Print

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

[Draxis]

What would people do with their spare time?

    Probably the same things they do now, but with more of it spent in a productive manner. I obviously can't speak for everyone, but in times when I have had more spare time, I was more likely to educate myself, work in the community and soforth than in limited spare time.  This seems to be a pattern common to most people; in high school, which had a clear distinction of free time and not, most people got a lot more done over the summer; also, you generally see a lot more significant events going on on the weekends.  While many people would at first not know what to do with their time, almost none would really do nothing.  Maybe people would even manage to get involved in their government or community.
    In any case, people not being fully productive is not really a good argument against an economic system.  Especially compared to the current one, where many people are forced to spend their time unproductively or starve.

[LordBucket]

What would people do with their spare time?

Why would reducing workload change what people do in their spare time? The primary difference would be that there would be more spare time. Do what you want with it. You're not seriously suggesting it's better for everyone to work a 40 hour workweek so that they have something to do, are you?

I'd like to see you try to fit several hundred of those in your average apartment building, yes.

1) Are you suggesting that because there might be individual, specific cases in which a particular solution is impractical, that we should therefore not use that solution in cases where it is? I already linked you guys the perfect solution fallacy. Stop making it.

2) 5 seconds on google: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class5/types_lg_capacity_septic.cfm

"In general, LCSSs may be found serving the following facilities:

Apartment buildings"

Unless you are contesting the veracity of the base statement (that there are ways to significantly reduce work while keeping output flat), then the argument of over what exactly the most effective means of sewage are is pointless.

Thank you.

I'm contesting the idea that decentralization is the way forward.

And I'm arguing in favor of efficiency, regardless of centralization or decentralization. Specific examples I've given do involve decentralization, like this water thing. If you can centralize to increase efficiency and reduce workload, that's fine. But "always centralize" is a bad policy. Like the hypothetical "centralized toothbrushing service" example I gave a  couple pages ago.

If you don't like the decentralized water scheme, that's fine. Like lemon10 says, let's discuss the idea rather than getting hopelessly preoccupied with one single example. I've given plenty of other examples, and I invited people to suggest their own.

The idea here is that our present system encourages the existence of work, and it fails if work is eliminated. If somebody invents a labor saving device that makes a million jobs irrelevant and puts those people out of work, that should be a good thing, but in our present system, it isn't, and work now needs to be created for those million people to keep them working so they have money and don't starve to death.

I see that as a failing of our current (capitalist) system. It's more complicated than simply saying that it's a flaw of capitalism. It's not, exactly. Capitalism itself is a perfectly functional system, under certain conditions. It works less well under other conditions, and our technological capabilities are pushing us in the direction of capitalism as well as the entire "work a job for money" system no longer being very relevant.

Obvious end-game example, which has already been given: if everybody had a nano-disassembler and "Star Trek replicator" quality 3d printer. At that point, our entire economy becomes largely irrelevant. But there's not necessarily an instant one-day-to-the-next transition between the system being relevant and not relevant. There's a more gradual (if bumpy) transition. Work can be made obsolete by technology, and it can be made irrelevant by cultural reform, and by simple "let's do something this way instead of that way." Like the flat tax rate example: it reduces the total required workload.

The only "problem" with my proposed methodology is one that I already pointed out: the bumpy ride. If you take our current system and make an entire industry irrelevant, you put everyone working in that industry out of work, and now they have no money to buy food. If you increase efficiency in an industry such that it only needs half as many people to do the same amount of work, then half of those people are now out of work and have no money to buy food. I acknowledge this problem. And I don't have an easy answer for it. But keeping everyone working in irrelevant positions seems like a bad solution to me.

And that's what we're doing.

[Jelle]

So many radical ideas, clearly you all have had to much to think in that free time of  yours. Remember! A busy drone is a happy drone!

Yeah, that's all I got to post for now. This forum is so darn active, there's no way I can read all this before posting.
Also, how did a topic on capitalism result in discussing septic systems? Consider me boggled.

