We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living.

[chalmers]

[daleanime]

1. Massive K&R.....

There's plenty of things that need to be done, but under a 'free market' system no one is willing to pay for most of them.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Did Fuller earn a living?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. I don't know but I'm pretty sure he never invented the robots to bestow this paradise upon us.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Sure he did, he "worked" on his inventions. Some people are smart this way and others has to "work"

[chalmers]

6. Did Jesus cross the Rubicon?

[virtualobserver]

33. Jesus walked across the surface of the Rubicon.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

47. He was a college professor.

So, no.
.
.
.
.
(I kid!)

[Thinkingabout]

51. Sure he worked.

[WinkyDink]

112. Are you kidding?

[Thinkingabout]

118. The response was to the OP, I know he worked.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. While I agree with Aristotle on this one point

he's also the one that said women are deformed men so I think we have to take Aristotle with a grain of salt.

[hifiguy]

80. And Aristotle was so much duller than

the highly entertaining Plato and Socrates to boot.

[Le Taz Hot]

84. I love his "gadfly" technique.

Start analyzing a point of view, dissect it to death, follow it's history and logic (or lack thereof) and bring it back around to show how completely illogical the argument is. But he doesn't know anything -- he's just asking questions. LOL! I can't tell you how many times I've used that highly effective technique in a debate.

[hifiguy]

99. Nowhere is the Socratic method employed with more systematization

than in the hands of a really good law school professor. It sharpens the mind as few things do. at least my better law profs did, in particular my Civil Procedure teacher, David Shapiro.

[HFRN]

5. well, trade bills and guest worker visas are a good start in that direction

although the 'continued survival' part of the plan still needs a little work

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Is he saying --

We should have technology/robots to feed us, move us, care for us, treat our ailments, produce energy for themselves and us, repair themselves, manufacture themselves, etc.?

[chalmers]

12. Would you work if you didn't have to worry about societal needs?

Like housing, food and health care?

[alphafemale]

20. Absolutely. I want to know I am useful.

I don't want to be a slug laying about expecting to be awarded for existing.

[chalmers]

23. Actually slugs have to do a lot to maintain their existence

And they are constantly on the move

[alphafemale]

26. Touche' then.

Humans that are capable of expect to not work and that others labor to feed and shelter them are worse than slugs then.

They also want the newest video game.

Delivered it to their sofa with pizza please.

[chalmers]

32. labor and sheter in what way

sounds like Bill O'Reilly talking points there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Agree. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Would it make me a better person? Probably not.

What you're describing is a society of the idle rich, served by machines. When have the idle rich ever shown themselves to be virtuous regardless of who they have been served by? It seems history has shown that when humans have been relieved of the burdens of strife of day-to-day survival they have indulged themselves in depravity and conflict to occupy their bored minds.

[alphafemale]

55. I think nearly every not lazy person wants to work and contribute.

I think instead of flat out handing out money even for the truly disabled most could have some pride by contributing something.

Even a person who is a quadriplegic could read books and newspapers to the blind.

As one example.

Nearly everyone is capable of contributing something.

[Mojorabbit]

88. Speaking as a disabled person

The reader would have to wake up and have some energy to spend.
Some of that energy would be used up getting dressed and ready for the event.
Then the reader would have to find transportation which would have to
be at the ready in case the reader's energy reserve poofs out in the middle of reading.
Then the reader would need a ride home and would probably end up flat on their butt
for the next few days after what would be strenuous activity for them.

[alphafemale]

93. You can read a book into a recording from home

I think everyone wants to be useful if possible.

[Mojorabbit]

101. Yes and I am.

There are days when just getting up is an accomplishment though and unless someone has been in these shoes they really cannot know and it is a particular pet peeve of mine when told what I ought to be able to do.

I am lucky in that I also have days when I can do all manner of things. It is just a crapshoot as to when those days will occur.

[salib]

105. Depends upon what you mean by work.

I would not do what the man says. That's for sure.

Is everyone missing it here? He is talking about self actualization, contributing in meaningful and creative ways.

[EX500rider]

29. Can't wait.......lol

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. I thought the same thing but i think the reality will be closer to the jackass who shot Cecil

Rich, bored and needing the thrill of pretend danger.

[KamaAina]

141. Probably.

In Critical Path, he referred to such robots as "inanislaves". (Yes, I took a college course on Fuller's works. )

[geek tragedy]

9. So who does the work then? Who builds and fixes stuff? nt

[TBF]

13. I think we could consider it

in a more figurative sense. That perhaps we could all work less as opposed to no one working at all - which as you point out is unsustainable.

My situation is that my spouse is the earner & I am SAHM. It would be nice if we could each work say 6 hours a day outside of home and have turns with the kids, as opposed to him in the office all the time & me at home all the time. I think those kind of ideals could be met in some sort of mixed economy (less capitalism, more socialism) but it would definitely be a huge paradigm shift from what we now have with capitalism.

[geek tragedy]

19. This is a big problem in the US.

Those who work, work too much.

And, too many do so without being able to save for retirement.

[Needa Moment]

74. I really think the path

Working toward unnecessary waste and and destruction of our planet just for the sake of remaining 'busy' really needs to be re-considered. Would be so much more awesome to be decently paid to clean up the enormous amount of trash, waste & toxins we have already unleashed and learn how to maintain & revive what we already have. And that would require more focus toward a socialised democracy

[hunter]

96. Yep.

Economic "productivity" as it is defined today is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to the earth's natural environment and the human spirit.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

129. +1 n/t

[Needa Moment]

140. Very Succinct

And aptly put my friend

[ronnie624]

124. +1

All people should be guaranteed a comfortable existence. People who feel secure, are far less prone to violence, and are more likely to turn their attention to productive things, like familial, intellectual or artistic pursuits. These outlets are what bring true happiness, not the fevered accumulation of 'wealth'.

[pediatricmedic]

18. In the very near future, the robots

There is a major technological shift in labor that is happening now. Most people quite simply will not be able to find a job. Most of the working age population will be jobless.

