Gregory's Server@scottsantens while i generally agree with your sentiment, I don't like the idea of "job for fun, not life". Of course we could just provide everyone with basic needs like a home, food and water.
But to be truly part of a society everyone needs to have the chance at social participation. Fun shouldn't be a concept reserved for those who work. Fun is part of life. And in our current society, fun is something that needs to be payed for most of the time.
|
Top-level
8 comments
@wakame @scottsantens agreed. The answer to the "should jobs be necessary?" question is pure speculation. And it's a good thing that some countries are moving towards concepts like Universal Basic Income. My personal opinion is that jobs are an inherently capitalist concept. You get rewarded if you have a job and do it well. But if you can't do that, you get punished by social segregation. There are many people who struggle with work environments and are not "thriving".  @wakame @evysgarden @scottsantens I've been thinking about how money is used to exchange labour for resources, as is the basis of capitalism. How this forces labour to be continuously depreciated and resources exploited to exhaustion, because that's the only way the system can remain somewhat stable. So my idea would be to divide labour/renewable/non-renewable, have UBI resource allocation + labour exchanged at equal value, plus some labour for community for those who currently need extra help. @wakame Yeah, I condensed it a bit. Like, if you exchange access to resources for labour, and the resources are limited but labour is basically renewed overnight, and you want the capital to mostly remain in the hands of who has it already (for power/system stability), then today's labour has to be worth less than yesterday's, and preferrably you'd want to increase the amount of resources whereever possible ('reserves'), usually making renewables into non-renewables via exploitation. @wakame And I'll never not marvel at how Monopoly was created to show how capitalism sucks but instead was turned into teaching rentier capitalism to children. I agree with the inequality thing, and want to point out that it wouldn't make sense to amass capital with the goal to then just lose it again. Capital is a power base - like land plus title in feudalism - and systems using it need to try to consolidate and grow it to be able to function. |
@evysgarden @scottsantens
I think the central question is: "Will people work without (some kind of, likely 'tangible') reward?"
If you believe the answer is "Yes", then there is no (little) need to restrict the "free stuff" to essentials.
(Btw: I strongly believe that "Yes" is the answer.)
Most ideas about universal basic income, free healthcare, monetary support, etc. somehow seem to assume that the answer is "No", that people need to be forced to work.
Which makes total sense for our society, but IMHO only shows how bad we treat ourselves and each other.
"Kissing up and kicking down" is a result of rationing living essentials. So the good news (in my perspective) is: Even if we only provide for basic needs (for everyone, without hidden "punishments"), this whole sick capitalist ideology will unravel itself.
@evysgarden @scottsantens
I think the central question is: "Will people work without (some kind of, likely 'tangible') reward?"
If you believe the answer is "Yes", then there is no (little) need to restrict the "free stuff" to essentials.
(Btw: I strongly believe that "Yes" is the answer.)
Most ideas about universal basic income, free healthcare, monetary support, etc. somehow seem to assume that the answer is "No", that people need to be forced to work.