Labor Endgame

[bu villain]

who creates the need to work for monetary compensation????????????

It is survival and human desire that create the need to work. Whether or not we use money as a representation of that is not relevant to my question.

Yes, unless you can come up with some other way to measure the cost of goods and services.
See UTILITY

What do you mean yes? It wasn't a yes or no question. Also, I'm not saying people can't choose to work, I'm saying they don't have to work to survive.

Like I said, you could get yourself thrown in prison, and all of your necessities would be provided for you, and you wouldn't have to work at all.
Or you could move to the ghetto and get on government assistance and not have to work for necessities.
Benefits.gov - Your Path to Government Benefits

Yes you can, but that is not the question. Obviously such a plan is not sustainable. I'm imagining a scenario (admittedly unrealistic) where no one is forced to work without worrying about their survival because the basics of survival are provided without human labor.

[Sinfix_15]

It is survival and human desire that create the need to work. Whether or not we use money as a representation of that is not relevant to my question.

Survival and desire existed long before american currency. Can i not live and fulfill my desires outside of the economic system?

I currently own land, can i go live on it, grow my own food and stay on my own property without being bothered?

[David88vert]

Yes you can, but that is not the question. Obviously such a plan is not sustainable. I'm imagining a scenario (admittedly unrealistic) where no one is forced to work without worrying about their survival because the basics of survival are provided without human labor.

Actually, the plan is fully sustainable and working today. The reason that it is sustainable is because the vast majority are willing to work to improve their lives, rather than sit in a prison cell, or live in the ghetto just surviving. In this country, no one is forced to work to survive. The basics of survival are provided by the people currently. If you are hungry, you can go to a soup kitchen. If you need shelter, there are shelters all over the country.

Your argument for a world without work being necessary is one that was presented by 19th century utopians - a society rich enough that fewer and fewer people need to work — a society where leisure becomes universally accessible, where part-time jobs replace the regimented work week, and where living standards keep rising even though more people have left the work force altogether.
Oh wait - that is what is happening now in today's society.
What we see here and now is a continuing decline in blue collar work. Americans dropping out of the work force are not destitute: they’re receiving disability payments and food stamps, living with relatives, finding work here and there, and often doing as well as they might with a low wage job. By historical standards, they live a more comfortable life than the Democrats want to admit.
Right now, we have a country that requires almost no work to survive already.

[David88vert]

I currently own land, can i go live on it, grow my own food and stay on my own property without being bothered?

Only until the robots get there.....

[bu villain]

Survival and desire existed long before american currency. Can i not live and fulfill my desires outside of the economic system?

I currently own land, can i go live on it, grow my own food and stay on my own property without being bothered?

Why are you talking about money? I never mentioned it. Yes you can go live on your own land but you have to own land first possibly by working for it and growing your own food requires labor.

Actually, the plan is fully sustainable and working today. The reason that it is sustainable is because the vast majority are willing to work to improve their lives, rather than sit in a prison cell, or live in the ghetto just surviving. In this country, no one is forced to work to survive. The basics of survival are provided by the people currently. If you are hungry, you can go to a soup kitchen. If you need shelter, there are shelters all over the country.

Your argument for a world without work being necessary is one that was presented by 19th century utopians - a society rich enough that fewer and fewer people need to work — a society where leisure becomes universally accessible, where part-time jobs replace the regimented work week, and where living standards keep rising even though more people have left the work force altogether.
Oh wait - that is what is happening now in today's society.
What we see here and now is a continuing decline in blue collar work. Americans dropping out of the work force are not destitute: they’re receiving disability payments and food stamps, living with relatives, finding work here and there, and often doing as well as they might with a low wage job. By historical standards, they live a more comfortable life than the Democrats want to admit.
Right now, we have a country that requires almost no work to survive already.

Like you said though, this is only sustainable because so many people choose to work. I am positing a scenario in which no human needs to work for the system to be sustainable. It is indeed that utopian ideal I am talking about but my question isn't can we achieve this? My question is whether or not you would like to achieve this.

[Sinfix_15]

Why are you talking about money? I never mentioned it. Yes you can go live on your own land but you have to own land first possibly by working for it and growing your own food requires labor.



Like you said though, this is only sustainable because so many people choose to work. I am positing a scenario in which no human needs to work for the system to be sustainable. It is indeed that utopian ideal I am talking about but my question isn't can we achieve this? My question is whether or not you would like to achieve this.

