Shouldn't the goal be no work

[angel55]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

[1714690004]

1714690004

[1714690004]

1714690004

[1714690004]

1714690004

[BADecker]

I'm waiting for the day when robots take over all the jobs. We can all go on Welfare, and collect 10 times as much, because the robots will make all their own parts from raw materials for free.

We can travel the world, and there won't be any reason for us to have enemies, because all people will be included in the self-sufficiency the robots give us.

BTW, the robots don't have to be made to be able to think in ways where they might turn against us. They could even have safeguards built in so that we could stop them on a moment's notice.

[Jet Cash]

They are working towards that now. The only problem is that they want to get rid of 80% of the population ( Bill Gates stated ambition ). Do you want to be in the 80%?

[BADecker]

^^^ Bill Gates is quite smart. But he needs a large population to get genius thinkers to develop things that robots won't be able to develop easily. Why? Because so few people are geniuses.

[Initscri]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

I actually don't think it's a smart idea for humans to work 0 hours. It's highly against our biology/evolution as a species.

[boyptc]

They are working towards that now. The only problem is that they want to get rid of 80% of the population ( Bill Gates stated ambition ). Do you want to be in the 80%?

I've heard of this, oh my, I don't want to be part of that 80%.

Money will work for the people and everything is set. Lives will be easier as that's the main goal of technology and innovation to our lives.

[OgNasty]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

Watch the movie Idiocracy.  That's my best argument for why this shouldn't be our goal.

[peonminer]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

Watch the movie Idiocracy.  That's my best argument for why this shouldn't be our goal.

Precisely. Universal basic income is one thing, that is being explored by a good amount of respectable research platforms. Making the entire human race a giant blob of leisure would eventually crumble and become the opposite of self sufficient. Even the robots would become lazy. Eventually there would be some sort of revolt about equality, etc. Have you ever read or watched 1984? Same concept. Everyone must adhere to certain boundaries to be a part of society. The boundaries set by "NO WORK" would just be unheard of and wouldn't stick. Someone, somewhere, would try to take two pieces of pie, instead of one. If they have the means to take it, they should be able to. Or at least be able to work up to it. Even if fiat fails and crypto becomes the new fiat, we will still conduct transactions, people will still try to take more resources than the next person to secure a better place in the world. It'll never end. Heck, even the robots will be advanced enough in their AI by then that they will be trying to put us out of work and call for "robots' rights" so that they may do all of the things we are able to do.

[BADecker]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

Watch the movie Idiocracy.  That's my best argument for why this shouldn't be our goal.

Precisely. Universal basic income is one thing, that is being explored by a good amount of respectable research platforms. Making the entire human race a giant blob of leisure would eventually crumble and become the opposite of self sufficient. Even the robots would become lazy. Eventually there would be some sort of revolt about equality, etc. Have you ever read or watched 1984? Same concept. Everyone must adhere to certain boundaries to be a part of society. The boundaries set by "NO WORK" would just be unheard of and wouldn't stick. Someone, somewhere, would try to take two pieces of pie, instead of one. If they have the means to take it, they should be able to. Or at least be able to work up to it. Even if fiat fails and crypto becomes the new fiat, we will still conduct transactions, people will still try to take more resources than the next person to secure a better place in the world. It'll never end. Heck, even the robots will be advanced enough in their AI by then that they will be trying to put us out of work and call for "robots' rights" so that they may do all of the things we are able to do.

Now you are talking sports. Sports will never end... at least as long as sports people don't have to work for a living. All you are saying is that people would partake of work as a sport of some kind, if they didn't need the money or work-upkeep.

[peonminer]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

Watch the movie Idiocracy.  That's my best argument for why this shouldn't be our goal.

Precisely. Universal basic income is one thing, that is being explored by a good amount of respectable research platforms. Making the entire human race a giant blob of leisure would eventually crumble and become the opposite of self sufficient. Even the robots would become lazy. Eventually there would be some sort of revolt about equality, etc. Have you ever read or watched 1984? Same concept. Everyone must adhere to certain boundaries to be a part of society. The boundaries set by "NO WORK" would just be unheard of and wouldn't stick. Someone, somewhere, would try to take two pieces of pie, instead of one. If they have the means to take it, they should be able to. Or at least be able to work up to it. Even if fiat fails and crypto becomes the new fiat, we will still conduct transactions, people will still try to take more resources than the next person to secure a better place in the world. It'll never end. Heck, even the robots will be advanced enough in their AI by then that they will be trying to put us out of work and call for "robots' rights" so that they may do all of the things we are able to do.

