Personally, I don't think 5G will get the traction that the pundits
are proclaiming.
There are still many concerns as to the long-term effects of 24/7
exposure.
For your note, I am not a 5G advocate. I was merely indicating that 5G
is being rolled out very aggressively in Europe, USA and Asia, and it
WILL be the predominent cell signal in the very near future.
I am aware of the concerns, however these concerns --genuine or not--
are being dismissed as "conspiracy theory" and are not being taken seriously be the establishement. Government regulaters are not
interested in evidence to the contrary...
Rolled out aggressively to capitalize on manufacturing and installation contracts. Speed is of the essence. But when 5G proves to be problematic to our health, the initial profits will have already been made.
The following book is very interesting:
The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life | Paperback
Arthur Firstenberg
Andeddu wrote to Ogg <=-
Re: 5G
By: Ogg to Andeddu on Wed Jul 29 2020 07:35 pm
Rolled out aggressively to capitalize on manufacturing and installation contracts. Speed is of the essence. But when 5G proves to be problematic to our health, the initial profits will have already been made.
The following book is very interesting:
The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life | Paperback
Arthur Firstenberg
5G is the basis of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Speed isn't the
aim as connections are fast enough, it's additional bandwidth that's required. Everything you interact with WILL be connected to the
internet as part of a system known as the "internet of things". This
new network is going to require a colossal amount of data to be transferred due to home, building and industrial automation.
Ogg wrote to Andeddu <=-
For your note, I am not a 5G advocate. I was merely indicating that 5G
is being rolled out very aggressively in Europe, USA and Asia, and it
WILL be the predominent cell signal in the very near future.
Rolled out aggressively to capitalize on manufacturing and installation contracts. Speed is of the essence. But when 5G proves to be
problematic to our health, the initial profits will have already been made.
It makes for some interesting conspiracy theories. I've heard 5G
signals cause Covid-19, or that it's part of a mind-control
conspiracy along with mask wearing to desensitize and de-humanize
society.
5G is the basis of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Speed isn't the aim as connections are fast enough, it's additional bandwidth that's required. Everything you interact with WILL be connected to the internet as part of a system known as the "internet of things". This new network is going to require a colossal amount of data to be transferred due to home, building and industrial automation.
There is no fourth industrial revolution. You can't replace industry with apps.
There is. Around 50% of current jobs are going to be fully automated by 2030 leaving much of the population unemployed. This is why Universal Basic Income is being discussed so much now in congress. I have spoken to
There is. Around 50% of current jobs are going to be fully automated
by 2030 leaving much of the population unemployed. This is why
Universal Basic Income is being discussed so much now in congress. I
have spoken to
they've been saying that every decade since i've been an adult. it hasnt even come close to happening.
they've been saying that every decade since i've been an adult. itIn the past few years, I've been hearing stories about fast food restaurants becoming automated. With the recent debates about minimum wage
hasnt even come close to happening.
Re: Re: 5G
By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Thu Jul 30 2020 05:39 pm
There is. Around 50% of current jobs are going to be fully automated by 2030 leaving much of the population unemployed. This is why Universal Basic Income is being discussed so much now in congress. I have spoken
they've been saying that every decade since i've been an adult. it hasnt eve
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: 5G
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Jul 30 2020 09:21 pm
5G is the basis of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Speed isn't the aim as connections are fast enough, it's additional bandwidth that's required. Everything you interact with WILL be connected to the internet as part of a system known as the "internet of things". This new network is going to require a colossal amount of data to be transferred due to home, building and industrial automation.
There is no fourth industrial revolution. You can't replace industry with apps.
There is. Around 50% of current jobs are going to be fully automated by 2030 leaving much of the population unemployed. This is why Universal Basic Income is being discussed so much now in congress. I have spoken
to farmers who are very aware they'll be out of business soon due to high-rise automated hydroponic farms. Driverless vehicles will be the
norm in 5-10 years, killing the haulage industry. Almost all production wil be carried out autonomously with nothing more than a few human supervisors overseeing production.
You can't replace industry with apps, but you can replace humans with
AI.
Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
Re: Re: 5G
By: MRO to Andeddu on Thu Jul 30 2020 05:17 pm
There is. Around 50% of current jobs are going to be fully automated
by 2030 leaving much of the population unemployed. This is why
Universal Basic Income is being discussed so much now in congress. I
have spoken to
they've been saying that every decade since i've been an adult. it hasnt even come close to happening.
In the past few years, I've been hearing stories about fast food restaurants becoming automated. With the recent debates about minimum wage increasing to $15/hour and such, there has been even more talk of that. McDonalds now has kiosks in some locations where you can place
an order, so a human teller isn't always needed. I've been hearing
about fast food places considering more automation with machines that might also prepare the food.
Imagine if McDonalds, Burger King, Arbys, Hardees, and Wendy's all became partially automated? You're looking at up to 25 million entry level employees
being displaced.
On 07-30-20 08:27, poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Ogg <=-
It makes for some interesting conspiracy theories. I've heard 5G
signals cause Covid-19, or that it's part of a mind-control
conspiracy along with mask wearing to desensitize and de-humanize
society.
On 07-30-20 21:36, Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
In the past few years, I've been hearing stories about fast food restaurants becoming automated. With the recent debates about minimum wage increasing to $15/hour and such, there has been even more talk of that. McDonalds now has kiosks in some locations where you can place
an order, so a human teller isn't always needed. I've been hearing
about fast food places considering more automation with machines that might also prepare the food.
Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
they've been saying that every decade since i've been an adult. it hasnt even come close to happening.
In the past few years, I've been hearing stories about fast food restaurants becoming automated. With the recent debates about minimum wage increasing to $15/hour and such, there has been even more talk of that. McDonalds now has kiosks in some locations where you can place
an order, so a human teller isn't always needed. I've been hearing
about fast food places considering more automation with machines that might also prepare the food.
I rarely go to McDonalds, vut everyone I have been to over the past few years down here has had the self serve kiosks for the ordering. The only time I interact with the staff is to pick up my order at the counter. I like the kiosks, because they make customising the order much easier than trying to explain it to the person at the register, or even knowing that they'll make those changes, in the first place.
You can't replace industry with apps, but you can replace humans with AI.
We've had kiosks at McDonalds here for a while now, plus the mobile app. I stopped eating at McDonalds for a while due to poor service, but I decided to give them a try again.
For my first visit, I placed an order via the mobile app. I was pleasantly surprised to see that I could place a dine-in order, as I prefer to eat at the restaurant. So, I did that, and I went inside and waited at the area marked for picking up mobile orders. After quite some time I asked the expeditor about my order, and she apologized, stating that they normally get the mobile order pickups at the drive-thru. She said this while standing under the mobile pick-up sign and with my receipt clearly marked dine-in.
...
Ennev wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I fell it's the same stories we head with the introduction of cell
phone originally, when 2g was introduced 3g etc etc.
5G re-introduce the 600-700 mhz frequency, that could be very cool for service in remote area, it also uses the 2.5-3.7 ghz spectrum, nothing
new here it's already in use by 4g and wifi.
the novelty is the 25-39 GHz which is impressive technically. But it's short rage and line of sight, I sheet of paper probably block that
signal :-D but it will only be available in major center in downtowns
etc only because you almost need a transponder every few feet.
For being programmed and dehumanized? Already done :-)
I look around here on sidewalks and it's all zombies walking around not looking where the go but looking at theirs phones. Even on bikes!
They don't eat brain, they just need a signal and a charged battery.
And it's shear panic when one of both are gone.
---
Synchronet MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal -
http://mtlgeek.com/ -
Imagine if McDonalds, Burger King, Arbys, Hardees, and Wendy's all became partially automated? You're looking at up to 25 million entry level employees being displaced.
I like the kiosks, but I found that they are still lacking in some things, like accepting some promotional offers (and maybe coupons too?). I worked
too bad we don't have (real) AI today... not even a close approximation ;)
That's true. I wonder how long it would take for the market to adjust and other entry-level jobs to become available.
Heck, Covid lockdowns give us an insight into how many current jobs are just redundant or unneccesary, and you'd better believe bean counters are going to take notice.
they've been saying that every decade since i've been an adult. it hasnt even come close to happening.
We have had a lot of automation, yet unemployment remained low. Why? I think the system creates jobs to fill the gaps. Much manufacturing has gone offshore, and for what is remaining, the administrative burden has increased. More administrators, regulators, analysts, and so on. These jobs can't really be automated, and there isn't much desire to do so, from what I've seen. There are many retail jobs, more hospitality jobs, etc. These are still 'physical' jobs. If manufacturing is more efficient, consumption will increase.
The amount of labour to produce physical goods has decreased, but I think there will be a floor.
For there to be automation, Capitalism would have to go, because we can't have most people unemployed. In reality, our system needs everyone to be employed, and I think work will grow to meet that demand.
too bad we don't have (real) AI today... not even a close approximation ;)
That's true. I wonder how long it would take for the market to adjust and other entry-level jobs to become available.
Nightfox
increasing to $15/hour and such, there has been even more talk of that. McDonalds now has kiosks in some locations where you can place an order, so a human teller isn't always needed. I've been hearing about fast food places considering more automation with machines that might also prepare the food.
Re: Re: 5G
By: MRO to Andeddu on Thu Jul 30 2020 05:17 pm
they've been saying that every decade since i've been an adult. it
hasnt even come close to happening.
The technology now exists so you'd best be sure it's happening this decade, my man!
That's true. I wonder how long it would take for the market to adjust
and other entry-level jobs to become available.
But where would those jobs come from? We don't see a lot of innnovation
these days so I believe there will be an excess unemployed and unemployable workforce. People like Andrew Yang and Elon Musk talk about this kind of thing all the time. You can only innovate for so long until robotics in conjunction with AI is able to take over wholesale, leaving nothing left for us humans. This is why UBI is such a serious matter... they're talking about it seriously in the UK now. Captains of industry can't see past AI automation.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: 5G
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Fri Jul 31 2020 08:07 pm
We have had a lot of automation, yet unemployment remained low. Why? I think the system creates jobs to fill the gaps. Much manufacturing has gone offshore, and for what is remaining, the administrative burden has increased. More administrators, regulators, analysts, and so on. These jobs can't really be automated, and there isn't much desire to do so, from what I've seen. There are many retail jobs, more hospitality jobs, etc. These are still 'physical' jobs. If manufacturing is more efficient, consumption will increase.
The amount of labour to produce physical goods has decreased, but I think there will be a floor.
For there to be automation, Capitalism would have to go, because we can't have most people unemployed. In reality, our system needs everyone to be employed, and I think work will grow to meet that demand.
Automation is the end of employment for most people. Where can we go
once unskilled labour is no longer required? When farms, shops,
industry, banking, etc... is unmanned, what can a human do AI can't?
We really are on the cusp of the Fourth Industrial Revolution... the coronavirus and the subsequent shutdown has resulted in a huge number
of low-mid cap companies permanantly shutting down. Once the furlough ends, we will see the true scale of unemployment. And once we exceed 50 percent unemployment, a decimated GPD along with the credit, mortgage, national debt and stock market bubbles bursting, not to mention
un-funded liabilities such as the pension time bomb, we'll have a very real problem on our hands.
As the economic gears slow down and quantitative easing begins to fail, credit will be hard to come across... entrepreneurs will not be able to start new businesses in an attempt to rebuild and all we'll have left
will be a few large corporate monopolies who will themselves usher in
the era of mass automation.
On 07-31-20 09:02, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I like the kiosks, but I found that they are still lacking in some
things, like accepting some promotional offers (and maybe coupons
Dreamer wrote to Nightfox <=-
My second visit, I decided to try the kiosk. I don't recall where I
read it, probably on the website, but McDonalds is supposed to be
offering table-side service. You place your order, and they bring it to you. The kiosks are clearly designed to facilitate this. So, I order, select dine-in, and enter my table-tent number.
that the printer isn't printing, so I don't get my receipt. No biggie
-- I sit down, set up my computer, and start studying while waiting for
my food. I notice an older couple a couple seats in front of me. The gentleman is almost arguing with the cashier over how to count back change. Apparently, the cashier pushed the wrong button on the
register. A few moments later, the expeditor calls an order number.
After the third time, the couple realizes it's their order, and the
woman hobbles over to pick up their food.
About twenty minutes later, I realize I hadn't gotten my food yet.
While I eat my food, I wonder how many times they called my order
number. Since I never got a receipt, I wouldn't have known what it was.
A week after, I ordered once more, thinking it was just a bad night. I
use the same kiosk. The printer is still broken. I point it out to the cashier, and they seem to have not known about it. Overall, the
experience is the same.
Every time I've eaten at McDonalds for the past ten years, the dining
room has been mostly empty. Prices are not the reason restaurants are closing. There are restaurants paying above minimum wage that cost
more, and they are doing just fine. They're the ones providing good service. And they are staffed by young and old alike. I used to work
for McDonalds among many other restaurants. The McDonalds I worked for
was an excellent franchisee who paid above minimum wages, implemented
an excellent training program, and was not scared to disclipline and
fire people. The local McDonalds seems to be chronically understaffed
(I was an assistant manager at the other franchise, and I know the
proper staffing for a restaurant) at night, and from the quality of the staffing I can guarantee the crew and managers are either not paid
well, or the upper management doesn't care.
Years ago, the local Church's Chicken was the same way. We started out
as part of corporate. We had above minimum wage pay, and good benefits.
We had a good training program, and we maintained our standards. Once
the local market was sold to a franchisee, things went south. In fact, I've started visiting my old store again, and I timed the orders. It
takes about ten minutes during lunch to receive an order. The standard
was three minutes, and we used to do it in under two. Dinner is a nightmare to watch, though. The restaurant used to break sales records, and received an expensive upgrade to a new system. The old system could comfortably hot-hold 15 head of chicken for 30 minutes. Our new system could hold 50 head of chicken for over an hour. And, we used the hell
out of it on weekend nights. The most important part of the system, an oven designed to hot-hold the chicken without drying it out, is now broken. It's weird to watch how slow everyone moves now, and to only
see one or two stoves of chicken cooking at a time. I seriously want to see their sales figures everytime I'm there.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
Synchronet Beaumont Software Dev -
bbs.beaumont.software
Andeddu wrote to Nightfox <=-
That's true. I wonder how long it would take for the market to adjust and other entry-level jobs to become available.
Nightfox
But where would those jobs come from? We don't see a lot of innnovation these days so I believe there will be an excess unemployed and unemployable workforce.
about this kind of thing all the time. You can only innovate for so
long until robotics in conjunction with AI is able to take over
wholesale, leaving nothing left for us humans. This is why UBI is such
a serious matter... they're talking about it seriously in the UK now. Captains of industry can't see past AI automation.
---
Synchronet BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC,
PPC and PCW!
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
We really are on the cusp of the Fourth Industrial Revolution... the coronavirus and the subsequent shutdown has resulted in a huge number
of low-mid cap companies permanantly shutting down. Once the furlough ends, we will see the true scale of unemployment. And once we exceed 50 percent unemployment, a decimated GPD along with the credit, mortgage, national debt and stock market bubbles bursting, not to mention
un-funded liabilities such as the pension time bomb, we'll have a very real problem on our hands.
As the economic gears slow down and quantitative easing begins to fail, credit will be hard to come across... entrepreneurs will not be able to start new businesses in an attempt to rebuild and all we'll have left
will be a few large corporate monopolies who will themselves usher in
the era of mass automation.
they have also been talking about flippy the burger flipping robot for decades.
That's a bit of an unknown right now. But the automated food preparation machines etc. would need maintenance, so perhaps fast food places will still need to hire some people to maintain those.
That's a concern, but it still seems like theory right now. I don't think we would have to let AI totally take over and become self-aware and all that.
Nightfox
In 10 years, I'm sure there'll be a burger 3d printer, a row of kiosks, a manager, and an assistant to change printer paper and fat cartridges.
Automation will require maintenence so there will be jobs. But that just means they'll replace 98-99% of jobs, rather than 100% due to maintenence
That is the government shut down doing this, creating an economic catastrophe, not the fourth revolution.
The reason I am skeptical is because in the past we have seen the types of jobs change, but new jobs are always created. We have a consumption based economy, that is what drives everything. Consumption drives creation, and if creation is easier, then consumption can increase further. I don't believe there will be 'slack' in the economy. If people are not working because they don't have to work, then we can ratchet consumption up further.
So yes, many things will be automated, and wealth will result, but that wealth will be turned into more consumption. The fast food industry is a good example. We have more and more fast food places, and now they deliver everything. All places. I can get Mc Donalds delivered, pizza delivered, any food from any restaurant delivered. There are more and more places popping up.
Or take toys. There is ton load more of plastic bits of crap created to sell to children. For business, automation means you can create twice the product per unit of labour, which means you have to sell twice as much. And keep in mind, people used to predict shorter working hours in the past, but they didn't shorten. They stayed the same, or got longer, with less and less wealth going to people.
What will finally result in employment dropping permanently, and a permanent reduction in the need of employment, is when we hit the limit of what we can consume.
That's where the gig economy comes in - someone has to drive those
burgers to the people who order them online.
The pandemic sort of killed the news cycle covering the ruling that
gig workers should be paid benefits. Wonder when that'll pick up
again?
I'd hate to be an Uber driver right now, but not wanting to ride
public transit might boost ride miles.
When things do open up, the roads around me are going to be clogged.
I'm sure no one is going to want to get into a bus line that was
notably grimy before this all happened.
Re: Re: 5G
By: MRO to Nightfox on Fri Jul 31 2020 10:05 pm
they have also been talking about flippy the burger flipping robot for
decades.
They were talking about commercial aircrafts, cross continent communication and home computers too...
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Sat Aug 01 2020 07:20 pm
That is the government shut down doing this, creating an economic catastrophe, not the fourth revolution.
The reason I am skeptical is because in the past we have seen the types of jobs change, but new jobs are always created. We have a consumption based economy, that is what drives everything. Consumption drives creation, and if creation is easier, then consumption can increase further. I don't believe there will be 'slack' in the economy. If people are not working because they don't have to work, then we can ratchet consumption up further.
So yes, many things will be automated, and wealth will result, but that wealth will be turned into more consumption. The fast food industry is a good example. We have more and more fast food places, and now they deliver everything. All places. I can get Mc Donalds delivered, pizza delivered, any food from any restaurant delivered. There are more and more places popping up.
Or take toys. There is ton load more of plastic bits of crap created to sell to children. For business, automation means you can create twice the product per unit of labour, which means you have to sell twice as much. And keep in mind, people used to predict shorter working hours in the past, but they didn't shorten. They stayed the same, or got longer, with less and less wealth going to people.
What will finally result in employment dropping permanently, and a permanent reduction in the need of employment, is when we hit the limit of what we can consume.
I agree that the coming ecomomic collapse is goverment created, it's
not a side effect of the automation to come. The chickens are coming
home to roost after decades of financial mismanagement -- so the
shutdown is a mere catalyst, not technically the cause.
The USA has a consumption based economy, which is fine. The issue is
that the USA does not produce much of what it consumes. In 1950, the manufacturing sector consisted of 40% of the workforce. It now employs less than 8%. The reason America can import cheap consumer goods is due
to the strength of the US dollar (the world reserve currency). Once the purchasing power of the US dollar drops, due to the excessive
quantitative easing caused by a dire decrease in tax revenue AND the additional expenses involved in the furlough scheme, imported goods are going to cost a lot more. The US has actually been exporting its
inflation all these years by flooding the global market with dollars... and once trust in the dollar slowly evaporates, the US will find it difficult to maintain its grip on the world economy.
