4 ms·

OP is not trying to fix things in a distributed manner. They're saying that the status quo is fine - the solutions are already here and that people aren't takin

OP is not trying to fix things in a distributed manner. They're saying that the status quo is fine - the solutions are already here and that people aren't taking advantage of them. This is is not a constructive position because, the current status quo clearly doesn't work for many people, so there is scope for making changes and improvements. Like any complex problem, there probably isn't a simple solution. Its not a binary issue of 'personal responsibility' vs 'central government', theres room for central, state & local governments as well as charities, communities, and companies to work together on this.

mindslight 10y ago
I don't see any assertions of the status quo being fine. The issue is with the passivation of individuals, both by themselves and well-meaning others.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  When it's claimed that the jobs are there it's just a matter of taking them then yes it's a claim tha the status quo is being fine.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    Would you please point me to exactly where the original blog post, or the above comment by 'jackhack, assert that these jobs are currently available in the US? There's really two independent facets to this subject. One is about the immediate state of things, which in the US is regulation artificially lowering the amount of jobs available (even minimum wage does this). The blog post does a good job exploring this. The second, which you seem more concerned about, is the trends of whether these types of jobs will continue to exist at all in the future. Which I will agree is questionable. The US basically has an accelerated view of the effects of automation, as outsourcing to cheaper countries has identical effects. Furthermore, our poor lack the table stakes for participation in our highly-regulated economy, as explored in the original post. I would point to broken employment and monetary policy that are actively further screwing up the economy and fostering the current go-big-or-stay-home environment. If we really have gotten much more productive, why is the standard "full time" workweek 40+ hours and not 15?
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      The post have a comment by the author saying basically this: "I'm just pointing out that the jobs are here and those folks simply refuse to do them." Problem is that this is a phenomena you see everywhere regardless of system but in all liberal markets. The only thing thats consistent is the technology. The problem when you remove regulation (uber) you end up with lots of jobs that pay less until as with Uber they will all be automated away. This is the problem and ignoring it by trying to use the typical "there are plenty of jobs" as the Author does is simply refusing to deal with the reality as it is IMO.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  That's the entire point of their post, is that the status quo is fine, and it's other people's fault for not being able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It's their fault for not being able to get an education. It's their fault for not being able to up and move to another area.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    Do you pigeonhole everything you disagree with into a sensationalized straw man?

mindslight 10y ago

I don't see any assertions of the status quo being fine. The issue is with the passivation of individuals, both by themselves and well-meaning others.

ThomPete 10y ago
When it's claimed that the jobs are there it's just a matter of taking them then yes it's a claim tha the status quo is being fine.
- mindslight 10y ago
  Would you please point me to exactly where the original blog post, or the above comment by 'jackhack, assert that these jobs are currently available in the US? There's really two independent facets to this subject. One is about the immediate state of things, which in the US is regulation artificially lowering the amount of jobs available (even minimum wage does this). The blog post does a good job exploring this. The second, which you seem more concerned about, is the trends of whether these types of jobs will continue to exist at all in the future. Which I will agree is questionable. The US basically has an accelerated view of the effects of automation, as outsourcing to cheaper countries has identical effects. Furthermore, our poor lack the table stakes for participation in our highly-regulated economy, as explored in the original post. I would point to broken employment and monetary policy that are actively further screwing up the economy and fostering the current go-big-or-stay-home environment. If we really have gotten much more productive, why is the standard "full time" workweek 40+ hours and not 15?
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    The post have a comment by the author saying basically this: "I'm just pointing out that the jobs are here and those folks simply refuse to do them." Problem is that this is a phenomena you see everywhere regardless of system but in all liberal markets. The only thing thats consistent is the technology. The problem when you remove regulation (uber) you end up with lots of jobs that pay less until as with Uber they will all be automated away. This is the problem and ignoring it by trying to use the typical "there are plenty of jobs" as the Author does is simply refusing to deal with the reality as it is IMO.
st3v3r 10y ago
That's the entire point of their post, is that the status quo is fine, and it's other people's fault for not being able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It's their fault for not being able to get an education. It's their fault for not being able to up and move to another area.
- mindslight 10y ago
  Do you pigeonhole everything you disagree with into a sensationalized straw man?