Are jobs obsolete?

Are jobs obsolete?

By Douglas Rushkoff
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/07/rushkoff.jobs.obsolete/index.html?iref=obnetwork

"Our problem is not that we don't have enough stuff -- it's that we don't have enough ways for people to work and prove that they deserve this stuff."

"We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights. The work we do -- the value we create -- is for the rest of what we want: the stuff that makes life fun, meaningful, and purposeful."

"For the time being, as we contend with what appears to be a global economic slowdown by destroying food and demolishing homes, we might want to stop thinking about jobs as the main aspect of our lives that we want to save. They may be a means, but they are not the ends."

---------
Douglas Rushkoff points out that the jobs game has changed and we can conclude that there will not be enough jobs to allow people to earn a living in the system as it is. We have reached a point of transition when the old economic models no longer allow the majority of the population to work for a living. The musical chairs game for getting a job is going to get to the point where dozens of people will be qualified for one job, but only one person will get hired. What will the dozens of people without a job do to survive? It is a brave new world.

I have been a fan or Rushkoff's writing for years. I am starting to think he is write. The old ways of living may be gone. We may need to find alternate ways to make a living. Since becoming a 99er I have made almost as much money reselling things on ebay as I would at a minimum wage job. Why would I look for a minimum wage job? I wish I had tried this earlier.

I think we need to start thinking out of the box, we have no choice,

We're living in an economy where productivity is no longer the goal, employment is. That's because, on a very fundamental level, we have pretty much everything we need.

Our problem is not that we don't have enough stuff -- it's that we don't have enough ways for people to work and prove that they deserve this stuff.

The question we have to begin to ask ourselves is not how do we employ all the people who are rendered obsolete by technology, but how can we organize a society around something other than employment? Might the spirit of enterprise we currently associate with "career" be shifted to something entirely more collaborative, purposeful, and even meaningful?

The communist answer to this question was just to distribute everything evenly. But that sapped motivation and never quite worked as advertised. The opposite, libertarian answer (and the way we seem to be going right now) would be to let those who can't capitalize on the bounty simply suffer. Cut social services along with their jobs, and hope they fade into the distance.

All valid points to ponder.

"We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights.

How can something be considered a right when it requires that possessions be forcibly taken from someone else? To pay Paul, you have to rob Peter.

SteveR wrote:

"We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights.

How can something be considered a right when it requires that possessions be forcibly taken from someone else? To pay Paul, you have to rob Peter.

Because it's morally and ethically wrong to willingly let people starve and go homeless? I work and pay taxes, and I'm happy to pay a little extra so that people who aren't as fortunate as I am can eat and have shelter. Why are you so selfish that you don't want to do the same?

And before you give me something about people "gaming the system," quite frankly I do not care. I don't care if 25% of the money is used for things they're not supposed to be used for if the other 75% puts food in kids mouths. It's not the child's fault their parents do drugs, why should they starve because of their parents stupidity?

Ranbrow,

What you have described is charity, i.e. voluntarily giving some of your possessions to someone else. And that's totally fine because it does not involve coercion.

If a person claims to have a right to food and shelter, then someone else has to provide it - food and housing do not magically appear on their own. And since not everyone is going to consent to providing it, then it will have to be done forcefully with the threat of violence. But that violates a person's right to his private property - i.e. to not be robbed.

So I don't see how a person can claim something as a right when it necessarily involves the forceful taking of private property from someone else.

If you really felt that it's morally and ethically wrong to willingly let people starve and go homeless, then I assume you've been doing the following your whole life - otherwise you would be a hypocite:
- Eat only 500 calories per day and use the remaining money to feed those who are starving.
- Take into your home as many homeless as will possibly fit on the floor. Furniture can be taken out at night to make more room.
- Never have children, because they will use resources that could be used by the starving or the homeless.

So says the survival of the fittest Puritan capitalist whos philosophy has brought us to this mess. The SOONER we realize that the WHOLE house of cards that the GREAT elite has built of work/consume/die is a FRAUD. The SOONER we get away from this way of living the better.

MM,

I agree that our system is a fraudulent house of cards.

