# Could it work without money? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2010, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956 "2010-03-10T08:00:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/41 "2010-03-10T13:09:06Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Not true. OK, your turn to list all the shitty jobs that can easily be handed over completely to machines that already exist or can be easily built today, but just _haven’t_ been automated. > [@](#): > > I think we are behind where we should be. I think the problem is human labor is still too cheap for us to put any money behind researching alternatives to the other jobs that can be done. If we changed our priorities from making money, to making progress… I think we’d be alright. Who is going to make the progress, and how are you going to encourage them to do that? At the moment, it’s mostly R&D in profit-making companies that drive progress, and they do it because there’s money in it. > [@](#): > > Proctology: Examinations can be made much easier with technology that’s for sure. But you don’t think a robot could do this job at some point? You mean _at some point we haven’t yet reached_? But you disagreed with me when I said we were not there yet. > [@](#): > > I could imagine a small sensor being inserted that travels through the intestines for irregularities. I can imagine all sorts of things. Building them, assuming it’s even possible, is not so simple. Which is why we’re not there yet. > [@](#): > > Maybe even a way for the patient to give themselves a full examination. OK, substitute any number of alternative specialities that can’t be DIY - bowel surgery, for example. > [@](#): > > Nursing: My mom loves being a nurse and has worked with both the elderly and mentally disabled. Even with all the work that’s required she wouldn’t have any other job, and I think most of the people who work there would agree. That’s nice. Do none of these people play the lottery and dream about never having to work again? Do they all feel they have too much annual leave? > [@](#): > > I agree person-to-person interaction can’t be solved by machines, but would people just abandon the disabled unless they were getting paid? Some wouldn’t, I’m sure. Some people would stay on out of interest in almost every kind of job, but given the universal choice: _Would you rather do this job or sit on a beach sipping Pina Colada?_, I think the number of takers for option A would be insufficient to sustain normal operations. Actually it’s a good point. I think that most of us are so USE to to receiving a reward that it makes it a tougher decision. Instead we have to learn that the reward is from helping other people. > [@](#): > > Farming: Many farms have automated machinery for harvesting already. Also there are hydropnic farms which are revolutionary. It’s nowhere near automated enough to be left unattended. > [@](#): > > Policeman: The goal is to have no need for them, but yes I think they would probably need one at the beginning. That’s not a goal, it’s a pipe dream - for reasons addressed by **Allessan** and others above. Given the choice: _Would you rather A) work at some necessarym but not necessarily pleasant task, for no particular reward other than the warm glow of having done a good job, or B) sit on a beach sipping cocktails (/substitute any other leisurely pastime)?_ -Do you really think enough people would choose option A) to sustain (and carry forward) the rest of humanity? Or is option B simply not available in the new world? (In which case, how will you get me on board?) I don’t hate my work - I actually have a job I quite enjoy, but I wouldn’t do it for no specific reward, if I could choose to pursue my (largely unprofitable) hobbies and dalliances instead. And I don’t consider myself particularly abnormal in this one regard. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/42 "2010-03-10T13:21:19Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Um, no. Empathy is not some recently developed capability; it’s much older than civilization. First did I ever say that it wasn’t older than civilization? You are really searching for whatever you can to poke fun of any of my arguments aren’t you. Try reading what I said again: “Human culture is actually a part of human evolution. And over the course of evolution we have developed emotions such as empathy which are NOT part of the primal brain which is what controls our anger.” From my understanding anger and empathy are both in separate parts of the brain. And while i don’t think anyone knows for sure (no fossils of brains unfortunately) the part that controls empathy was supposed to develop AFTER. That doesn’t contradict anything I said. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: Soooo, you condemn the law for being imperfect and want to get rid of it, but have no idea at all what to replace it with? I hope you don’t apply the same standards with parachutes and skydiving. Why are you acting like this is all MY idea. I haven’t read into it enough to know exactly how they plan to deal with every unique issue. Why don’t you go to their message board and ask them. I’m merely here seeking opinions. Not trying to start an argument. > [@](#): > > But there has to be a law to stop people from doing it anyway. Yeah if murder was not a law I’d be killing all the time. