Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Reelya]

The "thought economy" is a bit of a red herring here. It's not really a thing.

People who do things with their hands aren't being devalued. Unskilled labor is. And only because it's bad value for money. Smarter ways of working lead to more productivity increases for less money than throwing more unskilled manpower at it. It still takes the synergy between the ideas guy and labor.

[SirQuiamus]

Being useless ain't so bad, y'know? So long as you don't starve and whatnot.

But useless people will starve, you know? My state of malnourishment is proof of that.

The "thought economy" is a bit of a red herring here. It's not really a thing.

People who do things with their hands aren't being devalued. Unskilled labor is. And only because it's bad value for money. Smarter ways of working lead to more productivity increases for less money than throwing more unskilled manpower at it. It still takes the synergy between the ideas guy and labor.

Is it possible for any person to become skilled in any labor? I can't see myself employed in customer services. _{(or anywhere else, for that matter)}

[Reelya]

Unskilled labor means jobs that don't require much training or special knowledge. If you're only able to mop floors, then you're up shit creek when they invent a floor-cleaning machine. "everyone" doesn't have to be able to do "everything". Specialization just means you have to find a single thing you're good at.

The only way to prevent unskilled jobs being lost is some sort of government sanction on doing things in a more sensible manner. Or maybe we abolish minimum wage and also abolish welfare, and let employers pick up desperate people for 50 cents and hour. But just watch the crime rate soar then, as 40 hours work a week doesn't even pay your rent any more.

If you're not good at anything, then you are royally screwed, but it's not anyone's fault. It's just inevitable.

[Sergarr]

Thing is, there can be only so many guys who provide the smartness before you hit the point where there's no more place for them AND there can be only so much work done in some certain field before it is fully exhausted.

With industry, you (usually) have a limit on the rate of work (because things you make deteriorate over time and need replacement), with thoughts, you have a limit on the total amount of work (because thoughts do not deteriorate over time).

Or, in other works: industry is scaleable, thoughts are not. A society twice as big can produce twice the stuff, but it cannot produce twice the thoughts.

The "thought economy" is a bit of a red herring here. It's not really a thing.

People who do things with their hands aren't being devalued. Unskilled labor is. And only because it's bad value for money. Smarter ways of working lead to more productivity increases for less money than throwing more unskilled manpower at it. It still takes the synergy between the ideas guy and labor.

You miss the problem: 1 skilled laborer can replace 2 unskilled ones. Means that 1 guy is going to be left without a job. And he cannot just go and become the "ideas guy", because that requires an even huger investment of resources that may very well not pay off at all, because there's no method that can guarantee a stable generation of new thoughts.

[SirQuiamus]

Unskilled labor means jobs that don't require much training or special knowledge. If you're only able to mop floors, then you're up shit creek when they invent a floor-cleaning machine. "everyone" doesn't have to be able to do "everything". Specialization just means you have to find a single thing you're good at.

The only way to prevent unskilled jobs being lost is some sort of government sanction on doing things in a more sensible manner. Or maybe we abolish minimum wage and also abolish welfare, and let employers pick up desperate people for 50 cents and hour.

If you're not good at anything, then you are royally screwed, but it's not anyone's fault. It's just inevitable.

If you apply Hume's guillotine on a Pollyanna and a Pragmatist, which one will lose their head?
I know that I'm far out in terms of starry-eyed idealism, but I honestly believe that we should stop obsessing over efficiency, as long as it doesn't mean being less ecological. If being humane means being inefficient, why are we always opting for inhumanity?

Spoiler: all-too-personal, and kinda offtopic. (click to show/hide)

Thinking about this from my own point of view: Yes, I'm in need of cash and a bit ... unemployable. And yes, I would very much like to work (temporarily) in a crappy unskilled-labour job, but that ain't gonna happen. I've sent applications and gone to interviews, with predictable results: "You're in your late twenties and you have a blank CV? And an extensive history of mental illness and substance abuse? Sorry mate, but you're not fit to shovel shit with those qualifications ... go die in a ditch or something." It may sound strange, but I don't want any more free time. I want to do something and get paid for it; I want to stop myself from starving with my own strength. That option is not available to me in this society.

