Ever since reading The Jungle* I've taken to being affronted whenever some person complains about "The Grind". This may be due to these people not being physically ground into the earth for profit. We in the west have been striving to send as much of that type of work as far away as possible, presumably to achieve even higher quality goods and services. Surely, it's not a concerted effort to reduce all those pesky regulations and pay demands that develop over a century of industrial living.
Surely, it's all for a brighter tomorrow.
Meanwhile, here in 1st/2nd World paradise, people either schlep double or triple shifts OR claw away 5-15 hours at some shit retail job OR the company "goes out of business" and "comes back" and hires new people at pathetic rates. Not all of them, but way, way too many people do this.
Whatever happened to that sweet 40 an hour workweek, weekends free? Wait. What?
Is that what me or any of us want? Is that what any of us need?
I mean, while we're talking about Utopia here...what in the hell is up with that 40 hour, workweek? Unions fought hard for that shit just to get a reasonable bare minimum.** I'm starting to think that bare minimum is monstrous, archaic, and just plain stupid.
Do you feel any guilt at the idea of working any less? I do. It feels like there's a whole world out there, just waiting for me to PRODUCE as much as possible, and that 40 hours being the grudgingly set ideal, and I can't shake that shit.
At some point it's like having a car (for most people) you kinda have to because that's how it is.
At some other point you have to leave the past behind.
Do you suppose all the other human revolutions (Agricultural, etc) were as bloody as this last one?
*Until the last fifth or so turned into a tract on utopian socialism. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for that, but not in my horror story plz.
**Ooh, sore subject.
Europe has proven that you can have a fully-functional economy on a 32 hour work week.
With 6 weeks vacation.
So there's really no excuse for treating people like robots.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 05, 2013, 06:33:30 PM
Europe has proven that you can have a fully-functional economy on a 32 hour work week.
With 6 weeks vacation.
So there's really no excuse for treating people like robots.
If you want to keep wages artificially low, there is.
Honestly I think the problem is that we have an economy where "what you do for a living" and "what you do for fun" are almost always in completely separate domains. Obviously, someone's got to clean toilets and there probably aren't many people for whom that qualifies as a dream job, but there's no really compelling reason why hundreds of millions of people should have to spend their best years churning out sprockets or tinkering with things just to pay the bills.
Maybe the Grind would feel less grinding if we had universal education, guaranteed health care, and an absolute promise that no matter who you are, where you come from, or what you choose to do for work, you will not starve to death, die of a treatable illness, or have to live in poverty. If we were free to experiment and find what really inspires us without the fear of "failing" and being destitute, I think a lot more people would end up happy and we might be surprised at the kinds of jobs that still get done.
I'd have to agree.
With those things in place I certainly wouldn't mind cleaning toilets while going to school.
And then yell at my son that I did so when he complains about whatever menial task the hive mind assigns him.
Does anyone else just sit and stare and daydream about that kind of shit, and then someone, everyone, starts talking to you about something that isn't that, and you don't get angry and shake all of them?
Quote from: V3X on November 05, 2013, 07:08:18 PM
Honestly I think the problem is that we have an economy where "what you do for a living" and "what you do for fun" are almost always in completely separate domains. Obviously, someone's got to clean toilets and there probably aren't many people for whom that qualifies as a dream job, but there's no really compelling reason why hundreds of millions of people should have to spend their best years churning out sprockets or tinkering with things just to pay the bills.
Maybe the Grind would feel less grinding if we had universal education, guaranteed health care, and an absolute promise that no matter who you are, where you come from, or what you choose to do for work, you will not starve to death, die of a treatable illness, or have to live in poverty. If we were free to experiment and find what really inspires us without the fear of "failing" and being destitute, I think a lot more people would end up happy and we might be surprised at the kinds of jobs that still get done.
Amen. Not to mention the kind of brilliant innovation that would arise.
That would certainly make my life more interesting.
I just don't know where to even begin undermining the notion that "work" equals "money." I mean, why should your value as a human, or what goods and services you have access to, depend on what you do at work? The idea that some people are just more important than other people, which incidentally is the most fundamental cornerstone of Western civilization, demands that this is how the economy must work. Even in extreme Socialist systems, this hierarchy of purpose and impact is woven into society from the lowest levels up. It is that we value a person's actions and products above the person's self, or their beliefs or their observations, which are only important in the really fantastic so-called "dream jobs" like rock stardom -- which in reality is far less glamorous and "fun" than it looks, or so all the longtime rock stars say.