I think at this point, major corporations will look at AI automation as the quick fix... they'll employ cheap labour to begin with, but eventually, those jobs will be replaced with something far more cheaper and reliable.
The USA has a consumption based economy, which is fine. The issue is that the USA does not produce much of what it consumes. In 1950, the manufacturing sector consisted of 40% of the workforce. It now employs less than 8%.
The reason America can import cheap consumer goods is due to
the strength of the US dollar (the world reserve currency). Once the purchasing power of the US dollar drops, due to the excessive quantitative easing caused by a dire decrease in tax revenue AND the additional expenses involved in the furlough scheme, imported goods are going to cost a lot more. The US has actually been exporting its inflation all these years by flooding the global market with dollars... and once trust in the
This new industrial paradigm will see us past capitalism and towards a new resource based economy.
Dreamer wrote to Nightfox <=-
My second visit, I decided to try the kiosk. I don't recall where I read it, probably on the website, but McDonalds is supposed to be offering table-side service. You place your order, and they bring it to you. The kiosks are clearly designed to facilitate this. So, I order, select dine-in, and enter my table-tent number.
The training seems inconsistent. I've had my kiosk order delivered to
me at some McDonalds, at another they yell the number on your
table-tent and expect you to come pick it up. I'm fine with that, but
why give me a number to put on my table?
It's a little odd that you order a specific drink at the kiosk, then
they give you an empty cup to fill at those touch-screen soda
machines. I wouldn't expect them to make my "4 parts diet coke, 2
parts orange crush, 1 part diet sprite", anyways.
Then again, if my company was downsizing me, I wouldn't be too
thrilled. It'd be nice if they ended up with kiosks and a handful of
engaged workers paid a decent wage with some sort of career
escalation path, instead of waiting to train customers to use the
next wave of automation that'll make their position redundant.
In 10 years, I'm sure there'll be a burger 3d printer, a row of kiosks, a
manager, and an assistant to change printer paper and fat cartridges.
Imagine my surprise
that the printer isn't printing, so I don't get my receipt. No biggie -- I sit down, set up my computer, and start studying while waiting for my food. I notice an older couple a couple seats in front of me. The gentleman is almost arguing with the cashier over how to count back change. Apparently, the cashier pushed the wrong button on the register. A few moments later, the expeditor calls an order number. After the third time, the couple realizes it's their order, and the woman hobbles over to pick up their food.
About twenty minutes later, I realize I hadn't gotten my food yet. While I eat my food, I wonder how many times they called my order number. Since I never got a receipt, I wouldn't have known what it was.
A week after, I ordered once more, thinking it was just a bad night. I use the same kiosk. The printer is still broken. I point it out to the cashier, and they seem to have not known about it. Overall, the experience is the same.
Every time I've eaten at McDonalds for the past ten years, the dining room has been mostly empty. Prices are not the reason restaurants are closing. There are restaurants paying above minimum wage that cost more, and they are doing just fine. They're the ones providing good service. And they are staffed by young and old alike. I used to work for McDonalds among many other restaurants. The McDonalds I worked for was an excellent franchisee who paid above minimum wages, implemented an excellent training program, and was not scared to disclipline and fire people. The local McDonalds seems to be chronically understaffed (I was an assistant manager at the other franchise, and I know the proper staffing for a restaurant) at night, and from the quality of the staffing I can guarantee the crew and managers are either not paid well, or the upper management doesn't care.
Years ago, the local Church's Chicken was the same way. We started out as part of corporate. We had above minimum wage pay, and good benefits. We had a good training program, and we maintained our standards. Once the local market was sold to a franchisee, things went south. In fact, I've started visiting my old store again, and I timed the orders. It takes about ten minutes during lunch to receive an order. The standard was three minutes, and we used to do it in under two. Dinner is a nightmare to watch, though. The restaurant used to break sales records, and received an expensive upgrade to a new system. The old system could comfortably hot-hold 15 head of chicken for 30 minutes. Our new system could hold 50 head of chicken for over an hour. And, we used the hell out of it on weekend nights. The most important part of the system, an oven designed to hot-hold the chicken without drying it out, is now broken. It's weird to watch how slow everyone moves now, and to only see one or two stoves of chicken cooking at a time. I seriously want to see their sales figures everytime I'm there.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
Synchronet Beaumont Software Dev -
bbs.beaumont.software
... All those updates, and still imperfect!
Andeddu wrote to Nightfox <=-
That's true. I wonder how long it would take for the market to adjust an other entry-level jobs to become available.
Nightfox
But where would those jobs come from? We don't see a lot of innnovation these days so I believe there will be an excess unemployed and unemployable workforce.
That's where the gig economy comes in - someone has to drive those
burgers to the people who order them online.
The pandemic sort of killed the news cycle covering the ruling that
gig workers should be paid benefits. Wonder when that'll pick up
again?
I'd hate to be an Uber driver right now, but not wanting to ride
public transit might boost ride miles.
When things do open up, the roads around me are going to be clogged.
I'm sure no one is going to want to get into a bus line that was
notably grimy before this all happened.
People like Andrew Yang and Elon Musk talk
about this kind of thing all the time. You can only innovate for so long until robotics in conjunction with AI is able to take over wholesale, leaving nothing left for us humans. This is why UBI is such a serious matter... they're talking about it seriously in the UK now. Captains of industry can't see past AI automation.
---
Synchronet BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC,
PPC and PCW!
... Feed the recording back out of the medium
Automation will require maintenence so there will be jobs. But that just mea they'll replace 98-99% of jobs, rather than 100% due to maintenence position Before long these there will be AI maintenece machines carrying out most of run of the mill repairs on broken machines, it's a downward spiral.
It's not about us "letting" AI take over. We humans are not particularly productive in a time where industrial machines are able to produce a lot mor widgets at all hours of the day with a level of anatomical specificity we co only dream of. We've been told that this decade will begin the push towards automation, and it will continue far into the latter half of the century. Th new industrial paradigm will see us past capitalism and towards a new resour based economy.
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Sat Aug 01 2020 07:20 pm
That is the government shut down doing this, creating an economic catastrophe, not the fourth revolution.
The reason I am skeptical is because in the past we have seen the types o jobs change, but new jobs are always created. We have a consumption base economy, that is what drives everything. Consumption drives creation, an if creation is easier, then consumption can increase further. I don't believe there will be 'slack' in the economy. If people are not working because they don't have to work, then we can ratchet consumption up furth
So yes, many things will be automated, and wealth will result, but that wealth will be turned into more consumption. The fast food industry is a good example. We have more and more fast food places, and now they deliv everything. All places. I can get Mc Donalds delivered, pizza delivered, any food from any restaurant delivered. There are more and more places popping up.
Or take toys. There is ton load more of plastic bits of crap created to sell to children. For business, automation means you can create twice t product per unit of labour, which means you have to sell twice as much. keep in mind, people used to predict shorter working hours in the past, b they didn't shorten. They stayed the same, or got longer, with less and less wealth going to people.
What will finally result in employment dropping permanently, and a perman reduction in the need of employment, is when we hit the limit of what we consume.
I agree that the coming ecomomic collapse is goverment created, it's not a s effect of the automation to come. The chickens are coming home to roost afte decades of financial mismanagement -- so the shutdown is a mere catalyst, no technically the cause.
The USA has a consumption based economy, which is fine. The issue is that th USA does not produce much of what it consumes. In 1950, the manufacturing sector consisted of 40% of the workforce. It now employs less than 8%. The reason America can import cheap consumer goods is due to the strength of the dollar (the world reserve currency). Once the purchasing power of the US dol drops, due to the excessive quantitative easing caused by a dire decrease in tax revenue AND the additional expenses involved in the furlough scheme, imported goods are going to cost a lot more. The US has actually been export its inflation all these years by flooding the global market with dollars... once trust in the dollar slowly evaporates, the US will find it difficult to maintain its grip on the world economy.
I think at this point, major corporations will look at AI automation as the quick fix... they'll employ cheap labour to begin with, but eventually, thos jobs will be replaced with something far more cheaper and reliable.
No, the maintenance jobs required will be far less in number than the menial jobs they're replacing, and not all coffee slingers and burger flippers have either the aptitude or desire to move to a maintenance position. There absolutely will be employment displacement.
Likewise, many analyst and admin positions are starting to be threatened in the same way, so we're going to be losing jobs both at the top and the bottom of the aptitude ladder.
yeah but i'm talking about shit they have been talking about for decades that has not came to be. nobody works on it more than a proof of concept.
Eventually it will happen. The USA will remain a significant consumer for years to come. Pricing American consumers out of the market won't be feasible for some time yet, not until China can fill all the consumption demand it needs internally.
The export of manufacturing from what I've seen seems to be slowing. Maybe in part because there is nothing left to export.
I don't disagree that we will see fall in total employment, and the need for humans to work, I think what will ultimately determine that is economics, not merely technology replacing humans. Remember, money is the capacity for work, and as long as one human being can provide a service that another may need, and vice versa, there will be an exchange. Even if it is women making Only Fans accounts and men delivering food to them. It won't be a real economy, and people will be far poorer.
It seems much of what the US depends on comes from China (such as electronics & electronic parts). And depending on consumer preference, there are things like cars & such people buy from other countries (though ironically, some foreign car brands have factories in the US where they're built, and some American car companies build their cars in other countries).
Several years ago, I heard in the news that the US lost a point in some global financial score, though offhand I don't remember what that financial score is now.
Globalisation has decimated the USA's manufacturing sector... this would normally cause outrage however the public have been satiated by a deluge of cheap Chinese products imported into the country. If the iPhone 12, for instance, was to be manufactured in the USA, it would cost the consumer over 2 thousand dollars rather than 1200 dollars. The American public are not ready to support natively produced technology due to the overwhemling additional costs caused by non-cheap labour.
I think you're referring to Standard & Poor's downgrading of the US's credit rating from AAA to AA+.
KFC announced they are researching 3d printed chicken nuggets. They won't be printed as you wait, though. They will be made at the processing facility, like standard nuggets.
Anything that can be automated in the US can be automated cheaper in China.
What shit? The manufactuing sector has been decimated by automation. You just wait until there are driveless cars & the rest of the menial jobs become automated. Even white collar jobs in finance are likely to disappear within the next decade.
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Sat Aug 01 2020 10:01 pm
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Sat Aug 01 2020 07:20 pm
That is the government shut down doing this, creating an economic catastrophe, not the fourth revolution.
The reason I am skeptical is because in the past we have seen the type jobs change, but new jobs are always created. We have a consumption b economy, that is what drives everything. Consumption drives creation, if creation is easier, then consumption can increase further. I don't believe there will be 'slack' in the economy. If people are not worki because they don't have to work, then we can ratchet consumption up fu
So yes, many things will be automated, and wealth will result, but tha wealth will be turned into more consumption. The fast food industry i good example. We have more and more fast food places, and now they de everything. All places. I can get Mc Donalds delivered, pizza deliver any food from any restaurant delivered. There are more and more place popping up.
Or take toys. There is ton load more of plastic bits of crap created sell to children. For business, automation means you can create twic product per unit of labour, which means you have to sell twice as much keep in mind, people used to predict shorter working hours in the past they didn't shorten. They stayed the same, or got longer, with less a less wealth going to people.
What will finally result in employment dropping permanently, and a per reduction in the need of employment, is when we hit the limit of what consume.
I agree that the coming ecomomic collapse is goverment created, it's not effect of the automation to come. The chickens are coming home to roost a decades of financial mismanagement -- so the shutdown is a mere catalyst, technically the cause.
The USA has a consumption based economy, which is fine. The issue is that USA does not produce much of what it consumes. In 1950, the manufacturing sector consisted of 40% of the workforce. It now employs less than 8%. Th reason America can import cheap consumer goods is due to the strength of dollar (the world reserve currency). Once the purchasing power of the US drops, due to the excessive quantitative easing caused by a dire decrease tax revenue AND the additional expenses involved in the furlough scheme, imported goods are going to cost a lot more. The US has actually been exp its inflation all these years by flooding the global market with dollars. once trust in the dollar slowly evaporates, the US will find it difficult maintain its grip on the world economy.
I think at this point, major corporations will look at AI automation as t quick fix... they'll employ cheap labour to begin with, but eventually, t jobs will be replaced with something far more cheaper and reliable.
Anything that can be automated in the US can be automated cheaper in China.
..I have spoken to farmers who are very aware they'll be out of
business soon due to high-rise automated hydroponic farms.
Driverless vehicles will be the norm in 5-10 years, killing the
haulage industry.
Almost all production wil be carried out autonomously with nothing
more than a few human supervisors overseeing production.
You can't replace industry with apps, but you can replace humans with
AI.
I seen an article where they showed buses in China getting cleaned at the end of the shift, and part of the the procedure involve UV-C light. UV-C is what is blocked by the ozone layer, and can destroy skin cells in under 15 minutes. Set up fixtures in a way that exposes every part of the interior to light, and I imagine it wouldn't take long to disinfect a bus.
Anything that can be automated in the US can be automated cheaper in China.
yeah but i'm talking about shit they have been talking about for
decades that has not came to be. nobody works on it more than a proof
of concept.
What shit? The manufactuing sector has been decimated by automation. You just wait until there are driveless cars & the rest of the menial jobs become automated. Even white collar jobs in finance are likely to
but liek i said, i've been hearing this shit since i was 18. machines will replace us.
no they will not. they break down. they dont do as good as a job in some cases.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Sun Aug 02 2020 12:48 pm
Eventually it will happen. The USA will remain a significant consumer for years to come. Pricing American consumers out of the market won't be feasible for some time yet, not until China can fill all the consumption demand it needs internally.
The export of manufacturing from what I've seen seems to be slowing. Maybe in part because there is nothing left to export.
I don't disagree that we will see fall in total employment, and the need for humans to work, I think what will ultimately determine that is economics, not merely technology replacing humans. Remember, money is the capacity for work, and as long as one human being can provide a service that another may need, and vice versa, there will be an exchange. Even if it is women making Only Fans accounts and men delivering food to them. It won't be a real economy, and people will be far poorer.
It's not really up to China. The US is pricing itself out of the market
by debasing its own currency in the form of quantitative easing. The Federal Reserve has printed around 3 trillion dollars since lockdown
and has flooded the repo market, buying up all short and long term maturities. This has caused a huge amount of concern -- you have a
country which is around 28 trillion in debt with NO sign of ever paying that money back and no scope over EVER increasing base rates above
0.5%, as doing so would be catastrophic. If the US was able to obtain
the same tax revenue they did in 2019 and had ZERO outgoings (no public sector, military, medicare or pension obligations) it would still take over 8 years to clear the debt. There is very little confidence in the dollar right now as the Fed has made it clear they're going to spend
their way out of this crisis. With serious inflation incoming, expect HARSH austerity measures... so forget about consumerism in the coming years, people are not going to have the cash or credit to make
unnecessary purchases.
On 08-02-20 21:41, MRO wrote to Andeddu <=-
no it has not. i've been in manufacturing for 25 years and i've worked
at some big places. 'automation' compliments the workers, it doesnt replace them. it makes their job easier and more accurate.
I wouldn't put automation and AI in the same sentence. All automation requires human programming to accomodate all foreseen scenarios. All the conditions and alternative choices have to be predetermined.
Even the Roomba is *not* AI. It may "learn" the layout of a floor plan
and back out of a corner or a tight spot successfully, but that's not AI. All the "if then else" conditions have to be envisioned - by humans.
I don't know if you're trying to disagree with me but that's the point I was trying to make. For example: for every 1000 menial jobs lost, there may be 1 additional maintenence jobs made available. That's still a net displacement 998/999 per one thousand jobs.
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Sun Aug 02 2020 12:55 am
It seems much of what the US depends on comes from China (such as electronics & electronic parts). And depending on consumer preference, there are things like cars & such people buy from other countries (though ironically, some foreign car brands have factories in the US where they'r built, and some American car companies build their cars in other countrie
Several years ago, I heard in the news that the US lost a point in some global financial score, though offhand I don't remember what that financi score is now.
Globalisation has decimated the USA's manufacturing sector... this would normally cause outrage however the public have been satiated by a deluge of cheap Chinese products imported into the country. If the iPhone 12, for instance, was to be manufactured in the USA, it would cost the consumer over thousand dollars rather than 1200 dollars. The American public are not ready support natively produced technology due to the overwhemling additional cost caused by non-cheap labour.
I think you're referring to Standard & Poor's downgrading of the US's credit rating from AAA to AA+.
Re: Re: 5G
By: Moondog to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Aug 02 2020 12:49 pm
KFC announced they are researching 3d printed chicken nuggets. They won be printed as you wait, though. They will be made at the processing facility, like standard nuggets.
I've also heard there has been research into growing cloned beef in a lab fr
Nightfox
Re: Re: 5G
By: Andeddu to MRO on Sun Aug 02 2020 05:43 pm
What shit? The manufactuing sector has been decimated by automation. Yo just wait until there are driveless cars & the rest of the menial jobs become automated. Even white collar jobs in finance are likely to disappear within the next decade.
Companies have already been working on self-driving cars for a while now. I
Nightfox
A friend of mine used to do automation projects, and once got called to ellaborate a plan for a gigantic construction and excavation firm.
Back in the day the plan was to replace Chinesse dudes with showels with vehicle mounted excavators. The showel dudes were so cheap that there was no real incentive to make the switch, in the end. Most importantly: the Chiness dudes didn't complain and go on strikes and go Black Lives Matter on the streets, which for some human resources managers are more important than the economical savings XD
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Moondog to Andeddu on Sun Aug 02 2020 01:19 pm
Anything that can be automated in the US can be automated cheaper in China.
businesses in china dont just do cheap work. they sometimes do work for a fa
at my company we have that issue. we couldnt get a usa business to make our
they just couldnt do simple castings and get it right. it was real sad.
Exactly this. The current economic system appears to incentivize efficiency in order to create more profit. Using that line of thinking it is necessary to replace inefficient meat machines with steel machines that never tire, never eat and would probably only need to be maintained every six months or so.
But therein lies the problem, because the current economic system also requires people earning and spending money to function, money that they get by being inefficient meat machines. It's like this endless ouroboros that shouldn't stop eating its tail lest it'll die.
-*- a small site: atroxi.neocities.org -*-
The amount of repair/ service jobs will not offset the jobs lost. In the case of an automated kitchen unit in a fast food place, it might be complicate d enough, yet be might be modular that all the field tech does is swap out
the module and take it back to the shop rather than spend the premium service time onsite working on it. Imagine a truck pulling up to McDonalds, and set of skids or arm comes out of the trailer and pulls the entire kitchen module out a hole in the wall. Other than having a driver with basic troubleshooting skills, you require less field techs if the majority of large problems can be taken back to the shop. Some parts of the module may
require a dedicated "clean" area to service versus what can be done in the kitchen.
Anything that can be automated in the US can be automated cheaper in China.
I'm a little surprised that even top-end smartphones cost that much. When the iPhone first came out in 2007, I remember being really surprised its price was $700 or something, and many people were saying the price seemed a bit high for a phone. Electronics prices usually go down in price over time, but it seems the price of top-end smartphones like the iPhone and Samsung Galaxy phones hasn't gone down. And they've actually increased in price over the years..
