A nation of slaves

Life is meaningless. People just tend to disagree at what existential level it begins to become meaningless. But right now is not meaningless - we can choose to enjoy it. Whether that is by telling ourselves that we have a purpose and acting upon it, or by playing amateur tennis - what's the difference? In the grand scheme of things.

Doctors have a purpose, but only because people are sick. Homeless shelters have a purpose, but only because there are homeless people. Soldiers have a purpose, but only because there are wars to fight. Workers have a purpose, but only because there is work to be done.

Do people have a feeling of existential purpose only because there is some unfinished work that they can finish, some pain that they can alleviate, or something being a burden that they can take on their shoulders? If so, it's a good thing that Utopia can't become real. Because we wouldn't like it one bit.

Why not abandon the notion altogether? This is not a competition.

Family, traveling, learning things, playing sports, spending time with friends, love, and more generally having fun while we can.

"what makes one person a success and another a failure"

That's quite a binary view of the world! why do you want people to be either a success or a failure? even if that's you want, work is certainly not the only metric for that.

It's quite an accomplishment given the fact that he chose to live as poor man in a very rich society.

Aristotle also has stated that More than 3 hours work per day, equals slavery and I'm pretty sure Socrates would have argued that If you don't want to work you should not be working.

Of course all these guys lived in the 4th century B.C.. With today's technology, people should not be working for food and rest. Seriously, the fact that there are people in whatever continent homeless and starving is a shame for our evolved society.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope

[2] When Alexander the Great took over Athens. He wanted to visit the Wisest man in Athens and the tale (mythology I get) says that the oracle of Delphi (Pythia) had state a couple of years before that The wisest man in Athens is Diogenis of Sinore. Funny, given the fact that Plato was around at the time. So when Alexander went finally found Diogenis in his jar - a jar Diogenis used as a bed/home in the agora - said "Ask for anything and I shall grant it you!" and Diogenis supposedly responded with indifference "*Can you move on the left? You're hiding the sun." ... The answer of course has a deeper meaning, Alexander couldn't give him the sun... And the most famous student of Aristotle (Alexander) was quite impressed as he moved on the left.

That would be work. There are plenty of things that people would do - I know of people that would take care of children, some that would teach, some that would code, some that would cook, ...

However that's not work, "work" in our capitalistic societies has a specific economic meaning: a work is something that produce profit. So for example in education, you have that silly situation where there is a demand and offer, yet there is no teaching job because the optimal profitability has been reached at a level lower than optimal for people.

Making Art would be the canonical example of this. But you actually find it in a many diverse things, from building a cool, unique app to solve a problem you care about, to building beautiful furniture for your house, to writing an essay explaining a view you care about, to elegantly solving a math problem that had been exciting your curiosity.

What does not provide meaning and purpose to your life, is work with no room for self-expression, self-direction and self-definition. Most jobs done "for the money" fall into this category.

These are the questions everyone has to answer for themselves ultimately. People like to go around praising everyone they believe to have succeeded and condemning everyone they believe to have failed, but you need to decide for yourself what the purpose of your life is. Otherwise you'll just end up chasing what everyone else believes.

First, there is the definition of success. For any given species or individual of that species, simple survival is the first level of success. This includes basic shelter, food and water sources, and protection from dangers.

Beyond that, once our more immediate needs are met, I think the next level of success is breeding. At one point, during my "Descartesian reset", I determined that throughout most of history, the primary purpose people had was to reproduce as a way to ensure their own well being in old age, but also as a sort of abstract, indirect immortality through their offspring. There is a reasons there are many cultures who still largely center around first-born.

For many of the proletariat, the safety and security of offspring was ensured through numbers (high mortality rates in the past) and through work servitude that was seen not just as an exchange of labor and time for money, but as an exchange of labor and time as an investment in their offspring, with money only being a tool to that end.

I think that, with the advancement of the arts and technology though, this otherwise ancient traditional model has been largely upended. Kings built castles, and Pharaoh's built pyramids, and other builders build structures that would last well past their deaths as their version of immortality, but normal people always were mostly just reproducing their dna. I think this is also why there is still so much reverence for glory and honor, particularly in battle, in that, if dying in a sufficiently glorious way, you are more likely to be remembered longer.

Past that, at some point I sat down and made a list. Essentially it boiled down to things that have a lasting impact for the greatest number of people beyond my death. Things like art, architecture, scientific discovery, writing, actions taken, etc. I don't remember the entire list, but it was fairly expansive.

