http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/politics/13budget.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
Deep cuts for domestic spending, no cuts for national security.
:lulz:
Bend over, America.
Fucking called it.
I can't remember exactly where I did on the board, but I said "the GOP are pushing for 2.5 trillion in cuts...because of Obama's pathological Goldilocks Syndrome, he will go for 1.25 trillion instead". So I was pretty damn close.
Also, when you consider this will be treated as the "hippie option" by the Senate's various flaming douchebags, they'll start bitching and demanding further, bigger cuts with nice large numbers they can parade to the press so they can be big, tough "deficit hawks". And I reckon once that is through with, it'll easily be 1.25 trillion cut from the budget.
And don't expect any tax cuts either. If anything, expect them to go up.
Also, this is relevant: http://isnblog.ethz.ch/government/trying-to-play-chicken-with-everybody%E2%80%99s-money
QuoteThe bumbling US Tea Party has issued its latest ultimatum: cut public expenditures or risk defaulting on the national debt. And how? By stopping lawmakers from raising the country's legal debt ceiling, currently set at $14.3 trillion. The US Treasury reckons it will hit and inevitably exceed the limit sometime between late March and May.
The Obama White House has deemed the issue non-negotiable. Is it an idle threat?
Strictly speaking, the Tea Party doesn't have the votes in Congress. Mainstream Republicans would all have to vote no. Mainstream Republicans, however, primarily serve the interests of the corporate and financial elite; overt attempts to undermine US economic power typically receive a cold reception with this crowd.
As discussed in my ISN Blog post last week, the instance of disagreement nevertheless puts the spotlight on the growing rift in the American Right. It also exposes the ignorance of the frustrated Tea Partiers. Nuking your economy is no solution to your economic woes.
Ask Americans what specific spending cuts they prefer and almost unanimously they respond that Social Security and Medicare (the national pension scheme and healthcare for the elderly) are off-limits. Non-defense discretionary spending, about $650 billion, is a perennial favorite for the axing but too small to rectify America's fiscal quandary. Defense spending is ultimately the one thrown under the bus, but few politicians would ever get caught dead saying so.
In the end, broad and balanced reforms on both the revenue and spending sides will be necessary. To date, mainstream Republicans have promised $100 billion in cuts and come up with a paltry $32 billion. The Tea Party, again, proposes nuking the economy to force spending cuts.
Washington defaulting on its debt would indeed be catastrophic. Leading US policymakers' takes here, here and here. To start, as Reinhart and Rogoff meticulously detail in their must-read book This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, the US, unlike most other sovereigns, can be considered a 'default virgin;' it has almost effectively never defaulted on its debt in its 235-year history. US Treasury debt and those of it agencies (primarily Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are the largest, most liquid financial asset class in the world.
The US, moreover, is the steward of the world's monetary system: the US Dollar system. It serves alongside the military and foreign assistance as the bedrock of US hegemony. Two thirds of all central bank reserves the world-over are held in Dollars or Dollar-denominated securities. The lion's share of today's cross-border trade and transactions are denominated and settled in Dollars.
As University of California, Berkeley Professor Barry Eichengreen argues, this 'exorbitant privilege' – which allows the US to live beyond its means because the world's demand for Dollars permits it to pay interest rates on its foreign liabilities typically two to three percentage points lower than the rate of return on its foreign investments per year, licensing it to run persistent current account deficits of this size with foreign countries without becoming more indebted – has held since WWII. Within the next 10 to 30 years, however, the advantage will most likely dissipate, resulting in a multipolar global monetary system. The Euro, which increasingly looks as though it will survive its recent travails, is available and growing in its attraction as an alternative to the Dollar. The transition need not be abrupt or dramatic.
Significant economic mismanagement in Washington, however, Eichengreen cautions, could bring about a Dollar crash. Precipitating a debt default certainly qualifies as such. Failing to adopt a credible medium- to long-term strategy to bring US debt under control qualifies equally if not more so.
The Tea Party should expend its energies affecting change in the latter category, where its middle-class economic interests lie, rather than in the farcical former.
So basically, the Teabaggers just put a gun to the head of US financial hegemony and threatened to pull the trigger unless Obama did the cuts.
My taxes went up. $12 a paycheck, GONE.
I get paid every two weeks, and I get paid $8.25 an hour. But hey, all those rich people will give their extra to me, right? Trickle down...Trickle down...
:lulz:
Remember, Big Brother loves you.
Quote from: Suu on February 13, 2011, 04:02:14 PM
Trickle down...Trickle down...
Why is trickle down deemed more efficient than directly paying people a fair wage?
Either way, unless I get that raise I was hinted at getting 6 months ago, I'm going to be sewing my fucking ass off to get myself through the summer months.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 13, 2011, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: Suu on February 13, 2011, 04:02:14 PM
Trickle down...Trickle down...
Why is trickle down deemed more efficient than directly paying people a fair wage?
Because Laffer Curves, efficient market hypothesis, creeping socialism and stfu Commie.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 13, 2011, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: Suu on February 13, 2011, 04:02:14 PM
Trickle down...Trickle down...
Why is trickle down deemed more efficient than directly paying people a fair wage?
Because the almighty hand of the free market will make sure only the people who
deserve the money get it.
If you dont notice the wealth trickling down then I guess its just because you arent working hard enough.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 13, 2011, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: Suu on February 13, 2011, 04:02:14 PM
Trickle down...Trickle down...
Why is trickle down deemed more efficient than directly paying people a fair wage?
It was based on the theory that if the the people at the top get to keep their pocket change that would in turn create jobs for everyone else. What it does in reality is allow those people to invest in developing economies across the world, export American jobs, and get richer.
Trickle down economics is also based on defeceit spending, and there is now no room for this.
And it really highlights how stupid Americans are. What did we keep hearing from Tea Party and GOP types when it came to extending the Bush Tax cuts? That the rich need that money to create jobs.
Well, they've been fucking getting that money since the Bush Tax Cuts were started. They've been getting that money for the past 3 fucking years! Hello! How many jobs has that shit created?
Stupid fucking idiots.
Quote from: Cain on February 13, 2011, 07:45:37 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 13, 2011, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: Suu on February 13, 2011, 04:02:14 PM
Trickle down...Trickle down...
Why is trickle down deemed more efficient than directly paying people a fair wage?
Because Laffer Curves, efficient market hypothesis, creeping socialism and stfu Commie.
Huh, I never considered that as a possible justification. Interesting. Of course - purging the middle class and creating a flat and inescapable poor class, ruled by tzars, looks
nothing like socialism.
I guess the premise in my question is flawed.
What jobs are any morons going to create in America anyway? It's not like there is a skilled workforce worth a crap there anymore - at least, not any you couldn't get for at least a quarter of the price in China, and with less taxes to boot. Sure, their stuff occasionally ends up poisoning people or accidentally blowing up all over the place, but what it mostly does is create obscene profits for investors.
Unless, of course, Americans are willing to work for Chinese wages and in Chinese-style conditions.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 13, 2011, 07:45:37 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 13, 2011, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: Suu on February 13, 2011, 04:02:14 PM
Trickle down...Trickle down...
Why is trickle down deemed more efficient than directly paying people a fair wage?
Because Laffer Curves, efficient market hypothesis, creeping socialism and stfu Commie.
Huh, I never considered that as a possible justification. Interesting. Of course - purging the middle class and creating a flat and inescapable poor class, ruled by tzars, looks nothing like socialism.
I guess the premise in my question is flawed.
You really need to hit some political boards, CU.
But I'd suggest pre-writing your stuff, and then only answering people who sound interested.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 03:20:52 PM
What jobs are any morons going to create in America anyway? It's not like there is a skilled workforce worth a crap there anymore -
The last Toyota plant went to Brantford, Ontario...Because the higher taxes are cheaper than paying for health insurance, and because the last time they built a plant here,
they had to train the workforce with pictograms.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 03:22:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 03:20:52 PM
What jobs are any morons going to create in America anyway? It's not like there is a skilled workforce worth a crap there anymore -
The last Toyota plant went to Brantford, Ontario...Because the higher taxes are cheaper than paying for health insurance, and because the last time they built a plant here, they had to train the workforce with pictograms.
:x
I'm pretty sure the same would happen over here, as well, since all the same problems apply. Which is why I have spent the last week deriding and mocking anyone stupid enough to believe that David Cameron is going to revitalize British finances through the power of heavy industry.
