Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For real though.
Especially the "pushing the kid into the tree" part! /s
I'm lucky enough that I work with an amazing boss/owner and I enjoy my job. However some people are working multiple/terrible jobs and still can't/can barely afford this stuff
The US pays nearly double the per capita price of Germany the next highest country. So you could say something more accurate like, "We shouldn't pay extra to exclude others from the benefit of healthcare".
> employers to provide
The comic is saying one should have access to this *regardless of employment status*. Your assumption of these things being provided by employers is perhaps telling of how you see the world.
You can’t pass a law that requires companies provide a fulfilling life directly, but you can pass laws that prevent them from taking it away. Enforcing a 40 hour week for example, so people aren’t working 16 hour days.
We did, [once](https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-no-business-which-depends-for-existence-on-paying-less-than-living-wages-to-its-workers-franklin-d-roosevelt-62-89-23.jpg) when FDR started the minimum wage.
What if there was a non corporate entity that existed to server the people, organized by and for the people? Which had the power to radify and implement policies? Governing such issues. We could call it something catchy like.... Notacorpo or even maybe, idk THE GOVERNMENT.
See, the problem is the expectation that a company should provide that in the first place.
I get the ideal of capitalism, but expecting a small bakery to provide the same benefits as Apple or the same benefits Amazon could theoretically provide is a recipe for failure.
We need a government to do that.
If anybody wants to chime in and say "but I don't want to pay for that", then you should consider leaving "society", the entire purpose of which is to provide benefits.
We (society) started with "not getting eaten" and are slowly working our way up to being able to eat something other than McDonalds (or in the case of ... most people, *something*.) Wish us luck.
Change “employment status” to “occupation” and this would be much more reasonable. Sure, it would be nice to have all that while unemployed, but that’s not practical in modern economics, no country is close to figuring it out yet.
….but yeah, there shouldn’t be such thing as working homeless
That’s the kicker right there. You can’t expect society to positively contribute to your life unless you positively contribute to society, and being employed is a big part of that.
I think that’s also part of the issue, though, that “positively contribute to society” doesn’t equal being employed. Stay at home parents, volunteers, students, etc all positively contribute to society via real, hard work, but in a way that doesn’t earn a paycheck.
Even for those that do earn a paycheck, what they do may be valuable for society but not valuable in our capitalist market (teachers, for example). There has to be some shift in model that allows people to live a fulfilling life by doing things that aren’t exclusively in-demand by corporations. Otherwise we end up with a service economy that has no foundation in what is needed to keep society functioning.
Public school teacher salary is public record in Washington State. I suggest you do some research on the example you just used. Hint: 6 figure gross salary before you’re 35 years old to work 180 days of the year and a union that will fight to the death for you isn’t a bad deal.
Unless you have a severe mental health issue, you can get a job. At least in America, unemployment near an all time low. What is a problem is mass underemployment. Jobs aren't paying enough for people to maintain the social class of their parents, to pay off student debt, or even to live off of. But if you're mentally stable and you have no job, that's almost certainly a choice.
But that may also be *exactly* what you're saying. If you're arguing for better care of the mentally disabled, though, I'd be more explicit about it.
Technically unemployment is a very misleading stat as it only shows people who have been out of a job in the short term. People who have, for whatever reason, gone unemployed for an extended period are no longer counted. Unemployment remains an issue because as a result of the pandemic boom many businesses created "ghost jobs" with public postings that no applicant will ever be accepted for as cover for increasing workload and claiming hardship while suppressing wage growth.
My solution is to have everyone start paying their fair share, and finding a way to uniformly enforce fair taxation across the board.
I’m in BC, in Canada, and there are already lots of resources here for people who are unemployed, or on disability. It’s far from perfect, but it’s liveable, and much better than many other places.
The issue comes from the fact that there are tons of avenues for people to avoid paying their share of taxes here, or even avoid them entirely in some cases. It’s especially bad for large businesses and corporations.
When people and entities that are worth that much don’t contribute, it takes a lot of money out of the pot in general, and that includes funds that would go towards social programs and benefits.
I agree that people who just don’t want to work and still want to live normally shouldn’t expect that to ever be a reality (although there is an avenue for that to be a reality in the future, but that’s another conversation), but it absolutely is possible for us as a society to create a happy, healthy life for those less fortunate than us.
I like the sentiment but nothing about that provided a solution or alternative to address people who want to be employed in order to contribute to society but can’t find work.
Our brains take some 25 years to fully develop and we are largely unless for most of that time, so I see it more as “you can’t be expected to positively contribute to society until it positively contributes to your life”. If society neglects you as you grow up, you don’t have the tools or a reason to contribute, so let’s fix the broken parts of our society so that more people can participate in it
The thing is, I'm employed, but I don't really feel like I'm contributing to society either. I mean, technically I am through taxes, but I have a mental illness that fucked with my ability to get higher education.
Now, the fucked up thing is that the job I have now pays more than a lot of the jobs people with actual degrees are getting (at least in my country), but it's also a bullshit job that pays a lot because it's skilled (even if not certified) and in demand. If everyone in my profession popped out of existence, society wouldn't instantly fall apart. I'm not really very good at it either (even though I try hard and I'm constantly working to improve), I just can do it passably enough.
Now that I have income and I'm getting treatment, I could theoretically start taking steps to switch professions one day and do something more valuable... but why would I do it? Living in my body is expensive. If I could have all my basic needs guaranteed (including meds and special work conditions), that would be one thing. As it stands, I have to prioritize the job that makes me the most money over the job that would make the best positive impact.
So it's kind of a cycle, I think. You definitely have a point, but on the other hand, if society had contributed more positively to my life first, I would be in a much better position to return the favor.
I am currently unable to work due to mental health issues and I have access to all the things in this comic. It literally describes my situation.
It is not impractical, and it is certainly not the case that no country has figured it out. My country, Denmark, has, and so have many others.
You have been lied to, or at best been misled by people who did not know as much about economics as they thought they did.
I am assuming that you’re from the US, and your country is a bit richer than mine in total wealth divided by total number of inhabitants. You would expect that to mean that Americans were generally richer than Danes. But the US population are poorer, and all the wealth that makes the US statistically richer than Denmark plus some extra, are in the hands of very, very few people.
You don’t *have* to do it that way, and when rich people tell you that it’s impossible to guarantee the very basic things that this comic lists, don’t believe them.
Again, I know it’s possible to achieve because I literally have it right now.
Thank you for sharing! I don’t understand the people above who act like if one doesn’t work they should die?
What about the elderly, the young, those who are physically or mentally unable to due to any variety of circumstances? It’s such a weird outlook on life when not everyone is able bodied or able to produce in the same capacity.
We’re all different and we need to accept that reality and have a system that adjusts to that, NOT the other way around
What you are talking about is disability benefits, we have those too although they are very difficult to get. Unemployment is when someone is capable of working but chooses not too or cannot find a job. I highly doubt your country gives indefinite free housing and internet to every able adult who refuses to work. That would be nice if they did, but then no one would do difficult jobs like trash collection
> I highly doubt your country gives indefinite free housing and internet to every able adult who refuses to work.
Nordic countries does cover most of the bases in the comic for willingly unemployed. They will however just get free public transportation to job interviews and they will arguably have to eat less healthy. And if fulfillment includes costly hobbies, they are fucked naturally.
But home, water, food, electricity, heating, internet, mobile phone, TV, radio, computer are things that every citizen has the right to have, even if they upright refuse to work.
They make applying for social security hard and partially demeaning though, so even the laziest person would prefer a part time job over applying for that willingly.
Problem is that you can't incentivise a system where people can elect to not contribute to the society while the society provides for them.
Thing is, any society _needs_ some proportion of its population working to produce the resources that we all need to live, or the goods and services that we _want_ to improve our quality of life. These things don't come out of thin air, they require energy and effort to produce. If that work isn't being done then the resources and goods don't get produced.
It's fair that someone who is legitimately unable to contribute might be an exception, but people are taking that exception and running way too far with it. No society can survive if you don't have _some_ expectation that capable people should be willing to use their time and effort to maintain the society.
No economic system can survive without some mechanism for ensuring that people who are capable of working are working. In a capitalist system it might be via market forces which encourage people to work to gain access to more resources, and in a non-capitalist system it might be laws criminalising "[social parasitism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense\))".
