|
RuanGacho posted:No this is the strawman you've constructed and tried to bully people into. Actually there was a poster who clarified that was their exact position like 1 page back. OwlFancier posted:I mean I said that but I was coming at it from the perspective of "maybe we could get rid of stupid rich people salaries and pay people for actual hours worked, at the same hourly rate, while getting rid of the conditions that make some jobs less desirable. I don't really have a horse in this race, but there are definitely at least two or three separate conversations that are happening at the same time here, so try not to cross the streams I guess. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 04:22 on May 29, 2019 |
#
?
May 29, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
KingNastidon posted:how you compel people to work hard but necessary jobs Name me one hard but necessary job that can never be automated
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 04:43
|
|
Somfin posted:Name me one hard but necessary job that can never be automated Hard/difficult is kinda subjective. Mortician, aspects of elderly care, quality assurance at the animal sawing factory, dead animal/human extraction, rodent/insect extermination. Any job that doesn't maximize my personal happiness in that moment given any and all alternatives that pay the same.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 09:18
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Name me one hard but necessary job that can never be automated cleaning hospitals, nursing, huge parts of agriculture, construction i mean 'can never' is a ludicrously strong proposition, but there's no removing the issues that make many jobs require a human being with technology that we can envision today
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 09:22
|
|
|
i do think KN is being overly dramatic and not arguing their case well, but the main point that some level of differential compensation for different work isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future isn't wrong
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 09:25
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Mortician, aspects of elderly care, quality assurance at the animal sawing factory, dead animal/human extraction, rodent/insect extermination. All of these seem like jobs that have already been severely minimised through automation, mechanisation, and changes to human lifestyles. Do you think the "animal sawing factory" is going to stick around forever? KingNastidon posted:Any job that doesn't maximize my personal happiness in that moment given any and all alternatives that pay the same. Ha ha. V. Illych L. posted:i mean 'can never' is a ludicrously strong proposition Which is exactly my point. "There will always be jobs that require a human to do" is a proposition that breaks down once you start to list the jobs that you believe currently "require" a human and realise how much of that work has been automated already.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 10:29
|
|
|
Somfin posted:All of these seem like jobs that have already been severely minimised through automation, mechanisation, and changes to human lifestyles. Do you think the "animal sawing factory" is going to stick around forever? i feel as though this is a cop-out, though. as of today, there is no reason to assume anything except that there will be dirty, dangerous or otherwise unpleasant work that nevertheless needs doing, and a model of society that doesn't account for this is not credible
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 10:33
|
|
Somfin posted:Which is exactly my point. "There will always be jobs that require a human to do" is a proposition that breaks down once you start to list the jobs that you believe currently "require" a human and realise how much of that work has been automated already. What percentage of jobs in the US today do you believe could be completely automated/eliminated with zero loss to productivity?
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:with zero loss to productivity Interesting proviso. Define this phrase, please.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 10:52
|
|
Somfin posted:Interesting proviso. Define this phrase, please. To maintain current GDP indefinitely plus services that may not be directly included in GDP such as caretaking.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 11:02
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:maintain current GDP indefinitely Okay, I'm going to need this phrase defined as well, since GDP literally has the word "product" in it so you haven't actually defined "loss to productivity" yet.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 11:04
|
|
Somfin posted:Okay, I'm going to need this phrase defined as well, since GDP literally has the word "product" in it so you haven't actually defined "loss to productivity" yet. Maintaining 100% of the aggregate standard of living we have today? But how do you quantify standard of living... Do you have a better alternative or are you just going to nitpick at whatever I offer? How many people could not show up at work for a year and no one would notice because everything they do could be replicated by code (ignoring who has to write it) or cheap robots (ignoring who has to design and maintain them)? KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 11:52 on May 29, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 11:12
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Maintaining 100% of the aggregate standard of living we have today? But how so you quantify standard of living... Don't ignore the writers/robot builders, there are MANY that would find that work fascinating and fulfilling. This is about the poo poo jobs that people claim we'll always need humans for. Any that we haven't automated/made not poo poo yet gets better pay for the people willing to do that work than it currently does. This is why we need unions; the miner strikes in the UK in the 70s was about the Tories trying to gently caress with their pay for what was a hazardous, at the time necessary job that the country benefited greatly from and too right they should get their dues for doing it for what was still a nationalised industry. Thatcher wanted to reduce union power and picked a fight by closing collieries with no plans for labour reallocation due to the whole flogging of everything that wasn't loving nailed down to the private sector. It is not enough that we convince capitalism to pay us fairly, there must also be a return to collective bargaining and the recognised right to industrial action. There are currently no checks and balances. NinpoEspiritoSanto fucked around with this message at 11:59 on May 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 11:52