As I tell my kids, most people are good people who just want to live a good life. But there is a tiny percentage of sociopaths who are drawn to positions of power and end up ruining things for the rest of us.

And by sociopaths, I mean those mentally defective outliers who do not have a conscience. I would say that pretty much all top-level politicians (both D and R) fall into that category. They continue to rule because they are masters of deception and propaganda, and the gullible population falls for it.

This has been going on as far back as we have written records. For a while, the USA was an exception, where the citizens demanded that individual rights - the key to a prosperous society - be respected. But now our population is too ignorant and soft to demand ethical leadership.

‎"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." - H. L. Mencken

"Stuff" is made overseas. "Jobs" or the lack of them are the by product of "stuff".

This is America and there's no turning back with the looking glass or time machine. Americans just didn't want to see or acknowledge that the competition was growing and taking us over.

But it has. Lamenting and philosophizing over where we are now is useless and goes nowhere.

So with that in mind, what is our plan going forward?

SteveR wrote:Ranbrow,

What you have described is charity, i.e. voluntarily giving some of your possessions to someone else. And that's totally fine because it does not involve coercion.

Incorrect. I am not talking about charity at all. I am talking about being willing to pay more taxes to allow the government to help those in need. If it is charity, it's charity to my government that I as an American am happy to pay.

If a person claims to have a right to food and shelter, then someone else has to provide it - food and housing do not magically appear on their own. And since not everyone is going to consent to providing it, then it will have to be done forcefully with the threat of violence. But that violates a person's right to his private property - i.e. to not be robbed.

I am willing to pay more taxes to allow the government to provide the food and shelter. It is not them taking it from me, but me being willing to pay it as a cost of living in this great country that I care so much about. Your likening that to a robbery is hyperbole at best.

So I don't see how a person can claim something as a right when it necessarily involves the forceful taking of private property from someone else.

What is it with you and the robbery? It's taxes, not robbery.

If you really felt that it's morally and ethically wrong to willingly let people starve and go homeless, then I assume you've been doing the following your whole life - otherwise you would be a hypocite:
- Eat only 500 calories per day and use the remaining money to feed those who are starving.
- Take into your home as many homeless as will possibly fit on the floor. Furniture can be taken out at night to make more room.
- Never have children, because they will use resources that could be used by the starving or the homeless.

Everyone needs to do their part. Key word PART. I care about people having shelter and food, so I do my PART by being willing to take a small increase in taxes along with everyone else who earns in order to make sure needy people are provided food and shelter. This part of your argument is just plain ridiculous, but I suspect you already knew that and are trying to be cute.

SteveR wrote:

"We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights.

How can something be considered a right when it requires that possessions be forcibly taken from someone else? To pay Paul, you have to rob Peter.

This is what is wrong with our society and exactly why it's in the state that it is today.

Food, shelter, and healthcare are basic human rights. I would even say that a meaningful employment and education is a right but definitely food, shelter, and healthcare.

You DO NOT have to rob peter to give Paul food or shelter. There is no limit on either. It is ludicrous and idiotic to think that anyone has to go hungry so someone else can simply. If you truly believe this then you are fool.


To think that to feed your children you have to take from someone else is absolute greed. The mentality of our nation is "I want as much as I can get and who cares about anyone else". "I want my kids to have an education but I don't care about that other guy's kids".

To no one in particular, let's please keep our opinions heard and others heard as well, without unfriendly personal attacks brewing.

Please abide by the rules, or simply understand we all are in a bad way. No sense in aggravating.

Thanks,
Xeff

lendmeflight2 wrote:

SteveR wrote:

"We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights.

How can something be considered a right when it requires that possessions be forcibly taken from someone else? To pay Paul, you have to rob Peter.

This is what is wrong with our society and exactly why it's in the state that it is today.

Food, shelter, and healthcare are basic human rights. I would even say that a meaningful employment and education is a right but definitely food, shelter, and healthcare.

You DO NOT have to rob peter to give Paul food or shelter. There is no limit on either. It is ludicrous and idiotic to think that anyone has to go hungry so someone else can simply. If you truly believe this then you are fool.


