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.

"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

So whose labor and property is to be taken in order to fulfill this promise?

No one has yet answered the question: Do you think one man is entitled to the labor of another?

SteveR wrote:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

So whose labor and property is to be taken in order to fulfill this promise?

No one has yet answered the question: Do you think one man is entitled to the labor of another?

The government was entitled to my labor for over 40 years. Were they entitled to it? They took it out of my paycheck. I didn't have a choice.
I guess you want all the unemployed to die and not have any rights at all...

SteveR wrote:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

So whose labor and property is to be taken in order to fulfill this promise?

No one has yet answered the question: Do you think one man is entitled to the labor of another?

People who pay taxes? I've only said this, oh I don't know, approximately 7000 times. You say paying more taxes is robbery, I say paying less taxes to keep some change in your pocket while being willing to let people starve is greed.

Still no one has answered my question: Do you think one man is entitled to the labor of another?

SteveR wrote: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.

Here's how I read this: I'm not trying to be on one side or the other, but here's the side I'm on. Don't try to play middle-man and look like the voice of reason when you're clearly on a side. It's fine to be on the other side of this opinion, that's your choice, but why try to make it look like you're not?

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).

It's not "pay new taxes or go to jail," it's simply "pay taxes or go to jail." New taxes are something put on us by the government. You're taking something completely expected (you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail/pay a fine, whatever) and making it seem like it's a horrible thing. The reality is it boils down to paying slightly more taxes, and I think it's the morally right thing to do to be willing to pay slightly more taxes to help people truly in need.

Will the system be gamed? Probably. But if 25% of the money is "gamed" and 75% of the money goes to helping people who really need it, I'm happy to take that risk. If the gaming gets really out of hand, then it will get to a point where the cost of investigating the fraud will be less than letting it continue, and it will be investigated and funds discontinued as need be. If the cost of investigation is less than the cost of the fraud, though (and I suspect it would be), then it's a waste of money to investigate in terms of value.

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.

I agree. I want to cooperate by paying more taxes. In my opinion, so should you. The thing is, we've done the cooperation thing in the past with corporations: we'll cut your taxes, you start creating jobs. Except someone didn't hold up their end of the argument (one guess who) and nothing got done.

It would appear to me that you're looking at this in a very binary fashion. Either it's "free-market" or it's "collectivism." I'm not sure if you really think this way or are just saying it because you're trying to strengthen your argument, but come on man, it's a little more taxes. Stop thinking of it as "forced charity" and start thinking of it as "letting the government help out and being willing to pay a little more taxes to let them."

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.

Hyperbole -- Obvious and intentional exaggeration. I said it in response to your comment about guys busting down your door with guns. That is obvious and intentional exaggeration.

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.

Are you really going to tell me that -- with all the taxes small business owners pay now -- that a little bit more is going to be the straw that broke the camels back? Okay, I'll bite. Let's tax the filthy rich and the corrupt CEO's a WHOLE LOT MORE rather than tax everyone a little bit. Does that solve your problem?

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

Yes. Pay more taxes. It's not robbery, it's taxes. I think I've said that so many times I'm feeling like a broken record.

SteveR wrote:Still no one has answered my question: Do you think one man is entitled to the labor of another?

In your world "No." In your world - you're the only one who matters...

SteveR wrote:Still no one has answered my question: Do you think one man is entitled to the labor of another?

You are not giving your money to the needy. You are giving it to the government for using their resources, and they spend it how they see fit. What I am arguing is that I think the government should be using some of that tax money helping the needy. If that in turn creates a raise in my taxes, I am okay with that.

I am not arguing for you to be "forced" to give your money to someone in need. That is charity and charity can not and should not be forced. What I am arguing is that the government should be using tax dollars to help the needy. You ARE forced to pay taxes, but the same would be true no matter how the government spends the money.

No one has answered your question because it isn't clear. What do you mean by the labor of another?