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:how do you quantify standard of living How indeed? You were the one who placed that as a requirement for a utopia, I suggest you should be able to define the loving terms your argument relies on. KingNastidon posted:How many people could not show up at work for a year and no one would notice because everything they do could be replicated by code or cheap robots? Why do you keep phrasing things in this weird, tortured way? The question you're posing presupposes that the person was supposed to be doing the work and is instead not doing the work they were meant to do, which means that any answer I give to the question must be based on the assumption that whatever person is not "showing up for work" is harming the collective in some way. How about you think of your scenario this way instead: How many current jobs are completely, fundamentally unnecessary to the survival of the species as a whole and exist purely because the alternative to working is starvation? I can name one to get you started: Scammers. A post-scarcity, starvation-free society would have no place for scammers; tricking others into giving up their limited resources becomes unnecessary when you have plenty for yourself, and without starvation to motivate others, you can't get them to run scams for you. Artists, on the other hand, would have plenty to do, as a post-scarcity society will be desperately in need of entertainment and pleasures to spend their idle time with. KingNastidon posted:(ignoring who has to write it) (ignoring who has to design and maintain them) You're trying to get at something here, but I don't think you know what it is. E: To be clear, I think that billionaires and millionaires and greed in general is primarily motivated by fear, and that fear is the fear of starvation, of not having enough, or of having what you have acquired taken from you; I think that if people knew that tomorrow they would have plenty, and for all of their tomorrows they would always have plenty, there would be far less greed and accumulation and hoarding of resources in the world. Somfin fucked around with this message at 12:13 on May 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 12:10
|
|
|
Somfin posted:E: To be clear, I think that billionaires and millionaires and greed in general is primarily motivated by fear, and that fear is the fear of starvation, of not having enough, or of having what you have acquired taken from you; I think that if people knew that tomorrow they would have plenty, and for all of their tomorrows they would always have plenty, there would be far less greed and accumulation and hoarding of resources in the world. This is an interesting take and one I'd not considered. Are you suggesting that capitalism is the fear of scarcity taken to an extreme conclusion, able to do so because that scarcity no longer exists? The one percent couldn't exist without the unending ability to take, therefore scarcity is no longer a limiting factor.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 12:21
|
|
Bundy posted:Don't ignore the writers/robot builders, there are MANY that would find that work fascinating and fulfilling. This is about the poo poo jobs that people claim we'll always need humans for. Yes, but that's the point. The jobs of today like coders and robot builders are just automating tasks that would have previously existed in the past. We could just not ask people to work after their labor is automated out. But we could have done that in 1975 or 1800 as well. I'm not interested in existing under the 1800 standard of living any more than the people living in 2200 will want to live in 2019 at the current rate of technological progress. That doesn't mean we can't reduce hours at the expense of maximizing productivity or ensure income/wealth distributions are flatter. But I don't think there's a large number of people doing complete make-work right now where there would be no economic downside to reducing the labor participation rate. Beyond expanding the social safety net to ensure displaced workers don't suffer until they find another job I don't know what else should be done right now.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 12:24
|
|
|
Do you run your tap to fill up a giant cistern you built in your back yard because you're afraid you're gonna run out of water? Of course you don't, cos you've lived your whole life in a world where water comes out the tap when you need it, you don't need to hoard it. There's plenty to suggest that once you solve scarcity people stop hoarding poo poo. They might use it wastefully sure but they don't accumulate it to get leverage over other people. This also works the other way, whenever there's a hint of scarcity people start panic buying poo poo. The solution is clearly to avoid scarcity. KingNastidon posted:Yes, but that's the point. The jobs of today like coders and robot builders are just automating tasks that would have previously existed in the past. We could just not ask people to work after their labor is automated out. But we could have done that in 1975 or 1800 as well. I'm not interested in existing under the 1800 standard of living any more than the people living in 2200 will want to live in 2019 at the current rate of technological progress. How about kill all the rich people skimming the surplus and redistribute the gains of automation to everyone? Why, if your job has been automated, do you have to find other work? Why aren't you entitled to a share of the benefit of that automation? Why does that go to some rich filth who owns the company and you get to go look for another job to do? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:27 on May 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 12:25
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why, if your job has been automated, do you have to find other work? Why aren't you entitled to a share of the benefit of that automation? Why does that go to some rich filth who owns the company and you get to go look for another job to do? Why did stagecoach drivers have to find another job to do after the invention of steam locomotives?
