4 ms·

This fellow probably says it better than I: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-markets-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/201

This fellow probably says it better than I: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-markets-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-m... If you take a moment and look at maslow's hierarchy of needs you have to ask yourself do we really need all these jobs at the top of the pyramid? Why can't we all just make sure the entire world has the bottom part covered and then just relax and enjoy each other's company / enjoy nature / read a book? Sure, I get why we have roomba the robot, but come on.... Luxury Yachts for millions of dollars? Mansions? Super cars? I mean, wtf.

ChuckMcM 11y ago
No doubt Graeber would have considered the medicine man in the cave society as a 'bullshit' job. :-) The Luddite argument is almost exactly as you've framed it, "technology eats my job, 'they' fix it so most people don't notice, we should collectively outlaw technology." However, the Luddites, then and now, started from a fallacy that a 'job' was some sort of permanently defined thing, of which there was a finite supply. And sadly that is completely backwards. What there is, is capital, which is the output of an economy, which goes back into the economy to create more capital. Capital is not strictly 'money' which is a stand in for it at times, it is the potential to produce goods or services. That potential can be realized as $100 or it can be realized as someone who is not currently employed. The participants in the economy, people like you and me, make up new types of jobs all the time in order to convince some capital to flow your way. When we are successful we capture that capital, and then we reuse it to meet our own needs or goals. So when ever there is excess capital, there is job creation because everyone wants a piece of it.

4 ms·

This fellow probably says it better than I: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-markets-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/201

by justonepost 11y ago

ChuckMcM 11y ago
No doubt Graeber would have considered the medicine man in the cave society as a 'bullshit' job. :-) The Luddite argument is almost exactly as you've framed it, "technology eats my job, 'they' fix it so most people don't notice, we should collectively outlaw technology." However, the Luddites, then and now, started from a fallacy that a 'job' was some sort of permanently defined thing, of which there was a finite supply. And sadly that is completely backwards. What there is, is capital, which is the output of an economy, which goes back into the economy to create more capital. Capital is not strictly 'money' which is a stand in for it at times, it is the potential to produce goods or services. That potential can be realized as $100 or it can be realized as someone who is not currently employed. The participants in the economy, people like you and me, make up new types of jobs all the time in order to convince some capital to flow your way. When we are successful we capture that capital, and then we reuse it to meet our own needs or goals. So when ever there is excess capital, there is job creation because everyone wants a piece of it.