My frustration is that at its core, our entire way of life is based on this belief that function and hierarchy are superior to human experience. Which just seems completely backward to me.
I've often wondered if the major failing of capitalism (or one of them) is that the notion of 'value' is skewed massively by the basic need to do something to survive.
If the state paid your survival needs, we'd see a sudden surge in wages for the shittiest jobs in society... because you'd need a far bigger incentive to work them. That would put things closer towards a system where 'well if they don't like it, they don't have to do it' is actually a reasonable response to things like working conditions and benefits, because it'd actually be true.
There's some countries which have come close to this, but since society needs exploitation in order to maintain the shape we expect, I don't think it'll ever happen. Still, though, its a nice thought.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on November 05, 2013, 07:51:38 PM
I've often wondered if the major failing of capitalism (or one of them) is that the notion of 'value' is skewed massively by the basic need to do something to survive.
If the state paid your survival needs, we'd see a sudden surge in wages for the shittiest jobs in society... because you'd need a far bigger incentive to work them. That would put things closer towards a system where 'well if they don't like it, they don't have to do it' is actually a reasonable response to things like working conditions and benefits, because it'd actually be true.
There's some countries which have come close to this, but since society needs exploitation in order to maintain the shape we expect, I don't think it'll ever happen. Still, though, its a nice thought.
Does it really need exploitation? Can you expand on that?
Well, there's a few ways I mean it. There's the fact that capitalism is built on the promise that if you can accumulate wealth, you can keep it and do what you want with it. In a system which is predicated on providing the basic needs for everyone first and foremost, that can't exist - so you wouldn't have multi-millionaires most likely, let alone billionaires. Those people have access to too much capital which could otherwise be used for other purposes. It'd require a whole new set of expectations for what the 'top level' you can achieve in life is, in terms of monetary wealth.
But at its most basic level, we need people to grow our food and make our goods. We've exported the exploitation necessary to third world countries for the vast majority of basic products. If those people no longer had to do that to survive, how many do you think would continue to do so? How much would you have to pay them to go out in the fields and work, or sit in a factory all day? Its an ugly part of our world, but without the exploitation of those people, we wouldn't be able to enjoy the vastly increased standards of living we take for granted.
To bring them up, we'd have to radically reshape the entire way wealth is distributed in society. It could probably be done in theory, but it'd require a global level of governance and cooperation working against powers that are so deeply entrenched I don't think it is feasible in practice. It may not even be desirable, given what we know tends to happen with large organizations of people being people all over the place.
Employment is essentially a form of exploitation; if I can't make a profit off of your labor, I have no reason to hire you. I am OK with this, but where it goes really wrong is when employers gain too much power and are able to manipulate the market so that they are able to maximize the profit they earn from workers' labor, while minimizing the options laborers have for finding employment with a better wage-to-productivity ratio. This is why you see employees who break sales records that earn the company millions being rewarded with a brass plaque in the lunchroom.
:lulz:
Every quarterly big meeting at ATT we were told we just had our best quarter ever, then, every Friday we were told we were worthless scum.
Small farms work, DS. They work because farmers actually love to farm, and because local food stimulates the local economy, and because most factory farms are actually conglomerates of former small farmers who have been coerced into contract with the agricorporations, at tremendous cost to not only their individual profitability but also their way of life. The idea that we HAVE to have large-scale farming operations in order to feed the starving masses is a straight-up myth. It's a lie, invented by corporate giants to justify the ever-increasing profitability of warehousing food and people.
Quote from: Alty on November 05, 2013, 09:10:16 PM
:lulz:
Every quarterly big meeting at ATT we were told we just had our best quarter ever, then, every Friday we were told we were worthless scum.
"The good news is that the company is earning record profits, and opening six new locations! The bad news is that there's a wage freeze, so sorry guys, it's the economy".