Now you are talking sports. Sports will never end... at least as long as sports people don't have to work for a living. All you are saying is that people would partake of work as a sport of some kind, if they didn't need the money or work-upkeep.

Sorry decker. You're wrong again.

The word we were looking for on today's game show of

"CAN DECKER FINALLY MAKE ANY SENSE???!!!"

was

CAPITALISM

[KingScorpio]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

i think that will end soon,

with state and universities losing their financial monopole, we might end up in a dark age soon...

regards

[Mometaskers]

Work (whatever the individual defines it) is also important for mental well-being. Granted not having to work for money, many people would still do something they feel passionate about.

Ideally it'll all be nice like in Star Trek but there are so many ways this can go wrong. Financial freedom equals economic freedom. If you are entirely dependent on the state for everything, what do you think will happen when you dissent?

Precisely. Universal basic income is one thing, that is being explored by a good amount of respectable research platforms. Making the entire human race a giant blob of leisure would eventually crumble and become the opposite of self sufficient. 

LOL I suddenly thought of Wall-e. At least the AI was benevolent.

[mOgliE]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  

yep but that can't be done under a capitalistic system.

The very basis of capitalism is NOT the productivity but the capital productivity.
So what incentive could the capitalists have to reduce the amount of worl on a global scale? Isn't it better to abuse this productivity by telling everyone "hey, there are less jobs now. You gotta decrease the salaries and the workers protections otherwise I won't give you this job".

And that's what happens.

[sheenshane]

snip-
An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

Resources are the things that matter for us to reach our goals in innovation. Employment will soon be gone once the artificial intelligence technology dominates. There are a lot of things to consider in innovation and much more scares us to face it. Someday the people will no longer become a hard labor employee and the economics will demand more from people.

AI are the things that prove robots could dominate the earth and will challenge to mankind. It is really scary if the robot has been developed so much.

[Deadly050]

The goal should be for the happiness of everyone. No one should be forced to work so that they won't starve. Let everyone do what they love as long they are not hurting anyone.

[BADecker]

No one should be forced to work so that they won't starve.

But working so that you won't starve, is only the tiny part of what keeps you alive.

Mark 4:26-29:

26He also said, “This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. 27Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. 28All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. 29As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come.”

[zhekinsp]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

When we enter into the era where no human were need to work then how the people who were working now will survive their life just get into charity and pass their life in that condition?

But this time will come in the few next generation which might bring an end to the human era.

[BADecker]

Now you are talking sports. Sports will never end... at least as long as sports people don't have to work for a living. All you are saying is that people would partake of work as a sport of some kind, if they didn't need the money or work-upkeep.

Sorry decker. You're wrong again.

The word we were looking for on today's game show of

"CAN DECKER FINALLY MAKE ANY SENSE???!!!"

You haven't figured out, yet, have you, that most people who play sports do it for the fun of it. You really need to (or not) wake up and think. If robots supplied everything, the work that people did would be something that they did for fun. It would be sports for them.

[omonuyak]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

I do agree with you sir.  The goal should be really not working.  The world is full with technological intelligence that can reduce the time we actually work and how we can live in abundance.

[Spendulus]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

Watch the movie Idiocracy.  That's my best argument for why this shouldn't be our goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJIjoE27F-Q

[Noen25]

If playing sports professionally is a job, there will be sponsors and fans who will support you or your team. When you play sports for the purpose of raising physical fitness, this is most likely a hobby, I think so.

[BADecker]

The goal should be to work. Why? Because the body and mind work, even when they are at rest. No work would mean no more body/mind work. This would be death. Working brings about continued life if it is done in moderation, and not excessively.

[Glorious04]

I don't think the end goal is to make humans to work less. We know that the reason is there is much productivity with just the use of technology than with human effort so for companies who prefer to the use of technologies over human work they just want more profit and pay less. If they'll be spending less with machines than paying every individual that works with less produce, it would be for the company's advantage to acquire a more advance method through the use of technology and produce more, profit more and pay less.

