The struggle to convince people that they don't have value unless they work continues. A UBI, by the sounds of it, simply wouldn't work here - the social culture of work is too ingrained (I don't know for sure if it would work elsewhere, but I would definitely like to see more trials). It just seems to me like a terrible waste of mortality to decree that the only purpose of existence is economic growth.
Contrary to expectations, an objectively high standard of living does not necessarily result in a high Subjective Well-Being (SWB). Koreans may have everything from BMWs to remote-control toilets, but their life satisfaction has been well below the average for OECD countries since 2013. President Moon Jae-in, who ran for office on a 'People First ticket, is campaigning to close the gap.
‘Worabel’ is Korean shorthand slang for ‘work-life balance.’ South Koreans famously put in some of the longest working hours on the planet; according to the OECD more than 20% of workers exceed 50 hours a week. And the average employee barely takes half of their leave days.
The resulting stress contributes to a nation with a shockingly high number of suicides. It is also a factor in the country’s record low birth rate, as working mothers also carry the bulk of parenting responsibilities.
One of the biggest reforms so far is the reduction of the maximum workweek from 68 to 52 hours. It’s not just a suggestion; employers who don’t follow the law could face up to two years in prison. The government has also mandated a dramatic increase in the minimum wage along with a host of supporting measures—parental leave, subsidies for childcare, reduced mental healthcare costs, increased pensions, and an extension of the previous administration’s Happiness Fund, which helps citizens pay off certain kinds of personal debt.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180814-can-you-introduce-laws-to-make-people-happier
South Korea can afford this experiment. It's one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Other very wealthy countries should also be able to adjust the legal framework around parental leave, sick benefits, vacation, overtime and minimum wage. But if changes of 0.1% in corporate profit margins outweigh the costs of a large proportion of all households stressing themselves to death it ain't gonna happen.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, the necessity to serve a significant function is so embedded in the nature of coherent biological structures that have stood the selective tests of time that this need to serve some adaptive value role is perhaps indistinguishable from biology itself at a certain level of analysis. We organics carry out and are composed of various structures centered on a "nourish and defend, and grow if you can" kind of behavioral relationship theme. This is what the biological economy has been about negotiating for as long as there has been one. Consequently, we have a lot of biological momentum toward doing things aimed at serving our local and communal coherency.
ReplyDeleteThis extended community of relationships in which we are, of which we are, and on which we depend has demanded that we either perform some nourishing or protective value toward coherency, or run the risk of extinction. Throughout our history this central behavioral theme was primarily driven by necessity. We had to contend or die. The environment was both nourisher and executioner opportunity and danger. If we got it wrong the consequences were dire and non participation was not an option. Our own human social economy has been an outgrowth of, and a mimic of this same axiom. It is threaded through whatever has been conserved in every cell, organ, species and ecosystem.
This new fanged optional thing we now seem to be on the cusp of, where we do not have to perform as much by necessity, is perhaps as biologically significant a change as was the origin of interspecies metabolic cycles between organisms such as that which emerged between autotrophs and heterotrophs, (O2/CO2 cycle) to establish an equilibrium, or the emergence of Eukaryota, or multicellularity, or perhaps this is an even more unprecedented dramatic shift in the relational economy we call biology. We have never before faced the necessity to entrepreneurially craft significance because our purpose (for lack of a better word) was always defined for us in the past by the environment. As with any paradigm shift, this one will probably come with some measure of consternation as well as a range of new adaptive range. Births of any kind can be a messy and painful process, but it is also inevitable as we develop.Remaining stagnant in a womb that can no longer sustain us is a recipe for strangulation.
I agree with you that the transition will require a shift in our thinking, new skills and other challenges that will need to be contended with. I am gratified that is has your attention. It certainly has mine. It is why I attempting to teach (or make apparent) remedial linguistics at a cultural level. My guess is we are going to need the skill sets to engineer significance in order to progress. We cannot wait for the pre-chewed worm of necessity to drop from the sky as we point our beaks that direction. Nature is, in effect, weening us from a previous more directive role to that where we must exercise some autonomy in order to satisfy and intentionally cultivate the satisfaction of our drives. (Hungers) We need to be more attentive and more volitional. This is something most of us are not used to. My guess is it is not as easy a transition as it might sound to some.
Joseph Moosman Indeed. Any system will fail if people hate it. This is why monarchy remains a thing despite being apparently logically absurd. Blunt instruments are sometimes politically and legally necessary but rarely successful in the long-term against an unwilling populace. Conversely, those apparently logically absurd systems can be very successful if people actually like them.
ReplyDeleteI take the view that you've got to try and account for people as they are. A system as radical as UBI has no chance in somewhere where everyone hates the unemployed people themselves rather than unemployment. Smaller steps are needed. You can't really force people to be happy or unhappy.
Joe Carter I did a couple of analyses of different views of how this could play out long-term. The first, dystopian vision :
ReplyDeletehttp://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-time-machine-again-iii.html
And the second more optimistic assessment :
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-some-nerd-thinks-about-star-trek-ii.html
I'd say that in many ways we're already spending huge amounts of effort on work we don't actually need, and have been for some time. Lord knows we don't actually need any astronomers to survive... of course, without us, who knows whatever crazed ideas we'd have about the Sun by now. So in a sense, one might label this a "bullshit job" (http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/).
On the other hand, many jobs not directly necessary for our survival, that we could easily (or simply had to) do without in an earlier era, may be indirectly indispensable now. Science helps (but only helps, mind you) prevent us sacrificing rival tribes to capricious gods. Entertainment gives social cohesion, even if it doesn't generate an iota of food or shelter. Yet at the same time, the economic situation does seem geared towards unhappiness for a lot of people.
Anecdotally, and with all the significant caveats that that implies, I've known people who were perfectly happy not having regular (or indeed any) employment, supporting themselves by various means. And others with regular employment who were bored. I may be a starry-eyed optimistic lunatic, but I'm convinced that getting people into doing "bullshit" jobs they actually enjoy is an achievable goal. Not easy, not without unexpected and far-reaching consequences, but possible.
Rhys Taylor I know a herding dog without someone facilitating a constructive way to express those drives will find a job anyway, and it probably won't be constructive, but it will be aimed at burning off those energetic drives. I am pretty sure this is the issue we face. Again, I am glad you have it in your field of vision.
ReplyDelete