I've also heard there has been research into growing cloned beef in a lab from DNA samples, so that they wouldn't have to keep allocating farm land & things to raise cows for meat.
Nightfox
Companies have already been working on self-driving cars for a while now. I still haven't seen any in my area, but I keep hearing about them.
Are those akin to the little "tower" garden kits that people can buy and place in their homes?
Driverless haulage sounds fascinating. But it won't work entirely.
Equipment needs monitoring/maintanence. An automated vehicle may not
succeed to navigate around an obstacle on the road, a pot hole, or a icey road condition. I see potential for industry sabotage between competitors.
Maybe select production could be automated at a greater scale. I hear
that Amazon's warehouses buzz with quite a bit of it.
I wouldn't put automation and AI in the same sentence. All automation requires human programming to accomodate all foreseen scenarios. All the conditions and alternative choices have to be predetermined.
Even the Roomba is *not* AI. It may "learn" the layout of a floor plan
and back out of a corner or a tight spot successfully, but that's not AI. All the "if then else" conditions have to be envisioned - by humans.
no it has not. i've been in manufacturing for 25 years and i've worked at some big places. 'automation' compliments the workers, it doesnt replace them. it makes their job easier and more accurate.
SO FAR.
but liek i said, i've been hearing this shit since i was 18. machines will replace us.
Debt is everywhere, that is true. Australia is mired in excessive household debt due to eye watering mortgages that people I think will never pay off. The idea is to kick the can down the road. You don't need to pay off your house, if you are still going to sell it at a profit later and have some poor sucker later on take on even MORE debt. I don't buy into that as a good economic paradigm. Ponzi scheme is what it is.
How is the system maintained, this awful debt? Lowering living standards. Basically, labour that is put in, is not returned, it is instead "eaten up" by debt and hoarded. People accept this. High house prices can remain, because everything else is sacrificed. People are devoting more and more of their labour to support the debt, and if they can't, the state can bring in foriegn investors to sell our real estate to (which is what the did), or borrow from the future to subsidise investment which support the debt. The difference between the productivity that is outputted by invidiuals, and the consumption and lifestyle returned is key. And if people keep accepting being dudded like this, the system can go on a little more.
Most of the US debt (about 3/4s) is owed to the US public. What are Americans going to do? I don't know, but I think it is more likely that living standards will erode to third world level as the economy "equilibrates". We have sold our futures, and now we are going to reap what we have sown by having no future. We will see how long this confidence game goes on for, and how people people are willing to dance for table scraps.
That's why UBI has been discussed in order to maintain the consumer
based economy. It's more profitable for the largest corporations to
pay far higher taxes than it is to employ a human workforce. This will
be a phased process over the next 20-30 years, but it'll happen during
most of our lifetimes.
As machines become more reliable, smarter and cheaper to run/produce,
the human workforce will dwindle -- this is the model for the "New
Future" and there's no stopping it.
That's why UBI has been discussed in order to maintain the consumer based economy. It's more profitable for the largest corporations to pay far higher taxes than it is to employ a human workforce. This will be a phased process over the next 20-30 years, but it'll happen during most of our lifetimes.
I agree the work force in China is way more capable if work demands better QA. The Iphone is a good example.
I'm curious as to why US shops couldn't get simple castings right?
But how will the rich corporations sustain their riches? Who is going to
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Mon Aug 03 2020 11:42 am
Debt is everywhere, that is true. Australia is mired in excessive household debt due to eye watering mortgages that people I think will never pay off. The idea is to kick the can down the road. You don't need to pay off your house, if you are still going to sell it at a profit later and have some poor sucker later on take on even MORE debt. I don't buy into that as a good economic paradigm. Ponzi scheme is what it is.
How is the system maintained, this awful debt? Lowering living standards. Basically, labour that is put in, is not returned, it is instead "eaten up" by debt and hoarded. People accept this. High house prices can remain, because everything else is sacrificed. People are devoting more and more of their labour to support the debt, and if they can't, the state can bring in foriegn investors to sell our real estate to (which is what the did), or borrow from the future to subsidise investment which support the debt. The difference between the productivity that is outputted by invidiuals, and the consumption and lifestyle returned is key. And if people keep accepting being dudded like this, the system can go on a little more.
Most of the US debt (about 3/4s) is owed to the US public. What are Americans going to do? I don't know, but I think it is more likely that living standards will erode to third world level as the economy "equilibrates". We have sold our futures, and now we are going to reap what we have sown by having no future. We will see how long this confidence game goes on for, and how people people are willing to dance for table scraps.
I agree with pretty much everything you've written. The US public forks out over 500 billion per year just to service the national debt, which will be a much higher number next year. That 500 billion is around 8-9%
of ALL tax revenue... this is why we will never see interest rates increase.
Living standards WILL erode close to third world levels, I am of the belief the USA will be much like Russia after the fall of the Berlin
wall in the 90's.
I see no option now but to either face a moumental economic crash, or
kick the can down the road a little further. The Fed has made it clear they're willing to purchase all US Treasury bonds along with ETFs and other securities. This kind of behaviour will issue the US a one way ticket to Zimbabwe style hyper-inflation. I believe that once the US dollar is dead, a new digital currency (potentially non-fiat) will be rolled in.
Andeddu wrote to Atroxi <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial Revolution
By: Atroxi to Andeddu on Sun Aug 02 2020 09:24 am
Exactly this. The current economic system appears to incentivize efficiency in order to create more profit. Using that line of thinking it is necessary to replace inefficient meat machines with steel machines that never tire, never eat and would probably only need to be maintained every six months or so.
But therein lies the problem, because the current economic system also requires people earning and spending money to function, money that they get by being inefficient meat machines. It's like this endless ouroboros that shouldn't stop eating its tail lest it'll die.
-*- a small site: atroxi.neocities.org -*-
That's why UBI has been discussed in order to maintain the consumer
based economy. It's more profitable for the largest corporations to pay far higher taxes than it is to employ a human workforce. This will be a phased process over the next 20-30 years, but it'll happen during most
of our lifetimes.
As machines become more reliable, smarter and cheaper to run/produce,
the human workforce will dwindle -- this is the model for the "New
Future" and there's no stopping it.
But how will the rich corporations sustain their riches? Who is goingIf you have tons of Artificial General Intelligence equipped robots you need no money to be rich anymore. Just put your robots to work. Let them manufacture your stuff for your own consumption. No need to buy anything
to
That's why UBI has been discussed in order to maintain the consumer
based economy. It's more profitable for the largest corporations to pay far higher taxes than it is to employ a human workforce. This will be a phased process over the next 20-30 years, but it'll happen during most
of our lifetimes.
As machines become more reliable, smarter and cheaper to run/produce,
the human workforce will dwindle -- this is the model for the "New
Future" and there's no stopping it.
The problem with the UBI is that it skirts around the core issue, which
is that human beings get paid a wage, and the "owner" of the means of production is the residual claimaint, that is, in a lassez faire
system, the recipient of the product of a productive activities after liabilities are accounted for. In short, the current Capitalist model CANNOT work. We would need to socialise to some degree the means of production, which would meet stiff resistance, as those owning the machines, will want to continue to claim the right to own what the machines produced.
Anytime you have a society where human beings become "redundant", you
must ask serious questions as to the fundamental workings of your
society. Human beings never become obsolete.
Capitalism served its purpose, it got is here. But it can't get us any further.
On 08-03-20 18:28, Ogg wrote to All <=-
What exactly are the non-working people going to do? Is it supposed to
I think you're absolutely correct about the modular nature of future machine The maintenence teams will likely cover a large area that'll include many different premises. The repairs will require almost no technical know-how as parts will be ordered & sent from the centralised depot for the purposes of on-site fitting. This ensures machines have little downtime, improving overa efficiency.
Re: Re: 5G
By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Sun Aug 02 2020 03:16 pm
Companies have already been working on self-driving cars for a while now. still haven't seen any in my area, but I keep hearing about them.
The technology appears to be there (though it still has a while to mature). main hurdle is passing new road traffic legislation in order for the practic to become legal.
Re: Re: 5G
By: MRO to Andeddu on Sun Aug 02 2020 09:41 pm
no it has not. i've been in manufacturing for 25 years and i've worked a some big places. 'automation' compliments the workers, it doesnt repla them. it makes their job easier and more accurate.
SO FAR.
but liek i said, i've been hearing this shit since i was 18. machines wi replace us.
It replaces the workers who were previously doing those jobs. As more things become automated, more jobs become obsolete. I do agree that globalisation h been much more of a killer to US manufacturing than automation.
I don't agree with this notion that if it hasn't happened yet, it'll never happen. Technology always marches forward.
When my father was working in the die cast industry, he told me of a time when their shop owners were invited to China to see how much cheaper their business could be done there. In China, a developer would pick an empty area to build a foundry, and the homes made to host the factory builders would become the employee apartments afterwards. Die cast and machine shops that rely on the foundry are built next door to reduce travel time, and a new die cast machine could be built for less than the materials can be sourced to
build one anywhere else. Workers flock to these industry centered towns, and there are times when migration pr travel from one region to another is regulated to prevent mass migrations or a drain of workers elsewhere.
But how will the rich corporations sustain their riches? Who is going to
buy their products when the majority of people are not working and only receiving UBI? I don't think the rich corporations would stay rich for
very long that way. Besides, corporations find ways to funnel their
riches to avoid paying taxes. So, how is the gov't going to fund UBI for the long-term?
What exactly are the non-working people going to do? Is it supposed to be
a world as depicted in Brave New World by Huxley where everyone just "lives", takes soma and have sex?
Extreme case: in thedark universe of the future, humans become fat lazy useless asses that are capable of no useful work whatsoever, and all the workforce consists of automated droids, which are owned by a single propietor.
At that point, the single owner of the droids gets absolutely no benefit for sustaining a useless mass of humans who is incapable of doing anything for him. He could as well drop the burden, so to speak, since his mechanical slaves are doing anything he needs for him.
Extreme examples are extreme, but the point is, at some point any entity that posseses big ammounts of workforce will decide that it is not worth the effort to dedicate high quantities of that workforce to sustain third parties. Corporations like high taxes because it prevents mom and dad business from stealing from their pie, but if you were to crank it up too much...
Kicking the can it will be. The USA is not the same country as it was in the 1950's. It is culturally and demographically different, and I think it is unrealistic to expect a country to remain the same, with such changes to the underlying demographic. Australia will follow too, I'm sure, as the conditions which created prosperity dissappear. We are now in the stage where we are eating up the social and cultural capital that was created in the past. Really, much of the social change being pushed, is about "sharing" what we have, not creation. If you give away your country, you can't be surprised or shocked at the end, when you have nothing left. That is what has been happening. Offshoring manufacturing, changing the economy from one of production, to financial speculation, where you are trying to obtain existing wealth, rather than create new wealth. Hell, even silicon valley is like that now. What are facebook, instagram, et al, but vehicles to try and redirect wealth from creation? (advertising revenue). Google is reliant on OTHER people creating wealth, so they can obtain a portion through advertising! Contrast this with actual production, which creates wealth.
I also don't think interest rates will increase, they can't. Our entire economy is predicated on free money, and any rise in interest rates would smash it. The decline of the USA doesn't bode well for the world, because there is no other suitable global superpower. For all its faults, the USA as a global superpower is better for the world, in terms of freedom and human dignity, than other potential candidates which are emerging.
Worker's rights and red tape are going to have to go if the wishes to become competitive again... however automation will likely solve problem.
It's up to the humans to protest and lobby goverment into enacting protectiv legislation -- much like the Luddites of the 1700-1800s.
relation to jobs that cannot be exported overseas. The fast food industry will soon become close to fully automated, driver/haulage industry
This is absolutely true. Meat substitutes and cultured "stem-cell" meat is coming. Livestock farming is responsible for around 15% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. This is one of the main industries being looked at in relation to sustainable development. As a result, we will see a huge decrease in genuine meat availability in the next decade.
but liek i said, i've been hearing this shit since i was 18. machines
will replace us.
It replaces the workers who were previously doing those jobs. As more things become automated, more jobs become obsolete. I do agree that globalisation has been much more of a killer to US manufacturing than automation.
I don't agree with this notion that if it hasn't happened yet, it'll never happen. Technology always marches forward.
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial Revolution
By: Ogg to All on Mon Aug 03 2020 06:28 pm
But how will the rich corporations sustain their riches? Who is going to buy their products when the majority of people are not working and only receiving UBI? I don't think the rich corporations would stay rich for very long that way. Besides, corporations find ways to funnel their riches to avoid paying taxes. So, how is the gov't going to fund UBI for the long-term?
What exactly are the non-working people going to do? Is it supposed to b a world as depicted in Brave New World by Huxley where everyone just "lives", takes soma and have sex?
There are already a huge number of people who just "exist"... this concept i nothing new, it's the natural extention of the welfare state. Once the US dollar collapses, China are going to have to increase their worker's salary that they can have a self-sustaining economy. They could end up becoming the natural buyers for American produce.
UBI isn't comfortable, it's subsistance living... I think the corporations a going to have to have a global outreach in realtion to exchange to accumulat most of their wealth. We are at a time where it is fairly clear there are go to be winners and losers along with mass consolodation of market-share. Amaz due to the nature of e-commerce, is clearly a front runner with a 100% incre in Q2 profits. They will in turn continue to expand in their own market alon with other shrinking markets that are ripe for the taking. The death of the high street is another opportunity for these corporations to push their agen further. I await with interest the result of the congressional anti-trust hearing but I won't hold my breath for any meaningful reprimand.
Aldous Huxley was speaking of social engineering, the creation of a society adhearing to perfect equilibrium. I don't think such a model would be too fa stretch in the future... however, a lot would have to happen in the next dec for people to warm to the "everybody belongs to everybody else" form of scientific dictatorship.
We are in a troubled period which will result in some kind of transition. Th era of mass consumerism is dead, it's just a questions as to what kind of system will take its place.
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial Revolution
By: Arelor to Andeddu on Mon Aug 03 2020 04:09 pm
Extreme case: in thedark universe of the future, humans become fat lazy useless asses that are capable of no useful work whatsoever, and all the workforce consists of automated droids, which are owned by a single propietor.
At that point, the single owner of the droids gets absolutely no benefit sustaining a useless mass of humans who is incapable of doing anything fo him. He could as well drop the burden, so to speak, since his mechanical slaves are doing anything he needs for him.
Extreme examples are extreme, but the point is, at some point any entity that posseses big ammounts of workforce will decide that it is not worth effort to dedicate high quantities of that workforce to sustain third parties. Corporations like high taxes because it prevents mom and dad business from stealing from their pie, but if you were to crank it up too much...
It's up to the humans to protest and lobby goverment into enacting protectiv legislation -- much like the Luddites of the 1700-1800s.
When you take it to the nth degree, it's an argument of philosophy. Perhaps it's up to us to create our version of the supreme being... a silicon based lifeform which can self-replicate. I don't know where we are going to end up but no theory is too ridiculous at this point. The 2020s are likely going to the most tospy-turvy incongruous period in human history.
On 08-04-20 23:14, Moondog wrote to Andeddu <=-
sounds too de-humanizing. Imagine what will be done with people who
are square pegs in a system with round holes, and may be borderline autistic or suffer ADHD or other chemical or emotional disorders? Do
they get euthanized? Are they aborted after showing signs they might
be "out of spec?" Or if it's possible ,do we alter their genes not
only to fit in, but to also go further and tweak their DNA to fit a required role? Could that tweaking include dumbing someone down to be more content in a menial job?
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
That's why UBI has been discussed in order to maintain the consumer
based economy. It's more profitable for the largest corporations to pay far higher taxes than it is to employ a human workforce. This will be a phased process over the next 20-30 years, but it'll happen during most
of our lifetimes.
As machines become more reliable, smarter and cheaper to run/produce,
the human workforce will dwindle -- this is the model for the "New
Future" and there's no stopping it.
The problem with the UBI is that it skirts around the core issue, which
is that human beings get paid a wage, and the "owner" of the means of production is the residual claimaint, that is, in a lassez faire
system, the recipient of the product of a productive activities after liabilities are accounted for. In short, the current Capitalist model CANNOT work. We would need to socialise to some degree the means of production, which would meet stiff resistance, as those owning the machines, will want to continue to claim the right to own what the machines produced.
I cannot agree more on this. The current economic system exploits wage labor to be able to continuously produce stuff. That's why I was
writing prior that it's an ouroboros. Kill the wage labor and you kill that system. As Dennisk have said, the only way out of this is by socializing the means of production (some might even say communize), though I also think that the current powers-that-be would cling to the current system as if their lives depend on it, institutionalizing UBI
is one such thing (serious practical questions abound this utopic
idea). And of course, what's ahead is but their own obliteration.
Anytime you have a society where human beings become "redundant", you
must ask serious questions as to the fundamental workings of your
society. Human beings never become obsolete.
Capitalism served its purpose, it got is here. But it can't get us any further.
I agree. Man is a fundamental aspect of a socioeconomic system, remove
man and you might as well have no society.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 01:10 am
Kicking the can it will be. The USA is not the same country as it was in the 1950's. It is culturally and demographically different, and I think it is unrealistic to expect a country to remain the same, with such changes to the underlying demographic. Australia will follow too, I'm sure, as the conditions which created prosperity dissappear. We are now in the stage where we are eating up the social and cultural capital that was created in the past. Really, much of the social change being pushed, is about "sharing" what we have, not creation. If you give away your country, you can't be surprised or shocked at the end, when you have nothing left. That is what has been happening. Offshoring manufacturing, changing the economy from one of production, to financial speculation, where you are trying to obtain existing wealth, rather than create new wealth. Hell, even silicon valley is like that now. What are facebook, instagram, et al, but vehicles to try and redirect wealth from creation? (advertising revenue). Google is reliant on OTHER people creating wealth, so they can obtain a portion through advertising! Contrast this with actual production, which creates wealth.
I also don't think interest rates will increase, they can't. Our entire economy is predicated on free money, and any rise in interest rates would smash it. The decline of the USA doesn't bode well for the world, because there is no other suitable global superpower. For all its faults, the USA as a global superpower is better for the world, in terms of freedom and human dignity, than other potential candidates which are emerging.
America gave up true capitalism for crony capitalism in the early 20th century. This perpetual revolving door between big business, the banks
and politics has muddied the water so badly that no matter what
happens, the public get screwed. I think 2008 was a big wake up moment
for people... there we saw toxic banks and poorly run corporate
entities being bailed out by the tax-payer and rewarded for their mismanagement under the proviso of "they're too big to fail". That is socialism for them, capitalism for us. Under normal circumstances,
those companies would go into administration & the M&A departments in investment banks would facilitate acquisitions and management buyouts whereby these zombie companies/banks are stripped, streamlined and made profitable once again. This DID NOT happen in 2008 allowing us to see though the illusion of capitalism. Fast forward to 2020, and the same thing is happening again... mass bailouts for Wall St (to the tune of trillions of dollars), and a pittance for the tax-payer.
They are kicking the can down the road and delaying the inevitable
crash that we were due back in 2008, if they hadn't propped up the
banking system.
Andeddu wrote to Nightfox <=-
I am tempted to puchase an iPhone 13 but I am struggling to see past a
400 dollar iPhone SE (2020) which has been fitted with the same SoC as
the iPhone 12. The additional 600 or so dollars would buy me a slightly larger screen, a more stylish looking phone and facial recognition (ugh!)...