[mayo2u]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

If you can find purpose for your life then yes. But most people cannot. Look how many rich people do nothing productive. Look at all the people on welfare who have their basic needs taken care of. Are they happy? Are they reading? Learning? Are they diligently working on a hobby - be it music, art, literature, helping wounded animals, helping old people. Are they helping out by cleaning streets and parks and other things?

No.

So, what makes you think things will be different if no one had to work?

[Spendulus]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

If you can find purpose for your life then yes. But most people cannot. Look how many rich people do nothing productive. Look at all the people on welfare who have their basic needs taken care of. Are they happy? Are they reading? Learning? Are they diligently working on a hobby - be it music, art, literature, helping wounded animals, helping old people. Are they helping out by cleaning streets and parks and other things?

No.

So, what makes you think things will be different if no one had to work?

I'm in favor of me not working, but in order to achieve that goal, I'll accept .... only as a public service for the benefit of all, mind you .... the job and the responsibility of correctly allocating labor to the masses. The goal would of course be for nobody to work but we all understand that's a goal we have to work toward. It's not going to happen overnight.

So first, I commit to working at least ten minutes for each eight hour day that society pays me for. Second, I commit to allocating at least ten hours of labor to each member of society per day. Of course we could allocate less, live five hours per day, but then it would take us twice as long to get to our goal of nobody working. I'm sure nobody will complain when it's all correctly explained to them.

Okay, so my ten minutes for today is up, so I have to quit. Let's continue this discussion tomorrow, okay? In the meantime be sure to put in at least the ten hours that's your duty for today and just remember the great and worthy goals we're all striving and toiling towards. Onward!

[BADecker]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

If you can find purpose for your life then yes. But most people cannot. Look how many rich people do nothing productive. Look at all the people on welfare who have their basic needs taken care of. Are they happy? Are they reading? Learning? Are they diligently working on a hobby - be it music, art, literature, helping wounded animals, helping old people. Are they helping out by cleaning streets and parks and other things?

No.

So, what makes you think things will be different if no one had to work?

So, now you want to force people to be happy. Force people to not work so that they will be happy not working. Force other people to support them so that they will be happy working. Force welfare officials to be happy by making them transfer money from the working to the non-working.

[mayo2u]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

If you can find purpose for your life then yes. But most people cannot. Look how many rich people do nothing productive. Look at all the people on welfare who have their basic needs taken care of. Are they happy? Are they reading? Learning? Are they diligently working on a hobby - be it music, art, literature, helping wounded animals, helping old people. Are they helping out by cleaning streets and parks and other things?

No.

So, what makes you think things will be different if no one had to work?

So, now you want to force people to be happy. Force people to not work so that they will be happy not working. Force other people to support them so that they will be happy working. Force welfare officials to be happy by making them transfer money from the working to the non-working.

My point is that a society in which all material needs are satisfied will not, in and of itself, produce a happy and workable solution. It will not remove crime. The overwhelming majority of the crime in the US and Western Europe has nothing to do with putting food in one's belly. We do not fill our jails with Jean Valjeans (the guy who stole a loaf of bread to feed his family in Les Miserables).

Assuming all material needs are taken care of it still would be good to have people conscientiously help by keeping their neighborhood clean; by helping old people, etc... Even if it's only two days a week. But then -- there would be envy. I have my own apartment, TV, wifi, clothes, food, etc... BUT that rich SOB has more. Who cares if he works. It's NOT FAIR.

Resentment will always exist among egalitarians. Resentment breeds anger, violence and destruction.

[angel55]

^ You are completely wrong about crime.  The majority of crime is because of poverty.  People are hopeless and have no money so they do whatever they can to afford to live. 

[tvbcof]

The entire _reason_ for the universe to exist is to 'be' the body and soul of a certain ethnic group of people.  These people they are the very reason for everything else in the universe.  The 'apple of God's eye', as it were, and their souls stem from holiness.  If this is a hard concept to grasp then study Kabbalah I guess.

Other ethnic groups which make up about 99.9% of humanity are part of the standard flotsam and jetsam of the rest of the universe.  Their souls come from some of the 'satanic spheres', and God created them, along with everything else in the universe, to serve the chosen people.  These people should more properly be considered a different species from the chosen.

To answer your question; 'It depends.'  If you are a goyim then 'no.'  You have a job to do.

