Comment by ironmagma
6 hours ago
Society doesn't owe anybody anything. So who's to say when you find something else to do, it will pay enough to live?
6 hours ago
Society doesn't owe anybody anything. So who's to say when you find something else to do, it will pay enough to live?
They've earned 500k/y for a couple years, they don't need another job that pays enough, that's why they can be so indifferent about the outcome.
I'm no where near that TC and think this way too. This field of work is generally new in history. The whole woe is me what will we ever do attitude is so weak and frankly annoying.
Most of modern society is new in history; what is that supposed to say? If you are making the point that it's unproven and fragile, that would be a good point and actually one that supports "woe is me" because all of it could disappear overnight considering the fragility.
5 replies →
I think the very definition of society implies that we are all owed a lot, and we all owe a lot to society. Politics is about deciding what.
Education? Safety? Medical help? A home? Food? Transport? Communication?
These are things society needs to provide.
In turn, we provide society with labour, applied skills, decision making etc.
If there is no (trusted, working) social contract - society breaks down.
If we allow a small elite to monopolize the productivity gains and efficiency increased from new technology - the results will be dire.
I see the more feasible solutions to be some kind of universal income or negative tax - combined with reduced work hours (eg 30 hour weeks, to start).
Correct. But don't you want something from the future? What do you imagine it to look like? How far is it from what you hope it might? What are you willing to do to bring them closer together?
The history is quite unequivocal about what happens when there's too many people who don't earn enough to live. Governments are aware too, I think.