We have to look for ways to provide housing, food, and medical care.

Still love this video:

[MADem]

128. Äkta människor~~~!!!!!! REAL HUMANS!!!!!

Fantastic series--ran two seasons on Swedish TV:

There is a UK/US series called HUMANS that is based on this series (close but not quite the same--the Swedish one is darker with more characters). The UK finished the first season on UK CH4 this week, the US is a few weeks behind (running on AMC).

[gratuitous]

11. A terrific statement

A guaranteed basic income, coupled with guaranteed housing, clothing and food would put us back on the track of being a civilized society. I read a story in the local alt-news weekly several months ago about some twenty-something snow bums who liked nothing better than to spend the day snowboarding at the local ski resort. They'd put in enough work a couple or three days a week to afford their resort passes for the other days. In reading the article, I didn't think any of these fellows was in danger of coming up with a cure for cancer, but why should they? They're engaged in a fun leisure time activity, not hurting anyone, and the world continues to turn on its axis in a reliable and consistent 24 hour cycle.

Give them enough to eat and a place to stay, and they'd be perfectly content to while away a long time. It wouldn't be any skin off my nose, and I'd much rather have my tax dollars affording them the life they choose than paying for weapons to be used to kill millions of people all over the globe. At some point, if they decide that there's more to life than pot and shredding, make a couple of years of college available at no charge. Let them see what they can make of themselves without having to be the next Bill Gates or David Koch. With all the labor-saving devices we've come up with in the last century plus, why aren't we saving ourselves from having to labor more and more for less and less?

[WillowTree]

78. Where.......

.......does the "guaranteed basic income, coupled with guaranteed housing, clothing and food" come from? How is it paid for?

[FrodosPet]

91. Print more money!

The government could mint and deposit 350 platinum $1,000,000,000,000 coins into the fed and Voila! America has $350 Trillion. Then, send everyone in America a check for ONE MILLION DOLLARS! Everyone will be a millionaire, and nobody will have to work any more.

[gratuitous]

100. Cut a couple of days out of the defense budget

We spend slightly more than $2 billion a day on weapons and bases and other paraphernalia we don't need for enemies who don't exist, warehousing same, and guarding those warehouses from no one. Raise the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 22%. Tax the earnings of the robber baron big money boyz as ordinary income instead of as capital gains. We go a long way toward paying for it.

And, if people didn't have to face the prospect of destitution or death for failure, any number of folks might decide to strike out on their own and see if their million dollar idea might actually pan out. As it is, thousands (possibly far more) of people are locked into low-wage jobs, too scared of losing it all if they took a chance on an entrepreneurial plan. Provide a meaningful safety net that keeps them housed, clothed and fed, and who knows what somebody might come up with?

[seveneyes]

14. Who will empty the chamber pots and clean the streets?

If there is work that needs done, all able bodied need to pitch in.

[chalmers]

17. Work towards what, "progress" towards what?

Busy work for the sake of busy work or to simply increase employment percentages is not efficient nor is it necessary to maintain a cohesive society.

[Igel]

21. Very few people are working towards a cohesive society.

If you haven't noticed, US society's become a lot less cohesive in the last 30 years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. "empty the chamber pots and clean the streets" is not for the sake of work

A lot of human activity really is necessary, and we cannot automate it yet - agricultural work, healthcare, or sanitation as the poster said. It takes human intelligence, and we don't have artificial intelligence yet.

Automation removes some of the need for human work, but that doesn't mean we get straight to a society in which everyone decreases the amount of paid work they do by the same amount, or we agree that it should be voluntary. Fuller's quote, standing on its own, is remarkably banal and useless.

[FrodosPet]

92. Who cares if the streets are filthy?

Sanitary and storm sewers are WAY over rated! Why are we spending money on maintaining useless stuff like that?

No one in America should have to do anything unpleasant in order to earn a living. No one should be working their ass off to feed others, or to pick up their garbage, or to scrub toilets.

[eppur_se_muova]

28. It takes only a small percentage of the population to cover that completely ...

... and as automation increases, it will be even more so. For the rest, there are some real jobs, some makework, and unemployment.

A bigger question, of course, is what "needs" to be done ?

It is worth noting that in primitive* societies adults spend only about 20 hrs/wk procuring the necessities of life. Much of the rest of the time is spent in social interaction.



* In the literal sense, i.e. those that originated first. IIRC studies of both Australian aboriginal societies and African Bushmen hunter-gatherers have led to this conclusion.

1. The work is not burdensome because there is not too much of it.

According to several quantitative studies, hunter-gatherers typically devote about 20 hours per week to hunting or food gathering and another 10 to 20 hours to chores at the campsite, such as food processing and making or mending tools (e.g. Lee, 2003; Sahlins, 1972). All in all, the research suggests, hunter-gatherer adults spend an average of 30 to 40 hours per week on all subsistence-related activities combined, which is considerably less than the workweek of the typical modern American, if the American’s 40 or more hours of out-of-home work is added to the many hours spent on domestic chores.

One anthropologist, Marshall Sahlins (1972), has famously characterized hunter-gatherer societies collectively as “the original affluent society.” An affluent society, by Sahlins’s definition, is one in which “people’s material wants are easily satisfied.” Hunter-gatherers are affluent not because they have so much, but because they want so little. They can provide for those wants with relatively little work, and, as a result, they have lots of free time, which they spend, according to one observer of the Ju/’hoansi (Shostak, 1981, p 10), at such activities as “singing and composing songs, playing musical instruments, sewing intricate bead designs, telling stories, playing games, visiting, or just lying around and resting.” These are just the kinds of activities that we would expect of happy, relaxed people anywhere.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hunter-Gatherers_and_Play

[WillowTree]

75. What a lovely thought!

Tell me, who's going to fix the leaky plumbing while everyone else is off playing a lute and contemplating their navels? Or are we going to go back to the days when we had no pipework and just pooped in a hole in the ground and washed ourselves and our clothes in the river?

