LOL! Marx May Have Been Right

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
At a glance, it is an obvious fallacy - We don’t need an artificial middle class for it’s own sake.

But there IS a process going on right now, which will render the need for unskilled labour largely obsolete.

For instance, when easy-to-maintain 3D printers will spill out food, clothing and smarter robots will be able to fulfill most basic industrial operations, will we be in need of a different society.

Most people are content and expect a bit of pressure and work, followed by some R&R- they don’t want to be bothered by actively participating, as long as they can shout a bit; creating, as long as they can consume; realizing and solving problems, as long as things are stable and there’s an authority or a gawd or celebrities to adore.

It IS a problem when too many people are not content and feel useless.
Even if they, objectively, live better lives (comfort, leisure time, safe environment, health etc) then many kings of old.

[/quote]

Just think how inexpensive maids, chefs, chauffeurs, and butlers will become.

I cannot wait.

42

Orion,
whoever said a computer will make your life easier was a colossal nerd.
Like most technological advances, they make life more complicated, above all else.

It’s a fact that we need less and less stupid workers.
Jobs that rely on a few physical interactions and almost no intelligence or creativity.

One could debate for hours if during certain dark ages people had to be more ingenious and we are on average, today, more stupid. Or if specilization is always a boon and raises the general IQ, so to speak.

But really my only subjective assertion here is that you can’t force the masses to be become enterpreneurs or versatile geniuses in their cubicles.

A modern economy can be ok with a tiny middle class.
But a society?

Without some fresh perspective on how to deal with that, you could only hope for more circensis.
BTW, Sloterdijk has a similar outlook on that and calls for personal “anthropic technique”.

43

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
At a glance, it is an obvious fallacy - We don’t need an artificial middle class for it’s own sake.

But there IS a process going on right now, which will render the need for unskilled labour largely obsolete.

For instance, when easy-to-maintain 3D printers will spill out food, clothing and smarter robots will be able to fulfill most basic industrial operations, will we be in need of a different society.

Most people are content and expect a bit of pressure and work, followed by some R&R- they don’t want to be bothered by actively participating, as long as they can shout a bit; creating, as long as they can consume; realizing and solving problems, as long as things are stable and there’s an authority or a gawd or celebrities to adore.

It IS a problem when too many people are not content and feel useless.
Even if they, objectively, live better lives (comfort, leisure time, safe environment, health etc) then many kings of old.

[/quote]

Just think how inexpensive maids, chefs, chauffeurs, and butlers will become.

I cannot wait.[/quote]

hmmmm
You can expect many thirld world countries to run smoothly like that.
But the very country that invented the “from dishwasher…” fairy tale?

Expect more criminals knocking on your door then maid-applicants.

And perhaps rightly so.

44

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Orion,
whoever said a computer will make your life easier was a colossal nerd.
Like most technological advances, they make life more complicated, above all else.

It’s a fact that we need less and less stupid workers.
Jobs that rely on a few physical interactions and almost no intelligence or creativity.

One could debate for hours if during certain dark ages people had to be more ingenious and we are on average, today, more stupid. Or if specilization is always a boon and raises the general IQ, so to speak.

But really my only subjective assertion here is that you can’t force the masses to be become enterpreneurs or versatile geniuses in their cubicles.

A modern economy can be ok with a tiny middle class.
But a society?

Without some fresh perspective on how to deal with that, you could only hope for more circensis.
BTW, Sloterdijk has a similar outlook on that and calls for personal “anthropic technique”.

[/quote]

Pish posh, if work is too complicated for people, we need to dumb it down.

Since they would still be working with an enormous amount of capital per person they would still be paid well and they would still be middle class.

I see a bright new future for people who can turn complicated and tedious work in exciting computer games, with highscores and all.

You would be surprised what functional illiterates can accomplish if you present it in the right context and a nice visual packaging.

