7 ms·

Too few compared to what? - To the _number of people who want/demand a job_ because the system they've grown into told them that they had to study to get a goo

by Juliate 11y ago

Too few compared to what? - To the _number of people who want/demand a job_ because the system they've grown into told them that they had to study to get a good job to have a good life(and that they will get a job if they get a good degree)? - To the need for more jobs for the economy to work? - To a wild guess disguised as a "this is how the economy should work" by people who got a degree or an office so now what they say is supposed to be right? - To something else? There's a difference between having a right to work (that is, not being prevented from working re: discrimination) and demanding a work (notwithstanding with: is there something one could do?). If it's a game of chairs, unless you abide "the state/system", there's no one but you to get a chair or build a new one for you. Or for you and some others. Or someone else to step in and build a chair for you. But that's not a given. Don't rely on the state.

zurn 11y ago
In my view the economic system exists to serve the people instead of the other around, so I will pick the first option. But taken broadly, so accommodating necessary compromises to maintain the capacity of the economy (keep producing jobs and valuable output and so on). Like I said in my original comment, whether we want to maintain a system with the concept of unemployment is a whole another discussion. Also, > There's a difference between having a right to work (that is, not being prevented from working re: discrimination) and demanding a work (notwithstanding with: is there something one could do?). The concept as discussed in the universal declaration of human rights does include the supply of jobs: "just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment"
- Juliate 11y ago
  I totally agree with your view (the system is built/exists to serve the people). But the supply of jobs must not be void of meaningful/useful jobs; and the State/system is very, very unqualified to create such jobs - it tends to build on the jobs necessary to self-sustain (on the practical and political planes), and not much more. Most qualified to create those new jobs/missing chairs are the people, on their own, or through the business they build. Then the (clever) support of the state or of big players is required to make those grow in their turn. You may demand something out of a system. Which can self declare "everyone ought to get a job". But the system on its own is not capable of providing. Note. I'm heavily biased. I'm French, living in France. And I am beyond amazed how this country is run on the economics level.
branchless 11y ago
The state protects wealth. Being born now in the west is like joining a game of monopoly two hours in. All the squares are owned. Round you go. As we get more efficient less human labour is needed for a finite amount of land/resources. If inequality is high most valuable land is owned by a few people. The rest of us must pledge ever more labour for the right to subsist. The rich are very much relying on the state to keep order as inequality rockets. Guess what would happen if we had no police force to enforce collection of taxes primarily from the middle classes? Or nobody to stop someone calling into question why they can't stand in a particular spot "because that land has been owned by my family for generations". The rich very much rely on the state.
- rsync 11y ago
  "The state protects wealth. Being born now in the west is like joining a game of monopoly two hours in. All the squares are owned. Round you go." You've made this analogy a few times in the past few days and I think it is flawed. It's only like a game of monopoly, joined two hours in, if in monopoly the players are periodically removed from the game (death) and have their assets divided up among new players (wealth taxes OR the dilutive effects of transfer to heirs whose number is greater than the original player). Also: imagine 50,000 more property squares that nobody wants. Detroit Place. Haiti Way. Rural Spain Parkway. Really, the analogy is flawed.
  - branchless 11y ago
    Inheritance tax isn't effective. It's like tag team monopoly where one older family member dies and passes over their counter to the next player. It's not a perfect map 1:1 for the world but it's useful. Inheritance tax is necessary for a fair society.
    - rsync 11y ago
      I think you would do well to read historical accounts of families - both modern and historic - and get a wider perspective of how this actually works out in the real world. Inheritance tax may not work as quickly as you'd like, but the avoidance that you refer to only goes so far. People multiply. They have kids. Those kids have kids. Not everyone has the intelligence and drive to produce 1%-style outcomes. The wealth dilutes. And then there is none. In fact, even with no inheritance tax whatsoever, the old dictum "wealth never survives three generations" ("Fu bu guo san dai") absolutely asserts itself. Of course there are edge cases. Let's not waste our time indexing all of the rothschilds and windsors and duponts. The point is: all of the squares are not taken and the squares that are taken come up for grabs all the time: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/period-property/10084080/Buy-your-own-Downton-Abbey-10-stately-homes-for-sale.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/period-property/...
coldtea 11y ago
Economy is not some abstract deity (believers in the "free market" like to imagine it as some kind of self-regulating mechanism that ends up in the best possible way, when it facts it's just a sum of human activity, that doesn't even play by the naive economist assumptions of people following their self-interest half of the time and that can end and does end up in all kinds of shit). Economy is something people (not just the state, everybody) can decide upon how they want it and build it. It's just that currently only the big players make those decisions with their law purchasing power -- instead of the people at large with representative laws. So, "having enough jobs for everybody" could be such a decision people could make, and work towards it.
- Juliate 11y ago
  It's just that, indeed. Big players, that, when overrun by the people or serious shakes (French Revolution, WWI, WWII, Russian Revolution), just let some room for the people to reorganize things a bit better (and they did) and then, new big players step in. What's going to be interesting is that now, the "big players" are not going to be states only. There are companies too (as in, groups of people organizing themselves; but also as in, groups of people whose actions is hugely driven by a small number of owners). There's something brewing.
- Terr_ 11y ago
  Right, I like to say that capitalism is really just a distributed algorithm, for solving interrelated questions about how to allocate your resources. Like any algorithm, you risk Garbage-in-Garbage-out. It's the role of society (and government) to put the right framework in place. (For example, ensuring that it is not profitable to assassinate rival CEOs.)

