Print

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

[Frumple]

... no, I'm noting a major downside for a particular example. It's... not a little detail, in that case. It's also the only example of yours I've commented on. I'd be on board with the septic tank expansion if it was fact checked, given an experimental run (on a few different, preferably increasing levels, so town-> city-> county-> state), and actually found to reduce overall cost and effort.

Net workload reduction is... already happening. It's been happening. Automation everywhere, and expanding. They'll be automating fast food joints relatively soon, and software improvements are already cutting into the service industry like a boss. Digitalization is saving ridiculous amounts of administrative time functionally everywhere, even factoring in the effort it takes to build the software and the infrastructure for it. Work that would take several (dozen) hours (days, weeks) being done in seconds. Honestly, s'far as I'm aware, for most jobs if we wanted to cut hours significantly, we could without meaningfully decreasing overall product/service output. E: Though, well, it'd massively decrease demand because no one'd have money to spend, ha.

The problem's generally been more how people support themselves once they've been workload-reduced out of a job than it is actually reducing workload. It's not to say that further reduction shouldn't be pursued, of course, but... the actual mechanics of that we're doing pretty good on. It's the food needs work thing that's the bigger issue. Cultural more than engineering. Honestly, I've got no bloody idea how to actually shove an improvement there through. Guaranteed income, or something similar, would be nice, but in the states especially I can't see that happening any time soon. In the mean time, I'd just like the transition to hurt as little as possible, yeah? Or at least not as much as it could.

[LordBucket]

no, I'm noting a major downside for a particular example. It's... not a little detail, in that case. It's also the only example of yours I've commented on.

And others objected to other examples. And if you gave specific examples that you thought were a good idea, somebody else would find something to complain about. We have some people in this thread genuinely claiming that working is good, proper and healthy for people, and so reducing work at all is a bad thing. I don't see any way to make everyone happy, but if we look at what's best for society, I don't think pandering to every little special interest group is the way to do it. Yes, maybe maybe some particular income brackets would end up paying marginally more taxes with a flat tax than they do now, but too bad. Six billion hours of pointless, wasted, stupid work is not worth preventing that.

It's the spinning jenny all over again. Yes, some people lost their jobs over that refinement, but it's ridiculous to say that it's better to destroy the machines in order to keep those people working.

Go ahead and try to give a specific example of how to reduce net work, and see if you do it without somebody finding some way to complain about it.

I'd be on board with the septic tank expansion if it was fact checked, given an experimental run (on a few different, preferably increasing levels, so town-> city-> county-> state), and actually found to reduce overall cost and effort.

I gave plenty of links. But an "experimental run" is pointless. A quarter of the country runs on septic already. But cities prefer sewer systems because it's a source of revenue.

Cultural more than engineering. Honestly, I've got no bloody idea how to actually shove an improvement there through.

There's actually a very simple solution to that problem. Redistribute workloads and adjust wages upward to match.

Example:
Imagine an industry requires 40 million hours of useful work per week and employs one million people, 40 hours per week. Now, imagine that "labor saving method X" is implemented, reducing the required workload in half, to 20 million hours per week.

You can:
a) Eliminate 20 million hours/week worth of useful jobs and create 20 million hours/week of bullshit jobs.

b) Eliminate 20 millon hours/week worth of jobs by simply laying off half your workers.

...or...

c) Reduce the workweek to 20 hours/week, and double hourly wages. The same number of people are receiving the same amount of money, the companies in those industries are paying the same exact amount and having the same amount of net work done. People are just working half as much.

From the perspective of society as a whole, option c is the least disruptive. But it contrary to conventional capitalist thinking, which would tend to favor option b.

[Thecard]

Bucket, I don't know what job broke your heart in the past, but you seem to be taking this out on the thread. You seem to be assuming what other people believe, instead of listening. At this point, we're not even remotely on the topic of the thread anymore. We're no longer focused on Capitalism; this has all become a big argument over jobs.

