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.

An important concept here is liberty, which has two parts:
- Individual freedom
- Respecting the individual freedom of others

Liberty means that no one owns us - we each own ourselves. In most past societies, people were owned by someone else, such as a king, lord, pope, nation, collective, or master. In one way or another (e.g. tribute), some or all of each person's labor was claimed by someone else (e.g. the king). With liberty, the govt works for us, instead of the other way around. It's the very basis of our country.

Liberty does not mean doing anything you want, like stealing or assault, because the second half of it is respecting the liberty of others. And that includes their personal property, which is owned by that person and no one else.

Collectivism is not liberty. With collectivism, you don't own yourself - part or all of your labor belongs to the collective. And the way that collectives get people to do what they want is with the threat of physical violence. Coercion is not compatible with liberty - force is not a part of freedom.

The economic system that is compatible with liberty is capitalism, i.e. a free market. It's not perfect, but its strength is that it aligns with human nature - the innate human desire to improve one's life and the innate human desire to be free. In a collective, those traits are thwarted - one can do little to improve his own life (i.e. the fruits of labor go to the collective) and there is no freedom. But there's plenty of coercion.

A right that requires the labor of another (e.g. free health care) is incompatible with liberty because it implies that a man's labor does not belong to himself but can be taken via force by the collective.

The US was the first country built from the ground up on a foundation of liberty, and that is a major reason for its enormous success. If you read the Constitution, you'll notice man's ownership of his own labor is supported and there is no mention of free stuff for whoever wants it, paid for by someone else.

I don't think you truly understand the horrors of collectivism, which bring out the very worst in human nature. I highly suggest that you read Execution by Hunger, which contains first-hand accounts of the collectivization of Ukrainian farmers by the Soviet Union. I don't see how a reasonable person could say that those farmers were better off collectivized rather than free.

Or if you don't want to read the book, simply compare the life of the typical Soviet under Stalin with the life of an average 1800s American.

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Are you really trying to argue that allowing our government to help the poor will turn us into the Soviet Union? Really? Come on, man. Also, you didn't address any of my points from yesterday, just repeating the same stuff you said before. Please address how you can "not know" the answer to whether it's right to provide emergency services to the poor, but yet are 100% certain that feeding them will turn us into the Soviet Union.

Taxes are the lowest they've ever been. Comparing America now to America then is pointless, it's not because we want to help the poor that this country sucks, it's because we don't have enough revenue from depressed tax rates (I realize that's over-simplifying things). Like I said before, if you're just going to keep repeating the same thing over and over again without addressing any of my new points, I would appreciate it if you'd let me know so I can stop wasting my time.

Also, your Benjamin Franklin quote applies more to things like the Patriot Act then taxes. Paying taxes is not "giving up your freedom," it's supporting your country.

I just have common sense.

lendmeflight2 wrote:I just have common sense.

Common sense is not so common. - Voltaire

"Lots of people would die if we did not provide them food and shelter, therefore I'd argue that it's a necessity to provide them. Do you agree or disagree?"

Alright Ranbrow, I'll address your point.

There are a lot of people living in hellish conditions in Somalia. On the surface, it would seem that the moral thing to do is send them food. But I contend that sending them food only extends their problems.

To be self-sufficient, what Somalia really needs is rule of law and the ability to produce for themselves. Giving them free food makes both of those situations worse.

First, to be self-sufficient, they need to have a productive agricultural system. But how will they ever get one if a farmer has to compete with free food? What farmer is going to go through all of that work and risk to end up losing money? Giving something to someone for free upsets natural economic laws and thwarts the inherent reward system of the free market.

Secondly, since they have no liberty and are ruled by thugs, almost all of the free food sent over will be confiscated and used to strengthen their power.

Sending Somalia free food only exacerbates their problems. The solution is that they need to get back to a culture of liberty - individual freedom, respect for each other's freedom, a free market, etc. But I'm not sure how, from the outside, we can help make that change.