[Descan]

Something you've been repeating that bears mentioning, LB, is that the reason we have different tiers of tax as opposed to flat tax is that taxes impact everyone differently, from a mother of 2 who needs money for her children that childless couple wouldn't, or the benefits a community garners from people donating their money (hence the tax credits), to the fact that 10 percent of 10k is a lot more impactful than 10 percent of 100k on the person making that money. :v

[LordBucket]

That seems like a much smaller problem to me than the six BILLION hours spent every year spent dealing with the behemoth that is our current tax code:

 -- "Americans (both individuals and businesses) spend 6.1 billion hours a year complying with the code. That’s the equivalent of more than 3 million workers toiling away full time, all year."

[Helgoland]

The idea here is that our present system encourages the existence of work, and it fails if work is eliminated. If somebody invents a labor saving device that makes a million jobs irrelevant and puts those people out of work, that should be a good thing, but in our present system, it isn't, and work now needs to be created for those million people to keep them working so they have money and don't starve to death.

The Spinning Jenny is a perfect example of just such a thing happening. Capitalism (in a well-regulated form) is all about providing incentive for increasing efficiency. There's nothing inherently centralizing or de-centralizing in it.
About job destruction/unnecessary job creation: The problem you describe is I believe much the same that Marx tried to work out - he claimed capitalism would choke on its overproduction. Obviously, that didn't happen; a variable he didn't see - standard of living - came into play. And that's what'll probably happen as we advance further: Efficiency will go up, and the workload freed up by that process will pour into new sectors. There's no question that there are large problems within our current system, but those are mostly political and not economic, as they are caused by globalization (the process of eroding the artificial barriers known as national borders), ill-advised policies (agricultural subsidies, health care legislation especially in the US) and other factors that will erode away over time.

TL;DR: We actually all have the same opinion; a revolution is unnecessary, as capitalism will/should solve the percieved problems of today in a satisfactory manner.

NINJAEDIT: Complicated tax codes would be another prime example of inefficiency from purely political causes.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

What would people do with their spare time?

Why would reducing workload change what people do in their spare time? The primary difference would be that there would be more spare time. Do what you want with it. You're not seriously suggesting it's better for everyone to work a 40 hour workweek so that they have something to do, are you?

It's a matter of opinion, technically you're not forced into a 40 hour work week, and some people actually enjoy it. I have multiple grandparents, aunts, uncles who worked when they could have retired.

[LordBucket]

Very good, I'm sure you and your family make excellent slaves.

[Frumple]

That seems like a much smaller problem to me than the six BILLION hours spent every year spent dealing with the behemoth that is our current tax code:

 -- "Americans (both individuals and businesses) spend 6.1 billion hours a year complying with the code. That’s the equivalent of more than 3 million workers toiling away full time, all year."

Nice big number, but that's... equivalent to less than a percent of the population. Barely two percent, if that, of the labor force. The effect of a flat tax would hit... a lot more than two percent of the labor force, or <1% of the population. There's definitely a lot of bullshit that could be cut out of the tax code, sure, but beyond a lot of the lobby/special-interest related crap, there's (very good) reasons it's complicated. Maybe not necessarily good reasons for it being as complicated as it is, no, but yeah.

Beyond that, flat taxes are just... generally bad. Regressive, which hits those that can take a hit the least, the hardest. Administrative easement doesn't make up for it, I'd say. Progressive tax is generally the way to go, in most situations. But tax related discussion is probably better suited for a different thread.

[LordBucket]

What's your goal, Frumple? What are you trying to accomplish? What kind of society do you want to live in? My goal here is to have a high ratio of (quality of life) over (work required to maintain that life.) I want to live in a society where the majority of people aren't compelled by circumstance to spend the majority of their lives working because they'll starve to death if they don't. A society where the maintenance costs are low, and freedom and quality of life are high.

What kind of society do you want to live in?

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Very good, I'm sure you and your family make excellent slaves.

You know, that's just rude. I'm not going to fire back at all either. The fact is this my family are very happy people, and my relatives and forebears on all sides have always worked hard. Your job or experiences must have been pretty terrible to think of a job as the worst hell.

