Your only argument for innovation as a luxury byproduct is a negative one: Foraging for food in a cold cave wont let you invent forks. Living a decent life without meaningless job, might make the society more innovative. May be the innovators in a society less driven by consumption might try to build meaningful invention, not sporks, or a bigger iPhone. But that's just wishful speculation on my part. I like when you say Luxury is what you work for. I just tried to refute Francopoli's ironic comment about working for money. Because working, in the end, cost you most of the money you get. But, if it is luxury you crave, I have to admit working is probably your only legal path. Investing still has a greater profitability.
Because working, in the end, cost you most of the money you get.
i'm not sure what kind of work you do, but this certainly is not the case for me. The only cost I can think of that is tied to my employment is my clothing. I wouldn't have as many sports coats or dress shirts/pants if I didn't have a job. -that's it. That costs me maybe, .05% of what my job provides me.
The only argument I made for innovation as a luxury byproduct, you mean. I did link you to a book, after all. "Living a decent life without meaningless job" is what most of us do, by the way. There's this value judgement in the entire discussion - if all jobs are meaningless, and we all work jobs, then we're all too stupid to determine that our jobs are meaningless. Which, considering we all spend the majority of our waking hours there, implies a stunning lack of self-awareness. So on one side, we have experience and daily living. On your side, "wishful speculation." Still, you admit "if it is luxury you crave... working is probably your only legal path." Worthy of note: luxury, for the purpose of this discussion, has been set at "flatware." And not even a full set - the evolution of the fork derived from the knife, which is most assuredly not something you're going to forage for, even if you're a practiced flint knapper. Yet you still throw out this canard about investing. Investing what? Nuts into trees? Or money? Money which comes from an exchange of goods and services, also known as a job? It's kind of amazing how you can embrace the philosophies of the subsistence preppers and the 1% simultaneously while casting aspersions on all the people in a middle that have somehow figured out a way to enjoy working for a living.
I don't see any irony in francopoli's comments. He describes money as a tool to exchange work for other things. He doesn't say anyone is working for money.I just tried to refute Francopoli's ironic comment about working for money.