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 12:34
|
|
|
Bundy posted:This is an interesting take and one I'd not considered. Are you suggesting that capitalism is the fear of scarcity taken to an extreme conclusion, able to do so because that scarcity no longer exists? The one percent couldn't exist without the unending ability to take, therefore scarcity is no longer a limiting factor. Pretty much. Get someone scared enough and they'll start hoarding for tomorrow. Get someone scared that their hoard will be taken from them because they don't deserve it and they'll start hoarding for their families' tomorrows, too. KingNastidon posted:I don't think there's a large number of people doing complete make-work right now Of course you don't, sweetie. But that's because you haven't thought about it and instead of thinking about it you've decided that your gut is correct. While I'm going to heartily recommend that you do think about it, I can't make you, because I have nothing to motivate you out of your spiteful ignorance of how the world actually works. KingNastidon posted:Why did stagecoach drivers have to find another job to do after the invention of steam locomotives? Because if they didn't they'd starve. You're arguing that starvation is a good thing, here. Keep up.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 12:35
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Why did stagecoach drivers have to find another job to do after the invention of steam locomotives? Beeecaaauuuse the railroad companies would rather hoard all the money than distribute the gains to society at large
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
rich people are greedy because greed is selected for in the process of generating, accumulating and preserving wealth if you don't care about being rich you're probably not going to want to compromise other values to attain that goal, which means that some other bastard is probably going to outcompete you the whole point of capitalism is that it's a successful evolutionary optimisation system. the problem is that it optimises based on completely perverse criteria
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
livestock are docile because if they weren't docile they wouldn't be good livestock; in capitalism, rich people are greedy, vain and often psychopathic because those attributes helps them gain, preserve and expand their wealth. in principle, this wouldn't have to be a problem, but capitalism allows wealth to be easily translated into power, which means that we are living in a society disproportionately influenced by complete monsters
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 12:48
|
|
Somfin posted:Because if they didn't they'd starve. You're arguing that starvation is a good thing, here. Keep up. If the only standard of living you're concerned about is not starving then I agree we could ask far fewer people to work. A tent, pot, and monthly bag of rice for every displaced worker. The only labor necessary will be those that support tent, pot, and rice production. OwlFancier posted:Beeecaaauuuse the railroad companies would rather hoard all the money than distribute the gains to society at large At what point in time was it appropriate for all displaced workers to stop participating in the labor force? The introduction of the water wheel?
