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.

We need a war room.

lendmeflight2 wrote:We need a war room.

You can be the General, I am not saluting though.

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.

I would argue that it is helping. We are gaining valuable insight into the other sides viewpoints from someone who is willing to give it to us without acting like a giant assbag about it. Now, you may disagree with a lot of what he has to say, and I'm 100% behind you, but I do not think he has been overly condescending. I think he's just stating what he believes to be true.

It also helps because people reading this can see BOTH sides instead of just one, and see why our opinions hold water even when they're being actively attacked from dissenters.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to "know thy enemy." He's not really an enemy, of course, but rather someone who disagrees with most of the people on this forum. The arguments you're facing here are arguments you will likely see time and time again, and this thread will help people who agree with us but aren't as eloquent at debating to defend our ideas without being run circles around or being pushed onto the back foot. Even if he does turn out to be a troll, we still get this benefit, at least.

I'm all for retitling this thread or creating a new one and merging the off-topic posts, but personally I believe thread lock/deletion should be reserved for more serious things, such as threats of bodily harm or undue harassment.

lendmeflight2 wrote:Why is this conversation still happening?

Thanks folks before this afternoon, I thought I was the one who did nt have a life.

Lets get back on topic guys. different points of view are welcome but lets move on.

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

Unemployment insurance is paid by the employer as a cost of having the employee. The rates are set by actuaries based upon the levels they determine are needed to provide 26 weeks of payout, if needed. It's the same as the way insurance rates are determined for my house - the rates are set so that I can get my house replaced if it burns down.

The unemployment insurer is not responsible for paying more than 26 weeks, because that is what he contracted to do, in the same way that I can't demand 4 new houses if my house burns down once.

So, in my opinion, anything in excess of 26 weeks is no longer an insurance payout but rather just general support from the govt, having nothing to do with insurance.

If the govt is going to provide support to those in need, then I think it's grossly unfair to exclude the self-employed or those who quit (let's say to raise a toddler) and then couldn't find work - why are they any less worthy? In other words, the long-term unemployed, no matter the cause, should be all one group and treated the same way.

If the taxpayers choose to support those in need, so be it - I just wish it could be done without coercion and without allowing our beast of a govt to grow even fatter.

In the long term, you have to be careful to not make the tax burden too onerous or the top producers stop producing (or produce in another country), which leaves everyone much worse off.

There isn't just one big pie to slice up - every year the pie has to be re-created (because we ate last year's pie last year). By definition, the poor eat more pie than they produce, the middle class creates a bit more pie than they consume, the top producers (i.e. the productive rich) make huge amounts of pie, and then the elites, with the backing of the govt, gobble up everything in site while producing nothing.

So who are the most important in creating a nice, big pie? It's the top producers (think Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos or a successful farmer). They are the ones who create the most wealth for us to all enjoy, and they are the ones that we must be careful to keep happy, lest they take their ball and go home.

gettheminNOVEMBER wrote:

lendmeflight2 wrote:We need a war room.

You can be the General, I am not saluting though.

Elmer Fudd!!!! Shoot him NOW, Shoot him NOW!!!!!

Rabbit Season! Duck Season! Rabbit Season!!! dUCK sEASON!!!

Isn't this thread DEAD yet???

mistermunster wrote:Isn't this thread DEAD yet???

Is the earth flat?

"It also helps because people reading this can see BOTH sides instead of just one, and see why our opinions hold water even when they're being actively attacked from dissenters."

That's what attracted me to this forum in the first place. I love to understand what other people are thinking - I am a self-employed businessman, but not in need. But when I see something that I think is harmful to our country (i.e. classifying food, shelter, and health care as rights), it's hard not to speak up and point out what I think is flawed thinking. I am very much in agreement with helping people - I just think it better to do it voluntarily and without giving more power to the politicians and the bureaucrats.

What gives you even the tiniest indication that I'm a troll? Have I not been courteous to everyone? Have I mocked or used personal attacks or insults? Have I not been truthful in the way I see truth? Even though I've been attacked by everyone on here, didn't I stay respectful and stay true to what I believe? I think most visitors would have given up long ago - is that how you want this forum to be?

Goodnight all...

X wrote:

mistermunster wrote:Isn't this thread DEAD yet???

Is the earth flat?

TO SOME of a certant political persuasion

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

Unemployment insurance is paid by the employer as a cost of having the employee. The rates are set by actuaries based upon the levels they determine are needed to provide 26 weeks of payout, if needed. It's the same as the way insurance rates are determined for my house - the rates are set so that I can get my house replaced if it burns down.

The unemployment insurer is not responsible for paying more than 26 weeks, because that is what he contracted to do, in the same way that I can't demand 4 new houses if my house burns down once.

So, in my opinion, anything in excess of 26 weeks is no longer an insurance payout but rather just general support from the govt, having nothing to do with insurance.

If the govt is going to provide support to those in need, then I think it's grossly unfair to exclude the self-employed or those who quit (let's say to raise a toddler) and then couldn't find work - why are they any less worthy? In other words, the long-term unemployed, no matter the cause, should be all one group and treated the same way.