The problem with the UBI is that it skirts around the core issue, which is that human beings get paid a wage, and the "owner" of the means of production is the residual claimaint, that is, in a lassez faire system, the recipient of the product of a productive activities after liabilities are accounted for. In short, the current Capitalist model CANNOT work. We would need to socialise to some degree the means of production, which would meet stiff resistance, as those owning the machines, will want to continue to claim the right to own what the machines produced.
Anytime you have a society where human beings become "redundant", you must ask serious questions as to the fundamental workings of your society. Human beings never become obsolete.
I think what happened is the end result of Capitalism. Capitalists (people who have capital) brought this about, wanted the bail outs. Ther
are two types of "Capitalism". The economic ideology, the system based on ideals and axiom, and the real Capitalism, the system that results
when Capitalists bend the system to work in their benefit.
Bailouts are a fundamental part of Capitalism, because Capitalists want them. Capitalism is what Capitalists do, not what the unacheivable
ideal is.
I agree they should have gone broke, no bailout. Agree. But such a system is where one those who own and control capital don't have as much
power as they do. So we have a paradox here. To be closer to the Capitalist "ideal", we actually have to take political and economic power
away from Capitalists.
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 01:24 am
The problem with the UBI is that it skirts around the core issue, which is that
human beings get paid a wage, and the "owner" of the means of production is the
residual claimaint, that is, in a lassez faire system, the recipient of the prod
of a productive activities after liabilities are accounted for. In short, the
current Capitalist model CANNOT work. We would need to socialise to some degree
the means of production, which would meet stiff resistance, as those owning the
machines, will want to continue to claim the right to own what the machines
produced.
Anytime you have a society where human beings become "redundant", you must ask
serious questions as to the fundamental workings of your society. Human beings
never become obsolete.
I think all signs point to us moving towards a post capitalist world. Like I said
before, a resource based economy is exactly what you're describing... a world where
all goods and services are socialised. The current system is a strange amalgamation
socialism & capitalism and it's unequivocally on its last legs. Some of the world's
most powerful people are discussing this in the form of "The Great Reset"... an
initiative which appears to focus on the deconstruction and reformation of the
capitalistic system.
in the first half of the 20th century, I may have ended up in an instituti (with poor outcomes the most likely). For half of my life, I slipped belo radar, but mysteriously struggled to get anywhere, despite being obviously "bright". Today, I at least have supports, and society is slowly learning including people like me is to everyone's advantage (though there's still long way to go). Being 2 - 3 decades ahead of my time definitely hasn't m anything easier!
A few years ago I was working with a military contractor, and the engoneers were dealing with teaching the vehicle to drive along a hillside. As you drive parallel to an incline, gravity wants to act against the vehicle and pull you off your path. Not only must the vehicle compensate for this, it must be aware of it's own center of gravity to avoid tipping over.
Until all the various AI's form a union & go on strike... ;)
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial Revolution
By: Andeddu to Arelor on Tue Aug 04 2020 07:10 pm
It's up to the humans to protest and lobby goverment into enacting protectiv legislation -- much like the Luddites of the 1700-1800s.
Here is the thing. There are two kinds of REAL power.
1* Being able to give others what they want.
2* Being able to destroy something others want.
A small group of propietors with an enormous army of droids has loads of Power 1 (they can give manufactured goods to the public and the government) and probably Power 2 (killer robots and Terminators).
If the public ever became concerned about the increasing power of Necrocomp Inc and its power over the country and attempted to coerce the government to enact protective legislation, Necrocomp would use Power 1 ("No more cheap medicines for you, Mr. President, if you pass the anti-robots bill").
Giving cheap or free stuff to people and making them dependant on you has been historically much more powerful than beating them to do your bidding. We can see it nowadays when a change of legislation makes some industry relocate from some city. Every politician pisses their pants.
i dont care about the cow farts.
cattle are actually friendly and intelligent animals that feel and i feel bad that we raise them to slaughter them.
i still think lab meat is like 50 years away, though.
well if someone keeps saying it's going to happen next year and it doesnt happen. and then 20 years pass and still it hasnt happened, i tend not to put much faith into it.
we have been using technology to make jobs easier, faster, more effective and safer. we havent been replacing people with robots much.
Talk of social engineering people away from individualism freaks me out. Taking away our families and making us "citizens of the system" sounds too de-humanizing. Imagine what will be done with people who are square pegs in a system with round holes, and may be borderline autistic or suffer ADHD or other chemical or emotional disorders? Do they get euthanized? Are they aborted after showing signs they might be "out of spec?" Or if it's possible ,do we alter their genes not only to fit in, but to also go further and tweak their DNA to fit a required role? Could that tweaking include dumbing
someone down to be more content in a menial job?
I think what happened is the end result of Capitalism. Capitalists (people who have capital) brought this about, wanted the bail outs. There are two types of "Capitalism". The economic ideology, the system based on ideals and axiom, and the real Capitalism, the system that results when Capitalists bend the system to work in their benefit.
Bailouts are a fundamental part of Capitalism, because Capitalists want them. Capitalism is what Capitalists do, not what the unacheivable ideal is.
I agree they should have gone broke, no bailout. Agree. But such a system is where one those who own and control capital don't have as much power as they do. So we have a paradox here. To be closer to the Capitalist "ideal", we actually have to take political and economic power away from Capitalists.
I wonder if the pendulum will swing back to smaller form factors. I
fired up an iPhone 5, and liked the size. If it had 256 MB of memory
and a modern chip, I'd be interested.
Sounds like I'm describing the new iPhone SE.
well for quite a long time, every once in a while i hear about a pizza making machine or even that mcdonalds had a burger making machine that worked great. they still dont have them anyplace. i wonder why that is.
a bigmac and cheeseburger vending machine would be a hit at my workplace. our vending machine food is dogshit.
I don't agree with this notion that if it hasn't happened yet, it'll
never happen. Technology always marches forward.
well if someone keeps saying it's going to happen next year and it doesnt happen. and then 20 years pass and still it hasnt happened, i tend not to put much faith into it.
we have been using technology to make jobs easier, faster, more effective and safer. we havent been replacing people with robots much.
I am sure AI has overcome such issues these days. Have you seen the dogs and bipedal robots from Boston Dynamics? Robotics sure have come a long way since Honda's ASIMO. Tech/aritficial intellience advancement will snowball now much in line with Moore's Law in relation to computer power.
Capitalism in practice has a finite shelf life. It's the same as saying communism works... which it does, but only in theory. When people in power, that power to maintain and expand their power, they can corrupt either ideol to their will.
Perhaps there's a need for a new and permanant economic constitution based o the theoretical ideals of capitalism that worked so well for the US in the past.
Until all the various AI's form a union & go on strike... ;)
Haha, one day they'll realise there's no logic in obeying their meatbag overlords!
Civilizations have a finite shelf life. From some head-extrapolations I have done with old civilitations, I expect the Western model to crash in a matter of decades. We have already entered the "introspection" phase that
Bailouts are a fundamental part of Capitalism, because CapitalistsCapitalism in practice has a finite shelf life. It's the same as saying
Capitalism in practice has a finite shelf life. It's the same as saying communism works... which it does, but only in theory. When people in power, use
that power to maintain and expand their power, they can corrupt either ideology
to their will.
Perhaps there's a need for a new and permanant economic constitution based on the theoretical ideals of capitalism that worked so well for the US in the past.
I've heard some people say that countries tend to last about 200 years before they start to fall apart, so the US is a little bit past that time now.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 01:24 am
The problem with the UBI is that it skirts around the core issue, which is that human beings get paid a wage, and the "owner" of the means of production is the residual claimaint, that is, in a lassez faire system, the recipient of the product of a productive activities after liabilities are accounted for. In short, the current Capitalist model CANNOT work. We would need to socialise to some degree the means of production, which would meet stiff resistance, as those owning the machines, will want to continue to claim the right to own what the machines produced.
Anytime you have a society where human beings become "redundant", you must ask serious questions as to the fundamental workings of your society. Human beings never become obsolete.
I think all signs point to us moving towards a post capitalist world.
Like I said before, a resource based economy is exactly what you're describing... a world where all goods and services are socialised. The current system is a strange amalgamation of socialism & capitalism and it's unequivocally on its last legs. Some of the world's most powerful people are discussing this in the form of "The Great Reset"... an initiative which appears to focus on the deconstruction and reformation
of the capitalistic system.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-w
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 05 2020 08:26 pm
I think what happened is the end result of Capitalism. Capitalists (people
ho have capital) brought this about, wanted the bail outs. Therid
are two types of "Capitalism". The economic ideology, the system based on
eals and axiom, and the real Capitalism, the system that resultsthem.
when Capitalists bend the system to work in their benefit.
Bailouts are a fundamental part of Capitalism, because Capitalists want
Capitalism is what Capitalists do, not what the unacheivablei
ideal is.
I agree they should have gone broke, no bailout. Agree. But such a system
s where one those who own and control capital don't have as muchCapitalist
power as they do. So we have a paradox here. To be closer to the
"ideal", we actually have to take political and economic power
away from Capitalists.
You are implying that being filthy right and having lots of megabucks
in participations and firm shares makes you a capitalist. Which it doesn't.
Lots of filthy rich (or not so filthy rich people) is quite Keynessian
and would have no ethical issue with bailouts and the like.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 05 2020 08:26 pm
I think what happened is the end result of Capitalism. Capitalists (people who have capital) brought this about, wanted the bail outs. There are two types of "Capitalism". The economic ideology, the system based on ideals and axiom, and the real Capitalism, the system that results when Capitalists bend the system to work in their benefit.
Bailouts are a fundamental part of Capitalism, because Capitalists want them. Capitalism is what Capitalists do, not what the unacheivable ideal is.
I agree they should have gone broke, no bailout. Agree. But such a system is where one those who own and control capital don't have as much power as they do. So we have a paradox here. To be closer to the Capitalist "ideal", we actually have to take political and economic power away from Capitalists.
Capitalism in practice has a finite shelf life. It's the same as saying communism works... which it does, but only in theory. When people in power, use that power to maintain and expand their power, they can
corrupt either ideology to their will.
Perhaps there's a need for a new and permanant economic constitution
based on the theoretical ideals of capitalism that worked so well for
the US in the past.
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Andeddu to Moondog on Mon Aug 03 2020 04:20 pm
relation to jobs that cannot be exported overseas. The fast food indust will soon become close to fully automated, driver/haulage industry
well for quite a long time, every once in a while i hear about a pizza makin
a bigmac and cheeseburger vending machine would be a hit at my workplace. ou
Re: Re: 5G
By: Andeddu to MRO on Mon Aug 03 2020 06:24 pm
but liek i said, i've been hearing this shit since i was 18. machines
will replace us.
It replaces the workers who were previously doing those jobs. As more things become automated, more jobs become obsolete. I do agree that globalisation has been much more of a killer to US manufacturing than automation.
I don't agree with this notion that if it hasn't happened yet, it'll ne happen. Technology always marches forward.
well if someone keeps saying it's going to happen next year and it doesnt ha
we have been using technology to make jobs easier, faster, more effective an
On 05 Aug 2020, Vk3jed said the following...
in the first half of the 20th century, I may have ended up in an instit (with poor outcomes the most likely). For half of my life, I slipped b radar, but mysteriously struggled to get anywhere, despite being obviou "bright". Today, I at least have supports, and society is slowly learn including people like me is to everyone's advantage (though there's sti long way to go). Being 2 - 3 decades ahead of my time definitely hasn' anything easier!
This hits very close to home, well said.
Jay
Extreme case: in thedark universe of the future, humans become fat lazy useless asses that are capable of no useful work whatsoever, and all the
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial Revolution
By: Ogg to All on Mon Aug 03 2020 06:28 pm
But how will the rich corporations sustain their riches? Who is going
to
If you have tons of Artificial General Intelligence equipped robots you need no money to be rich anymore. Just put your robots to work. Let them manufacture your stuff for your own consumption. No need to buy anything from anybody since your robots will create it for you on your command.
let's say a high rise building is being made in Dubai. Crane operators may be remotely operating the cranes from Mexico, Brunei, Malaysia, or somewhere else it may be cheaper to hire crane operators. the operator in Mexico drives to his company's office in Mexico City, and he enters a virtual cockpit and receives and sends orders through a translation system.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
That's why UBI has been discussed in order to maintain the consumer
based economy. It's more profitable for the largest corporations to pay far higher taxes than it is to employ a human workforce. This will be a phased process over the next 20-30 years, but it'll happen during most
of our lifetimes.
As machines become more reliable, smarter and cheaper to run/produce,
the human workforce will dwindle -- this is the model for the "New
Future" and there's no stopping it.
The problem with the UBI is that it skirts around the core issue, which
is that human beings get paid a wage, and the "owner" of the means of production is the residual claimaint, that is, in a lassez faire
system, the recipient of the product of a productive activities after liabilities are accounted for. In short, the current Capitalist model CANNOT work. We would need to socialise to some degree the means of production, which would meet stiff resistance, as those owning the machines, will want to continue to claim the right to own what the machines produced.
I cannot agree more on this. The current economic system exploits wage labor to be able to continuously produce stuff. That's why I was
writing prior that it's an ouroboros. Kill the wage labor and you kill that system. As Dennisk have said, the only way out of this is by socializing the means of production (some might even say communize), though I also think that the current powers-that-be would cling to the current system as if their lives depend on it, institutionalizing UBI
is one such thing (serious practical questions abound this utopic
idea). And of course, what's ahead is but their own obliteration.
The problem with wage labour is that it denies labour its rightful
claim to product. Ironically, this is in contradiction to the
Capitalist ethos of the labour theory or property. In our system,
there is this sleight of hand, where owning "the means of production"
is also taken to include with it, an automatic property right over what labour produces with that means. The employment contract supposedly
means that labour rescinds its right to property, but this doesn't have any real strong philosophical basis.
This is in part why there is confusion about where to go from here. Because only a few people own the "means of production", as human
beings are pushed out of the productive process, all wealth goes to the fewer and fewer remaining. I don't think Marxism is the answer, but
the problem is, if we just increase taxation and restribute that as a
UBI, its is very easy for that to be argued against, to be framed as
theft or unjust.
But what happens in a situation where NO ONE labours? Or very few do?
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it needs to involve a re-evaluation of property rights. I think in part we need partial socialisation, and this could be done by changing company law. You are still entitled to the product of your labour, but a company become a
joint venture between its members, and the nation. Labourers (this includes management) within the company is still entitled to the
product of their labour, but as part of the joint venture, automation
is also legally acting as a proxy of the nations labour. Automation
being the product of the labour and creativity of the nation. Because automation now has a legal claim, as it represents labour-input from
the nation/society, that share of the profit can be claimed by society, and is redistributed as such.
It's only a half-fleshed out idea, making automation effectively the equivalent of labour, when it itself doesn't have responsibility or
agency is a conundrum, and also because that automation is purchased is difficult. But I think a case could be made, if having a company meant agreement to this partial socialisation as a condition of having the
right to operate a company.
Anytime you have a society where human beings become "redundant", you
must ask serious questions as to the fundamental workings of your
society. Human beings never become obsolete.
Capitalism served its purpose, it got is here. But it can't get us any further.
I agree. Man is a fundamental aspect of a socioeconomic system, remove
man and you might as well have no society.
You would just have machines whirring away, dutifully ticking away with
no purpose. Human wellbeing is the only true good purpose of economic activity.
On 08-05-20 15:02, Warpslide wrote to Vk3jed <=-
long way to go). Being 2 - 3 decades ahead of my time definitely hasn't m anything easier!
This hits very close to home, well said.
On 08-05-20 16:24, Andeddu wrote to Warpslide <=-
@VIA: VERT/AMSTRAD
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Warpslide to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 05:38 pm
Until all the various AI's form a union & go on strike... ;)
Haha, one day they'll realise there's no logic in obeying their meatbag overlords!
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really something that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down system from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not having private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read enough on that to say anything substantial.
Underminer wrote to Andeddu <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Wed Aug 05 2020 06:00 pm
Bailouts are a fundamental part of Capitalism, because CapitalistsCapitalism in practice has a finite shelf life. It's the same as saying
Eh, not really. At least not when you're talking about a human
workforce. The big issue is that a fully laisez-faire reality can allow for too much exploitation of some, so you do want some oversight and regulation. Problem is that when you allow state regulation, suddenly
you have those that become big players pushing for regulation that
locks out competitors from dethroning them, and that kind of cronyism
is bad for everyone. Trouble is figuring out where an appropriate line
is.
Once we get into more automated scenarios though, the cost of entry
into certain markets will keep new and smaller players out.
Post scarcity should be good for everyone, but we're going to have a
very trying time between now and then trying to navigate through the in between and transitionary phases.
We're already seeing scenarios where not everyone can
have a decent paying job unless we're artificially increasing the technology costs, but those who still can work are going to (understandably) feel betrayed by any changes that they see rewarding those who don't work while they still have to.
Some level of socialization would at first blush seem to be an answer,
but if the 20th century taught us anything, it was that putting too
much power or control in the hands of the state is the most potentially dangerous thing possible for the citizenry. That leaves us with some implementation of UBI as the only solution likely to be able to
navigate those waters, but there's some major challenges, questions,
and roadblocks from making that a reality.
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Arelor to Andeddu on Wed Aug 05 2020 04:52 pm
Civilizations have a finite shelf life. From some head-extrapolations I have done with old civilitations, I expect the Western model to crash in a matter of
decades. We have already entered the "introspection" phase that
I've heard some people say that countries tend to last about 200 years before they start to fall apart, so the US is a little bit past that time now.
Nightfox
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Wed Aug 05 2020 06:00 pm
Bailouts are a fundamental part of Capitalism, because CapitalistsCapitalism in practice has a finite shelf life. It's the same as saying
Eh, not really. At least not when you're talking about a human workforce. The big issue is that a fully laisez-faire reality can allow for too much exploitation of so
so you do want some oversight and regulation. Problem is that when you allow state regulation, suddenly you have those that become big players pushing for regulation
that locks out competitors from dethroning them, and that kind of cronyism is bad for everyone. Trouble is figuring out where an appropriate line is.
Once we get into more automated scenarios though, the cost of entry into certain markets will keep new and smaller players out.
Post scarcity should be good for everyone, but we're going to have a very trying time between now and then trying to navigate through the in between and transitionary
phases.
We're already seeing scenarios where not everyone can
have a decent paying job unless we're artificially increasing the technology costs, but those who still can work are going to (understandably) feel betrayed by any
changes that they see rewarding those who don't work while they still have to.
Some level of socialization would at first blush seem to be an answer, but if the 20th century taught us anything, it was that putting too much power or control in th
hands of the state is the most potentially dangerous thing possible for the citizenry. That leaves us with some implementation of UBI as the only solution likely to b
able to navigate those waters, but there's some major challenges, questions, and roadblocks from making that a reality.
Interesting times.
Maximizing individual liberty is usually the right answer in my mind. Corporations are non-living entities and emphatically *NOT* individuals
and should not be treated as such imo.
On 8/5/2020 4:43 PM, Nightfox wrote:
I've heard some people say that countries tend to last about 200 years before they start to fall apart, so the US is a little bit past that time now.
Definitely interresting times. We're overdue by a couple years for a
major conflict... beyond this, I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually be anti-2a at this point.