Oh, wait a minute.......where would the clothes come from? Who's going to tend the cotton and polyester plants and spin the fibers and weave them into fabric and make them into shirts and shorts?

Whence cometh those musical instruments? Will we just pluck them from the piano and saxophone trees and know instinctively what to do with them?

The games we're all going to be playing hours and hour a week.......I assume those would be Hopscotch and Red Rover, because there certainly won't be any Wiis or PlayStations, or even sports as we know them 'cause who's going to make the balls and bats and basketball hoops? And we won't even talk about tennis racquets and golf clubs 'cause those are the toys of the 1% and, well, ya can't get to be a 1%er if you're just hunting and/or gathering for a few hours a day.

"Hunter-gatherers are affluent not because they have so much, but because they want so little."

Ah, there's the rub! Fact is, some people talk a good game of how little they really need and how great the simpler times were, but most, if faced with this really, really, really "simple" life, would find it intolerably austere and insufferably boring. Americans would be no more willing to give up their creature comforts and technologies than to give up running water and sleeping indoors in January. Witness the recent thread about air conditioning. Bottom line is that those of us who live in twenty-first century "first world" countries would be fortunate to make it for a month living the "simple life" you describe before begging to go back to what we presently know as "normal". And we have to earn to have those things that we want.

[Syzygy321]

125. Certainly true for males

In many cases they have developed a beautiful community in which robots get up before dawn to walk miles for water, then prepare breakfast and farm and mend and cook and clean and nurse and carry children on their backs and tend in-laws and cook dinner and then serve dinner and wait to dine on the leftovers and then again do the cleaning and washing and working and obeying.

It's truly wonderful how much a society can accomplish, and how cohesive it can be, while everyone* just socializes and argues and plays cards all day and takes the occasional paid job. Yet everything runs to perfection. It's a stress-free existence. It's great to have a robot class - ya just have to train them right from the time they're born and punch their off-switch if they fail to serve you properly.

*ie, everyone who matters

[elehhhhna]

130. should be an op

[ileus]

64. We can use republican voters for the shist jobs.

If they want to work, by god they can work.

[pintobean]

15. I would rather not have to work for a living

but that's absolute utopian bullshit.

[scscholar]

85. Why is it "utopian?"

If it wasn't for the Republicans we could have basic income.

[ladyVet]

16. I don't think it's work itself that is a problem.

Most people like to work, especially if it's a job they can enjoy -- or at least tolerate -- and support themselves and their family on without giving up their souls to it.

It's this never-ending cycle of having to make more and more money to buy more and more things, because nobody is satisfied with having a few things, they have to have the latest thing, and all the other things society is shoving down their throat.

Does anybody really need an iPhone X-8000, when the two year old model works just fine, and costs one third as much? Do we really need the 100 inch, HD, AI-level television to watch reality TV? Do we really need the five-mile-to-the gallon Hummer Super Dick Enhancer?

The more people want, the more people are needed that have to slave away in horrible conditions to make it. The more people want, the cheaper they want it, leading to off-shoring or on-shoring to get production costs down, pushing even more people into slavery, because the CEOs and stockholders don't have enough money yet. They'll never have enough.

[TBF]

24. Right - we definitely need to get off that merry-go-round

Another factor is that we have some people working around the clock while others can't get a job. It's just like the income inequality piece. How do we level the field in a way makes sense?

[alphafemale]

25. I have no problem with helping people that cannot work.

I do have a problem with narcissistic assholes that just want people to feed and shelter them because they exist.

[chalmers]

31. examples please

[alphafemale]

34. This thread is promoting the very notion.

If a person is capable they should contribute.

Buy your own damn Cheetos.

[dumbcat]

98. How do you enforce that?

How do you induce people to contribute if they are happy to just live off of others. people like that DO exist. A lot of them.

[salib]

106. The quote in OP suggests that they will contribute and accomplish.

It will simply be directed by "whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody come along &stood theme they had to earn a living."

[notadmblnd]

67. How many of these narcissistic assholes that expect others to foot the bill do you actually know?

You seem pretty angry and pretty adamant that there are huge numbers of these individuals, surely you must know at least one.

[X_Digger]

22. Oh Bucky. *sigh*

Utopian bullshit.

[chalmers]

30. If you think that is utopian bullshit

Then what do we have now? Distopian hell.

[X_Digger]

38. Right, because it's either / or! (Not.) n/t

[SidDithers]

27. Brett and Jemaine are all over this...

Sid

[Skidmore]

35. This type of thinking is a sure fire way for

engendering justification for wiping out whole segments of the population because the "makers" feel entitled. It will never happen.

[Zorra]

36. Maybe a bit off topic, but republicans force severely developmentally disabled

and folks with severe autism to do "busy work" as repayment for the benefits we provide for them. It's the "even if the work is not necessary, they need to get the boots on and earn their keep" attitude.

This is fine with the folks who really can, and want, to work, but the system forces some of these folks who are not capable of doing busy work, or absolutely hate doing it, to do "busy work", usually tasks that frustrate them.

And the bureaucracies created around these systems require "proof" that these folks are working to "earn their keep" also require stupid amounts of paper work from different departments and/or agencies, and unnecessary administrative, and staff, time and energy.

In the case of non-profits, republican legislators repeatedly cut budgets, while expect more "busy work", out of everyone involved in providing service to developmentally disabled and/or folks with severe autism.

Republicans live in an authoritarian fantasy world, and should never be allowed to have any control of any part of social service endeavors.

End of rant.

[Smarmie Doofus]

42. I worked w. that population ( sounds like you did/do too) and I'm inclined to disagree.

Not w. the "unnecessary layers of bureaucracy" part your argument but w. the idea that that there are no implicit benefits to acclimating severely DD and/or autistic people to life in the "mainstream".

The traditional default position ( i.e. the generally accepted alternative to "work&quot is parking DD people in front of TVs or just letting them sit around the group home or institution and letting them space out.

