Dorkins Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 People need things to do, however mundane. At a time when most families have two adults in full time work to pay the rent/mortgage, the idea that there is not enough to keep people occupied seems strangely incongruous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feed Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I'm talking on a more grander scale than popping down the shops to get your food. Where does the efficiency end? Whats the end game that efficiency is gunning for? If its driving people out of work, taken over by robots, then what do people do? Is that progress? Do we all just stay at home, get fat and ill and await more efficiency in the health care system to solve that? I don't have answers. I just don't believe that pushing and pushing for efficiency (read profits) is the way forward. People need things to do, however mundane. Yeah that spinning Jenny, terrible idea. And don’t get me started on that “Steam Engine” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namaste Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 At a time when most families have two adults in full time work to pay the rent/mortgage, the idea that there is not enough to keep people occupied seems strangely incongruous. Unemployment is at historic highs. Efficiency and increasing birth rate/population will make this even worse. What do these people do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Unemployment is at historic highs. Efficiency and increasing birth rate/population will make this even worse. What do these people do? Unemployment numbers are all about how you measure them. Many more British people have been pushed into the labour market because the cost of living is so high. There are not enough resources to pay them all the amount of money they need to meet their financial commitments. This looks like unemployment, but it's not because there is nothing for them to do, it's just that it's too expensive to employ them to do it. Instead we employ cheap immigrants or import the finished articles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namaste Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Yeah that spinning Jenny, terrible idea. And don’t get me started on that “Steam Engine” I don't get it? If you're talking about technological advancements, I agree, that's progress, and generally good. Air travel is progress. Treatment for illness is progress. Did we need to be efficient humans being to create these things? Or does it just take time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namaste Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Unemployment numbers are all about how you measure them. Many more British people have been pushed into the labour market because the cost of living is so high. There are not enough resources to pay them all the amount of money they need to meet their financial commitments. This looks like unemployment, but it's not because there is nothing for them to do, it's just that it's too expensive to employ them to do it. Instead we employ cheap immigrants or import the finished articles. So we have too many people in the world, not enough jobs. How about if all the machines that are now in the work place doing what used to be manual jobs were suddenly made obsolete, and the job returned to a human being. What would happen to unemployment rates the world over? Would people be happier being employed again? I expect so. If happiness is progress, do we want efficiency? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feed Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I don't get it? If you're talking about technological advancements, I agree, that's progress, and generally good. Air travel is progress. Treatment for illness is progress. Did we need to be efficient humans being to create these things? Or does it just take time? If it wasn’t for the search for efficiency (& profits) you’d likely be grinding out an existence of back breaking labour 6 days a week and then dying. Replacing human labour with machines is a good. It’s the distribution of the benefits of automation that should be challenged. Not automation itself. If people need things to do, okay, then let the robots do the work and people can do what they choose to do, rather than what they must to do in order to survive. Voltaire died over 200 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namaste Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 and people can do what they choose to do, rather than what they must to do in order to survive. Which is? At what point in the future where the world population has doubled and everyone sits on their back sides getting fat and ill, do we say that didn't work? An example. Supermarkets are more efficient for us as we get all our food in one place. It drives the local shops out of business. Is this progress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 So we have too many people in the world, not enough jobs. No, the problem would still exist even if the population halved. The problem is that it costs more to employ a British worker than they are able to produce by working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feed Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Which is? Whatever you want. Ask someone. If you didn’t have to work, what would you do. I bet they don’t say get a job or sit on their back sides getting fat and ill. Thing is, if everyone has got such a hard on for working, why are so many people in pursuit of passive incomes, lottery wins and early retirements. Working, for most people, sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namaste Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 No, the problem would still exist even if the population halved. The problem is that it costs more to employ a British worker than they are able to produce by working. So due to globalisation it is more efficient for a business to employ cheaper labour abroad than to hire British, or any western national for that matter I would imagine. So did the supposedly efficient global market result in progress for the man on the street who is now unemployed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namaste Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) Whatever you want. Ask someone. If you didn’t have to work, what would you do. I bet they don’t say get a job or sit on their back sides getting fat and ill. Thing is, if everyone has got such a hard on for working, why are so many people in pursuit of passive incomes, lottery wins and early retirements. Working, for most people, sucks. Have you ever been unemployed? Why do some people have a hard time in retirement? Have you ever had a period in your life of about 3 months or more where you've had to occupy yourself all day everyday with something other than your place of work? If you're speaking from the perspective of someone who's always been gainfully employed, then I can understand your view. If efficiency drives you out of work, I think your view point might change. And this: "An example. Supermarkets are more efficient for us as we get all our food in one place. It drives the local shops out of business. Is this progress? " ??? Edited November 2, 2012 by Namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erat_forte Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 So due to globalisation it is more efficient for a business to employ cheaper labour abroad than to hire British, or any western national for that matter I would imagine. So did the supposedly efficient global market result in progress for the man on the street who is now unemployed? If you have the choice to take an extra day off work next week on full pay, would you take it? People always want to work less and have more, always have since the beginning of time. It is only some strange "protestant work ethic" and a confusion about the nature of the modern political economy that gets people messed up in their heads about these things. People should be able to do whatever they like. If productivity grows and is shared about so that people don't have to work so much to enjoy a higher standard of living, then this is a good thing. If I owned my house outright, it was well insulated well furnished warm and comfortable, if could get whatever quality organic food and drink delivered to my door every week, and still have enough cash left over to indulge my interests and hobbies, I think I would be very happy. And the less I had to obey someone else's instructions to sustain that lifestyle the happier I would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) Have you ever had a period in your life of about 3 months or more where you've had to occupy yourself all day everyday with something other than your place of work? Yes, I've had years of it. Work gets in the way of living not the other way around. I have so many things to do and working in an office somewhere is not one of them. I don't understand how anyone could have any problem 'occupying' themselves (?). Edited November 2, 2012 by Errol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 So did the supposedly efficient global market result in progress for the man on the street who is now unemployed? He wouldn't be unemployed if the government and Bank of England hadn't done everything in their power to make British labour as expensive and uncompetitive as possible. One of the main ways this was "achieved" was by keeping housing artificially expensive. Hence the existence of this website... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feed Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 And this: "An example. Supermarkets are more efficient for us as we get all our food in one place. It drives the local shops out of business. Is this progress? " ??? So now they’re free to go do something else. Once upon a time we used to gather our own food, now we can get all we need for weeks, in a few moments at the supermarket. Is this progress? The less time and energy spent on providing the essentials for human survival the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namaste Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 So you haven't been out of work? My point is, the drive for efficiency destroys jobs. If we carry on doing what we're doing, along with population growth, can you honestly see employment rates rising? I bet there are more people unemployed now across the western world than at any other time. Unemployment causes all sorts of problems; health, crime. So from my view point, efficiency does not equal progress. Progress for big business balance sheets and exec pay, sure, but not for the man on the street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namaste Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) And by the way, I'm all for working less hours and maintaining quality of life as some of you are describing. Example: with our finite and reducing number of jobs in the world, how about if 5 people shared one job. i.e. I work Monday, you work Tuesday, he works Wednesday, she works Thursday and the other guy works Friday. We get paid for one days work and that one day's pay is enough to keep your current standard of living. This gives you 6 days of leisure. I can't say you wouldn't get bored, but you'd have the money to at least do as you wish. Five people to do the work of one. Is that efficient? No. Is that progress? I think so. Will it happen any time soon? No. Edited November 2, 2012 by Namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feed Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) And by the way, I'm all for working less hours and maintaining quality of life as some of you are describing. Example: with our finite and reducing number of jobs in the world, how about if 5 people shared one job. i.e. I work Monday, you work Tuesday, he works Wednesday, she works Thursday and the other guy works Friday. We get paid for one days work and that one day's pay is enough to keep your current standard of living. This gives you 6 days of leisure. I can't say you wouldn't get bored, but you'd have the money to at least do as you wish. Five people to do the work of one. Is that efficient? No. Is that progress? I think so. Will it happen any time soon? No. Once upon a time the working week was 6 days. Now it’s 5. Sooner or later it’ll be 4. You have more free time than your ancestors, due to increases in productivity. The wealth from the increase in productivity is concentrated into the hands of the land and capital holders, facilitated by the state. This is the problem. Not the increase in productivity. Back in the 60/70’s there were all of those optimistic science fiction programs, where no one worked in the future and everyone had a food replicator or jet pack or something. All due to the productivity gains and robots. Well, they were right about the robots and production, just somewhat naive to believe that it would be shared equitably. Edited November 2, 2012 by feed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Yes, I've had years of it. Work gets in the way of living not the other way around. I have so many things to do and working in an office somewhere is not one of them. I don't understand how anyone could have any problem 'occupying' themselves (?). Snap. I've had several long periods of voluntary unemployment, I never get bored. Though I am frequently asked by former colleagues something like "what do you do all day?", this is mainly from people without degrees (so never had the three months+ long vac) who have always worked and in a way are dependent upon it and will have trouble when they retire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namaste Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Efficiency is progress for the few. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Have you ever been unemployed? Why do some people have a hard time in retirement? Have you ever had a period in your life of about 3 months or more where you've had to occupy yourself all day everyday with something other than your place of work? If you're speaking from the perspective of someone who's always been gainfully employed, then I can understand your view. If efficiency drives you out of work, I think your view point might change. And this: "An example. Supermarkets are more efficient for us as we get all our food in one place. It drives the local shops out of business. Is this progress? " ??? Unemployment mostly sucks because of the associated lack of income and the uncertainty over getting a new job (which you need in order to get the money coming in). If I was provided with a decent income stream I'd be more than happy to spend my time on projects of my own devising - sport, learning, travel. Yes, there are people who simply must have some structure applied to their lives typically in the form of a job role of some sort, but I'm pretty sure most people would be happier not doing soul destroying 9-5 jobs if they were financially secure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justthisbloke Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 People need things to do, however mundane. People find things to do; however mundane. They have hobbies, friends and interests. Wearing my TFH. OTOH, the last thing a government would want is a population with time and resources to do with as they choose. Even at the most mundane level, how many people don't attend protests etc not because they don't care about the issue but because simply they have to be at work that day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldbug9999 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 The pattern seems clear- digital technology is effectively undermining the ability of more and more people to monetise their labour and generate a viable profit from their activities. "wealth" comes ultimately from efficiency of production, which comes from lower costs, which in turn come from technological advancement, skill specialism and economies of scale. The internet allows almost everyone on planet earth who works at a desk to do their job more efficiently generating a vast amount of "wealth" in the form of cost savings. The thing that you consistently fail to grasp is that cost savings are always a net gain to the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justthisbloke Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Yes, I've had years of it. Work gets in the way of living not the other way around. I have so many things to do and working in an office somewhere is not one of them. I don't understand how anyone could have any problem 'occupying' themselves (?). Ditto. I've had chunks of time (months at a stretch) when I've not had to work. It's the best time ever. Time with my children. Time with my parents. Time to get the garden really productive. Time to do epic bike rides and sailing trips. I can't wait for the day when I walk out of an office and know that it'll be the last time that I am ever compelled by the need for money to enter one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.