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Well, you failed. Especially since the answer most scientists would give for the problems you want them to solve would be to say “Well, make it illegal!” not a good scientist. I’ll admit that their ‘no law’ thing is a little shaky, and I think they’re just trying to avoid using the world law. Like I said in my original post… murder would be against the ‘law’ still, but I tried to make the case for it that it doesn’t need to be a law for someone to know it is wrong. Apparently you can’t tell the difference between right and wrong without laws 🆒 As for the drunk driving, I could see other solutions. Cars that drive themselves, but this was a simple one suggested by the Venus Project guys. I’m not sure how they would implement it, because it’s not my idea. You can see faults in it, but I don’t buy your logic. This society they want would get rid of the old inefficient cars and give you new ones (maybe built on the same chassis designs - i don’t know) but with better technology and probably a system to prevent drunk drivers from driving. It would probably be integrated so that the car wouldn’t function without it. based on what they want technology to like, there would be no problems with a person getting stranded. I mean if they purposefully drive erratically that’s one thing, but there would probably be little concern for malfunction. Again don’t pretend that I’m the guy behind this project. I am just musing on it, so if you don’t like my input, well they probably wouldn’t agree with it either. > [@](#): > > We HAVE. This, right now, is the society you want where people are educated against murder. We do NOT have this right now. Please check your local intercity school system for emotional training as part of a curriculum. Obviously you didn’t have any or you wouldn’t be so confrontational :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Murder is far rarer than it was in the past. Murder here? Yes. Murder elsewhere in the world? Not so much. Standard of living is pretty important. That’s the point of this. The current system isn’t going to do that. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/43 "2010-03-10T13:26:56Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > I never said: science can solve murder. To a certain extent it can. Science can improve quality of life taking away many of the motivations for murder. It improves security and surveilance so that murder is more difficult to commit. And forensic and investigative sciences make it so murder is increasingly difficult to get away with. **nilum** - I do not intend to provide you with a complete overview of graduate school level economics courses or the fractional reserve banking system. Feel free to wiki it yourself if you need additional background info. Also, nobody in the past 2 years has lost their home because of “upping interest rates like crazy”. Interest rates have been at an all-time low since 2007. [QUOTE=nilum] Why things get built in the world? What do you mean by that? Why what gets built? A house? A government? [/QUOTE] What I mean is that these websites and people who buy into this sort of utopian thinking talk in terms of technological advancements that will reshape our world. Well, the first and most obvious problem I can think of is that reshaping the world is pretty freaking disruptive to the people already living in it. You can’t just start tearing down cities and replacing them with domed urban habitats. Economics is about choice. You can do or have everything you want so you need to make decisions on what is more important to you. The global economy is basically the collective decision-making of billions of individuals all trying to convert available resources into goods and services to meet their various wants and needs. Money is simply the unit of conversion and has no inherent value, other than its acceptance as a medium of exchange. Lets look at the “evils” of “planned obsolescence” for example. All things (like cars for example) have a usable lifespan (and it usually isn’t until the warranty expires). Materials wear out, people get bored and want a new style, technology becomes obsolete, whatever. If automakers didn’t continually innovate, our modern automobiles would not be safer, more fuel efficient and better performing than they were 30 years ago). Computers are another example. Computers become obsolete because every year, better technology comes out. Do you know anyone who still uses a 30 year old computer. People who follow these websites think someone should just magically apply technology to make the world a utopia. Technological change is an iterative process. Alexander Graham Bell didn’t just invent the iPhone on his first try. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/44 "2010-03-10T14:17:02Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > OK, your turn to list all the shitty jobs that can easily be handed over completely to machines that already exist or can be easily built today, but just _haven’t_ been automated. Now: Any assembly job (some are, but not all parts are being assembled by machines because the cost of workers are typically cheaper than investing in the newer technology). Pretty much the need for assembly line workers isn’t needed. That’s a large percentage of jobs that can be taken over. Taxi - vehicles that drive themselves eventually… Road repair - machines do it, but men operate them. It could be automated with sensors (similar to what street cleaners have) which would also reduce the time involved with preparing streets Construction - given the right AI and blueprint software you can have machines that build houses and even potentially sky scrapers. If you’ve seen a modern construction that have one of those cranes that move up on the central columns as construction goes up. I imagine one of those, but with fully robotic arms that can weld etc. The jobs you listed earlier also apply. I am sure there are more. Also jobs related to sales and finance wouldn’t be needed :\ Future: General Doctor and Surgeon - today doctors and surgeons are relying heavily on machinery. Machinery in surgery helps the doctor perform very fine operations, but there is no reason an AI can’t be made to recognize a procedure and do it more quickly and accurately than any