OwlFancier posted: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. Yes, but this is side stepping the premise. People in Europe may work less than the US because they place more value in time off than material gain. The US could change to a 35 hour work week. But a certain percentage of the population is still working in jobs that directly contribute to maintaining some level material standard of living. Assuming no one is forced to participate in labor they aren't interested in doing and everyone is paid equally, as you've advocated for, then how are you ensuring labor is directed towards industries that contribute towards maintaining the material standard of living? Especially labor that is more physically or mentally taxing? Somfin posted:"We'll always need chimney sweeps! There's no other way to heat a home!" Yes, and since then there has been zero human labor involved in the physical production and delivery of services necessary to heat a home.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Assuming no one is forced to participate in labor they aren't interested in doing and everyone is paid equally, as you've advocated for, then how are you ensuring labor is directed towards industries that contribute towards maintaining the material 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 05:53
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Yes, and since then there has been zero human labor involved in the physical production and delivery of services necessary to heat a home. Is there the same amount, more, or less?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
I'm not sure people "place more importance on material gain" as much as "people die if they don't work" and the amount you have to work might be heavily determined by poo poo like "having a livable minimum wage" or "having access to healthcare outside your job" You live in a society that compels you to work for the profit of billionaires under threat of death if you don't. Maybe if you fixed that people could work a whole lot less. Life does not need to be a desperate scrabble for the basics of survival. That it is one is because there are a handful of people who get extremely rich off ensuring that it is so.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:55
|
|
twodot posted:Uh, given that: Because the ability to provide a basic standard of living for all is predicated on a sufficient number of people working in the fields that produce physical goods and provide services associated with creating that basic standard of living. Whatever you desire that standard of living to be will require some amount of labor. If all jobs are treated and paid equally, be it a doctor, janitor, or twitch streamer, then how are you ensuring labor resources are directed appropriately to achieve a minimum standard of living for all? If your answer is "they won't be paid equally and certain professions will pay more to incentivize people to do them, just with a flatter distribution of income" then fine. But that hasn't been the argument many have made in the past few pages. Is there just a general rejection of the free rider concept and belief people will make individual decisions in regards to their labor that in aggregate will result in an efficiently planned economy? Somfin posted:Is there the same amount, more, or less? Are there more people working in telecommunications/IT today then there were then? Labor roles may evolve with technological progress, but need for human labor doesn't simply vanish while continuing the same rate of technological progress necessary to reduce or eliminate certain types of labor. If the premise is that maintaining current technological progress is unnecessary or even bad that's a take, but I don't think a society will be forever content playing PS4 for the next 50 years much less stagnant medical innovation, infrastructure/housing, etc. especially if other economies are progressing towards those things. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 06:31 on May 28, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:a sufficient number of people Answer my question about the number of people, coward
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Because the ability to provide a basic standard of living for all is predicated on a sufficient number of people working in the fields that produce physical goods and provide services associated with creating that basic standard of living. Whatever you desire that standard of living to be will require some amount of labor. If all jobs are treated and paid equally, be it a doctor, janitor, or twitch streamer, then how are you ensuring labor resources are directed appropriately to achieve a minimum standard of living for all?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 06:36
|
|
twodot posted:No that isn't my argument. My argument is: How do you justify threatening individuals with starvation to ensure your policy goals? You create incentives for people to work in industries that meaningfully contribute to the production of goods and services. This could be, say, disparate pay based on profession to create the conditions for starvation prevention rice to be grown and provided to the hungry twitch streamer.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 07:02
