Why Our Jobs Are Getting Worse

[PopGun]

Wealth: Goods, Services, Leisure time.

Not Wealth: State backed tokenised debt.

Goods, services & leisure can only be considered wealth, if people have the money and inclination to spend it on them. Where does the money come from?

[Lone_Twin]

It's interesting that in the past, the dream of the future was that people would have robots to do all the work for them so they wouldn't need to work.

In some cases this is true, robots and computers have replaced people. And those people have been left destitute.

The bit the "dream of a perfect future" left out was that the employees wouldn't buy the robots, the employers would, and cut out the middle man. All would be well and good if everyone has minimal costs, but in reality EVERYONE HAS RENT TO PAY.

A good comparison would be the sex slaves who arrive at our shores told they have a £30,000 debt to repay for the cost of their transit to a new life in the UK.

If you have a huge amount of money you must pay each month for the right to exist, you will be forever a slave.

If basic accommodation was free, society would work. While you must pay for the right to exist, society will eventually fail.

WHY?

Can't we stop blaming the free market for state imposed penuary.

Destitution of people replaced by robots? We have so much wealth we can support vast swathes of people doing NOTHING.

The perpetualy unemployed i.e. pure consumers live in houses with heating, running water, food, free education for their children, free health care.....

We are so well off we think this is normal! Destitution?

We will get to a place where the basics of life are cheaper, where we won't be hounded for a licence to live. The question is whether its via peaceful means or via the societal (state) failure that you fear.

[Lone_Twin]

Goods, services & leisure can only be considered wealth, if people have the money and inclination to spend it on them. Where does the money come from?

You are putting the cart before the horse. Money is just an exchange mechanism to facilitate the transfer of real wealth.

The evil genius of our current monetary system is that while the tokens in your pocket depreciate rapidly you are forced to use it and indeed pay the government in it for your right to live. If I have the wealth of leisure time, a shelter etc... why would I be scratching around for money?

[shipbuilder]

WHY?

Can't we stop blaming the free market for state imposed penuary.

Destitution of people replaced by robots? We have so much wealth we can support vast swathes of people doing NOTHING.

The perpetualy unemployed i.e. pure consumers live in houses with heating, running water, food, free education for their children, free health care.....

We are so well off we think this is normal! Destitution?

We will get to a place where the basics of life are cheaper, where we won't be hounded for a licence to live. The question is whether its via peaceful means or via the societal (state) failure that you fear.

Everyone has rent to pay because someone else already owns the land and resources. Are you saying this is state imposed? State enforced, maybe.

I took the point in the post to be that mechanisation was going to supply us with more free time - it didn't, all it did was increase production and profits. Why?

Edited September 1, 2010 by shipbuilder

[Lone_Twin]

Your position is fine but it needs a slight addition -

All this new wealth will be stolen by the statists and bankers as far as they possibly can get away with it.

The elite love the free market (for everyoen else) because it nets them more loot for less effort. The solution ofc is for them to join in, but sadly the average person is going to come to the conclusion that if they start forcing others they can balance things out. It's why socialism is so popular.

I agree and indeed in my earlier post I mentioned that any monopoly power which the large corporates can bring to bear is largely derived from the state (licences, permissions, tax breaks and so on).

But the initial principal in this thread that we should strive to make work inefficient and difficult to keep the number of "jobs" (busy humans) high because then they have more magic tokens to use on the things being made which will be fewer and more expensive which is "better" needs challenging before moving on.

Though I broadly agree with you on root cause.

[Injin]

Everyone has rent to pay because someone else already owns the land and resources. Are you saying this is state imposed? State enforced, maybe.

I took the point in the post to be that mechanisation was going to supply us with more free time - it didn't, all it did was increase production and profits. Why?

The economic centrepiece of violent rent extraction wasn't removed.

[Lone_Twin]

Everyone has rent to pay because someone else already owns the land and resources. Are you saying this is state imposed? State enforced, maybe.

I took the point in the post to be that mechanisation was going to supply us with more free time - it didn't, all it did was increase production and profits. Why?

1) Because people prefer stuff to time off.

2) Because resources like land have been artificialy constrained thereofre bidding up the price.

[Injin]

I agree and indeed in my earlier post I mentioned that any monopoly power which the large corporates can bring to bear is largely derived from the state (licences, permissions, tax breaks and so on).

But the initial principal in this thread that we should strive to make work inefficient and difficult to keep the number of "jobs" (busy humans) high because then they have more magic tokens to use on the things being made which will be fewer and more expensive which is "better" needs challenging before moving on.

Though I broadly agree with you on root cause.

Well, to be honest...