45

[quote]orion wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Orion,
whoever said a computer will make your life easier was a colossal nerd.
Like most technological advances, they make life more complicated, above all else.

It’s a fact that we need less and less stupid workers.
Jobs that rely on a few physical interactions and almost no intelligence or creativity.

One could debate for hours if during certain dark ages people had to be more ingenious and we are on average, today, more stupid. Or if specilization is always a boon and raises the general IQ, so to speak.

But really my only subjective assertion here is that you can’t force the masses to be become enterpreneurs or versatile geniuses in their cubicles.

A modern economy can be ok with a tiny middle class.
But a society?

Without some fresh perspective on how to deal with that, you could only hope for more circensis.
BTW, Sloterdijk has a similar outlook on that and calls for personal “anthropic technique”.

[/quote]

meh, souble post

46

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Oh yes. The wealthy are soooo benevolent. Thats why the 400 richest people in America pay only 17% in taxes. Look up Charitable Remainder Trust and tell me how giving they are.

[/quote]

Do you, or have you ever gone to a school for very, very spe-shul children?

Because if not I cannot imagine how being “charitable” enters into the question how much taxes you pay.

Also, the mere fact that someone has made billions already means that he has benefitted society tremendously, at least as a rule.

Maybe we should give tax breaks to billionaires, because they simply have done enough?

If we reallly wanted to abolsih poverty we would have of course to tax it and subsidize economic success and not the other way around. [/quote]

  1. Why must you always insult someone with differing views?

  2. When the majority of people in a country are unhappy and there is a large divide between rich and poor, you get revolution. Why don’t YOU study some fucking economic history? or do I have to list the incidences for you?

Wow.

47

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
At a glance, it is an obvious fallacy - We don’t need an artificial middle class for it’s own sake.

But there IS a process going on right now, which will render the need for unskilled labour largely obsolete.

For instance, when easy-to-maintain 3D printers will spill out food, clothing and smarter robots will be able to fulfill most basic industrial operations, will we be in need of a different society.

Most people are content and expect a bit of pressure and work, followed by some R&R- they don’t want to be bothered by actively participating, as long as they can shout a bit; creating, as long as they can consume; realizing and solving problems, as long as things are stable and there’s an authority or a gawd or celebrities to adore.

It IS a problem when too many people are not content and feel useless.
Even if they, objectively, live better lives (comfort, leisure time, safe environment, health etc) then many kings of old.

[/quote]

Just think how inexpensive maids, chefs, chauffeurs, and butlers will become.

I cannot wait.[/quote]

hmmmm
You can expect many thirld world countries to run smoothly like that.
But the very country that invented the “from dishwasher…” fairy tale?

Expect more criminals knocking on your door then maid-applicants.

And perhaps rightly so.
[/quote]

My point is that there will always be a place for unskilled laborers even if the market displaces them with technology. Capital does not maintain itself.

48

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Orion,
whoever said a computer will make your life easier was a colossal nerd.
Like most technological advances, they make life more complicated, above all else.

It’s a fact that we need less and less stupid workers.
Jobs that rely on a few physical interactions and almost no intelligence or creativity.

One could debate for hours if during certain dark ages people had to be more ingenious and we are on average, today, more stupid. Or if specilization is always a boon and raises the general IQ, so to speak.

But really my only subjective assertion here is that you can’t force the masses to be become enterpreneurs or versatile geniuses in their cubicles.

A modern economy can be ok with a tiny middle class.
But a society?

Without some fresh perspective on how to deal with that, you could only hope for more circensis.
BTW, Sloterdijk has a similar outlook on that and calls for personal “anthropic technique”.

[/quote]

Pish posh, if work is too complicated for people, we need to dumb it down.

Since they would still be working with an enormous amount of capital per person they would still be paid well and they would still be middle class.

I see a bright new future for people who can turn complicated and tedious work in exciting computer games, with highscores and all.