trained surgeon. In heart surgery time is vital, which is why machines have been introduced. At first people were skeptical, but now the success rate is much higher and people are accustomed to it. I think the same would apply here. People would be skeptical at first until they realize how much better it is. As far as doctor goes. A machine is more than capable of taking vitals, and using symptoms as a way to formulate a diagnosis. In fact many doctors use computers to aid in their diagnosis, so this is just the next step. You might go to a clinic, have blood pressure, blood sample, temperature taken by the machine. Then it might either recognize visually or by you telling it what symptoms you have (possibly even via key input for more accuracy) and then give you a diagnosis based on that. A medical science guy might have more input on that, but it’s just a general idea. Teacher - absolutely no reason why… i know teachers personalize things a bit, but they are basically made to follow a certain curriculum. Many people take online classes now which don’t give you any interaction with a human anyway. Probably at younger ages human interaction will be more important, but by middle school they are probably ready for a slightly colder teacher. Anyway, teaching is one job I don’t think you’d have problems filling. Again I am sure there are more. > [@](#): > > Who is going to make the progress, and how are you going to encourage them to do that? At the moment, it’s mostly R&D in profit-making companies that drive progress, and they do it because there’s money in it. I would love to go back to school for it. Plenty of people in robotics wanted to be in robotics because they dreamed about making robots, not because of the money. Hmm, if you were asked to make the lives of everyone better… would you take it up? I would. Also the future is going to have self replicating robots… we won’t need to do it manually forever. > [@](#): > > You mean _at some point we haven’t yet reached_? But you disagreed with me when I said we were not there yet. I disagreed that all jobs that could be done by machines were being done by machines. > [@](#): > > I can imagine all sorts of things. Building them, assuming it’s even possible, is not so simple. Which is why we’re not there yet. > OK, substitute any number of alternative specialities that can’t be DIY - bowel surgery, for example. See above. Not yet, but eventually. Imagine nanomachines that are able to repair problems in the body and then dissolve. > [@](#): > > That’s nice. Do none of these people play the lottery and dream about never having to work again? Do they all feel they have too much annual leave? Not everyone covets money. Some people actually like to work believe it or not. Some people enjoy helping others. Like I said before, there are people who want to create and want to contribute. And then there are people who are lazy. Are you projecting your values onto other people? What would you do in a situation where you didn’t need to work, but could be educated in whatever field you wanted and worked whatever job you wanted… would you just do nothing for the rest of you life, while everyone else accomplishes so much? Personally I would feel left out. Really that’s how I feel now, right now I am stuck under this debt, and I would love to go back to school and make something of myself, contribute something to society, but instead I’ll probably end up at some dead end job… doing something one of my robots could do more effectively. Money has nothing to do with it… it’s my ability to leave a mark on the world. If I made a lot of money I would do my best to help starving and neglected kids. > [@](#): > > Some wouldn’t, I’m sure. Some people would stay on out of interest in almost every kind of job, but given the universal choice: _Would you rather do this job or sit on a beach sipping Pina Colada?_, I think the number of takers for option A would be insufficient to sustain normal operations. Read above… the real problem is tedious jobs. Yeah sure, all jobs can be tedious, but the ones where you do the same task over and over and over… those are the jobs where people would rather just sit at home and do nothing. I do think there are people who would like to do nothing if they could, and they would probably do that. But if enough of our tasks are automated we won’t need to worry about it. For example… when we switch to robotic workers on the assembly line, they still need maintenance from a human technician. Some technicians will mange up to 20 machines by themselves. So if we need 1 human worker for every 20 machines… we reduce the need for human employment by a factor of 20 (probably more - even current robots don’t break down all that often). > [@](#): > > It’s nowhere near automated enough to be left unattended. I’m not sure of all the details. Working with cows would be more of a chore. You can’t keep them in a cell, you could have some reward reinforcement system when they get food for getting into a cell which will then have the device that milks them attach. Then a prod once it’s done to get them back into the yard. Chickens could be similar. I’m interested in synthetic foods, that might replace the need for that sort of system. As far as crops… I don’t see why you couldn’t automate it completely. > [@](#): > > That’s not a goal, it’s a pipe dream - for reasons addressed by **Allessan** and others above. It’s a pipe dream to expect 100% healthy minds in any system. Less poverty will have a huge impact on how people turn out though. Whether there is law or no law, we should at least strive to make the world better. I personally don’t think the current system even makes an attempt. > [@](#): > > Given the choice: > > _Would you rather > A) work at some necessarym but not necessarily pleasant task, for no particular reward other than the warm glow of having done a good job, or > B) sit on a beach sipping cocktails (/substitute any other leisurely pastime)?