I take my understanding of this reality straight from the horses' mouth so to speak.  I've heard this philosophy espoused on numerous occasions by people who's only commonality seems to be that they are, like Jarred and Ivanka Kushner, members of Chabad-Lubavitch cult and/or are otherwise ultra-orthodox; it's hard to tell sometimes.  Seemingly plain-Jane Zionists also echo these sentiments sometimes though rarely as explicitly...their actions speak as loud as their words though.

[Spendulus]

.....We do not fill our jails with Jean Valjeans (the guy who stole a loaf of bread to feed his family in Les Miserables)......

I'm not so sure about that.

We fill them with his modern day equals.

People that didn't pay a traffic ticket, then got issued a warrant, then got arrested and jailed....

Many, many other small, victimless crimes put people in jail.

[markstivn98]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

It's a good thing.
But with all this work there is an economic deficit.
 Perhaps in the future the human will not do anything and will be limited to robots and machines.

[mayo2u]

^ You are completely wrong about crime.  The majority of crime is because of poverty.  People are hopeless and have no money so they do whatever they can to afford to live. 

The crime in the US is not a result of needing food or the necessities of life. It's due to wanting more than one has. And the hopelessness you mentioned makes my point doesn't it. Here you have people who don't need to work to have an apt or food or clothing or heat or water AND they're living lives of desperation and hopelessness.

Kinda makes my point.

[TECSHARE]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

Watch the movie Idiocracy.  That's my best argument for why this shouldn't be our goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJIjoE27F-Q

I'M GONNA FUCK ALL Y'ALL  WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjNyTtW-6K8

[LUCKMCFLY]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

It's a good thing.
But with all this work there is an economic deficit.
 Perhaps in the future the human will not do anything and will be limited to robots and machines.

There is a huge tendency towards robots, even lists are handled that are jobs that will be replaced in the future, however, I do not believe that a robot, manages to simulate human emotions and often the emotions are those that lead the vanguard, such and As it exerts in the market, the best thing for now is to work and have a better vision of the future.

[baobao2000]

If our technology continues develop, it is possible most of work will be taken over by robot, everything will be automatic and there would have less work. We will get use the comfort with robot slave and not sure what will be the position of human, maybe human and robot will have a war like in the movie eventually.

[BADecker]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

If you can find purpose for your life then yes. But most people cannot. Look how many rich people do nothing productive. Look at all the people on welfare who have their basic needs taken care of. Are they happy? Are they reading? Learning? Are they diligently working on a hobby - be it music, art, literature, helping wounded animals, helping old people. Are they helping out by cleaning streets and parks and other things?

No.

So, what makes you think things will be different if no one had to work?

So, now you want to force people to be happy. Force people to not work so that they will be happy not working. Force other people to support them so that they will be happy working. Force welfare officials to be happy by making them transfer money from the working to the non-working.

My point is that a society in which all material needs are satisfied will not, in and of itself, produce a happy and workable solution. It will not remove crime. The overwhelming majority of the crime in the US and Western Europe has nothing to do with putting food in one's belly. We do not fill our jails with Jean Valjeans (the guy who stole a loaf of bread to feed his family in Les Miserables).

Assuming all material needs are taken care of it still would be good to have people conscientiously help by keeping their neighborhood clean; by helping old people, etc... Even if it's only two days a week. But then -- there would be envy. I have my own apartment, TV, wifi, clothes, food, etc... BUT that rich SOB has more. Who cares if he works. It's NOT FAIR.

Resentment will always exist among egalitarians. Resentment breeds anger, violence and destruction.

You are simply trying to balance the idea of having too much with the idea of not having enough.

When it gets right down to it, having enough includes crime. The old Westworld movie showed how to give people who need crime to live, the crime they need without criminalizing others. Make robots that are so perfectly human that you have the belief that when you murder them, or simply beat them, or steal from them, you feel that you have done it to a human. You are satisfied in the crime that you commit.

Ultimately, by satisfying crime in people, they are being helped toward the ultimate crime that a person can do in his life... suicide.


The other side is the people who are virtually enslaved in this life. A robot world might give these people freedom from their enslavement. But, they will forget their former poverty after enough time elapses. The human nature will prevail.


Personally, I think that work is good, and that temporary forced work is good for a time. But everybody needs a really big vacation now and again. The vacation should end when the person wants to move ahead and start working again... not when someone else dictates he should.

