That's just speculation, what system are you imagining in place of 'wage labour'? chattel? I imagine UBI and an explosion in the sciences; When anyone with interest can afford to follow that interest.
How are you measuring leisure time? My impression is that great gains were made in the union heyday of the 40s-60s, but that leisure time for most workers has been declining since then. The move to almost universal dual income households means outside-work time is spent doing the stuff that used to be done during the day. Also many more people have a second job. I’d be greatly heartened by data showing leisure time had increased in, say, the last 50 years.
If the context here is the development of human history leading up to notions of private employment then our timeline is in the tens of thousands of years and variations within past decades become almost irrelevant. Comparing hunter-gatherers or roaming tribes with modern city dwellers? Enough said.
I'm not sure I disagree with you about the last 50 years. I think it's a bit of a hard topic to dissect because the notion of a "workday" is relative and changes over time. I think a day of work is a lot easier now than in the 1950s and I think the ancillary work we perform to care for ourselves and our homes is reduced. By how much, I'm not sure how to quantify.
I recall Hans Rosling did a great talk along these lines, "The Magic Washing Machine." It's mostly talking about the mechanization of household labor in the mid century which we agree took place. I think since then we no longer spend as much time cooking, or cleaning, maintaining our appliances or cars. I think improvements in communication systems save a surprising amount of time -- consider how many hours a month you might waste if cell phones didn't exist? If you had to drive to a place to sign paperwork instead of fill out an online form?
There's nothing so large as the washing machine in the last 50 years but I think we have a significant amount of small improvements. Coupled with work becoming more palatable (part of why work/life becomes blurred is that some large percentage of us enjoy working) I think there's a possibility that labor has shrank in the last 50 years even if people work longer hours. Which they may not, factoring in household labor.
I know many people who do not need to work as hard as they do -- some who do not need to work at all. Yet they still do, even when the requirement is removed.
My opinion about the last 50 years is fairly weakly held, I'm basically just thinking freely. My strong comments above are in reference to the development of much more basic notions like "private employment."
Having a system to enriches the few who don't need more wealth reinforced by impoverishing the many is better than chattel slavery and worse than a system which offers real choice and ownership of ones labor.
maybe. History shows me that, unregulated, our system makes kings and queens that own not only own land and wealth but people as well.
If i wanted to make a system that insured the absolute minimum advancement and progress, the absolute maximum misery and poverty, while giving a random few almost god like powers..
UBI doesn't work because it depends on people working to fund it. The amount of money required for poverty level UBI in the US (one of the richest countries) is more than all of the federal current tax revenue, which comes from working people.
We can't all decide we are going to live for free and magically still get to drive cars, live in houses, eat food, have running water, etc.
The entire point of the economic system is to motivate people to help each other. If the money motivation goes away, people either stop helping each other or you have to motivate with violence.
The funding for UBI would require more funding than the current federal tax revenue. One of the things that would be necessary to make it work is redistribution of wealth. Taking taxes large corporates who are increasingly making more money through automation and the removal of jobs, so that it can be used to fund a better lifestyle for the majority of people.
Sadly I don't see a political environment where that's actually viable any time soon, but at some point we're going to have to see a move in that direction because there will be an ever decreasing pool of jobs that require actual people.
The cost of UBI depends entirely on the magnitude of the benefit; your position is indefensible given we haven't established the magnitude.
Obviously increasing welfare implies increased taxes. I don't see anything controversial there? I do agree the USA currently lacks the political will to move much in this direction.
..in your opinion. But in reality the current system doesn't work and needs constant massive bailouts and public funding R&D to just barely operate for the minority..
The entire point of the current economic system is to motivate the masses to enrich the few. If the motivation goes away then maybe people will work to enrich their own lives.
>But in reality the current system doesn't work and needs constant massive bailouts and public funding R&D to just barely operate for the minority..
Says an HN comment..
Maybe try to rework this sentence, because it doesn't appear to be true. While things may not be excellent for everyone, clearly the "system" works to some extent.
>The entire point of the current economic system is to motivate the masses to enrich the few.
Do you have a source on this? What do you consider to be the current system? The Federal Reserve System?
>If the motivation goes away then maybe people will work to enrich their own lives.
Do you seriously not think that people work to enrich their own lives right now? I can tell you that I'm posting this to enrich mine.
The current state of our market system requires massive bailouts and massive funding into research and development, massive subsidies (e.g. arms), and an overworked and underpaid workforce to limp along and pay out a healthy dividend to the richest(few) investors.
>source on this?
Just look at any multi billion dollar company; whats the difference between shareholder payout and worker payout? How else would you define this system where a company can declare hundred million dollar profits while paying minimum wage?
>Do you seriously not think that people work to enrich their own lives right now?
We try. for the last 8 hours i worked to make money that would enrich my life, but my work made someone else a hundred times this amount so 1% of my last 8 hours was for me.
If somebody else is making 100x off of just your work you need to quit yesterday and find somebody to pay you 2x what you are currently making. They will be more than happy to do so as they will still be making a 50x profit on you.
Either that or you have absolutely no clue as to how much value you actually create for your company. Nobody generates 100x profit, not even slaves.
I thought your point was that somebody else is actually making 99-100 dollars for every dollar that you make. I would like to know how you came to that number.
i worked out those numbers roughly for myself. My point though, was; most of, or at least the majority of my working life is to enrich someone who is richer that could can ever be. This is the nature of the relationship between the shareholder and the common worker.
ubi isn't doing away with markets or the profit motive. it's just: here is enough money you don't die. so more people can pursue their passions. OP is probably excessively optimistic that will be science. in reality it will probably not be. but it's a lot better than useless bureaucracies, inefficiencies and the willingness to do whatever so you don't die
