Are jobs obsolete?

First topic message reminder :

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.

SteveR wrote:Yes, the lack of regulation of corporations leads to fascism. That's why we need rule of law.

Rule of law means (basically) that nobody is above the law. How does this apply to whether we should allow the government to help the needy, exactly? More specifically, how does this affect your opinion on the matter?

I think that is wishful thinking. Once it becomes big enough, then it has lots of power, which attracts the sociopaths.

Don't vote in sociopaths? Don't believe mainstream media propaganda? The problem is the person who is a sociopath to you might not be a sociopath to me, and that's why for the short term we need to consider banding together and voting out bought politicians, instead of letting them divide us on smaller issues. Once we convince the lobbyists that it's no longer worth their money, THEN we can vote based on people who support our opinions, i.e. I would be voting for someone who wants the government to help the needy, you obviously would not.

And BTW, I don't think there is any perfect solution. Even if we had limited govt, corporations that get too big can end up with too much power - I'm not sure what the best solution is for that, other than having a populace that demands justice. But the worst situation is what we've got now: powerful corporations in bed with a gargantuan govt.

The corporations are a much bigger danger than the government. If it weren't for the corporations, the elected officials in our government would not have as much incentive to turn to corruption. They must be watched over like hawks, because profit is their only motive. Making government smaller does nothing to fix that, and would probably make it worse. We need a non-corrupt government to keep an eye on them, so the solution (however we go about it) is to fix the government, not shrink it.

Think about it: corporations WANT smaller government. Corporations have nothing but profit as their motive. So why do they want smaller government? Because it would decrease the amount of regulation they would have and they would be free to take even more money out of our economy.

It seems like you don't trust government, while I don't trust anyone who tries to tell me something is good for me when their only motive is profit. Hence, I trust corporations way less than the government.

"to remind individuals not employed in the “blue collar” arena that their efforts are not less rewarding or less important then the “white collar” worker."

The value of someone's labor is determined by the market and has nothing to do with collar color or what anyone thinks the value should be. An hour of a highly-skilled neurosurgeon's time is valued much more than an hour of a dishwasher's time. If you want your time to be more valuable, then figure out a way to increase your skills in an area that is wanted by the market.

SteveR wrote:"This is what happens when someone hears something on TV or radio over and over again. I have most of the TP and GOP talking points down. You need to count on independent thought which is going extinct these days."

I consume zero mainstream content - no TV, no radio, no newspaper - most of that stuff is propaganda. I would bet that I have read 10 times as many books as most people on this forum, almost all non-fiction., things like The Road to Serfdom, or The Law by Bastiat, or 1984, or Nothing to Envy, or Overthrow, or The Creature from Jekyll Island.

If I had to pick two people whose point of view I agree with most, they would be Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin.

Also notice that name-calling and personal attacks have come at me, with none coming from me. We are on the same team - people who want to live a good, ethical life that is free from coercion and corruption.

One difference is that I view large taxes as coercive and enabling of corruption. Coercive, like I stated before, in that they must be paid, or I am escorted to jail at the point of a gun. And a gigantic inflow of taxes allows all sorts of nasty stuff like two invasions into countries where we have no business, a military that is the size of the next 20 countries combined, and an enormous police state that is getting bigger every day. I don't really like having my daughter's privates being felt up by the TSA, which couldn't exist if we had a limited govt. We bully the rest of the world, take what we want, depose who we want, etc. because we can. Our "defense" is an "offense" that terrorizes the world, including dropping atomic weapons upon 200,000 civilians, deposing locally-elected leaders and installing our puppets, etc. The Constitution calls for a limited military for defense purposes - not the imperialistic monstrosity that we currently have.

In short, big govt = bad, and history supports that claim.

Then you must really hate Perry for making kids take shots and killing some of them right?

The reason you daughter is getting felt up can be blamed on Cheney and Bush in that order. They threatened the Taliban with Bombs because they wanted to run an Oil pipe line in Afghanistan so the Taliban flew planes into the towers.

Blame Big business and not Big Government, Halliburton made BILLIONS off the War.

Its Big business that are pulling the strings.

SteveR wrote:"to remind individuals not employed in the “blue collar” arena that their efforts are not less rewarding or less important then the “white collar” worker."

The value of someone's labor is determined by the market and has nothing to do with collar color or what anyone thinks the value should be. An hour of a highly-skilled neurosurgeon's time is valued much more than an hour of a dishwasher's time. If you want your time to be more valuable, then figure out a way to increase your skills in an area that is wanted by the market.

Well then I will be a White Collar Outsourcing machine and rake in HUGE profits and say screw the rest of you. WOOOO HOOOOOOOOO

Its big business these days so it must be ok right?

SteveR wrote:One difference is that I view large taxes as coercive and enabling of corruption. Coercive, like I stated before, in that they must be paid, or I am escorted to jail at the point of a gun.

