Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why not just make it easy to find work, so no motivation is required. Guarantee a job to every person. If there aren't enough jobs, pay everyone anyway until a job becomes available. Why is that so hard to grasp?
It's very scary to see posts like this coming from Americans.
It's very scary to see posts like this coming from Americans.
Let me pick it up where you stopped reading, and continue with my post:
Why are you so in love with the barbaric system in which there are 9 jobs for every ten workers, and the one left sanding when the music stops must endure poverty and indignity and shame?
Why not just make it easy to find work, so no motivation is required. Guarantee a job to every person. If there aren't enough jobs, pay everyone anyway until a job becomes available. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Why are you so in love with the barbaric system in which there are 9 jobs for every ten workers, and the one left sanding when the music stops must endure poverty and indignity and shame?
jtur, you worry me a bit. You're not a d@mned socialist, are you? I gotta think that you're just funnin' us on here, right? Say it, oh please just say it.
'Cause if you were serious, I'd have to ask you, or anyone who thinks like this, a simple question: who's going to pay for all of this largess? The so-called rich? Oh no, not again. You know, they can't pay for EVERYTHING, as Barama seems to think. And they're also getting tired of being demonized for all society's faults & problems.
They did, after all, generally become wealthy by doing what again? Right you are; you got it: BY WORKING HARD.
But to the Baramanista plan: just go get more from "the rich"? Yeah, that'll work, until like in my ex-homemand, Canada, there are no more rich; they've ALL been taxed into being middle-class, and they give up watching their money go to endless entitlement systems populated with people with absolutely NO motivation to try to find work.
So, the entire socio-economic system slumps down into vastly reduced productivity (why, after all, should you "hustle" in your job? The gov'mint will just take it away and give it to that guy who really doesn't want to miss an episode of Oprah or Judge Judy in the afternoons...)
Why is it so hard to get you to answer my question, rifleman?
Why are you so in love with the barbaric system in which there are 9 jobs for every ten workers, and the one left standing when the music stops must endure poverty and indignity and shame?
jtur, you worry me a bit. You're not a d@mned socialist, are you? I gotta think that you're just funnin' us on here, right? Say it, oh please just say it.
'Cause if you were serious, I'd have to ask you, or anyone who thinks like this, a simple question: who's going to pay for all of this largess? The so-called rich? Oh no, not again. You know, they can't pay for EVERYTHING, as Barama seems to think. And they're also getting tired of being demonized for all society's faults & problems.
They did, after all, generally become wealthy by doing what again? Right you are; you got it: BY WORKING HARD.
But to the Baramanista plan: just go get more from "the rich"? Yeah, that'll work, until like in my ex-homemand, Canada, there are no more rich; they've ALL been taxed into being middle-class, and they give up watching their money go to endless entitlement systems populated with people with absolutely NO motivation to try to find work.
So, the entire socio-economic system slumps down into vastly reduced productivity (why, after all, should you "hustle" in your job? The gov'mint will just take it away and give it to that guy who really doesn't want to miss an episode of Oprah or Judge Judy in the afternoons...)
It's OK: I know you were just kidding us.
Weren't you?
Okay, I'm not a socialist (certainly not in the modern sense of the word). I’m about as free-agency oriented as they come. I’m all for individual rights (way more than we have now). I do not even believe in a government of the form that we have now.
BUT, having said that, I think many of you misunderstand jtur’s arguments on these sorts of topics (unless I misunderstand them, but I don’t think so). I don’t interpret his posts as meaning we should have a huge class of lazy people who refuse to work, with you supporting them. Where are you getting that?
What I’m seeing is that everyone should have available employment and be allowed to be a productive member of society. We should not be like a bunch of racehorses competing to find a job. IMO, it’s degrading and just one notch above common begging. You have 500 people applying for 10 jobs. Doesn’t anyone else see how unreasonable that is? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to have a society structured so that everyone was productive and worked? And work was AVAILABLE to all?
