3 ms·

I’m not disputing that society as a whole may win - but the gains are not equally distributed. Look at all the gig economy jobs that are thriving because the ot

I’m not disputing that society as a whole may win - but the gains are not equally distributed. Look at all the gig economy jobs that are thriving because the other jobs are even more exploitative. Look at the Amazon warehouse workers and delivery drivers that pee in bottles and shit in bags. Are they profiting? They’re clearly not. They may be able to buy a bigger phone or a larger tv, but in the end, they’re often worse off than what a worker at ford or gm had on the factory floor.

monero-xmr 3y ago
I think if you ever spoke with these people supposedly peeing in bottles and asked if they liked their jobs, what they did before, what their goals are, you would get a very different opinion about how miserable the American work force is. They are not miserable. The language of socialists / Marxists - “workers are ‘exploited’” etc. is very inflammatory and inaccurate. It is like once you get this worm in your brain that all work is just evil exploiters taking advantage of the workers, you became a bitter cultist and can’t see how backwards your thinking is.
- Xylakant 3y ago
  If you’re right and the gains from productivity improvements were equally distributed among the populace, you’d expect the Gini coefficient which measures inequality to stay level - that is neither rise nor fall. And it’s clearly not for the US https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA So either the top end of the bracket is pocketing more or the bottom end is loosing some. But it’s definitely not equal. Acknowledging that and considering that a problem is neither a Marxist standpoint nor a sign of a rotten mind. And neither is acknowledging that there’s a whole class of people that are exploited by society.
- hgs3 3y ago
  You're focusing on the benefits of increased productivity squarely from the perspective of a consumer. It's true increased productivity means consumers benefit from more goods, however, producers are not benefiting. Take programmers today, we are more productive than ever before due to increased computation power and a vast collection of open source libraries. When it comes to building CRUD apps one developer today can produce in a day what would have taken a week or more ~25 years ago. So if a programmer is ~5 times more productive today, why are we still working 5 days a week? Why not 1 day a week? Why do we need H-1B's and other salary suppressing nonsense? The problem is these technology gains are not benefiting producers, only consumers and C-suites. If you're dead set on favoring consumers over producers, then consider by freeing the producers time up they'd be able to produce more passion projects for consumers to enjoy. Today's consumers don't necessarily get the highest quality "stuff" but rather the "stuff" that is "safe" and guaranteed to maximize profits (see Hollywood movies). If socialism/Marxism ever did take hold, then I agree that there would be less "stuff" to consume, however, the "stuff" that is produced would be of higher quality because it would be made with passion and love of the craft. True builders will build anyway regardless of whether there are financial gains. It would be quality over quantity.
  - jp10558 3y ago
