3 ms·

Labor has changed and is still changing. It's getting more and more difficult to get a job that pays. Meritocracy? Meh. It's bullshit being peddled to shut us u

Labor has changed and is still changing. It's getting more and more difficult to get a job that pays. Meritocracy? Meh. It's bullshit being peddled to shut us up. It's just connections and luck. Even the able ones have to be in the right place at the right time and need to jump through a million hoops. It feels like a never-ending captcha session. Bullshit at universities is backpressure from the labor market. Backed up bullshit spills over to education at all levels. Perhaps it is one of the symptoms of the end of the labor era. And now that we can see this laid bare clearer and clearer: What can parents do today for their children? Education doesn't have the primary goal to procure a job. This was never really the thing. And even at this education is failing more and more. So what needs to be done for children and young adults? What is the goal of education? As a father I have been thinking about this for years. I don't have an answer for the material needs of the generation of my descendants. However I know that people need a meaning of life especially if they are poor. I am trying to teach my children to look out for their own meaning of life and to work hard to attain it by themselves. I hope that the world finds an answer how to satisfy the material needs of the people when there's not enough labor for everybody. And then? What can they do if they don't have a job? That's what I am trying to find out with my children growing up. Humanities are important to create meaning. However one thing is sure: If I detect bullshit permeating an university I am not going to suggest an expensive course to my children!

tsimionescu 6y ago
> I hope that the world finds an answer how to satisfy the material needs of the people when there's not enough labor for everybody. There is a very clear answer to this, it's just that people who are not labour are trying very hard to avoid giving it. We should all be working far less for the same money we are getting today. As the productivity of work increases, hours worked should be going down, without affecting wages. Right now, the benefits of increased productivity are all going into profits, that is, into the hands of the very few. We have been here before, and our great-grandfathers and great-grand-grandmothers have fought for reducing the wrok week many times before, successfully. We will probably soon have to fight this fight again.
- _nalply 6y ago
  I tend to disagree. Is it a job what people really need? We are living at the end of the era of labor. It is difficult to understand what comes next. After all, this era lasted for more than two centuries. It is easy to confuse having a job with having needs covered. If someone has an at least adequately paid job and is lucky to find meaning in their work, then the work not only covers basic material needs, but also what I called meaning of life. When we talk about jobs we often have this positive image in our minds. There's the danger that we confuse our needs with what is covered by this kind of work. Labor is disappearing and it doesn't make sense to artificially create labor. Ask parents whether they are unsure about the future careers of their children. Ask them whether they feel some pressure to give their children something like a head start in the labor market. So, I think, we should not fight for labor, but for having ways to cover all our needs, basic material ones but also higher ones like meaning and self-actualization. Schemes like UBI tend to neglect meaning and self-actualization.
- bnjms 6y ago
  This solution will not work for many jobs. There are some jobs where it doesn’t make sense to work less time during a day. And where you more than less need to work often so you don’t go dull. Medicine in hospitals are one. Drs in threads like this will acknowledge the long hours are bad but required to minimize handoffs. In IT project work is naturally optimized to minimize the number of people required to put in new systems. And I’m going to offer to work more for more money most of the time. I think some form of UBI would be better but I can’t yet imagine the required changes to society required to keep it from a dystopia. Maybe the two ideas work better together. Since to me only a poverty level UBI makes sense. But lowering the base hours to 30-35 before overtime kicks in with a low UBI might have an interesting outcome where people still need to work but don’t have to work, and more employees are required.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    I see no reason to imagine 40 hours a week is some special number. If we could go from 60h weeks to 40h weeks, why stop there even as productivity increases? Note that overtime is still possible, but needs to be paid. But as a general rule, the increased benefits from automation should be felt by workers too, not just owners. Of course, once you get to 100% automation this simple reduction in hours worked for the same pay breaks down, but few industries are even remotely close to that. Edit: doctors in hospitals are a very special case, I think. It is one of the only jobs where the increased strain on the worker can be accepted, as it doesn't simply produce profit, it produces much more important human good. Even more, the problem in Healthcare is definitely not lack of jobs, on the contrary - there are generally either not enough doctors or not enough resources to pay for more doctors (and nurses, and other medical personnel).

tsimionescu 6y ago

> I hope that the world finds an answer how to satisfy the material needs of the people when there's not enough labor for everybody. There is a very clear answer to this, it's just that people who are not labour are trying very hard to avoid giving it. We should all be working far less for the same money we are getting today. As the productivity of work increases, hours worked should be going down, without affecting wages. Right now, the benefits of increased productivity are all going into profits, that is, into the hands of the very few. We have been here before, and our great-grandfathers and great-grand-grandmothers have fought for reducing the wrok week many times before, successfully. We will probably soon have to fight this fight again.

_nalply 6y ago
I tend to disagree. Is it a job what people really need? We are living at the end of the era of labor. It is difficult to understand what comes next. After all, this era lasted for more than two centuries. It is easy to confuse having a job with having needs covered. If someone has an at least adequately paid job and is lucky to find meaning in their work, then the work not only covers basic material needs, but also what I called meaning of life. When we talk about jobs we often have this positive image in our minds. There's the danger that we confuse our needs with what is covered by this kind of work. Labor is disappearing and it doesn't make sense to artificially create labor. Ask parents whether they are unsure about the future careers of their children. Ask them whether they feel some pressure to give their children something like a head start in the labor market. So, I think, we should not fight for labor, but for having ways to cover all our needs, basic material ones but also higher ones like meaning and self-actualization. Schemes like UBI tend to neglect meaning and self-actualization.
bnjms 6y ago
This solution will not work for many jobs. There are some jobs where it doesn’t make sense to work less time during a day. And where you more than less need to work often so you don’t go dull. Medicine in hospitals are one. Drs in threads like this will acknowledge the long hours are bad but required to minimize handoffs. In IT project work is naturally optimized to minimize the number of people required to put in new systems. And I’m going to offer to work more for more money most of the time. I think some form of UBI would be better but I can’t yet imagine the required changes to society required to keep it from a dystopia. Maybe the two ideas work better together. Since to me only a poverty level UBI makes sense. But lowering the base hours to 30-35 before overtime kicks in with a low UBI might have an interesting outcome where people still need to work but don’t have to work, and more employees are required.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  I see no reason to imagine 40 hours a week is some special number. If we could go from 60h weeks to 40h weeks, why stop there even as productivity increases? Note that overtime is still possible, but needs to be paid. But as a general rule, the increased benefits from automation should be felt by workers too, not just owners. Of course, once you get to 100% automation this simple reduction in hours worked for the same pay breaks down, but few industries are even remotely close to that. Edit: doctors in hospitals are a very special case, I think. It is one of the only jobs where the increased strain on the worker can be accepted, as it doesn't simply produce profit, it produces much more important human good. Even more, the problem in Healthcare is definitely not lack of jobs, on the contrary - there are generally either not enough doctors or not enough resources to pay for more doctors (and nurses, and other medical personnel).