Occupy

[trix]

I'm tired of this "we need jobs" bullshit. No, having a 40-hour-a-week job is part of how they control you, eating up your time and making you too tired to fight them. I don't have any problem with supporting myself, but that's not what having a job is really about from a sociological perspective.

I don't want a job. I want to use twenty-first-century technology to bring about a post-scarcity society where the average person doesn't need a job to survive.

So, basically, you want this.

There are a lot of people who believe that it is possible for that to work.  I am not one of them.  I subscribe to the Dok Howl philosophy that if the plan assumes/hopes/depends on people acting mature, intelligent, or responsible, it is likely to fail.

I do have many friends who believe it could work despite the monkeys however, and hey, maybe I'm wrong.

[trix]

I'm tired of this "we need jobs" bullshit. No, having a 40-hour-a-week job is part of how they control you, eating up your time and making you too tired to fight them. I don't have any problem with supporting myself, but that's not what having a job is really about from a sociological perspective.

I don't want a job. I want to use twenty-first-century technology to bring about a post-scarcity society where the average person doesn't need a job to survive.

you really believe the current state of technology is able to bring about a post-scarcity society?
i gotta say, i think that's a pipe dream, and until we are able to bring about a technotopia, people are going to be concerned about putting food on their plate, and that means they need a job...
you might as well ask for using 19th century technology to make a giant steam powered voltron.
which i want.

Actually, I believe the current state of technology is definitely able to do so.  I don't believe the current state of humanity is, however.  The resources to do something Venus Project-ish are available.  But everyone in the world would have to get behind it.  It says so right on the website.  Therein lies the problem.

[Elder Iptuous]

perhaps.
but it's a moot point, as i assumed it was implicit that humanity continues to act human.

at any rate, it's a silly jack to this occupy thread.

[trix]

perhaps.
but it's a moot point, as i assumed it was implicit that humanity continues to act human.

at any rate, it's a silly jack to this occupy thread.

Word.

Back on topic, and semi-old news for those up-to-the-minute but new to the thread, Occupy Oakland hosts a general strike tomorrow, November 2nd, to "shut down" the city.

Anybody want to take odds on a city of something like half a million people shutting down because 1484 people voted for it?
Don't get me wrong, if this is successful, the message will be powerful.  But somehow I don't think support for the movement is as universal as they seem to think.  Perhaps they are surrounded by so much positive reinforcement that they are sheltered from any dissent.  Or, perhaps I am wrong and this thing has far more influence than I suspect.

If it fails, however, I think the attempt could be pretty bad for the Occupy movement as a whole.  Or maybe not, perhaps a failed attempt will galvanize the silent supporters into paying more attention and participating.  I've never been very good at predictions.

That said though, my money would be on the vast majority of Oakland continuing with business as usual come tomorrow.

[East Coast Hustle]

Re-jacking this thread.

August 15, 2011

Dear Fellow Concerned Americans:

Our country is better than this.

Over the last few weeks and months, our national elected officials from both parties have failed to lead. They have chosen to put partisan and ideological purity over the well-being of the people. They have undermined the full faith and credit of the United States. They have stirred up fears about our economic prospects without doing anything to truly address those fears. They have spent a resource even more precious than the dollar: our collective confidence in each other, in the future, and in our ability to solve problems together.

As leaders in business, we have watched all this unfold, first with frustration and then with dismay. Like so many of our employees and customers, we are gravely concerned about the current situation. Today, with both humility and urgency, we propose to do something about it.

First, we aim to push our elected leaders to face the nation's long-term fiscal challenges with civility, honesty, and a willingness to sacrifice their own re-election. This means not kicking the can anymore. It means reaching a deal on debt, revenue, and spending long before the deadline arrives this fall. It means considering all options, from entitlement programs to taxes.

This is what so many common-sense Americans want. That is why we today pledge to withhold any further campaign contributions to the President and all members of Congress until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing. And we invite leaders of businesses – indeed, all concerned Americans – to join us in this pledge.

We also believe in leading by positive example. And we believe that while the long-term fiscal challenge is serious, even more painful to millions of Americans today is the immediate crisis of jobs. Tens of millions are unemployed and underemployed. Right now our economy is frozen in a cycle of fear and uncertainty. Companies are afraid to hire. Consumers are afraid to spend. Banks are afraid to lend. Record levels of cash are piling up in corporate treasuries, idling. That cash is not being used to expand operations, train new workers, underwrite new ventures, or spark innovation.

The only way to break this cycle of fear is to break it. The only way to get the country's economic circulatory system flowing again is to start pumping lifeblood through it. That is why we today issue a second pledge. Our companies are going to hire. We are going to accelerate growth, employment, and investment in jobs.

We do this because we want to set in motion an upward spiral of confidence. We are not waiting for government to create an incentive program or a stimulus. We are not waiting for economic indicators to tell us it's safe to act. We are hiring more people now. We invite leaders of businesses across the country to join us in this pledge as well – and to bring their stakeholders into the effort. Confidence is contagious. The best thing we can do now is to spread it.