When someone says "I don't think everyone is forced into a job, I know several people who enjoy their work", responding in a patronizing tone is not discussion. This is an argument. Please, everyone: calm down.

I'm not just asking LordBucket, either. Takes two to tango, guys.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

well, why SHOULD I pay someone more to do half the work?

[LordBucket]

At this point, we're not even remotely on the topic of the thread anymore. We're no longer focused on Capitalism; this has all become a big argument over jobs.

From the very first sentence of the original post of the thread:

It's beginning to get to the point where people aren't entirely sure whether or not Capitalism is actually an effective system, and whether or not it will continue to function as we are developing further into free solar energy and cheap mechanical labor

That's exactly what we're talking about. "cheap mechanical labor" replacing human labor, putting people out of jobs. Automation, new technologies like 3d printing, the reduced work loads that result, and how we and "the capitalist system" deal with these things.

Or, as MetalSlimehunt phrased it back on page 6:

As I have said, the job model is in a terminal decline. Business owners aren't just going to not automate everything they can, and they're going to be able to automate a lot as our technology improves.

This is a matter of necessity, of recognizing that we are headed towards a global disaster if we keep on trying to play the same old game when the rules are radically changing. All of this economic malaise and turmoil that the world is experiencing? It isn't a coincidence. It's a symptom that we would do well to recognize. The time of traditional economic growth and industrial functionality is simply...ending.

Do you see the relevance?

What did you think the discussion was about?

[Thecard]

Then the title is a bit of a misnomer, as it's more about efficiency of mechanization and technology and less about the economic system known as a Market Economy.

[LordBucket]

well, why SHOULD I pay someone more to do half the work?

Well, that is the problem with solution c, yes. It makes sense for the country as a whole, it's the lest disruptive solution overall, but it doesn't make sense to the individual business owners, who benefit immediately and obviously from laying off half the workers in the example, and thereby cutting their labor expenses in half.

[Frumple]

C would be nice, LB. Any idea how to convince people to make it happen?

A more specific example, though, hrm. Decentralize as much as possible in as many places as possible. Make 90+% of every administrative/paperwork/service job done from home. Cut out a vast majority of travel time and massively reduce necessary on-site infrastructure. I'd say the most that it would take to implement would be some infrastructure shifts (more consistent internet, ferex) and maybe some software improvements, and with proper methodological shifts (go digital, damn your eyes!) you might even see efficiency improvement for the work itself. Hell, tax administration would be an excellent field to implement something like that, since it wouldn't really require much of an on-site presence if it was done properly. From what I understand, it's already something gaining a degree of momentum on a general level. There's known work separation issues for that sort of thing, but it tends to be pretty painless s'far as I'm aware.

I gave plenty of links. But an "experimental run" is pointless. A quarter of the country runs on septic already. But cities prefer sewer systems because it's a source of revenue.

Well, two links (that I noticed), neither of which had immediately accessible information of the sort a proper implementation run (especially for larger/denser areas) would provide. The wiki link even mentioned there may be issues related to urban area implementation, which is why I'd say give it a go (or two) before implementing it on a larger scale. May just not have been looking in the right place, though, which would be my bad.

And others objected to other examples. And if you gave specific examples that you thought were a good idea, somebody else would find something to complain about. We have some people in this thread genuinely claiming that working is good, proper and healthy for people, and so reducing work at all is a bad thing.

Haha, which is why I disagreed with them, yeah?

I don't see any way to make everyone happy, but if we look at what's best for society, I don't think pandering to every little special interest group is the way to do it. Yes, maybe maybe some particular income brackets would end up paying marginally more taxes with a flat tax than they do now, but too bad. Six billion hours of pointless, wasted, stupid work is not worth preventing that.

... unless that marginally more taxes (on a larger number of people... remember, you've noted yourself the median income, and that's going to be among the ones being hit) ends up forcing them into greater effort to make up the difference, or notably impacts their quality of life. It's entirely possible we can reduce those hours without that. I think we can (and I think we are -- electronic submission penetration is at something like 60-70%, iirc, which has already saved ridiculous amounts of time just re: transportation related issues), and we should try that first before resorting to something more extreme, with strong downsides. Even a flat tax wouldn't completely eliminate those hours, after all.