You would be surprised what functional illiterates can accomplish if you present it in the right context and a nice visual packaging.
[/quote]
Actually, this is an extremely non-libertarian view!
And another argument that derives from my little futurolgical excursion.

Work should not be dumbed down.
That’s exactly what’s happening with our societies.
Why should we reward needless labour? Aren’t you against subvention?
You are building a case for monstrous lobbies and bureaucracy!

What we should do is deal with a dwindling middle class.
Because that will happen in the west.

49

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
My point is that there will always be a place for unskilled laborers even if the market displaces them with technology. Capital does not maintain itself.[/quote]

Yes, there will be, but it won’t be as big as it was.
Speaking hypothetically, why should you hire a human to clean your house if a gynoid can do the same stuff, cheaper and without muttering and stealing?
And she looks nice.
She’s fully fuckable, too.

My question is more about, “how do we approach this” then “halp! why no full employment anymore?!”

Orion’s remark about the pros of feudalism wasn’t such a bad start, in my opinion.

50

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Orion,
whoever said a computer will make your life easier was a colossal nerd.
Like most technological advances, they make life more complicated, above all else.

It’s a fact that we need less and less stupid workers.
Jobs that rely on a few physical interactions and almost no intelligence or creativity.

One could debate for hours if during certain dark ages people had to be more ingenious and we are on average, today, more stupid. Or if specilization is always a boon and raises the general IQ, so to speak.

But really my only subjective assertion here is that you can’t force the masses to be become enterpreneurs or versatile geniuses in their cubicles.

A modern economy can be ok with a tiny middle class.
But a society?

Without some fresh perspective on how to deal with that, you could only hope for more circensis.
BTW, Sloterdijk has a similar outlook on that and calls for personal “anthropic technique”.

[/quote]

Pish posh, if work is too complicated for people, we need to dumb it down.

Since they would still be working with an enormous amount of capital per person they would still be paid well and they would still be middle class.

I see a bright new future for people who can turn complicated and tedious work in exciting computer games, with highscores and all.

You would be surprised what functional illiterates can accomplish if you present it in the right context and a nice visual packaging.
[/quote]
Actually, this is an extremely non-libertarian view!
And another argument that derives from my little futurolgical excursion.

Work should not be dumbed down.
That’s exactly what’s happening with our societies.
Why should we reward needless labour? Aren’t you against subvention?
You are building a case for monstrous lobbies and bureaucracy!

What we should do is deal with a dwindling middle class.
Because that will happen in the west.[/quote]

Also pish posh, there is nothing unlibertarian about it.

If it is cheaper to make work super exiting than to invest in machines, this is where the money goes.

There is no subsidizing involved if companies to it on their own becauae they get more bang for the buck.

51

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
My point is that there will always be a place for unskilled laborers even if the market displaces them with technology. Capital does not maintain itself.[/quote]

Yes, there will be, but it won’t be as big as it was.
Speaking hypothetically, why should you hire a human to clean your house if a gynoid can do the same stuff, cheaper and without muttering and stealing?
And she looks nice.
She’s fully fuckable, too.

My question is more about, “how do we approach this” then “halp! why no full employment anymore?!”

Orion’s remark about the pros of feudalism wasn’t such a bad start, in my opinion.[/quote]

Ok that’s cool and all but am I supposed to remember to plug it in or whatever I need to do or can I get someone to do that for me?

52

So maybe you need one “robot guy” who’s online and can assist you remotely via drones, the rest of your staff are droids.
Doesn’t look like a society of butlers and serfs.

What I mean to say, in a larger scope is:
As society progresses, pure, potential opportunity may be unlimited as ever, but a vast number of people will lack motivation because basic needs are even more easily sated and simple labour is getting more and more obsolete.
We will then have to cope with more and more people who won’t be able to just work simple tasks and we’ll have to change our societies to integrate their lifestyle harmonically.

53

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Orion,
whoever said a computer will make your life easier was a colossal nerd.
Like most technological advances, they make life more complicated, above all else.