Aaaaaand I will say it again....
America, we're fucked!
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 03:30:34 PM
Aaaaaand I will say it again....
America, we're fucked!
It's not just America and England.
You're all going to miss us Boomers and our know how.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 03:32:49 PM
You're all going to miss us Boomers and our know how.
Already feeling it. Most of my crew are boomers, and they're all getting ready to retire. It's taken me THREE YEARS to find 4 young guys that know their shit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 03:32:49 PM
You're all going to miss us Boomers and our know how.
Already feeling it. Most of my crew are boomers, and they're all getting ready to retire. It's taken me THREE YEARS to find 4 young guys that know their shit.
I blame video games and the internet. Seriously.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 03:22:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 03:20:52 PM
What jobs are any morons going to create in America anyway? It's not like there is a skilled workforce worth a crap there anymore -
The last Toyota plant went to Brantford, Ontario...Because the higher taxes are cheaper than paying for health insurance, and because the last time they built a plant here, they had to train the workforce with pictograms.
I'd ask if you were joking about the pictograms... but I'm not even going to look it up. I'm sure you're right.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 03:32:49 PM
You're all going to miss us Boomers and our know how.
Already feeling it. Most of my crew are boomers, and they're all getting ready to retire. It's taken me THREE YEARS to find 4 young guys that know their shit.
I blame video games and the internet. Seriously.
Can't have been education, surely.
I don't really think its education, video games, or the internet. I think those are all symptoms. I think it's a cultural shift in expectations which in turn affects motivation. But, I think there are plenty young people who ARE properly motivated to learn and to become productive workers. But they are looking for their opportunities in different sectors compared to when the boomers were young. I think young people are looking more to white collar opportunities compared to when my folks grew up and just assumed they would be doing blue collar jobs for the bulk of their career.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 03:32:49 PM
You're all going to miss us Boomers and our know how.
Already feeling it. Most of my crew are boomers, and they're all getting ready to retire. It's taken me THREE YEARS to find 4 young guys that know their shit.
I blame video games and the internet. Seriously.
Hogwash. I blame 30+ years of kids being told how "special" they are, of useless MBAs being idolized, of people being told that if they can't be multi-millionaires then they shouldn't bother at all. I blame the cult of money for nothing that has instructed people that being blue collar is a shame and a disgrace.
I blame the unions for making themselves too exclusive (if you don't know someone, you aren't getting an apprenticeship), I blame CEOs for moving the jobs overseas, and mostly I blame the public, for demanding ridiculous returns on their investments, that can ONLY be achieved using slave labor.
That same public, incidentally, also opposes property taxes for schools, and title I funding.
Our own hubris and greed has dug this hole for us, not videogames.
But why worry? We're building another aircraft carrier, so we can continue to have the trappings of empire while we rot right down to the core.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 04:43:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 03:32:49 PM
You're all going to miss us Boomers and our know how.
Already feeling it. Most of my crew are boomers, and they're all getting ready to retire. It's taken me THREE YEARS to find 4 young guys that know their shit.
I blame video games and the internet. Seriously.
Hogwash. I blame 30+ years of kids being told how "special" they are, of useless MBAs being idolized, of people being told that if they can't be multi-millionaires then they shouldn't bother at all. I blame the cult of money for nothing that has instructed people that being blue collar is a shame and a disgrace.
I blame the unions for making themselves too exclusive (if you don't know someone, you aren't getting an apprenticeship), I blame CEOs for moving the jobs overseas, and mostly I blame the public, for demanding ridiculous returns on their investments, that can ONLY be achieved using slave labor.
That same public, incidentally, also opposes property taxes for schools, and title I funding.
Our own hubris and greed has dug this hole for us, not videogames.
But why worry? We're building another aircraft carrier, so we can continue to have the trappings of empire while we rot right down to the core.
I agree "Blue Collar" is now a dirty word. I still think a giant lack of imagination has infested us from video games and mindless LOL and OMG on the internet. My daughter-in-law just got back from Lithuania last night. She was teaching them how to do her job, which is moving there. She works in the financial industry, of all places.
Yes greed has played a large roll. 10 mechanics can keep 100 robotic arms working, the arms that replaces 100 people on a production line. The Unions certainly had a hand in this, as well as the employees for thinking the cup was bottomless.
Don't blame the robots... all the stats I look at show a MASSIVE decline in industrial fatalities over time. How much of this is due to compliance and regulation, I have no clue, but the less squishy meatbags you have in direct contact with heavy/poisonous/pointy things, the better.
Greed may have caused it, but the results are not altogether terrible. That is, if you prefer to be unemployed than dead.
Youth may or may not be more superficial than before. But they are also getting involved in global concepts and events in an unprecedented scale. I'm happy with that trade-off.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 05:24:35 PM
Don't blame the robots... all the stats I look at show a MASSIVE decline in industrial fatalities over time. How much of this is due to compliance and regulation, I have no clue, but the less squishy meatbags you have in direct contact with heavy/poisonous/pointy things, the better.
Greed may have caused it, but the results are not altogether terrible. That is, if you prefer to be unemployed than dead.
Youth may or may not be more superficial than before. But they are also getting involved in global concepts and events in an unprecedented scale. I'm happy with that trade-off.
That will not put food on your table.
Doesn't that depend on where, in the world, your table is located?
Why are video games getting a bad rap all of a sudden? Some of the bestselling video games of the past decade have been immersive, brilliantly written and well executed stories which beat the shit out of anything that has come out of Hollywood in the same period. Given the choice between watching the Saw series or playing something written by David Gaider, the latter wins hands down, every time.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 05:27:18 PM
Doesn't that depend on where, in the world, your table is located?
You and I will never see eye-to-eye on technology. You see it as a savior, I see it as a tool. ANd, no, I see no way for that to put food on your table.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 05:28:45 PM
Why are video games getting a bad rap all of a sudden? Some of the bestselling video games of the past decade have been immersive, brilliantly written and well executed stories which beat the shit out of anything that has come out of Hollywood in the same period. Given the choice between watching the Saw series or playing something written by David Gaider, the latter wins hands down, every time.
Heh. I would faint into a coma if Hollywood came up with something original.
Automation increases jobs, it doesn't decrease them.
As long as people are able to buy the product, though. Right now the only thing they're buying is a bill of goods whose manifest reads: "Give everything to the rich, and they'll take care of things."
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 05:33:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 05:28:45 PM
Why are video games getting a bad rap all of a sudden? Some of the bestselling video games of the past decade have been immersive, brilliantly written and well executed stories which beat the shit out of anything that has come out of Hollywood in the same period. Given the choice between watching the Saw series or playing something written by David Gaider, the latter wins hands down, every time.
Heh. I would faint into a coma if Hollywood came up with something original.
Your generation had TV, mine had arcade games, this one has interbutts and cheaply available consoles. None of these things have anything to do with the decline of jobs.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 05:30:02 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 05:27:18 PM
Doesn't that depend on where, in the world, your table is located?
You and I will never see eye-to-eye on technology. You see it as a savior, I see it as a tool. ANd, no, I see no way for that to put food on your table.
:)
I don't see it as a savior. Printing press technology enabled literacy. Medical technology enables many people to live who would otherwise die. It's a tool which enables things. There is no line between old (good) technology and new (bad) technology.
It's all how we choose to use the tools that are given to us.
Take a look at this (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/18/a-maker-faire-previe-4.html). There is a growing resurgence in young folk learning how to make things for themselves. It may not be all practical, but it is inventive, it is keeping those skills you talk about alive. Furthermore, it is a revolution which has been enabled by technology - geeks compete in their basements to make ever more interesting things. The internet enables them to swap skills and techniques
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 05:33:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 05:28:45 PM
Why are video games getting a bad rap all of a sudden? Some of the bestselling video games of the past decade have been immersive, brilliantly written and well executed stories which beat the shit out of anything that has come out of Hollywood in the same period. Given the choice between watching the Saw series or playing something written by David Gaider, the latter wins hands down, every time.
Heh. I would faint into a coma if Hollywood came up with something original.
If book and film technologies have had much more influence on our civilization - don't they deserve more blame than video games?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 05:24:35 PM
Youth may or may not be more superficial than before. But they are also getting involved in global concepts and events in an unprecedented scale. I'm happy with that trade-off.