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:You create incentives for people to work in industries that meaningfully contribute to the production of goods and services. This could be, say, disparate pay based on profession to create the conditions for starvation prevention rice to be grown and provided to the hungry twitch streamer.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:You create incentives for people to work in industries that meaningfully contribute to the production of goods and services. This could be, say, disparate pay based on profession to create the conditions for starvation prevention rice to be grown and provided to the hungry twitch streamer. Seems like the sort of thing that could be automated.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted: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. I don't think you understand my post. If we don't go through some massive societal restructuring, of the kind that utopian socialism represents, we're all hosed. These "future generations" you mention, will be part of a very, very different mankind, one reduced to paleolithic population numbers and pre-industrial technology levels. The human species might survive, but human civilization as it is right now has no loving chance.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 07:17
|
|
twodot posted:This is a description of a process that leverages starving people for your policy goals. I'm asking for a moral justification to starve humans for your policy goals. My policy goal is to have people not starve. I think that's best accomplished by incentivizing some portion of the population to participate in the production of food that may otherwise be twitch streamers given it's an easier job with fewer responsibilities. If you believe there is a better way to ensure labor participates in jobs more demanding than being a twitch streamer then I'm open learning about it. Somfin posted:Seems like the sort of thing that could be automated. Hmm, strong point. I don't know why anyone hadn't considered fully automating the food production and delivery supply chain if currently an option. Must be a tightly hidden conspiracy among the capitalist landowners and shipping companies to maintain wage slavery even if eliminating labor costs would increase their profits.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:My policy goal is to have people not starve. I think that's best accomplished by incentivizing some portion of the population to participate in the production of food that may otherwise be twitch streamers given it's an easier job with fewer responsibilities.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 07:52
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Hmm, strong point. I don't know why anyone hadn't considered fully automating the food production and delivery supply chain if currently an option. Must be a tightly hidden conspiracy among the capitalist landowners and shipping companies to maintain wage slavery even if eliminating labor costs would increase their profits. Tell me something. Compared to two hundred years ago, are there more people involved in heating per home heated, or fewer? Compared to two hundred years ago, are there more people involved in agriculture per calorie produced, or fewer? It seems like "fully automating" is a term you have decided to introduce to this situation, and I believe you have done so in order to muddy the issue and attack a straw man instead of the genuine arguments being put forward. Justify that decision, please.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 08:06
|
|
twodot posted:Just say the whole thing out loud, you think it's important to threaten some humans with starvation so that others don't starve, and further that you need actual humans to starve so that your threat has actual teeth. And you want people to use their labor hours to grow your free food while you use your labor hours to play DOTA for an audience of zero while earning the same post-tax income and having the same number of ping pong balls in the lottery for the free La Jolla beach house. Can't let people live on the street, no? Is this helpful or advancing the discussion in any way? It's a pretty basic question -- how will self-identified creatives be handled even if you're willing to buy the doctor/janitor pay equity argument? Somfin posted:Tell me something. Compared to two hundred years ago, are there more people involved in heating per home heated, or fewer? Compared to two hundred years ago, are there more people involved in agriculture per calorie produced, or fewer? It seems like "fully automating" is a term you have decided to introduce to this situation, and I believe you have done so in order to muddy the issue and attack a straw man instead of the genuine arguments being put forward. Justify that decision, please. Is your argument that whatever the percentage of the population that were chimney sweep however many years ago should no longer have to participate in the labor force due to automation? Along with labor displaced due to technical innovation in other industries, which is basically everyone if you look back far enough? I'm not trying to strawman your argument, I just don't understand what you think the ideal is or your timeframe. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 08:16 on May 28, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 08:08
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:you want people to use their labor hours to grow your free food You keep saying this, but you have yet to prove it
