4 ms·

The entire interview is like this. They’re not even trying to present an internally consistent argument; it’s just propaganda.

2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
The basic premise of the article is an actual problem, though; a sizeable chunk of the population is simply unavailable as labour. This isn't just a US problem either; the situation is similar in Europe as well, including the Nordic countries despite our ever-progressive welfare systems. It's like lot of people have simply lost hope.
- chasd00 4y ago
  why would you work if you get a check in the mail regardless? Is that not obvious?
  - Arainach 4y ago
    It is not. Plenty of people go to jobs for extra income or for satisfaction. Plenty of people who retire get bored and pick something up to pass the time. The difference is that modern jobs aren't worth it. No pay, no discretion to make decisions, and your entire management chain feels like they're in the same boat. Working for a small company where you're treated with respect and given a chance to grow or flexibility or whatever is one thing. Working for a soulless corporate chain that consistently underschedules so that you're overworked and then writes you up if you want to go see your sick/dying relative is soul draining. Working for a corporation that refuses to give you a consistent schedule but expects you to come in on your day off to cover someone else is soul draining. Working for a corporation who will schedule you for 36 hours even though they're short workers because otherwise they might have to actually give you some garbage-tier healthcare is soul draining.
    - yucky 4y ago
      >The difference is that modern jobs aren't worth it. Modern jobs are so much easier than the factory/mine/construction jobs of years past. Even the ones that still require physical labor, have huge restrictions and regulations that prevent the sort of working conditions in years past. For all of these people complaining about "jobs these days" I would love to hear what period of history they think had it easier.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  > a sizeable chunk of the population is simply unavailable as labour. That does sound like a problem. If this really is a dire problem, then let's start by forcibly disappropriating multi-generational landlords and people with trust funds of their inherited wealth, thereby forcing them to work. If that doesn't free up enough laborers to keep the machine humming, then we can start thinking about carrots and sticks for the ppors.
  - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
    The issue affects nightwatch and welfare states alike, so my first thought is that it's something else. The question is what.
    - lostmsu 4y ago
      Perhaps this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
      - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
        Sounds similar to Nietzsche's concept of "the last man". I'd require lot more proof to consider it a fact, but it seems quite plausible.
medvezhenok 4y ago
It's unclear though. Is the data set consistent in its reporting of data since 1960? In that case, the question becomes - why are so many more people on disability now (if that is the bulk of the difference) than there were in 1960? In fact you might expect there to be more people on disability in 1960, seeing as WWII ended only 15 years before that (PTSD, etc). I suppose that those people simply couldn't get onto disability back then though.
- soco 4y ago
  Definitions of disability changed a lot over these decades.
- zoolily 4y ago
  You might expect more. The US has had several more recent wars. Medical technology keeps a lot of people alive that would have died in the WWII era, leading to higher percentages of disabled civilians and soldiers.

2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago

The basic premise of the article is an actual problem, though; a sizeable chunk of the population is simply unavailable as labour. This isn't just a US problem either; the situation is similar in Europe as well, including the Nordic countries despite our ever-progressive welfare systems. It's like lot of people have simply lost hope.

chasd00 4y ago
why would you work if you get a check in the mail regardless? Is that not obvious?
- Arainach 4y ago
  It is not. Plenty of people go to jobs for extra income or for satisfaction. Plenty of people who retire get bored and pick something up to pass the time. The difference is that modern jobs aren't worth it. No pay, no discretion to make decisions, and your entire management chain feels like they're in the same boat. Working for a small company where you're treated with respect and given a chance to grow or flexibility or whatever is one thing. Working for a soulless corporate chain that consistently underschedules so that you're overworked and then writes you up if you want to go see your sick/dying relative is soul draining. Working for a corporation that refuses to give you a consistent schedule but expects you to come in on your day off to cover someone else is soul draining. Working for a corporation who will schedule you for 36 hours even though they're short workers because otherwise they might have to actually give you some garbage-tier healthcare is soul draining.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >The difference is that modern jobs aren't worth it. Modern jobs are so much easier than the factory/mine/construction jobs of years past. Even the ones that still require physical labor, have huge restrictions and regulations that prevent the sort of working conditions in years past. For all of these people complaining about "jobs these days" I would love to hear what period of history they think had it easier.
thwayunion 4y ago
> a sizeable chunk of the population is simply unavailable as labour. That does sound like a problem. If this really is a dire problem, then let's start by forcibly disappropriating multi-generational landlords and people with trust funds of their inherited wealth, thereby forcing them to work. If that doesn't free up enough laborers to keep the machine humming, then we can start thinking about carrots and sticks for the ppors.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
  The issue affects nightwatch and welfare states alike, so my first thought is that it's something else. The question is what.
  - lostmsu 4y ago
    Perhaps this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
    - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
      Sounds similar to Nietzsche's concept of "the last man". I'd require lot more proof to consider it a fact, but it seems quite plausible.

medvezhenok 4y ago

It's unclear though. Is the data set consistent in its reporting of data since 1960? In that case, the question becomes - why are so many more people on disability now (if that is the bulk of the difference) than there were in 1960? In fact you might expect there to be more people on disability in 1960, seeing as WWII ended only 15 years before that (PTSD, etc). I suppose that those people simply couldn't get onto disability back then though.

soco 4y ago
Definitions of disability changed a lot over these decades.
zoolily 4y ago
You might expect more. The US has had several more recent wars. Medical technology keeps a lot of people alive that would have died in the WWII era, leading to higher percentages of disabled civilians and soldiers.