• Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Haven’t watched the video yet, will do somlatwr, but if no one worked, we would over amshort time literally return to the stone age.

      Who would make for for all? Would we have to scour for our own food again, each on their own? There is a reason we do farming, it is MUCH more efficient. A hand full people can make grain, beef, flour, and bread for hundreds of thousands, if not millions. It liberates all those other people to work on other things and make society grow.

      If we all do our own food then in no time growth will stagnate, loads of people will fail to make their own food and decide to get it from others, and since there is no police anymore either (they’re busy making and finding their own food) there is no protection either.

      We would to have time to keep up infrastructure. More fertilizer would mean that there wouldn’t be enough food produced for everyone, the world would go back to about 2-3billion humans. In on itself not a bad thing, there are too many humans, but 5-6 billion humans starving to death sucks.

      No more modern medicine, no ody is working anymore, remember? Sucks to be a diabetic, bye bye. If you’re trans, you’re outta luck, you got bigger fish to fry.

      We CAN’T stop working, we’d die out. If that video means something else, then the title is wrong.

      What we can do is redistribute wealth. Nobody should need to work teonhobs and still not be able to meet rent, that is absurd.

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I also haven’t watched the video, but also allow me to weigh in with some stuff I’ve heard.

        The way I’ve heard it is that if people stopped going to their jobs they would very quickly take up necessary and actually productive work required by them and their communities.

        I’ve heard it more in the context of bullshit jobs. For instance if I didn’t have a job to go to then of course I’d pitch in on real work, like working some rows at the local farms, or covering some shifts at the local shops.

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          The way I’ve heard it is that if people stopped going to their jobs they would very quickly take up necessary and actually productive work required by them and their communities.

          So they stood going to their job to…do another… Job? Like, really?

          I know there are ahitty jobs out there, loads.of them, but they still have to be done. Do you think a supermarket magically restocks itself? People seem to want all the perks of, you know, the results of jobs, but nobody wants to do them. That’s not how that works, that’s not how anything works

          And you’re saying that if you didn’t have a job them you’d do real work? That doesn’t make any sense, do you hear yourself talking? If I didn’t have a job then of course I’d get a job… wut?

          A job is a job. If someone is willing to pay you money to do something tmfor him, then that’s a job. It may appear useless to you but likely it’s not because someone is paying money for what you’re doing. If you don’t like what you’re doing, get a different job. if you don’t qualify due to low skill set, then work on that, get more skills, trian yourself in something, take free courses on the internet, whatever it takes.

          But stop with this “we don’t want to work so that we can work in our community” shit.

          • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            I think you’ve got stuck on a semantic point. The distinction is between working for money and working for utility.

            Both rely on incentives, just different ones. Money doesn’t have to be tied to actual value or utility.

            • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Dude, what are you even talking about?

              You still work. You’ll still have a boss because work still needs to be coordinated or group output would fall to single digit percentages of what’s actually possible. You will still have to pick upshitty tasks because somebody has to…

              Taking money out of that equation is the semantic, that is the least of the issue, but also the issue that actually makes things easier, you get a generic interchangeable good that you can use to purchase whatever it is that you need. You want to get rid of the one thing that makes things actually easier.

              • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Thanks for your reply. You could even still use money in the process as long as accumulating more of it (or capital more specifically) wasn’t the goal of the work. You see a kind of diet version of this for example with public benefit corporations. Obviously, working for one of those would definitely be a job, though.

                Anyway I’m getting way off the original point (which I actually don’t remember), but I think you get the picture I’m painting.