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
Perhaps we can work to ensure everyone has an abundance of time to devote to their own pursuits.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:And you want people to use their labor hours to grow your free food while you use your labor hours to play DOTA for an audience of zero while earning the same post-tax income and having the same number of ping pong balls in the lottery for the free La Jolla beach house. Can't let people live on the street, no?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Perhaps we can work to ensure everyone has an abundance of time to devote to their own pursuits. What, by instantly and completely eliminating literally all necessity for human labour in a single action? That sounds like something our wealthy and benevolent masters would have done for us if it wasn't against the dog-eat-dog nature of existence for it to be otherwise. They are, after all, completely right and sane and ~*rational*~ in all of their decision making and have never once thrown away vast sums of money on stupid gambles or destroyed public options in the name of preserving their own profits.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
Or that like, the whole edifice of society as it exists is built around production and consumption. You go to work to pay for a car and rent and a phone and convenience food and services so you can go to work more and not go mad when you're not at work. Maybe if you just got rid of all the stupid loving work that only exists so it can siphon profit to idiotically wealthy parasites then people might need less stuff and have more loving time to relax.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 08:18
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Is your argument that whatever the percentage of the population that were chimney sweep however many years ago should no longer have to participate in the labor force due to automation? Along with labor displaced due to technical innovation in other industries, which is basically everyone if you look back far enough? The point is that every job you have brought up is one that is being done by fewer and fewer people over time, the ideal is that every "job" currently done by a human because it is necessary for survival (of the species or of individuals within the species) should be done automatically, and the timeframe is as long as it loving takes. This is an ideal, a goal, something to work toward, not something that I believe will happen within my lifespan. Chimney sweeps are a thing of the past because heating can be done without producing the conditions necessary for chimney sweeps; farming work that would have required thousands is now done by tens due to massively automated farming practices. The ideal is that everything is done without producing the conditions that require more work, and that every task that currently requires a portion of a human being's limited lifespan no longer requires that time. Should former chimney sweeps no longer have to work? Buddy, nobody should have to work. It is utopian. It is ideal. It is not workable, but it is something that should be worked toward and planned for. And part of that is transitioning people away from the idea that the current structure of the world is "just" or "right." The current structure of the world is an outgrowth of an outgrowth of an outgrowth of a structure that for a period of time was necessary.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 08:29
|
|
Somfin posted:You keep saying this, but you have yet to prove it How is the full-time twitch streamer with 0 viewers contributing to obtaining food? They are creating zero value for anyone but themselves. Without redistribution they would chew on their graphics card and then die. Even in a barter economy absent of capitalists they have nothing to offer. OwlFancier posted:Perhaps we can work to ensure everyone has an abundance of time to devote to their own pursuits. This is different than saying everyone should earn the same income regardless of their profession. This was your position, no? twodot posted:I want to use my labor hours to achieve goals that I think are good, and I'd like other humans to have that same privilege. Now you explain how you think threatening humans with starvation is a moral strategy for your goals. You're describing leisure, not labor. I'd love my job to be highlighting the joys of EverQuest 1 on twitch to zero viewers. Sadly, I'm stuck in a job few here would describe as "good." But maybe my taxes go to feeding people that would otherwise starve. Twodot, you keep going back to the starving bit. Tell me why someone would work on a farm instead of twitch streaming assuming equal income. What would you prefer?
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:This is different than saying everyone should earn the same income regardless of their profession. This was your position, no? I mean yes it is a different assertion but it is in no way contradictory? All labour should be paid equally, people should not do a lot of labour.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 08:59
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:even in a barter economy absent of capitalists There are other ways to exist beyond "barter economy" and "capitalism."
