Alright, I'll concede the numbers, let's say some fraction of people are employed not because they see value in their work but because they're economically incentivised (in other words, to make ends meet). I'm saying that given the choice, those who are forced into spending their time in a way that is detrimental to themselves in any other term but economic would not do so, and furthermore, that humanity owes it to itself to remedy that situation in order to maximise for fulfilled lives. That is if you agree that societal progress means making people's lives better, and that spending one's time meaningfully is a good measure of better.
What I'm not saying is all work is horseshit and let's all party.
>I'm saying that given the choice, those who are forced into spending their time in a way that is detrimental to themselves in any other term but economic would not do so
You cant have the fruits of labor without the labor.
People make this calculus every single day, and nearly unanimously decide that it would be more detrimental to go without the fruits of labor (especially those that must be incentivized).
It is obviously worth exploring how to make work less miserable, or better fit the interests of a worker, but that is a genuinely difficult matching an allocation problem.
A "do what you want" policy would not result in the tasks people want done getting done.
The closest equivalent to a system without transactional incentives is individual subsistence farming where one has to work for oneself so they don't die.
You want fresh produce in your supermarket, but you don't want to be the person who drives around to various farmers to get their produce, the person who stocks the shelves, the person who plants and harvests the produce, etc.
(Well, I guess if you're american you don't have fresh produce in your supermarket, but the point stands.)
I see, but I’m not sure if these wouldn’t get done in a “do what you want” policy. There’s even a chance that they get done better than how they are done today. People would put in resources to improve (automate, simplify, etc.) the tasks they don’t enjoy doing.
It's not Star Trek, even in very automated industries someone has to do the things.
If you don't get in the tractor and plough the field you don't get the wheat.
Economic value is no less real. If anything, it's much more real at the low end in fast food, the supermarket, labouring jobs etc than it is in Uber for dogs.
Sure, someone needs to do something, but due to automation we need less labor for the same value, even if it isn’t fully automated luxury space communism (yet?).
That excess time could be spent on leisure, instead the insatiable hunger for more is driving us to drudgery.
how much productive work would you undo for more leisure time? Go back to the productivity of 2000? 1980? further?
On one hand, I think this is an interesting question to put the value of work into context.
On the other, I think most of society would fight tooth and nail against it.
That said, I do know people who do live pretty simply, no electricity, healthcare, or fancy food.
It kind of reminds me of an old miner that would periodically ride into town on a donkey when I was growing up in the 90's. He was about 150 years out of place.
> On the other, I think most of society would fight tooth and nail against it.
...why?
We'd still have modern computers and stuff. Dropping productivity wouldn't revert technology itself. So if you ask people "Do you want the same amount of housing and clothes and cars and services you could get back in 1994, but while working 4 days a week instead of 5?" what's the horrifying factor that makes them say no?
In both the US and UK over 30% of households are owned outright with no mortgage.
The economy is made up of us, it's not (predominantly) a downtrodden serving a tiny elite.
Most people work and do useful stuff for each other. Yes, there are bullshit jobs, but it's a huge exaggeration to pretend they all are.