> in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working
In society A, machines and clean energy allow the population to work an average of 20 hours a week. Some, even many people choose not to work at all, but still get access to a basic apartment and have their basic food, social and education, etc, needs met.
In society B, machines and dirty energy allow a tiny segment of the population to live on super-yachts, replete with airstrips for their private jets. They hire people who hire people to convince the majority of the population they must work at least 40 hours a week (preferably 80).
Which society would you say is "functioning" better?
Why blame the unemployed for the functioning of a society, when record inequality and the policies that allow it are so much more responsible?
Look at this graph, and explain to me how unemployment is the problem here: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/23410.jpeg
The way to get to A is through people working. We didn’t get from where we were 100 years ago to now because society as a whole was fine with working the minimum amount needed to sustain life.
From the graph posted above:
Productivity gains since 1950 - 253% Wage growth since 1950 - 115%
We could be in society A right now if those gains weren't hoovered up by the yacht class.
People consume a hell of a lot more now than 1950. Houses are bigger, we buy more clothes, eat more food, have more gadgets. The yacht class can only consume so much.
> People consume a hell of a lot more now than 1950.
The graph is true regardless.
Americans could be working 20 hours a week without society falling apart. The only thing that would change would be to the yacht class - who would still be very very wealthy.
> Houses are bigger, we buy more clothes, eat more food, have more gadgets.
How much more does housing cost? I'll save you the effort - it's fully twice as much per square foot, adjusted for inflation.
How much more temporary and flimsy are our clothes?
How much less nutritious is our food? How much more toxic is it - to ourselves, to the soil? How much fatter are we? How much more unhealthy?
We have more gadgets, sure. They're all owned by a handful of companies with damn-near monopoly powers, and none of them are changing this trend of a more and more unequal society.
So... What's your point?
Doesn't seem like a realistic concern given the current state of economies and the need for human labor.
Why are people in society B concerned with the majority working if they are unnecessary?
> Why are people in society B concerned with the majority working if they are unnecessary?
I think that's a great question to ask. Some possible answers:
A - to make money for the yacht class
B - to keep the 99% too busy/distracted to wonder why all the productivity gains of the last 50 years have gone to the yacht class (see graph above)
C - They're not even that concerned - they pay people to be concerned about that stuff on corporate media / in politics / in our Supreme Court.
The point above is that "100% employment" is absolutely not the barrier between society B and society A. There's no good reason for full employment to be "necessary" to a well functioning society.
It could even be argued that one measure of a functioning society is how many people need to work 60 hours a week just to have their basic needs met...
[flagged]
Have you forgotten the context of the conversation? (Reminder: "in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working")
If you think that full employment is the barrier we're facing to society A then you're living in a logical wasteland.
In my mind, society C is the basic standard. Anything less is living in a late-stage capitalistic dystopia that is inherently anti-human. All progress depends on the unreasonable man. And I am more unreasonable than everyone.
I'll take that as a 'yes' then.
It's not that utopian to want a society where people aren't made homeless if they don't work. Finland did it - it worked great. It wasn't even that hard.
Also in a society where just eight people own as much as 4 billion. Maybe making 'jokes' denying that we're in late stage capitalism is an odd choice? Like, yeah, we're headed for destruction.. It's funny the way Ralph Wiggum's "I'm in danger" line is funny.
Finland is a nightmare dystopia. I've been there and they have no nanobots.
If you're going to try this hard to be flippant on a serious topic, you could at least be funny. Otherwise you're just making noise.