FAKEEDIT: LBucket, what society do you live in which the quality of life is so low? That your maintenance costs are so high? You make it sound as if this world we live in is the worst kind of slavery.

[Descan]

Then it could probably be simplified, but a flat tax rate is not the way to do it. Baby with the bath water, and all that.

[Frumple]

What kind of society do you want to live in?

*vague shrug* I'm not terribly picky about long term things, or the exact way they manifest. Short term are more my concern. Not being at legitimate threat of death via starvation (for myself, for the rest of the nation. Rest of the world would be nice, too, but baby steps.), not having a significant underclass, having the population as healthy and happy as possible, being a positive player in the world game... stuff like that. Technological and cultural advancement and flourishing would be nice, too. Improvements wherever possible, really, should be the general goal. Exactly how those improvements manifest... so long as it's consistent, stable, and largely equitable... I don't really care, y'know? Function over form, in this case, and I can honestly give in one area to make inroads in the others, so long as the gain is net. Basically, it's not a single variable situation for me, yeah.

Reduction of work, especially functionally coerced work, would be good! I just prefer less prickly fruits, first -- ones that don't have powerful negative side effects, if possible. There's plenty of things that could be done on that front without (comparatively) shafting the less well off of us, yeah? Definitely room for administrative easement (and hey, tax especially, digitalization is making inroads, slowly.), but it needs to be measured, and the costs carefully evaluated. Administration, the middle man... there's a lot of bloat, and technology is (slowly) helping to reduce their efficiency, but the reason they're there isn't just because of useless makework. There's legitimate net gains in efficiency, in effectiveness, when good (emphasis on good) controls of that nature are in place.

[LordBucket]

That your maintenance costs are so high? You make it sound as if this world we live in is the worst kind of slavery.

As mentioned several times, the standard in this society is that people spend a third of their waking hours for the majority of their lives working.

It doesn't have to be that way.

that's just rude.

...yes. It is. And I apologize for the rudeness. But contained within it, there was also a point.

What is slavery? Let's call it the state of being "bound in servitude." Is that a good enough definition? Conventionally, we think of slavery as being bound in servitude to an individual, but somewhat more metaphorically I'm suggesting that slavery can exist via circumstance. For most people, it is a practical fact of life that they must work in order to survive. It doesn't matter if they enjoy the work, and it doesn't matter if the work has any meaning or value. They must work for money to survive.

How is being compelled by circumstance to work (or die) so very different from being compelled by the master to work? Do you see the parallel?

You saying that some people enjoy the work, people like Hiiri saying it would be a disaster if people had more spare time, and that it's "for their own good" that people have jobs and duties...it just doesn't seem very different from a slavemaster saying that it's "for the best" that his slaves be slaves, and the slave asking "what would he do" if he wasn't a slave, and pointing out that he's very happy, his master is kind to him, and the work isn't that hard.

Helgoland mentioned the spinning jenny earlier. The spinning jenny was a device that reduced the amount of work needed to produce yarn, effectively increasing output by eight times, and eventually with later development, 120 times. That sounds like a good thing, right?

And yet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_jenny
"the woollen manufacturers, in true protectionist style, claimed this was taking jobs from workers....Eventually they broke into his house and smashed his machines"

You and I can very easily look back on that now and say that it was better in the long run for that technology to exist, better to have the greater efficiency, better to free up those workers from that labor...but I think the thinking that some of you engaging in now, defending these inefficient systems we have now...isn't really all that much different than the people protesting spinning jennies.

It's not necessary for our society to have as many people working as much as they do. And yet some of you are defending it, saying that working more is better. You want to work.

Hence, I say you would make good slaves.

[LordBucket]

Reduction of work, especially functionally coerced work, would be good!

Ok. So you agree with my premise, and you're just nitpicking every little detail about the examples I give.

Ok. Great. How about you give some examples of ways that net workload could be reduced. And I'll sit back and let you be the one that people are gnashing their teeth over complaining about specific cases and special interests groups who would stop benefiting from our present inefficiencies.