How far right are you?

[Ideologue]

I'm slightly disgusted I'm so libertarian

And I'm disappointed in you, too.

[Sheilbh]

I'm slightly disgusted I'm so libertarian

And I'm disappointed in you, too.

I'd expect nothing less

I think they mistake authoritarian for Christian Right

[Eddie Teach]

Beaten, I think. 

Well, you passed me for the lowest y-score that's been posted yet.

[Ideologue]

I'm slightly disgusted I'm so libertarian

And I'm disappointed in you, too.

I'd expect nothing less

I think they mistake authoritarian for Christian Right

Indeed.  Like I said, it's basically broken.  We're both more or less totalitarian.

[dps]

On a policy level, I think it's a mistake, since we want people to get comfortable with the idea of not working and ultimately transition to living off the basic income to the normative state in the face of automation and a reduced demand for labor.

I think I see where you may be going awry.

The "demand for labor" is not some immutable fact of the universe, following deterministically from a set of technological capabilities.  It is a social phenomenon, influenced by the structure of productive relations and culture as well as technology (and the business cycle of course).  In the world of Keynes' Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, it is presumed there will (or should) exist a dominant preference for a certain kind of cultured leisure, such that technological improvements in productivity will tend to increase leisure per head and constrain market labor demand.  That future is one where people are content to have their consumption rise more slowly then the rate of productivity growth, and take the excess as leisure.

This is arguably an attractive vision, more attractive then our reality, but it is more normative than descriptive.  People seem rather stubbornly to prefer increasing their consumption -- even if it is apparently frivolous or self-defeating like chasing ever more dear positional and prestige goods -- rather then their leisure.  But there is no reason it absolutely HAS to be that way - we could have a future whereby people maintain standards of living greatly exceeding historical norms and yet enjoy much more leisure time.  And it could be argued that outcome should be supported socially and politically.   But that is different from claiming that it actually WILL happen, much less that it inevitably MUST happen.

I certainly understand what you're saying.  In fact, I think that preferring leisure to consumption sets me apart from most people.  I've posted here before that as long as I have enough income to provide us with the necessities of modern life (which, let's face it, in American pretty much includes an automobile) plus enough to fund my internet, gaming, and reading habits, I'm pretty well satisfied. 

I don't have a salaried job anymore;   I work for an hourly wage.  And frankly, I doubt that I'll ever seek a salaried position again.  I'd rather make what I make working 40 hours a week than make twice as much but have to work twice as many hours.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't have a salaried job anymore;   I work for an hourly wage.  And frankly, I doubt that I'll ever seek a salaried position again.  I'd rather make what I make working 40 hours a week than make twice as much but have to work twice as many hours.

That sounds like a no-brainer. The question is, would you work twice as many hours for 3 or 4 times as much pay?

[Valmy]

My new definition of moderate is someone who doesn't get spazzed out inordinately.

[Valmy]

I'm slightly disgusted I'm so libertarian

Yeah you definitely would have put me under house arrest and stopped me from fleeing to Normandy.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm serious.  The one constant at the political extremes is the amount of outrage.  See if you can think of anyone it doesn't work for.

[Valmy]

I'm serious.  The one constant at the political extremes is the amount of outrage.  See if you can think of anyone it doesn't work for.

I actually agree with that. I was just sad I failed to fit that definition recently

[Admiral Yi]

I actually agree with that. I was just sad I failed to fit that definition recently

You can choose the person you wish to be. 

[dps]

I don't have a salaried job anymore;   I work for an hourly wage.  And frankly, I doubt that I'll ever seek a salaried position again.  I'd rather make what I make working 40 hours a week than make twice as much but have to work twice as many hours.

That sounds like a no-brainer. The question is, would you work twice as many hours for 3 or 4 times as much pay?

No, I don't think I'd work twice as many hours for any amount of pay.

Depending on the circumstances, I might be willing to work 50 hours a week for twice as much pay, but 50-55 hours is about my limit now, I think.  Much more than that, and you don't have time to enjoy the things your increased income can buy, so what's the point?  And another problem with a salaried position is that even if you're only supposed to work 45-50 hours, lots of time you end up working well beyond that.

In all the salaried jobs I've had, I was supposed to work about 48 hours a week.  In one of them, that was actually about what I normally worked.  In another, I probably averaged about 60 hours a week.  And in the others, I worked 80-90 hours most weeks.  It wasn't worth it.

[Razgovory]

I'm serious.  The one constant at the political extremes is the amount of outrage.  See if you can think of anyone it doesn't work for.

I have seen people be outraged about pretty much everything.

[derspiess]

That's bullshit and you know it, Raz

[Malthus]

That's bullshit and you know it, Raz

I'm outraged that you said this.