You can also apply the same concepts locally. Giving the inner city crowd generations of free stuff has only made the problem worse, because it perverts incentives. In nature, life is not free and you have to work to survive. Generations of free stuff has created a culture of dependency and helplessness, which gives rise to anger and angst, because we are inherently free creatures who resent being dependent upon something.

Guaranteeing free stuff has two major problems:
1. Since someone must be forced to supply it, which is at odds with liberty.
2. It makes the recipient dependent and ruins healthy incentives.

We have all paid taxes for years. Taxes is what pays for welfare and other services. Taxes are a necessity whether we like it or not. NOTHING is free....What you're telling us here we have heard a million times over. Its the same thing over and over and over but it makes no sense and holds no merit.

We are not the Soviet Union nor are we Somalia. We are the UNITED States of America. Why is humanity treated as a crime?

Welfare or "free stuff" is not what is ruining this country. It is corporate greed and corrupt, deranged politicians.

"Welfare or "free stuff" is not what is ruining this country. It is corporate greed and corrupt, deranged politicians."

I completely agree that corruption has ruined this country. So how did our govt get so big such that it has enough power that it can be corrupted and affect our economy? Or put another way, if we had a limited federal govt as laid out in the Constitution, even if the politicians were corrupt, it wouldn't have the power to affect the economy.

We've allowed the govt to grow so much that it IS the economy now. It composes 40% of our GDP. 60% of people get some form of payment from the govt. The power is now concentrated in Washington. Imagine how little effect the Feds had back where there were no federal income taxes? Now politicians control everything.

How did the govt get so big? Because people kept demanding it, wanting it to provide more and more stuff that we used to provide ourselves. And you want it to be bigger. Imagine how big it would have to be in order to provide free food, free shelter, and free health care for everyone.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” TJ was right. If we had a govt limited to police, courts, and national defense per the Constitution, and 60% of us weren't dependent upon it, it wouldn't have enough power for its corruption to affect us much.

Okay, Steve. What's YOUR solution in your smug and self-centered world. Please enlighten us. We wait with bated breath...

Why is this conversation still happening? Steve is back from his day off. He doesn't get paid to be a troll on Sunday.

I can end this quickly.

Steve's solution is fascism. He wants "rule of law". He wants to weed out the nonproductive by allowing them to starve.


If you want fascism follow Steve, he knows where it is.



Where the hell is red possum when you need him? He is our resident socialist.

He is HUNGRY after his day off! DO NOT FEED!!!

"Okay, Steve. What's YOUR solution in your smug and self-centered world. Please enlighten us. We wait with bated breath..."

The solution is to move back towards the principles laid out in the Constitution: federal govt only has a few specific powers, and the rest all belong to the state and to the people. That way, the federal govt has almost no power - the real power is spread out among the states and local levels. With the Feds having little power, then corruption of presidents and congress have little effect.

However, this will never willingly happen, because the corrupt elites are not just going to give up their control and their wealth. They will fight to the bitter end to retain it.

We've had 30 years of putting everything on the charge card while letting the elites bleed our system dry. This was only possible through their partnership with big govt. There is a price to be paid for all of these mistakes - we the people are going to reap what we have sown by letting these creeps take control.

There's no way the people are going to demand a limited govt. Most people have their favorite guy (D or R) who they think will make everything better. But the truth is that all high-level politicians are corrupt (with the possible exception of Ron Paul).

On top of all of that, the US has serious competition now. When my dad graduated from high school, any able body, even those dumb as a stump, could get a good job in a factory and live a nice life, with pension. However, that was an anomaly of prosperity - we were the only manufacturing center left standing after WWII, and places like China and India were mired in socialism. So now, we're not the only game in town - we have very real and very legitimate competition. That has lowered our wages and raised theirs. Human beings, on the whole, are no worse off - it's just that the prosperity has shifted from the West to the East. Life in China and India is better than it's ever been.

