6 ms·

China is interesting from this respect, there are so many people, and it is in the government's best interest to keep the citizens employed and happy and theref

by starky 8y ago

China is interesting from this respect, there are so many people, and it is in the government's best interest to keep the citizens employed and happy and therefore there is a lot of "useless" jobs like the one you mention. The first time I visited I was shocked at the number of people employed to man the tollbooths and the number of people working in every restaurant until I realized why.

reaperducer 8y ago
it is in the government's best interest to keep the citizens employed and happy and therefore there is a lot of "useless" jobs like the one you mention. What is useless to one man is a lifeline to another. I saw a documentary on NHK, and one of the points it made is that there are millions and millions and millions of people in China who need a job — any job — just to put food on the table. These are people who are so poor and poorly educated that they don't even know how to write their own names. Signatures are done with a fingerprint in red ink. This one guy was so very happy to be employed full-time clearing sidewalks. With a broom made of twigs during the warm months, and with the same broom made of twigs to slowly clear deep snow in the cold months. But he was employed, by an organization that will pay him regularly and won't cheat him on his wages. So he's grateful to be better off than most of the other people he knows.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Those people don't need jobs, they need money. If your system is autocratic enough to just "create" jobs out of nothing, it could also give everybody a stipend. That's just not how they want to do it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - tw04 8y ago
    Some people need a task, not everyone has the desire to pursue artistic endeavors. It's part of the reason you see trust fund babies that are borderline useless human beings. They've got everything in the world besides a reason to get up in the morning...
  - azurezyq 8y ago
    Employment helps social stability but money-only doesn't. While stipend for low-incomers also exists in China, gov really wants more people earn a living through working. IMO, the benefits are: 1. It puts people into time schedules, not floating around. 2. Makes them integrated into a "work community". 3. These jobs still help, not purely "created". 4. Employer will have some insurances and coverages. Over years I agree that many jobs diminished with the introduction of machines (vacuum trucks, etc.). It would be a tough job for the government to find more positions in this kind.
    - XorNot 8y ago
      This is a worthwhile point really - job scheduling is a good way to pacify a population, which helps everyone. Having people hanging around bored is one of the sure-fire ways to get unrest.
      - njarboe 8y ago
        Especially when "people" are young, single men.
        gcb0 8y ago
        seems to have helped everyone in this board during yours childhood and teen years, when you could just play games and learn to code, which became most people here trade. but yeah, if you missed that by not being born rich, work until your back break, to build character or some other bs.
        njarboe 8y ago
        If you are playing games and learning to code, you are not bored and definitely not the type of young men I was talking about.
        gcb0 8y ago
        you probably will not be able to complete that sentence without being called racist, xenophobic or both.
  - CptFribble 8y ago
    Humans are bad at doing nothing. Something like basic income will definitely be needed in the future, but there's something to be said for the "dignity of work." Even if it's something like "10 hours of community service per week in exchange for basic income," contributing something to their tribe or society is an important part of a complete human being.
    - chii 8y ago
      > contributing something to their tribe or society is an important part of a complete human being. contribution can be made via arts and science, rather than making up pointless work or work the person cannot enjoy.
