> when looking for a new economic model, why not go back to psychology?
Excellent point.
> Is it really true that most people don't want to work?
Most if not all people, unless hobbled by various ailments, are not only content to perform almost daily light work, but basically require it for their own well-being. Think how gardening keeps you healthy well into old age. Think how the boredom of total inaction destroys people.
Also, a minority of people will always be driven to perform intense, prolonged, excruciating work for sheer fame. Another minority would do the same out of pure passion for the subject matter. These two groups have a large common portion, but are not identical.
Maybe we should look at the environment where we evolved as a species, and try and model a similar thing for the trans-scarcity period, and for the post-scarcity era afterwards. Whatever environment was ideal for Stone Age people, in terms of amount of work and reward (only as a psychological metaphor, of course, I am not proposing a return to material sticks and stones, duh), should fit like a glove.
I'm guessing cavemen did some amount of near-daily, light labor, to gather fruits and vegetables, and perhaps had bouts of intense effort more rarely for greater rewards (kill an antelope, defeat the neighbors in a war). There probably always was a minority who was obsessively chipping away at some obscure project all day long (the stone carvers making the Moai, the shaman observing Nature and talking with spirits).
If we could model something like that, but on top of high technology, it should work pretty well. We are, after all, evolved to live like that.
> there will probably always be jobs that people don't want to do.
This is why PSE (post-scarcity econ) is only truly feasible after huge advancements in AI and robotics. Let the robots clean the toilets.
> Most if not all people, unless hobbled by various ailments, are not only content to perform almost daily light work, but basically require it for their own well-being. Think how gardening keeps you healthy well into old age. Think how the boredom of total inaction destroys people.
If I could devote my hours to manual gardening and the betterment of an area of land while still maintaining my standard of living I would be very content with my life.
'"Work then without disputing," said Martin; "it is the only way to render life supportable."
The little society, one and all, entered into this laudable design and set themselves to exert their different talents. The little piece of ground yielded them a plentiful crop. Cunegund indeed was very ugly, but she became an excellent hand at pastrywork: Pacquette embroidered; the old woman had the care of the linen. There was none, down to Brother Giroflee, but did some service; he was a very good carpenter, and became an honest man. Pangloss used now and then to say to Candide:
"There is a concatenation of all events in the best of possible worlds; for, in short, had you not been kicked out of a fine castle for the love of Miss Cunegund; had you not been put into the Inquisition; had you not traveled over America on foot; had you not run the Baron through the body; and had you not lost all your sheep, which you brought from the good country of El Dorado, you would not have been here to eat preserved citrons and pistachio nuts."
"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our garden."'
Excellent point.
> Is it really true that most people don't want to work?
Most if not all people, unless hobbled by various ailments, are not only content to perform almost daily light work, but basically require it for their own well-being. Think how gardening keeps you healthy well into old age. Think how the boredom of total inaction destroys people.
Also, a minority of people will always be driven to perform intense, prolonged, excruciating work for sheer fame. Another minority would do the same out of pure passion for the subject matter. These two groups have a large common portion, but are not identical.
Maybe we should look at the environment where we evolved as a species, and try and model a similar thing for the trans-scarcity period, and for the post-scarcity era afterwards. Whatever environment was ideal for Stone Age people, in terms of amount of work and reward (only as a psychological metaphor, of course, I am not proposing a return to material sticks and stones, duh), should fit like a glove.
I'm guessing cavemen did some amount of near-daily, light labor, to gather fruits and vegetables, and perhaps had bouts of intense effort more rarely for greater rewards (kill an antelope, defeat the neighbors in a war). There probably always was a minority who was obsessively chipping away at some obscure project all day long (the stone carvers making the Moai, the shaman observing Nature and talking with spirits).
If we could model something like that, but on top of high technology, it should work pretty well. We are, after all, evolved to live like that.
> there will probably always be jobs that people don't want to do.
This is why PSE (post-scarcity econ) is only truly feasible after huge advancements in AI and robotics. Let the robots clean the toilets.