They're hitting "like" on "Egyptian Revolution". This accomplishes precisely Jack and Shit, and Jack is too broke to show up.
If anything, instant communication has made people more shallow, not more involved.
But this has nothing to do with unemployment. The masses have always had their diversions...500 years ago it consisted of nailing a cat to a post and head-butting it to death (no shit), and today it consists of playing Fallout 3, and pretending to be a participant in "Twitter revolutions". The problem today is based more on NO FUCKING JOBS, and if that having trustafarians gush about Iran or Egypt on Facebook is a "happy trade off", then kill me right fucking now.
I'd say tech does have something to do with employment issues. Specifically it makes it to damned easy for a company to move jobs to a different state or country any time the local wages creep up a bit, especially with those 'service sector' jobs that don't require a factory.
You think all those people in India will get to keep those call center jobs? Hell no, the second India starts to get on their feet and wages edge above $2 an hour that shit is going to South Africa or Tennessee.
Hell I took a job from some poor schmuck in an Indian call center, then had the job moved out of state on me (I dunno where Dell sent it, possibly back to India), all within 6 months.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 05:42:08 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 05:24:35 PM
Youth may or may not be more superficial than before. But they are also getting involved in global concepts and events in an unprecedented scale. I'm happy with that trade-off.
They're hitting "like" on "Egyptian Revolution". This accomplishes precisely Jack and Shit, and Jack is too broke to show up.
If anything, instant communication has made people more shallow, not more involved.
I disagree. Yes, there are more people who have a shallow understanding of world events than before. But there are also more subject-matter experts - and all degrees in-between. It's a network, an informational eco-system, and as such you can't just single out one element as being worthless when they all feed into and support each other.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 05:42:08 PM
But this has nothing to do with unemployment. The masses have always had their diversions...500 years ago it consisted of nailing a cat to a post and head-butting it to death (no shit), and today it consists of playing Fallout 3, and pretending to be a participant in "Twitter revolutions". The problem today is based more on NO FUCKING JOBS, and if that having trustafarians gush about Iran or Egypt on Facebook is a "happy trade off", then kill me right fucking now.
We can look at an under-developed nation and understand that if the people want change enough, they can get it if they're willing to get killed trying and strap sandwiches to their heads. They have clear rules imposed upon them and having the courage to break them undermines the control imposed upon them.
Our rules are in our own minds. The spiders who tell us to buy things which make us feel more comfortable and relaxed.
Our image of democracy is convincing enough to prevent mass demonstrations. So how do we change our shithole situation? A thousand "likes" does nothing. Do we coordinate purchases to punish/reward corporations based on their employment practices? How? We can't even see through the consumerist smokescreen for long enough to agree on a collective will in the first place. Simply put - I don't think we yet have a technological solution to our problems, though it is currently sufficient to topple unsuspecting dictatorships.
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
I disagree. Yes, there are more people who have a shallow understanding of world events than before. But there are also more subject-matter experts - and all degrees in-between. It's a network, an informational eco-system, and as such you can't just single out one element as being worthless when they all feed into and support each other.
Okay, I'll bite. What is actually being accomplished?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
We can look at an under-developed nation and understand that if the people want change enough, they can get it if they're willing to get killed trying and strap sandwiches to their heads. They have clear rules imposed upon them and having the courage to break them undermines the control imposed upon them.
Our rules are in our own minds. The spiders who tell us to buy things which make us feel more comfortable and relaxed.
Our image of democracy is convincing enough to prevent mass demonstrations. So how do we change our shithole situation? A thousand "likes" does nothing. Do we coordinate purchases to punish/reward corporations based on their employment practices? How? We can't even see through the consumerist smokescreen for long enough to agree on a collective will in the first place. Simply put - I don't think we yet have a technological solution to our problems, though it is currently sufficient to topple unsuspecting dictatorships.
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
I don't see the value in this tradeoff. No jobs plus vague, fuzzy feelings in our empty stomachs > Jobs?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
No, it isn't. That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".
The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook. That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it. Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.
If our youth come away with the message that they can be part of a revolution without leaving their basement, then we're hopelessly screwed for at least the next generation or two.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
No, it isn't. That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".
The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook. That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it. Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.
If our youth come away with the message that they can be part of a revolution without leaving their basement, then we're hopelessly screwed for at least the next generation or two.
Roger and 3 other people like this comment.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
I disagree. Yes, there are more people who have a shallow understanding of world events than before. But there are also more subject-matter experts - and all degrees in-between. It's a network, an informational eco-system, and as such you can't just single out one element as being worthless when they all feed into and support each other.
Okay, I'll bite. What is actually being accomplished?
Honestly? I don't
know that anything is being accomplished.
Right now, my three year old daughter "likes" the Egyptian revolution, in terms simple enough for her to understand. I figure that's a foundation to build upon over the years - as education is an on-going process, not a destination. It seems to me that if you vastly increase the number of people who have a rudimentary understanding of global events, then similarly, that's a foundation to build upon. It's potential.
If it means that you end up with more subject-matter experts, then that would be quite an accomplishment.
That logic makes sense to me, but I can't
prove it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:10:54 PM
I don't see the value in this tradeoff. No jobs plus vague, fuzzy feelings in our empty stomachs > Jobs?
No, but that's not the equation in my mind. The job problem will only be solved when: minimal collective action > vested private interests.
We have a way to go, as the maximal collective action we can expect (voting) is demonstrably not sufficient.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:18:53 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
No, it isn't. That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".
The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook. That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it. Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.
If our youth come away with the message that they can be part of a revolution without leaving their basement, then we're hopelessly screwed for at least the next generation or two.
Roger and 3 other people like this comment.
:lulz:
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:45:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
I disagree. Yes, there are more people who have a shallow understanding of world events than before. But there are also more subject-matter experts - and all degrees in-between. It's a network, an informational eco-system, and as such you can't just single out one element as being worthless when they all feed into and support each other.
Okay, I'll bite. What is actually being accomplished?
Honestly? I don't know that anything is being accomplished.
Right now, my three year old daughter "likes" the Egyptian revolution, in terms simple enough for her to understand. I figure that's a foundation to build upon over the years - as education is an on-going process, not a destination. It seems to me that if you vastly increase the number of people who have a rudimentary understanding of global events, then similarly, that's a foundation to build upon. It's potential.
If it means that you end up with more subject-matter experts, then that would be quite an accomplishment.
That logic makes sense to me, but I can't prove it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:10:54 PM
I don't see the value in this tradeoff. No jobs plus vague, fuzzy feelings in our empty stomachs > Jobs?
No, but that's not the equation in my mind. The job problem will only be solved when: minimal collective action > vested private interests.
We have a way to go, as the maximal collective action we can expect (voting) is demonstrably not sufficient.
1. As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests. How do you think the teabaggers got started?
2. If you don't know anything is being accomplished, then I have to write your argument off as Doctor Pangloss-esque rubbish. Not trying to be offensive here, just saying that if you don't have a replacement for jobs lost, then I don't see how there's a tradeoff at all. Miss three meals, and then tell me that twitter, etc, is a trade off you're happy with.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 06:47:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:18:53 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
No, it isn't. That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".
The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook. That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it. Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.
If our youth come away with the message that they can be part of a revolution without leaving their basement, then we're hopelessly screwed for at least the next generation or two.
Roger and 3 other people like this comment.
:lulz:
My horrible bastard gland is acting up.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
1. As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests. How do you think the teabaggers got started?
An overabundance of teh stoopid.
More seriously, people deciding to listen to the only news source telling them what they wanted to hear, being too bloody lazy to actually do a little research, and hearing, "do this, we're the only ones who care about you," and actually believing that crap.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
No, it isn't. That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".
And so it's worse than doing nothing?
Do you think we'd see more subject-matter experts if there was a smaller network support them?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook. That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it. Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.
Sure. I've never expressed an opinion contradictory to that.
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 06:52:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
1. As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests. How do you think the teabaggers got started?
An overabundance of teh stoopid.
Bad information in large quantity + stupid people (separate "unintelligent" and "stupid" here) = hilarity ensues.
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 06:52:13 PM
More seriously, people deciding to listen to the only news source telling them what they wanted to hear, being too bloody lazy to actually do a little research, and hearing, "do this, we're the only ones who care about you," and actually believing that crap.