I do not think that anyone has the right to make a living from another person's labor, no. An example of this would be if you started a plumbing business but didn't know anything about plumbing. Then you hired a plumber at a certain pay rate, charged your customers more and kept the difference as profit to live on. That would be immoral.

If you mean that society as a whole should benefit from the labor of an individual then the answer is yes. Society, as a whole, is entitled to someone's labor. Everyone is an individual and produces his own labor.
Society is entitled to that labor.

Your question is so vague that it's hard to answer.

You seem to think that we are all individual entities separate from all else, even to the extent that if you were the only person left on the planet tomorrow your life would continue the same.

In reality we are on this journey no matter what it may seem sometimes. This is an issue we should deal with. We have too little community now, everyone is greedy and wants as much as they can get.

You seem to have the attitude that you deserve as much as you can take, you would call it earning, and that if you can take so much that the father of someone elses child can't eat then you win.

This attitude is what causes revolutions. In fact this is what has caused nearly every revolution. "Let then eat cake".


People who think they are entitled to as much as they can take force people who don't have enough to take it from you through real coercion. The boot to the face kind of coercion. Then you scream for your police that your money pays for and demand that there be prisons built with your money. So you end up paying for prisons for people like me when you could just share because you have more than you need from the start.

This makes sense to you?

If you don't pay your taxes, after enough time has passed, you will be arrested. And if you stay in your house, they will eventually show up at your house with guns. What can be disputed about that?

SteveR wrote:If you don't pay your taxes, after enough time has passed, you will be arrested. And if you stay in your house, they will eventually show up at your house with guns. What can be disputed about that?

ranbrow123 wrote:You are not giving your money to the needy. You are giving it to the government for using their resources, and they spend it how they see fit. What I am arguing is that I think the government should be using some of that tax money helping the needy. If that in turn creates a raise in my taxes, I am okay with that.

I am not arguing for you to be "forced" to give your money to someone in need. That is charity and charity can not and should not be forced. What I am arguing is that the government should be using tax dollars to help the needy. You ARE forced to pay taxes, but the same would be true no matter how the government spends the money.

Also, I was unaware that the IRS came to your house "with guns" when you didn't pay your taxes. In fact, I'm pretty sure they don't, though I admittedly can't tell you from first-hand experience.

SteveR wrote:Still no one has answered my question: Do you think one man is entitled to the labor of another?

To yours, YES. With a callous attitude LIKE YOURS, WHY NOT. You stand on a PRINCIPAL that if someone gets A HANDOUT from your SO CALLED LABOR is unworthy of help of ANY kind. Your Puritan Capitalist beliefs are ALSO false and this WHOLE mess proves it. If EVERYONE had Food. clothing and Shelter sustained by a community pool of CONTRIBUTION. SO many of OUR problems would be solved and THEN people could pursue more worthwhile endeavors of living life. Right NOW in this country WE ARE slaves to the "CULT of a JOB" everything emanates from it. Our whole society is BUILT on it. Yet the FLAW is the very FEW have been enriched GREATLY from yours/ours MANY years of ENSLAVEMENT to this very cult. And the bottom line is YOU, ME and EVERY other worker is EXPENDABLE. They GOT rich ON OUR LABOR and you think that's JUST fine and equatable. Not to mention the STAGNATE WAGES for the last 40 years to the workers. Capitalism is BROKEN, it enriches the FEW, the scheming and the LUCKY. WE NEED to start thinking of Society and it's needs as a WHOLE. This whole individualism is CRAP because it leads to GREED and SELFISHNESS by those FEW who were lucky enough to GET that golden ring. All one has to say is "IT'S MINE" and that sets it all in stone. But you believe that FREE money not earned ALLOWS us all to set on the couch being lazy. I'd rather MAKE money doing something worthwhile to me than SLAVING away MANY YEARS for a GREEDY fool in a pissass dead end JOB for money so I can have the basics, 65% of the workers HATE their jobs BUT must have it for the BASICS. Not EASY NOW to just say GET ANOTHER if you don't like it. THAT BOAT has sailed. No thanks...THAT'S THE PROBLEM with Capitalism as it stands and IT MUST change for the betterment and support of ALL in SOCIETY. This is the problem of the world at it's core. the NEED of Food, clothing, Shelter and it's control by the FEW. Solve this and Capitalism falls apart.

