Hacker News Reader

> But society is still such that you need to work 40+ hours every week if you want to be part of the middle-class.

For half your life or less, in the west.

People tend to forget that life expectancy has gone up dramatically over the past 100 years whilst the retirement age has been largely left alone. My mother retired recently and she has decades of life left, which will be largely spent as a life of leisure - just as the utopians predicted.

Additionally, the economic pattern in the last century or so has been richness and growth followed by a recession in which the workforce participation rate drops permanently. After the recession, there are always fewer people in work than before. So over time fewer and fewer people are working, and more and more people are being supported by welfare programs. Although they may feel their life is hard, a Victorian would undoubtably see their life as one of utopian leisure (they have entertainment on demand, in the UK free and great healthcare, can travel easily etc).

As society gets richer, the number of people in retirement or studying or living on welfare will steadily increase until one day we wake up and realise that most people don't work, or don't work very much, or don't work for very long, or who pass in and out of work as they wish. It won't be a big bang one day we're in utopia sort of thing, it'll just be a gradual recognition that the percentage of people who work and who are supporting other people who spend the bulk of their life in university+welfare+retirement has got really low.

> For half your life or less, in the west.

Due to the economic downturns of recent decades and some poor decisions, both my parents, and at least a half dozen other 50-60+ people I know will never be retiring because they have no personal retirement funds left, due to having spent them all due to cost of living increases, job insecurity, medical expenses (hahaha USA) forcing them to consume their IRAs, where both had 15+ year single-position careers, but got 401Ks instead of pensions.

Its only going to get worse for newer generations.

> studying or living on welfare will steadily increase

But thats not what is happening. It is an outlier and a corruption of the current political paradigms (again, US) to be able to break out of wage slavery. Social Security Disability is, if anything, a necessary evil for the rich and powerful to somehow avoid 40%+ unemployment overnight. But it is a horribly broken and wrong system to have. Same with all the other benefits programs. In reality many people are working 2+ dead end jobs, and cannot retire at all, almost exclusively due to a lack of connections or social wit to get on welfare programs or into cushy jobs.

We should have a UBI, one that is tied to the real growth of automation and technological efficiency, that can start however low it needs to be (look at the Alaskan oil dividend) and as we automate more (and thus put more and more means of production ownership in fewer and fewer hands) the benefits can actually uplift society.

Good luck ever passing that, even in the most socialist European countries like Sweden. There is just too much profit in keeping 90% of the first world population on a downward spiral of insecurity and desperation.

That has always amazed me about people. It seems like for every one person that can see the positive possibilities, ten more only see the negative, and in fact will go out of there way to make sure their negatives come to pass because more than anything they hate being wrong.

I think man might be doomed because of this. We are naturally apocalyptic, and will make sure it comes about one way or another. As a case in point, consider all the sci-fi movies. What's the last movie you've seen that depicted a really great future for mankind?

Star Wars!

A long time ago, in a Galaxy far, far away =\

Star Trek much more so. Post-scarcity, post-currency, where citizens participate in Starfleet not out of need but out of a sense of duty.

Not a movie, but a book: The Commonwealth Saga. It paints mostly a pretty picture of the human race.

Perhaps they're poking holes in a flawed design proposal. You are, after all, attempting to engineer society. Would it not be better to see these 'negatives' as problems to solve?

Iain M. Banks always pointed out that the citizens of the Culture definitely had jobs, and that it was important - people want to work, and to feel valuable. This is something we learn over and over again with aid programs. Nobody (in general) likes to feel like they get a handout, they like to feel like they earn it or otherwise contribute something valuable.

To a huge extent, I think we're going to have a problem until we figure out how to address that tension. How do we gainfully employ people, and have their work respected by the rest of society, when we're automating away their jobs in the first place?

> people want to work, and to feel valuable.

That doesn't translate into "people want to work 50 hours week under constant petty pressure from management". Maybe some people feel valuable if they cook a great meal and share it with friends. Maybe a 2h workday is all what is needed to feel valuable.

There are differences. Some people derive their identity and esteem from their work. Some don't.

For a primitive example of the above in action, try to deprive a German shepherd of a working role. Then do the same with a pug and observe the differences in responses.

That's true, but it's also because we keep pushing the distinction to be "50 hrs or nothing at all". And that's very much the issue: the opportunity to feel valuable, or do that which you see as valuable, is just that: an opportunity. We gateway plenty of that with time-commitment.

>people want to work, and to feel valuable.

Only because most others work and a person's value, or perceived value, is largely tied to them working, their work, etc.

The perceived value comes from essentially not relying on others to work to support you while you don't.

If machines were doing the work and trying to make additional money was optional I don't think the vast majority of people would be opting in. Indeed, it could even be seen as a negative trait if you're one of the few chasing money.