Post-Scarcity Labor Debate

No, it wouldn't be, because without wage labor there would be no food, shelter and technological progress. Even in a post scarcity world we would still need people who at least develop new product ideas.

Individuals are certainly able to do ok without work, as long as their basic needs are met.However, I have doubts about the will of "society" to provide for their basic needs unconditionally.Consider the type of arguments made in the US about healthcare, or the comments made by Europe's elite about countries wasting money on "drinks and women"[0][0] - <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/22/dijsselbloem-under-fire-after-saying-south

Did you not look at the comic in the post you're replying to? The broader argument is that the topic at hand is not actually about labor to sustain yourself. It's about a system designed to actually deprive you of access to naturally-existing wealth and resources so that you are then forced to labor for someone else in order to gain sustenance.In other words, there was at one point fresh water and land and berries and such just available in the world. People had to lab

Someone works grueling hours in the sun to grow it and then the rest of us work and pay those people that grew it money. Is this really a question?If the people doing the growing are getting all of their needs met why would they grind to produce food to sell for money when they get money for free?Why would the vast majority of people in the bottom 50% of the economic ladder work at all if they were getting all of their needs met at no cost to them?

Humans aren't ec2 instances that you can spin up/down at will. "the basic living needs of those doing the labor" exists whether or not they're working. It's a sunk cost, unless we as a society are willing to let them die of hunger.

We do not yet live in a society where we can get by with no one working.We do live in a society where we could absolutely house, feed, and clothe every person in the Western world without requiring them to pay for these things, and still be hugely net-positive on productivity.Fortunately, we now have ample evidence that if you provide for people's needs, unless there is some very pressing reason not to (eg, sick, disabled, caring for children full-time, massively burnt o

Well, there are two different issues at hand:1) Will there ever come a day when people can produce value merely by living? That really depends on what "value" is, and as you said, the standards of the day may differ from ours. Under some circumstances, merely being a consumer might be enough to contribute to some overall good. If energy becomes cheap enough, even a tiny benefit might be enough to offset a person's energy consumption.2) Should we let a human being's survival be taken

I think you're missing the point... the only reason you'd need any of that is if it were useful to you. If your environment provides everything you need, then it isn't. Everything you describe needs to be driven by needs. If those needs don't exist because all wants are satisfied in such a society, then there's no push or pull to do all of that. I think you're basing your comment on the assumption that they're missing out on something, but this is exactly what

"It’s a challenging time in human history because we’re now capable of producing enough food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities for every human on Earth."But that's only true with incentive to work.Their point wasn't anything to do with wilderness. It was if you had your needs met without the requirement of work, that a significant portion of people would not work. Without those workers, we would no long have enough production.

What you've said is vague enough to be completely meaningless. Use relevant, specific words, rather than "stuff" and "organism", and it becomes quickly clear that what you're saying is total nonsense.If someone has all their basic needs met, what mechanism would cause them to fail if they choose to produce more value (through labor) than the value required to meet their basic needs?