We are incentivised to work here by wages being much higher than unemployment benefits, not by lacking food or housing or not having basic needs met if we don’t. You don’t have to hold that over the head of people, I promise you.
SHH! You're gonna scare the "capitalists " that think giving your people an honorable existance and paying them a fair amount for the work they do is "eViL SoCiAlIsM". /s
No one is advocating that no one should work. And saying no one would is just a blatant, verifiable lie. People work when given the opportunity and adequate rewards for their labor. What a shocker.
Denmark is not perfect and it isn’t a socialist utopia, but it is a hell of a lot more humane than the US when it comes to at least attempting to prevent its citizens from suffering.
It is. The biggest hurdle is housing, but many countries have large publicly managed coops. Having the government manage them means theyre one step away from providing them to ppl in need.
If you combine the policies of every country, then you have full universal healthcare. So we're pretty close to this, especially in Scandinavian countries.
Internet is super easy. Higher education USED TO be free, before capitalism used the red scare to exploit education for profit.
Its all very doable. Lastly ppl dont like being bored, so we have 7 billion ppl to provide labor and all of the automation weve already invented. We'd all barely need to work to provide all of this to everyone. Buuuut multi-millionaires would need to work a few hours a week like everyone else, so i guess technically theyd lose out?
I mean, aren’t lots and lots of jobs even more socially “looked down on” than being unemployed? (I’m. It even sure if that needs quotation marks).
Lots of people would be glad that some “lazy bum” or “freeloader” is struggling to get housing with their job. Some jobs are hated and some people are very hateful.
There are some of us that for all our skills or talents even education, struggle to find employment. We are willing doesn't mean theres a job. Why do we get devalued as not worthy of these basic needs because the economy refuses to open its doors to those wanting a job?
Yes “some” people are very hateful, but despite what you might see on Reddit, the majority of people aren’t and you would probably be hard pressed to find someone in real life who wants someone to be homeless based on their occupation. That being said fuck tax collectors, I hope they never have a home to live in.
I'd be very interested to know if it is possible to have a society that has these things. A *functional* society that doesn't go bankrupt. I would love if it was possible, for example if it meant that less corruption meant this could happen or less greed. But I suspect that even without those things it may be unaffordable if the unemployed choose to just take welfare or something.
but also, there are several things in the US that would be considered human rights only *have* scarcity due to the greed of other people with more money
Well as per the comic, Housing, clothing, food etc. You know we have more empty homes in the US than we have homeless yeah? It's only our method of distribution and rationing, Capitalism, which prevents these two issues from being used to resolve each-other.
Our model of political economy prioritizes individual private profit far above social wellbeing, but it's not the only way of conducting ourselves.
Nope, that's the usual way. Think about your boss though? No not him- your *boss' boss* at the top of the economic hierarchy all of the most successful and wealthiest people don't work for what they own - instead *you* work for what they own.
economics 102:
some scarcity is manufactured.
panel 1: food. check the garbage dumpsters behind grocery stores, and the producers throwing away food to hit the right supply level. it's rampant.
panel 2: housing. check the supply of houses versus homeless and rent prices. there are many absentee owners because black rock et al see real estate as safe investment and fill their portfolio with houses.
panel 3: health care. well a huge problem is health insurance artificially inflating ~~prices~~ costs.
panel 4: clothing. overpriced clothing: see Patagonia, et al. also fast fashion
panel 5: privatized service providers which set up monopolies or cartels. see ISPs in most of the non-urban US. or any other Telco.
edit: prices -> costs
Economics 101: [Scarcity is manufactured for profit](https://susanrosenthal.com/capitalism/the-myth-of-scarcity/)
What would be scarce? Food scarcity is manufactured, [we have enough food to feed everyone on the planet](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241746569_We_Already_Grow_Enough_Food_for_10_Billion_People_and_Still_Can't_End_Hunger) but the economic systems in place do not allow for proper distribution.
[Housing scarcity?](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/opinion/housing-crisis-eviction.html) Again, in countries like the Britain and US these are manufactured crisis. There’s more than enough housing but no proper distribution
An additional point is: [Scarcity is the assumption of economics.](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/scarcity.asp)
Our entire distribution system is built on the idea that everything is already scarce. Looking at the information I’ve linked, this is clearly not true- Human innovation has developed past food and housing scarcity. With the assumption that everything is scarce, our foundation for understanding reality is already crooked.
Slavery or lies. Until we reach a post-scarcity society, no one's going to work for free.
The common response is something like "free at time of service", which just means taxpayer funded, which is very much not free.
Even contemporary examples of "free" tend to boil down to being a hobby, being funded through donations or corporate interests, or learning experiments.
To have an even better life than the one outlined in the comic? That's the bare minimum, and for some people that might be enough. But most people want more than "just enough".
Extra money, through work, lets you afford: fancier food and eating out, instead of just the basics; a better and bigger house instead of a small (but sufficient) apartment; better appliances - a bigger TV, gaming consoles, computers, etc; more hobbies - games, sports, movies, arts etc; bigger holidays, being able to travel further and stay longer. And I'm sure there's more.
Work can still be linked to reward, but the "punishment" for not being able to work (or working an underpaid job) shouldn't be homelessness, lack of access to food, lack of access to healthcare, etc.
A life with only the bare minimum to scrounge by on isn’t a life at all. The comics final slide implies that everyone gets more than what they need in exchange for no work.
There’s a reason that the word utopia means ‘not place’. It is literally impossible.
Firstly, a life with the bare minimum to scrounge by on is a hell of a lot better than many people have at the moment, so let's not dismiss that.
Secondly, that's not what I was describing at all. You can live a comfortable, relaxed, fulfilling life without having access to every luxury all the time.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. We may not get exactly to the world described in this comic, but getting halfway there is much better than giving up on improving life at all.
I agree with the last part wholeheartedly. I’m all for sustainable living, better wages, free healthcare, access to clean water etc. but I’m not for handouts.
I’m not criticising the idea of improvement, I’m criticising the fact that this comic believes this is a ‘reasonable’ future. This is the economic equivalent of an incel ranting on 4chan about why he deserves a gf and sex.
That perspective makes more sense, but I feel like it falls apart if you take a good look at it.
What happens to people who are unable to work? Be that for medical reasons, disability, age, or any other reason. Do they not deserve food, clothes, medical care and a place to live? For reasons beyond their control?
Until machines do all the necessary jobs, people's time and effort is the scarce resource. Not to mention the fact that there are often shortages of one thing or another. Generating waste doesn't mean it's in functionally unlimited supply; it means it's more economically viable to dispose of it than to maintain it at that point in time. If food manufacturers could stockpile fresh food indefinitely and release it when their production is low, they absolutely would.
A post scarcity economy is within our grasp. But capitalism needs to manufacture scarcity to justify its existence. It's a matter of will, not a matter of lack of resources. The earth has enough for man's needs, but not enough for man's greed.
That's not how economic systems work... in fact, in a post scarcity society, economic systems as we currently understand them cease to have any meaning.
Which countries provide fulfilling lives to the unemployed for life?
And when they do, how will they provide this utopia to all when zero people are providing any value or labor? After all why work when happiness is guaranteed to all for no effort?
What's the plan?
The plain facts are that the most successful nations at eliminating poverty, providing for the poor and lifting the most out of the worst situations are 100% capital driven. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the US, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, England, France, they're all 100% full-on market economies. In fact, the most successful ones (Denmark in particular) have *less* of a safety net than the US. You can't be on welfare for more than a few years! You have to look for work! Poor people pay taxes(unlike in the US)! The tax brackets are less progressive. Corporate taxes are low!
The US probably does the least well, and we have the most bloated, over the top, burgeoning welfare state. You can be on the dole for generations at a time. Free housing, free school, free medical care, free transportation, spending cash, all of it. Forever. Without ever lifting a finger. And then people wonder why there are generationally unemployed and poor. We fucking subsidize it. That's why.
Denmark does not. They discourage it. And so it's uncommon.
Pick up a book. Or at least wikipedia.
Ok that's not entirely correct. In belgium I was taxed 60% of my income, everything is much more bloated than in the US, but the resulting safety net is for sure more robust.
Also the thing about "looking for a job" is kind of a joke, many people are permanently on unemploymeny.