[coolcoinz]

There already is no work.
People who migrated to the EU from Africa don't work and live on benefits. Maybe 1% of them integrated into society and found jobs.
Prisoners don't work.
Unemployed people don't work, and this is over 10% of the society in many so called first world countries. I'm not condemning the unemployed by any means, many of them can't find a job because the system is built the way it is. They took a career path and suddenly there's no need for people with their skills, or there's too many people who specialize in the same thing. This is not the point. The point is, many people don't work and live.

Also, think about what the term means. Is an unemployed person someone who doesn't work? Non necessarily. You can be caring for elderly parents, which technically makes you unemployed, but you're working your ass off. Same as a housewife who raises children. She's also unemployed but working.

Is a person who inherited a building and is renting it out an unemployed? Technically yes. Is he working? You could say he isn't, because doing the paperwork and checking if tenants paid on time takes just a couple hours a month, but he is making money, not living on benefits or begging. He has a stable income, which he has to attend to, even if it's not very time-consuming.

[tvbcof]

There already is no work.
People who migrated to the EU from Africa don't work and live on benefits. Maybe 1% of them integrated into society and found jobs.
Prisoners don't work.
Unemployed people don't work, and this is over 10% of the society in many so called first world countries. I'm not condemning the unemployed by any means, many of them can't find a job because the system is built the way it is. They took a career path and suddenly there's no need for people with their skills, or there's too many people who specialize in the same thing. This is not the point. The point is, many people don't work and live.

Also, think about what the term means. Is an unemployed person someone who doesn't work? Non necessarily. You can be caring for elderly parents, which technically makes you unemployed, but you're working your ass off. Same as a housewife who raises children. She's also unemployed but working.

Is a person who inherited a building and is renting it out an unemployed? Technically yes. Is he working? You could say he isn't, because doing the paperwork and checking if tenants paid on time takes just a couple hours a month, but he is making money, not living on benefits or begging. He has a stable income, which he has to attend to, even if it's not very time-consuming.

I think, but do not know, that if measured in an 'un-normalize' manner, unemployment in our great 'Trump Economy' is greater than was the case in the depths of the great depression of the 1930's.

People who've been 'left behind' by 'society's raising bar of 'inferiority' really have no choice but to support a system which at least pay lip-service to the idea of supporting them.

A minority of 'old-timers' like me, or those who've inherited wealth from their old-timers parents, may be sitting on a stash which can keep them independent in spite of not necessarily being 'competitive' in a rapidly collapsing sphere 'useful existence.'  The rest NEED a mechanism which can 'capture the un-earned income' and distribute it.  Unfortunately for them, those who have any hope of 'capturing' it are not likely to be as effective on the 'distribution' side of the equation.

Those making promises might distribute enough to buy the have-nots some Top Ramen, though.  Or a device to spy on them.  Or buy them a one-way ticket to eternal life in the (likely fake) borg-driven utopia of cyber existence.

[BADecker]

Prisoners don't work.

They will if they get hungry enough. Put them on a treadmill to make electricity for the government. Then feed them based on how much electricity they put out. If they won't work, let 'em starve. That way the people won't have to support them through taxes.

This will take care of the immigrants who are living on welfare, when their welfare runs out... if they don't go out and voluntarily find a job.

[mOgliE]

Also, think about what the term means. Is an unemployed person someone who doesn't work? Non necessarily. You can be caring for elderly parents, which technically makes you unemployed, but you're working your ass off. Same as a housewife who raises children. She's also unemployed but working.

Differentiating work from employment is a fundamental concept.

We're being tought that if you're not employed under the capital of someone or your own capital, you're not working.

This is a stupid definition that, though practical, is in no way a complete and objective vision of society.

[mOgliE]

I think, but do not know, that if measured in an 'un-normalize' manner, unemployment in our great 'Trump Economy' is greater than was the case in the depths of the great depression of the 1930's.

I'm 100% sure it isn't simply because in 1930 most women weren't employed.
It counts as a lot.
https://medium.com/the-thirties/employment-of-women-in-the-1930s-5998fd255f5

25% of women were employed.

[BADecker]

I'll tell you one thing for sure. It will be a big job of work enforcing the no-work policy.

 

[Spendulus]

I think, but do not know, that if measured in an 'un-normalize' manner, unemployment in our great 'Trump Economy' is greater than was the case in the depths of the great depression of the 1930's.