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 12:49
|
|
|
in practice, in most western countries, obsolete workers end up on disability benefits or long-term sick leave or what have you, once one reaches a certain age retraining is both very difficult and humiliating, and usually not socially cost-effective of course there's been a lot of pushback against this tacit arrangement recently, leading to lots if marginally productive and really disgruntled workers doing shite work; as ever, if one can make a political issue into a moral failing on the part of some undeserving poor, they'll go for it
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 12:55
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:At what point in time was it appropriate for all displaced workers to stop participating in the labor force? The introduction of the water wheel? Perhaps, like, when the water wheel was invented everyone could have benefited from the fact that now they can grind a lot more grain, and they could all have a bit more time and/or be a bit better fed as a result. But that has absolutely no bearing on RIGHT loving NOW when we absolutely can produce all the poo poo we need to live with far less effort than ever before in history but we still live lovely lives because all that saved labour goes to buying rich people solid gold yachts or whatever the gently caress they waste our productivty on. So focus on that, rather than idiotic what ifs about ancient loving history.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:If the only standard of living you're concerned about is not starving What I'm concerned is that you are happy keeping starvation around as a motivator. The rest of your post is a bunch of crybaby straw man garbage that I won't bother to repeat. V. Illych L. posted:livestock are docile because if they weren't docile they wouldn't be good livestock; in capitalism, rich people are greedy, vain and often psychopathic because those attributes helps them gain, preserve and expand their wealth. in principle, this wouldn't have to be a problem, but capitalism allows wealth to be easily translated into power, which means that we are living in a society disproportionately influenced by complete monsters If "greed" were genetic, I'd agree, but part of dynastic families is passing that same fear to each successive generation.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 13:07
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:That doesn't mean we can't reduce hours at the expense of maximizing productivity or ensure income/wealth distributions are flatter. But I don't think there's a large number of people doing complete make-work right now where there would be no economic downside to reducing the labor participation rate. Beyond expanding the social safety net to ensure displaced workers don't suffer until they find another job I don't know what else should be done right now. Part of the problem with your argument and the reason that you're running head first into a lot of other posters in this thread is that you seem to be conflating the idea of "make-work" and "work that is not socially useful." They aren't necessarily the same thing. Make-work is generally understood to be something that has no benefit to anyone whatsoever, and that's ultimately a net drag on the economy. There probably isn't much of that for obvious reasons. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that all work that is done is socially useful or productive or that it has in any way contributed to a higher overall standard of living other than by employing people and providing them with money to put back into the economy. Most of the work that I'm generally paid pretty loving well to do I would argue is of very, very little social value. It's still not make-work, though.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 13:13
|
|
OwlFancier posted:But that has absolutely no bearing on RIGHT loving NOW when we absolutely can produce all the poo poo we need to live with far less effort than ever before in history but we still live lovely lives because all that saved labour goes to buying rich people solid gold yachts or whatever the gently caress they waste our productivty on. Yes, which is why I said there's no reason we can't increase the social safety net and flatten the income/wealth distribution. My contention is your proposal that we can immediately reduce the labor force participation rate and significantly cut hours worked without meaningfully affecting current and future economic standard of living. Or that it's viable to have all people earn equal wages regardless of the labor they choose to participate in. Eliminating the threat of starvation doesn't stop people from seeking additional comforts or novel experiences.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
KN, I want you to answer this directly: Should a person die if they do not work? Note that this question has no nuance to it. There is no reason presented for not working; there is no cause of death given. That is the point of the exercise. I want you to answer that question, as it has been presented to you in this post. It is a moral question, and one that leaves no space for someone to wiggle out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
Somfin posted:What I'm concerned is that you are happy keeping starvation around as a motivator. The rest of your post is a bunch of crybaby straw man garbage that I won't bother to repeat. if they're no longer greedy they get less wealthy, and over time they stop being massively rich - there's a big and significant difference between new money and old money in terms of attitude and culture plus, heritability is not purely genetic - a good deal of greed is going to be inherited culture and survival strategies in a given social situation, which means that it's good sense for the very rich to have a culture of entitlement where they can both justify their wealth ideologically (they are good stewards of wealth because they grow it) and train their children to keep growing that wealth by being evil, thus further justifying their wealth in their own terms basically rich people will tend to be evil because it's in their culture and objective interests to be