You just said that.
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 06:52:13 PM
An overabundance of teh stoopid.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:53:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
No, it isn't. That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".
And so it's worse than doing nothing?
Yes. It gives a false sense of accomplishment. It's bad signal.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:53:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
No, it isn't. That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".
And so it's worse than doing nothing?
Do you think we'd see more subject-matter experts if there was a smaller network support them?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook. That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it. Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.
Sure. I've never expressed an opinion contradictory to that.
Yes it is, because it contributes to a false illusion.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:53:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
No, it isn't. That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".
And so it's worse than doing nothing?
Yeah, it's called complacency. Life isn't the internet. You can't click on a link and download freedom.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 06:52:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
1. As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests. How do you think the teabaggers got started?
An overabundance of teh stoopid.
Bad information in large quantity + stupid people (separate "unintelligent" and "stupid" here) = hilarity ensues.
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 06:52:13 PM
More seriously, people deciding to listen to the only news source telling them what they wanted to hear, being too bloody lazy to actually do a little research, and hearing, "do this, we're the only ones who care about you," and actually believing that crap.
You just said that.
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 06:52:13 PM
An overabundance of teh stoopid.
Yeah, just expanding on the point.
There's a news site I post on that has a population of conservatives and teabaggers. I poke 'em with sticks, occasionally. The fact that they will proudly state that they NEVER watch or listen to any news other than Fox makes me gag.
(They also wave the "Fox has the highest ratings" flag as if ratings = most factual.)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
1. As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests. How do you think the teabaggers got started?
Is this an argument against increasing available information? What is the causation between increased information and bad decision making?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
2. If you don't know anything is being accomplished, then I have to write your argument off as Doctor Pangloss-esque rubbish. Not trying to be offensive here, just saying that if you don't have a replacement for jobs lost, then I don't see how there's a tradeoff at all. Miss three meals, and then tell me that twitter, etc, is a trade off you're happy with.
The trade-off comment was with regards being happy with having more overall involvement at the cost of the bottom of the pyramid being superficially involved.
Every community increases its subject-matter expertise in relation to the size and involvement of the community base. I can't prove that it's happening here, but I'd have to see better evidence that it is an exception to the rule than "the minimal level of involvement is now just hitting a 'like' button".
That seems more like a positive rather than negative when it comes to building a community.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:53:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
No, it isn't. That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".
And so it's worse than doing nothing?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:55:58 PM
Yes. It gives a false sense of accomplishment. It's bad signal.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 06:56:27 PM
Yes it is, because it contributes to a false illusion.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 07:01:36 PM
Yeah, it's called complacency. Life isn't the internet. You can't click on a link and download freedom.
I don't believe that someone whose sole involvement with the Egyptian Revolution was to click a "retweet this" button, would have had any other greater role to play had that avenue of minimal involvement not existed. Complacency or not.
It is, however, demonstrable that current trends reported by social networks have a pivotal role to play in helping these movements gain momentum in the first place.
According to an actual Egypt politics expert (http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/599/from-the-blogosphere-to-the-street_the-role-of-social-media-in-the-egyptian-uprising):
QuoteWhat was striking about the Egyptian blogosphere as it developed in the last 7 or so years is the extent to which it engendered a political language free from the problematic of secularization vs. fundamentalism that had governed so much of political discourse in the Middle East and elsewhere. The blogosphere that burst into existence in Egypt around 2004 and 2005 in many ways provided a new context for a process that had begun a somewhat earlier, in the late 1990s: namely, the development of practices of coordination and support between secular leftist organizations and associations, and Islamist ones (particularly the Muslim Brotherhood)—a phenomenon almost completely absent in the prior decades. Toward the end of the decade of the 90s, Islamist and leftist lawyers began to agree to work together on cases regarding state torture, whereas in previous years, lawyers of one affiliation would almost never publicly defend plaintiffs from the other.
Political science: it's a lot more complicated than "yes" or "no".
Can I play Devil's Advocate for a sec regarding activism and social networking?
I agree that for the most part, social networking only facilitates a really low level of activism. Clicking Like does nothing in of itself. However, it does automatically spread the word to others. One of the biggest hurdles for any cause is to get the word out, to find the rare person out there who actually gives a shit. And there is a direct correlation between the number of people who are aware of an issue and the number of people who are doing something tangible to support it.
Let's say that out of every 100 people that liked Amnesty International on facebook, 1 of them is actually going to write letters and participate in the actual activism. There are more people who will actually DO something, they just haven't heard about the cause yet. They'll be super-motivated as soon as they do. It seems like the best thing you can do is to tell as many people as possible about Amnesty International, even knowing that 99 out of 100 of them aren't going to help.
Right, so social media is casting the net wider in order to nab that one or two.
But social media, IMO, will not and can not fuel a revolution in America. And that's because of the Americans themselves. Social media can't breed motivation, it simply makes it easier to find and engage those few who actually are interested in participating. I think what is required to grow a mass movement in America is a considerable culture shift. Or, it will take the U.S. Government really screwing up some thing that all of America's youth really care about, and care about so much that they will go to the streets and be willing to be bloodied to get that thing back. If that thing even exists.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 07:19:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
1. As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests. How do you think the teabaggers got started?
Is this an argument against increasing available information? What is the causation between increased information and bad decision making?
The link is bad information, most often deliberate.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 07:19:24 PM
The trade-off comment was with regards being happy with having more overall involvement at the cost of the bottom of the pyramid being superficially involved.
Wait. What?
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 07:40:26 PM
Can I play Devil's Advocate for a sec regarding activism and social networking?
I agree that for the most part, social networking only facilitates a really low level of activism. Clicking Like does nothing in of itself. However, it does automatically spread the word to others. One of the biggest hurdles for any cause is to get the word out, to find the rare person out there who actually gives a shit. And there is a direct correlation between the number of people who are aware of an issue and the number of people who are doing something tangible to support it.
Let's say that out of every 100 people that liked Amnesty International on facebook, 1 of them is actually going to write letters and participate in the actual activism. There are more people who will actually DO something, they just haven't heard about the cause yet. They'll be super-motivated as soon as they do. It seems like the best thing you can do is to tell as many people as possible about Amnesty International, even knowing that 99 out of 100 of them aren't going to help.
And you get 99 people that consider their part to be done. Just saying.
I think the larger problem is that people 'expect' jobs.
"OMGZ, we don't have jobs!!! Its the fault of...."
Who says that everyone gets a job? Is it some kind of human right that we get at birth? Is it inalienable, our Right to have a job? Let's face it, technology does replace workers. The wheel meant that one guy could pull a wagon rather than the four guys it took before to pull a sled. Time shifts jobs... we don't need to employ five guys at every gas station to pump our gas, check our fluids and get tipped... we do that shit ourselves now.
Jobs aren't eternal, they aren't created by fiat... and while government can support policies that may encourage job growth... they can't magically make jobs appear from nowhere.
I think the protestant work ethic "You work for your day's bread" is the main culprit here. In early societies, everyone 'worked' but that work was stuff like "Go get firewood, go get fruit, go get meat" later, it was "go plant this chunk of land"... but now, well we live in a time when society can exist with fewer jobs. We don't have any really pressing needs for people to fill. Getting past the idea that everyone must work, might get us closer to the real issue... everyone should have access to what they need to survive.
In the Schrodinger's Cat trilogy RAW talked about the "leisure class" concept in his fictional RICH economy. While its somewhat fanciful, there are some pretty interesting points scattered throughout.
It's that American Dream tripe. Politicians have been continuously poisoning our youth with that garbage for years.
Somewhere, the message got garbled. The right to pursue happiness has become the perceived right to have happiness handed to you on a silver platter.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 07:49:33 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 07:19:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
1. As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests. How do you think the teabaggers got started?
Is this an argument against increasing available information? What is the causation between increased information and bad decision making?
The link is bad information, most often deliberate.
Deliberate misinformation happens when there is less overall information, too. I think it's harder today to start an urban myth thanks to snopes, or to successfully put out a simple lie which won't be caught.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 07:49:33 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 07:19:24 PM
The trade-off comment was with regards being happy with having more overall involvement at the cost of the bottom of the pyramid being superficially involved.
Wait. What?