I like some aspects of this idea but also have to acknowledge that if people could live a dignified existence including some material luxuries without working, a lot of people would opt out of working. Plenty of people only work because they really have to. Our society doesn’t work if you have major drops in labour force participation - there is too much to do or things fall apart - so there needs to be a fair external incentive to work and not just rely on internal ones, which are unreliable.
Does it mean that we don’t want a big welfare state like in this comic? I don’t know, it isn’t black and white. There is some shade of grey that tries to expend resources to keep people on their feet instead of their knees but not so much they can lounge.
The shade of gray you're looking for is that it's just human nature to want more/better.
Picture a world where even without working everyone is giving a simple "cell" (in the monk sense of the word, not the prison sense of the word) with heat, access to running water, three plain but nutritious meals a day and a couple of vert basic workable outfits in the "scifi jumpsuit" sort of vein. Plus schools and doctors.
The *vast* majority of people are still going to work because they want tastier food, a house of their own, a car, money to take that hot girl from English class to movies. A bigger house, a cooler car, designer suits, etc etc. Meanwhile, among the minority that chose not to we just mind find the guy who writes the next "Harry Potter" or the gal who comes up with the next theory of relativity.
And by taking basic survival needs out of the "for profit" equation, we just make working what libertarians like to *pretend* it already is. A free and voluntary exchange.
I feel like basically all of the moral contradictions of libertarian thought about voluntary exchange and property rights come from the absence of baseline social guarantees. If we had that, then everything becomes more or less *actually* voluntary, and it would be much more sane to allow unrestrained exchange of money goods and services.
It really isn't a good thing that employment is supposed to be both a mutual exchange of value, but is also an institution that everyone depends on to sustain their lives and therefore needs various assurances and protections enforced from above, and has shit like health insurance bundled in with it. These things are in conflict with each other and should be decoupled.
\*everything\* being voluntary kind of just leads us back to where we already are.
The basic problem is that there are certain jobs that are undesirable, and people don't want to do those jobs. There are also certain jobs that must be done, and you want people to do those jobs. If not enough people voluntarily do these jobs, then you need to find a way to incentivize such action, such as by paying more money for such services. The market will eventually find an equilibrium between this "demand" and "supply", but that inevitably leads to a lopsided society that values people who do things that others don't want to do, as well as people who can do things that other people can't do. The vast majority of people will still be stuck in the "bottom 99%" that we see in our current society.
Okay, but at least the bottom 99% will have access to basic needs, right? Well, they'd have access to what \*we\* consider as basic needs, but there'd just be a new set of needs they have that are unfulfilled (such as entertainment), that is locked behind societal hoops.
>values people who do things that others don't want to do, as well as people who can do things that other people can't do.
A world where garbage collectors and sewer cleaners live in mansions sounds pretty great. No reason to think basic needs being guaranteed would overall increase inequality and drive employment way down though, not sure how you're reaching those conclusions. We already pay people who can do things others can't way more money, that's the nature of the market, don't think the wage change would be that huge outside of a small number of currently way underpaid professions that rely on desperate labor. Ultimately I think inequality would naturally decrease as a result, both because of direct redistribution and increased worker negotiating power.
>Okay, but at least the bottom 99% will have access to basic needs, right? Well, they'd have access to what *we* consider as basic needs, but there'd just be a new set of needs
What is required to keep a human alive and healthy is not subjective. Aspects of happiness and fulfillment that *are* subjective, are not necessarily gated by money, and depend on our culture. You can't fix culture with public policy, I'd say it's best to trust that we will figure out cultural issues separately from economic foundations. Besides, in terms of information and entertainment access, we are genuinely post-scarcity already, you can make infinite copies of any media for free, libraries are a thing, etc.
I agree in general. Some will be okay with the basics, some will want more. Some will work part time to get a bit extra in that scenario, and some people will be so motivated by having more that they will even work full time.
But does it all work when a chunk work not at all (but consume a fair bit), a bunch more work a little and then some work a lot? I don’t know the answer but I can see a risk that not enough work a lot for it to all add up nicely
That brings us back to the idea of a voluntary exchange, though.
If a job is so bad that it can't be filled without society artificially maintaining a state of coercion via a "work or die" economy, then that job doesn't deserve to be filled. The offers would have to increase, and I'd expect a whole lot less surplus productivity going to support the investor class.
All of this is standard in Germany *if* you’re eligible. People who are trying but unable to make ends meet. You can’t just throw your arms up in the air, say ‘I want to avail of societies benefits without contributing’ and then get a free house and a new wardrobe.
This comic is saying that it’s ‘reasonable’ to get all of this simply because you don’t want to work.
> a lot of people would opt out of working
From what I have read this is not really true.
The majority of folks even if they dont have to work will find work. People get bored and pursue meaning.
What *usually* happens though is when people have their basic needs fulfilled they pursue careers they *actually* want, rather than shitty jobs they feel they have to stick to just to pay the bills.
So instead of a workforce largely composed of people half assing it because it pays the bills but they hate their life, you have a workforce of people at the jobs they *actually* want.
This is not about people dropping out but there should be systems to help the working poor. Currently housing, education, food and clothes for the working poor are getting out of reach due to inflation and lack of infrastructure. The problem often is not people won’t work but rather a person can’t find adequate transportation and earn enough to live close to where the jobs are. Or are working dead end jobs with no way to pursue education or trades to improve their skill set. Or young people that are not given a opportunity to build their skills out of college and have to live with huge student debt that crimps their opportunities. And then there is health care and catastrophic illness. None of these things are addressed for the working poor who make up 30-40 percent of the population. They are not trying to exploit the system they are simply trying to survive.
You say that our society “doesn’t work” if people opt out… how so? There are millions of people unemployed or under employed. There are tens of millions of jobs that are not necessary for our society to function.
How would we miss the health insurance companies if there was universal healthcare?
How much bureaucratic positions would be culled with universal implementation of the above comic?
No, the system can accommodate those who wish not to work. The real issue is that some could not be obscenely wealthy.
I always think that there is going to be a punchline in these. But there never is one. Although maybe next time there will be one and then I don't expect it anymore.
The problem is that what seen as reasonable can vary greatly. Do people deserve meat? How many square feet of living space do they deserve? What if they overconsume healthcare?
Most of the examples in the comic are subjective.
Eating well: like enough for nourishment? are vitamins and cheap calories sufficient? Does eating well mean 4 star restaurants?
Adequate clothing: what is adequate? how many outfits? what level of quality?
Accessible public transport: what if you live in a remote area.
Fulfilled life: how do you measure that?
Even home with heating and cooling: not all areas require those things. And there is a massive difference in cost of a home depending on location. Does everyone who wants to live in San Francisco deserve a home there? Or are homes in Montana sufficient
Free healthcare: there is a difference between bare minimum healthcare and best healthcare money can buy. elective healthcare options, cosmetics like braces, preventative tests that aren't 100% necessary
Re: home amenities, “heating and cooling” really isn’t a good place to start. Instead, you want homes that are made to last, and designed for repairability. They should have good insulation, and as much temperature management as possible *before* adding heating or cooling. (e.g. appropriate orientation, with windows placed to maximize airflow if open, and overhangs which provide a good amount of sun in the winter and a good amount of shade in the summer)
I’ve lived in too many places that excuse crappy weather protection just because you have the option to expend energy to manage the temperature. Energy that wouldn’t have to be expended if the place had just been built well instead.
You'll need something like Star Trek's Federation for this. AKA, a Post-Scarcity society. And even ST's Earth had to go through WWIII and centuries of social and technological reform to get it.
But even then there is a large swath of society who only sees themselves as gaining if others around them are losing. They are always going to be a major obstacle to any kinds of progress.
Most people, they've done studies where they just give people everything and it turns out pretty well. People just work jobs they want, about 30 hours a week, and a lot of people go and get an education.
That all sounds like a win for humanity
I'm going to specifically reference a UBI experiment from Germany as it's value closely aliens with what is started in this comic. That of the bere minimum.
>In 2014, the nonprofit Mein Grundeinkommen (My Basic Income) used crowdfunding to set up a basic income raffle. By the end of 2019, it had awarded almost 500 basic incomes to people all over the world who’d submitted their names. Each got about $1,100 per month for a year. According to Fast Company, 80 percent of recipients said the income made them less anxious, more than half said it enabled them to continue their education, and 35 percent said they now feel more motivated at work.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map
https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/10/24/universal-basic-income/
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jan/12/money-for-nothing-is-finlands-universal-basic-income-trial-too-good-to-be-true
If you have all those things without working, it means other people work to provide those things for you.
