>People feel better when they know they are actively contributing. That's just a simple truth.
I find this interesting, because it's a great example of some of the values implicit in American society.
Note that the way you expressed it, essentially the only way to contribute to society is by working a job. I don't think it's a stretch to claim that that's a very narrow-minded way of looking at it.
In my opinion American society is really, really good at all things economic, but really, really bad at actually enjoying/finding value in the things that go on outside the office.
Note that the way you expressed it, essentially the only way to contribute to society is by working a job.
Note the way I expressed it, the emphasis is on contributing. Your particular spin strikes me as an eagerness to oppose a particular POV, then you go on to project that POV onto me. I don't thrive as well when contributing as a volunteer, which I did when under employed, as when I have a full time job. Keep in mind the efficient market hypothesis. Most of the jobs constituting valuable contributions are going to be paid. There are going to be exceptions, of course, but not all of those roles are going to be suitable for everybody.
"Most of the jobs constituting valuable contributions are going to be paid"
This is not the way things are. This sounds more like something a politician told you to believe. The most valuable workers in our economy are underpaid (farm workers, waitresses, teachers, etc.), if they aren't totally voluntary already. (parents and caregivers)
In truth, when everyone has to make an income to survive, it instills a type of desperation in a society just to produce enough value to pay that next installment. This type of motivation is what leads impoverished South Americans to destroy the largest rainforest on Earth, or African children to work in gold mines exposed to toxic mercury, dragline fisherman to deplete great oceans full of life, the list is endless. This is all the stupidity of "growing" the economy, while bankers and politicians end up being the only one's "enriched" while the planet is irreplacably decimated.
The most valuable workers in our economy are underpaid (farm workers, waitresses, teachers, etc.), if they aren't totally voluntary already. (parents and caregivers)
Your analysis is fatally flawed from this point. Teachers are valuable, and I feel they should be full-on professionals paid like we pay coders. Farm Workers and Wait Staff could be valuable, depending on what level of skill, diligence, and expertise they bring. Those two categories cover a very broad range of levels of expertise.
Parents and caregivers didn't start out as a part of the economic system. They also don't necessarily have to be paid. It has been noted that paying people to do what they'd do for free often has well known pathologies associated with it.
This type of motivation is what leads impoverished South Americans to destroy the largest rainforest on Earth, or African children to work in gold mines exposed to toxic mercury, dragline fisherman to deplete great oceans full of life, the list is endless.
This only shows that our world has incentives that are sometimes way out of whack. It doesn't then follow that the answer is basic income. Other societies have tried "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" with following drops in productivity.
You're talking about the "rational decision" as if there's only one value to optimize. If their "utility function" is described by more than just how much money they have/make, then it could be perfectly rational to turn down the job.
That being said I do agree that if there's a huge difference in future earning power, it would still generally worth it to go for the job that involves giving up food stamps.
> That being said I do agree that if there's a huge difference in future earning power, it would still generally worth it to go for the job that involves giving up food stamps.
If you can manage to hold your life together well enough to continue to do the job, with fewer resources available.
I agree that earning money isn't selfish, but I think it's undeniable that America is a work culture. It's essentially viewed as morally bad to not have a job, even if you opt to live the kind of life that doesn't require a car, or thousands of dollars of furniture, etc. In my opinion the amount of money the average American spends on stupid shit is mindblowing, especially when you consider that almost everyone works a 40 hour week until age 60 or later.
Well, of course. I would argue, however, that most spend far more on food than they need to, and likewise for shelter - maybe not so much poor Americans, but in my experience middle class, upper-middle class and above Americans spend absolutely ridiculous amounts of money on their houses (together with lots of fallacies like thinking that renting is "throwing away money" and such). Healthcare is unavoidable, that's going to be a major expense for basically anyone.
At least looking around at other adults, I've noticed many spend really, really appalling amounts of money on things that don't really improve their lives in any way - and furthermore, that they seem to do so solely because it's what their parents did, or what they think is appropriate in society. Moreover, most consider it essentially an ironclad mandate that they work a 40 hour week until they're too old to work any longer.
I find this interesting, because it's a great example of some of the values implicit in American society.
Note that the way you expressed it, essentially the only way to contribute to society is by working a job. I don't think it's a stretch to claim that that's a very narrow-minded way of looking at it.
In my opinion American society is really, really good at all things economic, but really, really bad at actually enjoying/finding value in the things that go on outside the office.