Sort of like what we do w. nursing home populations.

There's something to be said for the psychological benefits of just getting out of the house and *going* somewhere everyday that can't quite be quantified but seem self-evident and very real to me.

(BTW: I agree w. the "frustrating task" part of your rant but if the task is frustrating.... maybe we can devise a less frustrating task.)

[Zorra]

48. No, that's not my point. Getting severely DD/other folks out in the community,

and/or letting them engage in rewarding activities that they enjoy, is not the same as forcing them to work at what are often meaningless mundane tasks that they hate doing.

[salib]

107. Absolutely. It is the tyranny of the pragmatist.

The pragmatist keeps asking "who will do the shit jobs?" And then go to the illogical conclusion that all people who "can" actually "must" do "work."

[Syzygy321]

127. Yeah, my mom used to work at the Federal Reserve

which, years ago, employed mentally challenged people to count money. Her impression was that they were proud and happy to come in to work and be part of the buzz and hum of society. Automation eventually made them superfluous - and that didn't free them, it saddened them.

To quote a long-depressed friend, speaking after the birth of her child: "I am so grateful to my son. I used to lie in bed until eleven because I couldn't face getting up. Things are much better now that that's not an option."

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Completely and vigorously disagree.

The biggest needs that people with disabilities have are related to their isolation.

What we all want out of life is a sense of autonomy, mastery and purpose. We all want a reason to feel good about ourselves, and for adults, nothing fills that need better than work.

The system forces folks who are not capable and absolutely hate doing it to school every day too, because yes, it is good for them.

http://www.who.int/features/qa/67/en/

[Zorra]

61. Who are you to say what is good for them? I'm saying give them choices about

what they want to do.

They are not animals, and they are not children.

You can get people out in the community without forcing them to do something they hate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. Given the choice between sitting in front of the TV all day and working...

... most people choose TV.

But the world isn't like that. Grownups also must consider consequences.

The consequence of TV is not just "no money" it's also "no friends", "poor health" and "no life".

Who am I? I'm a grownup who works as the ED of an organization that advocates for people with disabilities one of whom is my son.

He goes to school because it's good for him. I go to work because it's good for me. In a couple of years, he'll go to work because it's good for him too. It's part of the continuum of maturity, embracing our responsibilities and being a part of a community.

Not animals? Indeed not. My dog doesn't work, my son will.

We learn what we like by trying things, many of which we discover we don't like.

http://gowise.org/Wise-Videos

[Zorra]

82. So, do you believe that every developmentally disabled person

who can work, must work, even if they hate their existence because of it? Or should they maybe be given other choices?

Do you agree with the mission statements below? I totally agree with them, myself.

Council Vision and Mission Statement

The Washington State Developmental
Disabilities Council holds that
individuals with developmental disabili
ties, including those with the most
severe disabilities, have the right to
achieve independence, productivity,
integration and inclusion into the community.

People with developmental disabilities
must be afforded the opportunity to
exercise their individual and civil rights
in order to obtain their personal
goals. These opportunities include
participation in community life, having
interdependent relationships, living
in homes and communities, and making
contributions to their families,
communities, state and nation.

Individuals with developmental
disabilities and their families or significant
partners are the primary decision makers
regarding the types of supports
they require. Supports must be
provided in a manner that demonstrates
respect for individual dignity, personal
preference and
cultural differences.

The Council regards community as the
basic environment where individuals
use health care, housing, education, transportation, employment,
and recreation to find interest, activity,
and purpose in the
company of friends
and family.

http://www.ddc.wa.gov/Council%20Meeting%20Materials/1009%20Meeting/1009_JWG_Council_Vision_&_Mission_Statement.pdf

Mission Statement

To support the choices of individuals with disabilities and their families by promoting and providing within communities, flexible, quality, consumer-driven services and supports.

https://www.azdes.gov/rsa/

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. I am good friends with the parents of a young woman...

... who has very severe MD. We'll call the young woman Mary. Mary is nonverbal and uses a chair exclusively. When she was younger she could operate the controls, but could no longer do so by age 20.
When the state decided that we were going to become an employment first state, her parents, (who are heavily involved in DD issues) were quite resistant. They could not envision employment in which she could actively participate. After a couple of dead ends, they, with the assistance of job coaches, DVR and DDA started a business in which "Mary's Ice Cream" would employ people to vend snacks at local fairs and events. Mary would give away samples from her chair. This was quite successful, it made a self-sustaining income for Mary and her employees, but more importantly was tremendously inclusive and increased Mary's social circle. I daresay that today, Mary knows more people than I do.

Like I said, Mary's parents are good friends of mine. After the "Mary's Ice Cream" experience, her father helped write the vision statement in your first link.

So yes, I agree with it.

I don't agree so much with the second link because it was written in such a way as to implicitly legitimize institutions.

The expectation that grown ups take responsibility for our own support, are included in our communities and contribute to our society doesn't negate free will. In fact, it's a prerequisite to getting the respect due grownups.

[Zorra]

103. The expectation negates free will when we are forced to do things we don't want to do, and

have no other options.

With DD individuals, like everyone else, every person is different. What one person can do, another can't. Some cannot work. I've had cases where participants were severely and horribly abused in institutions from early childhood. Some people simply, for whatever reason, cannot work. What we try to do under these circumstances is provide choices for healthy activities tailored to those individuals needs that they can do, and be happy doing.