If you see the options as

1) State chucks large amounts of stolen resources back into the population

2) State keeps resources and only lets the super elite and insiders have them

THen 1) is obiously a better option unless you are the super elite. There is ofc

3) The statists stop nicking stuff and stop bullying and get themselves into the free market.

Which is better than both the previous. Realistically though, it isn't happening any time soon. Certainly not in our lifetimes. Option 1) is the only likely to be achieved outcome at present given prevalent social mores, much as I hate saying it and then only after a state failure and full blown collapse.

[Cogs]

Why is this so difficult for some to understand?!

Nobody does the reading. I bet everyone here could trot out an approximation of that 'Weath of Nations' was about. Which begs the question why such a simple two paragraph idea requires a book of that length. The reason is the context in which the simple idea is placed, along with all the preconditions etc. Another common one is to start trotting out Ricardo whenever globalisation is mentioned. But Ricardo showed everyone gets richer etc. Yes, he did, in very specific circumstances where trade is mutually beneficial and capital was immobile. I could go on. In general quite a dogmatic view that the argument being made has been seen before without understanding that it is actually violating a number of assumptions that no longer hold. Its funny really, I keep getting told I should go and read Adam Smith, I'm becoming convinced I'm the only person that actually has.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Cogs

[Injin]

Nobody does the reading. I bet everyone here could trot out an approximation of that 'Weath of Nations' was about. Which begs the question why such a simple two paragraph idea requires a book of that length. The reason is the context in which the simple idea is placed, along with all the preconditions etc. Another common one is to start trotting out Ricardo whenever globalisation is mentioned. But Ricardo showed everyone gets richer etc. Yes, he did, in very specific circumstances where trade is mutually beneficial and capital was immobile. I could go on. In general quite a dogmatic view that the argument being made has been seen before without understanding that it is actually violating a number of assumptions that no longer hold. Its funny really, I keep getting told I should go and read Adam Smith, I'm becoming convinced I'm the only person that actually has.

I think people just get irritated at free trade being blamed for the actions of the state.

It really is silly.

Almost as if theres a mugger running around taking everyones wallet and the local shopkeeper is being blamed for having wages that don't pay out a good living + losing your wallet to the mugger. Not many seem to be up for blaming the mugger.

[goldilocksporridge]

Well on standarding things and adopting well thought put best practices is the way forward - Working in lots of Corporate environments you many people working away at things in their own special way - they won't share knowledge or will at least make it diffcult for other people to understand - because many times once you get past the jargon and BS there is often not a lot of expertise there. There mentality is that there job or function is that bit more special than everyone else - and therefore can be put into procedures.

Worked in many places where there are non existant procedures or people who just won't do their job fully instead the focus on the bits they like and leave the crap, many people doing the same job all in different ways, little or no communication between or sharing of knowledge to make things better for everyone- I am all for using iniative and creativity but why choose a large corporate outfit.

and on the workplace in general - its getting far too controlling these days - its always a case of watch your step, watch what you say, watch your attitude,

[Cogs]

I think people just get irritated at free trade being blamed for the actions of the state.

It really is silly.

Almost as if theres a mugger running around taking everyones wallet and the local shopkeeper is being blamed for having wages that don't pay out a good living + losing your wallet to the mugger. Not many seem to be up for blaming the mugger.

Yes well, you believe the two are in some way separable. I don't. On the one hand, free trade requires the existence of nation states, systems of regulation and enforcement etc. The economic history is clear in that regard. If you want to invoke a science-fiction utopian concept of free trade, thats fine, but its a visionary kind of thing, you can't constantly use it as a rhetorical Mary Sue embodying all virutes because at that point it reaches unity with all other utopian visions including mature socialism. On the other hand, corporations have significant leverage over governments. The banks were too big to fail, the big four auditors wrote the Chancellor's economic policies, defence spending = BAE Systems pockets, education policy leaps around at the beck and call of businesses that can't make their minds up what they want, etc etc. Whichever way you look at it, you can't separate them. You pretend you can, I think you are wrong. The very forces you think give 'free trade' its super powers are the very forces that would wind up with you in chains and the words Lockheed Martin stamped on your buttocks.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Cogs

[Limpet]

Think you`ve got a sh1t job?

[Injin]

Yes well, you believe the two are in some way separable. I don't. On the one hand, free trade requires the existence of nation states, systems of regulation and enforcement etc. The economic history is clear in that regard. If you want to invoke a science-fiction utopian concept of free trade, thats fine, but its a visionary kind of thing, you can't constantly use it as a rhetorical Mary Sue embodying all virutes because at that point it reaches unity with all other utopian visions including mature socialism. On the other hand, corporations have significant leverage over governments. The banks were too big to fail, the big four auditors wrote the Chancellor's economic policies, defence spending = BAE Systems pockets, education policy leaps around at the beck and call of businesses that can't make their minds up what they want, etc etc. Whichever way you look at it, you can't separate them. You pretend you can, I think you are wrong. The very forces you think give 'free trade' its super powers are the very forces that would wind up with you in chains and the words Lockheed Martin stamped on your buttocks.

