Print

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

[Frumple]

Well, yes, but that would take an absolutely radical readjustment of how we assign value. Basically, instead of keeping the same numbers working less, we're just cutting the overall working population (in manufacturing specifically, mind) and working them the same (or harder). That's cheaper, so profit is greater.

S'also more in line with the effort == value thing; if you work less, in terms of time and effort, you're value is generally considered to be lesser, even if your productivity remains the same or grows. Working smarter only makes your boss richer nowadays, in most cases. It very rarely results in less work, just more profit -- some of which might come back to you, but is more likely to be contractually stolen from you.

Because more short-term profit.

At least for unskilled labor, anyway. Seems to get fancier when you get to skilled labor (which aren't quite so interchangeable) and self-employment.

[Truean]

At least for unskilled labor, anyway. Seems to get fancier when you get to skilled labor (which aren't quite so interchangeable) and self-employment.

Na. Man, unless you're some kind of irreplacable technician, you're mostly screwed on skilled labor too. You're just screwed in a cubicle and you have student loan debt to boot, which you'll be paying off for years.... That "higher salary" of yours... isn't.

[G-Flex]

Well, yes, but that would take an absolutely radical readjustment of how we assign value. Basically, instead of keeping the same numbers working less, we're just cutting the overall working population (in manufacturing specifically, mind) and working them the same (or harder). That's cheaper, so profit is greater.

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have implied that more automation isn't a problem, just that, ideally, if handled well, it probably shouldn't be. Perhaps one problem here is that modern capitalism still relies far too heavily on the concept of every human being working long hours for an employer whenever possible and reaping the benefits almost strictly for themselves.

[Andir]

Someone has to ship the products (including warehousing).  Someone has to sell the products (store fronts/web masters).  People can get away from unskilled labor and go into things like... building/repairing robots.  (Relatively low learning curve.  My father has gone through a couple training classes on repair/upkeep.  They are about as easy to replace parts as computers are today and/or changing the brakes on a car.)  Someone has to program the robots.  Someone has to clean and upkeep the factory floor (equipment).  We've been moving more and more to a service industry (arts, entertainment, cosmetology, waiter/waitress, sales, computer information[yeah, I don't consider this manufacturing], construction[repair/upkeep]...) opposed to actually producing items.  That's not a bad thing, but it hedges on people actually spending money on these things.  If people feel overtaxed or unsure of the country at any point, that quickly sees a downturn in spending because people start saving.

Of course, this all should be obvious, but I thought I'd re-iterate.  A production based economy maybe more stable (because need/demand is pretty constant for some things...), but you run into the issues you've been discussing.  Eventually, third world manufacturing is going to cost more and more and hopefully stabilize, but it takes time.  So we have to do the best with what we can do internally, adapt and take on more responsibility: learn new skills, adjust to demand, seek to find ways to reduce labor needs to keep manufacturing here [and create maintenance jobs] and cross train people to more than menial tasks.  Today's jobs can not be as simple as inserting Part A in Socket A a thousand times a day.  Sadly, some people (and companies) would like to simplify every job to that point (which isn't "bad") so you're going to have to adapt with the company and find a suitable replacement position.

[scriver]

"Overtaxed"? People don't save because they feel "overtaxed".

[Andir]

"Overtaxed"? People don't save because they feel "overtaxed".

They save money if they don't feel confident about how things are being run.  Overtaxing, or taking away income that could be used for a new haircut, better shoes, etc. causes people to spend less which is bad in a service economy.  In order to get that new thing, you have to save more.  A little from this paycheck, a little from the next. (Opposed to "Wow, this paycheck can cover the whole cost.")

[scriver]

Andir, taxes are used to pay for things so that individuals won't have to pay for them themselves. A person who pays a lot of taxes will feel safer and spend more knowing that they don't have to save up money in case they get cancer, or some other incapacitating ail, and that their children will be able to get an education even if they don't put away every single penny to pay for their college.

[ChairmanPoo]

It's not like saving money will help you if the economy goes down into a recession. Otherwise you might end up being the proud owner of so many novelty printed paper pieces. Provided your bank hasn't gone down in flames first.

[scriver]

Regardless, I'm derailing the discussion. It wasn't my intent, so please ignore my posts.

[G-Flex]

It's not like saving money will help you if the economy goes down into a recession. Otherwise you might end up being the proud owner of so many novelty printed paper pieces. Provided your bank hasn't gone down in flames first.

You do know that "recession" isn't synonymous with "total runaway inflation and currency devaluation" and "civil right", right?

[ChairmanPoo]

If spending is cut society wide do you think the tendence will be upwards or downwards? Saving only works insofar as the economy is moving. It's easy to demonize the millions of people currently unemployed with "HURR, they should have put the cash into a savings account instead of having bought a house", but that would have postponed the problem (at best).

[Andir]

What kind of spending are we talking about cutting?

If it's government service spending: money becomes more important because that's how you're going to pay for replacing those services.  (Unless of course the government falls, then the money is worthless.)
If it's personal spending: there will be less money in circulation and it will be harder to come by cash, making it more valuable.  (Of course, this means a lot of people will have to be saving, and a lot of people will be without jobs making services harder to come by.)

Really, the only thing causing devaluation is printing more money and or a failing country.

[RedKing]

So, here in Wake County, the local Board of County Commissioners was meeting to receive the report of a task force on sustainability that was looking for how the county can grow in...y'know, sustainable ways. The Republican response? Claim that the task force are agents of a shadowy "one-world government" agenda to erode individual rights.

What. The. Fuck.

And just to give a bit of backstory, the gentleman who launched into this side trip down Black Helicopter Avenue isn't some recent fringe candidate or Tea Partier insurgent. He's the former mayor of Raleigh.

I've been saying that ever since 2008, the political climate has reminded me of the early 90's and that all we were missing were the NWO/black helicopter crowd. Now the circle is complete, and it's officially 1993 again.

[Montague]

I noticed conspiracy theories since 2001 have had the more left-wing Zeitgeist type-vibe underlying them.

It's refreshing to see some of the more 'classic' UN-Illuminati-Religious right-wing conspiracy theories are still be spouted.

[Frumple]

Okay, yeah, wow, what the hell. Sustainable development is somehow a bad thing? A plan of action that's not going to fail massively within a few generations is... somehow rights restricting? How in hell does that work?

Or... man, am I reading this right and the primary reason they're opposing a focus on sustainability is because some other country/countries is also focusing on sustainability? The major reason for the opposition is because someone else is doing it? Nevermind it might just be a good damn idea! People are calling these folks on the absolutely massive stupidity of that, right? Please tell me someone's actually calling them on this.

Does sustainable mean something different to these people?

"The philosophy and definition of sustainability, or sustainable development, is incompatible with and destructive to the principles and nature of our Constitutional Republic," Coleman wrote.

So... so, if I'm reading this right, the people this Coleman represents has now straight up said they want our country to fail in the future?

I mean, shit, maybe sustainability is destructive and incompatible to the principles and nature of our republic, but the alternative is incompatible and destructive to the existence of our republic. I think the latter's worse!