It does not have to be that way. One can only live off others for so long.

I agree.

I agree with you too, but the world is changing, for instance in the UK we import eastern Europeans in the way the US imports Mexicans to pick fruit...that will soon be done by machine freeing up people from labour...but people will still have to be paid.

Sure, some jobs will go the way of the dodo bird as technology advances, but that has been the case throughout history and production has only increased. So I’m not quite worried about that.

Chester
177
↪Frank Apisa Not wanting to work is not the same as not being good at it. — Chester

I agree totally.

BUT...not wanting to work often results in a person not doing a productive job.

Many jobs can not be done by machine...especially the sort of stuff I do, but the real drudge can be done by machine...fruit picking..law... that sort of shit.

Yep, we agree so far...

Quick story:

I had a friend who was a night janitor at a YMCA. It was a great job...he loved it...and was good at it. He came in when the Y closed...and worked until morning when it opened.

He was so efficient, he could do all the cleaning (very much to the satisfaction of the Director)...and still have time to shoot some hoops; practice his handball solo; lift some in the weight room; work on the rat-a-tat-tat and heavy bag...and shower before going home.

Trouble was...every once in a while the local magistrate used to sentence some offenders to community service hours...and he would require some of them to satisfy their hours at the Y.

My friend used to end up with 6 - 8 - sometimes 10 "helpers" on some shifts.

On those shifts, the place never got completely cleaned...and he had to work his butt off after they left in order to catch up. Those shifts...no hoops, no handball practice, no lifting, no punching the bags, and no shower before leaving.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Ain't hard to figure out.

Chester
179
↪NOS4A2 Many jobs can not be done by machine...especially the sort of stuff I do, but the real drudge can be done by machine...fruit picking..law... that sort of shit. — Chester

Right you are. No machine will ever be able to deliver TLC when needed like a human nurse; no machine will be able to serve up a shoulder to cry on like a good human bartender; and no machine will ever fashion a hand-made tie...or a home-made pasta dish like a competent cook.

But it is amazing how many jobs machines can do better and more productively than humans.

That is something we have to deal with.

Now would be a good time.

Apply the same logic to capital. They can only live on us for so long.

I brought up the subject of law because I'm sure I read that computer programs are better than lawyers...

My wife works in a care home, she has a real work ethic but she says some people there just go through the motions...usually not useful motions either. Those people are a minority though.

I'm sure I've read that during war only 10% of troops do anything useful...but I guess as some get killed the less useful become useful..trained personnel fill the void.

The basic thing is that the more sociable you are the more you'll probably like work (unless your work is a solo endeavour).

the exercise of force and coordination of power are the conditions of, and not constraints upon, the exercise of freedom. — StreetlightX

Sounds like doublespeak without specifying what sort of exercise and coordination, and why it's necessary. Any group in power is going to be exercising force and coordinating their power. It's how they rule. But what sort of exercise and coordination results in a free society?

I'm guessing anarchists will disagree with this, and libertarians will limit it to a minimum of protecting rights. For the rest of us, what does this mean?

see prioritizing social welfare - establishing a baseline of core human values that supersede monetization - as the focus. Freedom can take care of itself as long as we start to take care of each other. — Pantagruel

One could argue the various communist countries have attempted this approach, and have noticeably failed on the freedom front. I'm skeptical that freedom can take care of itself, because there are always those would like to have power, or deny it to others. That's why rights have to be explicitly protected.

schopenhauer1
4.2k
↪Frank Apisa
But c'mon.. nothing will change. More technology doesn't change the way money is distributed. Revolutions in ways of life seem to cause massive death, so that's out. My advice is to simply not put more units of labor to experience work in the first place (don't have kids!). If you put someone in a game they didn't ask for and then say, "But you should like it because I like it", that seems pretty unfair, and now they are stuck with your decision. — schopenhauer1

I suspect that if everyone were guaranteed a decent life...MANY THINGS WOULD CHANGE.

I won't see it. (I'm 83) But my guess is that there are people alive right now who will see the drastic change needed. Capitalism, as now constituted in America, cannot be sustained. Capitalistic entities, by their nature, demand that profits be MAXIMIZED. What that means is that labor will get screwed.

Once we got past the hunter/gatherer societies...labor always has been the factor of production that gets screwed. Kings and nobles were not interested in sharing wealth with peasants any more than absolutely necessary. The rich class is not interested in it either.

In fact, America could dramatically increase its overall productivity...if it limited the number of people who are allowed to work.

EVERYONE should be provided with "enough"...and "enough" should be defined as the kind of life one could live if earning $50,000 to $60,000 per year. — Frank Apisa

Sounds fantastic, but can this be afforded? $50K times the number of adults in the US (rounded down to 200 million) is 10 trillion dollars.

The second part of this is that you're paying people not to work, unless they want to. Question is whether the economy can be productive enough to support the taxation needed to provide everyone with that $50-60K a year.

One could argue the various communist countries have attempted this approach, and have noticeably failed on the freedom front. I'm skeptical that freedom can take care of itself, because there are always those would like to have power, or deny it to others. That's why rights have to be explicitly protected. — Marchesk

Sure. And on the other hand, does it seem that Trump is driven by the welfare of his voter base?