This has got to be the 6th time I've said this, but taxes are your payment to the government for living here and using it's resources. It is not them running up and robbing you with a gun. Please stop saying that, I've addressed it a bunch of times already.

And a gigantic inflow of taxes allows all sorts of nasty stuff like two invasions into countries where we have no business, a military that is the size of the next 20 countries combined, and an enormous police state that is getting bigger every day.

A lot of this stuff is because corporations profit from providing the things needed to run these kinds of wars and this size military.

I don't really like having my daughter's privates being felt up by the TSA, which couldn't exist if we had a limited govt.

A lot of things couldn't exist if we had a limited government, some good, some bad. It's a matter of opinion whether you think most of those things are bad or good, or why you think that.

We bully the rest of the world, take what we want, depose who we want, etc. because we can. Our "defense" is an "offense" that terrorizes the world, including dropping atomic weapons upon 200,000 civilians, deposing locally-elected leaders and installing our puppets, etc. The Constitution calls for a limited military for defense purposes - not the imperialistic monstrosity that we currently have.

I mean, I guess you could argue that if we didn't drop "the bomb," Japan may have never given up on trying to kick our ass and forced us into it, anyway. That being said, I don't find much fault with this statement, personally.

In short, big govt = bad, and history supports that claim.

If big government is bad, surely unregulated corporations are worse.

"LOL, Two people who you really respect are two of the founding father's of our country? Whatever, you sound like Michelle Bachmann trying to sound smart."

Uhh...Every thing I've said has been consistent with Jefferson and Franklin's design for this country: the two aspects of liberty; limited govt; individual rights; keeping power from being concentrated.

Now, why didn't the founding fathers include food and shelter as inalienable rights? Those were certainly needs at the time, just as now.

SteveR wrote:An hour of a highly-skilled neurosurgeon's time is valued much more than an hour of a dishwasher's time.

The skilled neurosurgeon's time is not worth more per se. He simply charges more per hour because of the 7+ years he spent working without pay while learning his difficult trade, and to make up for all the money he spent for his education.

If you want your time to be more valuable, then figure out a way to increase your skills in an area that is wanted by the market.

How does someone who is in trouble find the time to do that with no assistance? How does someone who is in trouble find the MONEY to do that with no assistance?

Look, my opinion is if someone isn't even trying, then yeah, he probably doesn't deserve any help. But what if they are trying, but the system is set up that they get screwed regardless? THOSE are the people who deserve help.

Let's go another route.

I will argue from your side Steve.

The major argument against Marxism was from Mikhail Bakunin. Bakunin was an anarchist. At heart I am an anarchist and agree with you on some points. The intertwining of government and business for example. If government does not control business it should have nothing to do with business. In our society, business controls government. In this we are agreed. The answer, though, is not to lessen taxes by cutting off aid to poor children, which you seem to support, but cutting off all aid to business. You don't seem to like this as much. Bakunin said that socialism requires the existence of a large state and as long as you have socialism you will have a large state.

The antithesis, and answer to the problem, is to not have a state at all. As long as there is a state of any kind then there will be slavery.

Ironically, I am wearing a shirt right now that says "only when there is no state will true freedom exist".

However, you cannot change from a big government to no government over night.

I also don't think you advocate this. It would make your argument irrelevant. In the small communities that would be required to support this way of life everyone would be dependent on everyone's else's labor, which is a point you try to reject.

SteveR wrote:"LOL, Two people who you really respect are two of the founding father's of our country? Whatever, you sound like Michelle Bachmann trying to sound smart."

Uhh...Every thing I've said has been consistent with Jefferson and Franklin's design for this country: the two aspects of liberty; limited govt; individual rights; keeping power from being concentrated.

Now, why didn't the founding fathers include food and shelter as inalienable rights? Those were certainly needs at the time, just as now.

I have a question for you Steve, would you support extending unemployment benefits for the 99ers?

SteveR wrote:Uhh...Every thing I've said has been consistent with Jefferson and Franklin's design for this country: the two aspects of liberty; limited govt; individual rights; keeping power from being concentrated.

Now, why didn't the founding fathers include food and shelter as inalienable rights? Those were certainly needs at the time, just as now.

Didn't Thomas Jefferson also say we should have a revolution once every 20 years. We've got about 12 governments to overthrow before we catch up.

Didn't Thomas Jefferson own slaves? Is slavery right?

The point is times have changed, and not everything that was applicable then is applicable now.

"Then you must really hate Perry for making kids take shots and killing some of them right?"

Of course, that is morally reprehensible and a huge trampling of liberty. Perry, like all other high-level politicians, is corrupt, and in this case, he has very strong ties with Merck, the manufacturer of Gardisil. I could dig up the link, but I think we all know that politicians are corrupt.

ranbrow123 wrote:

SteveR wrote:An hour of a highly-skilled neurosurgeon's time is valued much more than an hour of a dishwasher's time.