"Steve's solution is fascism. He wants "rule of law"."

Fascism is the unholy union of business and govt, which is the exact opposite of liberty. I despise fascism and so should anyone who believes in freedom. Fascism is the result of letting govt get too big. I am totally against the corporate fascism that rules this country. We have not been vigilant and have allowed the corrupt to take over. Most people are fooled by the smooth talk of politicians, but anyone can clearly see from their actions that they are the scum of the earth (both sides of the aisle).

Of course I want rule of law. Rule of law is the foundation of a free society and is the foundation of our country. For much of America's existence, foreigners invested here because we have the strongest rule of law in the world - the best court systems and the general support of the people to back it up. Rule of law supports property rights, which is the basis for an economy. The only people who don't want rule of law are the dictators and the despots.

Also don't understand the troll remarks. All I've been doing is restating the underlying principles of the Constitution and how those principles can be harmed by policies that sound nice but are actually detrimental (like a right to free stuff). Don't you want a free country based upon liberty and the rule of law? Are you saying that you don't like the essence of America, which are those same things?

I wanted to add: we are all on the same team here. We are the good guys. The enemy is the elites, who are sociopathic, corrupt power mongers. There are the looters of society They are the ones in control, with the politicians as their puppets. Two quintessential examples of the elites would be David Rockefeller and Lloyd Blankfein (CEO of Goldman Sachs). Their lackeys would include whoever the current sitting president is, along with other key positions such as Secretary of Treasury (e.g. Paulson and Geithner, both ex-Goldman-ites).

Sociopaths are damaged and they lack a conscience - they do not respect the freedom of others - they view others as objects rather than peers. They will always be among us, and they are always drawn to positions of power. It is up to us, we the people, to keep them at bay. One way to keep them under control is to not let power get concentrated. When a govt has its claws into 40% of our economy, we have failed.

SteveR wrote:There are a lot of people living in hellish conditions in Somalia. On the surface, it would seem that the moral thing to do is send them food. But I contend that sending them food only extends their problems.

To be self-sufficient, what Somalia really needs is rule of law and the ability to produce for themselves. Giving them free food makes both of those situations worse.

First, to be self-sufficient, they need to have a productive agricultural system. But how will they ever get one if a farmer has to compete with free food? What farmer is going to go through all of that work and risk to end up losing money? Giving something to someone for free upsets natural economic laws and thwarts the inherent reward system of the free market.

Secondly, since they have no liberty and are ruled by thugs, almost all of the free food sent over will be confiscated and used to strengthen their power.

Sending Somalia free food only exacerbates their problems. The solution is that they need to get back to a culture of liberty - individual freedom, respect for each other's freedom, a free market, etc. But I'm not sure how, from the outside, we can help make that change.

You can also apply the same concepts locally. Giving the inner city crowd generations of free stuff has only made the problem worse, because it perverts incentives. In nature, life is not free and you have to work to survive. Generations of free stuff has created a culture of dependency and helplessness, which gives rise to anger and angst, because we are inherently free creatures who resent being dependent upon something.

Guaranteeing free stuff has two major problems:
1. Since someone must be forced to supply it, which is at odds with liberty.
2. It makes the recipient dependent and ruins healthy incentives.

I do not see the similarities between lower-class Americans and the places they live to Somalia. We have a structure in place (the government) in which to help these people, whereas Somalia does not. Our government gets tax dollars which can be spent to help the lower-class. The only way this would compare is if Somalia is collecting tax dollars (like our country does) and not helping their people. Not having a stable government means not really collecting a whole lot of tax dollars. It also means your example does not analogue with what I am talking about.

As for your argument about the farmers not wanting to compete with free food, my idea does not have the farmer competing. My idea has tax dollars going to the farmer for the food. Food is not simply created, someone has to make it and someone has to pay for it. Farmers create it, we pay them and distribute the food to the people who need it.