Sure. And on the other hand, does it seem that Trump is driven by the welfare of his voter base? — Pantagruel

No, but luckily Trump is held in check by other branches of government and the Constitution. Despite all his bluster, he can only do so much.

And one could argue his voter base gets what they voted for.

And one could argue his voter base gets what they voted for. — Marchesk

If by that you mean what they deserve, then :up:

3rd and last video out!

Maybe the relative lack of working class resistance over the last fifty years has a lot to do with Americans simply being more economically comfortable than the preceding decades.

Enlightening lectures. :up:

doublespeak — Marchesk

newspeak or doublethink iirc

I'm guessing anarchists will disagree with this — Marchesk

Not in the slightest - perhaps the central tenant of anarchist politics is mutual aid and communal organization, and perhaps the central cry of all leftist politics is: 'organize!' Libertarians of course can all fall in a bottomless well as far as I'm concerned, but the point is that the augmentation of power by social and collective means is equally the augmentation of freedom. This is probably brought out best in the 3rd lecture of Chibber's above, in which collective action is the royal road to a free society. It's precisely the atomization and isolation of individuals - as is encouraged under neoliberalism, and oiled by the diarrhoea of American liberalism - that leads to the most grotesque destruction of all human freedom.

(Ironically of course, those in power know this very well: the fact that the powerful are 'well-connected' is not a result of power: it is a pre-condition of it. The powerful are the least isolated, most well-organized people on Earth - freedom accrues upwards because of it, even as they sell the snake oil of individually-engendered freedom, which many unwittingly buy into).

Sounds like doublespeak without specifying what sort of exercise and coordination, and why it's necessary. Any group in power is going to be exercising force and coordinating their power. It's how they rule. But what sort of exercise and coordination results in a free society? — Marchesk

I don't think it's too obscure to think of power and freedom as interlinked.

You can only do a thing if you have the ability to do so. It can be more or less hard to do a thing, given the societal circumstances you find yourself in, and which you do not choose. Someone raised in a palace is going to find themselves having more opportunities than some kid thrown out on the street. Someone born in a country where criticising the state will land you in the gulag is going to have less ability to express their political opinions. Someone born without the ability to walk will have less mobility in a society where wheelchairs are not available. Someone born into poverty will have to choose crime to get by more often than someone raised in a palace. Someone born into a rich household with massive social opportunities, like David Cameron, will find themselves in positions of power with much less work; their choices are linked to levers of opportunity just not available for the hoi polloi.

A political idea of freedom that doesn't link to one's ability to exercise choice; regarding what actions they may choose, what effects their actions are likely to have; is one that sees freedom as irrelevant to the likely effects of a person's actions and opportunities. If you are more powerful, your abilities make more waves.

A homeless guy excluded from most opportunities because they can't get a job, so money stops them from doing anything; that guy's powerless. A society that makes that situation likely for some and not for others is one with big power asymmetries; big asymmetries in what people can choose.

Marchesk
3.2k
In fact, America could dramatically increase its overall productivity...if it limited the number of people who are allowed to work.

EVERYONE should be provided with "enough"...and "enough" should be defined as the kind of life one could live if earning $50,000 to $60,000 per year.
— Frank Apisa

Sounds fantastic, but can this be afforded? $50K times the number of adults in the US (rounded down to 200 million) is 10 trillion dollars.

The second part of this is that you're paying people not to work, unless they want to. Question is whether the economy can be productive enough to support the taxation needed to provide everyone with that $50-60K a year. — Marchesk

If our economy can produce enough for everyone NOW...and we can make it more productive by removing counter-productive people...of course it can be productive enough.

We have much more than enough for everyone already.

We have enough food, enough clothes, enough shelter, enough education, enough healthcare, enough transportation, enough communication devices, enough televisions, enough refrigerators, enough tacos, enough nose hair clippers, enough ear wax removers, enough of EVERYTHING...and we can have even more if we were not forcing unproductive people to work rather than leaving the work to EFFICIENT willing people or machines.

Who is they? If you mean business owners, they are private citizens like us. Workers have, will and do run businesses.

So I am curious how you regard labor unions and universal health care for instance?

Aye. And the majority of them do not see the majority of the profits their labour facilitates.

In the UK the left dominate areas of government employment , for instance teaching. I read once that teachers used to be the biggest single group within labour party membership. People on the left (like most teachers) have no issue with people like me (in the private sector) paying large amounts of tax to ensure that they (teachers) have a much better pension plan than I could ever afford.

So when you're talking about people not getting the full benefit of their labour maybe you need to take a look at who is benefiting most from the labour of others...it ain't just the bosses. Bear in mind that there are half a million teachers in the UK...that's a lot of people like me paying their pensions....and they are getting 100% of their wage during furlough, I get 80%.

The left is so dominant in UK politics that a right populist movement sets policy, an old trade unionist that stood for old left values in Labour was vilified and sabotaged by his own party...

You do not care whether the things you write are true. You just assume they are without checking. Talking with you is a waste of time.