RWHN: "social media is casting the net wider in order to nab that one or two"
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 07:53:22 PM
I think the larger problem is that people 'expect' jobs.
"OMGZ, we don't have jobs!!! Its the fault of...."
Who says that everyone gets a job? Is it some kind of human right that we get at birth? Is it inalienable, our Right to have a job?
Obviously, nobody says everyone gets a job. The true Randian dream is being experienced in Tucson as we speak. Those lousy poor people are being denied jobs, just as they deserve. It's paradise, I tell ya.
QuoteLet's face it, technology does replace workers.
No, it doesn't. Which employed more people, auto manufacturing, or buggy whip production?
The problem with that is, as things are set up right now, work or theft are the only ways to get the things you need to survive, within a western liberal democratic context. I'm in no way a fan of the Protestant work ethic - given the choice I'd probably work 2-3 days a week, just to add some variety to my routine of reading and writing - but unfortunately I have plans which involve being alive, and for that I need to work. It's not something I do willingly, it's something I do for the paycheck, because without it - I get kicked out of where I live, I cannot afford to eat and I starve. And it is marginally easier than a life of crime, though I am starting to reconsider that particular stance....
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 07:57:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 07:49:33 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 07:19:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
1. As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests. How do you think the teabaggers got started?
Is this an argument against increasing available information? What is the causation between increased information and bad decision making?
The link is bad information, most often deliberate.
Deliberate misinformation happens when there is less overall information, too. I think it's harder today to start an urban myth thanks to snopes, or to successfully put out a simple lie which won't be caught.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 07:49:33 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 07:19:24 PM
The trade-off comment was with regards being happy with having more overall involvement at the cost of the bottom of the pyramid being superficially involved.
Wait. What?
RWHN: "social media is casting the net wider in order to nab that one or two"
Yeah. I'm still waiting to hear how this is a "happy tradeoff" over having jobs.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 07:59:26 PM
The problem with that is, as things are set up right now, work or theft are the only ways to get the things you need to survive, within a western liberal democratic context. I'm in no way a fan of the Protestant work ethic - given the choice I'd probably work 2-3 days a week, just to add some variety to my routine of reading and writing - but unfortunately I have plans which involve being alive, and for that I need to work. It's not something I do willingly, it's something I do for the paycheck, because without it - I get kicked out of where I live, I cannot afford to eat and I starve. And it is marginally easier than a life of crime, though I am starting to reconsider that particular stance....
The most prosperous time of my life involved some rather shady dealings.
The problem with criminals is that they're generally stupid. If you go into it with some brains in your head, you have a better than average chance of doing well. For a while.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:00:13 PM
Yeah. I'm still waiting to hear how this is a "happy tradeoff" over having jobs.
It's not - did anyone say it was?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 08:03:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:00:13 PM
Yeah. I'm still waiting to hear how this is a "happy tradeoff" over having jobs.
It's not - did anyone say it was?
Yes, actually, you did.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 07:50:59 PM
And you get 99 people that consider their part to be done. Just saying.
Okay, but the point isn't that pressing Like makes you an activist. Those people weren't doing anything anyway. If their passive, superficial level of participation increased the number of real participants, they helped in some fractional way. Which is more than they were doing before facebook.
That's the thing. I'm worried about the mafia/cartel effect, as described by the criminal sociologist Diego Gambetta (who should also be read by every IR student). Basically, organized crime is stupid by design, because too clever people come up with clever ideas that allow them to rip everyone else off. So the leaders of such cartels hire and organize the ranks below them so people stupider than they are oversee the day to day operations - and stomp on anyone who shows signs of being too smart for their own good.
That and I have an aversion to Albanian gangsters - its a long story.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 05:24:35 PM
Don't blame the robots... all the stats I look at show a MASSIVE decline in industrial fatalities over time. How much of this is due to compliance and regulation, I have no clue, but the less squishy meatbags you have in direct contact with heavy/poisonous/pointy things, the better.
Greed may have caused it, but the results are not altogether terrible. That is, if you prefer to be unemployed than dead.
Youth may or may not be more superficial than before. But they are also getting involved in global concepts and events in an unprecedented scale. I'm happy with that trade-off.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 08:04:59 PM
That's the thing. I'm worried about the mafia/cartel effect, as described by the criminal sociologist Diego Gambetta (who should also be read by every IR student). Basically, organized crime is stupid by design, because too clever people come up with clever ideas that allow them to rip everyone else off. So the leaders of such cartels hire and organize the ranks below them so people stupider than they are oversee the day to day operations - and stomp on anyone who shows signs of being too smart for their own good.
That and I have an aversion to Albanian gangsters - its a long story.
The trick is to find a niche that doesn't put you in competition with organized criminals, or one that makes you more trouble dead than alive.
The problem with that, of course, is that most criminals I've come in contact with can't make that distinction. That's why they're criminals...They can't run a risk/reward analysis.
So you get in, make your pile, and try to stay alive long enough to get the fuck out.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 07:59:26 PM
The problem with that is, as things are set up right now, work or theft are the only ways to get the things you need to survive, within a western liberal democratic context. I'm in no way a fan of the Protestant work ethic - given the choice I'd probably work 2-3 days a week, just to add some variety to my routine of reading and writing - but unfortunately I have plans which involve being alive, and for that I need to work. It's not something I do willingly, it's something I do for the paycheck, because without it - I get kicked out of where I live, I cannot afford to eat and I starve. And it is marginally easier than a life of crime, though I am starting to reconsider that particular stance....
And therein lies the real problem. Our society is living in a fantasy where every person that wants a job can get a job. Its simply not realistic. I work in IT and I can think of ways to "create more jobs", but why would we?
We could replace the automated patching system we use with with a sneakernet of geeks that would go apply patches to everyone's systems on a biweekly basis. We could stop using the automatic anti-virus software and go back to manual updates for that as well. We could stop using Virtual servers and gho back to rooms full of boxes that need hardware updates and maintenance and administrators...
But really, why the hell would any company do that? Automated patching is far closer to 100% compliance than any sneakernet and Virtual Servers provide everything we need at a fraction of the cost and with increased stability.
The same is true for automation in factories, its true for pretty much every kind of work we do. Every time someone invents a new tool, its likely to put some people out of work. And I don't go for the belief that it automatically makes more jobs. It doesn't... automated patching/desktop updates etc is a part time job for one resource... not a full time job for a whole department as it once was... Even if everyone it replaced learned the tools, they wouldn't be needed.
Until we get over the idea that everyone that wants a job magically has a job, we'll just continue with the nonsense of blaming corporations, government, tea partiers, the Internet, those damn lazy kids these days, and whatever else we can come up with. Jobs aren't a guaranteed right.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
I work in IT and I can think of ways to "create more jobs", but why would we?
Ever see what happens to people who survive for long periods of time without working?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
I work in IT and I can think of ways to "create more jobs", but why would we?
Ever see what happens to people who survive for long periods of time without working?
Hell Roger, let's just kill off everybody who can't find work, that will help with the other problem as well. Right?
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 08:14:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
I work in IT and I can think of ways to "create more jobs", but why would we?
Ever see what happens to people who survive for long periods of time without working?
Hell Roger, let's just kill off everybody who can't find work, that will help with the other problem as well. Right?
You don't have to. They just turn into drones like Von Melee and Nurse Mayhem.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:05:24 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 05:24:35 PM
Don't blame the robots... all the stats I look at show a MASSIVE decline in industrial fatalities over time. How much of this is due to compliance and regulation, I have no clue, but the less squishy meatbags you have in direct contact with heavy/poisonous/pointy things, the better.
Greed may have caused it, but the results are not altogether terrible. That is, if you prefer to be unemployed than dead.
Youth may or may not be more superficial than before. But they are also getting involved in global concepts and events in an unprecedented scale. I'm happy with that trade-off.
Ah, thanks for finding that. I wasn't making a link between industrial fatalities and youth superficiality - I was addressing two separate points. I guess inline quotes might have made that clearer.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
I work in IT and I can think of ways to "create more jobs", but why would we?
Ever see what happens to people who survive for long periods of time without working?
I think I stated that poorly... What driver is there to become less efficient and less cost effective?
We can make more jobs but they would be unnecessary jobs. They would be jobs that can be done better and faster without people. So why would we do that? Is every company in the country responsible to employ as many people as possible, regardless of the necessity of the job?