There is an extreme focus on a certain type of work, on "earning a living" institutionalized into this judeo-christian capitalist culture, that not every culture has had institutionalized into it. This institutionalized focus usually arises from a concept known as the "Protestant Work Ethic":

The Protestant work ethic (or the Puritan work ethic) is a concept in theology, sociology, economics and history which emphasizes that hard work and frugality are a result of a person's salvation in the Protestant faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic

In contrast, other cultures may have different value systems:

“My young men shall never work. Men who work cannot dream; and wisdom comes to us in dreams. You ask me to plow the ground. Shall I take a knife and tear my mother’s breast? Then when I die she will not take me to her bosom to rest. You ask me to dig for stone. Shall I dig under her skin for her bones? Then when I die I cannot enter her body to be born again. You ask me to cut grass and make hay and sell it, and be rich like white men. But how dare I cut off my mother’s hair?” ~ Smohalla

Of course, native peoples in North America got their sustenance directly from the land at the time, and white folks and their cultural family values later finished killing off all the ways that indigenous people here got their food, and now, some fully expect Native Americans to tow the line and pick themselves up by their bootstraps and get with the white program of subservience to white systems.

The same goes to some extant for the descendants of former slaves who were stolen from their tribal homelands in Africa or other places.

My point here, the viewing the world in terms of the Protestant Work Ethic is only one way to be. If that is your way, fine, I have no problem with that. Just don't try to force it on me, because I have a different belief system.

I would rather cut any DD folks who need it some slack. I would much pay taxes for those folks to have a happy, healthy life doing things they like, rather than paying taxes to coerce someone into doing something they hate and makes the entirety of their existence miserable and screaming, because of some white people belief system that grew out of some weird religious beliefs.

I agree with both mission statements. While I see your point about the Arizona Mission Statement, we have one of the lowest percentages of DD folks living in institutions in the US.

Arizona’s disability services rank 1st

http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20130502arizonas-disability-services-rank-1st.html

Choices, options, I like them; and I want others to have them too, according to their ability and need.

Thanks for what you do, Jeff.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. My belief that people with disabilities should be 100% included in society...

... does not imply 100% endorsement of that society.

I think that there are many improvements to the system in which we all live that would benefit us all. Guaranteed medical, mandatory time off and shorter work-weeks spring to mind.

It is the job coaches in supported employment whom I appreciate. They work hard to find employment in which individuals with disabilities can thrive.

[Solly Mack]

37. K&R

[mainer]

43. how do we decide who has to work and who gets to play all his life?

Oh, I know the answer. The women will end up doing all the work.

[tkmorris]

59. There ARE people such as you describe

Embarrassingly, I am related to one of them. However it is folly to imagine that the problem is solved if we simply discount the "turds that want to play video games all day".

Productivity is ever on the increase, and as such the day must inevitably come when full employment is a practical impossibility. We will be inundated with people who, while they are capable and willing, cannot find useful employment. Some would argue that we have already reached this point, at least in certain localities, but regardless it WILL get worse. Shaming them and calling them names solves nothing.

[alphafemale]

63. There is always a street that can be swept.

Something that can be painted.

No one gets to sit on their ass all day because they want to.

[tkmorris]

76. You have utterly missed the point

Actually no there isn't always a street to be swept. The cleaning of public streets used to employ hundreds in a fair sized city as it was strictly manual labor. Now, streetsweeping machinery means one person can do the work that formerly took a dozen or more.

This phenomena has been increasing productivity and eliminating jobs for decades, and really we're just getting started. 3D printing and it's assorted applications to manufacturing is just getting started for example, and that alone will eliminate literally MILLIONS of jobs across the globe. Software algorithims are replacing expert consultants and analysts in a wide variety of industries. Even fast food restaurants are becoming more automated.

On the whole I agree with you that "No one gets to sit on their ass all day because they want to", however finding useful things for everyone to do to avoid that is going to be a huge problem that will only ever get worse with time.

[Syzygy321]

136. In Moscow circa 1984

I remember countless babushkas with mops who spent their days swabbing the Metro (beautiful underground subway system). Tens of thousands of people tracked slushy mud in, endlessly; the old women swabbed, endlessly, and it made no particular sense. But they had a job. I always wondered how they felt: proud to be contributing? Or silently cursing?

In Prague a few years later, the woman's bathroom in the National Museum had a real live woman in a chair: you paid her a couple koruny and she handed you three squares of toilet paper.

Maybe that's the future: a surfeit of useless jobs, invented strictly to keep people from playing too many video games.

[hunter]

110. Just curious... does your own hard work make the world a better place?

Do you grow healthy food, do you teach children, are you a health care provider, do you promote birth control worldwide especially in cultures that oppose it, do you build affordable low energy housing? Then maybe you are doing something useful. Maybe. I've done all those things, but I still have doubts about my impact on the earth. As a U.S. American the cards are stacked against me. Hell, I own a car. A really shitty $800 mid-eighties car with a salvage title that I don't drive much, but that's still stomping on the earth a lot harder than the times I've been an entirely feral invisible person with nothing more than I could carry.

Everything beyond the basics is an elaborate game where the "winners" torture the "losers" and the earth is destroyed in the process.

Paid work does not make you free. It's frequently a more comfortable flavor of slavery.

Sturgeon's Revelation that 95% of everything is crap is especially applicable to modern economies.

The world would be a much better place if certain people didn't "work" so damned hard, if they stayed home, read a book, played with the kids, or puttered around in the garden.

The "Protestant work ethic" and other cultural work ethics have outlived their usefulness and now serve only to destroy the natural environment that supports all humanity.

Entire sectors of the "global economy" ought to be shut down for our own good. The fossil fuel industry is one. If we can't do that on our own terms then Mother Nature will do it on hers. We are not the first innovative species to experience exponential population growth only to crash, and we won't be the last.

In the blink of an eye our civilization will be a peculiar layer of trash in the geologic record, and the marker of a mass extinction.

[mainer]

114. I feel that most hard work every single day isn't compensated

And much of that hard work is done by women. Rearing children, cooking, cleaning, gardening, caring for the elderly and infirm, etc.

So this theory that a few "highly creative and ingenious" people can allow 9/10 of the human race to have a life at leisure is bullshit. Women will still be left to do most of the labor left in the world. And they will neither be compensated nor appreciated for it.

[Syzygy321]

138. Wow, great point. Thanks.

[Syzygy321]

137. You may mean that as a warning;

but I take it as a comfort.