You can’t tell me that everyone on unemployment does not want to work. I would say the vast majority does. In a caring society, that society would be structured so that members of the populous were able to hold a productive job that contributed to that society. There would be no 'hussling' as if a job were a sport. Everyone should have a useful role in society. How do you go about forging such a society? I have no idea! But until you start considering the problem, there will never be a solution. A society that can put a man on the moon should be able to find a way to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to contribute to, and reap the fruits of, that society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Why is it so hard to get you to answer my question, rifleman?
Why are you so in love with the barbaric system in which there are 9 jobs for every ten workers, and the one left standing when the music stops must endure poverty and indignity and shame?
I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, but I think the answer to your question is that he is among the 9 of 10. When something's working for an individual, there is little motivation (or need) to change it.
Let me pick it up where you stopped reading, and continue with my post:
Why are you so in love with the barbaric system in which there are 9 jobs for every ten workers, and the one left sanding when the music stops must endure poverty and indignity and shame?
It's very scary to see posts like this coming from Americans.
Well, it's essentially a no brainer, if most of the work is going to become mechanized, and a whole lot already is, then who's going to get payed for all that production that humans were doing, but don't do anymore? This single truth can't be ignored, this is the question for those who see the future as some kind of robotic nirvana in which humans have no work, just leisure time.
Jeremy Rifkin, in his book, The End Of Work, states the obvious, we are entering a time of unprecedented unemployment, how is it that we can't see the need to change our thinking in regard to compensation, all that machine production with a corallary rise in unemployment means we have turned a corner, and the old work/pay paradigm is being challenged. For those who can't or won't read Rifkin's work I'll state the obvious, don't start getting your panties in a bunch before you do your homework, unemployment is on the rise due to other factors at the present time, but, it has been steadilly rising for nearly a century.
We will be forced to recognize the fact of this third industrial revolution, which will march on, economic depression or not, the direction of work is toward machine production. This of course changes the notion of unemployment being some kind of temporary situation, we will have to see it for what it really is, the eventual reality for the majority.
jerthber brings up an important point for long term planning. Industrial robots are the new slave class and will be used to decrease the labor segment of production costs. These reduced costs will, or certainly should, result in greater profits for the owners and structural unemployment for the displaced workers. As long as wages are the primary method of providing an ability to pay for the products produced the system continues to function. Think about what will happen when these wages will no longer be available. There will be less or no demand for the products. Without sales there will be no work for the robots and there will be no return on investment and there will be no investment. This is called complete collapse of an industrial economy. This is a potentially serious problem.
Greatday – Why do you consider jtur88’s post so frightening? He is postulating 10 people for 9 jobs. What happens if, because of automation, there are 100 people for 9 jobs?
Rifleman – so what is the problem created when the “rich” are taxed so everyone winds up “middle class’? That is far better than most becoming destitute while a very few become extremely wealthy.
The be all and end all of a society, IMHO, is not to maximize industrial efficiency and concentrate wealth into the hands of the owners, many of whom are not “hard workers” but a plutocratic over class that have inherited the income producing property and have not and will not ever work, but to maintain an economy that provides a comfortable life for most people. This does not include the production robots because they do not desire comfort but only need programming and three phase electricity. If we have a society where we wind up with a very few people with all the wealth and a huge starving majority I can practically guarantee a violent revolution.
I suggest a possible solution is to distribute the ownership of the production facilities by introducing a huge “death tax” (great term btw) where the inheritance is limited to enough for a “middle class” life style and the rest distributed to the citizens at voting age on an even basis. Eventually this would distribute the profits of production sufficiently to provide a massive market for the products.
jerthber brings up an important point for long term planning. Industrial robots are the new slave class and will be used to decrease the labor segment of production costs. These reduced costs will, or certainly should, result in greater profits for the owners and structural unemployment for the displaced workers. As long as wages are the primary method of providing an ability to pay for the products produced the system continues to function. Think about what will happen when these wages will no longer be available. There will be less or no demand for the products. Without sales there will be no work for the robots and there will be no return on investment and there will be no investment. This is called complete collapse of an industrial economy. This is a potentially serious problem.