But yeah, pandering to every little special interest group (and, of course, every big special interest group) is part of the reason the tax code's as much as a mess as it is. We could stand to cut back on that, but there's ways to do that while maintaining a progressive tax rate, if we could just get the political capital/will to do it.

And @ TC, well... I think it's shifted as much to jobs as it has because they're currently one of the major driving issues of capitalism, as it is, and especially how the system is going to react (is reacting, really) if they start disappearing.

well, why SHOULD I pay someone more to do half the work?

You wouldn't be. They'd be producing the same output, just in less time. Instead, the situation as is is that we're paying fewer people to do the same output, or paying people less to do more output (i.e., not scaling as output increases)... or fewer people to produce more, of course. It's fairly rare you're actually seeing pay in line with output, these days, s'far as I'm aware. Production efficiency improves, wages largely do not (accounting for inflation et al, of course).

[Descan]

Minimum wage, for example, should be double what it is to provide a basal quality of life, 2 dollars in 1960(?) terms so around 15 dollars today. Which is what it's -for-, what this culturally memetic bullshit about "But minimum wage jobs are supposed to be a stepping stone!" is, I don't know. Go tell that to someone working a min. wage job for 20 fucking years, mate.

[Tack]

Then the title is a bit of a misnomer, as it's more about efficiency of mechanization and technology and less about the economic system known as a Market Economy.

The current issue being discussed is that our society has advanced to a point where Market Economy may not actually be a viable system anymore.
But, it is 'The Capitalism Thread', and you have the right to take the conversation anywhere you want it to go.


And LordBucket, please control yourself a little better. You seem to be the only one with your particular viewpoint - and that is fine. A voice from every angle makes a solid shape.
However, please don't take it out on the dissenting voices, and when they use reason and logic against you, you have to respond in kind or your argument is invalid.

To put it simply:

1. Sewage tanks use a lot of space. How will urban cities deal with this?
2. What are these 'meaningless jobs' you want to cut from the workforce.
2.1 Won't cutting these jobs bring more squalor to society?
3. What IS the economic system you're rooting for here? So far you've simply said no money anywhere, no jobs and self-sufficiency. Lay us down something complete, rather than random musings, and then the discussion can continue on. You can't complain about people nit-picking at the 'minor details' when you haven't ever actually just put your idea down on paper.


Now back to the table:
What if for a Welfare Economy, the government made an 'automation tax'. Big businesses would need to pay a % tax on robotics and technologies that remove a human element - or a % on the amount of humans no longer required due to robotics. Ergo, those people who have their jobs cut due to big businesses can afford to live anyway.

But that could slow down progress, and raise prices...

[scrdest]

Minimum wage, for example, should be double what it is to provide a basal quality of life, 2 dollars in 1960(?) terms so around 15 dollars today. Which is what it's -for-, what this culturally memetic bullshit about "But minimum wage jobs are supposed to be a stepping stone!" is, I don't know. Go tell that to someone working a min. wage job for 20 fucking years, mate.

Minimum wage goes up, product price goes up as well and you are pretty much back where you began.

[Angle]

This whole discussion reminded me of an idea I had, so I made a thread for it.

In terms of the discussion on work, I think that some work is good for a person, but it shouldn't be forced upon them, and most of the work presented by our current system is not at all good for the people who end up doing it.

[Eagleon]

For what it's worth, I agree whole-heartedly with LordBucket. I haven't even been able to read this thread up until now because my life is in such chaos at the moment. It would be nice if people finally acknowledged that we're pretty much intrinsically driven towards challenge. We're born hungry and curious, like any other animal, so we push ourselves to understand the world. So with that assumption, why would anyone stop and go push paper around? Where has our ambition gone?