Because money is why people labor to begin with. Do you think anyone wakes up and says "i want to go dig a ditch today" or "flipping burgers is the meaning of my life".... no, we work for money. what makes money so valuable and controlling over our lives?

[bu villain]

Because money is why people labor to begin with. Do you think anyone wakes up and says "i want to go dig a ditch today" or "flipping burgers is the meaning of my life".... no, we work for money. what makes money so valuable and controlling over our lives?

People labor to attain necessities and luxury items (money is just the medium of exchange). I don't see what this has to do with the topic of this thread though.

[David88vert]

Like you said though, this is only sustainable because so many people choose to work. I am positing a scenario in which no human needs to work for the system to be sustainable. It is indeed that utopian ideal I am talking about but my question isn't can we achieve this? My question is whether or not you would like to achieve this.

The answer to your question is already visible. People choose to work to acquire material goods that they want and desire, not just need to have to survive. In that essence, we have already attained a "utopian state", where you do not have to work to survive.

The "utopian state" that you seem to have in your head is where people are not just provided the necessities that they need to survive, but also are provided some of their wants and luxuries, and have the power to do activities and receive services that are not required for survival.

[Sinfix_15]

People labor to attain necessities and luxury items (money is just the medium of exchange). I don't see what this has to do with the topic of this thread though.

People will always have to labor to pay for their government to exist.

[bu villain]

The answer to your question is already visible. People choose to work to acquire material goods that they want and desire, not just need to have to survive. In that essence, we have already attained a "utopian state", where you do not have to work to survive.

But that doesn't answer my question of whether or not that is a good thing. A lot of people seem to think that many people not laboring is a bad thing. I want to know if that answer changes if the people doing the labor are doing it because they choose to and not because they have to.

The "utopian state" that you seem to have in your head is where people are not just provided the necessities that they need to survive, but also are provided some of their wants and luxuries, and have the power to do activities and receive services that are not required for survival.

No, I require no luxuries to be given in my utopia. As I said, the only thing provided is food, water, and shelter, nothing else.

People will always have to labor to pay for their government to exist.

Good thing this is hypothetical so I don't have to account for that reality.

[Sinfix_15]

But that doesn't answer my question of whether or not that is a good thing. A lot of people seem to think that many people not laboring is a bad thing. I want to know if that answer changes if the people doing the labor are doing it because they choose to and not because they have to.



No, I require no luxuries to be given in my utopia. As I said, the only thing provided is food, water, and shelter, nothing else.



Good thing this is hypothetical so I don't have to account for that reality.

It's not that anyone cares who does and does not labor. I care that my quality of life is diminished so that people who do not want to work as hard as i do can survive. I have to work harder than i should to obtain the things i want, so that people who do not want to work can be supplied with the things they need.

[bu villain]

It's not that anyone cares who does and does not labor. I care that my quality of life is diminished so that people who do not want to work as hard as i do can survive. I have to work harder than i should to obtain the things i want, so that people who do not want to work can be supplied with the things they need.

Hooray. I finally got a solid answer and from Sinflix no less.

[Sinfix_15]

Hooray. I finally got a solid answer and from Sinflix no less.

You say that as if i'm not willing to answer any question. You may not always agree with my answers..... but i'm always willing to give them honestly.

[bu villain]

You say that as if i'm not willing to answer any question. You may not always agree with my answers..... but i'm always willing to give them honestly.

You just have a tendency to answer the questions you want to answer even if they are not the questions that were asked. Like earlier you were talking about money which had nothing to do with my question.

[Vteckidd]

Asks yes or no question.......says its not a yes or no question.
Legit as fuck

[Sinfix_15]

You just have a tendency to answer the questions you want to answer even if they are not the questions that were asked. Like earlier you were talking about money which had nothing to do with my question.

fair enough, but that's usually because i associate some things with other things where you might not agree there is a connection.

[David88vert]

But that doesn't answer my question of whether or not that is a good thing. A lot of people seem to think that many people not laboring is a bad thing. I want to know if that answer changes if the people doing the labor are doing it because they choose to and not because they have to.

No, I require no luxuries to be given in my utopia. As I said, the only thing provided is food, water, and shelter, nothing else.