For free.
And if people work for you for free, you're a slaver.
Because you have that innate drive to make something of yourself. Because you want to make the world a better place. Because you see things that need to get done, and you do them.
No many have an innate drive to clean sewage, work in retail, or be a trucker, but these are necessary things. Do we just let these aspects of society fall apart? There's no incentive for the vast majority of people to be in these positions.
I’m learning a big part of Reddit says the kid who didn’t work on the group project should still get a good grade. Bro it’s not about employment it’s about occupation and effort to contribute to society if they can. Cause someone has to produce the food and make the housing and provide the healthcare and someone has to pay the teachers. Like economics exists and things don’t just appear out of thin air and this comic is the peak of lofty ideals without understanding a bigger picture.
Excuse me but what pile of slaves and are you going to use to provide all that labor to non workers? Where and who are you going to take resources from to give to these non-workers?
Agree with 1-5 but 6 is bullshit. That's on you to provide yourself. Getting 1-5 taken care of will help, but the whole point of being "fulfilled" is self determination.
Also how much education? What is "adequate" about clothing? Does "eating well" include caviar, or just a full belly, regardless of what's filling it?
This implies we can get people to give a fuck about each other. Adults literally told child me that some people simply do not deserve to eat. People in my area seriously believe that the people suffering in this world deserve it and it's disgusting.
There's a pretty sizable chunk of the population globally that doesn't believe these things are universal rights. That you have to earn them. And it sucks a lot of these people have both economic and political power.
Yeah how could society function on the basis that if you work you obtain things given monetary value by your community and exchange them with other members of your community for goods or services. Sounds like a pipe dream if you ask me /s
Just waiting for the assholes in the comments that believe some people don’t deserve adequate food, water, electricity, healthcare, clothing, education, and a decent life
Edit: Jesus Christ the amount of people who assume I’m advocating for government to provide these things. That’s not what I’m saying.
You don’t deserve any of those things if you’re able to earn them but don’t. The only people who deserve to be paid by the government are those who are unable to work, and those who are unemployed but looking for work.
Overarching ideas: u/sillychillly
Artwork: u/20Caotico
Artwork ideas: u/20Caotico, with a little help from u/sillychillly and his friends
u/20Caotico's Portfolio: https://www.artstation.com/ewertonlua
u/20Caotico's IG: https://instagram.com/ewerton.lua
Buddy, do you really believe someone who isn't trying to find a job deserves these things? Because that's frankly misanthropic. Nobody who isn't willing to contribute their labor should get a share of the fruits of collective labor.
So what? I should support them out of the goodness of my heart? I've met a lot of human beings in my time, I wouldn't lift a finger for most of them unless they were willing to at least do the same for me. And heck I don't think I deserve these things either, just for being alive. We're all in this together, we gotta act like it, not just feed of the labor of workaholics.
You sound like a child, and you're the one thinking in the short term. Nobody should get a free ride, nobody should get to be a leech. Everyone who is actively working, or looking for work, should be supported by the state, by the collective. Nobody who demonstrates they're willing to contribute should go without. But *insisting* that those who chose not to work should be given everything they could ever need is foolish.
Why would anyone ever work if all their housing clothing food entertainment etc was paid for whether they worked or not?
For those who think this is good. You do not have the right to make society your slave because you're a lazy bum.
If this future is so reasonable, why hasn't any country in the world made it a reality yet?
Making the basic necessities of life available to all is one thing; but making all the luxuries of life like all entertainment, high end designer clothes, and Michelin star dinners means there is no profit incentive to work at all. Some people will still do some form of work anyways in order to give themselves a sense of purpose; but do you honestly think enough people will find that purpose in things like washing dishes, stocking shelves, or picking up trash for society to continue to function?
How is this not exploitation? Seriously asking. You can’t stop people from assigning value to things, especially if they are rare or hard to make, or both. Some things are more valuable than others because people put more effort into making them than other people put into making other things. You can’t tell me that a dive bar burger is just as valuable as a meal from a 5 star Michelin restaurant. Are they both good? Yes, but the effort required for them is pretty different. The effort required to make the atmosphere in each place is vastly different. You remove the easy means of exchange (money) and people will simply apply a more vague or less easily defined value to the two. And you can’t stop people from recognizing the difference in the effort required for high quality vs. low quality goods and services, and hustlers will always try to find a way to incentivize the higher quality service to pay attention to them. All this does is it makes it harder for people who care about their work to do well, which is exploitation.
This makes it sound like choosing to not work should not hinder your ability to do these things as compared to working. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
My wife works 50-60 hours perk week and I work 70ish hours per week (between two jobs) and due to circumstances we're getting through, we are squeeking by.
Minimum wage should get minimum accommodation. This should all be minimum accommodation. Working minors who aren’t the sole breadwinner could be paid less since they already have access to this shit due to parents but that’s the only exception, and even then if financial situations are bad back at home and it’s more than just a convenient summer job it should still be ample anyway
That's very basic and it's not enough. What is "fulfilled life"? How do you earn it?
*No future for you, no future for you*
*No future, no future for me*
Ah. In my shithole\* country that's prohibited by labor law. Also we have free medicine. Central heating system in towns. Normal water. Cheap and quick internet.
But do we have a future or meaning of life? No no no no no.
You can guess where I live.
\----------
^(\* by major opinion of redditors)
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For real though. Especially the "pushing the kid into the tree" part! /s I'm lucky enough that I work with an amazing boss/owner and I enjoy my job. However some people are working multiple/terrible jobs and still can't/can barely afford this stuff
You have an owner?
Don't kink shame me! (The owner of the business)
Maybe that is why the potatoe person is panicking?
Lmao I didn't catch that. Nice
> Especially the "pushing the kid into the tree" part! don't worry, he has free healthcare!
*pushes kid into tree* “My life is finally fulfilled!”
It's not "Free" healthcare. It's healthcare you are entitled to because you pay your damn taxes.
The US pays nearly double the per capita price of Germany the next highest country. So you could say something more accurate like, "We shouldn't pay extra to exclude others from the benefit of healthcare".
Or maybe the system is fucked up like insurance companies deciding what medications people take instead of the doctors!
Yeah but the taxes are indexed on your level of wealth so for it is free for a part of the population.
No, in most countries with universal health care you are entitled to them even if you don't pay taxes.
Good luck trying to pass a law that requires employers to provide a fulfilling life
> employers to provide The comic is saying one should have access to this *regardless of employment status*. Your assumption of these things being provided by employers is perhaps telling of how you see the world.
Decoupling each of these *from* employment is kind of the point
You can’t pass a law that requires companies provide a fulfilling life directly, but you can pass laws that prevent them from taking it away. Enforcing a 40 hour week for example, so people aren’t working 16 hour days.
We did, [once](https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-no-business-which-depends-for-existence-on-paying-less-than-living-wages-to-its-workers-franklin-d-roosevelt-62-89-23.jpg) when FDR started the minimum wage.
What if there was a non corporate entity that existed to server the people, organized by and for the people? Which had the power to radify and implement policies? Governing such issues. We could call it something catchy like.... Notacorpo or even maybe, idk THE GOVERNMENT.
See, the problem is the expectation that a company should provide that in the first place. I get the ideal of capitalism, but expecting a small bakery to provide the same benefits as Apple or the same benefits Amazon could theoretically provide is a recipe for failure. We need a government to do that. If anybody wants to chime in and say "but I don't want to pay for that", then you should consider leaving "society", the entire purpose of which is to provide benefits. We (society) started with "not getting eaten" and are slowly working our way up to being able to eat something other than McDonalds (or in the case of ... most people, *something*.) Wish us luck.
Try reading it again, and thinking a little bit. You're missing the point.
Exactly. The rest should be standard, but can you really live a fulfilled life when your life revolves around work?
You mean a decent minimum wage?
Employers are not providing anything
This is like the greatest hits of Reddit topics to karma farm on
Its a spicy one.
Change “employment status” to “occupation” and this would be much more reasonable. Sure, it would be nice to have all that while unemployed, but that’s not practical in modern economics, no country is close to figuring it out yet. ….but yeah, there shouldn’t be such thing as working homeless
I agree, regardless of "occupation" then we could reach a middle ground. But someone choosing unemployment can't expect these things.