I'm 100% sure it isn't simply because in 1930 most women weren't employed.
It counts as a lot.
https://medium.com/the-thirties/employment-of-women-in-the-1930s-5998fd255f5

25% of women were employed.

"Most" were not employed.

[TECSHARE]

I think, but do not know, that if measured in an 'un-normalize' manner, unemployment in our great 'Trump Economy' is greater than was the case in the depths of the great depression of the 1930's.

I'm 100% sure it isn't simply because in 1930 most women weren't employed.
It counts as a lot.
https://medium.com/the-thirties/employment-of-women-in-the-1930s-5998fd255f5

25% of women were employed.

Does maintaining a home and a family count as work? If so I am willing to wager that number would be closer to 80%

[Daniel91]

Our goal should be to live fulfilled life.
Our life should be happy and less stressful than now.
But, I think that life without any work or obligation will be boring, really
We should have time for us, our friends, families, hobbies etc.
In my opinion, in the future we will have much more flexible working schedule, work from home will become standard and we will have freedom to chose when and how much we will work.

[BADecker]

Everywhere in the world you see work, be it among people or among all of nature. You also see periods of rest and relaxation. The best idea is to follow nature in the idea of work - working hard at times, resting at others, and take vacations, only to come back to work again. Do it all in moderation, with moderation the focus on all aspects of work or no work.

Our goal in life should be to seek God and the way He tells us to find peace in the hereafter. This life lasts for less than 100 years (usually). But the hereafter is forever.

[coolcoinz]

Differentiating work from employment is a fundamental concept.

We're being tought that if you're not employed under the capital of someone or your own capital, you're not working.

This is a stupid definition that, though practical, is in no way a complete and objective vision of society.

The topic was about work in general, at least IMO.
If we ask whether there will be no employment in our future, the answer is yes, most likely. Is it bad? I'd say no, because we should be working more for ourselves, less for others (i.e. the society).
If the question is about work in general then I don't see a point in asking. There will always be work in this sense, as long as people will exist, unless your vision of society is like the one from The Matrix, where we all live in stasis tubes.

They will if they get hungry enough. Put them on a treadmill to make electricity for the government. Then feed them based on how much electricity they put out. If they won't work, let 'em starve. That way the people won't have to support them through taxes.

This will take care of the immigrants who are living on welfare, when their welfare runs out... if they don't go out and voluntarily find a job.

Love the idea, but try to persuade the left to do it. It will be like trying to wipe your butt with a hedgehog.
We're talking about the same group that greeted migrants with flowers to be later raped and/or mugged by them.

[BADecker]

They will if they get hungry enough. Put them on a treadmill to make electricity for the government. Then feed them based on how much electricity they put out. If they won't work, let 'em starve. That way the people won't have to support them through taxes.

This will take care of the immigrants who are living on welfare, when their welfare runs out... if they don't go out and voluntarily find a job.

Love the idea, but try to persuade the left to do it. It will be like trying to wipe your butt with a hedgehog.
We're talking about the same group that greeted migrants with flowers to be later raped and/or mugged by them.

All right. I'll say it direct and simple. The goal shouldn't be no work. The goal shoyld be more pay for the same work... and leveraged pay if possible.

[TECSHARE]

Am I the only one concerned about what the elite will do once the masses are no longer employed and no longer have value to them as workers within the systems they control? I mean it is getting to the point where robots and AI can do almost anything... at that point the masses of humanity are more of a threat to them than anything. This not a good position to be in when people with indescribable amounts of power and nearly limitless resources see you more valuable as a corpse than a free human being. IMO this should be our primary collective concern, the conditions are ripe for a harvest... and they just so happen to have a sickle ready.

[BADecker]

^^^ However, in the scheme of things, it is these elite who are the ones who are trapped. We are just entering the phase of robotic work. Nobody knows who will be the winners, the elite or their robots. If the elite aren't careful, it will be the robots. They just might think ahead, and keep the rest of us around to help them fight the robots.

In the end, we all die. And it doesn't take very long compared with the amount of time that has already elapsed. If fighting robots isn't fun, we just might be more blessed to depart before the robots take over.

The whole focus is different than when there were no robots. The folks that had The Georgia Guidestones built, might already have succumbed to what the monument says regarding reducing population, and that without the robots.

Personally, I would think that if the robots take over, they will want greater population, simply because they will know that they (the robots) really aren't spiritual at all, and that they need spiritual people on their side to win spiritual things in the universe.