Sorry but free trade and statism are two types of behaviour.

The first is non violent.

The second is violent.

They are mutually incompatible.

[shipbuilder]

Sorry but free trade and statism are two types of behaviour.

The first is non violent.

The second is violent.

They are mutually incompatible.

I'm interested in how you would see this transition to non-violent trade. You've outlined previously how if people followed logic, they would see that non-violent means are the best way to achieve their goals. How would that happen, in your view?

[Cogs]

Sorry but free trade and statism are two types of behaviour.

The first is non violent.

The second is violent.

They are mutually incompatible.

Mary Sue utopianism again. We're all in favour of things that are good and against things that are bad. In itself that isn't a very interesting debate to have.

[shipbuilder]

1) Because people prefer stuff to time off.

2) Because resources like land have been artificialy constrained thereofre bidding up the price.

For the private ownership of land, do you believe that land should simply be available for a one-off price, or do you think that the wider public should be compensated for their restricted use of that land, as in Georgism or Geolibertarianism?

[Injin]

Mary Sue utopianism again. We're all in favour of things that are good and against things that are bad. In itself that isn't a very interesting debate to have.

Oh but it is.

Most people when asked will say that we have to have a state. They don't have any reasosn why, but they know it, somehow.

But if you asked them if they need to be violently coerced more often, they'd rather obviously tell you "no thanks."

If you asked them do they want to stick guns in other peoples faces, steal, lie and so on, they'd also tell you "no thanks."

Regardless, I wasn't actually having a debate in my last post. I was correcting your mistake.

[Injin]

I'm interested in how you would see this transition to non-violent trade. You've outlined previously how if people followed logic, they would see that non-violent means are the best way to achieve their goals. How would that happen, in your view?

Social exclusion.

Would you have a slaver in your house?

Child molestor?

Eventually it'll get to taxman and for the same reasons.

[Cogs]

Oh but it is.

Most people when asked will say that we have to have a state. They don't have any reasosn why, but they know it, somehow.

But if you asked them if they need to be violently coerced more often, they'd rather obviously tell you "no thanks."

If you asked them do they want to stick guns in other peoples faces, steal, lie and so on, they'd also tell you "no thanks."

Regardless, I wasn't actually having a debate in my last post. I was correcting your mistake.

I didn't make a mistake. I think most people would actually tell you something that more or less paraphrases the famous bits of Leviathan.

[shipbuilder]

Social exclusion.

Would you have a slaver in your house?

Child molestor?

Eventually it'll get to taxman and for the same reasons.

Two things -

How would someone be kept out of your house without the use of force?

How will people make the mental leap from where they are now to seeing the state as an aggressor?

[Injin]

I didn't make a mistake.

Yes, you did.

Cogs, on 01 September 2010 - 06:53 PM, said:

Yes well, you believe the two are in some way separable. I don't

You are wrong.

[Injin]

Two things -

How would someone be kept out of your house without the use of force?

Social exclusion.

How will people make the mental leap from where they are now to seeing the state as an aggressor?

The hard way, sadly.

[Cogs]

Yes, you did.

Cogs, on 01 September 2010 - 06:53 PM, said:

Yes well, you believe the two are in some way separable. I don't

You are wrong.

Sigh.

[wonderpup]

Social exclusion.

Would you have a slaver in your house?

Child molestor?

Eventually it'll get to taxman and for the same reasons.

A pure free market would, by definition, have to allow for failure by it's participants- with no bailouts or safety nets. For the individual this implies the possibility death by starvation in a world of plenty, should their bargaining power in the game fall too low,

Do you believe your social consensus would be strong enough to hold the starving in the game? Or would they abandon it in favour of a different game- like violent insurrection?

Violence is not only likely in your proposed utopia- I would say it's inevitable, since it's very ideological purity leaves the losers with no other option but to stop playing. After all, no one owes them anything, right?

Also it's curious that you envisage the same flawed species that created the state and all it's evils will-somehow- transform itself into this ideologically pure race that places the sanctity of the free market above even their own lives and that of their children.

How is this radical transformation to take place- and once it has, in what way do it's adherents differ from any other group of fanatics stepping over the bodies of the starving in the streets?

Edited September 1, 2010 by wonderpup