      - CptFribble 8y ago
        I agree, but it's not either/or. Some people will probably earn their basic income+extra doing science/engineering/etc, some will do art, and some will do the bare minimum. If we successfully decouple work from sustenance, I'm pretty sure there will be a non-negligable percentage of humans who would just take the basic income and passively consume. However, letting a person consume without any "skin in the game," I think would create a sense of entitlement among the bottom tiers, and resentment among the productive segments of society. Also, there will still probably be a bunch of stuff that needs to get done cheaply (i.e. 100% automation is not practical), but not enough people want to do, like picking up trash, or cutting the grass, or sorting files at a courthouse. I just don't see a world where everyone does exactly what they want to do at all times forever, unless we build personal VR universes for everyone. Also, I've spent a good deal of time thinking recently about how to quantify art and other "indirect" contributions to society under a basic income system. Like if there's any work requirement, even if it's minimal, how much art qualifies? A couple of doodles? Could I just randomly scribble some blotches on canvas and call it a week of work? Could there be enough qualified art judges to determine if everyone who will inevitably try to phone it in has contributed "enough?" I don't know. This came out kind of rambly, but there's a lot of non-binary, non-obvious aspects to basic income, and I've struggled to find answers to a lot of the questions I've come up with. Ultimately, I agree with you. The system should support people contributing in the way the enjoy the most.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "If your system is autocratic enough to just "create" jobs out of nothing, it could also give everybody a stipend." No, creating jobs out of nothing doesn't mean they are not creating value. The man was sweeping the streets. Meaning the streets are cleaner. Clean streets have value. Also, people develop identity, integrity etc. from their jobs.
  - badpun 8y ago
    And what about the street that needs sweeping?
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Right; I'm convinced that a basic income has to be paired with some social contract, to replace the feeling of being usefully employed. Else we get restless people. How about a requirement to be socially involved, as a mentor or club member or team member or something that gets you out and contributing. Event just to a team or family.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      Basic income requires mandatory colonization draft enrollment. Or in Heinlein's words, re: citizenship: "Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage."
Spooky23 8y ago
It’s useless because you don’t think of social cost because you’re probably a middle class professional. We’re all a type of factory drone optimizing capital allocation. End of the day, our policy of exporting value from the United States will come home to roost. When I was a kid in the 90s, you worked at fast food or restaurants and often hung out there too. Now most of those jobs are filled by more easily exploitable immigrants, and slowly but surely those jobs are attriting away too. Who will be buying stuff in 30 years?
ehnto 8y ago
You could think of the job as the means to distribute wealth and keep people happy, and getting a task done is just the means to that end. In the scenario where we replace them with software that wealth travels upward instead of downward along the social and wealth ladder and you have citizens with nmidle hands. Normally I would say investment in infrastructure is a good way to make that happen but China is no slouch in that regard either. They just have an unfathomable amount of people.
darkstar_16 8y ago
It's the same here in India too. People manning toll booth, security at malls, airports and other seemingly useless tasks that can be automated easily, are kept on because a) it's cheaper, and b) employment
- rangibaby 8y ago
  Japan too. Maybe it's an Asian thing

