3 ms·

At best, it is communism, at worst, it is slavery. It doesn't solve the problem that there are tasks that less people want to do than needed. Jobs are an elega

by GuB-42 4y ago

At best, it is communism, at worst, it is slavery. It doesn't solve the problem that there are tasks that less people want to do than needed. Jobs are an elegant solution to that problem. "I know that you don't want to dig shit, but if you dig shit, then you will be able to afford a better meal than if you didn't", if you like good meals more than you dislike digging shit, you can be happy despite having a literal shit job. Wages are sometimes called "compensation" for a reason. Like democracy, the paid job system sucks, but in practice, it sucks less than the alternatives.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
The reality is that most low-income jobs won't grant you a good meal. It will grant you access to food and maybe housing. The line between this mode of existence and slavery is really fucking blurry. We like to pretend that we're offering these people a way out of poverty by having them work these jobs, but that virtually never happens. For the people doing these jobs, if you don't work you don't eat. This service system is at least fair in the sense that everyone gets a momentary piece of the same raw deal, rather than having some people draw the short straw and spending their entire lives digging shit and living between paychecks while others know nothing but comfort and luxury. It also makes sure everyone has skin in the game when deciding how we decide to treat the people doing these jobs, since it's everyone.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  This is assuming everyone would happily do their duty and also that the math would actually work out. I think the math is the bigger problem even though human nature is always a wrench in the gears of any such scheme, it's the math that dooms systems like this to implode after a while. The scheduling alone doesn't make any sense, to replace one full-time career of 45 years you'd need to break that up into say 9 five year stints. Then also considering that crappy jobs far outnumber 'good' jobs you'd be looking at rotating through a series of them, changing every 5 years until retirement because if you didn't and everyone 'retired' from having to work a crappy job after one 5 year term then you'd have a massive shortage of workers in no time. So everyone has to work a career that consists almost entirely of shitty jobs but they're forced to change jobs all the time so they can never really get good at any of them and then they retire when they're too old and worn out maybe with a single 5 year stint as a not very good accountant or something?
- GuB-42 4y ago
  Fairness is good, but I think it is sometimes overrated. It is sometimes apparent in countries where conscription is active. Putting aside the obvious gender discrimination, conscription is possibly the fairest thing we get. But it also mean that we take people off jobs where they are good, productive, and enjoy themselves to make them do things they don't like and perform poorly. A highly visible and concrete example is for famous k-pop artists. You have young men doing an awesome (and hard!) job entertaining millions of people and bringing a lot of value to South Korea, but in the name of fairness, they have to stop doing that and do something where they are a poor fit for 1-2 years. Personally, I think it is a waste. The k-pop idol thing is an extreme case, but the idea is that if you are particularly good at something, that you enjoy doing it, and that thing brings value to society, why should you do something else? It is unfair because some people will enjoy themselves more than others, but nature is unfair anyways, some people get some genetic disease and their life is nothing but pain, should we torture healthy people in the name of fairness? There are ways of making society a bit more fair that doesn't involve making everyone more miserable, that's socialism, and it makes a bit more sense. The idea is that you are going to dig shit and someone else will live in luxury, but the state will take a bit of the "luxury" guy and give it to you, so you can afford the good meal without requiring the "luxury" guy to dig shit if the reason he lives in luxury is because his net contribution to society is particularly valuable. Most countries have some of that, even the US, but since it is real life, the idea may be simple, but the execution and details are far from it.
throwaway4aday 4y ago
I think a better phrasing is "I know you don't want to dig shit and I don't want to dig shit but there's someone out there willing to do it if I offer them enough money". Offering money in exchange for work is the better, fairer option because no one has to take the job if they don't want it. Offer enough money and someone will value the pay more than their dislike for digging shit. The problem with such a system is when other things get distorted through monopolies or collusion that result in an unfair market or limited choices. It's a classic baby-bathwater situation, keep paid jobs but get rid of market distorting factors.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  > no one has to take the job if they don't want it Is that true though? Won't the vacant jobs tend to be specifically the jobs nobody wants to do, so that those do the jobs are those who do so out of sheer desperation? This especially given increasing automation and fewer job opportunities (where most human labor isn't doing anything machines can't do cheaper). I don't think monopolies and collusion is causing this.
- Llamamoe 4y ago
  This is a naive take. People doing those jobs right now are definitely not paid much, they just have no freedom, for many it's either an abysmal job or homelessness. And you speak of unfair practices as though they're not the very definition of what capitalism as a system incentives.