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 09:08
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:And you want people to use their labor hours to grow your free food while you use your labor hours to play DOTA for an audience of zero while earning the same post-tax income and having the same number of ping pong balls in the lottery for the free La Jolla beach house. Can't let people live on the street, no? Find me literally a single farmer who's itching to quit farming to stream on Twitch.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 09:15
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Find me literally a single farmer who's itching to quit farming to stream on Twitch. Obviously literally all of them, which is why keeping them on the brink of starvation is necessary for the world we live in to continue existing. There's no better way to do things! Please ignore all of the previous times people have expressed this sentiment and been proven wrong, the current status quo must be maintained unlike every status quo before it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 09:20
|
|
Somfin posted:Obviously literally all of them, which is why keeping them on the brink of starvation is necessary for the world we live in to continue existing. There's no better way to do things! Please ignore all of the previous times people have expressed this sentiment and been proven wrong, the current status quo must be maintained unlike every status quo before it. Sadly, there's no polling data asking farmers or their 18 year old children: "Assuming equal hours and pay, would you rather have odd hours and the physical exhaustion associated with running a slaughter house or play video games, draw, or tell jokes on the computer with a webcam on." If there's one thing I learned in life it's how much people love their mentally and physically tiring jobs with a long commute and inflexible hours. They could roll out if bed and turn their webcam on for 8 hours, but there's something about shoveling poo poo and sawing animals they keep coming back to. But with lack of statistically significant polling data I must concede my argument here. Who is advocating starving people? What the gently caress? Most people's creative pursuits are in their leisure time today. Assuming anyone could pick their job/career and earn equal pay, why would someone not choose their current leisure activity? Just explain how this will be implemented in 2020 rather than how we can best orient ourselves today to the hypothetical utopian future of 2220. You don't get your automation without people working towards it.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 10:05
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Sadly, there's no polling data asking farmers or their 18 year old children: "Assuming equal hours and pay, would you rather have odd hours and the physical exhaustion associated with running a slaughter house or play video games, draw, or tell jokes on the computer with a webcam on." If there's one thing I learned in life it's how much people love their mentally and physically tiring jobs with a long commute and inflexible hours. They could roll out if bed and turn their webcam on for 8 hours, but there's something about shoveling poo poo and sawing animals they keep coming back to. But with lack of statistically significant polling data I must concede my argument here. Three points I'm picking up from this paragraph: 1. You have never tried streaming before, and you have zero concept of what goes into making it your full-time career in the modern era; 2. You have never lived as a farmer and you have zero concept of what goes into making it your full-time career in the modern era; and 3. You think that it is good for some people to live terrible lives, but you can't articulate why this is preferable to people being able to enjoy themselves. KingNastidon posted:Who is advocating starving people? What the gently caress? Most people's creative pursuits are in their leisure time today. Assuming anyone could pick their job/career and earn equal pay, why would someone not choose their current leisure activity? Just explain how this will be implemented in 2020 rather than how we can best orient ourselves today to the hypothetical utopian future of 2220. You don't get your automation without people working towards it. You literally are advocating starvation as a motivator. You are saying that unless people are threatened with starvation they won't work, and since you also think that work is good / necessary, you must therefore be arguing in favour of starvation as a default, which people must work to avoid. This is fundamental to everything you have been saying; if you think that people should not be starving by default, then please, make that clear. Because right now you are very much arguing that people should be starving if they don't work. And again, you are strawmanning my argument if you assert that I'm saying we can implement a utopian vision in 2020. The current crop of billionaires seems quite opposed to any progress that can't be proven to benefit them. We should be working toward anything that eradicates billionaire-level power discrepancies, and part of that is working toward a world in which no-one is suffering by default.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 10:50
|
|
|
am I missing something, why is KingNastydon so obsessed with twitch streamers
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 11:56
|
|
|
Dabir posted:am I missing something, why is KingNastydon so obsessed with twitch streamers Twitch streamers with 0 viewers, I'm sensing a degree of projection on the part of KingNastydon.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 11:59
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Who is advocating starving people? What the gently caress? Most people's creative pursuits are in their leisure time today. Assuming anyone could pick their job/career and earn equal pay, why would someone not choose their current leisure activity? Just explain how this will be implemented in 2020 rather than how we can best orient ourselves today to the hypothetical utopian future of 2220. You don't get your automation without people working towards it. Gardening is a hobby dumbass. Your argument is purely based on the idea that everyone is you.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 12:02
