Personally I think your basic premise is false, hence your conclusion is false.
>> We all need jobs to afford living
In many countries this is already not true. There is already enough wealth that there is enough for everyone.
Yes, the western mindset is kinda "you don't work, you don't get paid". The idea that people can "free load" on the system is offensive at a really deep emotional level. If I suggest that a third of the people can work, and the other 2 thirds do nothing, but get supported, most will get distressed [1]. The very essence of US society is that we are defined by our work.
And yet if 2% of the work force is in agriculture, and produce enough food for all, why is hunger a thing?
As jobs become ever more productive, perhaps just -considering- a world where worth is not linked to output is a useful thought exercise.
No country has figured this out perfectly yet. Norway is pretty close. Lots of Europe has endless unemployment benefits. Yes, there's still progress to be made there.
[1] of course, even in the US, already it's OK for only a 3rd to work. Children don't work. Neither do retirees. Both essentially live off the labor of those in-between. But imagine if we keep raising the start-working age, while reducing retirement benefits age....
Sounds great in theory, but doesn't seem very realistic. There will always be people that want power over other people, and having more than others will give them that power.
And universally, if you have nothing, you lead a very poor life. You life in a minimal house (trailer park, slums, or housing without running water nor working sewage). You don't have a car, you can't travel, education opportunities are limited.
Most kids want to become independent, so they have control over their spending and power over their own lives. Poor retirees are unhappy, sometimes even have to keep working to afford living.
Norway is close because they have oil to sell, but if no one can afford to buy oil, and they can't afford to buy cars, nor products made with oil, Norway will soon run out of money.
You can wonder, why is Russia attacking Ukraine, russia has enough land, doesn't need more. But in the end there will always be people motivated by more power and money, which makes it impossible to create this communism 2.0 that you're describing.
You have equated a basic income with equality. That's a misunderstanding.
I'm not suggesting equality or communism. I'm suggesting a bottom threshold where you get enough even if you don't work.
Actually Norway gets most of that from investments, not oil. They did sell oil, but invested that income into other things. The sovereign wealth fund now pays out to all citizens in a sustainable way.
Equally your understanding of dole living in Europe is incomplete. A person on the dole in the UK is perfectly able yo live in a house with running water etc. I know people who are.
Creating a base does not mean "no one works". Lots of people in Europe have a job despite unemployment money. And yes most-all jobs pay better than unemployment. And yes lifestyles are not equal. It's not really communism (as you understand it.)
This is not about equal power or equal wealth. It's about the idea that a job should not be linked to survival.
Why is 60 the retirement age? Why not 25? That sounds like a daft question, but understanding it can help understand how dome things that seem cast in stone, really aren't.
In live in europe, so understand some of it, part of my family comes from eastern europe, so have also seen that form of communism in the past.
Living on welfare in the Netherlands is not a good life, and definitely not something we should accept for the majority of the people.
Being retired on only a state pension is a bad life, you need to save for retirement to have a good life. And saving takes time, that's why you can't retire at 25.
I'm saying that the blind acceptance of the status quo does not allow for that status to be questioned.
You see the welfare amounts, or retirement amounts as limited. Well then, what would it take to increase them? How could a society increase productivity such that more could be produced in less time?
Are some of our mindsets preventing us from seeing alternatives?
Given that society has reinvented itself many times through history, are more reinvention possible?
>Are some of our mindsets preventing us from seeing alternatives?
no, just corporate greed and political corruption. If we wanna change that, words won't do at this point.
>Given that society has reinvented itself many times through history, are more reinvention possible?
Yes, and through what catalyst has society reinvented itself? Reasonable discourse to a civil population appealing to emotion and reason? A sudden burst of altruism to try and cement a positive legacy?
It will reinvent itself eventually. Definitely in my lifetime. I don't know how many of us will survive to see the other side.
>If I suggest that a third of the people can work, and the other 2 thirds do nothing, but get supported, most will get distressed [1]. The very essence of US society is that we are defined by our work.
Sure, I'd be down for it. But I think that's less realistic and instead the government will make my country try to make for a rise of feudalism instead. Except most will starve. it will make the great depression seem quaint in comparison.
>And yet if 2% of the work force is in agriculture, and produce enough food for all, why is hunger a thing?
I'd love to know the answer too. I think we both know the true answer, though.
>I'm not suggesting equality or communism. I'm suggesting a bottom threshold where you get enough even if you don't work.
That's the issue. Even right now, we don't get enough even if you do work full time. Living is unsustainable. How is the problem going to get better, especially when those who would have to pay will instead lobby to not pay out to the people?
>> We all need jobs to afford living
In many countries this is already not true. There is already enough wealth that there is enough for everyone.
Yes, the western mindset is kinda "you don't work, you don't get paid". The idea that people can "free load" on the system is offensive at a really deep emotional level. If I suggest that a third of the people can work, and the other 2 thirds do nothing, but get supported, most will get distressed [1]. The very essence of US society is that we are defined by our work.
And yet if 2% of the work force is in agriculture, and produce enough food for all, why is hunger a thing?
As jobs become ever more productive, perhaps just -considering- a world where worth is not linked to output is a useful thought exercise.
No country has figured this out perfectly yet. Norway is pretty close. Lots of Europe has endless unemployment benefits. Yes, there's still progress to be made there.
[1] of course, even in the US, already it's OK for only a 3rd to work. Children don't work. Neither do retirees. Both essentially live off the labor of those in-between. But imagine if we keep raising the start-working age, while reducing retirement benefits age....