To think that to feed your children you have to take from someone else is absolute greed. The mentality of our nation is "I want as much as I can get and who cares about anyone else". "I want my kids to have an education but I don't care about that other guy's kids".

They PREACH about being "Their" Brothers keeper but turn on that brother when they have to shell out a dime for it.

"Food, shelter, and healthcare are basic human rights."

I think you mean well, but there are serious problems with implementing this in real life, and it revolves around coercion. If you want to donate to a food pantry, that's great - you voluntarily give and the pantry voluntarily receives. No problems.

But how to do you guarantee food, shelter, and heathcare for everyone without using coercion/force/guns? All of these things have a costs, and someone has to pay for it. And what happens when someone does not want his personal property confiscated for this purpose? What happens is that men with guns show up at his door.

And what happens when the majority of the population decides to not work, since they can get all of this stuff for free? Since you described it as a right, then that means that it is absolute and cannot be tied to need - rights are inalienable - so the free stuff can't be denied to anyone.

If you really think this through, and if you have a solid understanding of history, you'll see that this is collectivism, which has been tried over and over again, leading to disaster.

SteveR wrote:But how to do you guarantee food, shelter, and heathcare for everyone without using coercion/force/guns? All of these things have a costs, and someone has to pay for it. And what happens when someone does not want his personal property confiscated for this purpose? What happens is that men with guns show up at his door.

What the hell are you talking about? The costs come in the form of increased taxes. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. No men will show up with guns at anybody's door to make them pay "or else." Everyone who earns just pays more taxes, and to live in this country you have to pay taxes. It's just a matter of being willing to chip in for a little bit more in order to help people who are in need.

And what happens when the majority of the population decides to not work, since they can get all of this stuff for free? Since you described it as a right, then that means that it is absolute and cannot be tied to need - rights are inalienable - so the free stuff can't be denied to anyone.

Come on man, really? Have a little faith in humanity! You think people want to live off the pittance that these so-called "entitlements" give them? If given a choice, people would take a good paying job and good living over slogging through on the near-nothing the government gives out.

Note that I said good-paying job. You create the incentive to work by having well-paying jobs, instead of blaming the person who can't live off $7 an hour and instead makes a conscious -- and in my opinion, wise -- choice to live off $8 an hour "for free" instead of working for $7. You see, republicans focus on the "not wanting to work" side of it, when really it's the "better to barely live off $8 an hour instead of barely live off $7 an hour" part that's important.

I think too many people turn to the government for the oddist things - where's my job? where's my safety net? you said you said...

Have you not noticed that those things have gone away? Get away from the nipple and see things as they are.

When you do you'll be that much further... I hope.

SteveR wrote:"Food, shelter, and healthcare are basic human rights."

I think you mean well, but there are serious problems with implementing this in real life, and it revolves around coercion. If you want to donate to a food pantry, that's great - you voluntarily give and the pantry voluntarily receives. No problems.

But how to do you guarantee food, shelter, and heathcare for everyone without using coercion/force/guns? All of these things have a costs, and someone has to pay for it. And what happens when someone does not want his personal property confiscated for this purpose? What happens is that men with guns show up at his door.

And what happens when the majority of the population decides to not work, since they can get all of this stuff for free? Since you described it as a right, then that means that it is absolute and cannot be tied to need - rights are inalienable - so the free stuff can't be denied to anyone.

If you really think this through, and if you have a solid understanding of history, you'll see that this is collectivism, which has been tried over and over again, leading to disaster.

This is the difference between us. I don't think that most people would choose not to contribute.

If you examine what you said, then you will realize or statement implies that someone has to starve for you to eat. This is patently false. You imply that there isn't enough food and shelter and healthcare for everyone. This is also false. There is no coercion when there is enough for everybody or at least there shouldn't be. As long as someone isn't taking more than his fair share anyway.

I can be banned by x for my statements or whatever but to suggest that some people just have to starve so some can eat is immoral. If that is considered a personal attack then so be it.


You are right it is collectivism and through my grasp of history I know that it has never truly been tried on the scale of an entire nation. There are communities in Israel, Denmark and many other countries where it does work and works very well.

