Shouldn't the goal be no work

[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.

[1714692241]

1714692241

[1714692241]

1714692241

[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.