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 05, 2013, 09:11:07 PM
Small farms work, DS. They work because farmers actually love to farm, and because local food stimulates the local economy, and because most factory farms are actually conglomerates of former small farmers who have been coerced into contract with the agricorporations, at tremendous cost to not only their individual profitability but also their way of life. The idea that we HAVE to have large-scale farming operations in order to feed the starving masses is a straight-up myth. It's a lie, invented by corporate giants to justify the ever-increasing profitability of warehousing food and people.
Really?
I'm sceptical that there's enough capacity for small farms to take up the slack of food production, because the big traditional bread baskets have been drying up and we've been seeing food costs increase as a result - I attended a lecture on the environmental impact of food production which basically concluded that we have to use those areas of the globe where conditions are best because the impact of transporting them is tiny compared to the lengths you'd have to go through to make places like the UK produce their own food would be extreme and damaging both environmentally and economically.
I'd love for this to be the case, though. It'd completely reshape how I think about food security issues.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on November 05, 2013, 09:26:17 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 05, 2013, 09:11:07 PM
Small farms work, DS. They work because farmers actually love to farm, and because local food stimulates the local economy, and because most factory farms are actually conglomerates of former small farmers who have been coerced into contract with the agricorporations, at tremendous cost to not only their individual profitability but also their way of life. The idea that we HAVE to have large-scale farming operations in order to feed the starving masses is a straight-up myth. It's a lie, invented by corporate giants to justify the ever-increasing profitability of warehousing food and people.
Really?
I'm sceptical that there's enough capacity for small farms to take up the slack of food production, because the big traditional bread baskets have been drying up and we've been seeing food costs increase as a result - I attended a lecture on the environmental impact of food production which basically concluded that we have to use those areas of the globe where conditions are best because the impact of transporting them is tiny compared to the lengths you'd have to go through to make places like the UK produce their own food would be extreme and damaging both environmentally and economically.
I'd love for this to be the case, though. It'd completely reshape how I think about food security issues.
Who lectured, and where? There are a lot of arguments on either side of the issue, but one of the most compelling arguments against centralizing food production, IMO, IS environmental vulnerability, and centralized food production in combination with environmental vulnerability is the reason behind the spikes in food prices.
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/community_control.html
However, a lower price of commodity food on the international market can have devastating effects on local farming economies, resulting in greater net hunger. The solution is most likely to diversify and support the small farm model wherever possible, abandon subsidies that encourage monoculture and which flood the global market with commodity foods at such a low price that local farmers cannot compete, and to teach sustainable farming methods in areas that are not currently using them.
I've heard the argument that you can't feed cities with small farms. From an anthropologist, of all things.
But the fact is, you CAN. The Canadians do it all the time, using co-ops to reduce transportation costs and the burden of capital investment for equipment.
And there are more huge corporate farms now than ever...And food prices are INCREASING. Not to mention that cost-cutting measures have released salmonella all over the place (Foster Farms, for example), among other things.
Something tells me that I know who pays for the research that says you need huge farms.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 05, 2013, 10:00:34 PM
I've heard the argument that you can't feed cities with small farms. From an anthropologist, of all things.
But the fact is, you CAN. The Canadians do it all the time, using co-ops to reduce transportation costs and the burden of capital investment for equipment.
And there are more huge corporate farms now than ever...And food prices are INCREASING. Not to mention that cost-cutting measures have released salmonella all over the place (Foster Farms, for example), among other things.
Something tells me that I know who pays for the research that says you need huge farms.
There is quite a bit of evidence that the problem is not a lack of farmland, but the economic, procurement, and distribution system that overwhelmingly favors large-scale farming. India is one really overwhelming example, with thousands of farms abandoned, thousands of tons of grain rotting due to inadequate storage, and an epidemic of farmer suicides as they are forced out of the market by lower-priced (subsidized) imports from the US. http://www.changemakers.com/blog/small-farmers-willing-quit-jeopardizing-india%E2%80%99s-food-se
And then there's this: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/06/how-africa-could-feed-the-world/
And this: http://www.ucmerced.edu/news/grad-student%E2%80%99s-farmland-mapping-project-gets-prestigious-publisher
Boy, is my face red.
I thought it was Tim Lang - I can't find my lecture notes from back then, but google helped me find out that he gave a lecture with a similar theme at around the same time in the same place (Birmingham).