It seems to me that we have to come to terms with a world where there simply aren't enough jobs to go around and plan accordingly.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:53:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.
No, it isn't. That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".
And so it's worse than doing nothing?
It's the same thing as charging a sigil, lighting a candle or saying a prayer for some sick kid in a hospital.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:25:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
I work in IT and I can think of ways to "create more jobs", but why would we?
Ever see what happens to people who survive for long periods of time without working?
I think I stated that poorly... What driver is there to become less efficient and less cost effective?
We can make more jobs but they would be unnecessary jobs. They would be jobs that can be done better and faster without people. So why would we do that? Is every company in the country responsible to employ as many people as possible, regardless of the necessity of the job?
It seems to me that we have to come to terms with a world where there simply aren't enough jobs to go around and plan accordingly.
And e are right back to there being too many people.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 08:27:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:25:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
I work in IT and I can think of ways to "create more jobs", but why would we?
Ever see what happens to people who survive for long periods of time without working?
I think I stated that poorly... What driver is there to become less efficient and less cost effective?
We can make more jobs but they would be unnecessary jobs. They would be jobs that can be done better and faster without people. So why would we do that? Is every company in the country responsible to employ as many people as possible, regardless of the necessity of the job?
It seems to me that we have to come to terms with a world where there simply aren't enough jobs to go around and plan accordingly.
And e are right back to there being too many people.
Or a need for a new way of organizing this stuff...
For example, the RICH economy in SC basically creates a Leisure Class. When people lose their job they become part of the Leisure class which receives an annual stipend from the government which is x% of the GDP. It also included education so they could get a job doing something else if they wanted to.
Another idea I've heard involved splitting the existing work, so instead of 60% of the population working 40 hours a week , you get 75 or 80% of the population working 30 hours a week, or 25 or whatever works.
I mean we can say its too many people, but technology will likely be replacing people for a long time to come... So do we just start passing out cyanide with pink slips?
I've long been a fan of the national dividend system. Funded with a 0.1% global Tobin Tax, it would allow everyone to have enough to live on without means testing, and that income could be supplemented by other means without the base payment being affected. It would make low paying but socially necessary jobs (nursing, teachers, social workers, cleaners, dustbin collection etc) more attractive, allow artists to spend more time making art instead of looking for ways to subsist and probably even save money by allowing much of the welfare system to be abolished.
Friedman's negative income tax would also be acceptable, but I think this provides more incentives for engaging in socially necessary careers than his model.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:25:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
I work in IT and I can think of ways to "create more jobs", but why would we?
Ever see what happens to people who survive for long periods of time without working?
I think I stated that poorly... What driver is there to become less efficient and less cost effective?
We can make more jobs but they would be unnecessary jobs. They would be jobs that can be done better and faster without people. So why would we do that? Is every company in the country responsible to employ as many people as possible, regardless of the necessity of the job?
It seems to me that we have to come to terms with a world where there simply aren't enough jobs to go around and plan accordingly.
Depends where you place your values. None of these jobs are unnecessary...They're just currently being done by what is essentially slave labor in other countries.
Are your priorities geared toward maximization of profits, ie, the most benefit for corporations and shareholders, or are they what's best for the country?
Because it's become painfully obvious that the two are not the same thing, in the medium term...And we can see right now what happens when we favor the corporations.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 09:16:27 PM
allow artists to spend more time making art instead of looking for ways to subsist
This is strictly anecdotal, but when I wasn't working, I wasn't writing, because I had nothing to write about. I'm pretty sure art isn't driven by leisure time.
At least not for any artists I know. Nurse Mayhem is a classic example. She does nothing anymore...She can't even keep up with single-piece commission work, because she's become a useless food tube.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:38:32 PM
For example, the RICH economy in SC basically creates a Leisure Class.
99% drones. I am sure that there are some people out there that would do something amazing with their time, but I think that almost everyone involved would turn into fat, couch-dwelling baby machines.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:38:32 PM
I mean we can say its too many people, but technology will likely be replacing people for a long time to come... So do we just start passing out cyanide with pink slips?
I work in heavy industry. TECHNOLOGY CREATES JOBS, IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THEM. At this refinery alone, automation has added 15 jobs, from 41 people to 56...And we're hardly unique in that respect.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:39:20 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 09:16:27 PM
allow artists to spend more time making art instead of looking for ways to subsist
This is strictly anecdotal, but when I wasn't working, I wasn't writing, because I had nothing to write about. I'm pretty sure art isn't driven by leisure time.
At least not for any artists I know. Nurse Mayhem is a classic example. She does nothing anymore...She can't even keep up with single-piece commission work, because she's become a useless food tube.
Well, it does depend on the kind of art. I know a few painters, and working to afford studio/material costs really eats into their actual art-making time.
Plus I think removing that desperate need to make enough to survive on would actually free them financially and mentally to seek out the kind of experiences they need to get creative...I mean, if that is working hard, then no-one is stopping them, they'll just have a nice little bit of extra cash at the end of it.
I think would also probably encourage people who have considered an artistic career but worry about the financial viability of it, for one reason or another. I know that, for example, I wont be able to work on this large piece of fiction I've planned out until I've sorted out my immediate career future, since that is taking up most of my time.
But I will concede it varies on a case-by-case basis.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 09:45:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:39:20 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 09:16:27 PM
allow artists to spend more time making art instead of looking for ways to subsist
This is strictly anecdotal, but when I wasn't working, I wasn't writing, because I had nothing to write about. I'm pretty sure art isn't driven by leisure time.
At least not for any artists I know. Nurse Mayhem is a classic example. She does nothing anymore...She can't even keep up with single-piece commission work, because she's become a useless food tube.
Well, it does depend on the kind of art. I know a few painters, and working to afford studio/material costs really eats into their actual art-making time.
Plus I think removing that desperate need to make enough to survive on would actually free them financially and mentally to seek out the kind of experiences they need to get creative...I mean, if that is working hard, then no-one is stopping them, they'll just have a nice little bit of extra cash at the end of it.
I think would also probably encourage people who have considered an artistic career but worry about the financial viability of it, for one reason or another. I know that, for example, I wont be able to work on this large piece of fiction I've planned out until I've sorted out my immediate career future, since that is taking up most of my time.
But I will concede it varies on a case-by-case basis.
And I'll concede that I'd rather have 99 drones and 1 Michealangelo than not have 99 drones and 1 Michealangelo.
I don't think that is a given. Most people I know want to work...maybe not as long hours as they do, maybe not with the shitty people at their office but, as a rule, work fufills an important social role for people. I know I felt much better after gaining employment (15-20 hours a week) than I did languishing on the dole. Again, not everyone feels that way, but I'm certain more people do than dont.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 09:54:44 PM
I don't think that is a given. Most people I know want to work...maybe not as long hours as they do, maybe not with the shitty people at their office but, as a rule, work fufills an important social role for people. I know I felt much better after gaining employment (15-20 hours a week) than I did languishing on the dole. Again, not everyone feels that way, but I'm certain more people do than dont.
I think it's an inertia thing for many people. If they're out of work long enough, they lose the desire to work, at least in the front of their brain.
But I've known very few people who didn't WANT to find a job upon being laid off from their last one.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:56:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 09:54:44 PM
I don't think that is a given. Most people I know want to work...maybe not as long hours as they do, maybe not with the shitty people at their office but, as a rule, work fufills an important social role for people. I know I felt much better after gaining employment (15-20 hours a week) than I did languishing on the dole. Again, not everyone feels that way, but I'm certain more people do than dont.
I think it's an inertia thing for many people. If they're out of work long enough, they lose the desire to work, at least in the front of their brain.
But I've known very few people who didn't WANT to find a job upon being laid off from their last one.
Some people are just lazy fucks. With those aside as a given, I've known a few who didn't try too hard to find work when they were laid off/let go. For the most part, the people I see now are so desperate for work you can smell it.
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 10:01:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:56:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 09:54:44 PM
I don't think that is a given. Most people I know want to work...maybe not as long hours as they do, maybe not with the shitty people at their office but, as a rule, work fufills an important social role for people. I know I felt much better after gaining employment (15-20 hours a week) than I did languishing on the dole. Again, not everyone feels that way, but I'm certain more people do than dont.