SteveR wrote:If you don't pay your taxes, after enough time has passed, you will be arrested. And if you stay in your house, they will eventually show up at your house with guns. What can be disputed about that?

I am assuming this has nothing to do with my answer to your question because I can see no logical relation.

The IRS do not come to your house with guns. Trust me, I have had trouble with them before. They will levy your bank account and sure you and take you to court but not call the gestapo out.


Another example would be labor in general. Let's take a doctor for example. Imagine there is only one doctor, a surgeon, in this community. A community member has a burst appendix. It's something that can come with no warning and there is nothing that can prevent it. He will die if the doctor does not intervene. The community member has no insurance and not enough money to pay. What is to be done? Is it slavery to force the doctor to help him? Is it moral to let the man die?

If you decide it is moral to allow him to die then you can only justify that by saying that the man deserved to die because he didn't have enough money.

Is this the society that you want to live in?

lendmeflight2 wrote:

SteveR wrote:If you don't pay your taxes, after enough time has passed, you will be arrested. And if you stay in your house, they will eventually show up at your house with guns. What can be disputed about that?

I am assuming this has nothing to do with my answer to your question because I can see no logical relation.

The IRS do not come to your house with guns. Trust me, I have had trouble with them before. They will levy your bank account and sure you and take you to court but not call the gestapo out.


Another example would be labor in general. Let's take a doctor for example. Imagine there is only one doctor, a surgeon, in this community. A community member has a burst appendix. It's something that can come with no warning and there is nothing that can prevent it. He will die if the doctor does not intervene. The community member has no insurance and not enough money to pay. What is to be done? Is it slavery to force the doctor to help him? Is it moral to let the man die?

If you decide it is moral to allow him to die then you can only justify that by saying that the man deserved to die because he didn't have enough money.

Is this the society that you want to live in?

The attainment of COMPENSATION for any thing or service is the problem. If you don't HAVE you cannot get. This must be changed to something more enlighten than to what mutation we currently have. What that is I can't say but it will only be possible IF we as a society as a WHOLE works towards it.

"You seem to have the attitude that you deserve as much as you can take"

The word "take" keeps popping up. Producers don't take - they create, with a surplus left over that is their reward for their high productivity. The skilled surgeon doesn't take from anyone - he creates value in the form of repairing the body. He is paid, but the amount is less than the value he provides - that's what creating wealth is.

J.K. Rowling is a producer. She takes paper, adds words, and creates value where there was none before. That is creating wealth - nothing is taken from anyone. There is more after than before. Those who enjoy her writing will voluntarily exchange some of their stored wealth to get the enjoyment of reading her books.

The politicians and the corporate cronies are not producers - they are the looters of society. They are the leeches who produce nothing but instead siphon wealth from others via corrupt means. This will continue until people demand ethical leadership. But instead, the masses fall for their lies and keep voting them into office (both sides of the aisle).

Rowling hasn't taken from anyone. But it sounds like you think it's just fine for anyone needy to forcibly take from her. Taking from the producers is the only way to fund free stuff for those who think it is their right (i.e. the right to food, shelter, and healthcare).

Is she free to utilize her surplus wealth in any way she sees fit, or do other people have a claim to her labor?

"The IRS do not come to your house with guns."

Perhaps not the IRS, but a law enforcement officer will. Jail time is one of the punishments for not paying taxes (see Wesley Snipes or Irwin Schiff). If you are sentenced to jail time and do not show up voluntarily, men with guns will appear at your door. What's to dispute about that?

Your property is forcibly taken from you under the threat of violence. If someone thinks that free stuff is everyone's right, then they are advocating force and the threat of violence for those who do not wish to comply. That does not seem like a healthy way to conduct society - in a free society, interactions are voluntary.