It’s a fact that we need less and less stupid workers.
Jobs that rely on a few physical interactions and almost no intelligence or creativity.

One could debate for hours if during certain dark ages people had to be more ingenious and we are on average, today, more stupid. Or if specilization is always a boon and raises the general IQ, so to speak.

But really my only subjective assertion here is that you can’t force the masses to be become enterpreneurs or versatile geniuses in their cubicles.

A modern economy can be ok with a tiny middle class.
But a society?

Without some fresh perspective on how to deal with that, you could only hope for more circensis.
BTW, Sloterdijk has a similar outlook on that and calls for personal “anthropic technique”.

[/quote]

Pish posh, if work is too complicated for people, we need to dumb it down.

Since they would still be working with an enormous amount of capital per person they would still be paid well and they would still be middle class.

I see a bright new future for people who can turn complicated and tedious work in exciting computer games, with highscores and all.

You would be surprised what functional illiterates can accomplish if you present it in the right context and a nice visual packaging.
[/quote]
Actually, this is an extremely non-libertarian view!
And another argument that derives from my little futurolgical excursion.

Work should not be dumbed down.
That’s exactly what’s happening with our societies.
Why should we reward needless labour? Aren’t you against subvention?
You are building a case for monstrous lobbies and bureaucracy!

What we should do is deal with a dwindling middle class.
Because that will happen in the west.[/quote]

Also pish posh, there is nothing unlibertarian about it.

If it is cheaper to make work super exiting than to invest in machines, this is where the money goes.

There is no subsidizing involved if companies to it on their own becauae they get more bang for the buck.
[/quote]

Orion, I think you have lost me at our first exchange and with that socialistic idea of “dumbing down”. My main argument is that at some point, robot entities will be the majority of the workforce.

Let me rephrase it:
You do realize that aboriginals in theory have way more potential work cut out for them?
But that potential work is all theory if they are relatively content with what’s around you.

If a society has an increasing number of unskilled labourers that are content with TV and junkfood, why should they work if that society provides them these sort of things?
Should we make them feel more miserable and point out their poverty and lack of education?

54

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I would also like to point out one glaring thing: it is not how much you earn, it is how much what you earn can buy (i.e. purchasing power). The more efficient we become, the lower costs become, which means we can do more with significantly fewer resources. I hope that one day I only have to work 1 day a week, but have the same standard of living I do now. That would kick ass. Our poor are wealthy by most standards just 50 years ago. Make no mistake efficiency and productivity will continue to set us free as they always have.

For those that doubt this, ask yourself this. Would we all be better off if we were forced to use our non-dominant hand for all tasks and throw our computers and technology out the window? It might give us full employment, but pretty difficult to say this is a better situation than now.[/quote]

You are describing half of a healthy economy the other half is demand and if the supply is coming from out side the system eventually the demand will fail because no one will have the money for cheap goods

55

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Orion,
whoever said a computer will make your life easier was a colossal nerd.
Like most technological advances, they make life more complicated, above all else.

It’s a fact that we need less and less stupid workers.
Jobs that rely on a few physical interactions and almost no intelligence or creativity.

One could debate for hours if during certain dark ages people had to be more ingenious and we are on average, today, more stupid. Or if specilization is always a boon and raises the general IQ, so to speak.

But really my only subjective assertion here is that you can’t force the masses to be become enterpreneurs or versatile geniuses in their cubicles.

A modern economy can be ok with a tiny middle class.
But a society?

Without some fresh perspective on how to deal with that, you could only hope for more circensis.
BTW, Sloterdijk has a similar outlook on that and calls for personal “anthropic technique”.

[/quote]

Pish posh, if work is too complicated for people, we need to dumb it down.

Since they would still be working with an enormous amount of capital per person they would still be paid well and they would still be middle class.

I see a bright new future for people who can turn complicated and tedious work in exciting computer games, with highscores and all.