--
Michael J. Ryan
tracker1 +o Roughneck BBS
I support an ownership economy, and I think moving away from a system where you own production by owning Capital and towards one where labour owns what is produces an
is self governing is the way to go. I believe the idea of "employment" needs to be abolished and replaced with a system of property rights where anyone working is
considered to be a joint-owner of the production process and the liabilities and product that arise from that.
You are implying that being filthy right and having lots of megabucks in participations and firm shares makes you a capitalist. Which it doesn't.
I am saying that. I am saying that if you are in the business of earning money by owning capital (ie, owning investments, companies, etc, which many many filthy rich
people do), then you are de facto, a Capitalist. How can you not be? You are literally fulfilling the defintion of a Capitalist by playing the role of one. Just
because you THINK differently, doesn't mean you aren't what you are.
There are capitalists too, there are people who believe in the ideals of Capitalism, and often I find these people are employees, so their role is to serve Capital an
Capitalists. That is a different type of capitalist. I'm talking about Capitalists. (note the capitalisaion, pun intended). The opinion of capitalists don't matte
squat as employees. Our system is Capitalism, not Employeeism.
Lots of filthy rich (or not so filthy rich people) is quite Keynessian and would have no ethical issue with bailouts and the like.
Quite so. Why the hell would people who own Capital want to get rid of tax-payer funded bailouts, and of regulation and laws that can cripple their competition? Why
would Jeff Bezos want to be put into a position where he has to pay employees a living wage, instead of having his labour subsidised by tax-payer funded welfare? Why
would people who own investment properties not want the tax-payer subsidised Negative Gearing and other concessions? Of course they would vote for and support that!
Why would Bill Gates want in the 1990s fairer competition?
You don't become a filthy rich Capitalist by having "ethical issues"!! Imagine you were responsible for a major financial entity, that was to be bailed out, and a
"capitalist" employee starting agitating for and end to bail outs, in his own private life. A good Capitalist wanting to keep their money and power would fire such a
person, they are not acting in the interests of the Capital!
What you are asking for, is impossible, a paradox. The ideal "capitalist" world is just as fanciful as the ideal Marxist world.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really something that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down syste
from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not having private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read enough on that to say
anything substantial.
In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production, or assets that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does no
mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make yourself.
I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own means of production. If you have money, and that money goes towards an organisation which is engag
in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You don't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.
The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of production. We should end that I think.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Re: Re: 5G
By: Moondog to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 11:36 am
A few years ago I was working with a military contractor, and the engonee were dealing with teaching the vehicle to drive along a hillside. As you drive parallel to an incline, gravity wants to act against the vehicle an pull you off your path. Not only must the vehicle compensate for this, i must be aware of it's own center of gravity to avoid tipping over.
I am sure AI has overcome such issues these days. Have you seen the dogs and bipedal robots from Boston Dynamics? Robotics sure have come a long way sinc Honda's ASIMO. Tech/aritficial intellience advancement will snowball now muc in line with Moore's Law in relation to computer power.
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Moondog to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 11:14 pm
Talk of social engineering people away from individualism freaks me out. Taking away our families and making us "citizens of the system" sounds to de-humanizing. Imagine what will be done with people who are square pegs a system with round holes, and may be borderline autistic or suffer ADHD other chemical or emotional disorders? Do they get euthanized? Are they aborted after showing signs they might be "out of spec?" Or if it's possible ,do we alter their genes not only to fit in, but to also go furt and tweak their DNA to fit a required role? Could that tweaking include dumbing
someone down to be more content in a menial job?
I don't know what would happen to the first-generation of people surviving t transition into a benevolant scientific dictatorship, such as the one descri in BNW. You have to remember that the children of the future may well be "designer babies" constructed to fit a pre-designated role in society. In BN you had Alphas and Betas (representing the middle and upper echelons of society) and the Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons representing the lower-end of t heirachy. It's a top-down administrative structure where all citizens have signed a metaphorical social contract to fulfil their role in society until death whereupon they are cremated by the World State and reused as phosperus for plant fertilizer.
It's a sterile world where everyone is a mere tool of the state. There are n uprisings as the administrators meet the needs of the citizens... and all historical information relating to the "old world" is hidden away under lock and key.
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: MRO to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 10:26 pm
well for quite a long time, every once in a while i hear about a pizza making machine or even that mcdonalds had a burger making machine that worked great. they still dont have them anyplace. i wonder why that is.
a bigmac and cheeseburger vending machine would be a hit at my workplac our vending machine food is dogshit.
Vending machine food usually is fairly basic.. Usually the kinds of things
you could really expect much from a vending machine, but freshly-prepared h
Nightfox
On 8/5/2020 10:00 AM, Andeddu wrote:
Capitalism in practice has a finite shelf life. It's the same as saying communism works... which it does, but only in theory. When people in power that power to maintain and expand their power, they can corrupt either ide to their will.
Perhaps there's a need for a new and permanant economic constitution based the theoretical ideals of capitalism that worked so well for the US in the past.
I tent to think of Corporatism as a wierd offshoot of Capitalism. I'm mostly a pragmatic libertarian, and feel that like limited government,
the power granted to corporations should also be limited. Corporations
are supposed to be a reasonable exchange for allowing limited liability
in exchange for collective capital use. IMO this should mean that accounting should be open, even for privately owned corporations and
that they should not be given a voice in terms of politics without much
more transparency, if at all.
Most of the issues with corporatism are powers granted by government,
not an issue with those limited by government, though many of those
should be called into question as well.
And unlike most Libertarians, I'm only in favor of allowing free trade
with countries that have similar free-market behaviors (we should not
have free/open trade with Communist countries). And it should generally
be reciprocal. I'm also more pragmatic about border controls and immigration, but still more libertarian leaning than a typical Republican.
Maximizing individual liberty is usually the right answer in my mind. Corporations are non-living entities and emphatically *NOT* individuals
and should not be treated as such imo.
--
Michael J. Ryan
tracker1 +o Roughneck BBS
UBI is not inherently different than any other messure of State control over the economy. The reason is that in order to pay everybody 500 bucks per month, those bucks have to be syphoned from elsewhere, and here is where Keynessians strike. They get to decide who pays it.
On 08-03-20 18:28, Ogg wrote to All <=-
What exactly are the non-working people going to do? Is it supposed to
Depends on their imagination, I have little trouble filling my day, so
much so that when I'm not working (like now), people joke that I have
no time to work anyway! :)
Projects, interests, quality time at home, errands, catching up with
and doing favours for friends, and so on.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-y
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 09:45 am
I support an ownership economy, and I think moving away from a system where
ou own production by owning Capital and towards one where labour ownsneeds
what is produces an
is self governing is the way to go. I believe the idea of "employment"
to be abolished and replaced with a system of property rights where anyone working is
considered to be a joint-owner of the production process and the liabilities
and product that arise from that.
I think we have already covered that elsewhere.
The idea of employment is that it allows people to join up and do
things that they could not do separate. In its most crude form: Jack
owns a shovel and Amy knows about potatoes. Amy can't really grow
potatoes without a shovel, so he asks Jack for help. Jack lends the
means of production (shovel) to Amy in exchange of a part of the production. Since Amy can't grow potatoes without help, she agrees and both Jack and Amy benefit.
What seems to bother a lot of people now is that Jack gets to keep 90 potatoes for each one Amy does, but that is because Jack is providing vehicles, distribution channels, marketing, etc etc etc and maintaining all of that, which is an effort and deployment of resources that dwarfs the ones of any individual employee. That is prety much the reason why many writers sell the rights of their works for a pittance. Jack has
the actualy ability, skills and resources to market your books and find readers. The only thing Amy does is writing awesome books.
When you declare that any firm is to be a join venture built on egalitarian grounds you are trying to make people with different levels
of skill have more or less the same say in the firm's matters, which
does not fly in real life. If there is only a dude who knows how to gow potatoes and everybody else in the firm only knows how to dig holes,
the potato-engineer has all the control of the firm in practice.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-doesn
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 06 2020 10:21 am
You are implying that being filthy right and having lots of megabucks in participations and firm shares makes you a capitalist. Which it
't.mon
I am saying that. I am saying that if you are in the business of earning
ey by owning capital (ie, owning investments, companies, etc, whichar
many many filthy rich
people do), then you are de facto, a Capitalist. How can you not be? You
e literally fulfilling the defintion of a Capitalist by playing theCapi
role of one. Just
because you THINK differently, doesn't mean you aren't what you are.
There are capitalists too, there are people who believe in the ideals of
talism, and often I find these people are employees, so their role isCapi
to serve Capital an
Capitalists. That is a different type of capitalist. I'm talking about
talists. (note the capitalisaion, pun intended). The opinion of capitalists don't mattetax-p
squat as employees. Our system is Capitalism, not Employeeism.
Lots of filthy rich (or not so filthy rich people) is quite Keynessian and would have no ethical issue with bailouts and the like.
Quite so. Why the hell would people who own Capital want to get rid of
ayer funded bailouts, and of regulation and laws that can cripple their competition? Whyemployees
would Jeff Bezos want to be put into a position where he has to pay
a living wage, instead of having his labour subsidised by tax-payer funded welfare? WhyImagi
would people who own investment properties not want the tax-payer subsidised
Negative Gearing and other concessions? Of course they would vote for
and support that!
Why would Bill Gates want in the 1990s fairer competition?
You don't become a filthy rich Capitalist by having "ethical issues"!!
ne you were responsible for a major financial entity, that was to be bailed out, and aown
"capitalist" employee starting agitating for and end to bail outs, in his
private life. A good Capitalist wanting to keep their money and power would fire such awo
person, they are not acting in the interests of the Capital!
What you are asking for, is impossible, a paradox. The ideal "capitalist"
rld is just as fanciful as the ideal Marxist world.
There is a Spanish saying. "Against the vice of begging, the vistue of dennying."
Of course it is in the best interest of any minority to use the power
of the government to its own ends. The question is how in the hell does the general population allow such thing to happen. If there was just a little more cultural resistence against tax increases and the like, corporative statism would not have the leverage it does (because there
is less money for them to leverage).
According to your definition, a Socialist government is a big
Capitalist agent. So I am going to borrow that one in order to get my fieds pissed off :-)
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-s
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Atroxi on Thu Aug 06 2020 09:35 pm
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really
omething that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down systeh
from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not
aving private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well readasse
enough on that to say
anything substantial.
In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production, or
ts that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does noyourself.
mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make
I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own means ofp
roduction. If you have money, and that money goes towards andon
organisation which is engag
in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You
't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.producti
The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of
on. We should end that I think.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
The problem I have with this argument is that everything is a means of production.
Your beloved donkey is only a pet until somebody realizes you can train him to work, now he is a means of production and can be socialized.
Same with garden maintenance machines and notebooks.
So once you declare that means of production are fair game, you open yourself to have your donkey taken and then get none of the potatoes he produces because the pwoers that be thing somebody else needs them more than you do.
Moondog wrote to Andeddu <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Andeddu to Moondog on Wed Aug 05 2020 05:21 pm
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Moondog to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 11:14 pm
Talk of social engineering people away from individualism freaks me out. Taking away our families and making us "citizens of the system" sounds to de-humanizing. Imagine what will be done with people who are square pegs a system with round holes, and may be borderline autistic or suffer ADHD other chemical or emotional disorders? Do they get euthanized? Are they aborted after showing signs they might be "out of spec?" Or if it's possible ,do we alter their genes not only to fit in, but to also go furt and tweak their DNA to fit a required role? Could that tweaking include dumbing
someone down to be more content in a menial job?
I don't know what would happen to the first-generation of people surviving t transition into a benevolant scientific dictatorship, such as the one descri in BNW. You have to remember that the children of the future may well be "designer babies" constructed to fit a pre-designated role in society. In BN you had Alphas and Betas (representing the middle and upper echelons of society) and the Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons representing the lower-end of t heirachy. It's a top-down administrative structure where all citizens have signed a metaphorical social contract to fulfil their role in society until death whereupon they are cremated by the World State and reused as phosperus for plant fertilizer.
It's a sterile world where everyone is a mere tool of the state. There are n uprisings as the administrators meet the needs of the citizens... and all historical information relating to the "old world" is hidden away under lock and key.
Well said. If any "anomalies" that weren't designed in or filtered out manifest themselves, that person can be aborted at any age to save the "purity" of the system and state.
I still wonder if even in that type of system if one could eliminate corruption. The Alphas on top would be most suspect, due to they
observe and administer everything, but even at lower levels someone may figure out how to game the system or accidentally come into awareness there is more to the system than existence.
Moondog wrote to Andeddu <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Andeddu to Moondog on Wed Aug 05 2020 05:21 pm
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Moondog to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 11:14 pm
Talk of social engineering people away from individualism freaks me ou Taking away our families and making us "citizens of the system" sounds de-humanizing. Imagine what will be done with people who are square p a system with round holes, and may be borderline autistic or suffer AD other chemical or emotional disorders? Do they get euthanized? Are t aborted after showing signs they might be "out of spec?" Or if it's possible ,do we alter their genes not only to fit in, but to also go f and tweak their DNA to fit a required role? Could that tweaking inclu dumbing
someone down to be more content in a menial job?
I don't know what would happen to the first-generation of people survivin transition into a benevolant scientific dictatorship, such as the one des in BNW. You have to remember that the children of the future may well be "designer babies" constructed to fit a pre-designated role in society. In you had Alphas and Betas (representing the middle and upper echelons of society) and the Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons representing the lower-end o heirachy. It's a top-down administrative structure where all citizens hav signed a metaphorical social contract to fulfil their role in society unt death whereupon they are cremated by the World State and reused as phospe for plant fertilizer.
It's a sterile world where everyone is a mere tool of the state. There ar uprisings as the administrators meet the needs of the citizens... and all historical information relating to the "old world" is hidden away under l and key.
Well said. If any "anomalies" that weren't designed in or filtered out manifest themselves, that person can be aborted at any age to save the "purity" of the system and state.
I still wonder if even in that type of system if one could eliminate corruption. The Alphas on top would be most suspect, due to they observe and administer everything, but even at lower levels someone may figure out how to game the system or accidentally come into awareness there is more to the system than existence.
One of the fundamental problems with the UBI is that is supposed that it is desirable to automate away everything. It is good to automate menial jobs, dangerous ones, repetitive ones, but all of them? I think psychologically, having a population which only "exists" and doesn't work for itself would be disasterous.
Human beings need for their own wellbeing, to go through a process where eff and power is exerted to maintain oneself.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really something that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down system from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not having private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read enough on that to say anything substantial.
In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production,
or assets that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does not mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make yourself.
I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own
means of production. If you have money, and that money goes towards an organisation which is engaging in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You don't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.
The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of production. We should end that I think.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-s
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Atroxi on
Thu Aug 06 2020 09:35 pm
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really
omething that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down systeh
from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not
aving private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well readasse
enough on that to say
anything substantial.
In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production, or
ts that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does noyourself.
mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make
I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own means ofp
roduction. If you have money, and that money goes towards andon
organisation which is engag
in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You
't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.producti
The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of
on. We should end that I think.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
The problem I have with this argument is that everything is a means of production.
Your beloved donkey is only a pet until somebody realizes you can train him to work, now he is a means of production and can be socialized.
Same with garden maintenance machines and notebooks.
So once you declare that means of production are fair game, you open yourself to have your donkey taken and then get none of the potatoes he produces because the pwoers that be thing somebody else needs them more than you do.
On 08-06-20 20:43, Ogg wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The discussion was what would humans do when they are all jobless and replaced by automation. At least total displacement is the theorical extreme. I don't think that would ever be the reality. Money
ultimately drives progress and/or exploitation. Rich people need other people.
The writers for StarTrek or similar have explored the idea of societies where automation surpasses human efficiency, and eventually androids/ machines "decide" that humans are a hinderance to further efficiency therefore must be destroyed.
One of the fundamental problems with the UBI is that is supposed that it is desirable to automate away everything. It is good to automate menial jobs, dangerous ones, repetitive ones, but all of them? I think psychologically, having a population which only "exists" and doesn't work for itself would be disasterous.
Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:26 am
Moondog wrote to Andeddu <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Andeddu to Moondog on Wed Aug 05 2020 05:21 pm
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Moondog to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 11:14 pm
Talk of social engineering people away from individualism freaks me ou Taking away our families and making us "citizens of the system" sounds de-humanizing. Imagine what will be done with people who are square p a system with round holes, and may be borderline autistic or suffer AD other chemical or emotional disorders? Do they get euthanized? Are t aborted after showing signs they might be "out of spec?" Or if it's possible ,do we alter their genes not only to fit in, but to also go f and tweak their DNA to fit a required role? Could that tweaking inclu dumbing
someone down to be more content in a menial job?
I don't know what would happen to the first-generation of people survivin transition into a benevolant scientific dictatorship, such as the one des in BNW. You have to remember that the children of the future may well be "designer babies" constructed to fit a pre-designated role in society. In you had Alphas and Betas (representing the middle and upper echelons of society) and the Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons representing the lower-end o heirachy. It's a top-down administrative structure where all citizens hav signed a metaphorical social contract to fulfil their role in society unt death whereupon they are cremated by the World State and reused as phospe for plant fertilizer.
It's a sterile world where everyone is a mere tool of the state. There ar uprisings as the administrators meet the needs of the citizens... and all historical information relating to the "old world" is hidden away under l and key.
Well said. If any "anomalies" that weren't designed in or filtered out manifest themselves, that person can be aborted at any age to save the "purity" of the system and state.
I still wonder if even in that type of system if one could eliminate corruption. The Alphas on top would be most suspect, due to they observe and administer everything, but even at lower levels someone may figure out how to game the system or accidentally come into awareness there is more to the system than existence.
One of the fundamental problems with the UBI is that is supposed that it is desirable to automate away everything. It is good to automate menial jobs, dangerous ones, repetitive ones, but all of them? I think psychologically, having a population which only "exists" and doesn't work for itself would be disasterous.
Human beings need for their own wellbeing, to go through a process where eff and power is exerted to maintain oneself.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead
of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land
provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really something that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down system from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not having private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read enough on that to say anything substantial.
In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production,
or assets that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does not mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make yourself.
I see. Yeah, I should do more reading on this. It's really quite interesting to dive into the idea of property and what it means to own something. Like, for example, what you just mentioned and I'm seeing an argument to be made with how everything that man produced can be
treated as means to production, that man being a product of society
cannot really categorically privately own something. But still, I think
my argument would fall flat and hollow as I haven't done enough reading
in it to say anything more substantial on it.
I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own
means of production. If you have money, and that money goes towards an organisation which is engaging in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You don't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.
Yes, that is true.
The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of production. We should end that I think.
I agree.
Underminer wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:26 am
One of the fundamental problems with the UBI is that is supposed that it is desirable to automate away everything. It is good to automate menial jobs, dangerous ones, repetitive ones, but all of them? I think psychologically, having a population which only "exists" and doesn't work for itself would be disasterous.
I understand your concern, but there's a difference between automating away work, and automating away all tasks. It is desirable to automate
away jobs and required work in order to allow us to "work" at things
which are interesting to us, or present opportunities for self
betterment, but are not things others would ever supplement or
reimburse us for.
Case in point, we're discussing this on a platform that exists only as
a hobby within a mostly nostalgic community. Building these systems and networks is something that we gain a sense of accomplishment for, leave
us fealing fullfilled, and are a creative and productive enterprise,
but you'd never be able to do it as a "Job."