I think it's an inertia thing for many people. If they're out of work long enough, they lose the desire to work, at least in the front of their brain.
But I've known very few people who didn't WANT to find a job upon being laid off from their last one.
Some people are just lazy fucks. With those aside as a given, I've known a few who didn't try too hard to find work when they were laid off/let go. For the most part, the people I see now are so desperate for work you can smell it.
Yes, and some people BECOME lazy fucks.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 10:01:58 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 10:01:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:56:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 09:54:44 PM
I don't think that is a given. Most people I know want to work...maybe not as long hours as they do, maybe not with the shitty people at their office but, as a rule, work fufills an important social role for people. I know I felt much better after gaining employment (15-20 hours a week) than I did languishing on the dole. Again, not everyone feels that way, but I'm certain more people do than dont.
I think it's an inertia thing for many people. If they're out of work long enough, they lose the desire to work, at least in the front of their brain.
But I've known very few people who didn't WANT to find a job upon being laid off from their last one.
Some people are just lazy fucks. With those aside as a given, I've known a few who didn't try too hard to find work when they were laid off/let go. For the most part, the people I see now are so desperate for work you can smell it.
Yes, and some people BECOME lazy fucks.
Like me.
And me. I don't think I did anything at all in 2010.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:36:59 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:25:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
I work in IT and I can think of ways to "create more jobs", but why would we?
Ever see what happens to people who survive for long periods of time without working?
I think I stated that poorly... What driver is there to become less efficient and less cost effective?
We can make more jobs but they would be unnecessary jobs. They would be jobs that can be done better and faster without people. So why would we do that? Is every company in the country responsible to employ as many people as possible, regardless of the necessity of the job?
It seems to me that we have to come to terms with a world where there simply aren't enough jobs to go around and plan accordingly.
Depends where you place your values. None of these jobs are unnecessary...They're just currently being done by what is essentially slave labor in other countries.
Are your priorities geared toward maximization of profits, ie, the most benefit for corporations and shareholders, or are they what's best for the country?
Because it's become painfully obvious that the two are not the same thing, in the medium term...And we can see right now what happens when we favor the corporations.
I don't think you'll find any company that is going to keep people employed 'for the good of the country'. At that point we might as well have companies that pay people to dig holes and then fill them in. I mean, thats what a 'sneakernet' would be in this day and age. I don't think its a corporations duty to keep people employed if their job isn't needed.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 10:46:46 PM
I don't think you'll find any company that is going to keep people employed 'for the good of the country'.
Good. Then we can charge them a fucking tariff as if they were a foreign company, based on what percentage of their manufacturing was done inside/outside the United States.
I never expected them to do it voluntarily. I'm suggesting that they be forced to decide if they're an American company or not.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:38:32 PM
I mean we can say its too many people, but technology will likely be replacing people for a long time to come... So do we just start passing out cyanide with pink slips?
I work in heavy industry. TECHNOLOGY CREATES JOBS, IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THEM. At this refinery alone, automation has added 15 jobs, from 41 people to 56...And we're hardly unique in that respect.
SOME TECHNOLOGY CREATES JOBS. The examples I gave did not create new jobs, it simply eliminated them. We no longer need a team of IT guys to install a patch on every desktop... we need one guy to push a button and then go back to his other job duties. Some tech creates jobs, some eliminates jobs.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 10:49:49 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 10:46:46 PM
I don't think you'll find any company that is going to keep people employed 'for the good of the country'.
Good. Then we can charge them a fucking tariff as if they were a foreign company, based on what percentage of their manufacturing was done inside/outside the United States.
I never expected them to do it voluntarily. I'm suggesting that they be forced to decide if they're an American company or not.
Then they'll just move the whole thing outside of the country and eliminate what jobs they do have... I don't understand your argument here... is there some ratio or number of jobs that each company needs to create in order to be considered properly patriotic?
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 10:50:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:38:32 PM
I mean we can say its too many people, but technology will likely be replacing people for a long time to come... So do we just start passing out cyanide with pink slips?
I work in heavy industry. TECHNOLOGY CREATES JOBS, IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THEM. At this refinery alone, automation has added 15 jobs, from 41 people to 56...And we're hardly unique in that respect.
SOME TECHNOLOGY CREATES JOBS. The examples I gave did not create new jobs, it simply eliminated them. We no longer need a team of IT guys to install a patch on every desktop... we need one guy to push a button and then go back to his other job duties. Some tech creates jobs, some eliminates jobs.
How much productivity was restored/improved in this fashion?
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 10:49:49 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 10:46:46 PM
I don't think you'll find any company that is going to keep people employed 'for the good of the country'.
Good. Then we can charge them a fucking tariff as if they were a foreign company, based on what percentage of their manufacturing was done inside/outside the United States.
I never expected them to do it voluntarily. I'm suggesting that they be forced to decide if they're an American company or not.
Then they'll just move the whole thing outside of the country and eliminate what jobs they do have... I don't understand your argument here... is there some ratio or number of jobs that each company needs to create in order to be considered properly patriotic?
Good riddance to them. They can experience the joys of being nationalized by whatever hellhole they find themselves in. Halliburton, in particular, after it moved its corporate headquarters to Dubai to avoid paying taxes on their no-bid contracts that they performed in Iraq using Pakistanis.
They're fucking us now, I see no reason to let them wipe their dicks on our legs. Nor do I see any point in letting them hold us hostage for what few jobs they still offer here.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 10:53:05 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 10:50:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:38:32 PM
I mean we can say its too many people, but technology will likely be replacing people for a long time to come... So do we just start passing out cyanide with pink slips?
I work in heavy industry. TECHNOLOGY CREATES JOBS, IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THEM. At this refinery alone, automation has added 15 jobs, from 41 people to 56...And we're hardly unique in that respect.
SOME TECHNOLOGY CREATES JOBS. The examples I gave did not create new jobs, it simply eliminated them. We no longer need a team of IT guys to install a patch on every desktop... we need one guy to push a button and then go back to his other job duties. Some tech creates jobs, some eliminates jobs.
How much productivity was restored/improved in this fashion?
Well we have much closer to 100% compliance on system patching, far less issues and it can be done in the middle of the night without impacting the user. We can roll out new virus signatures/dats etc much faster and protect all systems, compared to the long arduous process that used to be required. So its cheaper, more effective and less of a impact on users.... but it shrunk our Desktop services team by quite a few...
When your exports are $1.8 trillion and your imports are $2.5 trillion (2008 figures), you're throwing money away you can't easily get back. When an American worker can be replaced for a fraction of the cost by out-sourcing, with no tangible downside, what rational corporation would do otherwise?
I'd like to see import levies relative to the last 12 month average trade balance. But since that would not benefit the corporate stakeholders in the short-term, it's hard to see that happening any time soon.
I would have more sympathy with "trickle down" if in practice it wasn't just "send it overseas".
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 11:11:21 PM
When your exports are $1.8 trillion and your imports are $2.5 trillion (2008 figures), you're throwing money away you can't easily get back. When an American worker can be replaced for a fraction of the cost by out-sourcing, with no tangible downside, what rational corporation would do otherwise?
One that doesn't want to decide whether to pay huge fucking tariffs, or move its headquarters offshore.
How long, does anyone suppose, that Halliburton would last if we hauled down the flag? They've made enemies everywhere, and the best they could shoot for would be mercenaries...And we all know how that ends.
The bastards got no-bid contracts, which they either didn't fulfill or hired damn near 100% non-Americans (while being paid in American tax dollars), and then moved their headquarters to Dubai to avoid taxes on the profits they made off of us.
Give them the boot, and watch the fucking vultures tear them to shreds.
I think you'll find that most corporations will wind up "on-shoring".
And, Rat, as for your question, they can be as patriotic - or not - as they feel like paying/not paying for.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:38:32 PM
I mean we can say its too many people, but technology will likely be replacing people for a long time to come... So do we just start passing out cyanide with pink slips?
I work in heavy industry. TECHNOLOGY CREATES JOBS, IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THEM. At this refinery alone, automation has added 15 jobs, from 41 people to 56...And we're hardly unique in that respect.
I had this thought earlier about how automation creates jobs.