Finally, you didn't really address my point. Your response to "should we provide emergency services because people would die if we didn't" was "I don't know." Your response to "should we provide food and shelter because people would die if we didn't" was "no." I want to know whether you see this disconnect, and if so, why this disconnect exists?

SteveR wrote:On top of all of that, the US has serious competition now. When my dad graduated from high school, any able body, even those dumb as a stump, could get a good job in a factory and live a nice life, with pension. However, that was an anomaly of prosperity - we were the only manufacturing center left standing after WWII, and places like China and India were mired in socialism. So now, we're not the only game in town - we have very real and very legitimate competition. That has lowered our wages and raised theirs. Human beings, on the whole, are no worse off - it's just that the prosperity has shifted from the West to the East. Life in China and India is better than it's ever been.

This is true, and the problem is we allow too much outsourcing of our jobs. The corporations choose to do it, and the government allows it. Yes, if everything were made in America it would probably cost more, and yes, my opinion is that we as a country should be willing to pay more for our goods to ensure America's prosperity.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with being willing to let the government provide the poor and lower-class with food, shelter, emergency services, education, etc., though.

SteveR wrote:"Steve's solution is fascism. He wants "rule of law"."

Fascism is the unholy union of business and govt, which is the exact opposite of liberty. I despise fascism and so should anyone who believes in freedom. Fascism is the result of letting govt get too big. I am totally against the corporate fascism that rules this country. We have not been vigilant and have allowed the corrupt to take over. Most people are fooled by the smooth talk of politicians, but anyone can clearly see from their actions that they are the scum of the earth (both sides of the aisle).

And you don't think lack of regulation of corporations could also lead to fascism? Would you not say corporations being allowed to give whatever they want to politicians is a means of encouraging fascism by essentially bribing our politicians into passing laws that help them? Your solution to this is shrinking the government. I say that we put an end to the lobbying with campaign finance reform. Like I said, don't give up on the government, give up on the politicians (and the people who bribe them).

The government could be a good thing if we as Americans banded together and made it so. WE control the government, NOT the other way around. It may not seem that way, but that's the way it's intended and it could still be that way if the people of this country could get their heads out of their asses and work together. We have to stop being divided and conquered by the elites.

SteveR wrote:"Steve's solution is fascism. He wants "rule of law"."

Fascism is the unholy union of business and govt, which is the exact opposite of liberty. I despise fascism and so should anyone who believes in freedom. Fascism is the result of letting govt get too big. I am totally against the corporate fascism that rules this country. We have not been vigilant and have allowed the corrupt to take over. Most people are fooled by the smooth talk of politicians, but anyone can clearly see from their actions that they are the scum of the earth (both sides of the aisle).

Of course I want rule of law. Rule of law is the foundation of a free society and is the foundation of our country. For much of America's existence, foreigners invested here because we have the strongest rule of law in the world - the best court systems and the general support of the people to back it up. Rule of law supports property rights, which is the basis for an economy. The only people who don't want rule of law are the dictators and the despots.

Also don't understand the troll remarks. All I've been doing is restating the underlying principles of the Constitution and how those principles can be harmed by policies that sound nice but are actually detrimental (like a right to free stuff). Don't you want a free country based upon liberty and the rule of law? Are you saying that you don't like the essence of America, which are those same things?

I hope everyone notices this.

THIS IS HOW IT STARTS.


Now Steve is trying to imply that his view of America is the only that can be true and if I don't agree with him then I don't like the essence of America.

American is changing thing. All things are changing. I do not want to go back to a time when slavery was legal. I do not want to go back to a time when we had segregated schools. All of these could happen if you allow every locality to have it's own laws. You have no idea what you are talking about. You cannot compare the United States to Somalia. You call welfare "free stuff".

Nothing is free. We all pay for it and if we need it we can use it.

You know this as much as anyone. YOUR problem is that you don't need it and therefore don't want to pay for it.