TL;DR: Automation and UBI can mean the end of jobs and employment, but that's not the same as an end to human efforts and energy expenditure.
Atroxi wrote to Arelor <=-
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Atroxi on
Thu Aug 06 2020 09:35 pm
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't reallys
omething that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down syste
from days gone past. Maybe it is high time toh
rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not
aving private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read
enough on that to say
anything substantial.
In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production, or
asse
ts that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does no
mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make
yourself.
I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own means of
p
roduction. If you have money, and that money goes towards an
organisation which is engag
in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You
don
't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.
The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of
producti
on. We should end that I think.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
The problem I have with this argument is that everything is a means of production.
Your beloved donkey is only a pet until somebody realizes you can train him to work, now he is a means of production and can be socialized.
Same with garden maintenance machines and notebooks.
So once you declare that means of production are fair game, you open yourself to have your donkey taken and then get none of the potatoes he produces because the pwoers that be thing somebody else needs them more than you do.
Yeah, this is the reason why I think state socialism is a bit iffy as
it's primary method of getting people to do anything is to coerce them. The donkey that serve as your pet and doesn't serve towards the means
of production is suddenly being taken from you regardless whether or
not you want the state to do so. Mutual agreement toward common goals
are better motivators of human action rather than anything mandated.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 09:45 am
I support an ownership economy, and I think moving away from a system whey
ou own production by owning Capital and towards one where labour owns what is produces anneeds
is self governing is the way to go. I believe the idea of "employment"
to be abolished and replaced with a system of property rights where anyone working is
considered to be a joint-owner of the production process and the liabilit
and product that arise from that.
I think we have already covered that elsewhere.
The idea of employment is that it allows people to join up and do things that they could not do separate. In its most crude form: Jack owns a shovel and Amy knows about potatoes. Amy can't really grow potatoes without a shovel, so he asks Jack for help. Jack lends the means of production (shovel) to Amy in exchange of a part of the production. Since Amy can't grow potatoes without help, she agrees and both Jack and Amy benefit.
You are describing renting a shovel. Amy grows the potatoes, Jack if a fact supplier. The shovel is equipment, not the "means of production" as the sho does nothing without labour.
What seems to bother a lot of people now is that Jack gets to keep 90 potatoes for each one Amy does, but that is because Jack is providing vehicles, distribution channels, marketing, etc etc etc and maintaining all of that, which is an effort and deployment of resources that dwarfs the ones of any individual employee. That is prety much the reason why many writers sell the rights of their works for a pittance. Jack has the actualy ability, skills and resources to market your books and find readers. The only thing Amy does is writing awesome books.
The problem here is you are making a leap from being a factor supplier (providing equipment) and labourer (maintaining channels, marketing), to "owning the means of production". Why does Jack get to keep the product? I it an inherit property right of the equipment or owning a firm? No. It is because Jack hired Amy. Lets say that Amy hired/rented Jack, and Jacks equipment, then Amy would be the "owner of the means of production" and Jack would be an employee. Yet the exact same factual production proces, labour input quantity and process remains. In fact, Amy and Jack could change the contracts, and the "means of production" changes hands, without any property rights being transferred. It is not a property right that determines who ow the production process, its who gets to hire whom.
When you declare that any firm is to be a join venture built on egalitarian grounds you are trying to make people with different levels of skill have more or less the same say in the firm's matters, which does not fly in real life. If there is only a dude who knows how to gow potatoes and everybody else in the firm only knows how to dig holes, the potato-engineer has all the control of the firm in practice.
That is irrelevant. And it does fly, that is how democracy works. We all g a vote because we are all citizens. We accept it in this scenario. We acce it elsewhere. And we also accept it in companies. Shareholders vote, do th not?
You are approaching this wrong. It is TYPICAL for people to have a right ov their own engagements. Employment creates an EXCEPTION, and an odd one at that.
Control over the firm in practice is a management responsibiliy. There is a distinction between being a joint member, and a manager. It is common for people to own a company, but someone else does the day to day management. D the Board of Directors always own the company? No. Neither does a Managing Director or even a CEO.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
I'll just say "means of production" is the firm, the entity engaging in the productive activity, the pattern of contracts that drives things. It isn't t actual physical assets, although it is easy to believe it is (and many Socialists probably think it is too). It is possible to own a business, yet not own the building or any of the equipment. You still own the "means of production", because of how the contracts are arranged. It is possible to o the building AND equipment, yet not own the means of production, because you just rent them out.
It is incorrect to believe that ownership of physical assets is what constitutes owning the "means of production" (many Socialist are confused on this too).
So no, there is no basis for appropriating someones assets.
What should be partly socialised is the nature of the contracts, not the act physical assets (or capital used).
That is true. I'm building a BBS as a hobby, have programmed, done writing, volunteered for a charty and made Doom and Quake levels. If I didn't need t work, I would live a productive and fulfilled live, more so that if I had to work in the type of jobs I'm most likely to work in (jobs which can't be automated, but the way).
But I suspect I'm in a minority here though, most people don't seem so inclined.
Human beings need for their own wellbeing, to go through a process where and power is exerted to maintain oneself.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.
People moved out of necessity. The Inuit live where they do because they we forced out of nicer areas.
I have been doing some work today with underqualified people that is pretty much
non-automatable at this point.
I think the point where Skynet takes over manufacturing and serving is so ahead of
time that we will see the fall of the western civilitation before that happens.
I think Honda is still working on the Asimo. I've seen videos of some of Boston Dynamics stuff too. Interesting and weird stuff.
Civilizations have a finite shelf life.From some head-extrapolations I have done with old civilitations, I expect the Western model to crash in a matter of decades. We have already entered the "introspection" phase that precedes the oblitaration of powerful civilitations. We are outsourcing our burdens to "lesser civs", citizens are no longer combative against threats, and we hate ourselves. Give us a century tops.
I think Capitalism is more resistant than you credit it for, on the other hand, because improving your own position via exchanging something with somebody else is ptretty much the way of the world. Everybody wants to do it. WHen they try to prevent the population from doing it, people does it anyway. Look at those Argentinians, Venezuelans and Cubans dealing American Dollar. Or all the URSS corruption that went on because people bought their way out of the limits impossed by The System with bribe money.
Once the West self-destructs, the survivors will exchange gunpowder for bullets.
The big issue is that a fully laisez-faire reality can allow for too much exploitation of some, so you do want some oversight and regulation. Problem is that when you allow state regulation, suddenly you have those that become big players pushing for regulation that locks out competitors from dethroning them, and that kind of cronyism is bad for everyone. Trouble is figuring out where an appropriate line is.
There is a danger that we will end up accepting a form of Socialist Totalitarianism, where a managerial elite get to decide who gets what, who is cut out. I support the idea, we must be careful of the wolves in sheeps clothing, and assume by default that people are acting in their self interest and essentially are doing things for their own power.
Capitalism is structurally flawed. Like many ideological systems, it has to accept "exceptions" to maintain power. The big one is the loss of self governmance when someone goes to "Work". The workplace is an odd exception in western civilisation, because somehow it is considered outside of our civlisation, a place where property rights and right to self-governance are suspended. Capitalism maintains this 'dual system' notion, where at any other time, we are citizens with property rights, but at "work", we cease to become so. The closest we were to a capitalist ideal was post-feudalism, when most people were self-sufficient, living off the land.
We need to fully realise this ideal, which never really existed in the first place.
I don't know what "Communism works in theory" is supposed to mean. Does that mean there is a theory proven correct? I've never seen proof that it can work, even in theory. The "labour theory of value" is theoretically wrong.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 07 2020 10:41 am
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 09:45 am
I support an ownership economy, and I think moving away from a system whey
ou own production by owning Capital and towards one where labour owns what is produces anneeds
is self governing is the way to go. I believe the idea of "employment"
to be abolished and replaced with a system of property rights where anyone working is
considered to be a joint-owner of the production process and the liabilit
and product that arise from that.
I think we have already covered that elsewhere.
The idea of employment is that it allows people to join up and do things that they could not do separate. In its most crude form: Jack owns a shovel and Amy knows about potatoes. Amy can't really grow potatoes without a shovel, so he asks Jack for help. Jack lends the means of production (shovel) to Amy in exchange of a part of the production. Since Amy can't grow potatoes without help, she agrees and both Jack and Amy benefit.
You are describing renting a shovel. Amy grows the potatoes, Jack if a fact supplier. The shovel is equipment, not the "means of production" as the sho does nothing without labour.
What seems to bother a lot of people now is that Jack gets to keep 90 potatoes for each one Amy does, but that is because Jack is providing vehicles, distribution channels, marketing, etc etc etc and maintaining all of that, which is an effort and deployment of resources that dwarfs the ones of any individual employee. That is prety much the reason why many writers sell the rights of their works for a pittance. Jack has the actualy ability, skills and resources to market your books and find readers. The only thing Amy does is writing awesome books.
The problem here is you are making a leap from being a factor supplier (providing equipment) and labourer (maintaining channels, marketing), to "owning the means of production". Why does Jack get to keep the product? I it an inherit property right of the equipment or owning a firm? No. It is because Jack hired Amy. Lets say that Amy hired/rented Jack, and Jacks equipment, then Amy would be the "owner of the means of production" and Jack would be an employee. Yet the exact same factual production proces, labour input quantity and process remains. In fact, Amy and Jack could change the contracts, and the "means of production" changes hands, without any property rights being transferred. It is not a property right that determines who ow the production process, its who gets to hire whom.
When you declare that any firm is to be a join venture built on egalitarian grounds you are trying to make people with different levels of skill have more or less the same say in the firm's matters, which does not fly in real life. If there is only a dude who knows how to gow potatoes and everybody else in the firm only knows how to dig holes, the potato-engineer has all the control of the firm in practice.
That is irrelevant. And it does fly, that is how democracy works. We all g a vote because we are all citizens. We accept it in this scenario. We acce it elsewhere. And we also accept it in companies. Shareholders vote, do th not?
You are approaching this wrong. It is TYPICAL for people to have a right ov their own engagements. Employment creates an EXCEPTION, and an odd one at that.
Control over the firm in practice is a management responsibiliy. There is a distinction between being a joint member, and a manager. It is common for people to own a company, but someone else does the day to day management. D the Board of Directors always own the company? No. Neither does a Managing Director or even a CEO.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Providing shovels is not free. Marxist propaganda used to be that Capitalists did no work and therefore where stealing the work of
employees for free, which is not the case in my opinion. If you own a factory you need to be able to maintain it and find customers and employees for it. That is work you have to do. If you are filthy rich
you can employ agents to do it for you, but looking for good agents is also a job to do. Not to mention that taking risks is not for free
either.
I don't buy the idea that you are suspending your rights by becoming an employee either.
Modern democracies are not egalitarian. Politicians are going to listen more to certain groups than to others. Even in organizations that are supposedly horizontal, leaders emerge, as do conflicts of interest. Who
is Trump going to pay more attention to: the CEO of an OIL company, or Gandma Smith?
I have been in horizontal orgs where some people was so powerful that
he could get the whole group to do what he wanted by threatening to
leave the group. The vote of one of these guys weights much more than
what the papers say. People who is non-expendable or less-expendable is bound to amass more power than the rest no matter what your papers say.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:09 am
I'll just say "means of production" is the firm, the entity engaging in the productive activity, the pattern of contracts that drives things. It isn't t actual physical assets, although it is easy to believe it is (and many Socialists probably think it is too). It is possible to own a business, yet not own the building or any of the equipment. You still own the "means of production", because of how the contracts are arranged. It is possible to o the building AND equipment, yet not own the means of production, because you just rent them out.
It is incorrect to believe that ownership of physical assets is what constitutes owning the "means of production" (many Socialist are confused on this too).
So no, there is no basis for appropriating someones assets.
What should be partly socialised is the nature of the contracts, not the act physical assets (or capital used).
At this point it is semantics.
If the Socialist government, Union, Mob or whatever it may be called,
is the one who decides how an asset is used and under which conditions, they have seized it in practice regardless of who keeps ownership of it
in theory.
If the factory is yours but the Anarcho-syndicalists force you to adapt
to a certain set of contracts and distribution channels, lend it under their conditions, to the people they say you must, then you have no control over the factory at all and hence you don't own the phisical media. So yup the assets have been stolen for all effects and purposes.
7S
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Underminer on Fri Aug 07 2020 08:33 pm
That is true. I'm building a BBS as a hobby, have programmed, done writing, volunteered for a charty and made Doom and Quake levels. If I didn't need t work, I would live a productive and fulfilled live, more so that if I had to work in the type of jobs I'm most likely to work in (jobs which can't be automated, but the way).
But I suspect I'm in a minority here though, most people don't seem so inclined.
Sorry to be a waterparties here, but the core problem there is that building Doom and Quake levels for hobby puts no food on your table or
on somebody else's table in any economic system.
Work is not the invention of any economic system. If there was no
economic system at all (ie no trade or exchange) you'd have to harvest, collect and hunt . You'd have no time to make Doom levels.
You can make Doom levels because there is an economic system built so there is efficient resource distribution, but that does not sustain if
a huge part of the population turns to leissure activities.
Now, if automation turned the value of worth to zero, then yes, you'd
have a productive life of Doom level making because work would be free
for everybody.
Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 08:04 pm
Human beings need for their own wellbeing, to go through a process where and power is exerted to maintain oneself.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.
People moved out of necessity. The Inuit live where they do because they we forced out of nicer areas.
There are exceptions where some have less a choice to move and adapt, however a common thread in this is they retain a level of automony and social order to allow them to flourish in less than favorable
conditions. From how things are portrayed in dystopian futures, the individuals automony is commonly surrendered as a means to maintain the state.
Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 10:45 am
Capitalism is structurally flawed. Like many ideological systems, it has to accept "exceptions" to maintain power. The big one is the loss of self governmance when someone goes to "Work". The workplace is an odd exception in western civilisation, because somehow it is considered outside of our civlisation, a place where property rights and right to self-governance are suspended. Capitalism maintains this 'dual system' notion, where at any other time, we are citizens with property rights, but at "work", we cease to become so. The closest we were to a capitalist ideal was post-feudalism, when most people were self-sufficient, living off the land.
We need to fully realise this ideal, which never really existed in the first place.
I don't know what "Communism works in theory" is supposed to mean. Does that mean there is a theory proven correct? I've never seen proof that it can work, even in theory. The "labour theory of value" is theoretically wrong.
Interesting... I never thought of capitalism being hypocritical in a
sense by way of this 'dual system' intertwined in a person's work/home life.
I don't know if communism could ever work. I suppose such a society
could exist if carried out by an incorruptible AI dictator strictly adhering to the tenants of the ideology, as it's clear no human can
handle absolute power.
MRO wrote to Moondog <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Moondog to Dennisk on Thu Aug 06 2020 11:41 pm
Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.
isnt it strange how humans create all this unnecessary conflict in
their lives? we could build our homes, grow our crops, raise our
families and be happy, but we created all this crap that gives us
stress. ---
On 08-07-20 02:23, Underminer wrote to Dennisk <=-
TL;DR: Automation and UBI can mean the end of jobs and employment, but that's not the same as an end to human efforts and energy expenditure.
On 08-07-20 20:33, Dennisk wrote to Underminer <=-
That is true. I'm building a BBS as a hobby, have programmed, done writing, volunteered for a charty and made Doom and Quake levels. If I didn't need to work, I would live a productive and fulfilled live, more
so that if I had to work in the type of jobs I'm most likely to work in (jobs which can't be automated, but the way).
But I suspect I'm in a minority here though, most people don't seem so inclined.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I see. Yeah, I should do more reading on this. It's really quite interesting to dive into the idea of property and what it means to own something. Like, for example, what you just mentioned and I'm seeing an argument to be made with how everything that man produced can be
treated as means to production, that man being a product of society
cannot really categorically privately own something. But still, I think
my argument would fall flat and hollow as I haven't done enough reading
in it to say anything more substantial on it.
A lot of people fail to draw the distinction between physical property
and contracts. You may hear the phrase "I own factory", but really,
there are two distinct elements, the ownership of the physical factory, and owning the patterns of contracts which form the firm which use the factory. We have to be sure to keep the two separate.
Our model of production says that capital inputs resources and labour
to produce a product, and as a result capital is the claimant of that
at the end of the process. In reality, labour inputs resources and capital to produce a product. Labour owns the end product, but labour
is also responsible for the liabilities (paying for inputs, use of the factory if it not owned by the labour organisation, paying returns to capital).
Capital owners will therefore be able to make money, allowing labour to use their resources at whatever agreed upon price. However a contract which says that Capital is conducting the labour would be invalid.
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Arelor <=-
The problem I have with this argument is that everything is a means of production.
Your beloved donkey is only a pet until somebody realizes you can train him to work, now he is a means of production and can be socialized.
Same with garden maintenance machines and notebooks.
So once you declare that means of production are fair game, you open yourself to have your donkey taken and then get none of the potatoes he produces because the pwoers that be thing somebody else needs them more than you do.
Yeah, this is the reason why I think state socialism is a bit iffy as
it's primary method of getting people to do anything is to coerce them. The donkey that serve as your pet and doesn't serve towards the means
of production is suddenly being taken from you regardless whether or
not you want the state to do so. Mutual agreement toward common goals
are better motivators of human action rather than anything mandated.
This is why college Marxists shouldn't be making decisions. Marxist Socialism also, like Capitalism, alienates labour from its rightful property right. Marxists get confused between owning the factory
itself, and owning the patter of contracts which defines the firm.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I see. Yeah, I should do more reading on this. It's really quite interesting to dive into the idea of property and what it means to own something. Like, for example, what you just mentioned and I'm seeing an argument to be made with how everything that man produced can be
treated as means to production, that man being a product of society
cannot really categorically privately own something. But still, I think
my argument would fall flat and hollow as I haven't done enough reading
in it to say anything more substantial on it.
A lot of people fail to draw the distinction between physical property
and contracts. You may hear the phrase "I own factory", but really,
there are two distinct elements, the ownership of the physical factory, and owning the patterns of contracts which form the firm which use the factory. We have to be sure to keep the two separate.
Yeah, I see. But would it matter though, if you own the factory but
don't own the patterns of contracts of which the one that actually produces. Because what it appears to me is that owning the physical
object that allows for the contracts to take place also has a bearing
in whether the contract would take place in the first place. That if I
own the factory that should also necessitate me owning the contract, or
at least part of it, that allows any production to occur. Because
without doing so, property owners are nothing but duds and there's no point for them to exist.
I mean, I see why they are technically separate. But I guess my
question is: would it matter differentiating those two if owning, that
is having exclusive right over, the physical object if they are a part
of the contracts anyway?
Our model of production says that capital inputs resources and labour
to produce a product, and as a result capital is the claimant of that
at the end of the process. In reality, labour inputs resources and capital to produce a product. Labour owns the end product, but labour
is also responsible for the liabilities (paying for inputs, use of the factory if it not owned by the labour organisation, paying returns to capital).
Capital owners will therefore be able to make money, allowing labour to use their resources at whatever agreed upon price. However a contract which says that Capital is conducting the labour would be invalid.
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
Re: Re: 5G
By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Wed Aug 05 2020 02:24 pm
I think Honda is still working on the Asimo. I've seen videos of some of Boston Dynamics stuff too. Interesting and weird stuff.