This is a time for citizenship, not partisanship. It is a time for action. We don't pretend that our two pledges are quick fixes. We just believe that in this moment of great uncertainty, the government needs discipline, the people need jobs – and leaders need to lead.

Our country is better than this. Let's get things moving now.

Respectfully,
Howard Schultz

Fuck that man. Fuck him in his stupid greedy blistered anus. If Howard Schultz was on fire, I would not piss on him to put him out. Any noise he makes about doing the right thing and trying to help the long-term prospects of the common man is strictly a bunch of self-serving bullshit designed to give him good PR. In private, that man would just as soon use you and I for kindling as sacrifice one penny of his fortune to help any of us in any way.

[East Coast Hustle]

Sorry for jacking your re-jack, that man just makes me lose my composure.

[Laughin Jude]

Oh, COME THE FUCK ON. What are you, 12? Everyone needs to work to survive, and I'm already fed up as shit about people not thinking the work I do is a "job" just because I'm self-employed.

Guess what asshole; if you aren't willing to work, it's nobody's job to feed your stupid entitled ass.

I am not a Libertarian; I would slaughter those cocktarded fuckers to the gods of evolution.

But don't pull out the "I am 12 and what is this" anarchy of total stupidity. If you really believe that you deserve to do absolutely not one fucking thing and yet be supported by everyone who does do something productive, you are an ass.

Um, right there in my first post:

I don't have any problem with supporting myself, but that's not what having a job is really about from a sociological perspective.

And obviously what you're doing is a job in the sense that it's your way of supporting yourself, which is awesome. Self-employment is my own eventual goal; at the moment I'm working shitty labor jobs while putting myself through college. I'm using the term "job" here to refer to the more common 9-to-5 trap that most of America's stuck in, which I view as a level of social control.

Actually, I believe the current state of technology is definitely able to do so.  I don't believe the current state of humanity is, however.  The resources to do something Venus Project-ish are available.  But everyone in the world would have to get behind it.  It says so right on the website.  Therein lies the problem.

Agreed. It's incredibly unlikely without a massive rewiring of our cultural value system. But hey, I'm a dreamer, when I'm not being a pessimist... ...and unlikely as it is, it's happened before. When shit changes, it can change awfully fast.

Word.

Back on topic, and semi-old news for those up-to-the-minute but new to the thread, Occupy Oakland hosts a general strike tomorrow, November 2nd, to "shut down" the city.

Anybody want to take odds on a city of something like half a million people shutting down because 1484 people voted for it?
Don't get me wrong, if this is successful, the message will be powerful.  But somehow I don't think support for the movement is as universal as they seem to think.  Perhaps they are surrounded by so much positive reinforcement that they are sheltered from any dissent.  Or, perhaps I am wrong and this thing has far more influence than I suspect.

If it fails, however, I think the attempt could be pretty bad for the Occupy movement as a whole.  Or maybe not, perhaps a failed attempt will galvanize the silent supporters into paying more attention and participating.  I've never been very good at predictions.

That said though, my money would be on the vast majority of Oakland continuing with business as usual come tomorrow.

I have no idea if it'll work or not. It's the sort of thing that probably needs to be happening, though. I'm getting the sense in Portland that people want to be doing something, but there's still not a lot of agreement on what that something should be. This movement needs a victory to keep it going.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

There are some non-40 hour work week models which don't necessarily rely on humans being more than human...

The real trick is separating the "No one should have to work" absurdity with the "People should be able to work less at jobs they find more fulfilling" concept. For example, modern technology has removed many different types of manual labor work from the job market. a couple centuries ago, people were working far more than 40 hours a week. In the 1800's if we posited that technology would replace a lot of low end jobs and that people could survive by only working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week... we'd be met with the same kind of incredulity.

However, the overall materialism rampant in the current society makes several decent solutions difficult to implement. For example, a 40 hour a week job that pays $100,000 could be split into two 20 hour a week jobs that pay $50,000. A salary of 50k should be enough to live on and would provide both employees with much more free time to pursue their own goals. However, they'd would both have to forgo 42" flat screen tv's with 600 channels. They'd have to refrain from buying a new car every 2 years.

RAW talked about this in his theoretical "RICH economy" (Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy). In that system, the government provided incentives for employees to find ways to use technology to replace their jobs. Possible? Yes. Likely? Nope... not until the whole damn system crashes.

It's not an issue of NEEDING to work 40 hours a week... its an issue of materialistic greed and social pressure, if the system crashes, then the social norms may change.

[Triple Zero]

Except that for a lot of jobs, especially the ones worth $100k, splitting a job into two jobs comes with quite a significant amount of communication overhead, organisational overhead, higher risk of errors, and therefore an overall decrease in quality of the work, product or service.

It's really not hard to imagine situations where, if you'd split a 40h/$100k job, but worked to keep the quality constant, you'd end up with two 40h jobs each worth $50k, where half the time is spent on very non-fulfilling overhead.

And then you get "Human Resource Management", which is really not as straightforward as you'd like to imagine.

[BabylonHoruv]

perhaps.
but it's a moot point, as i assumed it was implicit that humanity continues to act human.

at any rate, it's a silly jack to this occupy thread.

Word.

