6 ms·

I've said it in a few other comments- everyone has a very, very standard rat-race vision of what a "job" is. You, other commenters that are downvoting me, and t

I've said it in a few other comments- everyone has a very, very standard rat-race vision of what a "job" is. You, other commenters that are downvoting me, and the gentlemen you worked with all have the conception that a "job" must be a 40-hour/week, 261 day/year commitment to a set of tasks. (I'm not sure that you agree with them or not, based on what you said.) I do not agree that society must be set up in this manner. Each job produces a good or a service. In order to produce that good or service, a certain amount of raw materials and a certain number of skilled labor hours must be expended to produce it. It is more efficient, from a scaling perspective, to hyper-specialize and make the same people do the same drudgery day-in-day-out, which is why those gentlemen were stuck in that job. The market makers demanded efficiency, and things fell into place such that those gentlemen were pigeonholed into being grass-planters. The point that I am making is that there isn't any particular reason (besides an incessant demand for shareholder value in dollars) that the raw materials and skilled labor hours must be allocated in the caste-method that we currently use in modern society. Those guys have to plant grass all day every day because if they don't, they can't buy food, afford shelter, have a doctor look at them, or receive medical supplies. I am certain that we must find a way to look past this system to achieve any of the high-minded goals that people like to argue over, like the 4-hour workweek, or equitable education, or mass literacy, or an end to hunger, or...