    I think this is slightly wrong in the other direction. How does people doing things "for the love of the craft" inherently lead to better quality "stuff"? There are plenty of examples of people doing things already "for the love of the craft" either because they're wealthy, or at least doing well enough for it to be a serious hobby. But that doesn't mean they beat our professionals every time. Hollywood movies seem to be to be one of the least able kind of task to be done "for the love of the craft" across all thousands of people involved in a blockbuster. How does that coordination work out across everyone who's interested "in the craft"? Ever see fan productions? It can be done, but they're also often driven by people actually doing tasks for cash that was gathered via donations. I also might point to the people who are so well liked and famous that they basically can "write their own ticket" - George RR Martin is an example. His first few books were considered amazing, but it's also considered that given no real impetus anymore - he's unlikely to finish the saga ever. As a whole then, is an unfinished saga really "higher quality" than one finished to make a buck? The answer IMHO isn't obvious.
    - hgs3 3y ago
      > I think this is slightly wrong in the other direction. How does people doing things "for the love of the craft" inherently lead to better quality "stuff"? You're correct that a passionate hobby does not necessarily translate to higher quality output. These sorts of discussions are handwavy by nature because the truth is never black and white. In fact, I can easily provide an example that contradicts my own assertion that there would be "less stuff" in a socialists/Marxists environment: Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia, when I wanted a digital encyclopedia, I purchased software from Encyclopedia Britannica. The nice thing about their encyclopedia was the articles were high quality, vetted by experts. The problem is the number of articles was limited, updates and additions were infrequent, and it cost money. By comparison, Wikipedia has a massive number of articles, frequent updates, and is freely provided by a non-profit foundation. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the same vetting as Encyclopedia Britannica and so the quality is inconsistent. So here the "socialists" Wikipedia offers consumers more "stuff" to read, albeit with inconsistent quality, than the "capitalists" Encyclopedia Britannica. > I also might point to the people who are so well liked and famous that they basically can "write their own ticket" - George RR Martin is an example. His first few books were considered amazing, but it's also considered that given no real impetus anymore - he's unlikely to finish the saga ever. As a whole then, is an unfinished saga really "higher quality" than one finished to make a buck? The answer IMHO isn't obvious. Why did George RR Martin lose his passion? Was he only after fortunate and fame? Did the dopamine hit he received from said fame outweigh the hit he received writing books? Questions like this are far more revealing because they touch on a deeper truth. > There are plenty of examples of people doing things already "for the love of the craft" either because they're wealthy, or at least doing well enough for it to be a serious hobby. What makes someone a natural builder? Why aren't there more engineers like Ton Roosendaal who, when asked why he gave his creation away for free, is quoted as saying "Money doesn't mean anything. It's not interesting. I call myself a maker; I want to make stuff." Why aren't more physicians like Dr. Frederick Banting who, after discovering insulin, sold the patent for $1 because he believed "insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world." Human nature can be less-than-stellar and economic systems like capitalism attempt to channel it into something constructive. Is this channeling necessary and at what point does it become counterproductive? Humans are a product of their environment and experiences. On this very board many folks idolize CEO's...but why CEO's and not folks like Ton Roosendaal and Dr. Banting? I think the real truth, the deeper truth, is the "revolution" starts with the culture itself: rather than TV shows like Shark Tank lets have programs emphasizing non-profit founders, rather than hero worshipping CEO's, let's encourage emulating folks like Ton Roosendaal and Dr. Banting, then...maybe...capitalism will fade away on its own.