_ > > -Do you really think enough people would choose option A) to sustain (and carry forward) the rest of humanity? > > Or is option B simply not available in the new world? (In which case, how will you get me on board?) > > I don’t hate my work - I actually have a job I quite enjoy, but I wouldn’t do it for no specific reward, if I could choose to pursue my (largely unprofitable) hobbies and dalliances instead. And I don’t consider myself particularly abnormal in this one regard. I’d do it for the satisfaction of knowing I was providing an important service and improving the lives of others. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/45 "2010-03-10T14:25:41Z")
Of _course_ there can be society without money! Hasn’t anyone watched Star Trek? ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/46 "2010-03-10T14:43:39Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Let me get this straight: > > Humans are inherently good. > > Governments (which are designed, appointed and populated entirely by humans) are inherently evil. > > That makes no sense. If governments are human constructs, and humans are inherently good, then why aren’t governments inherently good? Because business is inherently good? ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/47 "2010-03-10T14:50:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Also, nobody in the past 2 years has lost their home because of “upping interest rates like crazy”. Interest rates have been at an all-time low since 2007. People were lured into refinancing their homes, and to basically use their home equity as a way to get a loan. What most didn’t realize was that the interest rate they agreed to wasn’t fixed. When the housing bubble crashed, banks began raising interest rates steadily until people weren’t able to afford to make monthly payments anymore and their homes were taken by the bank. > [@](#): > > What I mean is that these websites and people who buy into this sort of utopian thinking talk in terms of technological advancements that will reshape our world. Well, the first and most obvious problem I can think of is that reshaping the world is pretty freaking disruptive to the people already living in it. You can’t just start tearing down cities and replacing them with domed urban habitats. > > Economics is about choice. You can do or have everything you want so you need to make decisions on what is more important to you. The global economy is basically the collective decision-making of billions of individuals all trying to convert available resources into goods and services to meet their various wants and needs. Money is simply the unit of conversion and has no inherent value, other than its acceptance as a medium of exchange. > [@](#): > > Lets look at the “evils” of “planned obsolescence” for example. All things (like cars for example) have a usable lifespan (and it usually isn’t until the warranty expires). Materials wear out, people get bored and want a new style, technology becomes obsolete, whatever. If automakers didn’t continually innovate, our modern automobiles would not be safer, more fuel efficient and better performing than they were 30 years ago). Pretty sure we could still improve a car when the time comes. Actually planned obsolescence only makes cars MORE dangerous because auto manufactures cut corners to reduce cost and to make sure the car goes through a certain amount of wear and tear. They only do this because it’s more profitable for them, and they have no concern about the consumer in these cases. You’re also assuming that in this new system there would be one model of car for the rest of your life. That’s really wrong. The idea is to use the best technology available, and let everyone benefit from this technology. And if something can be improved, improve it. I don’t even see why we couldn’t have custom built cars based on an older car’s chassis… maybe some designs would need slight modifications… I don’t know. So if choice is your problem, you could still have plenty to choose from. > [@](#): > > Computers are another example. Computers become obsolete because every year, better technology comes out. Do you know anyone who still uses a 30 year old computer. They don’t become obsolete every year though… actually every 3 months a pretty significant increase in technology comes out. But there are huge problems with computers imo. CPUs are often underclocked and limited. Often times the difference between one CPU and another in the same line is usually just this. There are often ways to overclock, but multipliers are usually locked which means you have of OC the FSB which is not as effective. Graphic cards should be component based similarly to a CPU and a Motherboard. Windows is built bloated primarily to encourage people to buy newer hardware. Notice how you do the same thing with your computer, yet you always need a ‘faster’ computer for the job. We really don’t need a new CPU each month. That doesn’t mean we can’t do the R&D still. We can always look for improvements, but not many pieces of software in common use, will use all of a CPU (even a 2 year old CPU). And even though these improvements sometimes are fairly significant, most people aren’t going to notice a difference. Maybe they would reserve some development simply for some sort of super computer, but I don’t know. Also as a PC gamer and PC enthusiast this doesn’t really bother me. > [@](#): > > People who follow these websites think someone should just magically apply technology to make the world a utopia. Technological change is an iterative process. Alexander Graham Bell didn’t just invent the iPhone on his first try. Yes, but to some extent I think the current system holds us back. We