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Specialization and increased efficiency is exactly what leads to the high minded goals you mention. >4-hour workweek, or equitable education, or mass literacy, or an end to hunger. It also allows the guy shoveling asphalt in the sun to live in an air conditioned house with fancy electronics and medical care.
- quacked 5y ago
  Huh, I didn't realize that we didn't have any issues in the US with people having AC in their house or receiving medical care. Come on, man. This is simple. I recently got a $10,000 hospital bill for an ultrasound, for which insurance decided I owed $1800. It doesn't cost $10,000 for an ultrasound, that's a made up ratio calculated by accountants trying to maximize their firm's ROI. An ultrasound costs {materials, refinement, assembly, shipping, and operation}, none of which require anyone to work constantly; the market has simply set it up that way because everyone working constantly yields great market valuations in the system that the owners of the markets set up. A comfortable life-shelter, food, clothing, medicine, border security- for you, me, the asphalt guy, and everyone else does not require all of the labor hours that are presently expended in the world.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >Huh, I didn't realize that we didn't have any issues in the US with people having AC in their house or receiving medical care. It happens, but the asphalt guy probably has coverage, like 92% of Americans. [1] There are a long list of simple solutions that can increase this percent and bring costs down, but people working less isn't on it as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see the connection. >A comfortable life-shelter, food, clothing, medicine, border security- for you, me, the asphalt guy, and everyone else does not require all of the labor hours that are presently expended in the world If anything, bringing the costs of goods down and increasing access to them will increase the number of labor hours needed. More and cheaper ultrasounds means more {materials, refinement, assembly, shipping, and operation}, not less. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-271.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27...
    - quacked 5y ago
      I think we're agreeing here too, and that's the point of my main comment. If we both agree that more ultrasounds may be needed, then let me stop on this hedonic treadmill of producing slight increases in code efficiency or tapping new markets that don't need to be tapped, and just work on the ultrasounds. I don't need fast foods restaurants, television, professional sports, overnight shipping, cheap smartphones, endless software updates, new computers, new cars, etc. Cut the parasitic, hedonic treadmill of consumption and you free up billions of labor hours that could instead work on {materials, refine, assembly, shipping, and operation} and then just go home afterwards and talk to their families or work on their own projects. Apparently there are presently 9.82 million unemployed Americans. Cut the ones that can't work (either because of character issues or because of disability issues), add the rest to the pile of people theoretically freed up by no longer producing piles and piles of useless crap and entertainment, and you've got a tremendous amount of intellectual capital available to work on real goods and services. There's an indoctrination aspect to this; people would have to be convinced that they don't need all this crap, and I admit that's a hard sell.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
jimbokun 5y ago
Sorry, but finding your arguments a little silly. > The point that I am making is that there isn't any particular reason (besides an incessant demand for shareholder value in dollars) that the raw materials and skilled labor hours must be allocated in the caste-method that we currently use in modern society. Maybe, but you don't have any strategy for changing the current system, or what kind of system should replace it, or how to demonstrate that system will be better than the one we have now.
- quacked 5y ago
  That is a fair criticism; I don't have a perfect solution built out right now, so I can't paint you a picture of how a theoretical nation full of well-educated laborers and farmers building things and providing for themselves would look in comparison to our current nation, where everyone barely struggles to hang on financially as citizens of the wealthiest empire in the history of civilization. I am finding it particularly difficult to convince people that they should even look past the current system. If you read through other comments on other chains in this thread, people are trying to explain to me that I could never convince someone to work half-time at a white collar job (where they endlessly produce code and then clock out) and half-time at a blue-collar job (where they endlessly shovel asphalt and then clock out), while at the same time I'm trying to convince them that it's possible to create an equilibrium of demand with output by simultaneously reducing aggregate demand and moving around aggregate output. If there's an end goal to your labor- produce this much and then stop producing until repairs or new units are needed- you don't have to work all the time at these horrible jobs. Right now, people work in white collar jobs in order to justify their right to the results of the blue collar jobs. If you don't write code, you can't afford the berries that Driscoll's ships to your grocery store, so you write code and make $150k/year, and you buy your $6 carton of berries, and the migrant berry pickers make $18k/year, and the truck driver makes $80k/year. But you're the end user of the berries; if you instead knew how to pick or knew how to drive, you might have a chance at getting the berries to your table without needing quasi-slave labor. I don't want to live in a country where I get stuff- materials, goods, etc.- from people who are always struggling. We can't just UBI our way to luxury space communism, because then no one will pick the berries, because right now the "berry-picking job" is defined as "12 hours per day in and out of the hot sun". This is what I'm trying to say- find some way to make sure that I can provide myself with shelter and see a doctor when I need to, and I'll go pick the damn berries and drive them back myself. Many seem to be responding with "no, that's impossible."
Scalestein 5y ago
I agree with your general outlook but would also question why we need to make "efficiency" a goal to be attained at all costs. Why not rotate who does the drudgery jobs so no-one gets stuck doing it day in and out? It might be less efficient but everyone would appreciate the work that needs to be done more and no-one would be pigeon holed. What sort of efficiency loss is that worth? As long as we prioritize economic efficiency there will be an never ending treadmill of improving efficiency. Until we start bringing human factors into the equation we will stay on this path.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Specialization and increased efficiency is exactly what leads to the high minded goals you mention. >4-hour workweek, or equitable education, or mass literacy, or an end to hunger. It also allows the guy shoveling asphalt in the sun to live in an air conditioned house with fancy electronics and medical care.