|
|
|
there is an argument to be made that agriculture on the scale necessary to sustain human population on our level today necessitates some degree of professionalism and thus unfun parts of e.g. food production i doubt most people itt are going to argue that we need the current work-or-starve system, but i really do think that difficult or unpleasant but socially useful work should be rewarded through additional leeway for consumption, even under communism
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 12:13
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:there is an argument to be made that agriculture on the scale necessary to sustain human population on our level today necessitates some degree of professionalism and thus unfun parts of e.g. food production I absolutely think that people should be compensated for necessary work that they put their time into doing, including, as mentioned before, training to achieve expertise in a field. My dispute is with the idea that the only way to motivate someone to do unpleasant work is by making the default state of most people's lives a state of abject suffering and hunger until they die. Which Nasty has yet to refute as being the state he is quite willing to keep the world in to maintain the current status quo. Bundy posted:Twitch streamers with 0 viewers, I'm sensing a degree of projection on the part of KingNastydon. That was brought up as an example of "why shouldn't someone be allowed to do this with their time" which Nasty has decided is so hilarious as a hobby that he will beat that drum until it pops.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 12:24
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:there is an argument to be made that agriculture on the scale necessary to sustain human population on our level today necessitates some degree of professionalism and thus unfun parts of e.g. food production I think that's a view that's still mired in consumerism. The problem is that if a job really is unpleasant or dangerous or tough on your body being paid more doesn't actually fix that, it's just an incentive to trade your well being for stuff. If a job is both necessary and has unmitigatable problems a better solution is to have the people who do it do less total work.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 12:34
|
|
|
Dire Lemming posted:I think that's a view that's still mired in consumerism. The problem is that if a job really is unpleasant or dangerous or tough on your body being paid more doesn't actually fix that, it's just an incentive to trade your well being for stuff. If a job is both necessary and has unmitigatable problems a better solution is to have the people who do it do less total work. yeah ok i can dig this to some extent, but there will still be edge cases where short shifts just aren't practical, e.g. in intensive care units or anything to do with (humanely treated, at least) farm animals and i strand by the principle of moderate income differentials being justifiable in such cases note i'm talking within the same order of magnitude for zero-views twitch streamer and emergency room nurse
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:yeah ok i can dig this to some extent, but there will still be edge cases where short shifts just aren't practical, e.g. in intensive care units or anything to do with (humanely treated, at least) farm animals and i strand by the principle of moderate income differentials being justifiable in such cases Isn't paying a twitch streamer with 0 viewers to stream twitch itself problematic? In that activity they are creating no use value for anyone while the rest of society pays for the value they consume.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 13:04
|
|
|
note that i also think that there needs to be a coercive element of some kind to make sure that essential functions are staffed, at least until communism has fully eliminated the need for such things - you do need your ER staff to actually show up or at least let you know that they're not going to be there in order to plan these things properly, and this means some system of incentives (though ideally just the shaming would be enough this is well into utopianism imo)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Isn't paying a twitch streamer with 0 viewers to stream twitch itself problematic? In that activity they are creating no use value for anyone while the rest of society pays for the value they consume. it's also intensely unrewarding and not something that people aren't going to keep doing for extended periods of time barring serious mental issues so i don't think it's a huge problem
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 13:07
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Isn't paying a twitch streamer with 0 viewers to stream twitch itself problematic? In that activity they are creating no use value for anyone while the rest of society pays for the value they consume. Oh hey, it's the guy who was whining about how he was unable to hire anyone because he wasn't willing to tell people the value he estimated their work to be worth. How did you come to own the company?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
honestly even under communism i would probably go for a six-hour workday for most of the year because having something useful to do is really satisfying and a good thing to frame one's life around. if some awful ukulele player gets to reasonably subsist on his complete lack of talent that's honestly ok with me; i trust that we'd get enough interesting avant-garde ukulele stuff to make up for the social investment, and most people like doing things that they're either good at or improving at; absent the profit motive and consumer society you'd probably get a higher hourly productivity given the level of technology in play even at its most generous, the cost of welfare cheating was completely incomparable to the cost of various tax shenanigans. even under capitalism it's not a huge deal
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 13:17
|
|