look for ways to make money and not for ways to improve the lives of people. That hasn’t always been the case throughout history, but now I just feel like the only people live and breathe is so they can make a buck. I just can’t understand the way people think. We strive to have more, but never think of other people. We strive to be wealthy, but never have any idea what we would do with all that money… keep it for ourselves I guess. Not what I would do, but that’s what many say. Even if they have more money than they could possibly use on themselves, their children, grand children, and many other generations. Sure some of them donate to charity. I’d even go as far as to say some don’t even write it off at tax time, they just absorb that loss. But when you have that much money that you could completely end world hunger… maybe even cure all people of common illness… it just doesn’t make any sense to me. What’s the argument? Giving people a handout is not the capitalist way? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/48 "2010-03-10T14:53:21Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > Because business is inherently good? Nah, if that were the case, it would be done for the profit of the many, and not the few. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/49 "2010-03-10T14:59:14Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Well, you are entitled to believe that, but do you want to explain first how a planet that the human race is stuck upon for the foreseeable future, is NOT a “closed system”? You know that yellow thing in the sky? If it has an outside energy source, it’s not a closed system. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/50 "2010-03-10T15:01:38Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Like I said before, there are people who want to create and want to contribute. And then there are people who are lazy. Are you projecting your values onto other people? What would you do in a situation where you didn’t need to work, but could be educated in whatever field you wanted and worked whatever job you wanted… would you just do nothing for the rest of you life, while everyone else accomplishes so much? Here is the problem with your world view. People are generally lazy and do minimally what they have to do in order to maintain the lifestyle which they prefer. I admit that I am one of them. I didn’t like working for the man, so I started my own evil corporation and work when I want for who I want. I do pretty good. I could do a lot better if I got off of my lazy ass and hustled up more work, but for now, the mortgage gets paid, the kids are fed, the wife is happy, and I have the misguided sense that I am in control of my life. If I could have everything I have now, while doing nothing but watching someone else work, you would have to do some serious convincing that I was in the wrong. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure of all the details. Working with cows would be more of a chore. You can’t keep them in a cell, you could have some reward reinforcement system when they get food for getting into a cell which will then have the device that milks them attach. Then a prod once it’s done to get them back into the yard. Chickens could be similar. I’m interested in synthetic foods, that might replace the need for that sort of system. As far as crops… I don’t see why you couldn’t automate it completely. Here is the problem, you have no clue, but at least you admit it. Spend some time on a working farm and you will see that their are plenty of tasks that just cant be automated. Even easier, just watch a few episodes of Dirty Jobs. > [@](#): > > I’d do it for the satisfaction of knowing I was providing an important service and improving the lives of others. I have a trench that I need to dig in my backyard. The completion of said trench will redirect flood water and make myself and several of my neighbors happy as our basements will no longer flood. It’s important and will improve several lives. When are you available? The job can’t be done with a trencher as there are criss crossing phone, gas, electric and natural gas lines that would be cut. the job cannot wait for technology to catch up and create a trencher that can deal with the issue. It will take back breaking labor to complete. I’ll give you a pat on the back if you do a good job, and a cookie if you really rock it. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/51 "2010-03-10T15:18:29Z")
[QUOTE=] I have a trench that I need to dig in my backyard. The completion of said trench will redirect flood water and make myself and several of my neighbors happy as our basements will no longer flood. It’s important and will improve several lives. When are you available? The job can’t be done with a trencher as there are criss crossing phone, gas, electric and natural gas lines that would be cut. the job cannot wait for technology to catch up and create a trencher that can deal with the issue. It will take back breaking labor to complete. I’ll give you a pat on the back if you do a good job, and a cookie if you really rock it. [/QUOTE] I know as much about doing that sort of job as I do about farming. If you lived nearby, and could give me some direction… I probably would help. It doesn’t sound like a one-man project though. I once helped a neighbor put up a fence, but I had to admit it benefited both of us since he had a dog, and I would often find poop in my lawn :\ I’ve done a lot for charity, actually helping with a church fundraiser by running 10 miles (I’m an atheist). Definitely I feel like less and less people are willing to help people out. I had a seizure while working one time, and a customer called the paramedics and placed her jacket under my head. Great right? Well, she was actually being helped out by a guy who worked with me (some cellphone indirect) and he was just about to close the sale. I’m told that he was trying to continue finishing the sale while I was on the floor… sigh… Anyway. I was in the hospital for a while and was fired from my job while in the hospital. Pretty shitty. I guess my manager was too lazy to cover my shifts so he hired someone else. I still have hope though, that some people are more willing to help others over making a profit. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/52 "2010-03-10T15:19:06Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > People were lured into refinancing their homes, and to basically use their home equity as a way to get a loan. What most didn’t realize was that the interest rate they agreed to wasn’t fixed. When the housing bubble crashed, banks began raising interest rates steadily until people weren’t able to afford to make monthly payments anymore and their homes were taken by the bank. People refi their homes to get a better rate, a lower payment, or perhaps to do both and consolidate some additional debt. You don’t use home equity to refi your mortgage. Most people, the vast majority even, are quite aware of the terms of their loan and pay it back every month. I believe that only 1-2% of all mortgages ever go to foreclosure and are “taken by the bank” Certainly not “most.” Banks didn’t raise home mortgage interests rates to coincide with the bubble crash. Rates rose after the terms of the ARMs that people signed came due. Many people bought more house than they could afford while utilizing ARMs. That was a failure of the lender, the borrower, and the appraisers. When the ARMs came due, their interest rates would likely only rise as the prime rate rose, something that was spelled out in the contracts that they signed. In many cases however, their introductory rate may have been 2-3 points lower than prime. When that initial adjustment hit, I am sure that a lot of people were shocked. Perhaps in many of the foreclosure cases, this was not spelled out clearly enough. The overwhelming evidence however shows that most people, even today, pay their mortgage on time. I just refinanced my home, last week at 4.25% 30 year fixed. Right as we are in the middle of the housing bubble collapse. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/53 "2010-03-10T15:24:51Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > People refi their homes to get a better rate, a lower payment, or perhaps to do both and consolidate some additional debt. You don’t use home equity to refi your mortgage. > > Most people, the vast majority even, are quite aware of the terms of their loan and pay it back every month. I believe that only 1-2% of all mortgages ever go to foreclosure and are “taken by the bank” Certainly not “most.” > > Banks didn’t raise home mortgage interests rates to coincide with the bubble crash. Rates rose after the terms of the ARMs that people signed came due. Many people bought more house than they could afford while utilizing ARMs. That was a failure of the lender, the borrower, and the appraisers. When the ARMs came due, their interest rates would likely only rise as the prime rate rose, something that was spelled out in the contracts that they signed. In many cases however, their introductory rate may have been 2-3 points lower than prime. When that initial adjustment hit, I am sure that a lot of people were shocked. Perhaps in many of the foreclosure cases, this was not spelled out clearly enough. The overwhelming evidence however shows that most people, even today, pay their mortgage on time. > > I just refinanced my home, last week at 4.25% 30 year fixed. Right as we are in the middle of the housing bubble collapse. Sorry. This is what I am referring to: > [@](#): > > He calls it the scam to swindle people out of the homes they already own, where lenders encouraged people to use their houses as collateral, and refinance. > > “You are sitting on a goldmine. You own your own bank - the bank of you. And you can use your bank to get more money. Just refinance, everyone’s doing it!” In the film Moore’s voice speeds up. > > “Of course hidden in the dozens or hundreds of pages of fine print are tricky clauses that allow the bank to raise your interest rate to a number you didn’t know about. Perhaps so high you can’t repay your loan. But that’s OK, because if you can’t repay it, we’ll just take your house.” > > In all, Moore’s analysis of capitalism is blunt. -[An audience with Michael Moore | MPR News](http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/10/01/moore/) ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/54 "2010-03-10T15:39:05Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > You know that yellow thing in the sky? If it has an outside energy source, it’s not a closed system. Give us a shout when everything is running on solar power, and you might have a point then. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/55 "2010-03-10T15:54:31Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Give us a shout when everything is running on solar power, and you might have a point then. Indirectly, almost everything is. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/56 "2010-03-10T16:05:50Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Now: > Any assembly job (some are, but not all parts are being assembled by machines because the cost of workers are typically cheaper than investing in the newer technology). Pretty much the need for assembly line workers isn’t needed. That’s a large percentage of jobs that can be taken over. > > Taxi - vehicles that drive themselves eventually… > > Road repair - machines do it, but men operate them. It could be automated with sensors (similar to what street cleaners have) which would also reduce the time involved with preparing streets > > Construction - given the right AI and blueprint software you can have machines that build houses and even potentially sky scrapers. > If you’ve seen a modern construction that have one of those cranes that move up on the central columns as construction goes up. I imagine one of those, but with fully robotic arms that can weld etc. “The reason they don’t replace us with robots, Bob, is for the simple reason they haven’t invented one to do our job yet.” -Larry Mann, The Big Kahunna (1999) You do a lot of hand-waving about inventions that should do this that and the other thing. The problem is that in your mind, you have separated what things cost from the actual value they provide. You have a very common left-wing point of view that “money isn’t important” compared to things like feeding starving children or saving the manatee or whatever, therefore you completely take it out of your mental equations. As I said, the dollar is simply a convenient standard unit of conversion between disparate goods, services and resources. It’s easier for me to provide an hour of business consulting services for a dollar rate instead of for an equivalent number of pigs, cows and chickens. It takes resources to invent labor saving devices. It costs someone’s time, labor and research as well as energy, raw materials, manufacturing infrastructure and transportation networks to invent, build, sell and maintain those devices. As these things are finite at any given point in time, there is an opportunity cost associated with inventing this device instead of putting those resources into something else. Or to put it another way, left to the free market, the economy will decide whether it will use less total resources to invent a backhoe to dig a ditch or just have 50 guys with shovels do it. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/57 "2010-03-10T16:08:11Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Well, you are entitled to believe that, but do you want to explain first how a planet that the human race is stuck upon for the foreseeable future, is NOT a “closed system”? You’re just tripping up over a term that means something else quite specific. I think you mean that the Earth is finite in terms of resources. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/58 "2010-03-10T16:19:12Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Now: > Any assembly job (some are, but not all parts are being assembled by machines because the cost of workers are typically cheaper than investing in the newer technology). Pretty much the need for assembly line workers isn’t needed. That’s a large percentage of jobs that can be taken over. > > Taxi - vehicles that drive themselves eventually… > > Road repair - machines do it, but men operate them. It could be automated with sensors (similar to what street cleaners have) which would also reduce the time involved with preparing streets > > Construction - given the right AI and blueprint software you can have machines that build houses and even potentially sky scrapers. > If you’ve seen a modern construction that have one of those cranes that move up on the central columns as construction goes up. I imagine one of those, but with fully robotic arms that can weld etc. > > The jobs you listed earlier also apply. I am sure there are more. Also jobs related to sales and finance wouldn’t be needed :\ But some of these aren’t ‘now’ - they’re maybe sometime, maybe soon, maybe not - even your own wording acknowledges this. In fact, the rest of your examples show pretty similar disregard for the important details - you’re saying it’s possible by glossing over the reasons it’s not. I call this the Sneelock argument - from Dr Seuss’ _If I ran the Circus_; “Sneelock, brave Sneelock will do it - He’ll Manage just fine; Don’t ask how he’ll manage. - That’s his job. Not mine…” It’s just a way or repackaging the Argument from ignorance ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/59 "2010-03-10T16:23:43Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > “The reason they don’t replace us with robots, Bob, is for the simple reason they haven’t invented one to do our job yet.” > -Larry Mann, The Big Kahunna (1999) > You do a lot of hand-waving about inventions that should do this that and the other thing. The problem is that in your mind, you have separated what things cost from the actual value they provide. You have a very common left-wing point of view that “money isn’t important” compared to things like feeding starving children or saving the manatee or whatever, therefore you completely take it out of your mental equations. > > As I said, the dollar is simply a convenient standard unit of conversion between disparate goods, services and resources. It’s easier for me to provide an hour of business consulting services for a dollar rate instead of for an equivalent number of pigs, cows and chickens. > > It takes resources to invent labor saving devices. It costs someone’s time, labor and research as well as energy, raw materials, manufacturing infrastructure and transportation networks to invent, build, sell and maintain those devices. As these things are finite at any given point in time, there is an opportunity cost associated with inventing this device instead of putting those resources into something else. > > Or to put it another way, left to the free market, the economy will decide whether it will use less total resources to invent a backhoe to dig a ditch or just have 50 guys with shovels do it. Completely agree with this. Whether or not we have money, activities, resources, products have _costs_. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/60 "2010-03-10T16:36:36Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Indirectly, almost everything is. 😉 Humans, for instance, are 100% solar powered. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956.md?page=4)