The Job Problem
posted by dennisn on October 15th, 2004 at 3:51PM
posted by dennisn on October 15th, 2004 at 3:51PM
Here it is. There are not enough jobs for everyone. Morever, there is no reason to expect there to be, since technology is ever-rapidly making things more efficient. The result is a sudden explosion of useless jobs, which are paying the same, or more than their useful counterparts. This amounts to nothing less than criminal fraud. The sole fact that farmers make less than telemarketers (or managers, etc, etc) is enough to prove that at present the useless jobs outnumber the useful ones -- since the majority are "in on it (the scheme)", and prefer to keep their dirty little secret silent.This problem was even addressed in the third presidential "debate" -- the lack of jobs. And, not surprisingly, no solution was given -- unless you consider bush's "ensure the kids can read, add and subtract" or kerry's "i can't guarantee anything, i can only try to help", serious solutions.
No. Nothing short of an overhaul of this vapid capitalism will suffice. And, unless you are a gimp, you surely have noticed that the system is already beginning to crumble. Plea after plea for more blind consumerism is being heard, in a futil attempt to keep "the wheel turning". No. It's a sinking ship.
The logical solution is to eliminate the farce -- the useless jobs -- and spread the useful jobs in some manner on the shoulders of the entire population. I remember helping make marmelade .. which entailed no less than 8 hours of continuous mixing of a boiling (and scalding and erupting) cauldron. But, with an "ingenious" rotation scheme, in which about 4 of us rotated work shifts, it ended up happening that I only needed to contribute a measly 1 hr, to receive 8 hrs worth of delicious jam.
People. Think!
No. Nothing short of an overhaul of this vapid capitalism will suffice. And, unless you are a gimp, you surely have noticed that the system is already beginning to crumble. Plea after plea for more blind consumerism is being heard, in a futil attempt to keep "the wheel turning". No. It's a sinking ship.
The logical solution is to eliminate the farce -- the useless jobs -- and spread the useful jobs in some manner on the shoulders of the entire population. I remember helping make marmelade .. which entailed no less than 8 hours of continuous mixing of a boiling (and scalding and erupting) cauldron. But, with an "ingenious" rotation scheme, in which about 4 of us rotated work shifts, it ended up happening that I only needed to contribute a measly 1 hr, to receive 8 hrs worth of delicious jam.
People. Think!
|
Re: The Job Problem
posted by dsk on October 16th, 2004 at 12:03AM /
There are not enough jobs for everyone. Morever, there is no reason to expect there to be, since technology is ever-rapidly making things more efficien / Oh yeah? Go back 50 years and try to explain what a "Web Developer" is to an average Joe. Every technological advancement brings with it a whole slew of jobs which didn't exist before.. How many jobs were created after the net exploded on the market in early-mid 90s? What about after PCs in 80s? What technology does is eliminate the menial and tedious jobs... I mean shit, if your job is replacable by a machine that does the same thing over and over again, how fulfilling can it possibly be? / The sole fact that farmers make less than telemarketers (or managers, etc, etc) is enough to prove that at present the useless jobs outnumber the useful one / I had a similar argument with my manager.. He was wondering why hockey players make more than doctors. The answer is simple.. because out of 300 million people in N.America only around 1000 can play in the NHL, while several million can be doctors. Taking it to the extreme, if everyone was a doctor.. any "professional doctor" would command a salary of $0. Why? Being able to save-lives is an important and useful skill? right? Yes, but there would be no *need* for it.. why pay for a doctor when you can heal yourself? Another simple answer is that hockey players make more because someone out there is willing to pay them that much. Farmers make little money (they are heavily subsidized by the government btw) because frankly, we have way more food than we need. Technological advancement has really really really improved our food producing capabilites. In this day-and-age one farmer can produce as much food as twenty a century ago. We don't need as many farmers as we have, we've got too much food! / since the majority are "in on it (the scheme)", and prefer to keep their dirty little secret silent. / The farmers or the telemarketers? / No. Nothing short of an overhaul of this vapid capitalism will suffice. And, unless you are a gimp, you surely have noticed that the system is already beginning to crumble. / Yep.. but it is the socialist side that destroys it. Capitalism gets blamed for a lot of things which are easily tracable to government intervention or regulation. I mean shit.. a Corporation wouldn't even exist under a capitalistic system.. WHy? Because a corporation is an organization with extra super powers granted to it by the government (limited liabilty). Capitalism says thats a "no-no". A corporation under a capitalist system would have no more rights than your grandmother's Sowing Circle / The logical solution is to eliminate the farce -- the useless jobs / You *can* do that, but not without becoming a totalitarian fuck. / remember helping make marmelade .. which entailed no less than 8 hours of continuous mixing of a boiling (and scalding and erupting) cauldron. But, with an "ingenious" rotation scheme, in which about 4 of us rotated work shifts, it ended up happening that I only needed to contribute a measly 1 hr, to receive 8 hrs worth of delicious jam. / 1 Making marmelade is a useless job... 2 The fact that *you* contributed 1 hour of work towards the marmalade doesn't preclude the fact that it still took a collective 8 hours to make. You could have contributed 0 hours to receive 8hrs worth of jam, just by letting your family do all the work. </ol> If there are 4 people, and 4 jobs, and each job takes 8 hours each; there is no "ingenious" solution (barring some technological advancements) that'll miraculously let you complete all 4 jobs with less than 8 hours of work contributed by each person. |