quacked 5y ago
Huh, I didn't realize that we didn't have any issues in the US with people having AC in their house or receiving medical care. Come on, man. This is simple. I recently got a $10,000 hospital bill for an ultrasound, for which insurance decided I owed $1800. It doesn't cost $10,000 for an ultrasound, that's a made up ratio calculated by accountants trying to maximize their firm's ROI. An ultrasound costs {materials, refinement, assembly, shipping, and operation}, none of which require anyone to work constantly; the market has simply set it up that way because everyone working constantly yields great market valuations in the system that the owners of the markets set up. A comfortable life-shelter, food, clothing, medicine, border security- for you, me, the asphalt guy, and everyone else does not require all of the labor hours that are presently expended in the world.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >Huh, I didn't realize that we didn't have any issues in the US with people having AC in their house or receiving medical care. It happens, but the asphalt guy probably has coverage, like 92% of Americans. [1] There are a long list of simple solutions that can increase this percent and bring costs down, but people working less isn't on it as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see the connection. >A comfortable life-shelter, food, clothing, medicine, border security- for you, me, the asphalt guy, and everyone else does not require all of the labor hours that are presently expended in the world If anything, bringing the costs of goods down and increasing access to them will increase the number of labor hours needed. More and cheaper ultrasounds means more {materials, refinement, assembly, shipping, and operation}, not less. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-271.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27...
  - quacked 5y ago
    I think we're agreeing here too, and that's the point of my main comment. If we both agree that more ultrasounds may be needed, then let me stop on this hedonic treadmill of producing slight increases in code efficiency or tapping new markets that don't need to be tapped, and just work on the ultrasounds. I don't need fast foods restaurants, television, professional sports, overnight shipping, cheap smartphones, endless software updates, new computers, new cars, etc. Cut the parasitic, hedonic treadmill of consumption and you free up billions of labor hours that could instead work on {materials, refine, assembly, shipping, and operation} and then just go home afterwards and talk to their families or work on their own projects. Apparently there are presently 9.82 million unemployed Americans. Cut the ones that can't work (either because of character issues or because of disability issues), add the rest to the pile of people theoretically freed up by no longer producing piles and piles of useless crap and entertainment, and you've got a tremendous amount of intellectual capital available to work on real goods and services. There's an indoctrination aspect to this; people would have to be convinced that they don't need all this crap, and I admit that's a hard sell.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago

jimbokun 5y ago

Sorry, but finding your arguments a little silly. > The point that I am making is that there isn't any particular reason (besides an incessant demand for shareholder value in dollars) that the raw materials and skilled labor hours must be allocated in the caste-method that we currently use in modern society. Maybe, but you don't have any strategy for changing the current system, or what kind of system should replace it, or how to demonstrate that system will be better than the one we have now.

quacked 5y ago
That is a fair criticism; I don't have a perfect solution built out right now, so I can't paint you a picture of how a theoretical nation full of well-educated laborers and farmers building things and providing for themselves would look in comparison to our current nation, where everyone barely struggles to hang on financially as citizens of the wealthiest empire in the history of civilization. I am finding it particularly difficult to convince people that they should even look past the current system. If you read through other comments on other chains in this thread, people are trying to explain to me that I could never convince someone to work half-time at a white collar job (where they endlessly produce code and then clock out) and half-time at a blue-collar job (where they endlessly shovel asphalt and then clock out), while at the same time I'm trying to convince them that it's possible to create an equilibrium of demand with output by simultaneously reducing aggregate demand and moving around aggregate output. If there's an end goal to your labor- produce this much and then stop producing until repairs or new units are needed- you don't have to work all the time at these horrible jobs. Right now, people work in white collar jobs in order to justify their right to the results of the blue collar jobs. If you don't write code, you can't afford the berries that Driscoll's ships to your grocery store, so you write code and make $150k/year, and you buy your $6 carton of berries, and the migrant berry pickers make $18k/year, and the truck driver makes $80k/year. But you're the end user of the berries; if you instead knew how to pick or knew how to drive, you might have a chance at getting the berries to your table without needing quasi-slave labor. I don't want to live in a country where I get stuff- materials, goods, etc.- from people who are always struggling. We can't just UBI our way to luxury space communism, because then no one will pick the berries, because right now the "berry-picking job" is defined as "12 hours per day in and out of the hot sun". This is what I'm trying to say- find some way to make sure that I can provide myself with shelter and see a doctor when I need to, and I'll go pick the damn berries and drive them back myself. Many seem to be responding with "no, that's impossible."

Scalestein 5y ago

I agree with your general outlook but would also question why we need to make "efficiency" a goal to be attained at all costs. Why not rotate who does the drudgery jobs so no-one gets stuck doing it day in and out? It might be less efficient but everyone would appreciate the work that needs to be done more and no-one would be pigeon holed. What sort of efficiency loss is that worth? As long as we prioritize economic efficiency there will be an never ending treadmill of improving efficiency. Until we start bringing human factors into the equation we will stay on this path.