|
Alright well consider me tentatively convinced but I'ma do more reading later.
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Alright well consider me tentatively convinced but I'ma do more reading later.  Seriously, thank you for considering this stuff. It's often difficult to work through.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
Experience is relative, is the thing. If you sorted out all my needs, I'd probably still go to work tomorrow and stack shelves, because weirdly I kinda like stacking shelves. I might do it when I go shopping rather than for prolonged periods of time. But I like the other people I work with so I wouldn't mind spending a few hours with them doing my job. Or maybe you'd build a loving robosupermarket from dahir insaat and I wouldn't need to. I dunno. Maybe I'd go learn to make furniture like I always wanted to and spend my time doing that for people. Or planting up the green strips near where I live. People don't need to be driven by desperation to do all useful things, and where things are important enough that they need to be done you can work to make them equally painless while you build an incentive system.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
Seriously, there's this ridiculous myth that people are inherently lazy and will refuse to work unless you threaten them with starvation. But it just doesn't work like that. People like working, they just hate the constant stress that they're livelihood is based in some rear end in a top hat writing their every move down on a clipboard and trying to squeeze blood out of them for the great capitalist machine, all while being told they could get a 3 cent raise and be set for LIFE if they just worked a little harder. But talk to someone on disability or retirement. Everyone I've met in those situations has said the first few weeks were great but then they quickly get antsy without a job to do. That aside, even if people are lazy, social pressure is a big factor. When a community needs a little labor to grind out the energy that keeps them in a life of luxury, if Steve says "nah, I don't feel like it" literally everyone is gonna get on Steve's case for being a tremendous rear end in a top hat. And Steve might not care, but most functioning individuals will pull a 4 hour shift just to make sure their friends don't think they're an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Seriously, there's this ridiculous myth that people are inherently lazy and will refuse to work unless you threaten them with starvation. But it just doesn't work like that. People like working, they just hate the constant stress that they're livelihood is based in some rear end in a top hat writing their every move down on a clipboard and trying to squeeze blood out of them for the great capitalist machine, all while being told they could get a 3 cent raise and be set for LIFE if they just worked a little harder. And even then I wonder how long Steve will continue saying that when he's got no other poo poo going on in his life that he's got to spend his energy trying to escape from. A lot of the groups who get broadly accused of being leeches or lazy are just spending their energy in ways that society doesn't like (begging for / stealing the resources to have enough food to survive for another day because planning ahead further than that isn't really an option for them, doing drugs to take their mind off the constant horrific stress of their completely hopeless life situation) or doesn't like to acknowledge (applying for dozens and dozens of jobs in order to qualify for public support despite knowing they won't get any of them, dealing with social workers within systems that are designed to stress them into not having the energy to deal with those systems, being gradually whittled to zero because of medical bills or other debts).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
Somfin posted:And even then I wonder how long Steve will continue saying that when he's got no other poo poo going on in his life that he's got to spend his energy trying to escape from. A lot of the groups who get broadly accused of being leeches or lazy are just spending their energy in ways that society doesn't like (begging for / stealing the resources to have enough food to survive for another day because planning ahead further than that isn't really an option for them, doing drugs to take their mind off the constant horrific stress of their completely hopeless life situation) or doesn't like to acknowledge (applying for dozens and dozens of jobs in order to qualify for public support despite knowing they won't get any of them, dealing with social workers within systems that are designed to stress them into not having the energy to deal with those systems, being gradually whittled to zero because of medical bills or other debts). We're constantly inundated with marketing for the latest in relaxation technology, junk food, booze and any other chemical they can shove down our throats. The vice of laziness is a product that capitalism has spent centuries pushing with one hand and then punishing us for with the other. There's literally no winning - if you become some ascetic worker you lose all cultural touchstones but any time you actually try to enjoy consumption you're just a lazy leech.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
The ideal of course is that you work constantly and consume constantly in order to facilitate your ability to work constantly, combine work and consumption.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 09:02
|
|
|