[BainsBane]

45. OMG

This is insane. If you aren't going to earn a living, who is going to do it for you?

I thought you all supported the idea of socialism? Under socialism EVERYONE contributes to society. Marx: From each his ability to each according to his means.

Prior to capitalism, everyone worked the land. They fed themselves off crops they raised. They were compelled to work for wages when they lost access to that land, but capitalism didn't invent the notion of work. That is a basic requirement of human survival, from the dawn of human creation.

The problem is access to jobs, economic opportunity, and a living wage, not that people have to work. What an insane, insane notion.

Living off the labor of others is in fact what capitalist exploitation is about, yet you promote that as some sort of ideal.

[dumbcat]

73. So how do you enforce the idea

of "from each according to his ability?"

I thought you all supported the idea of socialism? Under socialism EVERYONE contributes to society. Marx: From each his ability to each according to his means.

If everyone's needs of food, shelter and medical care are guaranteed, how does the society force one to contribute according to their ability rather than stay home and play video games all day? Withhold food? Can't do that, they're guaranteed a living. Sure, some folks will work anyway, but there are a lot of folks who won't.

[BainsBane]

81. Under both socialism and capitalism

People work because they need to survive. The same reason they have always worked, the reason animals hunt for food. Laziness is not a virtue, and people have no right to expect others to support them because they don't feel like contributing to society or even their own sustenance.

[dumbcat]

97. So you are saying that it is not, "to each according to his need?"

Maybe I misunderstood your position.

[stevenleser]

119. We aren't there yet, but I think it is coming and sooner than most people realize.

When robots really can physically and mentally do what we are capable of doing, I am not sure what the point will be of working.

And humanity better come up with an economic paradigm that fits that, because it's coming.

[jalan48]

46. Bread and circuses, it's all good folks.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. I disagree.

I disagree with the basic point and the way it is framed.

Aside from money, people want three things from a vocation: autonomy, mastery and purpose. We also need the social capital that comes from having the personal relationships that, in my experience, only come from work.

I don't think that 40 hours a week is appropriate any more, and I do think that a minimum guaranteed income is probably a good idea.

But work not only enriches us financially, it enriches us personally.

[restorefreedom]

50. i think we also have to consider

that a lot of the work that is being done, and it is important work, is uncompensated. People who do animal rescue, people who work in soup kitchens, for food banks, people who clean up the crap that other people leave on the beaches, etc. most if not all of this work tends to be volunteer. I think they should be some kind of government funded expansion of AmeriCorps so that some of these jobs can be included and people can get compensated for doing important work for the betterment of society and the creatures around us. and of course, the funding of this should come from the higher taxes of the disgustingly wealthy who will no longer have their disgusting wealth to pay $50,000 to kill innocent animals.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Working for a living is a highly overrated pastime with few redeeming features.

[Buzz Clik]

56. Wow. What a total bullshit philosophy.

[Major Nikon]

102. I don't think it's total bullshit

I think people need to realize we now live in a service economy rather than in an industrial one. What's bullshit is the idea that the only way to prosperity is to produce things, increase working hours, and have near 0% unemployment. Those worn out ideas are simply unsustainable. What we should be doing is working on paying people more money for less hours and promoting service employees as valued as any other. We should also be investing in innovation by way of cheaper, more available, and more robust education.

Instead our populace has subscribed to the idea that all we need to do is make the rich richer and all other boats will rise accordingly. Reality is exactly the reverse.

[Recursion]

121. Give it 10 years. The labor force participation rate will be about 20% or so

We'll need to move to ten-hour weeks to keep people employed.

[Hydra]

57. I support this idea

And it's funny seeing the arguments against it. It's like the crabs in the bucket- instead of all of us getting out of the bucket and getting back in the ocean, they're more afraid that the other crabs will get something they don't.

[mythology]

113. My objection is that humanity tends toward free riding

There's simply no evidence to support the claim that if we give everybody a livable income that a significant percentage of people won't just sit on their ass. At that point, there's incentive for any individual to do nothing.

Human nature is what human nature is.

[Hydra]

116. Well, here's the problem

Another DUer posted this article today:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/10/robots_are_coming_for_your_job_amazon_mcdonalds_and_the_next_wave_of_dangerous_capitalist_disruption/

Automation is coming. Already 30% of the workforce has been forced out. It's going to get worse.

Even if we didn't have that, places that tried minimum income benefits found that males still worked the same number of hours(1% less), but could provide for their families better. Females stayed home more but took care of children and other family members.

I keep seeing the lazy argument...but we're doing all of this work and productivity to do...what? We need to consume less, not more, and if that happens, our economy collapses. Is it really so bad if some people go surf or snowboard, or do art or music, or spend more time with their loved ones than "earning their keep"?

[Newest Reality]

135. There are many experiments and attempts to prove that wrong...

You just have to do some research into the matter and some assumptions about the idea dissolve. Give the topic a Google and a gander. It is not a trivial matter and the option is coming to the table in light of many economic shifts and issues, including technological innovations and inequality.

BASIC INCOME WORKS!

That is only one of many experiments in that realm.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

58. I think we have to continue to work ...

... until "one-in-ten-thousand" of us comes along to support the rest of us with their invention and generosity.

[merrily]

60. Fuller is fighting the Bible, John Smith of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Lenin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat

US jobs going overseas is supposed to be ok with us because USians are the big innovators. However, Thomas Edisons and the Wright Brothers are few and far between. Also, it took a few guys to invent TV, but many USians to manufacture TVs and, before the internet, to sell them.

So, I don't get how the innovation thing is supposed to comfort USians. I could say I am happy to be in a service profession and I am. But not everyone can be in a service profession and I can't be happy about that.

[Hydra]

65. It's not a matter of innovation

We can already feed, house and provide everyone a basic income on the money we're spending on "defense" and subsidizing the 1%.

The question is, why are we subsidizing THAT and asking people to work more and buy more? That's Jeb's idea of how things should be.