Norway comes the closest and their standard of living is among the highest in the world, ours isn't even close.

lendmeflight2 wrote:

SteveR wrote:"Food, shelter, and healthcare are basic human rights."

I think you mean well, but there are serious problems with implementing this in real life, and it revolves around coercion. If you want to donate to a food pantry, that's great - you voluntarily give and the pantry voluntarily receives. No problems.

But how to do you guarantee food, shelter, and heathcare for everyone without using coercion/force/guns? All of these things have a costs, and someone has to pay for it. And what happens when someone does not want his personal property confiscated for this purpose? What happens is that men with guns show up at his door.

And what happens when the majority of the population decides to not work, since they can get all of this stuff for free? Since you described it as a right, then that means that it is absolute and cannot be tied to need - rights are inalienable - so the free stuff can't be denied to anyone.

If you really think this through, and if you have a solid understanding of history, you'll see that this is collectivism, which has been tried over and over again, leading to disaster.

This is the difference between us. I don't think that most people would choose not to contribute.

If you examine what you said, then you will realize or statement implies that someone has to starve for you to eat. This is patently false. You imply that there isn't enough food and shelter and healthcare for everyone. This is also false. There is no coercion when there is enough for everybody or at least there shouldn't be. As long as someone isn't taking more than his fair share anyway.

I can be banned by x for my statements or whatever but to suggest that some people just have to starve so some can eat is immoral. If that is considered a personal attack then so be it.


You are right it is collectivism and through my grasp of history I know that it has never truly been tried on the scale of an entire nation. There are communities in Israel, Denmark and many other countries where it does work and works very well.

Norway comes the closest and their standard of living is among the highest in the world, ours isn't even close.

I agree and I wouldn't ban ya.

We need to re-evaluate the role of jobs in our lives. For far too many of us, getting a job amounts to securing a means of paying for our living expenses, and not much more. At best, this attitude leads to years of "paying one's dues" in exchange for the dubious "security" of a (hopefully) steady paycheck and the promise of finally enjoying leisure when one retires. At worst, it leads to a way of life where we devote 40 or more hours of our precious time a week to doing something we don't care about mainly for the sake of having a roof over our heads and food on the table. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this is ludicrous. It took me years of trying to fit myself into some kind of job title, of devoting myself to figuring out "what I wanted to be when I grew up", before I realized that I don't want a job, nor do I feel guilty about not wanting one.

by D. JoAnne Swanson

Something to ponder

Guys - look, I'm not trying to be on one side or the other. I seek truth, and I'm willing to say I'm wrong when I'm wrong. My point is that there are a lot of very bad things that result from the belief that X, Y, and Z are basic human rights, when X, Y, and Z are material things that need to be provided by someone.

If you guarantee free stuff to everyone (e.g. shelter), then it necessarily must be provided from someone (e.g. someone has to pay the heating bill). Some will be provided (voluntarily) by charity, but once you get past that, then the rest must be taken using force (e.g. pay these new taxes or go to jail).

A healthy human relationship involves cooperation, not coercion. And that gets to the root of various types of societies such as free market or collectivism. The root of a free-market system is voluntary cooperation: I trade you my time for your money. The root of a collectivist system is force: you farm this communal field or get sent to the gulag to rot and die.

This is not hyperbole - read the history of North Korea or the Soviet Union. I don't think anyone could look at NK and honestly say that that's a good system.

Yes, there are successful semi-collectivist societies like Norway, but those have only worked in small cohesive countries - and they have failed miserably in other small cohesive countries.

The free stuff requires providers. Once the providers are over-taxed, most will either quit or go black market. The most productive members of society are already having more than 50% of their fruits forcibly taken away from them. Many that I know are tired of pushing the wagon and are looking to leave the country. Note that the most productive members of society are not the rich that we hate, like the politicians and the corrupt CEOs. The ultra-productive are the small business owners, the extremely-talented surgeons, etc.

Can anyone explain how something that costs money can be a right, without forcibly taking (i.e. robbing) from the producers of our society?

mistermunster wrote:

lendmeflight2 wrote:

SteveR wrote:"Food, shelter, and healthcare are basic human rights."