The thing to keep in mind about all of these is the indirectness of their totality, that it to say a piece of art in itself may not actually be that big of a deal in the long term, but lets say that piece of art inspired another persons mind to do something great that they might not have had the inspiration to do otherwise.

tldr; Essentially, I think it all boils down to humanity's ancient tradition of trying to cheat death, and the way we do that has been changing. To me, as an atheist, the afterlife isn't a place where I exist, per se, but is more like the butterfly effect of my consciousness upon the universe it experienced before it's having been extinguished.

Of course, I'm hoping I can get my hands on a telomere regeneration mod to buy enough time to transplant my consciousness into a hopefully by then sufficient computer and kick off the singularity, but I digress.

To answer your original question, it isn't the work in itself that gives purpose. It's that a purpose is found and then striven for through whichever means are available, which for most people is usually indentured wage slavery. Ergo, when an older generation sees not working as a lack of purpose, do not mistake it that they think the work gives purpose, but that the work supports an already existing purpose. (which for most of them was child-rearing)

Compared to what?

There are a number of experiments (eg. across Africa) where a BI-like model made relatively desolate towns flourish.

Basic Income needn't provide luxuries- as long as it eliminates the threat of physical harm out of the job market (thus allowing everyone to walk away from any given job at a given rate), it works as designed IMHO.

To add drive to people who aren't self-motivated, there's still societal status and its symbols, some of which will naturally cost more than BI can afford - otherwise they won't be status symbols for long.

I'd bet you mean something other than mindless growth and expansion--just want to make sure.

The problem with Parkinson's Law is that management also knows it, so they think they can constrict their deadlines a lot and the work will get done, and if its not, they can pressure you to work extra hours to do it.

It actually works out well for some that do it, by starting at '4 a.m.' they finish early afternoon, around about lunch time and can be around when their kids get out of school. They also get paid rather well, as in £40K, which is well above minimum wage. They are also working, whereas chances are that 'Microsoft', 'Vodafone' or any of the other big-brand, knowledge economy employers of the area probably would not employ them. The garbage collector in Reading is quite likely to want to hold onto his/her job as it makes a lot of life possible, even if it does come with the 'stigma' of being in the 'recycling business' (okay, being a bin man!).

I must say that the situation in Reading is an anomaly, it may not even exist any more, but five years ago it was a cushy number, I had friends doing it.

Compare this situation to collecting the garbage in a rural no-jobs area. Here the job pays minimum wage and nobody sticks at it for very long. There is no benefit in doing it as the money is barely any more than income support and any overtime is swallowed up by tax. Consequently there is a high amount of churn as people give it a go to get off the employment register and prove to the government that they are willing to work, then, one way or another, they jack it in.

So how would that work out in a 'basic income' economy in some rural town where there are no jobs? I think it would still work out rather well, even if the pay was £10K after tax + Basic Income. It would make the difference between having a subsistence style existence and one where one could cook nice meals for the kids and buy them all the things they need. Even a holiday could be afforded, subject to budgeting ability.

Why would the incentive disappear? A basic income means that people don't make zero when they don't work; filling jobs would still be based on supply/demand, hence, implicitly, ability.

Why does the garbage have to be collected at 4 AM? Why do people need to fill the mart at night? Do you really need a waiter?

We'd have to reconsider the price our convenience imposes on other people.

Here's a video of the truck in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GprMe6A5DR8

I have to admit this alone is enough to give me pause. The logic goes something like: "Our current social system has produced astonishing wealth. We can therefore take this to change our current social system and distribute the wealth more widely. Hooray, we fixed things!"

But this amounts to a rewriting of the social system. We have no guarantees that the next social system will produce the same amounts of wealth. This is a silent assumption that most advocates seem to make, and it is completely unjustified. Despite the vigorous handwaving, it doesn't take much Econ 101 to guess there's a darned good chance it will produce less. But, if it produces less, now we're distributing less wealth. Whatever social effects may occur when that happens, it's pretty unlikely that they're going to be happy puppies and rainbows.

If one could assume a steady-state and that the effects of the first year will be the only effects ever, it's all fun and games. But the second and third order effects seem unlikely to produce a happy society, or even necessarily one that is still generating wealth at anything like our current pace.

The most popular handwave seems to be "Well, we can just pay people more to do the things we need done... and look, now they're getting paid more to do these things, so it's a win! Hooray!" but, well, follow that through to its logical conclusion... a society that is paying more for its basic needs is a poorer society. Poorer in the same wealth that we're trying to redistribute. And given that the price has risen, it's also a society that is getting less of its critical needs.

