants create geo-political frictions and possibly war.

[asgard1024]

> Why do I even have to answer that question.

There is an excellent Chomsky snippet that agrees with you and gives more context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWZltIXZ2WY

[mtbcoder]

> Ideally a workplace should provide a way to develop people, a stable income and clear goals.

This can only happen when you have a working, stable government that is investing in its citizenry, infrastructure, education, etc. What worries me tremendously these days, at least from my US perspective, is that the very definition of "stable income" is constantly changing as income inequality expands and we put in place policies which really only benefit the wealthiest corporations and individuals.

[eli_gottlieb]

>Ideally a workplace should provide a way to develop people, a stable income and clear goals.

Why? Employers hire people because they, the employers, have goals (possibly very unclear), and their goals require more work than they can do alone as one person, and so they hire people to whom to delegate the work (this can happen recursively). Employers really aren't concerned with personal development or the employee's income as a matter of necessity, only if they happen to be unusually humane and personable, or the labor market happens to be unusually tight.