You would be surprised what functional illiterates can accomplish if you present it in the right context and a nice visual packaging.
[/quote]
Actually, this is an extremely non-libertarian view!
And another argument that derives from my little futurolgical excursion.

Work should not be dumbed down.
That’s exactly what’s happening with our societies.
Why should we reward needless labour? Aren’t you against subvention?
You are building a case for monstrous lobbies and bureaucracy!

What we should do is deal with a dwindling middle class.
Because that will happen in the west.[/quote]

Also pish posh, there is nothing unlibertarian about it.

If it is cheaper to make work super exiting than to invest in machines, this is where the money goes.

There is no subsidizing involved if companies to it on their own becauae they get more bang for the buck.
[/quote]

Orion, I think you have lost me at our first exchange and with that socialistic idea of “dumbing down”. My main argument is that at some point, robot entities will be the majority of the workforce.

Let me rephrase it:
You do realize that aboriginals in theory have way more potential work cut out for them?
But that potential work is all theory if they are relatively content with what’s around you.

If a society has an increasing number of unskilled labourers that are content with TV and junkfood, why should they work if that society provides them these sort of things?
Should we make them feel more miserable and point out their poverty and lack of education?

[/quote]

If they could theoretically get by with a one day work week, more power to them.

If “society” should actually provide for them, I think it will collapse sooner or later anyway, that would be the model of Rome before it fell.

56

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I would also like to point out one glaring thing: it is not how much you earn, it is how much what you earn can buy (i.e. purchasing power). The more efficient we become, the lower costs become, which means we can do more with significantly fewer resources. I hope that one day I only have to work 1 day a week, but have the same standard of living I do now. That would kick ass. Our poor are wealthy by most standards just 50 years ago. Make no mistake efficiency and productivity will continue to set us free as they always have.

For those that doubt this, ask yourself this. Would we all be better off if we were forced to use our non-dominant hand for all tasks and throw our computers and technology out the window? It might give us full employment, but pretty difficult to say this is a better situation than now.[/quote]

You are describing half of a healthy economy the other half is demand and if the supply is coming from out side the system eventually the demand will fail because no one will have the money for cheap goods[/quote]

Doubt it.

That will just lead to more money being saved, the accumulation of production goods, cheaper production and so repeat until stuff is so dirt cheap that people start to buy again.

57

People who cannot find a way to make themselves useful enough to secure some sort of economic stability should try harder

58

Lets all bash Capitalism on our computer while we are surfing the net on google and checking wikipedia and facebook!

59

For the slow-minded:

This is not the luddite’s argument.

60

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

First off, I am not talking about rich people being charitable. I am talking about them producing the things which we cannot produce ourselves. We are beholden to them for all our little trinkets and luxuries and the only reason they profit is because we use them.

If you want to work less then capitalism is the economic model you should support since it is an inherently labor saving system. Capital are those goods which can beget more goods. Capitalists are those people who help bring about more capital – essentially, any human being that produces something that he does not consume himself but rather sets aside for someone else to use.

All those cultural goods we enjoy – the arts, religion, academia, etc. – can only come about in a world that saves labor. The market for these goods only exists in a world where people do not have to labor from sunup to sundown to feed themselves. And besides, we call them starving artists because there is no real market for the art they produce; it’s just art for art’s sake in many cases.

And really, I am just speaking generally about work. I know people are individuals with their own capacities, abilities, and motivations. Some people are driven more than others and that is why they become uber wealthy. We all live our own life.

As far as religion goes I am a nonbeliever. I do not allow my world to be influenced by superstitious nonsense.[/quote]

I don’t like this format of discussion. I don’t want to argue about capitalism and all of the things you bring up here. By the way I agree with most of what you said in this post but it doesnt matter.

The only thing I want to argue about is that a world with our material needs met with a minimum amount of work and workers would be a great achievement. For me this in an evidence and I don’t see where you are going with the argument that there is always work to do.