Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not that long ago most of the country (and the world) was engaged in the primary sector (farming and resource extraction). That's where around 67% of the workforce was employed. Amazingly now that it's only 2% of the workforce, people still have jobs. We've basically already replaced the majority of jobs. Then we've gone and replaced many of the jobs that we replaced the majority of jobs with a second or third or fourth time. You used to have a lot of people working in clothing mills or sewing shops and there's almost none of that done any longer just like almost no one works in the primary sector anymore. For people that have jobs pushing buttons in the private sector that can be so easily replaced, they'll do the same thing that the majority of people have done through history and learn to do something else. If not them, then it will be their children. I don't envision it will be all that different than it has been. In the public sector, well, we have unions that keep people employed who don't do anything but push a button today that aren't at any risk of losing their job pushing buttons.
First you had machinery that needed to be operated by a person that replaced 10, 20, 100, whatever number of people. Then you had machinery that didn't need to be operated by a person that did the same thing. That's the past. I'm sure it will continue but it's exactly what we've seen in the past.
You missed the whole point. #2 doesn't apply. There aren't jobs for everyone who wants to work. What happens to those people in your scenario? We pay those who want to work the same as those who actually do?
Or are they relegated to the same as people who don't want to/can't work?
And who gets to decide what jobs are most important? People put different values on different things.
I don't think she missed the point. I agree with the poster. Basic income for all (equal share of some %age of whatever the GDP is) or the equivalent in services that allow for basic shelter, clothing, food, childcare, education, healthcare. Basically provide an equal "ground zero" from which anyone can climb up higher up the ladder and no one can fall below. Currently ground zero is homelessness and starvation unless you get lucky.
As long as there are *any* jobs left, those people who do jobs can be rewarded with extra income (above basic income) - incentive to do the jobs and rise above basic minimum level of existence. This assumes these jobs need to be incentivized. It is possible that given high enough basic standard of living that people will do certain jobs for free, simply for the love of doing them.
I guess the answer to you question very much depends on details - exactly what kind of conditions are we talking about? Something like in the next 20-50 years? 200 years? The further out you go the more speculative it becomes and answers can get pretty arbitrary.
"What would be the most efficient means of distributing resources and wealth in a world without work/jobs? Or at least a world where there is not enough work for all?"
In New England we had town farms for the paupers. They were warm in the winter and had good meals. They raised their own food. This could Orkney now. Lyndon Johnson's grand society cannot continue. Those of us who work cannot afford it. Maine is one of 11 states where we have more people on welfare than working.
See the thread on homeless and cell phones in current events.
What would be the most efficient means of distributing resources and wealth in a world without work/jobs? Or at least a world where theslightestor all?
It's getting to the where many jobs are as simple as pushing a button. As technology progre. es, tasks will be made easier, jobs may be consolidated and lost, and a growing share of the population will not be able to function in our economic system.
Realistically, work will continue to be relevent for a long time. Even if the system is not efficient, "work" gives purpose to millions, and keeps them busy and occupied. That way, the crooks in DC can continue to rob them blind.
C'om the job system that was set up by the feuldal lords was probably teaching the people about the graces & partaking in his image.
If the people who didn't want to work, they got the less commodities and rights. And through working, the more capitals you have, then you could better furnish the life.
Which white community could afford a drunk commie ravishes its neighborhood?
There will be jobs, but only for the top few percentage of people of high IQ and creativity. Everyone else will be on basic income, or perhaps live in dire poverty without basic income
I don't think she missed the point. I agree with the poster. Basic income for all (equal share of some %age of whatever the GDP is) or the equivalent in services that allow for basic shelter, clothing, food, childcare, education, healthcare. Basically provide an equal "ground zero" from which anyone can climb up higher up the ladder and no one can fall below. Currently ground zero is homelessness and starvation unless you get lucky.
As long as there are *any* jobs left, those people who do jobs can be rewarded with extra income (above basic income) - incentive to do the jobs and rise above basic minimum level of existence. This assumes these jobs need to be incentivized. It is possible that given high enough basic standard of living that people will do certain jobs for free, simply for the love of doing them.
I guess the answer to you question very much depends on details - exactly what kind of conditions are we talking about? Something like in the next 20-50 years? 200 years? The further out you go the more speculative it becomes and answers can get pretty arbitrary.
So who decides what "basic" is? My basic shelter would be far different than your's, perhaps. And who doles out that basic shelter? The government? Same with food. Clothing. Education.
And where does the money for these basics come from, if everyone decides to just take their "basic" and not do anything extra to further themselves?
So who decides what "basic" is? My basic shelter would be far different than your's, perhaps. And who doles out that basic shelter? The government? Same with food. Clothing. Education.
And where does the money for these basics come from, if everyone decides to just take their "basic" and not do anything extra to further themselves?
You are ignoring the question by asking a different question.
The question presupposes that there is some GDP to be had, and asks how it is to be distributed. The *origin* of this GDP is another matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.