[mayo2u]

They will if they get hungry enough. Put them on a treadmill to make electricity for the government. Then feed them based on how much electricity they put out. If they won't work, let 'em starve. That way the people won't have to support them through taxes.

This will take care of the immigrants who are living on welfare, when their welfare runs out... if they don't go out and voluntarily find a job.

Love the idea, but try to persuade the left to do it. It will be like trying to wipe your butt with a hedgehog.
We're talking about the same group that greeted migrants with flowers to be later raped and/or mugged by them.

All right. I'll say it direct and simple. The goal shouldn't be no work. The goal shoyld be more pay for the same work... and leveraged pay if possible.

What does leveraged pay mean? Is that like stock options?

[BADecker]

All right. I'll say it direct and simple. The goal shouldn't be no work. The goal should be more pay for the same work... and leveraged pay if possible.

What does leveraged pay mean? Is that like stock options?

Like MLM.     

[yeosaga]

Hypothetically:

A system exists with a finite/predictable money supply.
The system generates a UBI for every verified identity.
Members that want to contribute more are free to do so, but wont this ultimately lead to the current system we have?

I guess I can get behind wealth disparity, as long as the ones with the wealth are deserving of it.


That opens up another question of if we allow wealth to be passed on from generation to generation?
Maybe a solution is to allow value to start being obtained at year 0?

Edit: Wealth disparity will always be a thing as long as human emotion and greed is involved.

[mOgliE]

I think, but do not know, that if measured in an 'un-normalize' manner, unemployment in our great 'Trump Economy' is greater than was the case in the depths of the great depression of the 1930's.

I'm 100% sure it isn't simply because in 1930 most women weren't employed.
It counts as a lot.
https://medium.com/the-thirties/employment-of-women-in-the-1930s-5998fd255f5

25% of women were employed.

"Most" were not employed.

I don't understand your comment.
Isn't 75% a good number for "most"?

[BADecker]

George Jetson came home from work one day. He looked just beat. His wife asked him how things went at the office. He said he really worked hard. He pushed 3 whole buttons today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrIf0oYTtaI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlAMmCl3Cw

 

[xvids]

I like to live where we don't need money and we could just plant and harvest our food,
Just like a farm but in our current farm still needs money for the seed and fertilizer,
I want to live where we don't need money for any kinds of things.

[BADecker]

^^^ Imagine that you could find such a place. You would, of course, have to work to grow your food and to live. Part of your work would include storing up this or that for bad seasons. If you are smart, you will have kids who love you, so that they support you in your old age.

Other people will find the same area you live in. They will do the same as you. Then crime will step in, and you will need to form a government among yourselves to protect you all from the criminals. Then the criminals will get into government, and ultimately you will have the same mess as you do today.

The only hope for a no-work situation is robots. The only hope for a work situation is wise kids who will support you like you supported them when they were little, and who will protect you from the criminals in government.

[TECSHARE]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/social-media-universal-basic-income-cashless-society-how-chinas-social-credit

This article does a decent job of painting the picture of how we go from UBI to totalitarianism in a few easy steps...

[emulsifryer]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

I do agree with you sir.  The goal should be really not working.  The world is full of technological intelligence that can reduce the time we actually work and how we can live in abundance.

It may be good for us all that technology is getting innovative from time to time and it actually lessen our work which we always used to but it doesn't mean that all of our works to do should depend on it, most of us become lazy afterward.

[Malsetid]

Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better.  Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less?  The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have.  An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have.  If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.

I do agree with you sir.  The goal should be really not working.  The world is full of technological intelligence that can reduce the time we actually work and how we can live in abundance.

It may be good for us all that technology is getting innovative from time to time and it actually lessen our work which we always used to but it doesn't mean that all of our works to do should depend on it, most of us become lazy afterward.

Nobody said we'd be relying on technology to do our work for us. Of course not and i don't think that that it's also possible. Less work would be more like it. Who wouldn't want to be paid while doing half the work they're supposed to do? Thst's what technology is for anyways, to make life better and easier for us humans.

[BADecker]

The goal should be more work. After all, if your body didn't work, it wouldn't be alive. Consider sick people, whose bodies are working, but not the right way. Or consider people in the morgue, whose bodies aren't working at all. More work means more life. But it should be voluntary. If you don't want to work, you essentially want to die.