You need to define "work" to turn this into a meaningful question.

second this

In my opinion, the resolution criteria for this market are sufficiently clear.

Not even "comfortably" is sensibly defined. Many things that were considered luxuries not that long ago are now considered so essential by the average American that you would be considered objectively poor if you didn't have it (e.g. heating, AC, fridges, microwaves, broadband, cars, doorstep garbage collection etc). I don't think most poor people would agree that they live "comfortably".

As for "work", we understand that today as free, paid labor. That was not always the case, and might not be the case in the future. What if by 2070 there is material abundance and we don't have to work for money to buy material things, but rather for some kind of social credit? What if living in society without that social credit makes life intolerable despite having access to material "comfort"?

The question will be meaningless by resolution time, and for the same reason that AI doomers think work will disappear: shallow, uninformed, low-resolution thinking. They don't even have a clear idea of what the thing they think will disappear actually is.

"Comfortably" is explicitly defined as from the perspective of 2023. If the lack of social credits made life less comfortable than the median 2023 American's experience, and work was required for the typical American to acquire those social credits, I cannot see how there would be any question about resolving this No. Likewise, if new comforts were invented and required work to attain, but 2023 standards were available without work, the market would clearly resolve Yes.

"Work", though, is not so explicit. I don't see any reason it would be restricted to labor for cash vs labor for {asset}, but if, hypothetically, you could rent out parts of your brain for someone else's computation or rent out your body as robot while your mind is uploaded to the cloud, I could see the resolution getting murky. I'm sure there are loads more hypothetical edge cases beyond that.

If that opinion of yours was part of the description, I wouldn't have commented about it. As written, it's self-contradictory. Don't use a word if I need to disregard its meaning completely to understand what you're trying to say.

What I suggested about work is not an "edge case" like your brain-letting example. Work is more likely to transform than disappear. Will people be required to do anything to live comfortably in 2070? What would make anything "work" vs. "not work"?

By the way, I think you meant to end the first bit of your first paragraph with "Yes", otherwise I don't understand it.

In the first bit, an American would need to work to get social credits to get to a level of comfort of the median American in 2023, thus a No.

"Comfortably defined as subjectively equivalent to the standard of living of the median American in 2023." is from the description; are you saying I included an additional opinion beyond that criteria?

"an American would need to work [...] to get to a level of comfort of the median American in 2023, thus a No."

How come that's a no?

My point is that definition doesn't make sense. If the 2023 standard of living is considered abject poverty in 2070, and you need to work in order to live better, how would you resolve this?

On the one hand, you live "comfortably" by 2023 standards. On the other hand, work will still be necessary because no one (certainly not most people) will be satisfied with abject poverty.

So the answer to the title question will be "yes", and the description would suggest "no". "No, work is not necessary in 2070, because abject poverty is totally fine."

Exactly. Imagine comparing 1970 to 2020.

What if you could live, but no access to internet, no phone bill, no phone, no computer. Would be practically impossible. Even homeless people have phones these days.

We don’t know what that equivalent thing will be in 2070

>How come that's a no?

Sorry, yes, you're 100% right. I inverted the market it my head, Yes should be No and No should be Yes.

But it sounds like your issue isn't with the market's criteria being underspecified, but that it is asking something different from what you want it to ask. That's a case for making a new market rather than changing this one.

You and the author better not mind looking foolish in 2070 when the answer to the question posed in the title is clearly "Yes" and he resolves the market to "No" because the description contradicts what he meant to ask in the title.

I’ll be here in 2070 rules lawyering, this is an easy YES if you take the “real” experience: budget for comfort items, electricity for AC/Heating, going out for meals, partying, vehicle ownership, home ownership, etc. I don’t see how this wouldn’t require work of some kind for the average person in 2070.

Some people seem to be interpreting this as, “can bum around and be fed”, or genuinely think there will be gracious robot servants and no required human inputs.

The most important part might be defining how much work counts as work, or what counts.

There’s plenty of time to clarify so I won’t pressure the creator too much.. yet

Edit: from the comments

Maybe "work requiring >10 minutes per day at >50% of the effort that the median American puts in at work in 2023" or something?

The most important part might be defining how much work counts as work, or what counts.

That was my original one-line, 12-word comment. Is it wage labor? or what?

but then people disagreed without an argument and without providing a definition, and I can't allow someone to be wrong the internet

I guess it will be either farm or die. And famring will be a lot harder than today. Kind of like the middle ages, but with antibiotics and way harsher weather.

How sad your life must be that while facing the great prosperity and progress of our time you have such a bleak outlook for what comes next.

@JacobWood Can you confirm or denies that what there is in Europe, where there are some welfare programs that you can ask for if you have no job and meet some criteria, would not make it resolves YES ?

Or more generally, is the idea than the typical American citizen don’t have to work to have a functional society (because mostly everything is automated), or that anyone, individually, can manage to stop to work, as long as the others continue to work.

I mean - it is not necessary today in Europe

@RanaG At the moment, this market is too vague and subjective for me to trade. Please make it specific.

@RanaG I don't have to work in Europe?? Buying a plane ticket rn

@RanaG This is required, what do you mean ?

@dionisos you can live off benefits with life standards similar to median household in 1920 or maybe even better

@RanaG In general benefits in Europe require work, are conditional, or are non-financial.

@MartinRandall the work conditions are optics, conditions are easy or even non existent if you have kids/pass a certain age

@MartinRandall and the fact that they are non financial is just an optionality issue of how to use resources. Society will decide to give you the average basket of goods and services

@RanaG This is about the "typical biological American". According to the OECD database, around 6% of the working-age population across 15 OECD countries receives unemployment benefits.

In Germany and France around 8% of the working-age population receives unemployment benefits.

Source: https://www.oecd.org/social/social-benefit-recipients-database.htm

Meaning working IS necessary for the 'typical biological European' today

@RanaG Having kids is work.

@Donald these numbers are higher than I expected which proves my point. The overwhelming majority of people who don't work are not unemployed, they are outside the labour force, they receive many categories of benefits e.g. Child care, disability, state pension

@MartinRandall weird categorisation. Many wouldn't describe it as work to live comfortably.

@RanaG still doesnt add up 50% of population though

5.56 mil for all social benefits and 18 mil pensions makes for 28.3% of german population, so hardly the typical german

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1359792/recipients-of-benefits-germany/

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Press/2022/09/PE22_N061_12_13.html#:~:text=A%20total%2017.6%20million%20people,2011%20to%2021.4%25%20in%202021.

@Donald I never said it is the typical German. I emphasise that the living standards are below current standards. I mentioned it is possible for a significant portion of the population to live without working for a standards of living of a few decades ago. Obviously not the majority of people choose that path.

@RanaG Every parent I've met describes parenting as work. People hired to perform work in place of parents, such as babysitters, nannies, tutors, etc, are generally paid workers.

@MartinRandall standards of living is reduced by the work of raising children (collateral cost) rather than a product thereof.

@MartinRandall the only way this would make sense is if having grown adults around you (the product of the labour of raising children) is a substitute to the basket of goods defining the standards of living in 2023 in the question

@RanaG The conditions aren’t optics, otherwise nobody would be homeless or poor.