Looking at the first graph, it doesn't seem like this is a "shadowstats" group of cranks trying to tell you that the economy is worse than it is. According to their "true rate", the unemployment situation (as they define it) is now better than it has ever been. The "true" stats look better than the real ones.
Sometimes I wonder if we’re tracking the wrong thing and we’ve lost sight of why we even started tracking these type of stats to begin with.
Are Americans prospering? Can they afford minimum needs like food and housing? Is the average American quality of life remaining consistent or increasing?
I want to see America as a whole do better and sometimes I wonder if stats are being deliberately reported in a way that obscures the truth of the matter.
I once got downvoted into oblivion on this very website for advocating for a society with 90% unemployment. The stats are just stats but they're not necessarily what we should be chasing.
I believe the goal of humanity should be that pushing a button for food pellets all day long is not a moral imperative or a necessity for survival. 100% unemployment should be the goal, and the end of scarcity that would require its feasibility.
There would still be jobs. People want to eat more than food pellets. People want massages and the robot ones aren’t as good. People will make music, paint paintings, read books, and watch movies.
There may not be money, but there will be some economy for services and non-physical goods.
Social status will always be scarce because it's a zero-sum game; in order for one person to rise another must fall. Even if basic necessities were free the majority of people would choose to work in order to have more than their peers. This is just human nature.
How is social status a zero-sum game? If someone dives into a lake to save a drowning child and people label them a hero, elevating their social standing, whose social standing has declined as a direct result? Likewise for a scientist making a discovery, or an artist creating a masterpiece, or a youtuber becoming a niche internet celebrity, or a neighbor getting a new pool. Social status can be created out of thin air and allotted arbitrarily.
And in a post scarcity world, why would having more than your peers confer social status to any degree, nonetheless enough to justify the various drawbacks of laboring for such possessions?
Social status is not about deciding with whom to allocate your time, and people don't generally choose how they allocate time based on how many hours of labor someone else does nor do most people labor to get other people to allocate more time with them. Indeed, people generally spend time apart from the people they want to allocate their time to in order to labor.
>Indeed, people generally spend time apart from the people they want to allocate their time to in order to labor.
Only because they cannot get everything they need from the people they want to spend time with, so they have to trade outside that group.
This game begins all the way when kids are deciding who to sit next to at lunch in elementary school. It’s a simple fact that time and attention are limited, so there have to be cuts made once demand exceeds supply.
Actually, it might even begin earlier, as I currently have a breastfeeding toddler who is always keeping an eye on who his mom is allocating her time to, and ensures that he is number one…much to the chagrin of his sister and me.
If you were laboring to buy a seat next to someone at lunch, you had a very messed up childhood.
Again, that is not what the term social status refers to, nor is it the goal of most people's labor, nor is it something that would logically be acquired by labor.
Your breastfeeding toddler does not wish to monopolize your partner's time because of her high social status which was elevated by her labor; he wants a secure source of food. Children will probably always want their mothers, but in a post scarcity world no one needs to worry about where their next meal is coming from.
Social status is multi-dimensional, especially in this day and age. I am near the top of the hierarchy for <obscure hobby> in <my town>. I am closer to the bottom for many others.
I disagree that it is human nature. At least not generally speaking.
There are people who are innately competitive. And there are people who don't care.
I'd argue that a lot of people are apparently competitive because of social pressures. You'll have to discount the effects of modern society on people's minds before you could make a claim on what human nature actually is like.
Modern society only exists because pre-modern people were so competitive. While a minority might not care, the majority of people in every society constantly compete for status. Always have, always will.
There are other forms of social status. Under communism people could be nominally wealthy, but party status carried a lot more weight.
However I would note many, many people are not motivated by status. I for one would rather be unknown and my relative status compared to anyone else is about the last thing I will ever concern myself with. I’m not alone, even if the status seekers stand out for all their attention seeking.