Sure, the first year of basic income is fun and games. But what does the twentieth look like? Or the year that you have to claw it back because the society no longer has the wealth to provide it? What does it look like when 78% of the culture votes for a larger "basic income" every year? Basic income is probably incompatible with democracy in the long term; what are we going to do about that? Basic income, democracy, and unrestricted immigration from poorer places are definitely incompatible with each other, what are we going to do about that? (Given that we already see plenty of politicians with incentives to legalize immigrants so they can have their votes, this is a huge concern.) What does it look like when a natural disaster strikes New York and society is out billions or trillions of dollars? You have to think about more than the first year, and you have to think about what real people will do in reaction, and what real people will do in reaction to those reactions, and so on and so on. Yes, clearly, Star Trek people do great on something probably quite like Basic Income, but that doesn't prove much.

And I'm quite concerned that this is something that from a societal point of view is not something we'd ever be able to remove if it did become infeasible; I suspect that the populace would happily ride it into straight-up social collapse before giving it up. We may be disturbingly close to that scenario even before we try "basic income".

This logic goes flying out the window if we can make robots that "just work" and can provide for us... but we're not talking about waiting that long right now, are we? We may have no practical choice but to suck it up until then. (And ye gods is there probably a thin line between a robot economy smart enough to provide for us without us doing much, and a robot economy smart enough to simply dispense with us entirely.)

My skills are all over, but my job is external renovations. We've gone from wood siding, soffit, fascia and shingles to predominantly metals and plastics that are now getting increased longevity. If new houses were built with the best materials, it wouldn't need work done to it for 40+ years.

Stone coated galvalume (iirc aluminum coated galvanized steel) is a true 40 year shingle. Their operating lifespan is likely to extend past 60 years before it absolutely had to be replaced (ie leaks). If that was available for a siding material or for fascia cladding, it would be >100 year longevity. (Shingles on a vertical wall typically last up to 3-4 times their rated lifetime for a roofing application - so 120-160 years).

If a customer gets their whole house done, they'll never be a return customer with our current materials. The work I'm doing today will be redone by a robot, I guarantee it.

We need basic income because almost every job can eventually be automated out. What about the day we're using nanobots? A tree branch damaged your eavestrough? Just pick up a pail of nanobots at the store and pour it into the reservoir in your basement that your houses computer handles all repairs and renovations. Who am I kidding, they'll probably be made by a nanofabricator you have that makes all your material things.

But i agree with many people who replied to your thread - this would be a very small problem.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...

A Basic Income policy is totally Socialism, which is a system in which the economy is cooperatively managed. (Again, more complicated really.)

But there's nothing wrong with Socialism. It's a bad word in America, for historical reasons, despite being fairly widely implemented within that country.

If the baseline is provided in a more straightforward way (and, presumably, taxes on above-baseline amounts are raised accordingly) there may be very little economic distortion from the present state.

"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"?

It doesn't work in supply restricted things like real estate thought, so other solutions might be needed for that market.

Isn't that a reason in and of itself to remove work? People working for satisfaction and pleasure instead of trying to make it day to day seems like a massive improvement on many societal ills we face.

(Me? I'd finish off my existing more-for-money-than-for-love contracts, because I owe my customers. (I get paid a huge deposit in advance.) Then I'd get a lot more picky about what projects I tackled going forward; more willing to tackle not-obviously-profitable ones and less willing to do uninteresting stuff that merely puts bread on the table. Oh, and I'd hire a full-time copy-editor/proofreader, and PA to handle my expenses and travel arrangements. Then I'd move out of my apartment for 3 months and get it thoroughly remodelled, from the plasterwork up, because it's overdue to be rewired, could use a modern heating system, and I might as well redecorate while I'm about it. But apart from that, not a huge amount would change ...)

This is part of the issue that arises. I've spoken with many people about the concept of a low-scarcity, low-growth, etc... leisure economy and the responses are surprising. "But then what will people do?" "What will motivate them to work?" "Why would anyone want that much free time?" Some people just don't have passions strong enough to drive their lives.

Keynes also addresses this in the above linked article, saying:

"Thus we have been expressly evolved by nature – with all our impulses and deepest instincts – for the purpose of solving the economic problem. If the economic problem is solved, mankind will be deprived of its traditional purpose.