Then I found this: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/01/food-prices-doubling
And it seems like even if that was the line of thought when I heard it in 2008-2009, by 2011 it had changed. Those links of yours are also fascinating, Nigel.
So it seems like the argument I heard was - at best - misguided and doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.
I don't know whether to be relieved or furious. On the one hand, fantastic! That means one of the major issues I thought existed to balancing world poverty doesn't actually exist.
On the other, why the fuck isn't this information being thrown up over and over again when people talk about food security? There have been two debates in the mass media I've heard of this year about how moving to be self-reliant in food would take decades, billions of investment and require at least a doubling or tripling of the cost of food.
Yet another instance where it seems like vested interests control the debate in order to hide the truth and maintain their profits. God damnit.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on November 05, 2013, 10:38:55 PM
On the other, why the fuck isn't this information being thrown up over and over again when people talk about food security?
Because evil people have other agendas, and both the will and the means to see them through. And of what use is information when there are only 5 media corporations left in the whole world?
The truth is buried under a host of lies, and people starve so that rich people get richer.
It's really just that simple.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 05, 2013, 07:33:52 PM
Quote from: V3X on November 05, 2013, 07:08:18 PM
Honestly I think the problem is that we have an economy where "what you do for a living" and "what you do for fun" are almost always in completely separate domains. Obviously, someone's got to clean toilets and there probably aren't many people for whom that qualifies as a dream job, but there's no really compelling reason why hundreds of millions of people should have to spend their best years churning out sprockets or tinkering with things just to pay the bills.
Maybe the Grind would feel less grinding if we had universal education, guaranteed health care, and an absolute promise that no matter who you are, where you come from, or what you choose to do for work, you will not starve to death, die of a treatable illness, or have to live in poverty. If we were free to experiment and find what really inspires us without the fear of "failing" and being destitute, I think a lot more people would end up happy and we might be surprised at the kinds of jobs that still get done.
Amen. Not to mention the kind of brilliant innovation that would arise.
Aristotle Divides activities in three groups
1, I think that brilliant innovation requires a mix of all three.
1Quote from: AristotleIn Ancient Greek the word praxis (πρᾶξις) referred to activity engaged in by free men. Aristotle held that there were three basic activities of man: theoria, poiesis and praxis. There corresponded to these kinds of activity three types of knowledge: theoretical, to which the end goal was truth; poietical, to which the end goal was production; and practical, to which the end goal was action.
What seems wrong with our current economy is that it is completely focussed on poiesis. We apparently need to consume more so we can produce more
10so we can consume more so we can produce more
GOTO10 Leaving us too little time for activities that have as their goal the activity itself (leisure) and/or the pursuit of Truth (a few examples: Science, self-reflection, figuring out how to not be a fat bastard).
Production should be a means to an end. The workweek, as long as it is defined by unpleasant production, should forever be getting shorter. What is the point of technological innovation if it does not give us more time to enjoy life?
Quote from: Demolition Squid on November 05, 2013, 10:38:55 PM
Boy, is my face red.
I thought it was Tim Lang - I can't find my lecture notes from back then, but google helped me find out that he gave a lecture with a similar theme at around the same time in the same place (Birmingham).
Then I found this: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/01/food-prices-doubling
And it seems like even if that was the line of thought when I heard it in 2008-2009, by 2011 it had changed. Those links of yours are also fascinating, Nigel.
So it seems like the argument I heard was - at best - misguided and doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.
I don't know whether to be relieved or furious. On the one hand, fantastic! That means one of the major issues I thought existed to balancing world poverty doesn't actually exist.
On the other, why the fuck isn't this information being thrown up over and over again when people talk about food security? There have been two debates in the mass media I've heard of this year about how moving to be self-reliant in food would take decades, billions of investment and require at least a doubling or tripling of the cost of food.
Yet another instance where it seems like vested interests control the debate in order to hide the truth and maintain their profits. God damnit.
Don't be embarrassed, it's an incredibly common misconception. Really, it's because there is very little small interests can do to propagate information when the overwhelming majority of information is propagated by very very large and wealthy and efficient interests. The information is out there, but it's so drowned out by what the large interests want you to believe, under the guise of "feeding the world", that it's actually not so easy to come by.