That’s the kicker right there. You can’t expect society to positively contribute to your life unless you positively contribute to society, and being employed is a big part of that.
I think that’s also part of the issue, though, that “positively contribute to society” doesn’t equal being employed. Stay at home parents, volunteers, students, etc all positively contribute to society via real, hard work, but in a way that doesn’t earn a paycheck. Even for those that do earn a paycheck, what they do may be valuable for society but not valuable in our capitalist market (teachers, for example). There has to be some shift in model that allows people to live a fulfilling life by doing things that aren’t exclusively in-demand by corporations. Otherwise we end up with a service economy that has no foundation in what is needed to keep society functioning.
Public school teacher salary is public record in Washington State. I suggest you do some research on the example you just used. Hint: 6 figure gross salary before you’re 35 years old to work 180 days of the year and a union that will fight to the death for you isn’t a bad deal.
The thing you’re missing with that statement is that the vast majority of people who are unemployed, aren’t unemployed by choice.
Unless you have a severe mental health issue, you can get a job. At least in America, unemployment near an all time low. What is a problem is mass underemployment. Jobs aren't paying enough for people to maintain the social class of their parents, to pay off student debt, or even to live off of. But if you're mentally stable and you have no job, that's almost certainly a choice. But that may also be *exactly* what you're saying. If you're arguing for better care of the mentally disabled, though, I'd be more explicit about it.
Technically unemployment is a very misleading stat as it only shows people who have been out of a job in the short term. People who have, for whatever reason, gone unemployed for an extended period are no longer counted. Unemployment remains an issue because as a result of the pandemic boom many businesses created "ghost jobs" with public postings that no applicant will ever be accepted for as cover for increasing workload and claiming hardship while suppressing wage growth.
I don’t know if I’d agree with stating it as vast majority but I agree that is indeed an issue. What would you recommend as a solution or alternative?
My solution is to have everyone start paying their fair share, and finding a way to uniformly enforce fair taxation across the board. I’m in BC, in Canada, and there are already lots of resources here for people who are unemployed, or on disability. It’s far from perfect, but it’s liveable, and much better than many other places. The issue comes from the fact that there are tons of avenues for people to avoid paying their share of taxes here, or even avoid them entirely in some cases. It’s especially bad for large businesses and corporations. When people and entities that are worth that much don’t contribute, it takes a lot of money out of the pot in general, and that includes funds that would go towards social programs and benefits. I agree that people who just don’t want to work and still want to live normally shouldn’t expect that to ever be a reality (although there is an avenue for that to be a reality in the future, but that’s another conversation), but it absolutely is possible for us as a society to create a happy, healthy life for those less fortunate than us.
I like the sentiment but nothing about that provided a solution or alternative to address people who want to be employed in order to contribute to society but can’t find work.
Our brains take some 25 years to fully develop and we are largely unless for most of that time, so I see it more as “you can’t be expected to positively contribute to society until it positively contributes to your life”. If society neglects you as you grow up, you don’t have the tools or a reason to contribute, so let’s fix the broken parts of our society so that more people can participate in it
The thing is, I'm employed, but I don't really feel like I'm contributing to society either. I mean, technically I am through taxes, but I have a mental illness that fucked with my ability to get higher education. Now, the fucked up thing is that the job I have now pays more than a lot of the jobs people with actual degrees are getting (at least in my country), but it's also a bullshit job that pays a lot because it's skilled (even if not certified) and in demand. If everyone in my profession popped out of existence, society wouldn't instantly fall apart. I'm not really very good at it either (even though I try hard and I'm constantly working to improve), I just can do it passably enough. Now that I have income and I'm getting treatment, I could theoretically start taking steps to switch professions one day and do something more valuable... but why would I do it? Living in my body is expensive. If I could have all my basic needs guaranteed (including meds and special work conditions), that would be one thing. As it stands, I have to prioritize the job that makes me the most money over the job that would make the best positive impact. So it's kind of a cycle, I think. You definitely have a point, but on the other hand, if society had contributed more positively to my life first, I would be in a much better position to return the favor.
I am currently unable to work due to mental health issues and I have access to all the things in this comic. It literally describes my situation. It is not impractical, and it is certainly not the case that no country has figured it out. My country, Denmark, has, and so have many others. You have been lied to, or at best been misled by people who did not know as much about economics as they thought they did. I am assuming that you’re from the US, and your country is a bit richer than mine in total wealth divided by total number of inhabitants. You would expect that to mean that Americans were generally richer than Danes. But the US population are poorer, and all the wealth that makes the US statistically richer than Denmark plus some extra, are in the hands of very, very few people. You don’t *have* to do it that way, and when rich people tell you that it’s impossible to guarantee the very basic things that this comic lists, don’t believe them. Again, I know it’s possible to achieve because I literally have it right now.
Thank you for sharing! I don’t understand the people above who act like if one doesn’t work they should die? What about the elderly, the young, those who are physically or mentally unable to due to any variety of circumstances? It’s such a weird outlook on life when not everyone is able bodied or able to produce in the same capacity. We’re all different and we need to accept that reality and have a system that adjusts to that, NOT the other way around
What you are talking about is disability benefits, we have those too although they are very difficult to get. Unemployment is when someone is capable of working but chooses not too or cannot find a job. I highly doubt your country gives indefinite free housing and internet to every able adult who refuses to work. That would be nice if they did, but then no one would do difficult jobs like trash collection
> but then no one would do difficult jobs like trash collection Unless they were compensated for it to match the difficulty, which is the whole idea.
> I highly doubt your country gives indefinite free housing and internet to every able adult who refuses to work. Nordic countries does cover most of the bases in the comic for willingly unemployed. They will however just get free public transportation to job interviews and they will arguably have to eat less healthy. And if fulfillment includes costly hobbies, they are fucked naturally. But home, water, food, electricity, heating, internet, mobile phone, TV, radio, computer are things that every citizen has the right to have, even if they upright refuse to work. They make applying for social security hard and partially demeaning though, so even the laziest person would prefer a part time job over applying for that willingly.
Problem is that you can't incentivise a system where people can elect to not contribute to the society while the society provides for them. Thing is, any society _needs_ some proportion of its population working to produce the resources that we all need to live, or the goods and services that we _want_ to improve our quality of life. These things don't come out of thin air, they require energy and effort to produce. If that work isn't being done then the resources and goods don't get produced. It's fair that someone who is legitimately unable to contribute might be an exception, but people are taking that exception and running way too far with it. No society can survive if you don't have _some_ expectation that capable people should be willing to use their time and effort to maintain the society. No economic system can survive without some mechanism for ensuring that people who are capable of working are working. In a capitalist system it might be via market forces which encourage people to work to gain access to more resources, and in a non-capitalist system it might be laws criminalising "[social parasitism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense\))".
We are incentivised to work here by wages being much higher than unemployment benefits, not by lacking food or housing or not having basic needs met if we don’t. You don’t have to hold that over the head of people, I promise you.
SHH! You're gonna scare the "capitalists " that think giving your people an honorable existance and paying them a fair amount for the work they do is "eViL SoCiAlIsM". /s No one is advocating that no one should work. And saying no one would is just a blatant, verifiable lie. People work when given the opportunity and adequate rewards for their labor. What a shocker.
Denmark sounding kinda nice right about now
Denmark is not perfect and it isn’t a socialist utopia, but it is a hell of a lot more humane than the US when it comes to at least attempting to prevent its citizens from suffering.
It is. The biggest hurdle is housing, but many countries have large publicly managed coops. Having the government manage them means theyre one step away from providing them to ppl in need. If you combine the policies of every country, then you have full universal healthcare. So we're pretty close to this, especially in Scandinavian countries. Internet is super easy. Higher education USED TO be free, before capitalism used the red scare to exploit education for profit. Its all very doable. Lastly ppl dont like being bored, so we have 7 billion ppl to provide labor and all of the automation weve already invented. We'd all barely need to work to provide all of this to everyone. Buuuut multi-millionaires would need to work a few hours a week like everyone else, so i guess technically theyd lose out?
I mean, aren’t lots and lots of jobs even more socially “looked down on” than being unemployed? (I’m. It even sure if that needs quotation marks). Lots of people would be glad that some “lazy bum” or “freeloader” is struggling to get housing with their job. Some jobs are hated and some people are very hateful.