The skilled neurosurgeon's time is not worth more per se. He simply charges more per hour because of the 7+ years he spent working without pay while learning his difficult trade, and to make up for all the money he spent for his education.

If you want your time to be more valuable, then figure out a way to increase your skills in an area that is wanted by the market.

How does someone who is in trouble find the time to do that with no assistance? How does someone who is in trouble find the MONEY to do that with no assistance?

Look, my opinion is if someone isn't even trying, then yeah, he probably doesn't deserve any help. But what if they are trying, but the system is set up that they get screwed regardless? THOSE are the people who deserve help.

To answer your question:

They did not see food and shelter as inalienable rights because there was no string of thought like that then. Socialism didn't exist, worker's rights didn't exist, labor unions didn't exist. We still lived in a feudal/monarchical (I made that word up) world.


The world has changed and moved on from the 18th century. It's time you got up to speed. You tea party folks can't party like it's 1776 forever.

In those times, when your choice of government was a King or nothing, limited government worked but now there are many forms of government and the best is a hybrid democratic socialist state. That's my opinion of course.

I cannot imagine being so backward as saying that I want to live like it's the 18th century again.

"Look, my opinion is if someone isn't even trying, then yeah, he probably doesn't deserve any help. But what if they are trying, but the system is set up that they get screwed regardless? THOSE are the people who deserve help."

Then give them your help. Or send them to a charitable organization that provides help. But don't use govt to force people to help, because that is stealing part of their labor, which only they own - not you - not society - not govt - just them. The problem I have is with the force/coercion and the taking of people's private property for whatever you deem appropriate.

Why do you think that a productive person is a milk cow to be used however politicians see fit? The top producers in this country are already having more than half of their milk confiscated. And I'm not talking about the Wall Street shitheads who get their income classified as capital gains - I'm talking about the guy who created a dry-cleaning chain from scratch, earning $500K per year but paying $250K per year to people he doesn't even know - squandered by politicians.

"In the small communities that would be required to support this way of life everyone would be dependent on everyone's else's labor, which is a point you try to reject."

I don't reject that point. We are all interdependent. I need the producers to produce food. But I don't use the govt's guns to say that I get that food for free. I have no right to free food - I have to trade something of value for it. Otherwise it is stealing.

We all hate fascist corporatism, but we also need to look at the other 99% of companies, which are generally honest. It's very hard to succeed in business if no one trusts you, because so much of business is contingent upon it.

And a side note: I am fielding posts from 4-5 people and can't keep up, so, sorry if I missed anything. And I need to get back to my regular life soon.

"I cannot imagine being so backward as saying that I want to live like it's the 18th century again."

Come on, of course I don't mean I want to live like it's the 18th century. But the principles in the Constitution are timeless and still very much apply today. That piece of paper is what has protected "us" from "them" thus far.

If we are going to talk strictly facts Steve, not about humanity and morality-think about this: In the end, unless the masses of humanity are given a honest chance to earn a living, they will turn primal and it will not be about who is best educated, but who carries the biggest club. People will find a way to survive, there are only really two options: give them a way to do it peacefully or stand back and watch the slaughter begin. People will not stand by while their children starve. Civilization is built on a fragile set of understandings. One, a man who will work can eat. If that's not true then a man can and will do whatever it takes to eat and it will be bloody.

SteveR wrote:Then give them your help. Or send them to a charitable organization that provides help. But don't use govt to force people to help, because that is stealing part of their labor, which only they own - not you - not society - not govt - just them. The problem I have is with the force/coercion and the taking of people's private property for whatever you deem appropriate.

Charities have additional overheads that government doesn't have to worry about. Charity is a real good way to feel good about yourself while accomplishing much less than you could with the money otherwise.

Why do you think that a productive person is a milk cow to be used however politicians see fit? The top producers in this country are already having more than half of their milk confiscated. And I'm not talking about the Wall Street shitheads who get their income classified as capital gains - I'm talking about the guy who created a dry-cleaning chain from scratch, earning $500K per year but paying $250K per year to people he doesn't even know - squandered by politicians.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said "however politicians see fit." I said how I (and many others) see fit, which is to help the needy with taxpayer money. You see, some things you consider "squandering," I do not. Others (like the useless wars) I agree with you on.

I don't speak of "businesses" like what you are talking about as untrustworthy. I talk about corporations whose only motive is profit and which have a ton of money to play with to bribe politicians into helping them make much more of it. If even half of the "charity" and tax breaks that these corporations receive went to these small business instead, I'd argue that those small business owners would have much less of a problem.