   

[Digital Hellhound]

Votes for the Finnish elections are 93% counted now, and it's a clear victory for the Keskusta (the lit. 'Centre') party, with 49 seats right now. They only got one seat in the capital, which I found funny - super rural. True Finns (right-wing nationalist populists) are, somehow, godawfully, second, with 38 seats. These two were the main opposition parties, note. Kokoomus (National Coalition, liberal right/'rabid neoliberalists', as surqimus put it), previously the biggest party, is at 37 seats. The Social Democrats have had their biggest defeat ever for the second time in a row, dropping to 34 seats.

In slightly happier news, the Greens have also triumphed with 5 new seats, getting them 15 total. Left Alliance follows at 12 seats (2 lost), the Swedish People's Party has 9 (unchanged from last), Christian Democrats are at 5 (lost 1). Then there's also a lone Åland representative... man, that place is weird. We should've just handed it over to the Swedes.

True Finns becoming the second-biggest party is something I never expected to see. Ah hell.

Not clear yet what sort of coalition is going to form, but I'm expecting the worst and a conservative monolith.

[Sergarr]

Right-wing nationalists

Of what sort, the one like National Front (France) or something more like Republicans (USA)?

[Erkki]

...True Finns (right-wing nationalist populists) are, somehow, godawfully, second, with 38 seats.

...

True Finns becoming the second-biggest party is something I never expected to see. Ah hell.

But... But... We are a developed, liberal Nordic society. 38 seats for the True Finns. Doesnt look like its going to be a bright future ahead.

Right-wing nationalists

Of what sort, the one like National Front (France) or something more like Republicans (USA)?

More like the sort of the Swedish Democrats (so I think its somewhere between those two, except few True Finns have any kind of opinions on economy. Other than that they are either neutral or anti-EU).

[Sergarr]

Anti-EU? Are they anti-NATO, too, per chance, or are they less of a political prostitutes that will sell their own country to an enemy power (like National Front to Russia)?

[Erkki]

Anti-EU? Are they anti-NATO, too, per chance, or are they less of a political prostitutes that will sell their own country to an enemy power (like National Front to Russia)?

I would say anti-change in general. Including those things that have changed during the past few decades. But they are not anti-EU as a party; that is just more common among their ranks than in any other. As a stereotype they are also nationalistic, so I suppose they're only partially alike certain other populist European parties...

[Sergarr]

Anti-EU? Are they anti-NATO, too, per chance, or are they less of a political prostitutes that will sell their own country to an enemy power (like National Front to Russia)?

I would say anti-change in general. Including those things that have changed during the past few decades. But they are not anti-EU as a party; that is just more common among their ranks than in any other. As a stereotype they are also nationalistic, so I suppose they're only partially alike certain other populist European parties...

So they're conservatives, then. Republican-type (before they went full Tea Party).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

English Wikipedia suggests the True Finns are social authoritarians and economic leftists. This sounds strangely identical to communist policies for a far-right party.

[Helgoland]

Horseshoe theory, man.

Anti-EU? Are they anti-NATO, too, per chance, or are they less of a political prostitutes that will sell their own country to an enemy power (like National Front to Russia)?

Ar you calling anti-NATO parties political prostitutes? Damn, I thought you were a cliché Russian

[Erkki]

Also... THIS guy somehow made it, again. Heres Mr. Hakkarainen celebrating election results:



He will probably "forget" his papers to the club of an organized crime motorcycle club, buy sex in front of the press and be generally an incapable drunk for another 4 years.

[SirQuiamus]

English Wikipedia suggests the True Finns are social authoritarians and economic leftists. This sounds strangely identical to communist policies for a far-right party.

They are all over the place ideologically, and that's the secret of their success. If you really want to be a successful populist party around here, you need to appeal to the widest range of voters: "You want socialism or white supremacy? We got both! You want both in the same package? Bob's your uncle!" The D'Hondt method favors amorphous party rosters, since votes given to the "leftist" candidates also benefit the far-right candidates, and vice versa.