[merrily]

69. That is what they are trying to sell us--and I do not mean only Republicans.

Part of the point of my post, though, is that it's not only about Darwin and Malthus. Don't work, don't eat is almost part of our DNA at that point.

As for Jeb, I could care less about what he says. Or Romney. Or the Kochs.

[ileus]

62. Count me in.....I've got fish to catch, and this job shit is getting in the way.

[notadmblnd]

71. Maybe you should make it your job to catch fish?

I know I would pay good money for fresh lake fish. Blue Gills and Sun fish are my favorite and do you know, I have not ever seen a one in a fish market or grocery store?

[ileus]

89. I actually have two friends that fish for a living.

One is a retired state trooper that makes a living with sponsors and kayak tournament money. The second is a 30 something river guide, and fishing equipment salesmen, he also has sponsors and does the weekend tournament kayak fishing.


I wouldn't want to sell contanimated fish....LOL

[mike_c]

66. there seems to be a general assumption that anyone not "working" is idle....

I belong to a group that shows how unjustified this assumption is: my work calendar is the academic calendar. I have nearly three months "off" during summer and a month or so at christmas. Notwithstanding that part of that time ends up being used for academic preparation-- a lot of it during christmas break, especially-- I still have big chunks of "leisure time" to fill, especially during summer. Believe me, there is no shortage of work that needs to be done. It's just that I get to pick most of it myself, with an emphasis on choosing challenging and self fulfilling tasks. I've spent much of this summer working on a pair of custom made sea kayaks and learning to make fine wooden boxes. Neither pays the bills, but both enrich my life.

My point is that I'm certainly not idle. I choose work that not only keeps me busy, but also work that provides challenges and stimulation that's not really part of my regular employment (which is itself challenging and fulfilling career work).

Freedom from "work" in the sense of freedom from employment doesn't necessarily mean sloth and idleness. It also means freedom to choose work that's interesting and fulfilling instead of merely selling one's time to pay the rent.

[ibegurpard]

68. Well that's fine

But until people start giving away food, clothing, housing, and all the other basic necessities of life it's not going to happen. What he is suggesting would require such an enormous realignment of values on the part of the general population I'm nor sure it could ever happen. Certainly not in my lifetime. People can do this on a micro level with neighborhood co-ops. Whether it will spread to a macro level is debatable. It's certainly worth doing on a local level though.

[AZ Progressive]

70. In America, it's considered unfair for some to be workings and others not. Thus, forcing people...

to work is justified for the sake of the impression of fairness. To not work without a reasonable excuse is considered not putting in your fair share to support society, and thus is seen as something to discourage or punish (of course, at the same time it is seen as your responsibility to find someone who is willing to give you the opportunity to work, America expects a lot but hardly or inadequately helps at the same time.)

If a group of people including you were stranded on an island, and had to work together to survive, wouldn't people be angry at you if you didn't work, where then your getting away with an easy life, and also at the same time making their workload larger? That impression still exists in America even if its outdated. An easy life is considered largely criminal in America (unless your rich.)

In addition, certain people will be very uncomfortable not being useful, primarily because of loss of value in society, loss of self esteem, and potentially fear of being seen as being eventually disposable by society.

Human beings are not all nice creatures, the realities of the human race must be considered rather than getting carried away by idealism.

[JCMach1]

83. It's not idealism when the reality is due to technological advances we will have 100's

of millions of 'redundant' people around the globe.

We don't yet have an economic paradigm that can account for this and deal with it.

[BlueJazz]

72. I know lots of people that do not work. I'm one of them. I DO work on things I like to do..

...such as building an Observatory and mowing my lawn and all that stuff. I was simply lucky in my earlier years.
To those who think I have not worked to earn what I have...you're partly right but have had some back-breaking jobs>
Hauling roofing felt up a 25 ft ladder for 6 months.
Cleaning grease traps and many other crap jobs while in college.

Would I contribute to a society where some people don't work? Most likely.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. "Would I contribute to a society where some people don't work? Most likely."

Contribute what, exactly?

[BlueJazz]

86. Money. I already contribute my time and $ at various shelters. Not something I wish to discuss.

Sorry. As a caring citizen, I do try to make some difference in this unfair world.

[bigmonkey]

87. Surprising that some find this upsetting, or pie-in-the-sky

Fuller was able to demonstrate that the struggle to provide enough for a decent life for everyone was basically over by the 1970s. It had been a technical and physical impossibility until then, but the those obstacles had been overcome. Only the societal obstacles remained, and remain.

The statement in the OP has a second section, where Fuller describes what the "true business of people" should be. Instead of discussing that, many replies have set up a sessile gaming pizza-eater as a straw man. "Useless eater" is a mainly RW trope, but it has been propagandized pretty heavily. "Inspectors of inspectors" sounds, to me, pretty similar to the economy we have now.

I think that we all can name many things that need doing, but aren't done because people can't support themselves while doing them. Perhaps those things should become real possibilities, through a rearrangement of society's priorities, given a technical and industrial base that can support most living humans fairly easily. As an example, I would rather work on cleaning up the oceans, than compete for a job polishing my local aristocrat's yacht simply because that's the only job I can support myself with.

[AZ Progressive]

90. Well then that's socialism vs capitalism there

And that requires society to shift from the mindlessness of "the market always dictates" to a society that values all beneficial work and rewards doing so. But that requires a move away from capitalism and towards socialism or a government run economy. That requires an overthrow of Wall Street or the perfect giant combination of circumstances to crush the popularity of the dogma of capitalism in society.

[bigmonkey]

95. Somtimes I wonder if just counteracting the continual propaganda might be enough.

Capitalism is the system that is failing us currently, and it's failing catastrophically. It might have a place as a portion of human society, but nowadays, as the driving wheel, it's mainly destructive. It may have had a useful, though tragic, place as a major player in human history, but that's over now.