Good and bad are subjective, they are not simple yes and no answers.
If you are a lazy person receiving benefits for free, you will think it is a good or great thing to not work.
If you are the one paying for others to not have to work, you probably won't think it is a good thing, as they are getting a free ride on your dime.
Perspective changes subjective opinions, and nothing in life is free. What one person gets for free, another has to pay for.

If your utopia only has food, water, and shelter provided, then prison is even better than utopia, as it gives you indoor plumbing and cable tv for free also.

[Sinfix_15]

Food, water and shelter was provided..... just sayin....

[David88vert]

Food, water and shelter was provided..... just sayin....

But they had to work for it. Disallowed for this discussion.

[bu villain]

Asks yes or no question.......says its not a yes or no question.

Is work good in and of itself or is it just a necessity with no moral implication?

It is not a yes/no question. Perhaps you are confused on what the question is. Please read again and answer. Notice the "OR" in there.

Good and bad are subjective, they are not simple yes and no answers.

Exactly, that's why I want everyone's subjective opinion.

If you are a lazy person receiving benefits for free, you will think it is a good or great thing to not work.
If you are the one paying for others to not have to work, you probably won't think it is a good thing, as they are getting a free ride on your dime.
Perspective changes subjective opinions, and nothing in life is free. What one person gets for free, another has to pay for.

The whole purpose of my scenario is that everyone is getting a free ride on the basics. No one is paying for anyone else. Work is only required if you want more than the basics.

If your utopia only has food, water, and shelter provided, then prison is even better than utopia, as it gives you indoor plumbing and cable tv for free also.

Don't you think the inability to leave your very small room except when someone else allows you, lack of privacy, threat of rape/beating, and inability to spend much time with family/loved ones is a pretty big down side?

[Sinfix_15]

The whole purpose of my scenario is that everyone is getting a free ride on the basics. No one is paying for anyone else. Work is only required if you want more than the basics.

This is where your logic is flawed. *everyone* cant get a free ride on the basics..... everything the government gives to one person, they take from another. Could welfare exist if 99% of the US needed welfare?

[.blank cd]

It is not a yes/no question. Perhaps you are confused on what the question is. Please read again and answer. Notice the "OR" in there.



Exactly, that's why I want everyone's subjective opinion.



The whole purpose of my scenario is that everyone is getting a free ride on the basics. No one is paying for anyone else. Work is only required if you want more than the basics.



Don't you think the inability to leave your very small room except when someone else allows you, lack of privacy, threat of rape/beating, and inability to spend much time with family/loved ones is a pretty big down side?

I know this is frustrating. Lol. I promise, I understand exactly what you're trying to say.

[bu villain]

This is where your logic is flawed. *everyone* cant get a free ride on the basics..... everything the government gives to one person, they take from another. Could welfare exist if 99% of the US needed welfare?

THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REAL LIFE SCENARIO, IT IS FOR PHILOSOPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. Who said anything about the government anyways? I said robots but it could be a race of aliens who provides us with everything we need for survival. It doesn't matter. The whole point of this is to get your feelings on a scenario where 100% of the people were given welfare and your personal morality/ethics surrounding work/productivity.

I know this is frustrating. Lol. I promise, I understand exactly what you're trying to say.

I'm glad someone gets it. Thanks. Care to chime in with your thoughts?

[Sinfix_15]

THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REAL LIFE SCENARIO, IT IS FOR PHILOSOPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. Who said anything about the government anyways? I said robots but it could be a race of aliens who provides us with everything we need for survival. It doesn't matter. The whole point of this is to get your feelings on a scenario where 100% of the people were given welfare and your personal morality/ethics surrounding work/productivity.



I'm glad someone gets it. Thanks. Care to chime in with your thoughts?

This is the problem with almost every liberal ideology. Theyre all philosophical and do not work in real life. Thank you for finally admitting the error of your ways.

[.blank cd]

I'm glad someone gets it. Thanks. Care to chime in with your thoughts?

I will. I'm at work and don't have the time to post a long answer yet. I kinda wanted to see where this thread went too. Lol.

This is the problem with almost every liberal ideology. Theyre all philosophical and do not work in real life. Thank you for finally admitting the error of your ways.

Thanks for admitting this.

[Vteckidd]

So your question is , if humans didnt need to work to survive, should they work?

Well i guess not. Although since the dawn of time, labor has always been traded in some means or form to acquire goods and services. Labor could also be called utility.