monero-xmr 3y ago

I think if you ever spoke with these people supposedly peeing in bottles and asked if they liked their jobs, what they did before, what their goals are, you would get a very different opinion about how miserable the American work force is. They are not miserable. The language of socialists / Marxists - “workers are ‘exploited’” etc. is very inflammatory and inaccurate. It is like once you get this worm in your brain that all work is just evil exploiters taking advantage of the workers, you became a bitter cultist and can’t see how backwards your thinking is.

Xylakant 3y ago
If you’re right and the gains from productivity improvements were equally distributed among the populace, you’d expect the Gini coefficient which measures inequality to stay level - that is neither rise nor fall. And it’s clearly not for the US https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA So either the top end of the bracket is pocketing more or the bottom end is loosing some. But it’s definitely not equal. Acknowledging that and considering that a problem is neither a Marxist standpoint nor a sign of a rotten mind. And neither is acknowledging that there’s a whole class of people that are exploited by society.
hgs3 3y ago
You're focusing on the benefits of increased productivity squarely from the perspective of a consumer. It's true increased productivity means consumers benefit from more goods, however, producers are not benefiting. Take programmers today, we are more productive than ever before due to increased computation power and a vast collection of open source libraries. When it comes to building CRUD apps one developer today can produce in a day what would have taken a week or more ~25 years ago. So if a programmer is ~5 times more productive today, why are we still working 5 days a week? Why not 1 day a week? Why do we need H-1B's and other salary suppressing nonsense? The problem is these technology gains are not benefiting producers, only consumers and C-suites. If you're dead set on favoring consumers over producers, then consider by freeing the producers time up they'd be able to produce more passion projects for consumers to enjoy. Today's consumers don't necessarily get the highest quality "stuff" but rather the "stuff" that is "safe" and guaranteed to maximize profits (see Hollywood movies). If socialism/Marxism ever did take hold, then I agree that there would be less "stuff" to consume, however, the "stuff" that is produced would be of higher quality because it would be made with passion and love of the craft. True builders will build anyway regardless of whether there are financial gains. It would be quality over quantity.
- jp10558 3y ago
  I think this is slightly wrong in the other direction. How does people doing things "for the love of the craft" inherently lead to better quality "stuff"? There are plenty of examples of people doing things already "for the love of the craft" either because they're wealthy, or at least doing well enough for it to be a serious hobby. But that doesn't mean they beat our professionals every time. Hollywood movies seem to be to be one of the least able kind of task to be done "for the love of the craft" across all thousands of people involved in a blockbuster. How does that coordination work out across everyone who's interested "in the craft"? Ever see fan productions? It can be done, but they're also often driven by people actually doing tasks for cash that was gathered via donations. I also might point to the people who are so well liked and famous that they basically can "write their own ticket" - George RR Martin is an example. His first few books were considered amazing, but it's also considered that given no real impetus anymore - he's unlikely to finish the saga ever. As a whole then, is an unfinished saga really "higher quality" than one finished to make a buck? The answer IMHO isn't obvious.
  - hgs3 3y ago
    > I think this is slightly wrong in the other direction. How does people doing things "for the love of the craft" inherently lead to better quality "stuff"? You're correct that a passionate hobby does not necessarily translate to higher quality output. These sorts of discussions are handwavy by nature because the truth is never black and white. In fact, I can easily provide an example that contradicts my own assertion that there would be "less stuff" in a socialists/Marxists environment: Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia, when I wanted a digital encyclopedia, I purchased software from Encyclopedia Britannica. The nice thing about their encyclopedia was the articles were high quality, vetted by experts. The problem is the number of articles was limited, updates and additions were infrequent, and it cost money. By comparison, Wikipedia has a massive number of articles, frequent updates, and is freely provided by a non-profit foundation. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the same vetting as Encyclopedia Britannica and so the quality is inconsistent. So here the "socialists" Wikipedia offers consumers more "stuff" to read, albeit with inconsistent quality, than the "capitalists" Encyclopedia Britannica. > I also might point to the people who are so well liked and famous that they basically can "write their own ticket" - George RR Martin is an example. His first few books were considered amazing, but it's also considered that given no real impetus anymore - he's unlikely to finish the saga ever. As a whole then, is an unfinished saga really "higher quality" than one finished to make a buck? The answer IMHO isn't obvious. Why did George RR Martin lose his passion? Was he only after fortunate and fame? Did the dopamine hit he received from said fame outweigh the hit he received writing books? Questions like this are far more revealing because they touch on a deeper truth. > There are plenty of examples of people doing things already "for the love of the craft" either because they're wealthy, or at least doing well enough for it to be a serious hobby. What makes someone a natural builder? Why aren't there more engineers like Ton Roosendaal who, when asked why he gave his creation away for free, is quoted as saying "Money doesn't mean anything. It's not interesting. I call myself a maker; I want to make stuff." Why aren't more physicians like Dr. Frederick Banting who, after discovering insulin, sold the patent for $1 because he believed "insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world." Human nature can be less-than-stellar and economic systems like capitalism attempt to channel it into something constructive. Is this channeling necessary and at what point does it become counterproductive? Humans are a product of their environment and experiences. On this very board many folks idolize CEO's...but why CEO's and not folks like Ton Roosendaal and Dr. Banting? I think the real truth, the deeper truth, is the "revolution" starts with the culture itself: rather than TV shows like Shark Tank lets have programs emphasizing non-profit founders, rather than hero worshipping CEO's, let's encourage emulating folks like Ton Roosendaal and Dr. Banting, then...maybe...capitalism will fade away on its own.