by GuB-42 4y ago

marginalia_nu 4y ago

The reality is that most low-income jobs won't grant you a good meal. It will grant you access to food and maybe housing. The line between this mode of existence and slavery is really fucking blurry. We like to pretend that we're offering these people a way out of poverty by having them work these jobs, but that virtually never happens. For the people doing these jobs, if you don't work you don't eat. This service system is at least fair in the sense that everyone gets a momentary piece of the same raw deal, rather than having some people draw the short straw and spending their entire lives digging shit and living between paychecks while others know nothing but comfort and luxury. It also makes sure everyone has skin in the game when deciding how we decide to treat the people doing these jobs, since it's everyone.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
This is assuming everyone would happily do their duty and also that the math would actually work out. I think the math is the bigger problem even though human nature is always a wrench in the gears of any such scheme, it's the math that dooms systems like this to implode after a while. The scheduling alone doesn't make any sense, to replace one full-time career of 45 years you'd need to break that up into say 9 five year stints. Then also considering that crappy jobs far outnumber 'good' jobs you'd be looking at rotating through a series of them, changing every 5 years until retirement because if you didn't and everyone 'retired' from having to work a crappy job after one 5 year term then you'd have a massive shortage of workers in no time. So everyone has to work a career that consists almost entirely of shitty jobs but they're forced to change jobs all the time so they can never really get good at any of them and then they retire when they're too old and worn out maybe with a single 5 year stint as a not very good accountant or something?
GuB-42 4y ago
Fairness is good, but I think it is sometimes overrated. It is sometimes apparent in countries where conscription is active. Putting aside the obvious gender discrimination, conscription is possibly the fairest thing we get. But it also mean that we take people off jobs where they are good, productive, and enjoy themselves to make them do things they don't like and perform poorly. A highly visible and concrete example is for famous k-pop artists. You have young men doing an awesome (and hard!) job entertaining millions of people and bringing a lot of value to South Korea, but in the name of fairness, they have to stop doing that and do something where they are a poor fit for 1-2 years. Personally, I think it is a waste. The k-pop idol thing is an extreme case, but the idea is that if you are particularly good at something, that you enjoy doing it, and that thing brings value to society, why should you do something else? It is unfair because some people will enjoy themselves more than others, but nature is unfair anyways, some people get some genetic disease and their life is nothing but pain, should we torture healthy people in the name of fairness? There are ways of making society a bit more fair that doesn't involve making everyone more miserable, that's socialism, and it makes a bit more sense. The idea is that you are going to dig shit and someone else will live in luxury, but the state will take a bit of the "luxury" guy and give it to you, so you can afford the good meal without requiring the "luxury" guy to dig shit if the reason he lives in luxury is because his net contribution to society is particularly valuable. Most countries have some of that, even the US, but since it is real life, the idea may be simple, but the execution and details are far from it.

throwaway4aday 4y ago

I think a better phrasing is "I know you don't want to dig shit and I don't want to dig shit but there's someone out there willing to do it if I offer them enough money". Offering money in exchange for work is the better, fairer option because no one has to take the job if they don't want it. Offer enough money and someone will value the pay more than their dislike for digging shit. The problem with such a system is when other things get distorted through monopolies or collusion that result in an unfair market or limited choices. It's a classic baby-bathwater situation, keep paid jobs but get rid of market distorting factors.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
> no one has to take the job if they don't want it Is that true though? Won't the vacant jobs tend to be specifically the jobs nobody wants to do, so that those do the jobs are those who do so out of sheer desperation? This especially given increasing automation and fewer job opportunities (where most human labor isn't doing anything machines can't do cheaper). I don't think monopolies and collusion is causing this.
Llamamoe 4y ago
This is a naive take. People doing those jobs right now are definitely not paid much, they just have no freedom, for many it's either an abysmal job or homelessness. And you speak of unfair practices as though they're not the very definition of what capitalism as a system incentives.