I think you mean well, but there are serious problems with implementing this in real life, and it revolves around coercion. If you want to donate to a food pantry, that's great - you voluntarily give and the pantry voluntarily receives. No problems.

But how to do you guarantee food, shelter, and heathcare for everyone without using coercion/force/guns? All of these things have a costs, and someone has to pay for it. And what happens when someone does not want his personal property confiscated for this purpose? What happens is that men with guns show up at his door.

And what happens when the majority of the population decides to not work, since they can get all of this stuff for free? Since you described it as a right, then that means that it is absolute and cannot be tied to need - rights are inalienable - so the free stuff can't be denied to anyone.

If you really think this through, and if you have a solid understanding of history, you'll see that this is collectivism, which has been tried over and over again, leading to disaster.

This is the difference between us. I don't think that most people would choose not to contribute.

If you examine what you said, then you will realize or statement implies that someone has to starve for you to eat. This is patently false. You imply that there isn't enough food and shelter and healthcare for everyone. This is also false. There is no coercion when there is enough for everybody or at least there shouldn't be. As long as someone isn't taking more than his fair share anyway.

I can be banned by x for my statements or whatever but to suggest that some people just have to starve so some can eat is immoral. If that is considered a personal attack then so be it.


You are right it is collectivism and through my grasp of history I know that it has never truly been tried on the scale of an entire nation. There are communities in Israel, Denmark and many other countries where it does work and works very well.

Norway comes the closest and their standard of living is among the highest in the world, ours isn't even close.

I agree and I wouldn't ban ya.

Who said anything about banning? I certainly didn't. I merely asked that this discussion proceed with respect to each other. There was some "egging on" in a previous post in this thread and we certainly don't need to close down anyone's opinion.

"This is the difference between us. I don't think that most people would choose not to contribute."

Do you have anything to back that up? In real situations, that has not been shown to be true. Again, look at history. People resent being forced to do anything. Look at what happened with the Mayflower Compact, or the collectivization of Ukrainian farmers, or the 1990s famines in North Korea, or anything from the USSR.

There are obviously people in need right now, but people are choosing to not contribute. What's going to make that change, other than coercion?

Something cannot be a right if it requires the forceful taking from someone else. One man is not entitled to the labor of another.

Neither North Korea or the soviet Union were truly collectivist nations. That's my point. My other point is that neither food nor shelter are rare commodities.

Let me explain my view point again.

If you have 100 people and enough food and shelter to feed and cover 100 people but 2 of the 100 people take enough food for 3 people then three people are going to starve so that 2 people can have more than they need. In this situation food and shelter is a right and to think otherwise is immoral. How could you be one of those 2 people and sleep at night knowing what you are doing? Maybe you worked harder and maybe you didn't but that doesn't mean that those 3 people who starved are not deserving of life.
Coercion would only be necessary if you were greedy and demanded more than your fair share.

Do I have anything to back up the fact that most people would contribute in a society that doesn't exist. Of course I don't, the situation doesn't exist. How can I present evidence from an experiment that hasn't been done. If people don't want to contribute they always leave I guess. As I said before, it does seem to work in Norway where they have huge corporate taxes yet business is still good and it works on collectivist farms around the world. It worked in most Native American societies.

You make it sound as if there is no consequence. Of course there would have to be some enforcement, if you are such a libertarian that you think there should be no rules or laws of any kind then this will fall on deaf ears and not matter anyway, but there is enforcement (coercion) now in our rotten system. Why could there not be enforcement in our new collectivist system?

We don't all have to be friendly to make this work. I can tell you now that there will have to be coercion to get big business to give it's far share in either system.

"If you have 100 people and enough food and shelter to feed and cover 100 people but 2 of the 100 people take enough food for 3 people then three people are going to starve so that 2 people can have more than they need."

Food and shelter have to be produced on an ongoing basis - food needs to be planted and homes need to be heated, cooled, and maintained, for example. The situation you present assumes you already have the food and shelter and it is to be divided up.

But what happens the next year? Who does all of the producing to meet next year's demands? What if they don't want to produce enough to cover themselves and for those who choose not to work, but still have a right to food and shelter?

Do you think one man is entitled to the labor of another?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The United States signed this in 1948. Check out #25!
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.