Ahhhhhh. Sigh. Alas, to my disappointment, I see that none of you =
have been able to see past your own success. It is obvious from your =
posts that most of you live in the valley where success grows on trees. =
Take a trip to the Midwest and tell me what you see. Most of you remind =
me =
of Marie Antoinette when she said "let them eat cake!". I will try to =
address everyone's arguments in this post.
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