It's also important to remember that sometimes facts change, and in 2008 we were projecting a world in which population growth would not slow down. And then it did, but fueled by both the misinformation spread by corporate interests (who have the money and the access to media) about the necessity of centralizing and making farming more efficient, and by the belief in the myth of dwindling farmlands, we have continued rushing apace into concentrating as much food production as possible into the smallest space (and ownership) possible, with devastating effects on small farmers and their local economies.
Now, I have no idea what the current numbers and theories say, but last year a number of sociologists were projecting that we have passed peak population growth and are now heading into a slowing arc that will gradually flatten out and decline as the global population continues to urbanize. That also makes the food production situation vastly, vastly different.
Quote from: :regret: on November 06, 2013, 12:09:18 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 05, 2013, 07:33:52 PM
Quote from: V3X on November 05, 2013, 07:08:18 PM
Honestly I think the problem is that we have an economy where "what you do for a living" and "what you do for fun" are almost always in completely separate domains. Obviously, someone's got to clean toilets and there probably aren't many people for whom that qualifies as a dream job, but there's no really compelling reason why hundreds of millions of people should have to spend their best years churning out sprockets or tinkering with things just to pay the bills.
Maybe the Grind would feel less grinding if we had universal education, guaranteed health care, and an absolute promise that no matter who you are, where you come from, or what you choose to do for work, you will not starve to death, die of a treatable illness, or have to live in poverty. If we were free to experiment and find what really inspires us without the fear of "failing" and being destitute, I think a lot more people would end up happy and we might be surprised at the kinds of jobs that still get done.
Amen. Not to mention the kind of brilliant innovation that would arise.
Aristotle Divides activities in three groups1, I think that brilliant innovation requires a mix of all three.
1Quote from: AristotleIn Ancient Greek the word praxis (πρᾶξις) referred to activity engaged in by free men. Aristotle held that there were three basic activities of man: theoria, poiesis and praxis. There corresponded to these kinds of activity three types of knowledge: theoretical, to which the end goal was truth; poietical, to which the end goal was production; and practical, to which the end goal was action.
What seems wrong with our current economy is that it is completely focussed on poiesis. We apparently need to consume more so we can produce more 10so we can consume more so we can produce more GOTO10 Leaving us too little time for activities that have as their goal the activity itself (leisure) and/or the pursuit of Truth (a few examples: Science, self-reflection, figuring out how to not be a fat bastard).
Production should be a means to an end. The workweek, as long as it is defined by unpleasant production, should forever be getting shorter. What is the point of technological innovation if it does not give us more time to enjoy life?
I started reading that post with the Roger face, thinking "what a pretentious load of shit". But then I realized that it's fucking brilliant.
RELEVANT.
http://www.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-discovery-about-brain-ever
:horrormirth:
Yeah, it's alternet, but they link to the original paper.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 06, 2013, 01:13:07 AM
RELEVANT.
http://www.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-discovery-about-brain-ever
:horrormirth:
Yeah, it's alternet, but they link to the original paper.
Haha, yeah, I saw that. It ties into several other studies, for example the ones that show that debunking beliefs just reinforces them.
Oh also LOL my mentor is giving a talk on numeracy and decision-making in health care, and showing her film, on my campus... during a time when I'm in lab. :meh: That relates to this article because political beliefs absolutely destroy people's ability to interpret numbers in a way that makes them able to make effective health-care decisions for themselves and their children, as I found on a small but alarming scale over the summer with my research that I'm presenting at the conference in Nashville next week.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 06, 2013, 01:48:36 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 06, 2013, 01:13:07 AM
RELEVANT.
http://www.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-discovery-about-brain-ever
:horrormirth:
Yeah, it's alternet, but they link to the original paper.
Haha, yeah, I saw that. It ties into several other studies, for example the ones that show that debunking beliefs just reinforces them.
I'm going to drop that on every hipster I see on Facebook, who's "getting the word out".
But they won't get it. :lol:
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 06, 2013, 02:19:28 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 06, 2013, 01:48:36 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 06, 2013, 01:13:07 AM
RELEVANT.
http://www.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-discovery-about-brain-ever
:horrormirth:
Yeah, it's alternet, but they link to the original paper.
