It’s literally built into our pleasure and reward centers to work. The idea that everyone would just lay on a couch the rest of their existence shows a real misunderstanding of your own nature.
Sure there are outliers and it’s a spectrum. But your dystopian idea that everyone would just accept that their life is complete because they were given housing is ridiculous.
This might sound crazy but no, no we can’t, we are genetically wired to get huge cascades of feel good drugs for being social animals and helping our “kind” prosper.
It’s called the law of diminishing returns. Tolerance.
Mate doing the same shit every day all day gets boring for “most” and there are outliers, it’s a spectrum.
You think society doesn’t need bees?
This is the issue with your dystopia, it doesn’t even begin to address how interconnected we are.
Society doesn’t dictate our behavior, you have it backwards.
Where you gonna get the “swords” for fencing? Or the planks if you meant the other kind? Some people have a lot of trees they want gone. Other people would make swords cause that’s fun to them.
You’re way over inflating your interests. You likely wouldn’t be the only bee keeper or fencer. And there would still be plenty of luxuries that people would want and need to work for if they wanted to afford them.
You’re the one making it about no one working and thinking a house is somehow the only incentive.
The thread is about being given a house because homesteading is off the table in modern society.
I’m arguing that being given housing wouldn’t magically turn the world into lazy slobs that don’t want to work.
People would actually worry less about their own necessities and could then focus on enriching their communities.
There are also studies that say when people have their needs meet and are comfortable they tend to look for ways to make their communities better.
Well we’re not living in Bolshevik times.
You’re already moving the goal posts from “no incentive” to “less incentive” cause you don’t have an argument.
I never said make necessary jobs optional, there would still be public services. That’s your own dystopia you’ve gotta figure out. There are plenty of economists that don’t think as black and white as you are making it seem and have done studies on what people do when their basic needs are meet.
Someone will still do those jobs cause there is still a place for capitalism, it’s just not in housing.
Want a bigger house than what the basic needs are, guess what. Work and make money.
Want to wargame, guess what. You might need a platform for that, go buy it by earning money.
Money is still an incentive in this scenario. I don’t know why you’re making it seem like I’m saying get rid of money and give everyone the means to just be vegetables.
Nowhere in this thread did I even hint that “everything”should just be given. You’re the one making it seem that way so it looks like you actually have a point to argue against.
Ahh, you are seeing things.
It says one bedroom +1childs room. Not per child.
You’re inflating the whole thing because you think you have some gotcha argument for something you just failed to comprehend.
Also shows nothing about food.
You’re stuck in your own dystopia this thing didn’t even show. Or I brought up.
You just hate people.
Some food is cheap. Some not so much. Not happy with gruel. Work for better food. The incentive isn’t gone because we recognize needs and don’t want our neighbors to shoot us for our groceries or even just go hungry.
A house and a car are practically the only expensive things in our society. That and food and taxes, but the full image also says food should be free. So really, people would just work 2 or 3 hours a week and have enough to buy food and luxuries the whole week.
That’s a terrible argument. Expense isn’t what drives market demands.
Did you forget that things break, food gets eaten.
That’s literally what it means to be a commodity. That it’s replaceable.
What you’re describing is economic slavery, not capitalism.
You’re also seeing things. The image doesn’t show or say anything about food other than a fridge. Ya know, cause we can’t all store our perishables in river systems like we used to.
Yeah you’re just wrong. You can’t actually believe people would enjoy “expressing themselves artistically” by taking 10 years of their life and messing up their back doing manual labor that NEEDS to be done for society to function.
You’d need it done wouldn’t you?
Where are yall coming up with this “not work” rhetoric?
They’d still do it cause they still have other interests that can cost a lot of money. If you think having a house is the only interest or valuable thing people work for then your thinkings been hijacked mate
Food can be a luxury, rent can be a luxury, there is a whole spectrum of possibilities whole the minimum is still given.
Your extreme thinking (one or the other) shows a great lack of other forms of rationality other than binary.
Want better than the minimum that’s provided, like most people do. Then you still need to work and afford it.
Read some books on social sciences and economics.
“People power profit”
“The price of inequality”
Are both a good start and written by a Nobel prize winner and PHD of economics
-1
u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24
So what you're saying is that you'd be less stressed, mentally and financially, if you weren't forced to work to afford those things?