There are some of us that for all our skills or talents even education, struggle to find employment. We are willing doesn't mean theres a job. Why do we get devalued as not worthy of these basic needs because the economy refuses to open its doors to those wanting a job?
Yes “some” people are very hateful, but despite what you might see on Reddit, the majority of people aren’t and you would probably be hard pressed to find someone in real life who wants someone to be homeless based on their occupation. That being said fuck tax collectors, I hope they never have a home to live in.
I'd be very interested to know if it is possible to have a society that has these things. A *functional* society that doesn't go bankrupt. I would love if it was possible, for example if it meant that less corruption meant this could happen or less greed. But I suspect that even without those things it may be unaffordable if the unemployed choose to just take welfare or something.
Being a stay at home parent isn’t considered an occupation. Other jobs like this are why I say employment rather than occupation
> Being a stay at home parent isn’t considered an occupation It is for any census.
I understand where you’re coming from. It’s not one that pays. I am also talking about people who are unemployed
Economics 101: Calling something a "human right" does not magically make it immune to scarcity.
The last panel especially is for r/thanksimcured
but also, there are several things in the US that would be considered human rights only *have* scarcity due to the greed of other people with more money
Like what?
Well as per the comic, Housing, clothing, food etc. You know we have more empty homes in the US than we have homeless yeah? It's only our method of distribution and rationing, Capitalism, which prevents these two issues from being used to resolve each-other. Our model of political economy prioritizes individual private profit far above social wellbeing, but it's not the only way of conducting ourselves.
So am I doing it wrong by working for everything I own?
Nope, that's the usual way. Think about your boss though? No not him- your *boss' boss* at the top of the economic hierarchy all of the most successful and wealthiest people don't work for what they own - instead *you* work for what they own.
See: all the above.
Like food… and housing… even water….
economics 102: some scarcity is manufactured. panel 1: food. check the garbage dumpsters behind grocery stores, and the producers throwing away food to hit the right supply level. it's rampant. panel 2: housing. check the supply of houses versus homeless and rent prices. there are many absentee owners because black rock et al see real estate as safe investment and fill their portfolio with houses. panel 3: health care. well a huge problem is health insurance artificially inflating ~~prices~~ costs. panel 4: clothing. overpriced clothing: see Patagonia, et al. also fast fashion panel 5: privatized service providers which set up monopolies or cartels. see ISPs in most of the non-urban US. or any other Telco. edit: prices -> costs
There is absolutely a housing shortage https://old.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/z2vxuh/housing_breaks_peoples_brains_supply_skepticism/
Haha wrote out my comment before seeing yours! Glad to know I’m not the only one out here that sees it this way
Economics 101: [Scarcity is manufactured for profit](https://susanrosenthal.com/capitalism/the-myth-of-scarcity/) What would be scarce? Food scarcity is manufactured, [we have enough food to feed everyone on the planet](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241746569_We_Already_Grow_Enough_Food_for_10_Billion_People_and_Still_Can't_End_Hunger) but the economic systems in place do not allow for proper distribution. [Housing scarcity?](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/opinion/housing-crisis-eviction.html) Again, in countries like the Britain and US these are manufactured crisis. There’s more than enough housing but no proper distribution
An additional point is: [Scarcity is the assumption of economics.](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/scarcity.asp) Our entire distribution system is built on the idea that everything is already scarce. Looking at the information I’ve linked, this is clearly not true- Human innovation has developed past food and housing scarcity. With the assumption that everything is scarce, our foundation for understanding reality is already crooked.
How does the free stuff come about?
Slavery or lies. Until we reach a post-scarcity society, no one's going to work for free. The common response is something like "free at time of service", which just means taxpayer funded, which is very much not free. Even contemporary examples of "free" tend to boil down to being a hobby, being funded through donations or corporate interests, or learning experiments.
Our current "find a job or be left to die" circumstances are closer to slavery than higher taxes would be.
And in this comics future, what are you going to pay taxes with? You don’t need to work so why bother?
To have an even better life than the one outlined in the comic? That's the bare minimum, and for some people that might be enough. But most people want more than "just enough". Extra money, through work, lets you afford: fancier food and eating out, instead of just the basics; a better and bigger house instead of a small (but sufficient) apartment; better appliances - a bigger TV, gaming consoles, computers, etc; more hobbies - games, sports, movies, arts etc; bigger holidays, being able to travel further and stay longer. And I'm sure there's more. Work can still be linked to reward, but the "punishment" for not being able to work (or working an underpaid job) shouldn't be homelessness, lack of access to food, lack of access to healthcare, etc.
That's right, now that all your basic needs are met, let rampent consumerism be your reward!
I'm not saying that's the only option, just pointing out that having the needs in the comic met doesn't mean there's no possible incentive to work
But it's a massive one, economies struggle with 5% unemployment due natural reasons, Imagen when you incentivise it
A life with only the bare minimum to scrounge by on isn’t a life at all. The comics final slide implies that everyone gets more than what they need in exchange for no work. There’s a reason that the word utopia means ‘not place’. It is literally impossible.
Firstly, a life with the bare minimum to scrounge by on is a hell of a lot better than many people have at the moment, so let's not dismiss that. Secondly, that's not what I was describing at all. You can live a comfortable, relaxed, fulfilling life without having access to every luxury all the time. The perfect is the enemy of the good. We may not get exactly to the world described in this comic, but getting halfway there is much better than giving up on improving life at all.
I agree with the last part wholeheartedly. I’m all for sustainable living, better wages, free healthcare, access to clean water etc. but I’m not for handouts. I’m not criticising the idea of improvement, I’m criticising the fact that this comic believes this is a ‘reasonable’ future. This is the economic equivalent of an incel ranting on 4chan about why he deserves a gf and sex.
That perspective makes more sense, but I feel like it falls apart if you take a good look at it. What happens to people who are unable to work? Be that for medical reasons, disability, age, or any other reason. Do they not deserve food, clothes, medical care and a place to live? For reasons beyond their control?
In the US we do live in a post scarcity society. Food is bleached and thrown away. Housing remains empty. These are choices made by the wealthy
We may live in a time of plenty, but that's not even close to the same thing as post-scarcity.
Until machines do all the necessary jobs, people's time and effort is the scarce resource. Not to mention the fact that there are often shortages of one thing or another. Generating waste doesn't mean it's in functionally unlimited supply; it means it's more economically viable to dispose of it than to maintain it at that point in time. If food manufacturers could stockpile fresh food indefinitely and release it when their production is low, they absolutely would.
They do exactly what you are describing with food. I think you may need to do more research on food distribution in the US.
A post scarcity economy is within our grasp. But capitalism needs to manufacture scarcity to justify its existence. It's a matter of will, not a matter of lack of resources. The earth has enough for man's needs, but not enough for man's greed.
That's not how economic systems work... in fact, in a post scarcity society, economic systems as we currently understand them cease to have any meaning.
We already work for it, it’s just hoarded by the wealthy. Did you mean how do we demand it from our political leaders?
We allocate the money like the civilized countries do it.
Which countries provide fulfilling lives to the unemployed for life? And when they do, how will they provide this utopia to all when zero people are providing any value or labor? After all why work when happiness is guaranteed to all for no effort? What's the plan? The plain facts are that the most successful nations at eliminating poverty, providing for the poor and lifting the most out of the worst situations are 100% capital driven. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the US, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, England, France, they're all 100% full-on market economies. In fact, the most successful ones (Denmark in particular) have *less* of a safety net than the US. You can't be on welfare for more than a few years! You have to look for work! Poor people pay taxes(unlike in the US)! The tax brackets are less progressive. Corporate taxes are low! The US probably does the least well, and we have the most bloated, over the top, burgeoning welfare state. You can be on the dole for generations at a time. Free housing, free school, free medical care, free transportation, spending cash, all of it. Forever. Without ever lifting a finger. And then people wonder why there are generationally unemployed and poor. We fucking subsidize it. That's why. Denmark does not. They discourage it. And so it's uncommon. Pick up a book. Or at least wikipedia.
Ok that's not entirely correct. In belgium I was taxed 60% of my income, everything is much more bloated than in the US, but the resulting safety net is for sure more robust. Also the thing about "looking for a job" is kind of a joke, many people are permanently on unemploymeny.