You are bitter and think you pay too much in taxes when in reality we have less taxes than any western nation that I can think of. The decay of our country shows the benefit of lower taxes.

You think that some people have to starve. I don't. I know we can all be fed.

You and I are not on the same team.

Your tea party America will never exist. NEVER. Get over it.

lendmeflight2 wrote:Why is this conversation still happening? Steve is back from his day off. He doesn't get paid to be a troll on Sunday.

If he is a troll (and I'm not sure he is), we'll never convince him, but it still needs to be addressed. If we let his argument go without response, someone else reading this might agree with it. If we can prevent that -- or swing someone on his side of the debate to ours -- then it will have all been worth it.

ranbrow123 wrote:

lendmeflight2 wrote:Why is this conversation still happening? Steve is back from his day off. He doesn't get paid to be a troll on Sunday.

If he is a troll (and I'm not sure he is), we'll never convince him, but it still needs to be addressed. If we let his argument go without response, someone else reading this might agree with it. If we can prevent that -- or swing someone on his side of the debate to ours -- then it will have all been worth it.

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 really find it funny when the try to re-write history or change reality.

ranbrow123 wrote:

And you don't think lack of regulation of corporations could also lead to fascism? Would you not say corporations being allowed to give whatever they want to politicians is a means of encouraging fascism by essentially bribing our politicians into passing laws that help them? Your solution to this is shrinking the government. I say that we put an end to the lobbying with campaign finance reform. Like I said, don't give up on the government, give up on the politicians (and the people who bribe them).

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

Yes, corporations being allowed to give whatever they want to politicians is a means of encouraging fascism by essentially bribing our politicians into passing laws that help them.

ranbrow123 wrote:
The government could be a good thing if we as Americans banded together and made it so.

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

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.

ranbrow123 wrote:

lendmeflight2 wrote:Why is this conversation still happening? Steve is back from his day off. He doesn't get paid to be a troll on Sunday.

If he is a troll (and I'm not sure he is), we'll never convince him, but it still needs to be addressed. If we let his argument go without response, someone else reading this might agree with it. If we can prevent that -- or swing someone on his side of the debate to ours -- then it will have all been worth it.

You are right and I agree totally. That is why I take part in these debates. When I say enough to make my point I have to get out of it because the trolls will frustrate me too much and it isn't worth my time.

I will never change his mind. If his argument is going to be vague crap like "is one person entitled to the labor of another" you will never change his mind.

One person claims the labor of another in any society. The only way to avoid that is to live on a farm and never interact with other humans.

The bottom line is he isn't unemployed and he isn't on our side. Therefore I have no time for this frustration.

"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.

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.

By the way, I would take your book challenge any day. I read a frickin' lot.

Back to the question I think that what we are witnessing is the assumption that individuals that work with their hands or use physical labor to work are somehow not as important as those that don't possess or use the same skill sets (or fall into those job categories). This is the one place where I think that the “labor movement” is necessary; 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. As for the labor of an individual’s argument when you buy something the labor is rewarded when it is taken or redistributed by the group that wants it but hasn’t earned it that is wrong. When one group can vote themselves the spoils of another group (that is much smaller) then the concept of fairness is purely debatable upon whether you are receiving the spoils or having them taken away from you. Nobody by birthright is entitled to anything, if such an inference was valid (being entitled) then surely the right of the individual to inherit or keep the rewards of labor earned by themselves or said individuals family would be more then equal to just being entitled by being born in the same country……birthright logic works both ways.

"One person claims the labor of another in any society. The only way to avoid that is to live on a farm and never interact with other humans."

In a free society, one person does not claim the labor of another. One person voluntarily trades his labor for goods and services. This is basis of liberty. Each person owns all of his own labor and chooses what to do with it - it is not owed to the collective or owed to a king. The collective does not own you and therefore deserve a portion of your labor - you own yourself.