|
You're right. In such a situation the majority of humanity would be starved to death by the rich and their mechanic class.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Weird to argue that basic income would cause hyperinflation and, like all social welfare schemes, will be rendered irrelevant without a communist revolution. I mean, it's in line with a vision of the future where the greater part of humanity are contemptible parasites, but the whole package, as it were, is extremely weird.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
I enjoy this argument that capitalist economics would continue functioning in a situation where there is no one to sell to. What's an overproduction crisis, precious?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
I really appreciate the Brooks Brothers fuckfaces insisting that a society where everyone is totally self-sufficient due to their army of robots and handful of slaves is one that will just naturally emerge with ease. Really plausible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
There is no society in existence or history where the elite has been able to survive without extracting labor from the mass of people. To think that there is is contemptible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:There'll always be a class of non-aristocrats useful to the aristocracy, they just don't nearly have to include everyone (and, in fact, don't right now). Is your gameplan to be Warren Buffett's majordomo, or wine steward? The objection is to your fantasy proceeding smoothly, the capitalists apparently being able to coordinate perfectly as the rate of profit hits zero. Your beliefs are simply an intellectualization of learned helplessness, with a feeling of superiority because you perceive yourself to alone be viewing objective reality. Your desire to lay down and die is repugnant to pass off as intellectual discourse, but you can't help doing so so there's not much point in trying to change it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
The whole premise of communism isn't about redistributing profits from nationalizing industries. That's not a description of theoretical or practical communism or socialism or anarchism. Your constant sneering from a position of ignorance is repulsive, and your presentation of yourself as a real worker unlike those lazy slobs when you work in loving IT deserves a prison term, to be completely honest.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But it's literally not a thing that has ever happened, will ever happen or even makes any sense. If a job can only be replaced by automation that requires the exact same number of people to run then it's not worthwhile automation. Do you also believe Erwin Schrödinger put a cat in a box with a flask of cyanide set to open on emission of a beta particle and a chunk of a radioactive substance that undergoes beta decay?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Family Values posted:No company would ever accept this deal. You're asking them to make the capital investment (buy a backhoe) but not actually benefit from the increased efficiency (pay the same labor costs as before). If they have to pay for that labor anyways they'll just keep using ditch diggers and distribute the capital to shareholders instead of buying the backhoe. Well, Family Values, this is one way of developing towards a UBI through the back door.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Family Values posted:You're not going to sneak UBI through the backdoor. You'll have better luck (though still extremely low) doing the hard work of popularizing it and getting it through the front door. Fabian tactics have been categorically disproven? News to me. Or to be less obscure, the process of normalizing a UBI could consist of doing it all at once, or it could consist of normalizing the idea by playing on existing beliefs about justice to sidestep people's belief that it would only encourage laziness.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Thought experiments are unproductive, and the vast majority of science and philosophy is a waste of time. Spoken like a true engineer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But the thing is. There is no set catalog of jobs written in the stars. Every time we have figured out how to not do all the jobs we have anymore we just think of new things that would be nice to have. Did you get this from the ride at Disney World with all the dinosaurs and Ellen Degeneres?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Disney world is a pretty good example of people that would have been farmers 200 years ago in that area but now have a job dressing up as giant dog people because we just keep making up jobs every time there is a free employment pool to absorb it. Acting, restaurants, shops- all things invented in the last 200 years.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Nah he's right. Not that those things are all entirely new, we just have a lot more of them. 100 years ago 'eating out' was much less common than now. No, he's saying those are new things. Furthermore, there are some obvious limits on how many restaurants can exist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, kinda. In the way they exist now. An economy where everyone is an actor would be a neat Borges short story because of the raw absurdity of it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Maybe he phrased it poorly, but I'm pretty sure he's including 'way more jobs of something that used to be less common' when he says 'we just keep making up jobs'. I want you to imagine what lunch looks like in a society where everyone works at a restaurant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Cicero posted:So is your gimmick that every time someone says "we have more of X than we used to, that's one of the places that new jobs came from" you just reply "WELL NOT EVERYONE CAN BE AN X Y'KNOW GOSH THAT'D BE SILLY!!" You don't seem to understand that there are limits to existing jobs because they are efficient. Ten waitstaff serving 200 people, etc. Inventing bullshit sinecures that are purposely inefficient is pointlessly degrading compared to basic incomes or direct distribution of goods and services.