If the taxpayers choose to support those in need, so be it - I just wish it could be done without coercion and without allowing our beast of a govt to grow even fatter.

In the long term, you have to be careful to not make the tax burden too onerous or the top producers stop producing (or produce in another country), which leaves everyone much worse off.

There isn't just one big pie to slice up - every year the pie has to be re-created (because we ate last year's pie last year). By definition, the poor eat more pie than they produce, the middle class creates a bit more pie than they consume, the top producers (i.e. the productive rich) make huge amounts of pie, and then the elites, with the backing of the govt, gobble up everything in site while producing nothing.

So who are the most important in creating a nice, big pie? It's the top producers (think Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos or a successful farmer). They are the ones who create the most wealth for us to all enjoy, and they are the ones that we must be careful to keep happy, lest they take their ball and go home.

A simple yes or no will do. But you answered my question. You have not walked a day in anyones shoes here.

gettheminNOVEMBER wrote:

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

Unemployment insurance is paid by the employer as a cost of having the employee. The rates are set by actuaries based upon the levels they determine are needed to provide 26 weeks of payout, if needed. It's the same as the way insurance rates are determined for my house - the rates are set so that I can get my house replaced if it burns down.

The unemployment insurer is not responsible for paying more than 26 weeks, because that is what he contracted to do, in the same way that I can't demand 4 new houses if my house burns down once.

So, in my opinion, anything in excess of 26 weeks is no longer an insurance payout but rather just general support from the govt, having nothing to do with insurance.

If the govt is going to provide support to those in need, then I think it's grossly unfair to exclude the self-employed or those who quit (let's say to raise a toddler) and then couldn't find work - why are they any less worthy? In other words, the long-term unemployed, no matter the cause, should be all one group and treated the same way.

If the taxpayers choose to support those in need, so be it - I just wish it could be done without coercion and without allowing our beast of a govt to grow even fatter.

In the long term, you have to be careful to not make the tax burden too onerous or the top producers stop producing (or produce in another country), which leaves everyone much worse off.

There isn't just one big pie to slice up - every year the pie has to be re-created (because we ate last year's pie last year). By definition, the poor eat more pie than they produce, the middle class creates a bit more pie than they consume, the top producers (i.e. the productive rich) make huge amounts of pie, and then the elites, with the backing of the govt, gobble up everything in site while producing nothing.

So who are the most important in creating a nice, big pie? It's the top producers (think Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos or a successful farmer). They are the ones who create the most wealth for us to all enjoy, and they are the ones that we must be careful to keep happy, lest they take their ball and go home.

A simple yes or no will do. But you answered my question. You have not walked a day in anyones shoes here.

I question 46 actual site posts (the majority of them on this thread alone) and no comments of this individuals plight.

SteveR wrote:What gives you even the tiniest indication that I'm a troll? Have I not been courteous to everyone? Have I mocked or used personal attacks or insults? Have I not been truthful in the way I see truth? Even though I've been attacked by everyone on here, didn't I stay respectful and stay true to what I believe? I think most visitors would have given up long ago - is that how you want this forum to be?

I never said you were a troll, I just said that even if you were a troll -- and note that I said that I thought you were presenting your opinion in a reasonable fashion (something trolls generally don't do), even if I find the opinion itself unreasonable -- we'd still be getting the benefit of knowing both sides and how to approach the argument better in the future.

I am so sick of this. I don't really see the point of why he would come here unless it's to suggest that we all get off of his tax roll. This is his entire point. He is a self employed business man who thinks his taxes would be lower if we all were to starve.

I am sick to god damn death of people who haven't been in my shoes at all telling me how I should feel.

I don't go to self employed business man friends forum and post about being unemployed.

This is smart person and makes no sense. We aren't getting any benefit from this guy telling us the viewpoint of the other side.

He says it's fine to help people but he doesn't want to be made to through taxes. This makes no sense. He has already said he doesn't believe in tax paid education but he isn't a bad person? Whatever.

He just makes people who already feel bad about themselves to feel worse.

mistermunster wrote:

X wrote:

mistermunster wrote:Isn't this thread DEAD yet???

Is the earth flat?

TO SOME of a certant political persuasion

The behavior of all known Stuff Steve writers can be described within a single theoretical framework called the HMITE (Hit Me In The Eye). This model incorporates the tarson and lepton-employ as well as their interactions through the strong, weak and unemployed forces. Only Jobs remain outside the HMITE framework. The force-carrying Job generating Stuff are called Irritants or Steve-Jobs, and they differ fundamentally from the tarson and lepton-employ. The fundamental forces appear to behave very differently in ordinary Stuff, but the HMITE model indicates that they are basically very simple minded when matter is in a high “purge-the-troll” environment.

tiya wrote:

mistermunster wrote:

X wrote:

mistermunster wrote:Isn't this thread DEAD yet???

Is the earth flat?