by Juliate 11y ago

zurn 11y ago

In my view the economic system exists to serve the people instead of the other around, so I will pick the first option. But taken broadly, so accommodating necessary compromises to maintain the capacity of the economy (keep producing jobs and valuable output and so on). Like I said in my original comment, whether we want to maintain a system with the concept of unemployment is a whole another discussion. Also, > There's a difference between having a right to work (that is, not being prevented from working re: discrimination) and demanding a work (notwithstanding with: is there something one could do?). The concept as discussed in the universal declaration of human rights does include the supply of jobs: "just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment"

Juliate 11y ago
I totally agree with your view (the system is built/exists to serve the people). But the supply of jobs must not be void of meaningful/useful jobs; and the State/system is very, very unqualified to create such jobs - it tends to build on the jobs necessary to self-sustain (on the practical and political planes), and not much more. Most qualified to create those new jobs/missing chairs are the people, on their own, or through the business they build. Then the (clever) support of the state or of big players is required to make those grow in their turn. You may demand something out of a system. Which can self declare "everyone ought to get a job". But the system on its own is not capable of providing. Note. I'm heavily biased. I'm French, living in France. And I am beyond amazed how this country is run on the economics level.

branchless 11y ago

The state protects wealth. Being born now in the west is like joining a game of monopoly two hours in. All the squares are owned. Round you go. As we get more efficient less human labour is needed for a finite amount of land/resources. If inequality is high most valuable land is owned by a few people. The rest of us must pledge ever more labour for the right to subsist. The rich are very much relying on the state to keep order as inequality rockets. Guess what would happen if we had no police force to enforce collection of taxes primarily from the middle classes? Or nobody to stop someone calling into question why they can't stand in a particular spot "because that land has been owned by my family for generations". The rich very much rely on the state.

rsync 11y ago
"The state protects wealth. Being born now in the west is like joining a game of monopoly two hours in. All the squares are owned. Round you go." You've made this analogy a few times in the past few days and I think it is flawed. It's only like a game of monopoly, joined two hours in, if in monopoly the players are periodically removed from the game (death) and have their assets divided up among new players (wealth taxes OR the dilutive effects of transfer to heirs whose number is greater than the original player). Also: imagine 50,000 more property squares that nobody wants. Detroit Place. Haiti Way. Rural Spain Parkway. Really, the analogy is flawed.
- branchless 11y ago
  Inheritance tax isn't effective. It's like tag team monopoly where one older family member dies and passes over their counter to the next player. It's not a perfect map 1:1 for the world but it's useful. Inheritance tax is necessary for a fair society.
  - rsync 11y ago
    I think you would do well to read historical accounts of families - both modern and historic - and get a wider perspective of how this actually works out in the real world. Inheritance tax may not work as quickly as you'd like, but the avoidance that you refer to only goes so far. People multiply. They have kids. Those kids have kids. Not everyone has the intelligence and drive to produce 1%-style outcomes. The wealth dilutes. And then there is none. In fact, even with no inheritance tax whatsoever, the old dictum "wealth never survives three generations" ("Fu bu guo san dai") absolutely asserts itself. Of course there are edge cases. Let's not waste our time indexing all of the rothschilds and windsors and duponts. The point is: all of the squares are not taken and the squares that are taken come up for grabs all the time: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/period-property/10084080/Buy-your-own-Downton-Abbey-10-stately-homes-for-sale.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/period-property/...

coldtea 11y ago

Economy is not some abstract deity (believers in the "free market" like to imagine it as some kind of self-regulating mechanism that ends up in the best possible way, when it facts it's just a sum of human activity, that doesn't even play by the naive economist assumptions of people following their self-interest half of the time and that can end and does end up in all kinds of shit). Economy is something people (not just the state, everybody) can decide upon how they want it and build it. It's just that currently only the big players make those decisions with their law purchasing power -- instead of the people at large with representative laws. So, "having enough jobs for everybody" could be such a decision people could make, and work towards it.

Juliate 11y ago
It's just that, indeed. Big players, that, when overrun by the people or serious shakes (French Revolution, WWI, WWII, Russian Revolution), just let some room for the people to reorganize things a bit better (and they did) and then, new big players step in. What's going to be interesting is that now, the "big players" are not going to be states only. There are companies too (as in, groups of people organizing themselves; but also as in, groups of people whose actions is hugely driven by a small number of owners). There's something brewing.
Terr_ 11y ago
Right, I like to say that capitalism is really just a distributed algorithm, for solving interrelated questions about how to allocate your resources. Like any algorithm, you risk Garbage-in-Garbage-out. It's the role of society (and government) to put the right framework in place. (For example, ensuring that it is not profitable to assassinate rival CEOs.)