My point is i do not think your scenario is possible, so there is no logical answer to a question that you ask that has no way to be answered.

[bu villain]

This is the problem with almost every liberal ideology. Theyre all philosophical and do not work in real life. Thank you for finally admitting the error of your ways.

This is not liberal ideology, it's a philosophical question.

So your question is , if humans didnt need to work to survive, should they work?

Well i guess not.

You got it! Thanks for the response. So back to the other original question. What do you think the labor market would look like? What percentage of people would choose to continue working? Would their still be a wide range of incomes or would it just be a two class society (workers/non-workers). Would there be any stigma to working or not working?

My point is i do not think your scenario is possible, so there is no logical answer to a question that you ask that has no way to be answered.

A scenario doesn't need to be possible to have logical effects within the unrealistic boundaries. It is impossible that I will grow a third arm but that doesn't mean I can't opine on what I would do with one.

[Vteckidd]

A scenario doesn't need to be possible to have logical effects within the unrealistic boundaries. It is impossible that I will grow a third arm but that doesn't mean I can't opine on what I would do with one.

touche

Your question is more like "if people didnt want to play basketball, would they play basketball?"



If people didnt NEED to work, would they work? Probably not, because in the term that you and i THINK of what work really is. In 100 years , under your scneario, work would still happen, but it wouldnt be as you and I think about it today.

[David88vert]

The whole purpose of my scenario is that everyone is getting a free ride on the basics. No one is paying for anyone else. Work is only required if you want more than the basics.
Don't you think the inability to leave your very small room except when someone else allows you, lack of privacy, threat of rape/beating, and inability to spend much time with family/loved ones is a pretty big down side?

Since "THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REAL LIFE SCENARIO, IT IS FOR PHILOSOPHIC PURPOSES ONLY." then perhaps you can pretend that prison isn't a "pretty big down side" for those that choose not to work. It's as reasonable and rational as your "get everything for free, and not have to work" scenario. If you can't understand that everything is a transaction, then you already are starting with a handicap.

The reality is that you want to us to consider an illogical scenario and then discuss it with logic and reason. Perhaps if you started with a scenario that fit into a logical mold this could be accomplished - until then, it's all just pipe dreams and an unproductive discussion.

[bu villain]

touche

Your question is more like "if people didnt want to play basketball, would they play basketball?"



If people didnt NEED to work, would they work? Probably not, because in the term that you and i THINK of what work really is. In 100 years , under your scneario, work would still happen, but it wouldnt be as you and I think about it today.

It's more like, if they didn't NEED to play basketball. Since that already is the case, obviously the answer is that there is that a small percentage of people who choose to play basketball. The question is, would the same hold true for things we normally consider "work"? I agree it would be quite different than how we think about it today, which is why I find it to be an interesting question. I am also interested in the ethical side. If everyone chose to do nothing particularly productive, is there anything wrong with that? Do we have a moral imperative to make society better through effort?

[Sinfix_15]

This is not liberal ideology, it's a philosophical question.



You got it! Thanks for the response. So back to the other original question. What do you think the labor market would look like? What percentage of people would choose to continue working? Would their still be a wide range of incomes or would it just be a two class society (workers/non-workers). Would there be any stigma to working or not working?



A scenario doesn't need to be possible to have logical effects within the unrealistic boundaries. It is impossible that I will grow a third arm but that doesn't mean I can't opine on what I would do with one.

Only a visionary could construct such a deep and philosophical question. I can only imagine the possibilities of what people would do in this fantasy scenario where they didnt actually have to work..... only the boundaries of our imagination can limit the answers to this question. Maybe one day we can see this scenario play out in reality and gain some understanding from the results....

[bu villain]

Since "THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REAL LIFE SCENARIO, IT IS FOR PHILOSOPHIC PURPOSES ONLY." then perhaps you can pretend that prison isn't a "pretty big down side" for those that choose not to work. It's as reasonable and rational as your "get everything for free, and not have to work" scenario. If you can't understand that everything is a transaction, then you already are starting with a handicap.

Sure I could pretend that, and I will if you want to start a thread with such a condition. But this is my thread so I am setting the parameters. If you aren't interested in discussing within the provided boundaries, that's fine. You don't have to respond. Like I said to Vteck, I don't see how the lack of reason and rationality prevents us from having a conversation about what to do with a third arm. I don't see why reason and rationality are any more prerequisite for my questions.