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So prosperity has not existed in the past, barely exists for anyone in the present and will go away in the future? Unless we lock technology at an eternal 1980 or something? What?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:To put it another way: in the future society absolutely could be absolutely trash, but it's not going to be trash because we invented too many things and people would have been nice to each other and fair and just if we just had not put that one too many mhz in an iphone. What the gently caress is this nonsense?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Fear men, not telephones. If they want to gently caress up your life they can do it without telephones. It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Isnt that with children of immigrants though, who have generally have more children than non immigrants? Cause i thought the US had sub replacement levels of population growth if it werent for immigration. Use the fertility rates instead, Dead Reckoning is being a little sneak to defend his genocidal ideas. http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.110?lang=en Fertility rate in the US is at about 2, which is exactly replacement rate before you consider child and teenage mortality. So just slightly sub-replacement, along with the UK. The average for World Bank high-income countries is 1.8, well below replacement. Upper-middle income countries are at 2.0, exactly replacement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
call to action posted:Actually I said that belief in creative destruction isn't comparable to climate skepticism, try looking up That's not what "creative destruction" generally means.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Which is why it sucks a lot when dummies start to look at the billionaire employers who engineered that and fall like dummies when they point at a bunch of scientists and researchers and whatever and say "THEY DID IT!" with one hand and then point to a bunch of hispanic people and immigrants with the other hand and say "THEY DID IT" and everyone just goes "sounds right" and leaves the person that actually did it alone. Oh for sure dude, structural causes of decreasing employment are exactly the same thing as racism. You ever get sick of being, well, you?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's a choose your own adventure, 'they' don't care if you pick aliens or terminators as the boogie man ruining your way of life as long as you never blame Weyland-Yutani or Cyberdyne Do "they" also try to enslave people's minds with fluoride in the water and notions like "historical materialism"? Do you often find yourself muttering the phrases "Purity of Essence" and "Peace on Earth" under your breath?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It really is the future when I am being called a conspiracy nut when I am blaming poor employment conditions on employers instead of on a robot uprising. You're being called a conspiracy nut, by me, because you are transparently a fruitcake, cuckoo for cocoa puffs, etc. Specifically, your argument is that any apparent structural causes of unemployment are due to the billionaires manipulating our minds, possibly because you gently caress and ejaculate inside your computer's USB ports on a twice daily basis.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The president of the united states is literally a billionaire that literally goes on tv and tells people mexicans stole your job. They aren't using psychic mind control, they are just saying it and people are going "yeah okay", and it's just a different message on who stole the jobs based on the audience. So how do imported robots fit into this paradigm? Please pull out of your robot "girlfriend" for a moment and give me a solid answer to that. Then I want to know how the billionaires can just eliminate jobs if automation doesn't save labor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:No, you are right, no one REALLY blames the machines, it is really just regular old anti-intellectualism, and a disdain for the stem fields and developers and inventors and that sort of educated. But people have a distaste for admitting that and will push that they absolutely love researchers and pull out some researcher or engineer from their ancestors 150 years ago or whatever that was good. I think I'm gonna print this out and hang it up next to the ASTM standards in our lab.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Employment levels are as good as they have ever been, everyone has jobs as much as ever. It's just that the benefits and pay are not as good as they were and it's easy to tell people "I *WOULD* have paid you better but my hands are tied because robots" instead of just admitting that they figured out once you lost your job they could give you a new worse job. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, labor force participation rates peaked around the year 2000, and we have declined back to the level of labor force participation of 1977. Looks like you're as trivially easy to prove wrong as ever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Blockade posted:I think he's right in a way. We could have tons of okay paying jobs, jobs for everyone with 'New Deal' mega projects. Maybe we can get low-skill people planting trees, demolishing old abandoned infrastructure, materials cleanup, etc. Those jobs are generally temporary and the ones you're describing aren't really low-skilled. But sure, we could force people to work for a basic income at bullshit jobs, or we could just establish a basic income on the way to direct material distribution via overproduction and encourage volunteerism among all the people with sudden free time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 03:48
|
|