4 ms·

Crappy jobs still bring some income that can then be spent on consuming, often with the leverage of bank loans, keeping the wheels of the economy spinning. Who

Crappy jobs still bring some income that can then be spent on consuming, often with the leverage of bank loans, keeping the wheels of the economy spinning. Who could be more striving for buying and consuming than a person who can hardly afford anything?

christophilus 9y ago
Right. I'm looking at it not from an economics perspective, but from a humanitarian perspective. As much as possible, we should be trying to eliminate drudgery and misery from the human condition. I remember watching a documentary about a sulfur mine in southeast Asia. The average life expectancy for miners there was something like 2-5 years. It's crazy to me that anyone would even take that job, but: A. The miners probably didn't know the life expectancy B. The miners didn't have much of an alternative C. The society viewed (views?) them as expendable I think this is an excellent illustration of an area where automation needs to be done, but market forces won't encourage it. The labor is just too cheap. But just because the economics doesn't work, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Economics shouldn't be the only consideration.
- atomashpolskiy 9y ago
  I absolutely agree with you. In the above comment I was just speculating on the possible economical/political reasoning behind the lack of automation. In addition to simply being cheaper than automated solutions (in the short run), cheap labour might also be seen by capitalists/governments as an economical agent, that is more preferable for the economy with regards to increasing GDP, than those on welfare, because the former still has some spare money to spend, and welfare covers only the very basic needs. I agree that it's truly awful that in some extreme cases people have to pay with their health/life to be a part of a consumerist society.

4 ms·

Crappy jobs still bring some income that can then be spent on consuming, often with the leverage of bank loans, keeping the wheels of the economy spinning. Who

by atomashpolskiy 9y ago

christophilus 9y ago
Right. I'm looking at it not from an economics perspective, but from a humanitarian perspective. As much as possible, we should be trying to eliminate drudgery and misery from the human condition. I remember watching a documentary about a sulfur mine in southeast Asia. The average life expectancy for miners there was something like 2-5 years. It's crazy to me that anyone would even take that job, but: A. The miners probably didn't know the life expectancy B. The miners didn't have much of an alternative C. The society viewed (views?) them as expendable I think this is an excellent illustration of an area where automation needs to be done, but market forces won't encourage it. The labor is just too cheap. But just because the economics doesn't work, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Economics shouldn't be the only consideration.
- atomashpolskiy 9y ago
  I absolutely agree with you. In the above comment I was just speculating on the possible economical/political reasoning behind the lack of automation. In addition to simply being cheaper than automated solutions (in the short run), cheap labour might also be seen by capitalists/governments as an economical agent, that is more preferable for the economy with regards to increasing GDP, than those on welfare, because the former still has some spare money to spend, and welfare covers only the very basic needs. I agree that it's truly awful that in some extreme cases people have to pay with their health/life to be a part of a consumerist society.