3 ms·

Running the garbage system is a desk job largely I would expect. It might not be the most stimulating subject matter to you, but I think it's within the realm o

by Niksko 3y ago

Running the garbage system is a desk job largely I would expect. It might not be the most stimulating subject matter to you, but I think it's within the realm of possibility that you'd find people who found it an interesting system to manage. Cleaning the sewers sounds objectionable. I think you shouldn't discount the idea that in a societal structure that's different from ours you'd remove some of the social stigma that comes from such a job. But at the same time, if you observed that very very few people wanted to clean sewers for whatever reason, and there wasn't enough supply to meet demand, then you invest more in technology that reduces the shortfall. As others suggested, automation.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"But at the same time, if you observed that very very few people wanted to clean sewers for whatever reason" The reason might be, most people do not like to be in the literal shit of others? It comes with actual health hazards btw. "and there wasn't enough supply to meet demand, then you invest more in technology that reduces the shortfall. As others suggested, automation" But we ain't there yet at all. What do we do, till then? The sewage needs to run 24 h and not only if someone feels like taking a look eventually. And as for ordinary garbage: mostly it is not a desk job, but physical labour to touch and move hundreds of different dirty garbage bins every day. Dealing with that shit, should always come with good compensation. (whether money or social credits or whatever currency is in use)
- Niksko 3y ago
  > What do you do until then? Sure, but you iterate. We decided as a society that Polio was awful enough that we wanted to eradicate it. If we freed up enough effort that is currently wasted on chasing profits, we could eventually get to solving problems like "shit stinks and it sucks having to clean it".
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Absent corruption, profits must by definition come from money paid by people who determined that, according to themselves, the work being paid for has value. This is why capitalism works. It is a mass, distributed, value computation engine. Considering this, I don’t see how effort is wasted on profit, since the effort produced something that someone considered valuable. Do we have another way of computing value at scale? To date, I haven’t seen any realistic proposals.
ilyt 3y ago
> I think you shouldn't discount the idea that in a societal structure that's different from ours you'd remove some of the social stigma that comes from such a job. I can see you haven't done any of jobs like that ever in your life. "Social stigma", lmao, that shit smells > But at the same time, if you observed that very very few people wanted to clean sewers for whatever reason, and there wasn't enough supply to meet demand, then you invest more in technology that reduces the shortfall. It's delusional to think every job that's undesirable but necessary could be automated and that it would be cheaper than ye olde good material compensation for doing something hard/unpleasant. I mean, I'm all for it, but that won't happen to the level that would eliminate unpleasant jobs
- Niksko 3y ago
  > I can see you haven't done any of jobs like that ever in your life. "Social stigma", lmao, that shit smells I haven't, but I didn't say that shit didn't smell. My point was that one component of why some jobs are worse than others is social stigma. Working at a fish monger or in a butchers shop stinks, and you probably get way less PPE than a sewer cleaner would. But butchers and fishmongers have less social stigma. > It's delusional to think every job that's undesirable but necessary could be automated and that it would be cheaper than ye olde good material compensation for doing something hard/unpleasant. The fallacy here is that it _needs_ to be cheaper. Sewer cleaning is valuable. If it requires more investment to automate so that we have enough supply to meet the demand, so be it. The only reason we haven't already automated this smelly job is because it's easier to turn a profit if you just pay people peanuts. If profit is no longer motivating, you can make vastly different decisions.

by Niksko 3y ago

hutzlibu 3y ago

"But at the same time, if you observed that very very few people wanted to clean sewers for whatever reason" The reason might be, most people do not like to be in the literal shit of others? It comes with actual health hazards btw. "and there wasn't enough supply to meet demand, then you invest more in technology that reduces the shortfall. As others suggested, automation" But we ain't there yet at all. What do we do, till then? The sewage needs to run 24 h and not only if someone feels like taking a look eventually. And as for ordinary garbage: mostly it is not a desk job, but physical labour to touch and move hundreds of different dirty garbage bins every day. Dealing with that shit, should always come with good compensation. (whether money or social credits or whatever currency is in use)

Niksko 3y ago
> What do you do until then? Sure, but you iterate. We decided as a society that Polio was awful enough that we wanted to eradicate it. If we freed up enough effort that is currently wasted on chasing profits, we could eventually get to solving problems like "shit stinks and it sucks having to clean it".
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Absent corruption, profits must by definition come from money paid by people who determined that, according to themselves, the work being paid for has value. This is why capitalism works. It is a mass, distributed, value computation engine. Considering this, I don’t see how effort is wasted on profit, since the effort produced something that someone considered valuable. Do we have another way of computing value at scale? To date, I haven’t seen any realistic proposals.

ilyt 3y ago

> I think you shouldn't discount the idea that in a societal structure that's different from ours you'd remove some of the social stigma that comes from such a job. I can see you haven't done any of jobs like that ever in your life. "Social stigma", lmao, that shit smells > But at the same time, if you observed that very very few people wanted to clean sewers for whatever reason, and there wasn't enough supply to meet demand, then you invest more in technology that reduces the shortfall. It's delusional to think every job that's undesirable but necessary could be automated and that it would be cheaper than ye olde good material compensation for doing something hard/unpleasant. I mean, I'm all for it, but that won't happen to the level that would eliminate unpleasant jobs

Niksko 3y ago
> I can see you haven't done any of jobs like that ever in your life. "Social stigma", lmao, that shit smells I haven't, but I didn't say that shit didn't smell. My point was that one component of why some jobs are worse than others is social stigma. Working at a fish monger or in a butchers shop stinks, and you probably get way less PPE than a sewer cleaner would. But butchers and fishmongers have less social stigma. > It's delusional to think every job that's undesirable but necessary could be automated and that it would be cheaper than ye olde good material compensation for doing something hard/unpleasant. The fallacy here is that it _needs_ to be cheaper. Sewer cleaning is valuable. If it requires more investment to automate so that we have enough supply to meet the demand, so be it. The only reason we haven't already automated this smelly job is because it's easier to turn a profit if you just pay people peanuts. If profit is no longer motivating, you can make vastly different decisions.