In your example, she should be happy to give up a portion of her earning, however large or small, to pay back a society that has given her so much. After all it is the masses that read her books and make her rich not the few who are also rich.

This is a poor example though. You picked someone who is apparently an artist of some sort, even though I am not familiar with her work, and sells this art to make a living. This is an exceptional situation.

She made one piece of art that continues to sell and make her money. She isn't doing the labor over and over. She doesn't have to rewrite the book every time she sells one. It could be argued that she isn't producing or laboring. I do think that society as a whole has claim to her labor because it is the society itself, the community, that made her wealth possible.

I would even take this to am extreme. Let's suppose that a tax rate is 90% on people that make over $100 million in a year.

If you gave up 90% you would still be left with $10 million and that is enough.
The rest could be used to benefit other members of society. It could educate other people's children and and pay for college educations.
It could also be used to pay for healthcare.
Your reward for giving this up is that you would have a much healthier and more educated society.

You would give this up to hoard money that you could never spend?

"Imagine there is only one doctor, a surgeon, in this community."

If the surgeon wants to do it for free or if someone else wants to pay for it, that's fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with charity, because it's voluntary - there's no coercion or violence involved.

If health care is a right, then someone has to pay for it. Even if the surgeon did it for free, there are hospital costs and the opportunity cost (i.e. that unpaid surgery takes the place of a paid surgery). I have a problem with other people being required to pay for it, under the threat of violence.

If you say that free health care is a right, then you are also saying that it's OK to forcibly take from someone else, under the threat of violence, in order to pay for it. There are no free lunches.

SteveR wrote:"The IRS do not come to your house with guns."

Perhaps not the IRS, but a law enforcement officer will. Jail time is one of the punishments for not paying taxes (see Wesley Snipes or Irwin Schiff). If you are sentenced to jail time and do not show up voluntarily, men with guns will appear at your door. What's to dispute about that?

Your property is forcibly taken from you under the threat of violence. If someone thinks that free stuff is everyone's right, then they are advocating force and the threat of violence for those who do not wish to comply. That does not seem like a healthy way to conduct society - in a free society, interactions are voluntary.

Your argument seems to be about taxes so let's zero in on that.

In YOUR argument all taxes are theft because no one would pay them voluntarily. If they are take involuntarily they are coerced which, according to you, is bad.

Therefore, in your society, no taxes could be taken for anything.

After all, my house has never been on fire so why should I pay taxes for the fire department.

How do you pay for police, fire dept, and schools? Are these things not necessary? Should they be paid for voluntarily? Should the fire department charge a fee and if you can't pay it your house burns down?

What about schools? Should all schools be private? We should go back to the 18th and 19th centuries when you could only get an education if you could afford it?

SteveR wrote:"The IRS do not come to your house with guns."

Perhaps not the IRS, but a law enforcement officer will. Jail time is one of the punishments for not paying taxes (see Wesley Snipes or Irwin Schiff). If you are sentenced to jail time and do not show up voluntarily, men with guns will appear at your door. What's to dispute about that?

Your property is forcibly taken from you under the threat of violence. If someone thinks that free stuff is everyone's right, then they are advocating force and the threat of violence for those who do not wish to comply. That does not seem like a healthy way to conduct society - in a free society, interactions are voluntary.

They will show up because you didn't pay your taxes, not because you didn't give to the needy. You pay your taxes. I pay mine. I just would like some of that tax money to go to the needy. I could have sworn I've addressed this already.

I could address the gun issue further, but quite frankly I feel like if I do you'll just focus on that part of the debate instead of addressing what's really important -- why is it if tax money is spent on the needy, it's suddenly no longer taxes but robbery?

SteveR wrote:Rowling hasn't taken from anyone. But it sounds like you think it's just fine for anyone needy to forcibly take from her. Taking from the producers is the only way to fund free stuff for those who think it is their right (i.e. the right to food, shelter, and healthcare).

No, I do not think it's okay for anyone to "forcibly take" from her. I think it's okay for her government to take taxes from her, though.

