In my opinion, we as a society should aim to work less and less, collectively making use of automation and technological progress. But it will be hard when we label this as being lazy and not valuable member of society.
Please keep religious flamebait off this site. It leads to religious flamewars, which we seriously don't want here.
This mentality and ownership really needs to be rethought.
That’s quite a bit more acceptable to me than someone deciding that Apple’s phones should be theirs because reasons.
Feudalism is over, dude. You're connected. You're beholden.
Sometimes it's just baffling how everyone can see an obvious problem and no one moves to try to at least ameliorate it. Not even asking that it be completely solved, just try to make things a little better for those people.
Generally-speaking, I'm betting that the wealthy would rather live in a world where they still have essentially unfettered freedom of movement and resource access with slightly less collective wealth, than one in which they have to hold back their gifts and always have to be looking over their shoulder.
The term is mechanical, reductionist, and carelessly 'employed'.
Sadly data is weaker than any bias of perspectives, and people find it impossible to think causally without some larger brittle philosophical framework.
If we're reducing political parties to extreme stereotypes, then perhaps the pressure of the distant right is an appropriate counter to the pressure from the distant left which encourages hedonism and infantilism well into adulthood, shuffling responsibility onto the magical collective to solve problems.
And in this way society isn't totally lost, on average, if it exists somewhere in the middle.
I just think that conservative thinking lends itself to an evangelical mindset, while liberals tend to view their philosophy as inevitable. Often they are content to wait for people to evolve to their level. Hillary's inaction in the previous campaign is a perfect example of that mindset.
If the society had taken this view in 1950 and encouraged "laziness", then we wouldn't[1] have had as much technological progress since then. It would probably have created a great lifestyle for 1950's people. It is indeed a great question to ponder - do we want to optimize social setup for today's population or for future generations to come?
[1] I also think low-wage jobs are sometime essential to move the society forward, Uber being a good example. Taxi-based system was horrible in the US. Uber used a lot of low-paid workers to shake the status quo and the situation has improved remarkably since then. I don't think the solution offered by Uber is perfect and the setup should be improved further, but simple improvements like hailing a cab via an app, credit card payments or driver/passenger ratings were inconceivable with the taxi system (again, in the US). That progress might not have been possible in a system with UBI because no one would have driven for Uber for low wages. Again, presence of UBI would have certainly helped Uber drivers a lot but collective society would have been stuck with a shitty taxi-based system.