Dan TheBookMan danust2012 at gmail.com
Sun Mar 5 19:35:16 UTC 2017

On Mar 5, 2017, at 10:08 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> That seems 'make-work' bias in action. We don't need jobs, just a means of support. If the amount of wealth increases so that no one practically had to work (in any traditional sense*), then it's a matter of making sure everyone has support rather than everyone spends time everyday producing stuff or services much better provided by tech.
> Regards,
> Dan
> Makework is better than nothing.  Even cleaning up the streets and highways provides some degree of accomplishment, the latter totally lacking when one sits around and waits for a welfare check.  That leads to trouble, as unemployed teens tend to form gangs and get into drugs and drug selling and vandalism and so on.  Maybe tech will be better, but I'd take jobs away from tech and give them to people if it were no threat to the companies and economy. 

Finding other activities to do is different from work though. 

The drug issue would be what? In a world with freely available recreational drugs, why would drugs be an issue?

The state welfare model, too, doesn't much help the poor. One might say that was never the goal, though it seems more like the state welfare system destroys lives even if that's not the professed goal of its advocates:


> A lot of jobs require perks like health care that you don't have to give to robots. Pensions, too.  If health care and pensions were taken out of the equation (like colleges are now doing, and have been for some time, by giving jobs to temps at low pay and no extras) by government programs, there'd be a lot more jobs available.  Pensions and health care are extremely expensive, so don't weight companies down with them.  This, of course, is already being done to some degree, but many companies are near bankruptcy because of pension plans.  Look at Greece.  

You're still thinking in terms of 'there's no enough shit to go around.' My point is if the robot economy produces enough shit -- where 'shit' includes stuff like food, clothing, housing, healthcare, vacations, infrastructure, and much more -- for everyone, then what need is there for anyone to work? There wouldn't be a need to work to get X when X is produced in enough quantities that everyone has as much X as they want. (Of course, there's an issue that human wants are likely unlimited, but then work becomes figuring out how to direct robots toward other wants -- not toward having humans sweep floors, build gadgets, etc.)


  Sample my Kindle books via:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170305/1bd15a9f/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list