If you go to college and become a doctor you can get strawberry flavored nutrient paste, unlike those blue collar hicks and their unflavored nutrient paste.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 09:24
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Do you wanna justify that position and tell us why anyone would want to train to become a doctor under those conditions? Honestly, its not that bad. All your assumptions currently point to the fact that westerners pick jobs based on extrinsic awards like money and social status rather than what they want to do. Some people will always want to be line cooks because they don't want to do anything else with their life. Some people civil engineers or doctors because it requires a higher standard of training, critical thinking, and complexity. A just economy and society would decouple the threat of material deprivation from a person's choice of employment.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
As a patient, would you rather be treated by a doctor who's in medicine because they have an intrinsic desire to help people or a doctor who's in medicine because it's a well-paying job?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 06:31
|
|
|
Paul.Power posted:As a patient, would you rather be treated by a doctor who's in medicine because they have an intrinsic desire to help people or a doctor who's in medicine because it's a well-paying job? This, everyone who does a job purely for the money learns very quickly to game the system such that they do exactly what they need to get paid and nothing more. If you do more, it's cos you care, so either you live in a world where everyone does the bare minimum or you live in a world where people can care about their work.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 06:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This, everyone who does a job purely for the money learns very quickly to game the system such that they do exactly what they need to get paid and nothing more. If you do more, it's cos you care, so either you live in a world where everyone does the bare minimum or you live in a world where people can care about their work. I mean you have massive problems with doctors prescribing addictive opioids and other things because the pharma companies pay them shitloads of money to.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 06:52
|
|
|
Lotta utopian socialist naval gazing going on in here.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
Never discuss your ideals, that's navel gazing. Only ever discuss incremental changes to the status quo divorced from any wider preference for how you want to live.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with lookin at ships
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
Seven Force posted:Nothing wrong with lookin at ships lmao whoops
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
No lie I had to look up whether it was navel or naval, for what it's worth
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Lotta utopian socialist naval gazing going on in here. Anything short of socialist utopia means that the planet is hosed anyway, so we might as well push for a long shot that means the survival of a better civilization instead of cowardly capitalist status quo incrementalism that will die in ~100 years because of everything collapsing due to climate change, yes?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
utopianism as a tendency got fairly persuasively debunked by Marx imo there is no world where there aren't boring or unpleasant tasks that nonetheless need doing
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:utopianism as a tendency got fairly persuasively debunked by Marx imo there is no world where there aren't boring or unpleasant tasks that nonetheless need doing Agreed, but we should still push toward that end of the spectrum rather than allowing that sentence to incrementally slice away at the goal with "and this is probably one of them" ad infinitum
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:utopianism as a tendency got fairly persuasively debunked by Marx imo there is no world where there aren't boring or unpleasant tasks that nonetheless need doing Even if we accept we're never going to make human labour completely redundant in providing for everyone's well-being, things do often get better when we challenge our preconceptions about how necessary some of the poo poo work we have to do is, and how necessary human involvement in it is.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Lotta utopian socialist naval gazing going on in here. I mean, saying that doctors are only doctors because it pays well is actually a huge indictment against compensation as a good motivator. It's a tacit admission that our system as-is completely fails to sort people into occupations based on interest or aptitude, which implies that it's actually wildly inefficient. Edit- Just to be clear, I'm talking about high paid jobs specifically here. The vast majority of high paid jobs are good jobs and most people would want to do them if they had the opportunity. The parts of being a doctor that are really terrible are largely artificial, and there are undoubtedly tons of people who would rather have the opportunity to learn medicine than flip burgers. Lots of really terrible jobs pay basically nothing. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 02:50 on May 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I mean, saying that doctors are only doctors because it pays well is actually a huge indictment against compensation as a good motivator. It's a tacit admission that our system as-is completely fails to sort people into occupations based on interest or aptitude, which implies that it's actually wildly inefficient. Imagine if chefs had 15 hour work weeks.