SteveR wrote:"Imagine there is only one doctor, a surgeon, in this community."

If the surgeon wants to do it for free or if someone else wants to pay for it, that's fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with charity, because it's voluntary - there's no coercion or violence involved.

If health care is a right, then someone has to pay for it. Even if the surgeon did it for free, there are hospital costs and the opportunity cost (i.e. that unpaid surgery takes the place of a paid surgery). I have a problem with other people being required to pay for it, under the threat of violence.

If you say that free health care is a right, then you are also saying that it's OK to forcibly take from someone else, under the threat of violence, in order to pay for it. There are no free lunches.

But your example assumes that there is low profit in the act of saving this life.

You could argue that the doctor might possibly have had a paid surgery instead of doing the appendix operation for free. Therefore he let a man die so he could get paid to do something else. Sure there are administrative costs but these people are hourly or salaried and filing this man's paperwork would take so little time as not to make a difference.

This is a false argument. Who knows what he might have or what could be scheduled around an emergency. It's astounding that you don't see the immorality in justifying a man's death just so one individual could hoard more.

"No, I do not think it's okay for anyone to "forcibly take" from her. I think it's okay for her government to take taxes from her, though."

My point is that they are the same thing. Taxes are "forcibly taking" from someone. The essence of taxes is taking by force. Robbery is taking by force.

We didn't even have federal income taxes until around 1913 or so, yet we still had courts and police to enforce rule of law.

This conversation is getting a little out of bounds. My point is that a civil right, which is inherent and inalienable (i.e. forever and no matter what), has to have no cost (e.g. freedom of speech) or almost no cost (e.g. right to a trial by jury) - otherwise, you have to forcibly take property from other citizens to pay for it.

To say that food, shelter, and health care are civil rights is to say that it's OK to forcibly take property from others, because that's what you have to do to pay for it.

SteveR wrote:My point is that they are the same thing. Taxes are "forcibly taking" from someone. The essence of taxes is taking by force. Robbery is taking by force.

Nobody is taking anything "by force." You pay the government for using it's resources, i.e. roads, bridges, emergency services, etc. If you don't want to pay, you can feel free to leave the country. Nothing here is forced, and you will never convince me otherwise.

We didn't even have federal income taxes until around 1913 or so, yet we still had courts and police to enforce rule of law.

What's your point?

This conversation is getting a little out of bounds. My point is that a civil right, which is inherent and inalienable (i.e. forever and no matter what), has to have no cost (e.g. freedom of speech) or almost no cost (e.g. right to a trial by jury) - otherwise, you have to forcibly take property from other citizens to pay for it.

To say that food, shelter, and health care are civil rights is to say that it's OK to forcibly take property from others, because that's what you have to do to pay for it.

I didn't ask for it to be a "civil right." I asked for the government to spend money helping the needy using our tax dollars. Stop calling it stealing, this will be about the fifth time I've addressed that argument.

Is it going to be that no matter what anyone says you're going to keep repeating the same things over and over? Because I've addressed all these arguments multiple times. Honestly, at this point I want to know if I'm wasting my time, because I've got way more productive things I can be doing then trying to debate with somebody who keeps repeating themselves instead of actually, you know, debating.

Okay, let me try something different: do you think emergency services are unnecessary? Do you think emergency services should be provided only to taxpayers? Things like police, ambulances, etc? That's stuff we pay taxes to provide: would you deny those things to the needy, as well?

"Nobody is taking anything "by force."...Nothing here is forced"

I'm sorry, but that is just flat-out wrong. The only way to pay for free stuff, beyond what is given as charity, must be forced out of someone - there's no other way. The government does not create wealth - it extracts it from its citizens. Taxes are very much forced - they certainly aren't voluntary.

Onerous taxes from England are part of what sparked this nation in the first place - the colonists were tired of being forced to pay them. If you keep adding to our taxes, eventually the top producers will quit, leaving you with a much worse problem. I don't recall the exact numbers, but something like 20% of the top earners pay 80% of the income taxes.

"When robbing Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul." - Unknown