When you realize that we've set up our education system to find the best and the brightest, and ramped up the cost for higher education, it becomes obvious why we have such a tremendous bureaucracy, why we have fast food workers in droves, but roboticists and information scientists are scarce. In doing so, we've told vast droves of students that they can never be good enough to contribute to research and technology, despite the fact that we're starting to make computer programs (still not capable of empathy or drive beyond an incredibly narrow field of use) to help us with these problems.

Those of us still working towards some semblance of our original goals (mine was space) often become artists. And we're never happy.

When we (meaning people like me - I make 9.75/2-3 hrs a day as a janitor, living minimalist in a crappy apartment while my mother deals with chemo) realize that we have at our disposal the prerequisites to teach calculus, programming, statistics, mechanical/chemical/electrical engineering, robotics, history, philosophy, and whatever else we desire to ourselves, to all the people told that they were never up to that challenge, capitalism will solve itself, and we'll have incredible frontiers waiting.

This started to happen. I blame hipsters. But it's not like we have far to go.

[LordBucket]

C would be nice, LB. Any idea how to convince people to make it happen?

Sadly, no. It's a solution that would work, it's the solution that was predicted by keynesian economics and the infamous "15 hour work week," but yeah...it does require businesses to not take the short term profit.

Call it a failing of the capitalist model if you want. *shrug*

unless that marginally more taxes (on a larger number of people... remember, you've noted yourself the median income, and that's going to be among the ones being hit) ends up forcing them into greater effort to make up the difference, or notably impacts their quality of life.

I've yet to see any numbers of that in this thread so far. I don't know exactly how much those groups would be affected, and I'm guessing neither do you.

...consulting google...

Ok, a flat tax was proposed to congress back in the 90s, and the number was 17%.

"Households would have used the individual postcard to pay a 17 percent tax on wages, salary, and pensions, though a generous family-based allowance (more than $30,000 for a family of four) meant that there was no tax on the income needed to cover basic expenses."

...umm, so, massive base deduction, and 17% flat rate for any amount above that? So the people making $10,000/yr that you were concerned about in your example from a couple pages ago would pay no taxes at all.

Let's confirm that from a second source.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031398.htm

The flat tax rule simply says this: Everyone -- you, me, even Bill Gates -- would pay 17% of what's left of their total annual income from all wages, salaries, and pensions after subtracting a personal allowance. Uh, oh, "allowances". Here comes the higher math. Here come the forms. Right? Nope. There would be only four allowances:

- $23,200 for married filling jointly
- $14,850 for single head of household
- $11,600 for single
- $5,300 for each dependent child

Yep, confirmed.

"Rep. Armey cites these examples: Given the exemptions shown above, a family of four earning $25,000 would owe no tax."

So, looking at the numbers, more specifically, a married couple with two dependent children earning up #33,800/yr would pay no tax, a married couple filing jointly earning up to $23,200/yr would pay no tax, and a single individual earning up to $11,600 would also pay no tax. And in each case, they would pay a flat 17% of any amount over those numbers.

That's the original flat tax proposal that was rejected by Congress in the 90s.

What exactly is your problem with it?

[alexandertnt]

Why a flat tax? Why not a progressie tax that is a value of a function e.g.  ((y-10000)*2/1000) where y is your income and the result is the percentage (this function may suck, its an example). It would be almost as easy to work withas a flat tax and could also function to replace the welfare system as a negative tax.

There are also the matter that always makes tax more comples regardless: what to tax? Its more complicated than just taxing wages.

for example: if you just tax monetery income, then it disproportionately affects the poor (rich people tend to trade in assets/stocks etc, not money) and would be easy to circumvent.


Also, the infastructure used in cities for water and sewage is quite efficient, it requires fairly little work versus the ammount of people it services. Once you build the infastructure, it needs very little matenance. I would consider that maintaining this to be more time efficient than having each person maintain their own system. Cities usually benefit greatly from this sort of centralisation due to the dense population building a pipe system 50 meters could service hundereds of people. Rural areas, less so.