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Agreed, but we should still push toward that end of the spectrum rather than allowing that sentence to incrementally slice away at the goal with "and this is probably one of them" ad infinitum Yeah - I think it's important to make it clear that "equality of outcome" actually is ideal on a strictly ethical level, especially since (as seen in this thread) a lot of people believe that even the left doesn't actually believe that. It may not be the case that such an ideal outcome is possible, but it should still be treated as a goal.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Anything short of socialist utopia means that the planet is hosed anyway, so we might as well push for a long shot that means the survival of a better civilization instead of cowardly capitalist status quo incrementalism that will die in ~100 years because of everything collapsing due to climate change, yes? Not really. "Utopian socailism" was a tendency within 19th century leftist thought that was criticized for its lack of realism and applicability. It's not a generic term for all socialism. Which is good, because a socialist response to climate change and inequality would require mobilizing huge amounts of labour and resources through coercive means and using them to fight a desperate rearguard action against existential threats on every front. Utopia isn't on the menu for anyone currently alive. At best it's a possibility we keep alive for future generations. Paradoxish posted:I mean, saying that doctors are only doctors because it pays well is actually a huge indictment against compensation as a good motivator. It's a tacit admission that our system as-is completely fails to sort people into occupations based on interest or aptitude, which implies that it's actually wildly inefficient. Well of course the existing system fails in this task, anyone paying attention can already see that. We're still going to have to build a new society on the foundations of the existing one and anyone who thinks you'll be able to simply abolish things like unequal pay, or that this would even be a sensible goal in the short term, is a fool. Realistically the first goal of any socialist government would be boosting the living standards of people on the bottom and dealing with climate change. Worrying about how to create a world where people only work out of a sense of duty or to achieve self fulfillment is an aspirational goal for future generations, not something we're likely to witness in our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:14
|
|
|
How do creative jobs fit within the framework of equal hours = equal pay? While I disagree that a doctor and janitor should earn the same wage as both people could do janitorial work and only one can perform surgery, I can understand the rationale. Assuming they work in the same facility both contribute to providing healthcare services, either directly or indirectly. But if I decide to be a full time author or twitch streamer with 0 viewers then what am I producing and how should my wage be determined? Or sidestepping wage, what should my post-tax income be relative to the doctor and janitor?
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:How do creative jobs fit within the framework of equal hours = equal pay? While I disagree that a doctor and janitor should earn the same wage as both people could do janitorial work and only one can perform surgery, I can understand the rationale. Assuming they work in the same facility both contribute to providing healthcare services, either directly or indirectly.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is very dumb and backwards. What rationale do you offer that the twitch streamer with 0 viewers should be held in poverty and threatened with starvation? If you've got a good reason that twitch streamers with 0 viewers need to be starved to death I'll listen, but for now we should be leaning towards "Don't starve people". It say a lot about you that "a janitor might be paid more than a twitch streamer" immediately caused you to jump to "THE TWITCH STREAMER WILL STARVE".
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:It say a lot about you that "a janitor might be paid more than a twitch streamer" immediately caused you to jump to "THE TWITCH STREAMER WILL STARVE". edit: Like at least asking the question of "How do we pay doctors, a necessary component of society?" invites a discussion on whether labor needs to be rewarded to induce it or if we can rely on people's desired industry. The only reason to talk about twitch streamers with no viewers is to have a discussion on whether or not they should be starved to death or not. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:36 on May 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:31
|
|
twodot posted:This is very dumb and backwards. What rationale do you offer that the twitch streamer with 0 viewers should be held in poverty and threatened with starvation? If you've got a good reason that twitch streamers with 0 viewers need to be starved to death I'll listen, but for now we should be leaning towards "Don't starve people". This assumes that basic necessities are addressed, eg shelter, food, healthcare, and of course very dope internet speeds. Will post-tax income including redistribution be completely equal? Or does the equal distribution only apply to people working different jobs within the same organization, such as the doctor/janitor example?