Back on topic, and semi-old news for those up-to-the-minute but new to the thread, Occupy Oakland hosts a general strike tomorrow, November 2nd, to "shut down" the city.

Anybody want to take odds on a city of something like half a million people shutting down because 1484 people voted for it?
Don't get me wrong, if this is successful, the message will be powerful.  But somehow I don't think support for the movement is as universal as they seem to think.  Perhaps they are surrounded by so much positive reinforcement that they are sheltered from any dissent.  Or, perhaps I am wrong and this thing has far more influence than I suspect.

If it fails, however, I think the attempt could be pretty bad for the Occupy movement as a whole.  Or maybe not, perhaps a failed attempt will galvanize the silent supporters into paying more attention and participating.  I've never been very good at predictions.

That said though, my money would be on the vast majority of Oakland continuing with business as usual come tomorrow.

Here's what the cops have to say about it.

http://www.opoa.org/uncategorized/an-open-letter-to-the-citizens-of-oakland-from-the-oakland-police-officers%E2%80%99-association/

I think after making the incredible miscalculation of shooting a Marine in the face they are obviously confused.  On the other hand they make some good points, the mayor is an idiot.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Except that for a lot of jobs, especially the ones worth $100k, splitting a job into two jobs comes with quite a significant amount of communication overhead, organisational overhead, higher risk of errors, and therefore an overall decrease in quality of the work, product or service.

It's really not hard to imagine situations where, if you'd split a 40h/$100k job, but worked to keep the quality constant, you'd end up with two 40h jobs each worth $50k, where half the time is spent on very non-fulfilling overhead.

And then you get "Human Resource Management", which is really not as straightforward as you'd like to imagine.

Thanks for putting it so succinctly. Those two $50k jobs will have an associated $20k each of admin and benefits costs.

Also, gotta say that the economic problem isn't really $100k jobs.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

The Wrong Inequality
By DAVID BROOKS

We live in a polarizing society, so perhaps it's inevitable that our experience of inequality should be polarized, too.

In the first place, there is what you might call Blue Inequality. This is the kind experienced in New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, Houston and the District of Columbia. In these places, you see the top 1 percent of earners zooming upward, amassing more income and wealth. The economists Jon Bakija, Adam Cole and Bradley Heim have done the most authoritative research on who these top 1 percenters are.

Roughly 31 percent started or manage nonfinancial businesses. About 16 percent are doctors, 14 percent are in finance, 8 percent are lawyers, 5 percent are engineers and about 2 percent are in sports, entertainment or the media.

If you live in or around these big cities, you see stores and entire neighborhoods catering to the top 1 percent. You see a shift in social norms. Up until 1970 or so, a chief executive would have been embarrassed to take home more than $20 million. But now there is no shame, and top compensation zooms upward.

You also see the superstar effect that economists have noticed in the income data. Within each profession, the top performers are now paid much better than the merely good or average performers.

If you live in these big cities, you see people similar to yourself, who may have gone to the same college, who are earning much more while benefiting from low tax rates, wielding disproportionate political power, gaining in prestige and contributing seemingly little to the social good. That is the experience of Blue Inequality.

Then there is what you might call Red Inequality. This is the kind experienced in Scranton, Des Moines, Naperville, Macon, Fresno, and almost everywhere else. In these places, the crucial inequality is not between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent. It's between those with a college degree and those without.

The rest of the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/brooks-the-wrong-inequality.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Brooks concludes that this "Red Inequality" is a larger, more serious problem than the "Blue Inequality".

"Yeah, you guys should go on and get educated and don't worry about the quiet and methodical dissassembly of democracy by a plutocratic elite."

[Cain]

Ah, David Brooks.  All the vices of Victorian anthropology, none of the virtues.

You'll be glad to know this has been widely mocked on the net.  More widely mocked than Brooks normally is, anyway.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Ah, David Brooks.  All the vices of Victorian anthropology, none of the virtues.

You'll be glad to know this has been widely mocked on the net.  More widely mocked than Brooks normally is, anyway.

The practicing economist that sent me the link to that Brooks article might benefit from reading such mockery, should you happen to have some of those links handy.

I'm still kind of stunned that a working economics Phd would buy that polished turd of an article. I hope it turns out he's just trolling me, but I doubt it.

[trix]

Except that for a lot of jobs, especially the ones worth $100k, splitting a job into two jobs comes with quite a significant amount of communication overhead, organisational overhead, higher risk of errors, and therefore an overall decrease in quality of the work, product or service.

It's really not hard to imagine situations where, if you'd split a 40h/$100k job, but worked to keep the quality constant, you'd end up with two 40h jobs each worth $50k, where half the time is spent on very non-fulfilling overhead.

And then you get "Human Resource Management", which is really not as straightforward as you'd like to imagine.

Actually I see this in Open Source Software all the time.  There have been quite a lot of good projects that ended up with so many people working on it, each with their own idea of what it should be and what it should do, that it ends up with thousands of side features of every conceivable kind, but serious issues with it's main use that never quite get ironed out.  Like a video player that can do everything from view PDF files to edit sound waves, but still stutters or has artifacts during regular video playback.

So yeah, THIS.  Double the man power and you don't always get double the work output.