by starky 8y ago

reaperducer 8y ago

it is in the government's best interest to keep the citizens employed and happy and therefore there is a lot of "useless" jobs like the one you mention. What is useless to one man is a lifeline to another. I saw a documentary on NHK, and one of the points it made is that there are millions and millions and millions of people in China who need a job — any job — just to put food on the table. These are people who are so poor and poorly educated that they don't even know how to write their own names. Signatures are done with a fingerprint in red ink. This one guy was so very happy to be employed full-time clearing sidewalks. With a broom made of twigs during the warm months, and with the same broom made of twigs to slowly clear deep snow in the cold months. But he was employed, by an organization that will pay him regularly and won't cheat him on his wages. So he's grateful to be better off than most of the other people he knows.

whatshisface 8y ago
Those people don't need jobs, they need money. If your system is autocratic enough to just "create" jobs out of nothing, it could also give everybody a stipend. That's just not how they want to do it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tw04 8y ago
  Some people need a task, not everyone has the desire to pursue artistic endeavors. It's part of the reason you see trust fund babies that are borderline useless human beings. They've got everything in the world besides a reason to get up in the morning...
- azurezyq 8y ago
  Employment helps social stability but money-only doesn't. While stipend for low-incomers also exists in China, gov really wants more people earn a living through working. IMO, the benefits are: 1. It puts people into time schedules, not floating around. 2. Makes them integrated into a "work community". 3. These jobs still help, not purely "created". 4. Employer will have some insurances and coverages. Over years I agree that many jobs diminished with the introduction of machines (vacuum trucks, etc.). It would be a tough job for the government to find more positions in this kind.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    This is a worthwhile point really - job scheduling is a good way to pacify a population, which helps everyone. Having people hanging around bored is one of the sure-fire ways to get unrest.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      Especially when "people" are young, single men.
      - gcb0 8y ago
        seems to have helped everyone in this board during yours childhood and teen years, when you could just play games and learn to code, which became most people here trade. but yeah, if you missed that by not being born rich, work until your back break, to build character or some other bs.
        njarboe 8y ago
        If you are playing games and learning to code, you are not bored and definitely not the type of young men I was talking about.
        gcb0 8y ago
        you probably will not be able to complete that sentence without being called racist, xenophobic or both.
- CptFribble 8y ago
  Humans are bad at doing nothing. Something like basic income will definitely be needed in the future, but there's something to be said for the "dignity of work." Even if it's something like "10 hours of community service per week in exchange for basic income," contributing something to their tribe or society is an important part of a complete human being.
  - chii 8y ago
    > contributing something to their tribe or society is an important part of a complete human being. contribution can be made via arts and science, rather than making up pointless work or work the person cannot enjoy.
    - CptFribble 8y ago
      I agree, but it's not either/or. Some people will probably earn their basic income+extra doing science/engineering/etc, some will do art, and some will do the bare minimum. If we successfully decouple work from sustenance, I'm pretty sure there will be a non-negligable percentage of humans who would just take the basic income and passively consume. However, letting a person consume without any "skin in the game," I think would create a sense of entitlement among the bottom tiers, and resentment among the productive segments of society. Also, there will still probably be a bunch of stuff that needs to get done cheaply (i.e. 100% automation is not practical), but not enough people want to do, like picking up trash, or cutting the grass, or sorting files at a courthouse. I just don't see a world where everyone does exactly what they want to do at all times forever, unless we build personal VR universes for everyone. Also, I've spent a good deal of time thinking recently about how to quantify art and other "indirect" contributions to society under a basic income system. Like if there's any work requirement, even if it's minimal, how much art qualifies? A couple of doodles? Could I just randomly scribble some blotches on canvas and call it a week of work? Could there be enough qualified art judges to determine if everyone who will inevitably try to phone it in has contributed "enough?" I don't know. This came out kind of rambly, but there's a lot of non-binary, non-obvious aspects to basic income, and I've struggled to find answers to a lot of the questions I've come up with. Ultimately, I agree with you. The system should support people contributing in the way the enjoy the most.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "If your system is autocratic enough to just "create" jobs out of nothing, it could also give everybody a stipend." No, creating jobs out of nothing doesn't mean they are not creating value. The man was sweeping the streets. Meaning the streets are cleaner. Clean streets have value. Also, people develop identity, integrity etc. from their jobs.
- badpun 8y ago
  And what about the street that needs sweeping?
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Right; I'm convinced that a basic income has to be paired with some social contract, to replace the feeling of being usefully employed. Else we get restless people. How about a requirement to be socially involved, as a mentor or club member or team member or something that gets you out and contributing. Event just to a team or family.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Basic income requires mandatory colonization draft enrollment. Or in Heinlein's words, re: citizenship: "Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage."

Spooky23 8y ago

It’s useless because you don’t think of social cost because you’re probably a middle class professional. We’re all a type of factory drone optimizing capital allocation. End of the day, our policy of exporting value from the United States will come home to roost. When I was a kid in the 90s, you worked at fast food or restaurants and often hung out there too. Now most of those jobs are filled by more easily exploitable immigrants, and slowly but surely those jobs are attriting away too. Who will be buying stuff in 30 years?

ehnto 8y ago

You could think of the job as the means to distribute wealth and keep people happy, and getting a task done is just the means to that end. In the scenario where we replace them with software that wealth travels upward instead of downward along the social and wealth ladder and you have citizens with nmidle hands. Normally I would say investment in infrastructure is a good way to make that happen but China is no slouch in that regard either. They just have an unfathomable amount of people.

darkstar_16 8y ago

It's the same here in India too. People manning toll booth, security at malls, airports and other seemingly useless tasks that can be automated easily, are kept on because a) it's cheaper, and b) employment

rangibaby 8y ago
Japan too. Maybe it's an Asian thing