Eric Watt Forste said: High taxes, perhaps? Heavy regulation and
mandates?
Me: I don't know - you tell me. And then prove it.
Eric: Yes. And for much of those 25 years, the public sector's share
of the economy has been increasing. Could there be a connection?
Me: Yes, that public share you speak of is that small minority who
has in one way or another scored it big over the last 10 years. The
remaining vast majority have no share in it. Please, lets get back to the
~80% I'm speaking of.
Eric: Okay, but when they leave benefited jobs to go to temp work, are
they getting enough of a pay increase to more than compensate for the
loss of benefits and "job security"?
Me: Absolutely not. That's why most families need 2 breadwinners
now..
Eric: Who conducted the poll? What was the methodology of the poll?
Certainly I have less job security than ever before... I planned it
that way. Job security isn't something I find
desirable.
Me: USA Today. Job insecurity might be okay for you when you have an
IQ over 140 and computer skills to equip an army. But what about the
rest of the country who have kids to raise, let alone having even touched
a computer?
Eric: Um, what is wrong with working 50 and 60 hour workweeks if that
is what you want to do? My own work pattern has been lately developing
into working for several months, and then not working at all for
six weeks or so. Ideally I'd like to have a pattern of six months on,
six months off. None of the figures you present indicate that this
couldn't be happening with most of the people you are worrying about.
Me: Nothing is wrong with working 60 hours/wk if thats what *you want
to do*. Most people hate their jobs - they do it because they have to
survive. Again, I'm glad you have the luxury, high IQ and skills to
design your own flex-schedule - most do not have that option. Where have
you been? Obviously you've spent way to long in your cybernetic ivory
tower to notice (I hear Marie Antoinette again).
Eric: Job security is not an objectively good thing.
Me: Don't tell that to the average working family or they'll likely
draw and quarter you.
Eric: Also, your "increasingly unnecessary" claim is totally
unsubstantiated.
Me: Tell that to the people who have been automated out of a job.
All I'm asking is for you to tell me what people of average IQ, little
money and little skill are going to do when the majority of the economy has
been automated? Most of these people are not collected money from
mutual funds even if they knew how. Are you saying invest money or die?
Eric: I have zero interest in watching the rest of humanity languish
to death, and I doubt many other list members do, and it's pretty
offensive of you to imply that this is something we want to do.
Me: I'm glad to hear it and I apologize to you if I implied you were
lacking in conscience. That's why I'm asking the question: Extro-Nazi's
or Extro-Saint?
Eric: Criticism without offering suggested alternatives is sterile.
Me: Probably true, but that's why I'm posted this stuff - I want to
hear your alternatives as I have found none myself. A long time ago,
RAW's RICH economy seemed the ideal solution - unfortunately I have not
figured out a way to implement it as the free-market seems to prevent it
from occurring. After all, we can't have 80%+ of the population lying
around watching TV, having sex and smoking pot, can we? They must all
work, work, work! 'Get to work wage slaves!' - is all I have been hearing
these days.
To summarize Damien R. Sullivan:
So he says, as he types away on his computer. Farmers used to be far
more than 80% of humanity. Mostly obsolete now. No human need be
unnecessary in the absence of orders of magnitude
superior AI. Admittedly being an educated human helps. I can't feel
guilty for knowing more. Besides, I'd be happy to share...
Me: I'm a she by the way. I agree with most of your post. Please
explain to me how people will survive over the coming years when most of
the economy has been automated.
Hagbard Wrote:
People are stockholders in corporations. As corporations do well, so
do their stockholders. You're funny. You care about the people you are
obsoleting? Stake your claim now, the moral high ground is disappearing
fast! But you don't care that much, right? Or else, you wouldn't be doing
it, would you? I think a social conscience is just that, a social
conscience. It has zero praxis. Its easy to feel bad about "plights." What is
your guilt accomplishing?
Me: Its accomplishing quite a bit! I think my guilt, to what degree I
have any, is having the encourage to see these problems which many on
this list are too afraid to acknowledge even exists (I hear Marie
Antoinette again).
Hagbard: Again, the fact that you *DO* care about the majority of
humanity is useless.
Me: You should be ashamed to call yourself Hagbard (after the
Illuminatus! Character I presume). The real Hagbard cared very deeply about
the state of humanity. Tell me, how is caring about ones fellow human
beings useless? My compassion has led me to several projects that have
directly benefited people - including my stint with Habitat for Humanity
and the Peace Corps.
Hagbard: Free-market not needed by the people? What is your
alternative? I mean there's pure communalism, pure capitalism and all the fuzzy
gradations in between. Take your pick.
Me: If there is no third alternative then we are in big trouble!
Hagbard: Holly, you must have missed my earlier post (actually, this
morning), on Godwin's Law of Nazi Apologies. What little credibility you
might've had just went out the window in my eyes.
Me: I just signed up on this list today, so I missed your post. If
you base a persons credibility on one post then you are very shallow
person indeed.
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote: The easiest way to "explain" that is to
point out that it's bullshit.
Life has never been better. Health has never been better. The poor
have never been as rich as they are today.
Me: See what you did, Marie Antoinette is going to be echoing in my
head for days now! Speak for yourself - life has never ben better for
*you*. I'd guess you live in the valley too! The poor have never been
as rich as they are today? I refer you to QueenMuse:
QueenMuse said:
> The easiest way to "explain" that is to point out that it's
bullshit.
> Life has never been better. Health has never been better. The
poor
> have never been as rich as...
Please, I hate to enter into it with you, because I know who i am
arguing with, but how can someone be poor AND rich at the same time?
Me: And on that note I bid you all goodnight. I will login tomorrow
if time allows.
Holly Pearson
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com