Sure you could take a highschool grad, give him a 2-4 hour class on how to operate a CnC mill and then have him monitor 3-4 mills at once, BUT those things periodically need maintenance, those things need to have their sensors calibrated, tools needs to be sharpened, gage blocks and other measuring tools need to be checked to standard, the perfectly flat and smooth granite table that has all the parts gaged on needs to be checked and re-polished. Some of these things could be outsourced or done by minimially skilled workers, but some of them need to be done by trained workers, that in order to be cost effective need to be local.
I'm pretty sure this applies to most automated manufacturing plants.
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on February 15, 2011, 12:38:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:38:32 PM
I mean we can say its too many people, but technology will likely be replacing people for a long time to come... So do we just start passing out cyanide with pink slips?
I work in heavy industry. TECHNOLOGY CREATES JOBS, IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THEM. At this refinery alone, automation has added 15 jobs, from 41 people to 56...And we're hardly unique in that respect.
I had this thought earlier about how automation creates jobs.
Sure you could take a highschool grad, give him a 2-4 hour class on how to operate a CnC mill and then have him monitor 3-4 mills at once, BUT those things periodically need maintenance, those things need to have their sensors calibrated, tools needs to be sharpened, gage blocks and other measuring tools need to be checked to standard, the perfectly flat and smooth granite table that has all the parts gaged on needs to be checked and re-polished. Some of these things could be outsourced or done by minimially skilled workers, but some of them need to be done by trained workers, that in order to be cost effective need to be local.
I'm pretty sure this applies to most automated manufacturing plants.
Not only that, but you're kicking out more product, which means you need more packaging guys, forklift operators, truck drivers, etc...Add in the increased orders at the steel yard, and there you go.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 12:45:00 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on February 15, 2011, 12:38:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:38:32 PM
I mean we can say its too many people, but technology will likely be replacing people for a long time to come... So do we just start passing out cyanide with pink slips?
I work in heavy industry. TECHNOLOGY CREATES JOBS, IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THEM. At this refinery alone, automation has added 15 jobs, from 41 people to 56...And we're hardly unique in that respect.
I had this thought earlier about how automation creates jobs.
Sure you could take a highschool grad, give him a 2-4 hour class on how to operate a CnC mill and then have him monitor 3-4 mills at once, BUT those things periodically need maintenance, those things need to have their sensors calibrated, tools needs to be sharpened, gage blocks and other measuring tools need to be checked to standard, the perfectly flat and smooth granite table that has all the parts gaged on needs to be checked and re-polished. Some of these things could be outsourced or done by minimially skilled workers, but some of them need to be done by trained workers, that in order to be cost effective need to be local.
I'm pretty sure this applies to most automated manufacturing plants.
Not only that, but you're kicking out more product, which means you need more packaging guys, forklift operators, truck drivers, etc...Add in the increased orders at the steel yard, and there you go.
I had completely spaced on that too.
Also, the faster you make stuff, the faster you run out of raw materials, which ends up increasing demand for the equipment to mine, refine, package, ship the RAW materials.
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on February 15, 2011, 12:49:52 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 12:45:00 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on February 15, 2011, 12:38:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:38:32 PM
I mean we can say its too many people, but technology will likely be replacing people for a long time to come... So do we just start passing out cyanide with pink slips?
I work in heavy industry. TECHNOLOGY CREATES JOBS, IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THEM. At this refinery alone, automation has added 15 jobs, from 41 people to 56...And we're hardly unique in that respect.
I had this thought earlier about how automation creates jobs.
Sure you could take a highschool grad, give him a 2-4 hour class on how to operate a CnC mill and then have him monitor 3-4 mills at once, BUT those things periodically need maintenance, those things need to have their sensors calibrated, tools needs to be sharpened, gage blocks and other measuring tools need to be checked to standard, the perfectly flat and smooth granite table that has all the parts gaged on needs to be checked and re-polished. Some of these things could be outsourced or done by minimially skilled workers, but some of them need to be done by trained workers, that in order to be cost effective need to be local.
I'm pretty sure this applies to most automated manufacturing plants.
Not only that, but you're kicking out more product, which means you need more packaging guys, forklift operators, truck drivers, etc...Add in the increased orders at the steel yard, and there you go.
I had completely spaced on that too.
Also, the faster you make stuff, the faster you run out of raw materials, which ends up increasing demand for the equipment to mine, refine, package, ship the RAW materials.
Yep. There's a bit of a trap built into this, though.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:04:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 07:50:59 PM
And you get 99 people that consider their part to be done. Just saying.
Okay, but the point isn't that pressing Like makes you an activist. Those people weren't doing anything anyway. If their passive, superficial level of participation increased the number of real participants, they helped in some fractional way. Which is more than they were doing before facebook.
Actually it also makes those 99 people more likely to act when prompted with an opportunity for a slightly higher level of involvement. Same psychological mechanism petitions are based on.
Also, to the question what is actually being accomplished, I think the recent leak of HBGary emails is a good example. It came from Anonymous, and I don't think that small subset of Anon blackhat hackers would have done the same if it hadn't been for the HUGE recent online social support of "leaks" in this fashion.
As for the rest, what Cram said. Otherwise the 99 would have been doing nothing, so it's no loss. If you really think there's a loss, I'd like to see an example of people that would
otherwise have done something substantial but instead now say "ah but I clicked Like on FB, my work is done".
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:38:32 PM
Another idea I've heard involved splitting the existing work, so instead of 60% of the population working 40 hours a week , you get 75 or 80% of the population working 30 hours a week, or 25 or whatever works.
I think this is a real good idea. Cause I agree with Roger's views on the dangers of entirely unemployed people becoming food-tubes, hell I can personally relate to that which is why I need to find a job, fast, even if it's volunteer work. But I think that if you work 20-30 hours a week, you've already easily staved off the food-tube hazard. At least, such would be the case for myself.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 15, 2011, 01:12:01 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2011, 08:38:32 PM
Another idea I've heard involved splitting the existing work, so instead of 60% of the population working 40 hours a week , you get 75 or 80% of the population working 30 hours a week, or 25 or whatever works.
I think this is a real good idea. Cause I agree with Roger's views on the dangers of entirely unemployed people becoming food-tubes, hell I can personally relate to that which is why I need to find a job, fast, even if it's volunteer work. But I think that if you work 20-30 hours a week, you've already easily staved off the food-tube hazard. At least, such would be the case for myself.
With modern technology, there is absolutely no reason why a human being should have to work more than 32 hours a week.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 09:16:27 PM
I've long been a fan of the national dividend system. Funded with a 0.1% global Tobin Tax, it would allow everyone to have enough to live on without means testing, and that income could be supplemented by other means without the base payment being affected. It would make low paying but socially necessary jobs (nursing, teachers, social workers, cleaners, dustbin collection etc) more attractive, allow artists to spend more time making art instead of looking for ways to subsist and probably even save money by allowing much of the welfare system to be abolished.
Friedman's negative income tax would also be acceptable, but I think this provides more incentives for engaging in socially necessary careers than his model.
I don't think I've ever heard of this, but I really like the idea of it. Is there a link with more info?
I have decided that because I'm American, no matter how hard I try at anything or apply myself, I am simply not allowed to be smart. Ever.
Quote from: Princess Suu the Apostate on February 15, 2011, 03:11:31 PM
I have decided that because I'm American, no matter how hard I try at anything or apply myself, I am simply not allowed to be smart. Ever.
We're allowed to BE smart, as long as we do it in private, and wash our hands afterward.
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 15, 2011, 01:04:54 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 09:16:27 PM
I've long been a fan of the national dividend system. Funded with a 0.1% global Tobin Tax, it would allow everyone to have enough to live on without means testing, and that income could be supplemented by other means without the base payment being affected. It would make low paying but socially necessary jobs (nursing, teachers, social workers, cleaners, dustbin collection etc) more attractive, allow artists to spend more time making art instead of looking for ways to subsist and probably even save money by allowing much of the welfare system to be abolished.
Friedman's negative income tax would also be acceptable, but I think this provides more incentives for engaging in socially necessary careers than his model.
I don't think I've ever heard of this, but I really like the idea of it. Is there a link with more info?
This. It sounds really interesting. And I'd love it, since I'm in school and I hate working on campus. I need to work because I need to feel productive, but I'd rather work at the center for non-violence across the street as a volunteer or do what I do for free in places that need me than sit here, killing time because this teacher's system is totally retarded and there's really no need for me.