Haha, yeah, I saw that. It ties into several other studies, for example the ones that show that debunking beliefs just reinforces them.
I'm going to drop that on every hipster I see on Facebook, who's "getting the word out".
But they won't get it. :lol:
Hee hee hee, please xpost or link to any fun reactions.
Two things come to mind. One of them is this:
http://basicincome2013.eu/ (http://basicincome2013.eu/)
I've signed, and if you are a citizen of the EU, so should you. Cyprus and Switzerland (predictably, but still) have legislated to introduce it (as far as I know) beginning next year.
The other one is that while I agree with Nigel that employment is de facto in most cases a form of exploitation, I'm not sure to what extent it is an essential feature. To my mind, the essentials of employment are as follows: some projects are not single person projects, and all projects carry risk: when I cooperate with others on the basis that I (voluntarily) take most or all of the risk involved (generally by providing most or all of the resources required) for the project, I can be said to be employing those others to work for me. It is also fair, in that setup, for me to get a larger share of the value generated by the project (if it is a success) than the others do. The question of whether I am exploiting them or not is a different question, which depends, largely, on the working conditions I provide (using the resources I have), the share they get of the value we generate together, and, in the wider context, of the extent to which they are forced to accept unfair offers by the economic landscape.
I realise that this may sound entitled and that I am in a privileged situation, but still, it seems to me the best way to work towards shifting the behemoth just a little bit is to stay away from exploitative relationships. And while I am fully aware that the great majority have little choice in the matter, when I look around in my hood, I see quite a few people who complain at having to work too many hours under a bad boss, but would not dream of accepting a reduction of monetary income in return for more time and better work relationships. Which is sad.
A year ago I would have gladly accepted less money in exchange for less hours.
Now I live in a stupidly expensive house and I can't even afford it with my current income.
I would still like to work less, but now it is more a theoretical desire that would first require some other changes to happen.
I just want to live on Walden Two as written by B.F. Skinner.
A lot of people seem to have as their goal the desire to live in ever-nicer and ever-larger houses. Like your house has to reflect your income.
Fuck that. To me, security is a paid-off house, a pantry full of food, and plenty of free time.
The House is very much a part of this problem, I think. Not the largely unregulated, unchained housing industry, but the idea, woven into the fabric of many of our stupid minds, The House.
I want nothing more than to build my house for under $50k. Well under. For $50k I ought to have a god damned palace.
I'm really fascinated by alternative housing, anything but that awful pre-fab horrorshow. I should do a photo tour of what houses do to Alaska.
Dirtbag house or GTFO.
Quote from: holist on November 06, 2013, 04:38:27 PM
Two things come to mind. One of them is this:
http://basicincome2013.eu/ (http://basicincome2013.eu/)
I've signed, and if you are a citizen of the EU, so should you. Cyprus and Switzerland (predictably, but still) have legislated to introduce it (as far as I know) beginning next year.
The other one is that while I agree with Nigel that employment is de facto in most cases a form of exploitation, I'm not sure to what extent it is an essential feature. To my mind, the essentials of employment are as follows: some projects are not single person projects, and all projects carry risk: when I cooperate with others on the basis that I (voluntarily) take most or all of the risk involved (generally by providing most or all of the resources required) for the project, I can be said to be employing those others to work for me. It is also fair, in that setup, for me to get a larger share of the value generated by the project (if it is a success) than the others do. The question of whether I am exploiting them or not is a different question, which depends, largely, on the working conditions I provide (using the resources I have), the share they get of the value we generate together, and, in the wider context, of the extent to which they are forced to accept unfair offers by the economic landscape.
I realise that this may sound entitled and that I am in a privileged situation, but still, it seems to me the best way to work towards shifting the behemoth just a little bit is to stay away from exploitative relationships. And while I am fully aware that the great majority have little choice in the matter, when I look around in my hood, I see quite a few people who complain at having to work too many hours under a bad boss, but would not dream of accepting a reduction of monetary income in return for more time and better work relationships. Which is sad.
This is all very pie-in-the-sky, as far as I can interpret it. First,
Quotewhen I cooperate with others on the basis that I (voluntarily) take most or all of the risk involved (generally by providing most or all of the resources required) for the project, I can be said to be employing those others to work for me. It is also fair, in that setup, for me to get a larger share of the value generated by the project (if it is a success) than the others do.