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/1133130855675813893
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:My contention is your proposal that we can immediately reduce the labor force participation rate and significantly cut hours worked without meaningfully affecting current and future economic standard of living. Why, then, do you labour under this bizzare belief that all labour, or even most labour, done nowadays contributes to "quality of life"? Like take cars. Sure a car is, in isolation, a useful thing. But everyone in the country owning one? Designing cities around them so that you have to own one? Having a labour market that relies on you having one to secure even the most mundane job? Having the petroleum industry as a result devoted to promoting the use of cars and fossil fuels? Car companies encouraging everyone to own cars and killing public transit as a result? To say nothing of the environmental damage it's causing which looks set to kill shitloads of people. Does that whole mess improve people's quality of life? Or rather does the whole thing exist because there are a handful of parasites sitting at the top who get really rich off selling fuel and cars and poo poo to people? I'm sure it improves their quality of life, but does it improve humanity's as a whole? If you set out to wipe cars off the face of the earth, and replace all their actually needed functions with more efficient options, who would suffer?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 13:30
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:But I don't think there's a large number of people doing complete make-work right now where there would be no economic downside to reducing the labor participation rate. intellectual exercise for you, KN. your job, marketing for a pharmaceutical company, ceases to exist tomorrow. what is the harm done to the world.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:intellectual exercise for you, KN. Succesive generations of new treatments don't get widely adopted and some patients who could have benefittes, don't. Some doctors will inform themselves of latest breakthroughs but with uneven effectiveness, and many won't do it much at all. There is a lot of bullshit in marketing but it does serve a purpose.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Succesive generations of new treatments don't get widely adopted and some patients who could have benefittes, don't. Some doctors will inform themselves of latest breakthroughs but with uneven effectiveness, and many won't do it much at all. There is a lot of bullshit in marketing but it does serve a purpose. one might otherwise hope that doctors are able to disseminate this sort of information through the normal academic channels, being ostensibly trained for such - indeed, i would say that if they simply trust what the marketing people say then that's worse than simply not getting updated at all, re: the american opioid epidemic
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Have you tried not living in a shithole run by drug companies? It's quite nice on the whole.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
So hold on a second, if we are proposing robots that can execute all human jobs on behalf of humanity, than why do any jobs or any person need to paid in first place? At that point the human worker is strictly performative.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Succesive generations of new treatments don't get widely adopted and some patients who could have benefittes, don't. Some doctors will inform themselves of latest breakthroughs but with uneven effectiveness, and many won't do it much at all. There is a lot of bullshit in marketing but it does serve a purpose. as a non-american you are likely unfamiliar with one of the fun little quirks of our health care system. see, in other countries, there is a wide understanding that jobs like KN's are actively harmful to the national welfare! pharmaceutical companies advertising their products to consumers, who are in no way qualified to judge their relative merits, functions identically to gold-buying scams. it preys on the weak, in the hopes that they can be suckered into using a product a physician would not have proscribed without the annoyance factor of a patient saying "no, but the TV said I should ask you about this one." we are currently undergoing an epidemic of opiod addictions, due largely to precisely this issue! this is a tragic waste of resources, on all levels up to and including KN, personally. a person with talents that could be used in a productive manner is, instead, employed quantifying the most efficient way to frighten the weak, the sick, and the old into succumbing to an addiction that will make his employers more money. if, tomorrow, his job ceased to exist, the world would actively have been improved. and THAT is the guy telling you "make-work jobs, what make-work jobs. what if people decided to just stream video games instead of killing people for money?" Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! fucked around with this message at 18:00 on May 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Succesive generations of new treatments don't get widely adopted and some patients who could have benefittes, don't. Some doctors will inform themselves of latest breakthroughs but with uneven effectiveness, and many won't do it much at all. There is a lot of bullshit in marketing but it does serve a purpose. I don't think you understand the purpose of pharma reps. Doctors have to do so many continuing education credits in order to stay licensed which means exposure to new therapies and methods. Pharma marketers exist to bribe doctors with free stuff so they dispense the drug of choice being promoted.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Wait lol the guy who thinks all work is vital to QoL actually works in drug marketing loving  Like that job that the civilized world thinks is loving ridiculous
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 18:21
|
|