Greatday – Why do you consider jtur88’s post so frightening? He is postulating 10 people for 9 jobs. What happens if, because of automation, there are 100 people for 9 jobs?
Rifleman – so what is the problem created when the “rich” are taxed so everyone winds up “middle class’? That is far better than most becoming destitute while a very few become extremely wealthy.
The be all and end all of a society, IMHO, is not to maximize industrial efficiency and concentrate wealth into the hands of the owners, many of whom are not “hard workers” but a plutocratic over class that have inherited the income producing property and have not and will not ever work, but to maintain an economy that provides a comfortable life for most people. This does not include the production robots because they do not desire comfort but only need programming and three phase electricity. If we have a society where we wind up with a very few people with all the wealth and a huge starving majority I can practically guarantee a violent revolution.
I suggest a possible solution is to distribute the ownership of the production facilities by introducing a huge “death tax” (great term btw) where the inheritance is limited to enough for a “middle class” life style and the rest distributed to the citizens at voting age on an even basis. Eventually this would distribute the profits of production sufficiently to provide a massive market for the products.
You bring up an interesting question, one which I did a speech on in college, so let me tell you about some of my findings.
1. While AI is making leaps and bounds in its growth, it is highly unlikely that anytime in the near future, that most employers could afford an entire robotic work force. Robots are commonly used for one of the 5 D jobs.
Those are Dirty, Disgusting, Dull, Dangerous, Demeaning. Those will likely be their work tasks for sometime to come.
2. Robots, for all of their advances, don't have simple reasoning skills of humans.
There are things that Robots just can't do, like simple troubleshooting of an electrical circuit. Why start here, and not there? While a Human who is skilled at his field can likely tell you the trouble without even looking at it, a Robot can't do that, as of yet. So again, our jobs are secure.
3. It will likely take sometime before people will get used to working along side of robots. They aren't your normal every day coworkers. People won't get used to seeing them, working with them, or just having them around for sometime. Jobs like service work, will take a long time for robots to fill those rolls. Can you imagine a robot waitress, no, thats something people will be doing. The warm greeting of a human won't be replaced by robots for sometime to come.
We've always found things to take up our free time. While assembly line work, and other repeating jobs will likely go robotic in the soon to be future, it will take time to happen. Lets look at the world as a whole right now, American assembly line work is declining, because cheaper labor can be found in other countries. Yes, this is hurting us economically right now, but it is insprining innovation. We are already inventing new jobs, new technologies that will keep us advancing ahead of a robotic future.
There may come a day when robots are so real, so smart, that humans no longer need to work. When that comes, the only answer will be socialism, but that future is very, very far away. I have the feeling our Species will be onto something else by then. Whether thats interplanetary travel and colonization, or simply having a lot more free time.
We've already more than quadrupled our free time from 100 years ago, I'm sure that will only increase.
Why not just make it easy to find work, so no motivation is required. Guarantee a job to every person. If there aren't enough jobs, pay everyone anyway until a job becomes available. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Because a small portion of the workforce is incapable of doing anything more than sleeping in a quiet corner somewhere. (Drug, alcohol and other issues)
If you pay them to not work, their neighbor comes home from busting their butt teaching kids, loading pallets, loading UPS trucks, mowing lawns etc. and says "**********" I'm just going to get some easy job and get paid.
Now, I agree that there should be more jobs\works programs but the situation is pretty complicated.
My co-workers brother worked seasonal work and then would collect social security the rest of the time...worked JUST enough to keep himself in beer money.
You need a safety net that is uncomfortable as heck or it serves as a disincentive to the more productive workers and hurts society as a whole. (points to former USSR)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
jtur88 fields a good joke....