What astonishes me is the clearly unconscious internalization of its false moral system, supporting the system that's killing us all. Years ago I read an essay by Ivan Illich about the history of work, and recall very clearly the indoctrination that was implemented to inculcate the idea that "if you don't work, you don't eat." He described how the traditional "right to beg" was supplanted by the new "right to work" (no surprise that's still a deceptive RW political sales pitch). He cited the use of iron-grate-topped pits, into which the recalcitrant were placed next to a water pump, which they had to use to keep from drowning while the pit was inundated with water. Work or die - the world only supports the productive.

With all of that trauma in the past, perhaps it's no surprise that false consciousness is a common problem.

[mainer]

109. Rather than "earning a living," what if we simply call it "work"?

Who cooks your breakfast every morning? Who harvests the food in the fields? Who raises the chickens and the eggs?

How will you compensate the farmer for gathering those eggs? Will you go up to him and say: "Give them to me. I shouldn''t have to work, but you do."

Who builds your car, maintains the sewage plant, staffs the hospital, manufactures the antibiotics you need? Who pays them for that labor?

I just don't see that there's an answer to these questions with this proposal of "only one in ten people have to work." Because the one in ten who do have to work will resent the hell out of everyone else who doesn't.

[MFrohike]

111. Heh

Some of these replies are completely hilarious. I wonder what they'd say if you quoted Keynes on this very subject, who said almost exactly the same thing as Fuller. I wonder how utopian and silly they'd think it was then.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf

[madville]

115. There still has to be incentive to get an education and work for some

I would say everyone gets a minimum standard income. Those who want to learn a trade, skill, own a business or enter a professional field then earn whatever additional money they want on top of that to afford a higher standard of living if they desire it.

[Hydra]

117. That's exactly how it works

Minimum income is just basic existence. Offer free education and incentivize the jobs that are left, and we'll have everything taken care of.

At the point that we simply don't need more workers in the system, then we raise the minimum income to something more than basic.

[Skittles]

120. I have been working full time for 40 years

I am tired

[MrMickeysMom]

122. I'm with you...

I've earned diminishing returns in my chosen career for over 40 years. I'm tired, for sure. I'm also earning about minimum wage in accordance with where I should be after all these years in health care as a licensed practitioner.

I also worked 6 years prior to entering that (from the age of 16) to help my mom make her monthly mortgage payment.

I've got loads of expertise earned while I scratched, saved, and went without. I'm not sure I can last another 4 years to reach the point of retirement (with no pension, thank you health care delivery system in three different states).

[HeiressofBickworth]

123. Oh, so THAT'S where the idea came from

Many years ago, I met a friend of my brother's. He was from an affluent family and was hitchhiking around the world. He spent his time doing what we now call "couch surfing", i.e., living on the hospitality of anyone who would take him in. He contributed neither money nor labor in exchange. His pinnacle of achievement, to him, was the three months he spent on the beach in India smoking pot and reading various philosophers. Must be when he discovered Fuller. Anyway, this fellow explained to me one day that not everyone needs to work for a living. He said that the people with superior intellect (of which he counted himself, natch) should spend their time developing new ideas and philosophies and those who couldn't achieve this lofty intellectual plane should be the ones to work and support those thinkers. He though that all work was, by definition, menial and not worthy of a thinker's time.

Now, that was in 1976. Looking back, I see the beginnings of the 1%. Although the current 1% think that because they have all the money, those who actually perform some kind of labor should be supporting them. Currently the superior intellect test doesn't apply -- just a bank account review.

I thought it was a crack-pot idea back then and I think the same thing now.

[1939]

131. A few years back

I read a history of the utopian communes that sprang up in the US during the early 19th century. Many of them were bankrolled and set up by rich men who were intrigued by the idea of "utopian".

Most of them foundered on the idea that the artists and musicians were providing a valuable contribution to the commune by their art and music and were entitled to an equal share of the food produced by the commune farmers who plowed, hoed, and harvested the food. The farmers tired of seeing these "drones" just left the commune and the place fell apart when the artists and musicians didn't have anything to eat. When the rich philanthropists got tired of subsidizing a losing proposition, the whole place collapsed.

The main contribution of communes to society turned out to be selective breeding for the "ideal man" which then led to the eugenics movement.

[6chars]

126. depends what you call a living

[Admiral Loinpresser]

132. Amen. Human beings are not worker ants.

In a healthy culture (i.e. not including mainstream American culture) people are able to pursue happiness without a value judgement or economic necessity to work for money.

The Puritan Work Ethic is as perverted as Puritan sexual ethics. It starts with the premise that human beings are evil creatures. I believe that human beings are just smart animals who have many of the same good and bad impulses as other animals. Of course we are highly susceptible to parental and cultural nurturing in more sophisticated ways than other animals, but I tend to agree with Chomsky that we have innate tendencies toward creativity and altruism.

Capitalism is a major problem because it requires worker ants and provides lots of goods and services destructive to the planet and the human spirit.

What we desperately need is an infusion of neolithic values that foster more cultural interconnectedness and respect for nature.

[OneGrassRoot]

139. Amen #2. Thank you. n/t

[hobbit709]

133. How many of the 1% actually EARN a living?

[restorefreedom]

134. there is lots to be done

animals that need to be rescued, pets that need to be visited and dogs need to be walked at shelters, brush that needs to be cleared away in fire zones before the fires happen,old people that are in nursing homes that never get visited by family would love some company, soup kitchens that operate on shoestring budgets and the same volunteers over and over that could use some help, trash the littering our beaches that needs to be picked up, I could go on but I think you get the idea.

I am all for people working for the community in ways that don't necessarily compensate financially, but I have no respect for somebody who wants to sit around and play video games all day or be a ski bum when there were so many people and animals in need of help. Everyone deserves time off and playtime, but to live your life that way is just a waste imo and people should not be paid to waste their lives. They should be paid if they do meaningful work, whether or not that work has been traditionally compensated in the past by the "free-market ". if they want to sit around and go goof off all day, they can be responsible for their own upkeep.

[KamaAina]

142. Did he ever read Vonnegut's Player Piano?