Will this be a benefit? If one believes at all in the real values of life, the prospect at least opens up the possibility of benefit. Yet I think with dread of the readjustment of the habits and instincts of the ordinary man, bred into him for countless generations, which he may be asked to discard within a few decades.

To use the language of to-day – must we not expect a general “nervous breakdown“? We already have a little experience of what I mean – a nervous breakdown of the sort which is already common enough in England and the United States amongst the wives of the well-to-do classes, unfortunate women, many of them, who have been deprived by their wealth of their traditional tasks and occupations – who cannot find it sufficiently amusing, when deprived of the spur of economic necessity, to cook and clean and mend, yet are quite unable to find anything more amusing. "

I haven't dug for any data but at first glance it seems that many of our societal "vices" could be responses to this lack of purpose. Some of the socialist humanists touch on this topic, what happens to a man without purpose? Drugs, pornography, violence, depression, striking out and grasping for any sort of stimulation while flailing in a search for meaning.

There's nothing wrong with being industrious. Hard work, meaningful hard work, is rewarding in and of itself.

If one task can fulfill all three points, you have it made.

I never would have though a fiber cut (which seems to happen almost weekly) would have such a large impact, but it does. I figured BGP would reroute around that and to some extent it does, but there's still a lot of manual route handling.

This comment would have been better without its hostile preface and its hostile appendix. Please don't use such language on Hacker News.

All: Please re-read what you've posted and, if it contains phrases that contribute hostility to the discussion, edit them out.

This is really important, because (speaking metaphorically) our brains are all programmed to pick up on the agitation in such language. That leads to bad things, like the comment getting less reflective attention, and threads getting provoked into a downward spiral.

> We ought to be able to make ends meet perfectly well with [...] a 40 hour week for 48 weeks a year for a ten year working lifetime.

And my point is that we (well, most Hacker News readers, at least) can do that -- if, at the end of that 10-year span, we live like it's 1930.

The Red Queen was right: sometimes you have to run (work) hard just to stay where you are; slow down, and you'll go backwards.

Sure, writers & doctors & farmers & firemen might do their stereotypical work for free because that's just what they do. But what about street cleaners & trash haulers? janitors for public housing? high-risk divers for floating oil rigs? Are you going to regularly clean, for free, elevators that low-end public-housing occupants piss in daily? pick up trash on the street, dumped there faster than you can clean up by bored teens who know they'll never have to do anything because their GBI cards will always get them food & pay the rent, and who are amused by your frustration at their persistent destructiveness?

That was 8 years unpaid, 2 years low pay.

I do it as a hobby. Every once and a while I find a completely new rabbit hole to dive into and I find it exhilarating. I wish I could spend all of my time learning and making new things, ranging from computer systems/programs to rebuilding old motorcycles/cars or learning how to draw.

I did find my physics degree a little tiring by the 4th year, but that was mostly because I had discovered computer science.

If you haven't already figured it out, Mr. Myne represents the owner-investor class, his machine represents future industrial capital, and your solution was to use the government to seize control of the capital.

In the future, when robots can make everything you would ever need more efficiently than you can do it yourself, what can you possibly do to pay the owners of the robots for the things the robots make?

There aren't many options. You can own your own robots. You can do something the robot owners want that can't be done by robots. You can abolish individual robot ownership. Whatever you do, you have to think about what happens when producers and consumers are separated by an economic wall, when there's nothing that you can do that a robot cannot do better. Where you have nothing to bring to the market that anyone else wants to buy. It's not just people deciding not to pay. At some point they won't even be able to pay.

Such technologies are common: per-unit and per-use cost may be low, but price of reaching that cost level may be extremely high. Integrated circuits are individually very cheap (!), but the machines making them cost $billions - they're not something you are, on your own, going to construct just so you can have an iPhone. iPhones exist because Apple put enormous money into making their components in such volume as to reach commodity cost.

Mr. Myne's machines may cost just a couple dollars a day to rent & run, but may have cost a billion dollars to produce to achieve that cheap cost - heck yeah he wants 4x retail price thereon because he needs to earn back that billion dollars and make enough additional profit to make the whole enormous activity worth his while.

A thing is worth exactly and only what another is willing to pay for it. If people will pay $8/day for Mr. Myne's machines, that's what it's worth.

So unless nobody is selling first class tickets, people will work harder to afford them. And in order for the market to work, the seller of tickets will raise the price of first class until only ~10% of flying passengers can afford it.