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
the twitch streamer is gonna work part time as a janitor as well, this childish dream of "me working in the art scene and making clay figurines of che and fidel while someone else cleans the toilets" is dumb and unrelaistic. there are things that have to be done and you'll have to force people to do them because they won't want to (at least until the indoctrinated generations grow up). does that mean they have to work lovely hours, or in terrible conditions? of course not, everyrthing must be done to improve those and many other facets of work.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:This assumes that basic necessities are addressed, eg shelter, food, healthcare, and of course very dope internet speeds. edit: I guess to rephrase: What is the scarce resource you are concerned that twitch streamers with no viewers will get too much of?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 04:37
|
|
twodot posted:Who cares? If everyone has their needs met and the remaining inequality is access to Brittney Spears' backstage passes or likes on their Facebook account we can stop worrying about inequality. Basic needs are able to be addressed for all because a percentage of the population is participating in labor that provides them. If 1% of the working-age population decides to become full time twitch streamers with 0 viewers that's fine because the other 99% are contributing to GDP in some form. If it becomes 10% twitch streamers then the remaining 90% will have to work X% more to ensure the same basic standard of living is provided for the 10%. Repeat for 25% or 50% or whatever. What is the process for ensuring a sufficient percentage of prople are working in jobs that contribute to building/maintaining shelter, growing/preparing food, providing healthcare etc without force? Especially when equal hours = equal pay and the type of labor is chosen by each individual based on personal self-fulfillment?
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Basic needs are able to be addressed for all because a percentage of the population is participating in labor that provides them. KingNastidon posted:This assumes that basic necessities are addressed twodot posted:I guess to rephrase: What is the scarce resource you are concerned that twitch streamers with no viewers will get too much of?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:that's fine because the other 99% are contributing to GDP in some form Why is this something society should strive for? KingNastidon posted:What is the process for ensuring a sufficient percentage of prople are working in jobs that contribute to building/maintaining shelter, growing/preparing food, providing healthcare etc without force? Especially when equal hours = equal pay and the type of labor is chosen by each individual based on personal self-fulfillment? Why should people have to do these things? E: Even if you decide to insist insist that food production, construction, and healthcare, or any other task, all need to be done by people, and that people will only do them due to threat of force, in what world is "My society requires a measure of brute force to exist" not an argument against it? Somfin fucked around with this message at 05:24 on May 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:19
|
|
twodot posted:You just told me that this conversation was predicated on basic needs being already addressed. Which is it? Also: Who is building those systems to not make them scarce? Who is maintaining them once they're built? Production of goods will always require some level of human involvement. Technology is not going to completely eliminate the need for janitors or teachers or therapists or elderly caretakers. Any increase in the number of twitch streamers is making that human labor more scarce and decreasing aggregate production/standard of living.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
Decreasing production is not necessarily decreasing standard of living. That assumes all current production is necessary, or even desirable, and also that production = standard of living, rather than say, time off increasing your standard of living. Producing less is going to be important if your goal is stopping climate change. Everyone having an extra day off and getting rid of jobs based around encouraging consumption of, or production of, stupid crap would go a long way to improving everyone's life and also not killing everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Who is building those systems to not make them scarce? Who is maintaining them once they're built? Production of goods will always require some level of human involvement. Technology is not going to completely eliminate the need for janitors or teachers or therapists or elderly caretakers. Any increase in the number of twitch streamers is making that human labor more scarce and decreasing aggregate production/standard of living. "We'll always need chimney sweeps! There's no other way to heat a home!"
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:31
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Who is building those systems to not make them scarce? Who is maintaining them once they're built? Production of goods will always require some level of human involvement. Technology is not going to completely eliminate the need for janitors or teachers or therapists or elderly caretakers. Any increase in the number of twitch streamers is making that human labor more scarce and decreasing aggregate production/standard of living. KingNastidon posted:This assumes that basic necessities are addressed, eg shelter, food, healthcare, and of course very dope internet speeds.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
KingNastidon posted:very dope internet speeds Wait, what's this faint ringing in my ear? And why's my dog going loving apeshit?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:44
|
|