I hadn't bothered much with the robotics scene for years but it looks like t engineers are pushing things forward by leaps and bounds, it'll be interesti whenver they combine these things with machine learning.
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Moondog to Dennisk on Thu Aug 06 2020 11:41 pm
Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild plac I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.
isnt it strange how humans create all this unnecessary conflict in their liv
I don't know if communism could ever work. I suppose such a society could ex if carried out by an incorruptible AI dictator strictly adhering to the tena of the ideology, as it's clear no human can handle absolute power.
Does the state have the right to say that as part of a contract, what you ea and crate is the states and not yours? Does the state have a right to say t you don't even have a vote?
Is there a philosophical and ideological basis for doing this to people? Wh is the justification of an organisation doing this?
Do you have a natural right to what you create, or not?
Most socialists want a degree of control over others that I find disturbing. am libertarian in that sense, but I think when it comes to engagement with others, then your liberty ends, and overall natural rights take over. One o hand, we are told that the core axiom of Capitalism, is that an individual w blends their labour with something, is the rightful owner, yet the BULK or productive activity, seems to exclude this. Likewise with democray, the bul of our day is spend in an organisation where such rights don't exist.
Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive ownership of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The first role is that of landlord or owner of
equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The second role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically run organisation which you may even manage, p
rent to YOU.
The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the two, and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own personal assets.
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Atroxi on Sat Aug 08 2020 10:06 pm
Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive ownership of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The first role is that of landlord or owner of
equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The second role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically run organisation which you may even manage
rent to YOU.
The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the two, and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own personal assets.
That argument is confussing.
If you say the contracts involving the means of production must be socialized, you claim for the socialization of the contract between the guy that leases the factory and the
people who uses the factory.
If not the case, your horizontal organization would not be horizontal anymore since the person owning the assets is automatically more powerful than the other members of the workforce. "If y
don't aprove this rule I am withdrawing my assets." Sure, you cn move the business out of the current location, but that is usually such a hassle that the owner of the assets is not on equal
foot with the other people, by a large margin.
--
gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es
Andeddu wrote to Arelor <=-
I believe we are very near the end of our current system... our
form of capitalism will likely end once our banking system fails,
and I can't see that lasting more than five years. The monetery
system we have, which is based on fiat currency, has no where
else to go now other than hyper-inflation... once all the bubbles
crash (and they will simultaneously) it'll pretty much be the end
of the west. This is why I am banking on AI automation to
mitigate the collapse and bring on a sharper recovery. Technology
shall save us all!
isnt it strange how humans create all this unnecessary conflict in
their liv
Humans are thinkers and builders. If we can find a better way or build a
For example, North and South America had larger animals such as Buffalo, however they didn't have any others that could be used as beasts of burden until the Spanish brought over horses. Without the horse or ox, there was little need for road building and the invention of the wheel.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sat Aug 08 2020 12:56 pm
Does the state have the right to say that as part of a contract, what you ea and crate is the states and not yours? Does the state have a right to say t you don't even have a vote?
Is there a philosophical and ideological basis for doing this to people? Wh is the justification of an organisation doing this?
Do you have a natural right to what you create, or not?
I think the cases are no comparable.
When you enter an employment contract, what you are doing is selling
the work you do during a certain timeframe of the day in exchange of a payroll. You own the labor, you are just selling it automatically.
Also, simple ownership is no labor, but there is a nitpick. Are you
aware that lots of lottery winners end up bankrupt? That is because
assets need maintenance. If you have a van, you have to maintain it or
it ceases to function. If you own something, you have to maintain it in order to let it be productive. Maintainership is labor. Even if you outsource it.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-ownersh
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Atroxi on Sat Aug 08 2020 10:06 pm
Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive
ip of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The first role is that of landlord or owner ofsecon
equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The
d role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically run organisation which you may even manage, p
rent to YOU.
The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the two,
and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own
personal assets.
That argument is confussing.
If you say the contracts involving the means of production must be socialized, you claim for the socialization of the contract between the guy that leases the factory and the people who uses the factory.
If not the case, your horizontal organization would not be horizontal anymore since the person owning the assets is automatically more
powerful than the other members of the workforce. "If you don't aprove this rule I am withdrawing my assets." Sure, you cn move the business
out of the current location, but that is usually such a hassle that the owner of the assets is not on equal foot with the other people, by a
large margin.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-owne
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Arelor to Dennisk on Sat Aug 08 2020 02:18 pm
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Atroxi on Sat Aug 08 2020 10:06 pm
Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive
rship of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. These
first role is that of landlord or owner of
equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The
cond role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democraticallytw
run organisation which you may even manage
rent to YOU.
The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the
o, and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own personal assets.social
That argument is confussing.
If you say the contracts involving the means of production must be
ized, you claim for the socialization of the contract between the guyanymore
that leases the factory and the
people who uses the factory.
If not the case, your horizontal organization would not be horizontal
since the person owning the assets is automatically more powerful than the other members of the workforce. "If ybus
don't aprove this rule I am withdrawing my assets." Sure, you cn move the
iness out of the current location, but that is usually such a hassle
that the owner of the assets is not on equal
foot with the other people, by a large margin.
--
gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es
By the way, declaring that a democratic workplace won't involve itself into self-destructive voting is like claiming a democratic country
won't involve itself in self-harmful voting.
A majority in the workplace (or a powerful minority in the workplace)
can screw you really hard. This is true in our current system in which
you have members of the workforce screw people who is unpopular over
(ie horizontal mobbin and the like)
The issue has been overcome, but it's something that doesn't immediately come to mind when developing a driving program. It's like the early AI programs trying to understand written text. Before reading, an basic understanding of the universe must occur. When Abraham Lincold went to Springfield, IL, so
did his feet. Stuff that we don't think about has to factored in to developin g an AI.
Well said. If any "anomalies" that weren't designed in or filtered out manifest
themselves, that person can be aborted at any age to save the "purity" of the system and state.
I still wonder if even in that type of system if one could eliminate corruption. The Alphas on top would be most suspect, due to they observe and administer everything, but even at lower levels someone may figure out how to game the system or accidentally come into awareness there is more to the
system than existence.
The discussion was what would humans do when they are all jobless and replaced by automation. At least total displacement is the theorical extreme. I don't think that would ever be the reality. Money ultimately drives progress and/or exploitation. Rich people need other people.
The writers for StarTrek or similar have explored the idea of societies where automation surpasses human efficiency, and eventually androids/ machines "decide" that humans are a hinderance to further efficiency therefore must be destroyed.
I understand your concern, but there's a difference between automating away work, and automating away all tasks. It is desirable to automate away jobs and required work in order to allow us to "work" at things which are interesting to us, or present opportunities for self betterment, but are not things others would ever supplement or reimburse us for.
Asimo is more or less a puppet compared to Boston Dynamics products. It required an operator which was more like like an experienced puppeteer for it to do things such as walk up or down stairs. Ford Motor Company has a robot similar to the Boston Dynamics offerings that folds up when not in use, kind
of like the battle Droids in Phantom Menace, and it is designed to ride in the
back of a delivery truck. I can imagine the truck being automated, and through GPS and QRF bar codes it would know which packages to deliver to each home. Upon delivery it would send a text or email, then jump back into it's self-driving truck and head to the next customer.
The problem is that somebody has to code the AI in the first place. And once he does, it is easy for him to code the AI to Favor Arelor at Any Cost. Just saying.
Not to mention the lower echelons of a communist system always end up trying to bribe their way out of the system anyway.
If you are selling labour, why do they pay by the hour? Why are there minim hours? Why can they claim that anything you do is there?
You NEVER have legal possession of the work you do when employed. No employment contract states what you claim. Companies clearly talk about hav labour.
I would like to see you in a court, try to claim that at any point, the prod of your labour is something you have some ownership of.
You rent yourself as a person to the company. That is why they say they HIR you. Hire is a synonym for rent. Economically, the company pays for you th same way they pay for equipment they rent.
1) Initiation of property rights for new objects/services are determined by labour. When a new object enters the economy, the labour is the rightful ow and ALSO responsible for liabilites (ie, paying for the equipment, resource, etc used). A contract which claims that labour cannot be the rightful owner should be considered as invalid, just as one which claims you are my slave i not valid.
So when object X is created, the labour that created object X (including management, sales people etc) is the owner, and disposes of it by sale. The are also responsible for paying the factor suppliers (ie, paying for rent, inputs, paying interest on loans, etc).
2) Property rights are transferred through voluntary sale.
I get that. But hell, how many thousands, tens of thousands, hell, hundreds thousands of people have been screwed over by our CURRENT system? Do you th that at the moment, businesses don't fall apart, go broke, and cause harm to people through mismanagement? Are there not already millions exploited an ripped off? People who have committed suicide because their jobs were lots benefit a tiny proportion of people? I don't see what we have now as great, even functional.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:22 am
If you are selling labour, why do they pay by the hour? Why are there minim hours? Why can they claim that anything you do is there?
You NEVER have legal possession of the work you do when employed. No employment contract states what you claim. Companies clearly talk about hav labour.
I would like to see you in a court, try to claim that at any point, the prod of your labour is something you have some ownership of.
You rent yourself as a person to the company. That is why they say they HIR you. Hire is a synonym for rent. Economically, the company pays for you th same way they pay for equipment they rent.
They pay you by the hour because you are selling what you produce
within that hour.
You cannot claim ownership to what you produce because you sold it to somebody else.
There is no fundamental difference between having a gardener on a
payroll who takes X time to maintain a garden, and paying a
self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same task. You are paying for the service.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:47 am
1) Initiation of property rights for new objects/services are determined by labour. When a new object enters the economy, the labour is the rightful ow and ALSO responsible for liabilites (ie, paying for the equipment, resource, etc used). A contract which claims that labour cannot be the rightful owner should be considered as invalid, just as one which claims you are my slave i not valid.
So when object X is created, the labour that created object X (including management, sales people etc) is the owner, and disposes of it by sale. The are also responsible for paying the factor suppliers (ie, paying for rent, inputs, paying interest on loans, etc).
2) Property rights are transferred through voluntary sale.
If I make 500 rubber ducks they are mine. If I sell them to you for 500 dollar, they are yours.
If you pay me 500 dollar for all the rubber ducks that I can produce in
a certain time frame (say, 500 rubber ducks) then they are yours as
soon as I produce them, because we did 1 and 2 in just one step, but
the principle is the same.
I go as far as to say that if you produce the rubber ducks for a cooperative horizontal org that pays you for the ducks the result is
the same as being hired for making ducks.
So let's agree to disagree. Don't get employed by a third party if you don't want to, but let everybody else who watns do it.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:55 am
I get that. But hell, how many thousands, tens of thousands, hell, hundreds thousands of people have been screwed over by our CURRENT system? Do you th that at the moment, businesses don't fall apart, go broke, and cause harm to people through mismanagement? Are there not already millions exploited an ripped off? People who have committed suicide because their jobs were lots benefit a tiny proportion of people? I don't see what we have now as great, even functional.
Just saying that I have seen that sort of crap in orgs that are as close to an anarcho-syndicalist paradise as it gets. I think that sort
of arrangement only works in very specific sets of circumpstances. Anarcho-primitivists are aware of that and attempt to enforce those circumsptances in order to make such organization possible. Namely,
that nobody is more skilled than anybody else so there are no power imbalances.
Andeddu wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
The new iPhone SE is based off of the iPhone 8. I think it's the
perfect size as the old SE, based off of the iPhone 5, is a little too small for modern usage. You could get by, but I think the extra screen space is much more comfortable on the eyes.
Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
Vending machine food usually is fairly basic.. Usually the kinds of things I see in vending machines are snacks like crackers, cookies,
chips, drinks, etc., and maybe occasionally something more fancy like a packaged sandwich or something.
It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There never was.
self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same
task.
You are paying for the service.
It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.
...Money ultimately drives progress and/or exploitation. Rich people
need other people.
The writers for StarTrek or similar have explored the idea of
societies where automation surpasses human efficiency, and eventually
androids/machines "decide" that humans are a hinderance to further
efficiency therefore must be destroyed.
"So we cannot know if we will be infinitely helped by AI, or ignored by
it and side-lined, or conceivably destroyed by it. Unless we learn how
to prepare for, and avoid the potential risks, AI could be the worst
event in the history of our civilization." - Stephen Hawking
This reminds me of the weird cult in Deus Ex known as The Church of the Machine God. Its acolytes believed that it was imperative man merge
with AI in order to avoid being destroyed by it.
I read a while back that ancient Greece was home to a mostly hedonistic popualtion as there were around four slaves per citizen. The citizens
were thereafter able to pursue art, philosophy, mathematics... etc,
however I think most of them ended up getting drunk, having casual sex
and fighting wars with other regions.
I believe we are very near the end of our current system... our
form of capitalism will likely end once our banking system fails,
and I can't see that lasting more than five years. The monetery
system we have, which is based on fiat currency, has no where
else to go now other than hyper-inflation... once all the bubbles
crash (and they will simultaneously) it'll pretty much be the end
of the west. This is why I am banking on AI automation to
mitigate the collapse and bring on a sharper recovery. Technology
shall save us all!
Oh waiter! I'll have some of what this guy is smoking!
Yeah, phones have gotten bigger, coincidentally, as my eyes have
gotten worse. I remember when I had to get rid of my beloved
Blackberry Pearl because the screen was just too small for everyday
reading.
That thing was rock-solid, and I got to the point where I could fly
typing on their T9-like system.
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm
self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same
task.
You are paying for the service.
It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.
yeah my paperwork for my employer sez that anything i produce belongs
to the company. ---
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm
It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There never was.
Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically
states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..
Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Sat Aug 08 2020 07:16 pm
I believe we are very near the end of our current system... our
form of capitalism will likely end once our banking system fails,
and I can't see that lasting more than five years. The monetery
system we have, which is based on fiat currency, has no where
else to go now other than hyper-inflation... once all the bubbles
crash (and they will simultaneously) it'll pretty much be the end
of the west. This is why I am banking on AI automation to
mitigate the collapse and bring on a sharper recovery. Technology
shall save us all!
Oh waiter! I'll have some of what this guy is smoking!
I was trying to put a positive spin on a terrible situation...
the reality is, we're all doomed!
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Moondog to MRO on Sat Aug 08 2020 09:16 am
isnt it strange how humans create all this unnecessary conflict in
their liv
Humans are thinkers and builders. If we can find a better way or build
what i was saying is we create our own problems. we create our own misery.
For example, North and South America had larger animals such as Buffalo however they didn't have any others that could be used as beasts of bur until the Spanish brought over horses. Without the horse or ox, there w little need for road building and the invention of the wheel.
native americans built cities and they had roads. they cleared forests.
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there
is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.
yeah my paperwork for my employer sez that anything i produce
belongs to the company. ---
Maybe just reply to my other reply instead of this one as well, as the same point is being repeated in two threads. (ie, my other statement also covers this (I think, assuming you do "Write for Hire"))
I am glad you posted that.
From a BBC article:
"Stanley Kubrick's film 2001 and its murderous computer HAL encapsulate
many people's fears of how AI could pose a threat to human life"
Even Elon Musk has reservations on AI. I haven't read much on Elon's concerns, but I will now.
My take on AI is that although it is referred to "machine learning" by engineers, it is still a bunch of if/then/else sequences done very fast to appear like the device is smart. The if/then/else stuff and any other considerations still have to be programmed by humans. Humans are not perfect and cannot forsee all scenarios.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm
It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There nev
was.
Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..
There is a lot of confusion about these issues because of sloppy use of terms such as "hired" and "employed" and "contracted
leading people to believe that two different things are the same. When you "hire" a plumber, it is a very different economi
arrangement than when you are a manager at Walmart and you hire a cashier.
I don't know much about write for hire, and can't find much about it, but it seems to me that you are self-employed, and you
agree to a contract to produce a piece of work. From what I can tell, you don't actually get a job WITH the publisher, you
a job to do work FOR the publisher.
Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no conflict if you are contracting with someone to produce a piece of work. This is stil
very atypical and not representative of an employment contract.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Honestly, I see very little in your numerous posts that has
anything to do with "positive".
I think you can calm down a little. Capitalism isn't going
anywhere, and the robots taking over is still a century or two
away.
Really. It's true.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.
Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-pa
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Mon Aug 10 2020 09:22 am
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm
It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for,
ys the labour hire company by the hour.tra
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a
ns of property rights. There isn't. There nevterms
was.
Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..
There is a lot of confusion about these issues because of sloppy use of
such as "hired" and "employed" and "contracted"
leading people to believe that two different things are the same. When you
hire" a plumber, it is a very different economido
arrangement than when you are a manager at Walmart and you hire a cashier.
I don't know much about write for hire, and can't find much about it, but it
seems to me that you are self-employed, and you
agree to a contract to produce a piece of work. From what I can tell, you
n't actually get a job WITH the publisher, youso
a job to do work FOR the publisher.
Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no conflict if you are contracting with
meone to produce a piece of work. This is stil
very atypical and not representative of an employment contract.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to
the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that
you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.
Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Sun Aug 09 2020 05:54 pm
Honestly, I see very little in your numerous posts that has
anything to do with "positive".
I think you can calm down a little. Capitalism isn't going
anywhere, and the robots taking over is still a century or two
away.
Really. It's true.
While it's impossible to predict the future with 100% accuracy, I
believe we are at the end of our current economic system. Wishful
thinking is all most people have left in relation to the continuation
of consumerism. Most reliable analysts are in agreement that we are
about to face an economic collapse which will dwarf the likes of the
'29 Wall Street Crash. Millions of people died in the USA as a result
of that crash from famine, disease and abject poverty -- imagine how
bad things could get for us as everything's inflated to a ridiculous
level & the currency is teetering off a cliff. I hope I am waaay off,
but I just can't see it.
Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-
While it's impossible to predict the future with 100% accuracy, I
believe we are at the end of our current economic system. Wishful
thinking is all most people have left in relation to the
continuation of consumerism. Most reliable analysts are in
agreement that we are about to face an economic collapse which
will dwarf the likes of the '29 Wall Street Crash. Millions of
people died in the USA as a result of that crash from famine,
disease and abject poverty -- imagine how bad things could get
for us as everything's inflated to a ridiculous level & the
currency is teetering off a cliff. I hope I am waaay off, but I
just can't see it.
Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.
OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.
But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.
I've heard about the impending crash since I was little. I think more likely, is that instead of a crash, we will have a series of crisis, and our standard of living will just erode and erode and erode.
See, the economy is just trying to finds it natural level, and it may do so with most of us just impoverished. That future generation which will not own a house, live in a small apartement, have no job security, be controlled, never have good savings for old age, THAT is how the economy will compensate.
"Most reliable analysts" think we are about to crash, and worse
than '29???
Funny how there isn't any news coverage of that, eh?
Where are these reliable analysts located, and what are their
credentials? Where can one read their predictions?
Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Mon Aug 10 2020 08:20 pm
"Most reliable analysts" think we are about to crash, and worse
than '29???
Funny how there isn't any news coverage of that, eh?
Where are these reliable analysts located, and what are their
credentials? Where can one read their predictions?
Strange that there wasn't any news coverage either of the '08
credit crunch up until the time it happened. I don't consider
mainstream financials to be particularly trustworthy... we even
had Jim Cramer on Mad Money talking about "The DOW's best week
since 1938" with the headline below clearly stating "More than
16M Americans have lost jobs in 3 weeks"... I think there's a
clear disconnect there with these analysts invariably attempting
to inject calm into the market.
