5 ms·

Fuller is arguing otherwise here. He says we need to get away from the idea that we have to do something to deserve to make a living. Your whole comment is prem

by rquantz 13y ago

Fuller is arguing otherwise here. He says we need to get away from the idea that we have to do something to deserve to make a living. Your whole comment is premised on that idea. Whether it not you're right, you haven't engaged with what Fuller said. The closest you come is making the unsubstantiated statement that getting rid of work is a dangerous idea. Dangerous for whom? Other than, you know, powerful people who depend on an endless supply of cheap labor, and politicians who rely on an exhausted, frightened, ADD electorate.

dnautics 13y ago
Sorry, I was going to mention that it was dangerous for the ayn-rand types who see that it is individual value that ought to be the highest objective for society, but I decided that that was too politically-baitey. Moreover, to address your comment: that the 'labor is cheap' has to do with a lot of things, why don't people simply negotiate for higher wages and refuse to do the work otherwise? That it's so difficult to live on a low wage has to do with the political infrastructure throwing money at the financial sector for decades, and not to do with any form of natural exchange per se.
- lmm 13y ago
  > why don't people simply negotiate for higher wages and refuse to do the work otherwise? That it's so difficult to live on a low wage has to do with the political infrastructure throwing money at the financial sector for decades, and not to do with any form of natural exchange per se. Be that as it may, what can we do about it? As an average voter, what policy can I advocate that might make a practical difference? (The only way forward I can see is a succession of working hours limits, like the EU's current 40-hours/week working time directive. In a decade maybe we can bring that down to 35, then in another decade 30, and so on. That's a politically acceptable approach, at least in some countries, that would improve human quality of life, though there are obvious downsides)
  - dnautics 13y ago
    forget policy. Do what's right - pay your workers fair wages, talk about it, and spread the word. This is far more than what most policy wonks themselves do. Eg: http://www.propublica.org/article/nation-institute-to-pay-interns-minimum-wage http://www.propublica.org/article/nation-institute-to-pay-in...
- deminature 13y ago
  >why don't people simply negotiate for higher wages and refuse to do the work otherwise? Because union membership has been outlawed or seriously frowned upon in many professions. Most other people seem to think unionism is somehow destructive and end up only looking out for themselves, not realising they have been divided and conquered. Obviously, your experiences with this may differ.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    I don't think most people in the US think unionism is destructive, but most people in the US believe that unions (as given legal protections, etc.) have become political entities (versus economic entities) that look out for the union and not for the worker. I believe this is not far from the truth - have you seen what the headquarters of the AFL-CIO (2 blocks from the capitol) looks like? It's really quite shameful.
paganel 13y ago
> Other than, you know, powerful people who depend on an endless supply of cheap labor, and politicians who rely on an exhausted, frightened, ADD electorate. This is the thing I could not understand when reading Marx, the idea that there would come a time "of plenty" when no-one will have to work anymore and we'll all be free to pursue our intellectual pursuits and such. Supposing that this utopian feature is attainable (which I highly doubt), then who would fix the broken stuff? Because stuff will break. Who will create new stuff? Because, as crazy as it sounds, there's no unlimited supply of "stuff". The only two connected answers that I can think of is that we'll do indeed manage to attain the singularity (which I highly doubt is possible) and second (and as important) is that we'll "convince" the machines to work for us. And there was a third way that was already tried, trying to create a "new man". The Soviets failed miserably at it.

by rquantz 13y ago

dnautics 13y ago

Sorry, I was going to mention that it was dangerous for the ayn-rand types who see that it is individual value that ought to be the highest objective for society, but I decided that that was too politically-baitey. Moreover, to address your comment: that the 'labor is cheap' has to do with a lot of things, why don't people simply negotiate for higher wages and refuse to do the work otherwise? That it's so difficult to live on a low wage has to do with the political infrastructure throwing money at the financial sector for decades, and not to do with any form of natural exchange per se.

lmm 13y ago
> why don't people simply negotiate for higher wages and refuse to do the work otherwise? That it's so difficult to live on a low wage has to do with the political infrastructure throwing money at the financial sector for decades, and not to do with any form of natural exchange per se. Be that as it may, what can we do about it? As an average voter, what policy can I advocate that might make a practical difference? (The only way forward I can see is a succession of working hours limits, like the EU's current 40-hours/week working time directive. In a decade maybe we can bring that down to 35, then in another decade 30, and so on. That's a politically acceptable approach, at least in some countries, that would improve human quality of life, though there are obvious downsides)
- dnautics 13y ago
  forget policy. Do what's right - pay your workers fair wages, talk about it, and spread the word. This is far more than what most policy wonks themselves do. Eg: http://www.propublica.org/article/nation-institute-to-pay-interns-minimum-wage http://www.propublica.org/article/nation-institute-to-pay-in...
deminature 13y ago
>why don't people simply negotiate for higher wages and refuse to do the work otherwise? Because union membership has been outlawed or seriously frowned upon in many professions. Most other people seem to think unionism is somehow destructive and end up only looking out for themselves, not realising they have been divided and conquered. Obviously, your experiences with this may differ.
- dnautics 13y ago
  I don't think most people in the US think unionism is destructive, but most people in the US believe that unions (as given legal protections, etc.) have become political entities (versus economic entities) that look out for the union and not for the worker. I believe this is not far from the truth - have you seen what the headquarters of the AFL-CIO (2 blocks from the capitol) looks like? It's really quite shameful.

paganel 13y ago

> Other than, you know, powerful people who depend on an endless supply of cheap labor, and politicians who rely on an exhausted, frightened, ADD electorate. This is the thing I could not understand when reading Marx, the idea that there would come a time "of plenty" when no-one will have to work anymore and we'll all be free to pursue our intellectual pursuits and such. Supposing that this utopian feature is attainable (which I highly doubt), then who would fix the broken stuff? Because stuff will break. Who will create new stuff? Because, as crazy as it sounds, there's no unlimited supply of "stuff". The only two connected answers that I can think of is that we'll do indeed manage to attain the singularity (which I highly doubt is possible) and second (and as important) is that we'll "convince" the machines to work for us. And there was a third way that was already tried, trying to create a "new man". The Soviets failed miserably at it.