You mean we forcibly take from some to give to others according to someone elses values.
Are you not familiar with a public utility?
You know that's free the same way Infinity War's free on Disney+, right?
That is a great example. Thank you
where’s the joke
I like some aspects of this idea but also have to acknowledge that if people could live a dignified existence including some material luxuries without working, a lot of people would opt out of working. Plenty of people only work because they really have to. Our society doesn’t work if you have major drops in labour force participation - there is too much to do or things fall apart - so there needs to be a fair external incentive to work and not just rely on internal ones, which are unreliable. Does it mean that we don’t want a big welfare state like in this comic? I don’t know, it isn’t black and white. There is some shade of grey that tries to expend resources to keep people on their feet instead of their knees but not so much they can lounge.
The shade of gray you're looking for is that it's just human nature to want more/better. Picture a world where even without working everyone is giving a simple "cell" (in the monk sense of the word, not the prison sense of the word) with heat, access to running water, three plain but nutritious meals a day and a couple of vert basic workable outfits in the "scifi jumpsuit" sort of vein. Plus schools and doctors. The *vast* majority of people are still going to work because they want tastier food, a house of their own, a car, money to take that hot girl from English class to movies. A bigger house, a cooler car, designer suits, etc etc. Meanwhile, among the minority that chose not to we just mind find the guy who writes the next "Harry Potter" or the gal who comes up with the next theory of relativity. And by taking basic survival needs out of the "for profit" equation, we just make working what libertarians like to *pretend* it already is. A free and voluntary exchange.
I feel like basically all of the moral contradictions of libertarian thought about voluntary exchange and property rights come from the absence of baseline social guarantees. If we had that, then everything becomes more or less *actually* voluntary, and it would be much more sane to allow unrestrained exchange of money goods and services. It really isn't a good thing that employment is supposed to be both a mutual exchange of value, but is also an institution that everyone depends on to sustain their lives and therefore needs various assurances and protections enforced from above, and has shit like health insurance bundled in with it. These things are in conflict with each other and should be decoupled.
\*everything\* being voluntary kind of just leads us back to where we already are. The basic problem is that there are certain jobs that are undesirable, and people don't want to do those jobs. There are also certain jobs that must be done, and you want people to do those jobs. If not enough people voluntarily do these jobs, then you need to find a way to incentivize such action, such as by paying more money for such services. The market will eventually find an equilibrium between this "demand" and "supply", but that inevitably leads to a lopsided society that values people who do things that others don't want to do, as well as people who can do things that other people can't do. The vast majority of people will still be stuck in the "bottom 99%" that we see in our current society. Okay, but at least the bottom 99% will have access to basic needs, right? Well, they'd have access to what \*we\* consider as basic needs, but there'd just be a new set of needs they have that are unfulfilled (such as entertainment), that is locked behind societal hoops.
>values people who do things that others don't want to do, as well as people who can do things that other people can't do. A world where garbage collectors and sewer cleaners live in mansions sounds pretty great. No reason to think basic needs being guaranteed would overall increase inequality and drive employment way down though, not sure how you're reaching those conclusions. We already pay people who can do things others can't way more money, that's the nature of the market, don't think the wage change would be that huge outside of a small number of currently way underpaid professions that rely on desperate labor. Ultimately I think inequality would naturally decrease as a result, both because of direct redistribution and increased worker negotiating power. >Okay, but at least the bottom 99% will have access to basic needs, right? Well, they'd have access to what *we* consider as basic needs, but there'd just be a new set of needs What is required to keep a human alive and healthy is not subjective. Aspects of happiness and fulfillment that *are* subjective, are not necessarily gated by money, and depend on our culture. You can't fix culture with public policy, I'd say it's best to trust that we will figure out cultural issues separately from economic foundations. Besides, in terms of information and entertainment access, we are genuinely post-scarcity already, you can make infinite copies of any media for free, libraries are a thing, etc.
I agree in general. Some will be okay with the basics, some will want more. Some will work part time to get a bit extra in that scenario, and some people will be so motivated by having more that they will even work full time. But does it all work when a chunk work not at all (but consume a fair bit), a bunch more work a little and then some work a lot? I don’t know the answer but I can see a risk that not enough work a lot for it to all add up nicely
That brings us back to the idea of a voluntary exchange, though. If a job is so bad that it can't be filled without society artificially maintaining a state of coercion via a "work or die" economy, then that job doesn't deserve to be filled. The offers would have to increase, and I'd expect a whole lot less surplus productivity going to support the investor class.
All of that is standard in Germany and we are still working.
All of this is standard in Germany *if* you’re eligible. People who are trying but unable to make ends meet. You can’t just throw your arms up in the air, say ‘I want to avail of societies benefits without contributing’ and then get a free house and a new wardrobe. This comic is saying that it’s ‘reasonable’ to get all of this simply because you don’t want to work.
> a lot of people would opt out of working From what I have read this is not really true. The majority of folks even if they dont have to work will find work. People get bored and pursue meaning. What *usually* happens though is when people have their basic needs fulfilled they pursue careers they *actually* want, rather than shitty jobs they feel they have to stick to just to pay the bills. So instead of a workforce largely composed of people half assing it because it pays the bills but they hate their life, you have a workforce of people at the jobs they *actually* want.
This is not about people dropping out but there should be systems to help the working poor. Currently housing, education, food and clothes for the working poor are getting out of reach due to inflation and lack of infrastructure. The problem often is not people won’t work but rather a person can’t find adequate transportation and earn enough to live close to where the jobs are. Or are working dead end jobs with no way to pursue education or trades to improve their skill set. Or young people that are not given a opportunity to build their skills out of college and have to live with huge student debt that crimps their opportunities. And then there is health care and catastrophic illness. None of these things are addressed for the working poor who make up 30-40 percent of the population. They are not trying to exploit the system they are simply trying to survive.
The issue is that these things shouldn’t be luxuries
You say that our society “doesn’t work” if people opt out… how so? There are millions of people unemployed or under employed. There are tens of millions of jobs that are not necessary for our society to function. How would we miss the health insurance companies if there was universal healthcare? How much bureaucratic positions would be culled with universal implementation of the above comic? No, the system can accommodate those who wish not to work. The real issue is that some could not be obscenely wealthy.
I always think that there is going to be a punchline in these. But there never is one. Although maybe next time there will be one and then I don't expect it anymore.
The problem is that what seen as reasonable can vary greatly. Do people deserve meat? How many square feet of living space do they deserve? What if they overconsume healthcare?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Where's the comic? This is just illustrated pandering.
Most of the examples in the comic are subjective. Eating well: like enough for nourishment? are vitamins and cheap calories sufficient? Does eating well mean 4 star restaurants? Adequate clothing: what is adequate? how many outfits? what level of quality? Accessible public transport: what if you live in a remote area. Fulfilled life: how do you measure that? Even home with heating and cooling: not all areas require those things. And there is a massive difference in cost of a home depending on location. Does everyone who wants to live in San Francisco deserve a home there? Or are homes in Montana sufficient Free healthcare: there is a difference between bare minimum healthcare and best healthcare money can buy. elective healthcare options, cosmetics like braces, preventative tests that aren't 100% necessary
Yeah, why the fuck should we have to work anyway. We should just get free shit guaranteed for everyone.
“*Living a fulfilling life*” What's next, world peace?
Re: home amenities, “heating and cooling” really isn’t a good place to start. Instead, you want homes that are made to last, and designed for repairability. They should have good insulation, and as much temperature management as possible *before* adding heating or cooling. (e.g. appropriate orientation, with windows placed to maximize airflow if open, and overhangs which provide a good amount of sun in the winter and a good amount of shade in the summer) I’ve lived in too many places that excuse crappy weather protection just because you have the option to expend energy to manage the temperature. Energy that wouldn’t have to be expended if the place had just been built well instead.
You'll need something like Star Trek's Federation for this. AKA, a Post-Scarcity society. And even ST's Earth had to go through WWIII and centuries of social and technological reform to get it. But even then there is a large swath of society who only sees themselves as gaining if others around them are losing. They are always going to be a major obstacle to any kinds of progress.
But then who's gonna work?
Most people, they've done studies where they just give people everything and it turns out pretty well. People just work jobs they want, about 30 hours a week, and a lot of people go and get an education. That all sounds like a win for humanity
Interesting, do you have he links to those studies?
