On June 29 2014 03:03 Cynry wrote: Maybe I misunderstood, but isn't what tank is saying is that we lack proper alternative to capitalism ? And disregarding if that's what he thinks or not, isn't that true so far ?
There is at least one theoretical alternative to capitalism, and that no one in the camp who believes that the economic arrangements are unacceptable in this thread has advocated it is a sign that: 1) capital has won because it has instilled in the mind of those who would resist that the way by which to resist is untenable, and 2) every poster in this thread has the luxury to spend their weekend posting about it and thus isn't actually even in the class of people who would actualize that approach.
On June 29 2014 00:14 urboss wrote: from the interview:
"When I talk about bullshit jobs, I mean, the kind of jobs that even those who work them feel do not really need to exist. A lot of them are made-up middle management, you know, I’m the “East Coast strategic vision coordinator” for some big firm, which basically means you spend all your time at meetings or forming teams that then send reports to one another. Or someone who works in an industry that they feel doesn’t need to exist, like most of the corporate lawyers I know, or telemarketers, or lobbyists…. Just think of when you walk into a hospital, how half the employees never seem to do anything for sick people, but are just filling out insurance forms and sending information to each other. Some of that work obviously does need to be done, but for the most part, everyone working there knows what really needs to get done and that the remaining 90 percent of what they do is bullshit. And then think about the ancillary workers that support people doing the bullshit jobs: here’s an office where people basically translate German formatted paperwork into British formatted paperwork or some such, and there has to be a whole infrastructure of receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people, which are kind of second-order bullshit jobs, they’re actually doing something, but they’re doing it to support people who are doing nothing."
well if this is what 'bullshit' means here then it's rather flimsy. the 'actually important people' may be fulfilling the function of the organization but the surrounding people are also necessary to save time for these people. there are exceptions of organizational inertia etc but largely that's the rationale for creation of these bullshit jobs, to save cognitive resources
I guess you misunderstood the point. Let's say that there are 10 actuaries who do - in the grand scheme of things - useless work. These 10 actuaries need a whole support system to keep them going. They need administrators, receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people etc.. All those people do is to support the people that do useless work. That means, those people's work also becomes useless.
Actuaries are useless work? Wow who knew that the underscoring of risk in modern insurance which enable the British Empire, the Dutch Empire and other great Trade Empires which exploded into the world in the mid 18th century were totally bullshit jobs!
But seriously, how is actuary useless? It is a service in great demand by business, by consumers, by almost everyone who wants to share risk taking. The fact you think actuary is pointless speak volumes.
Nowhere did I say that all actuaries do useless work, far from that. In gave an example of 10 actuaries who do useless work.
You could imagine 10 actuaries that formulate the corporate risk policy for an investment firm. Or in other words, they are pushing papers for a company that pushes papers. All they ever produce is steam. None of what these people do has any tangible value in the grand scheme of things.
These jobs only exist because someone else places value on it. Why does someone place value on it when in fact they produce nothing but steam? Because our economic system nurtures this kind of stuff.
Oh? Who are you to decide which actuaries are doing valuable work and which aren't? Clearly those richly paid actuaries are doing work that is valuable and highly valued by that investment firm. So dismissive. Explain how they "all they ever produce are steam"? You sound like someone repeating something they heard of their father and repeating it.
You want people to do something that has any tangible value in the grand scheme of things? Does the subsistence farmer do anything with tangible value in the grand scheme of things? How about cashiers, shelf stackers, service assistants, waiters, anything to do with the entertainment industry and fashion? How about people who produce chairs and beds? We can all stand up and lie down on the floor right? They don't provide anything of tangible value in the grand scheme of things.
In fact everybody can be described as not doing anything of tangible value in the grand scheme of things. Teachers? No needed for life. What is the value of life anyways? London Tube workers? Who needs them anyways? They only transport people around to their bullshit jobs right? They aren't needed when machines do everything for people for free right? Yeah so bullshit argument is bulshit.
we should try to define capitalism and what parts of it are a problem
WIKIPEDIA
Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits.
i have no problem with that at all, i also dont think any of these things made the problems we face now.
Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labor.
still i see no problem, maybe the competitive markets will be obsolet in the future. but certainly most of the people will work, but maybe less and more the things they really want, rather than bullshit jobs.
In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.
thats the part that cant stay like it is. for me the problem is simply our monetary system. its also the system which was changed quite a bit in the last 100 years. and it is also the part which gets changed right now hopefully into the right direction. in the current system we are slaves to interest rates.
I don't know man, the first sentence of the definition has what I believe is a real issue. "The goal of making profits"
Interest rates ? Profits Delocalisation with shitty work conditions and salaries ? Profits Great ideas, or just necessary ones, like clean energy, not getting enough money ? Profits, or lack of, which isn't desirable in this system.
profit is nothing bad, it just says that you work and get more out of it than you put into it.
the problem we are having now with profit is, that it is money that you have to take away from someone else. that creates the problem, not the wish for profit itself. for example if you would get the money/profit from the state, and the state also could "create" the money, which now only private banks can do as credit, than there would be no problem.
cause what profit is would than be regulated from the state, for example you have to treat your employes good than you get more "profit". or we are short of product X, produce it than you will get more "profit/money".
that would require a complete change of our monetary system, without background what i just said seems stupid.
i just made a quick google and there are many sites and projects out there which describe the problem with money we are having right now.
On June 29 2014 04:13 phil.ipp wrote: profit is nothing bad, it just says that you work and get more out of it than you put into it.
the problem we are having now with profit is, that it is money that you have to take away from someone else. that creates the problem, not the wish for profit itself. for example if you would get the money/profit from the state, and the state also could "create" the money, which now only private banks can do as credit, than there would be no problem.
cause what profit is would than be regulated from the state, for example you have to treat your employes good than you get more "profit". or we are short of product X, produce it than you will get more "profit/money".
that would require a complete change of our monetary system, without background what i just said seems stupid.
i just made a quick google and there are many sites and projects out there which describe the problem with money we are having right now.
There's 7 billion people in the world. Many jobs aren't really necessary, and tonnes of them are indeed bullshit. But people have to eat and need a place to sleep. Many people, i.e. priests, are very thankful bullshit jobs exist. And in reality everyone should be glad they exist because they raise the standard of living.
On June 29 2014 04:30 RvB wrote: Central banks regulate money supply not private banks.
that is not the problem, it is not the problem WHO supplys the money, this is not a rant about evil banks
the problem is how the money is created, every dollar that is created is a dollar debt, banks charge interest which leads to even more money created -> which is again more debt -> which creates again interest.
it is as silly as it sounds an accounting problem. money should not be created as debt in the books of the bank, and there should be no interest.
now you get inflation, deflation all kind of problems that brings this kind of money creation. all not really necessary if you dont creat money as debt.
On June 29 2014 04:13 ROOTiaguz wrote: I suppose it'd be unkind of me to bring up the fact this is an e-sports community website and we're discussing jobs that don't really matter.
Carry on people.
Culture is generally acceptable - but yes, it can be questionable.
Regarding the actuaries argument: What if the funding the investors did, was crowd funded instead? Then no actuaries would have to make a market assessment for the company, since the market already had it's say in the matter!
Also dear fellows who also sit at home and don't do much about it: This idea is only a part of what'd be required for a new world order. Alongside it may be things like basic income, general knowledge of programming, a stronger individual mindfulness and education, and much else. For example, for good ideas to be crowdfunded, the individual needs to be able to assess the ideas themselves(mindfulness and education), and the good idea needs to be executed in a good way (programming and education).
We have an "on call manager" at our A&E department. When the department is busy, he stands in the way of everyone and occasionally slows people down by asking "what are you doing or what do you need help with?" when it feels like physically getting in the way is not enough.
Of course he can't actually do anything you need help with, because he doesn't know anything about delivering healthcare or how to do other peoples jobs. If they hired an extra person to actually help with work during those periods it'd be better.