SteveR wrote:But I don't use the govt's guns to say that I get that food for free. I have no right to free food - I have to trade something of value for it. Otherwise it is stealing.

For the 7th time...no, you know what, I'm not repeating myself again. Go back and read the other 6 times I addressed this nonsense.

americatheneedy wrote: If we are going to talk strictly facts Steve, not about humanity and morality-think about this: In the end, unless the masses of humanity are given a honest chance to earn a living, they will turn primal and it will not be about who is best educated, but who carries the biggest club. People will find a way to survive, there are only really two options: give them a way to do it peacefully or stand back and watch the slaughter begin. People will not stand by while their children starve. Civilization is built on a fragile set of understandings. One, a man who will work can eat. If that's not true then a man can and will do whatever it takes to eat and it will be bloody.

I completely agree with this. You can see this playing out in countries like China, where the elites know that they had better keep most of the population busy in factories, or there will be blood in the streets and possibly the elites' heads on a spike.

A smart parasite knows not to drain the host dry. The elites have feasted upon us for decades, with that in mind, but this time they have gone too far. An example would be the asset-stripping that was done by banks on homeowners.

And I can agree on your comment about the constitution. The constitution is what protects us from tyrannical monarchy. However, it had to be amended to to protect us from tyrannical corporatism. This hasn't really been enough.

In a perfect world with a level playing field your ideas of "remember when Glenn Miller played, and everybody pulled his weight" would be fair and just but in this situation they are not. We have stacked the deck against people trying to make a living and taxes that support pell grants and college loans and food stamps when you need are the only thing we have make it more level. You make it sound as though people that receive your tax money contribute nothing to your society.

Your tax dollars that go to education could have helped put me through grammar and secondary school. Your way of life would make this impossible for most people.

What would I have done in your society? My parents worked in a furniture factory and retired on social security. There is no possible way that they could have afforded a private school.
Did I not deserve to get a basic education? Your tax money helps your society by helping to produce a more educated populace. All of which contribute to your society in one way or another.

In my life, I have known lot's of people subsidized housing and food stamps. They were all really low paid single mothers at places I have worked. They make 8 bucks an hour and only get 25-30 hours a week. Most of the time they have a second job and they get food stamps because they can't make enough, for whatever reason, to pay for rent and to feed their kid.

You think this person is a nonproducer and that is my beef with you.


Too make my point more clear. A small business man that made 250k or maybe 500k a year would not be taxed at a high rate as long as he employed people. A guy making 100k a year on salary would also not be taxed at a high rate.

My society would be paid for cutting down the department of defense, ending private military contracts, and big business subsidies, among other things.

So no, unless you are pulling over 200 k a year on a salary then your taxes would be largely the same or possibly even lower.
So your argument against me is moot either way, my administration wouldn't effect you, unless you just can't stand seeing poor kids eat and get educated.
This is my political viewpoint
My personal viewpoint is that taxes are too low on everyone, including myself really.

gettheminNOVEMBER wrote:

SteveR wrote:"LOL, Two people who you really respect are two of the founding father's of our country? Whatever, you sound like Michelle Bachmann trying to sound smart."

Uhh...Every thing I've said has been consistent with Jefferson and Franklin's design for this country: the two aspects of liberty; limited govt; individual rights; keeping power from being concentrated.

Now, why didn't the founding fathers include food and shelter as inalienable rights? Those were certainly needs at the time, just as now.

I have a question for you Steve, would you support extending unemployment benefits for the 99ers?

Question Unanswered Alert!

Of course he doesn't. How could he and still fit with his philosophy?

The bottom line for this conversation for me is that the entire point of this forum is for us to lend support to each other in a time of need (now) and so we can feel like we are less alone. Steve isn't lending any help or support to anyone. We aren't here to debate politics with a teabagger. I am not here to argue and justify my existence with a teabagger.

This is why I think this thread should be closed. It isn't about the topic anymore and it isn't helping anyone.

I am stepping away to see who else might need support or just someone to talk to.

Look at Bank of America, they are laying off 30,000 and they got HUGE tax breaks probably paid none or got money back. They are laying off due to crappy management and screwing us all while the Big Wigs walked away with millions Tax breaks have NOTHING to do with JOBS!

lendmeflight2 wrote:Of course he doesn't. How could he and still fit with his philosophy?

The bottom line for this conversation for me is that the entire point of this forum is for us to lend support to each other in a time of need (now) and so we can feel like we are less alone. Steve isn't lending any help or support to anyone. We aren't here to debate politics with a teabagger. I am not here to argue and justify my existence with a teabagger.

This is why I think this thread should be closed. It isn't about the topic anymore and it isn't helping anyone.

I am stepping away to see who else might need support or just someone to talk to.

Let me see if I can get an answer from steve on the 99er question. I will talk to the war room and see about zapping this thread.(just kidding on the war room)