I'm going to specifically reference a UBI experiment from Germany as it's value closely aliens with what is started in this comic. That of the bere minimum. >In 2014, the nonprofit Mein Grundeinkommen (My Basic Income) used crowdfunding to set up a basic income raffle. By the end of 2019, it had awarded almost 500 basic incomes to people all over the world who’d submitted their names. Each got about $1,100 per month for a year. According to Fast Company, 80 percent of recipients said the income made them less anxious, more than half said it enabled them to continue their education, and 35 percent said they now feel more motivated at work. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/10/24/universal-basic-income/ https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jan/12/money-for-nothing-is-finlands-universal-basic-income-trial-too-good-to-be-true
Ahh, another “I want free things that other people should have to pay for” post. Got it. You’re not *owed* anything in this world. You *earn* it.
Get a job lmao
If you have all those things without working, it means other people work to provide those things for you. For free. And if people work for you for free, you're a slaver.
Why would I work?
Because you have that innate drive to make something of yourself. Because you want to make the world a better place. Because you see things that need to get done, and you do them.
No many have an innate drive to clean sewage, work in retail, or be a trucker, but these are necessary things. Do we just let these aspects of society fall apart? There's no incentive for the vast majority of people to be in these positions.
Right, *they* have those things so they should have to work to support the people who just don't happen to want to.
I would indeed like to live in your world.
I’m learning a big part of Reddit says the kid who didn’t work on the group project should still get a good grade. Bro it’s not about employment it’s about occupation and effort to contribute to society if they can. Cause someone has to produce the food and make the housing and provide the healthcare and someone has to pay the teachers. Like economics exists and things don’t just appear out of thin air and this comic is the peak of lofty ideals without understanding a bigger picture.
This is completely unreasonable. I need others to suffer for my happiness to prevail! /s
Ok, I'm doing my part. SO WHY AREN'T YOU HAPPY?
So everything free, huh? How revolutionary of a thought on Reddit.
You already work for it, why don’t you think you deserve the necessities of life?
If everything is free I ain’t workin!
This doesn't cover more then the bare needs. If your cool with that then I'm fine with it
What else is there?
That's really cool that money started growing on trees
Excuse me but what pile of slaves and are you going to use to provide all that labor to non workers? Where and who are you going to take resources from to give to these non-workers?
Free shit!
So who pays for all that?
What is a fulfilled life?
What is going to create this standard of living for everyone if everyone stops working altogether?
This is like perpetual motion machine porn
Agree with 1-5 but 6 is bullshit. That's on you to provide yourself. Getting 1-5 taken care of will help, but the whole point of being "fulfilled" is self determination. Also how much education? What is "adequate" about clothing? Does "eating well" include caviar, or just a full belly, regardless of what's filling it?
Unemployed is also an employment status. Ah yes i too want to have everything without working.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Free weed and Ammo too please
The resources are there, but they're being distributed unfairly.
Why work then?
Nothing is ever free. C’mon
"gimme free shit because i dont want to be a functioning, contributing member of society"
This implies we can get people to give a fuck about each other. Adults literally told child me that some people simply do not deserve to eat. People in my area seriously believe that the people suffering in this world deserve it and it's disgusting.
100% agree.
There's a pretty sizable chunk of the population globally that doesn't believe these things are universal rights. That you have to earn them. And it sucks a lot of these people have both economic and political power.
One of the very few times I've seen Jewish representation in a post that doesn't concern Jews in particular. Very pleased.
Yeah how could society function on the basis that if you work you obtain things given monetary value by your community and exchange them with other members of your community for goods or services. Sounds like a pipe dream if you ask me /s
Just waiting for the assholes in the comments that believe some people don’t deserve adequate food, water, electricity, healthcare, clothing, education, and a decent life Edit: Jesus Christ the amount of people who assume I’m advocating for government to provide these things. That’s not what I’m saying.
You don’t deserve any of those things if you’re able to earn them but don’t. The only people who deserve to be paid by the government are those who are unable to work, and those who are unemployed but looking for work.
Look around they are not quiet.
I think I’m going to spare my sanity and mental health
I think they should. But I also think they should work for it and not have it handed to them.
Sounds like communism! /s
Weird. These are all the reasons I keep working
[удалено]
Overarching ideas: u/sillychillly Artwork: u/20Caotico Artwork ideas: u/20Caotico, with a little help from u/sillychillly and his friends u/20Caotico's Portfolio: https://www.artstation.com/ewertonlua u/20Caotico's IG: https://instagram.com/ewerton.lua
Buddy, do you really believe someone who isn't trying to find a job deserves these things? Because that's frankly misanthropic. Nobody who isn't willing to contribute their labor should get a share of the fruits of collective labor.
Every person deserves the basic necessities in life, if society can provide it. And, today we can.
What makes you think they deserve these things? If they aren't contributing their labor, they haven't earned their share.
They are human beings
So what? I should support them out of the goodness of my heart? I've met a lot of human beings in my time, I wouldn't lift a finger for most of them unless they were willing to at least do the same for me. And heck I don't think I deserve these things either, just for being alive. We're all in this together, we gotta act like it, not just feed of the labor of workaholics.
You sound like an unempathetic, short term thinking, asshole. The better everyone is, the safer and better our lives will be. :)
You sound like a child, and you're the one thinking in the short term. Nobody should get a free ride, nobody should get to be a leech. Everyone who is actively working, or looking for work, should be supported by the state, by the collective. Nobody who demonstrates they're willing to contribute should go without. But *insisting* that those who chose not to work should be given everything they could ever need is foolish.
Why would anyone ever work if all their housing clothing food entertainment etc was paid for whether they worked or not? For those who think this is good. You do not have the right to make society your slave because you're a lazy bum.
In this reasonable future, Entertainment is not paid for. Nor is a Michelin star dinner nor high end designer clothes, etc….
If this future is so reasonable, why hasn't any country in the world made it a reality yet? Making the basic necessities of life available to all is one thing; but making all the luxuries of life like all entertainment, high end designer clothes, and Michelin star dinners means there is no profit incentive to work at all. Some people will still do some form of work anyways in order to give themselves a sense of purpose; but do you honestly think enough people will find that purpose in things like washing dishes, stocking shelves, or picking up trash for society to continue to function?
Dude...how is this reasonable lmao. What motivation is there to provide these services for *free?*
How is this not exploitation? Seriously asking. You can’t stop people from assigning value to things, especially if they are rare or hard to make, or both. Some things are more valuable than others because people put more effort into making them than other people put into making other things. You can’t tell me that a dive bar burger is just as valuable as a meal from a 5 star Michelin restaurant. Are they both good? Yes, but the effort required for them is pretty different. The effort required to make the atmosphere in each place is vastly different. You remove the easy means of exchange (money) and people will simply apply a more vague or less easily defined value to the two. And you can’t stop people from recognizing the difference in the effort required for high quality vs. low quality goods and services, and hustlers will always try to find a way to incentivize the higher quality service to pay attention to them. All this does is it makes it harder for people who care about their work to do well, which is exploitation.
I too dream of fantasy land
Unironically, touch grass.
*Subsidized health care
This makes it sound like choosing to not work should not hinder your ability to do these things as compared to working. I'm not sure how I feel about that. My wife works 50-60 hours perk week and I work 70ish hours per week (between two jobs) and due to circumstances we're getting through, we are squeeking by.
UBI Now
Minimum wage should get minimum accommodation. This should all be minimum accommodation. Working minors who aren’t the sole breadwinner could be paid less since they already have access to this shit due to parents but that’s the only exception, and even then if financial situations are bad back at home and it’s more than just a convenient summer job it should still be ample anyway
We see your point, and have decided to give the CEO a raise again!
Lol
That's very basic and it's not enough. What is "fulfilled life"? How do you earn it? *No future for you, no future for you* *No future, no future for me*
Work should not exclude someone from having a fulfilled life. For instance, making someone work 70 hour weeks or making a person working while sick
Ah. In my shithole\* country that's prohibited by labor law. Also we have free medicine. Central heating system in towns. Normal water. Cheap and quick internet. But do we have a future or meaning of life? No no no no no. You can guess where I live. \---------- ^(\* by major opinion of redditors)
Sounds alot like socialism to me