I think they spend they day trying to explain why some days in A&E are busier than others and then fail to implement any plans to deal with it.
That's one of those "bullshit jobs" - which I like to define as "if this guy died in the middle of the day, workflow would actually remain unchanged".
I think "hint: if someone is willing to pay for it then it apparently isn't a bullshit job in the current system, you just don't like it" doesn't always justify a job since I think a lot of these jobs have sprung up from managers trying to make things better, because if they don't make any change then they can't justify their own jobs.
On June 29 2014 03:44 Cynry wrote: Ok so I'm actually gonna ask. Someone has some links to alternatives detailed ? I'm interested... Edit : can be done by PM, as it's off topic
One possibility would be the downsizing of the current economic system and the establishment of a steady state economy. I'm pretty convinced that this is the model of the future. However, the economic systems will have to crash a couple more times until the world realizes it.
"The increase of wealth is not boundless. The end of growth leads to a stationary state. The stationary state of capital and wealth… would be a very considerable improvement on our present condition." - John Stuart Mill
On June 29 2014 03:03 Cynry wrote: Maybe I misunderstood, but isn't what tank is saying is that we lack proper alternative to capitalism ? And disregarding if that's what he thinks or not, isn't that true so far ?
dealing in this kind of grand ideological labels is just unproductive. le world historic thinkers of glorious europe playing god with their constructed systems battling it out. it doesn't have to be capitalism vs something else, just deal with smaller parts.
once you do that there'll be lots of room for change.
On June 29 2014 03:44 Cynry wrote: Ok so I'm actually gonna ask. Someone has some links to alternatives detailed ? I'm interested... Edit : can be done by PM, as it's off topic
One possibility would be the downsizing of the current economic system and the establishment of a steady state economy. I'm pretty convinced that this is the model of the future. However, the economic systems will have to crash a couple more times until the world realizes it.
"The increase of wealth is not boundless. The end of growth leads to a stationary state. The stationary state of capital and wealth… would be a very considerable improvement on our present condition." - John Stuart Mill
I think when you're talking about "downsizing the current economic system" you don't actually grasp how big that system actually is. None of us do. Not even the top tier economics. It's too big to comprehend, just like imagining 7 billion people in one place, it just can't be pathomed. I agree stuff has to be reformed aswell but globalization and clogging up this already complex system with more and more rules and administration just makes this infinitely more complex to deal with.
I think we're in some kind of slippery slope where the entire system is going to crash down within maximally a generation or two (wether it be from some politcal, economical or environmental cue) and we will have to hard reset everything. Maybe this is an idealistic viewpoint but I certainly hope some kind of negative spiral gets so out of control that some parties will finally have to realize their certain bullshit just can't be happening any longer (data mining for marketing purposes for example)
1. I don't even know what people are talking about when they talk about 'Capitalism', and I suspect they don't either. As far as I can tell, it's just used as a negative 'non-system'. I don't know what there is to be gained in a discussion of Capitalism (and the inevitable comparison to other economic systems) that wouldn't be subsumed by a discussion of Liberalism and it's alternatives.
2. When Modernity has destroyed all other public institutions (and the subsequent withering of private ones), of course they are going to be dissatisfied with their jobs because they are told that is all they are.
On June 29 2014 04:43 urboss wrote: I know this can be difficult to understand, so I created an image:
Well, actually from your picture one could interpret that what the bullshit jobs are doing is keeping this shit together. Wait, that's probably what they're for... I'm not a big fan of those areas of work either (I wouldn't want to work there), but it seems too easy to dismiss the amount of work that goes into all of these as just "producing steam" as someone else said.
That being said, in France's public administration (civil servants and all that), you can't really fire someone so you usually keep them around, doing a job which is for all intents and purposes useless. You don't give them real cases to handle, problem solving or decision making tasks, just papers to read and sign (there are always a lot of those) and it keeps them busy. This is nothing against people that end up in those positions, btw, just against how the system works.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cIVmala.png)