This
sounds reasonable on the surface, but only because you are operating under the assumption that the resources you invested (i.e. money) are the only resources worth considering when the returns are made. Nevermind that very likely your "employees" provided many times your investment in the form of time, dedication, attention to detail, and overall
work. And in any business venture the idea is to transform
work into
wealth, right? Capitalism
seems like a system that turns
work into
wealth until you really examine it, and find out that that it is actually a system that turns
wealth into
more wealth -- at the EXPENSE of those who do the work.
The first problem faced by Capitalism is that as a first step it reduces the sum value of all contributing factors to a venture -- except monetary investment -- to zero. Next, it evaluates the venture as if the money is the only thing that ever went into it, and does the same for its earnings. So you put in $100, some stuff happened, and you received $1,000 in return. The actual work that goes into the venture is accounted for only as an afterthought, when part of the venture's proceeds must be spent to maintain and expand the work force as necessary -- and
only to the bare minimum extent that the workers must be kept on the job.
What you end up with is a system that completely ignores workers because they are viewed as secondary (at best) to the work they perform. The Investors are the only important people, regardless of how little actual work they do.
My own position is that it is the
money that is secondary to a business venture, because the earnings of a business in terms of dollars could just as easily be payed in the form of reciprocal goods and services, and rendered directly to the venture's employees based on some factor/s other than how much cash they put up in the beginning.
Also,
Quote from: holist on November 06, 2013, 04:38:27 PM
I realise that this may sound entitled and that I am in a privileged situation, but still, it seems to me the best way to work towards shifting the behemoth just a little bit is to stay away from exploitative relationships. And while I am fully aware that the great majority have little choice in the matter, when I look around in my hood, I see quite a few people who complain at having to work too many hours under a bad boss, but would not dream of accepting a reduction of monetary income in return for more time and better work relationships. Which is sad.
It isn't that simple. In the first place, most people who "would not dream of accepting a reduction of monetary income" refuse to do so because they
already make too little to live what they consider a comfortable, secure life. It's true in general that many people have awful priorities and even worse perspective when it comes to their own wealth compared to 95% of the rest of the planet. But that is a question of social conditioning and rampant consumerism, which are themselves symptoms of (among other things) Capitalism.
The people I know who hate their jobs and waste their lives doing them anyway are in that position because they have somehow managed to land what they consider a reasonably well-payed position doing something that "isn't as bad" as what they assume they would be doing without those jobs. I know, because I was one of those people for a long time. I could barely feed myself, let alone my family (note: the 'why isn't your wife working' discussion doesn't belong here), but I didn't just up and quit, because it was the best I could do at that moment.
But honestly, what changes a person's situation in that respect has less to do with how much they are paid doing what they hate, than their lack of access to be payed something
reasonable doing something they love.
V3X, I fully agree with you. Firstly, about the fact that capitalism is first and foremost a mindset, or a way of thinking, and also about the fact that one of capitalism's worst features is that it denies the great majority access to un-alienated, meaningful, enjoyable ways to make a living.
But I wasn't talking about the essential features of capitalism, but wondering whether exploitation is an essential feature of employment. I do agree that exploitative employment is an essential feature of capitalism! It's bloody obvious. What I had in mind is a sort of anarcho-syndicalistic model of employment. And of course I would prefer the sort of enterprise, where resources are pooled and results are shared in a tribalistic manner (see Daniel Quinn, Beyond Civilization), and of course even if the contribution of resources is unequal in a particular case, that doesn't in any way give the person contributing the large part power over the others.
I was simply trying to make the point that capitalism is such an infectious mind-set, that while the majority clearly have no access to meaningful, enjoyable forms of making a living, even many of the minority who in fact do (or at least have opportunities to make major improvements in that direction) are convinced that they are trapped in a crap job.
As for the house thing, I'm with Alty. Dirtbag houses, adobe wall houses, low-cost, labour-intensive housing... until I feel confident enough to make a go of that, we remain renters.
I rent as well. Livingspace is stupidly expensive here, The Netherlands is tiny and full. It would be easier if we would just pour concrete over every green patch we have, but I'd prefer it if that didn't happen.