TO SOME of a certant political persuasion

The behavior of all known Stuff Steve writers can be described within a single theoretical framework called the HMITE (Hit Me In The Eye). This model incorporates the tarson and lepton-employ as well as their interactions through the strong, weak and unemployed forces. Only Jobs remain outside the HMITE framework. The force-carrying Job generating Stuff are called Irritants or Steve-Jobs, and they differ fundamentally from the tarson and lepton-employ. The fundamental forces appear to behave very differently in ordinary Stuff, but the HMITE model indicates that they are basically very simple minded when matter is in a high “purge-the-troll” environment.

tiya wrote:

mistermunster wrote:

X wrote:

mistermunster wrote:Isn't this thread DEAD yet???

Is the earth flat?

TO SOME of a certant political persuasion

The behavior of all known Stuff Steve writers can be described within a single theoretical framework called the HMITE (Hit Me In The Eye). This model incorporates the tarson and lepton-employ as well as their interactions through the strong, weak and unemployed forces. Only Jobs remain outside the HMITE framework. The force-carrying Job generating Stuff are called Irritants or Steve-Jobs, and they differ fundamentally from the tarson and lepton-employ. The fundamental forces appear to behave very differently in ordinary Stuff, but the HMITE model indicates that they are basically very simple minded when matter is in a high “purge-the-troll” environment.

The things you say make me fall in love with you.
I can only hope you are a woman.

Brilliant.

lendmeflight2 wrote:

tiya wrote:

mistermunster wrote:

X wrote:

mistermunster wrote:Isn't this thread DEAD yet???

Is the earth flat?

TO SOME of a certant political persuasion

The behavior of all known Stuff Steve writers can be described within a single theoretical framework called the HMITE (Hit Me In The Eye). This model incorporates the tarson and lepton-employ as well as their interactions through the strong, weak and unemployed forces. Only Jobs remain outside the HMITE framework. The force-carrying Job generating Stuff are called Irritants or Steve-Jobs, and they differ fundamentally from the tarson and lepton-employ. The fundamental forces appear to behave very differently in ordinary Stuff, but the HMITE model indicates that they are basically very simple minded when matter is in a high “purge-the-troll” environment.

The things you say make me fall in love with you.
I can only hope you are a woman.

Brilliant.

Definitely a woman!

I'm back...

You know, I could be of some use to you guys - learn how a small businessman thinks - what he needs - what he looks for in an employee - what his views toward the govt are - how he views Obama - what his concerns are - how to find employers - etc. I would be a good example because I built my business from scratch - all self-taught - no formal training. I was born low-middle class in a tiny farm town with no silver spoon in my mouth. In the past, I've had four people on the payroll, so I do have some experience being an employer.

And you know I'll say what I really think

Wow, so you hired four whole people?

We have had people before come here and try to "help" us.

It starts off fine and then they always end saying things "why didn't any of you save 5 or 10 thousand dollars for a rainy day?".

No thanks

That is a great accomplishment. You are right, you could be useful to some of our members. Its just that that way of thinking is what is hurting the unemployed. NO ONE that I have spoken with, and as an advocate for the unemployed I've spoken to a lot of people, chooses to be in this situation. In fact many are powerless. Your info would come in handy if in fact there were plenty of employers looking to hire, but that's not the case. There are NOT enough jobs. Not nearly enough.

You have to understand, Many members here are qualified in many different areas and come from all walks of life. Many are highly educated college graduates with multiple degrees who suddenly went from middle or upper class income to poverty. Tent cities, homeless shelters, food stamps, medicaid are all things that they never thought they would have to endure, but they have no choice. Its not a matter of qualifications its a matter of too many unemployed verses not nearly enough jobs. I also want to mention that there are plenty that do not qualify for government assistance because they have no young children and are completely on their own with no family to speak of, no home, no where to turn. What we need is for business owners to start hiring again, offer health insurance, FULL TIME hours, and to pay a livable wage. Discrimination against the unemployed is also a big problem.

Today's unemployed are much different than in the past and are GREATLY misunderstood.

lendmeflight2 wrote:Wow, so you hired four whole people?

How many jobs have you provided?

lendmeflight2 wrote:Wow, so you hired four whole people?

We have had people before come here and try to "help" us.

It starts off fine and then they always end saying things "why didn't any of you save 5 or 10 thousand dollars for a rainy day?".

No thanks

what kills me about that is that a lot of us DID! 5 OR 10K for a rainy could not have prepared us for this. It doesn't get you very far these days, especially if you have young kids. It may help for a few months, but certainly not for years of unemployment. We had a rainy day savings, it was a significant amount too. But without a consistent cash flow coming in and if you have to pay penalties and taxes on it(it was my husbands annuity) , it goes very quickly.

SteveR wrote:I'm back...

You know, I could be of some use to you guys - learn how a small businessman thinks - what he needs - what he looks for in an employee - what his views toward the govt are - how he views Obama - what his concerns are - how to find employers - etc. I would be a good example because I built my business from scratch - all self-taught - no formal training. I was born low-middle class in a tiny farm town with no silver spoon in my mouth. In the past, I've had four people on the payroll, so I do have some experience being an employer.

And you know I'll say what I really think

Hire me, I'm willing to relocate - nothing in RI. I am educated, experienced and a dedicated employee with great references. I've been searching for a job since March 2008. Think it is an "age" thing?