The reality is that you want to us to consider an illogical scenario and then discuss it with logic and reason.

Yes that's right!

Perhaps if you started with a scenario that fit into a logical mold this could be accomplished - until then, it's all just pipe dreams and an unproductive discussion.

If logical discussion within illogical boundaries could not be accomplished, we wouldn't have myths, fantasy, science fiction, or a large portion of our popular culture.

[bu villain]

Only a visionary could construct such a deep and philosophical question. I can only imagine the possibilities of what people would do in this fantasy scenario where they didnt actually have to work..... only the boundaries of our imagination can limit the answers to this question. Maybe one day we can see this scenario play out in reality and gain some understanding from the results...

So you think celebrities with fame and fortune are a good representation of how everyone would live if they only didn't have to worry about food, shelter, and water? Interesting.

[Sinfix_15]

So you think celebrities with fame and fortune are a good representation of how everyone would live if they only didn't have to worry about food, shelter, and water? Interesting.

Yes actually i do. Each person pursued a path that brought fulfillment to their life without the burden of having to make money.

Paris Hilton partied.
Harry joined the military.
Lil Wayne became an artist.
I dont actually know what Bill Gates daughter does....

That's a pretty diverse selection of career paths for a group of individuals who did not have to work for anything. With endless opportunity, some people will do nothing. With no opportunity, some people will do everything. The real question is why do we take from some people and give to others? That is the only way to accomplish your scenario. I dont care who does and does not work, im just tired of footing the bill for people who dont work.

[.blank cd]

If logical discussion within illogical boundaries could not be accomplished, we wouldn't have myths, fantasy, science fiction, or a large portion of our popular culture.

Or science, period, for that matter.

[Vteckidd]

I am also interested in the ethical side. If everyone chose to do nothing particularly productive, is there anything wrong with that? Do we have a moral imperative to make society better through effort?

So you think we work now to make society better? define productive.

YOu are changing the question.

[bu villain]

Yes actually i do. Each person pursued a path that brought fulfillment to their life without the burden of having to make money.

Paris Hilton partied.
Harry joined the military.
Lil Wayne became an artist.
I dont actually know what Bill Gates daughter does....

That's a pretty diverse selection of career paths for a group of individuals who did not have to work for anything. With endless opportunity, some people will do nothing. With no opportunity, some people will do everything.

I agree but I am really interested in the aggregate. What percentage of people will be partiers, soldiers, etc. Would people actually be happier or would the sweet be less so without as much bitter? These kinds of questions are what I am interested in.

The real question is why do we take from some people and give to others? That is the only way to accomplish your scenario. I dont care who does and does not work, im just tired of footing the bill for people who dont work.

That is an important question but I think it unfortunately distracts from what I am hoping to discuss in this thread. Please start a new thread if you want to go down that path.

[David88vert]

Or science, period, for that matter.

Support this statement factually.

[David88vert]

Sure I could pretend that, and I will if you want to start a thread with such a condition. But this is my thread so I am setting the parameters. If you aren't interested in discussing within the provided boundaries, that's fine. You don't have to respond. Like I said to Vteck, I don't see how the lack of reason and rationality prevents us from having a conversation about what to do with a third arm. I don't see why reason and rationality are any more prerequisite for my questions.



Yes that's right!



If logical discussion within illogical boundaries could not be accomplished, we wouldn't have myths, fantasy, science fiction, or a large portion of our popular culture.

Ok, so here is your illogical and irrational answer.

Half will still work to improve their lives. Half will be lazy.

How did I come up with that? With no logic or reason - just made it up. That's what you want though, right?

[Sinfix_15]

I agree but I am really interested in the aggregate. What percentage of people will be partiers, soldiers, etc. Would people actually be happier or would the sweet be less so without as much bitter? These kinds of questions are what I am interested in.



That is an important question but I think it unfortunately distracts from what I am hoping to discuss in this thread. Please start a new thread if you want to go down that path.

I think society would always evolve it's definition of necessity regardless of what was provided. If we provided food and shelter so that people only worked for what they wanted, then people without cellphones would say they needed cellphones, then people without SUVs would say they needed SUVs, then people without swimming pools would say they needed swimming pools. Productive people would continue to be productive and unproductive people would continue to be unproductive. The only thing you would accomplish is whatever peace of mind you get from knowing that unproductive members of society wont be starving because of their actions.