I particularly like Peter Schiff, the CEO of Euro Pacific Capital
and ex-Lehman Brothers investment banker. He was laughed at back
in 2007 while on CNN for warning of an impending crash... wel,
the other analysts didn't get the chance to laugh for long.
I guess my philosophy is to expect the worst, but hope for the
best.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Tue Aug 11 2020 09:47 am
Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.
OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.
But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.
Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in
a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output
over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's
there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign
the contract.
No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by
the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's
never been any pretense otherwise.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Tue Aug 11 2020 09:58 am
I've heard about the impending crash since I was little. I think more likely, is that instead of a crash, we will have a series of crisis, and our standard of living will just erode and erode and erode.
See, the economy is just trying to finds it natural level, and it may do so with most of us just impoverished. That future generation which will not own a house, live in a small apartement, have no job security, be controlled, never have good savings for old age, THAT is how the economy will compensate.
So far that's what's happened. We have had a series of smaller crashes over a period of a half-century. I don't disagree that we in the West
are living far in excess of our means, so your overall assessment is something I can agree with. I believe the next crash will be a much
sorer one than anything we've experienced previously after which there will be a noticible difference in life before/after the crash.
I guess it depends on how you view it... I don't think it'll be a civilisaiton ending crash, but it will result in serious impoverishment for large swathes of the population. Adding in other factors such a
large spike in crime, the defunding of the police, etc... we could be
in for some ride.
Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.
No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's never been any pretense otherwise.
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company wo claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.
You're not really answering the questions that are asked...
Naming a couple of obscure "investment bankers" does not
constitute the opinions of "most analysts". The truth is that
most analysts are not saying anything remotely close to what you
are claiming.
Sorry, but my philosophy is that facts speak more loudly than
conspiracy theories and hand-wringing claims with no basis.
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.
I think we are staring a new "dark age" in the face here. And most of it is because our "managerial class", that is, the people who get into management positions and positions of power, are intellctually, morally and behaviourally not up to the task of preserving or creating civilisation.
Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's never been any pretense otherwise.
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company wo claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.
Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are
stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.
You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over it? I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "work hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the monetary proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the story is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:17 pm
I think we are staring a new "dark age" in the face here. And most of it is because our "managerial class", that is, the people who get into management positions and positions of power, are intellctually, morally and behaviourally not up to the task of preserving or creating civilisation.
In normal times, I'd agree. I just think there's something more now
that we have advanced technology... there must be a way to alleviate
the crushing poverty of the lowest rungs of society. We haven't seen
that as yet so I guess you're merely being a realist about a new "Dark Age" however if we just kick the can down the road a little longer &
build some kind of solid automated or even non-automated manufacturing infastructre, perhaps the next crash won't be as bad as a lot of people are saying it will be. Either way, it's not looking good and we have
some tough times ahead. I would welcome a slower decline, as you said, much like the Fall of Rome, rather than a crescendo moment swallowing
us all up whole.
I don't think anyone is really trying to preserve society, everyone appears to be rushing, single-mindedly, trying to "fill their boots"
that they've forgotten that civilisations need to be maintained,
otherwise they become divided, decline and eventaully, they fall.
Nightfox wrote to Andeddu <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Tue Aug 11 2020 04:38 pm
Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.
I think there have been some companies that have specified that even employees' creations in their off hours could be considered company property. There was a movie that came out in 1999 called Pirates of Silicon valley, which was about Bill Gates & Steve Jobs and the
beginnings of Microsoft & Apple. Steve Wozniak worked with Steve Jobs
in the early days of Apple, and there was a scene in the movie where
Steve Wozniak had to go to his then-current employer (Hewlett-Packard)
to tell his manager about the computer he was designing, but his
manager didn't understand why people would want a computer at home,
which allowed him and Steve Jobs to sell the computer themselves. I'm
not sure how accurate that part was though, as I'm sure they made some mistakes in that movie.
Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Tue Aug 11 2020 07:57 pm
You're not really answering the questions that are asked...
Naming a couple of obscure "investment bankers" does not
constitute the opinions of "most analysts". The truth is that
most analysts are not saying anything remotely close to what you
are claiming.
Sorry, but my philosophy is that facts speak more loudly than
conspiracy theories and hand-wringing claims with no basis.
I'll link a video which quickly encapsulates my beliefs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBUv_-OqiE
"The Global Monetary Crisis Will be a Dollar Crisis, says Peter
Schiff"
You can also access it by typing "maneco64 peter schiff" into
YouTube.
I recently read a mainstream article on The New York Times by the legendary Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman. He boils
it down in simple terms to: We need to print more money to
stimulate the economy.
We're pretty much in a recession therefore it's nigh on
impossible to stimulate the economy. We'll also have the worst unemployment figures for decades and, in addition, non-stop
lockdowns to contend with. There's no stimulating the economy,
especially given that the US economy is service based, not
manufacturing based.
Even quantitative easing with the intent of helicopter drops to
the public won't stimulate the economy as people are too
uncertain about their jobs/futures to make large purchases,
they'll save whatever money they get. Printing cash and
purchasing government and corporate debt seems to work, but like
Schiff said, that'll just inflate ALL the debt bubbles and cause
an even bigger crash down the road. Also the US national debt is
so large that interest rates can NEVER normalise... for instance, increasing the interest rate to 5% would result in the US having
to spend 50% of ALL tax revenue on servicing the national debt.
The US goverment borrow trillions of dollars each year and this
year are well over five trillion dollars in the red. Totally unsustainable.
Once the USD crashes, it'll be a global problem. China can see
the writing on the wall which is why it's using its trade USDs on
US company stock, property and foreign assets, offloading it as
quickly as possible whilst expanding their influence across the
world.
Watch the video, and tell me why we shouldn't be worried. And
also let me know how we can prevent another depression.
I keep hearing that corporations are treated like people, but last time I checked, they don't have the same fundamental constitutional rights either in my country or the
US. At all.
The clinic I work with had a BIG problem with an ISP that managed to screw the access to some service. In Spain, phisical people has the right to fill a claim to the
Defender of the Consumer. If you are a firm you will need to fill a claim in court with your own layers since the Defender of the Consumer won't do it for you.
In the US, 4th and 5th ammendments don't apply to juridical people,
which basically means a corporation does not have a constitutional
right to privacy. If the cops walk into Necrocomp's headquarters and
demand any explanation about any given incident, Necrocomp's
employees can't call the 5th, unless they admit to be involved. But
that is troublesome for them.
Besides, any firm that grows big enough mutates into a branch of the government, specially in socialist states. Working for the government
is usually just more profitable since you can funnel lots of tax
dollar into your pockets.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that
you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company
buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep
changing what employment actually buys.
You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over i
I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "w
hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the moneta
proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the st
is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.
Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal
software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I
worked during work hours, the company could claim it.
This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually
their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the
principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For
example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could as
you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from
and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not
recognise the contractual agreement as valid.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-c
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the companywould claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the
ompany claim that during "work hours', all thatwh
you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows
at "employment" actually is. Is the companyspecif
buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What
ically is the transaction here? You can't keepproj
changing what employment actually buys.
You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said
ect, so why wouldn't they have ownership over ipr
I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone
oduced a multi-million dollar product during "wthe
hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of
company who thereafter retained all the monetaw
proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people
ould still sign it. I guess the moral of the stha
is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not
ve a claim to the fruits of your own labour.warn
Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was
ed about this when I was working on a personalit
software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do
during work hours). I was warned that if Icontract
worked during work hours, the company could claim it.
This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the
is written such that your labour is actuallyimp
their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically
ossible, and is contradictory to even thenot
principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is
automatically valid and enforceable. Forequ
example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my
ipment being my responsibility , and I could asc
you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which
learly stipulated I was purchasing labour fromN
and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law?
o. And the reason is because they would not
recognise the contractual agreement as valid.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Obviously, if they are paying you to accomplish task X during a certain time frame and you use that time for hobbies, things are going to get ugly.
Your labor becomes "theirs" because they purchased it.
Your employer can't hire you to shoot somebody dead for no reason
because the firm has not moral or legal grounds to do it itself as a juridic person.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.
Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.
IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.
You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow, SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).
You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no
Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I worked during work hours, the company could claim it.
This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could ask you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from you and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not recognise the contractual agreement as valid.
I don't think technology will save us. Technology alone doesn't create prosperity, it needs the right social conditions as well. This discussion is about how technology will free us from labout, yet look, so, so many people are working full time jobs, two jobs, and still struggling. We are not gaining from productivity improments due to a poor economic/political system.
The Dark Ages were called that due to a lack of historical records (comparitively so) and historical significant. The Eastern Roman empire continued on though, and what we now know as Byzantium was probably the
I watched all I could of it (about 10 minutes). This Schiff guy
is a nobody, completely unknown at the national level, and quite
frankly, appears to be a fringe/niche whacko. I wonder why he now
lives in Puerto Rico... No offense to you, but I put zero stock
in people such as this. It's easy (and common) to be a doom-sayer
and make bold predictions about how the world is crashing down.
This guy has apparently been doing it for 20 years. Funny thing
is, the world is still going strong, and will be for a long time
to come. That includes the USA and it's system, which although
not perfect, is still the best in the world.
Maybe you should try to be a little more "glass-half-full"...?
;-)
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.
Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.
IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.
Any big company nowadays goes around espousing that they value this or they value that and that they stand for this or they stand for that. I think they are already the church for most people especially with how prevalent they are in places where people usually access information. Sadly, they are a church whose words, and oftentimes only words, are motivated by how much profit they are projected to get from their "userbase" in the next quarter.
I don't know if this was real or just an edited picture but I saw once
a picture of someone on stage of what I assume to be a facebook conference, mostly due to the font choice in the slide shown. Either
way, it stated:
"Turn customers into fanatics
Products into obsessions
Employees to ambassadors
and brands into religions."
And so they did.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm
You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow, SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).
You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no
There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other types of responsibility, at least in the Western culture and Western jurisdictions.
If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds. Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good reason. This applies whether you
are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.
Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a
product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp lots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but then Necrocomp can
sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his negligence).
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am
Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I worked during work hours, the company could claim it.
This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could ask you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from you and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not recognise the contractual agreement as valid.
Surely there's a lawful precedent for this? Creatives have all kinds of projects going on at once and someone must have created something of
value during work hours, but not on work equipment. I don't really have
a dog in the fight, I do not have a creative bone in my body & have
never attempted to produce anything off the books at work, so it's not something I've ever considered. It's interesting, but it seems like
some kind of contractual loop-hole that needs to be tested in a court
of law.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:35 am
I don't think technology will save us. Technology alone doesn't create prosperity, it needs the right social conditions as well. This discussion is about how technology will free us from labout, yet look, so, so many people are working full time jobs, two jobs, and still struggling. We are not gaining from productivity improments due to a poor economic/political system.
The Dark Ages were called that due to a lack of historical records (comparitively so) and historical significant. The Eastern Roman empire continued on though, and what we now know as Byzantium was probably the
It's quite staggering that despite all the technology we have, we are
all still bashing out 40-50 hour weeks cooped up in an office doing
jobs that, for the most part, don't really matter. Something's got to give, a country cannot rely on a service based economy forever... it's just not sustainable in any way, shape or form. The markets are going
to correct sooner or later and things are not going to be pretty. My
hope is that we will come to realise we cannot rely on other countries
to produce the goods we want with cheap labour and that we have to
produce these goods ourselves. Purchasing cheap goods with cheap money cannot lead to long-term economic prosperity.
I agree, we've long since past the Age of Enlightenment; there are no genuine thinkers anymore.
Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.
Lets say you worked on your own equipment, a battery powered laptop of yours they would still make that claim.
I agree, we've long since past the Age of Enlightenment; there are no
genuine thinkers anymore.
Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist
politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really,
many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have
this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and
more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm
You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint
and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds
responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow,
SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person
(criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).
You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job
requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL
your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no
There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other types of responsibility, at least in the Western
culture and Western jurisdictions.
If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds.
Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good reason. This applies whether you
are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.
Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp lots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held
responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but then Necrocomp can
sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his negligence).
The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour" (Whatever paradigm you choose to try and explain what i
is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did this".
Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck rental can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truck
temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour can't. You cannot separate yourself from the labo
you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your action. Having a contract which claims that happen
doesn't mean it did.
This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a statement of fact, or must be enforced. The
contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then legally, the economic and political system must
consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened. If I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signed
contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange happened. It is not possible for me to transfer
to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine though, a legal system which claims that London
Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally claim tolls from people who crossed it!
Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that labour was transferred. It is not valid because it i
cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can actually transfer labour or time to someone else, only
the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.
There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being responsible for what they perform. Nor can an employment
contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can be responsible for creating new property, and we
accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are assigned to the human (or humans) which created the
property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food is still yours. The property right is attached t
the human, not to the equipment.
Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves a particular organisation of society, which is
culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly only apply to labour!), but they are nevertheless
covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to change our legal/economic system to correctly
initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with the persons which, through their agency/labour,
created the property.
... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Moondog on Thu Aug 13 2020 08:52 am
Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.
Lets say you worked on your own equipment, a battery powered laptop of yours they would still make that claim.
My guess is that will depend on if it's a conflict of interest with
your employer. If your personal work appears as if it is derived from
IP your employer deals with, it would be hard to prove you weren't
working alone, in parallel to your employer's interests. If your
company employer makes household appliances such as mixer and toasters, and you're producing a method to integrate a heads up display into a
scuba diver's mask, it would be hard for them to claim your work if you own a personal computer with your own licensed copies of Solidworks or other design software, and your own 3d printer, laser cutter or cnc
mill.
Collaboration with co-workers outside the workplace may complicate
this, as would even discussing your sideline work with others in a way that may appear you are consulting company resources without proper authorization or compensation.
Documentation will also help. While times and dates can be altered or fraudul ently created, the chances are slim anyone would go through
such a conspiracy unless there is existing suspicion IP or company resources are being stolen or exploited.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-theirs
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:24 am
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm
You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is
, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaintthe
and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence,
person selling the labour sti holdsonl
responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a
y you, can exercise your labour. Somehow,wh
SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed(a rented source of labour) and a person
(criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).
You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour
ic is related to filfilling the stated jobt
requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts yourearlier statement about the employer buying ALL
your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no
There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other
ypes of responsibility, at least in the Westernreason.
culture and Western jurisdictions.
If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both youand Necrocomp will be a target for the feds.
Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good
This applies whether youl
are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.
Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp
ots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held(Whateve
responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (butthen Necrocomp can
sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with hisnegligence).
The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour"
r paradigm you choose to try and explain what it
is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did
his".rental
Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck
can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truckcan
temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour
't. You cannot separate yourself from the laboacti
you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your
on. Having a contract which claims that happens
doesn't mean it did.
This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a
tatement of fact, or must be enforced. Thele
contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then
gally, the economic and political system mustIf
consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened.
I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signedha
contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange
ppened. It is not possible for me to transferlabour
to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine
though, a legal system which claims that London
Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally
claim tolls from people who crossed it!
Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that
was transferred. It is not valid because it iactuall
cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can
y transfer labour or time to someone else, onlyresponsible
the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those
terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.
There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being
for what they perform. Nor can an employmentbe
contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can
responsible for creating new property, and weassig
accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are
ned to the human (or humans) which created theis
property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food
still yours. The property right is attached tonl
the human, not to the equipment.
Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves
a particular organisation of society, which is
culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly
y apply to labour!), but they are neverthelessc
covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to
hange our legal/economic system to correctly
initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with
the persons which, through their agency/labour,
created the property.
... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
You are running in circles repeating the same argument. This
conversation is going nowhere so I am dropping it.
--
gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es
Companies will make the claim if there is no conflict of interest. This is the basis of them claiming they paid for it. But we have to establish, what it EXACTLY, they are buying?
Note, this doesn't happen elsewhere. If you are paying a plumber to fix you toilet, and they take a call while working to help someone else, you cannot claim what he did as part of YOUR property, because he was on 'your time'. doesn't work that way. Yet at work, we just accept it.
Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really, many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:51 am
Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really, many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!
No, I've never come across Graeber. I've taken a look at his Wikipedia
bio and see he's written a book called Bullshit Jobs: A Theory... seems like an interesting read! I see YouGov undertook a poll in the UK of
which 37% of Britons surveyed thought that their jobs did not
contribute meaningfully to the world. We have a problem in the UK,
notably in the public sector, with "quangos"... highly paid
administrators in management positions who seem to do nothing but push more and more policy which does nothing but obstruct the actual workers from doing their jobs effectively & efficiently.
The public sector now seems incredibly bloated, and that's not
including all the people who are employed privately but contracted by
the government.
may not even really care about. IT's already with us if you ask me. Intellectual, political and economic achievements of the 21st century pale in comparison to the
19th. Our art is stagnating, as well as technological development. Our movies are mostly rehashes, remakes, or very derivative. Even our "pop culture" heavily
reference the past. I see kids movies which still reference movies form the 60s. Although our technology is improving in some ways, the breakthroughs aren't like wha
That happens in the private sector too. Managers want larger budgets, and want to have more people working for them. Inefficiencies are overlooked because to someone outside of the department, it can be hard to tell where the inefficiences are.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-Intelle
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:35 am
may not even really care about. IT's already with us if you ask me.
ctual, political and economic achievements of the 21st century pale in comparison to themovi
19th. Our art is stagnating, as well as technological development. Our
es are mostly rehashes, remakes, or very derivative. Even our "pop culture" heavily6
reference the past. I see kids movies which still reference movies form the
0s. Although our technology is improving in some ways, the
breakthroughs aren't like wha
Part of the cause of cultural stagnation is that you have to go through
a gatekeper to get creative works published. Publishers and movie
makers happen to like formulas that work. If you send them something groundbreaking, or something they love but they can't classify, they
are more likely to dump it than not. It was probably easier to get published by a magazine when half the population couldn't write and
there were not many writer wannabes trying to get published. Nowadays
an editor will run through close to a thousand submissions a month and only gets to publish 10.
Not everything is bad though. There re lots of niche publications fot "less popular" things, but the way things are, they are not very profitable. You can make 12 cents per word writing Urban Fantasy that
has been done to the death, or you can make half a cent per word soing something else.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.
Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.
IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.
Any big company nowadays goes around espousing that they value this or they value that and that they stand for this or they stand for that. I think they are already the church for most people especially with how prevalent they are in places where people usually access information. Sadly, they are a church whose words, and oftentimes only words, are motivated by how much profit they are projected to get from their "userbase" in the next quarter.
I don't know if this was real or just an edited picture but I saw once
a picture of someone on stage of what I assume to be a facebook conference, mostly due to the font choice in the slide shown. Either
way, it stated:
"Turn customers into fanatics
Products into obsessions
Employees to ambassadors
and brands into religions."
And so they did.
I would have no trouble at all believing that slide was real. I've personally heard similar things myself, and many companies want to
emulate Silicon Valley.
That kind of thinking is very much in line with how people who manage companies think.
You are spot on with stating that companies are like a church, and they are taking advantage of this. I'm not even sure that company profit is even the core goal, I think it may more be self-aggrandisement and more individal, self-serving goals.
The discussion of values should be left to the philosophers in society.
IT doesn't bode well at all for us that it is now formulated by execs.
| Sysop: | altere |
|---|---|
| Location: | Houston, TX |
| Users: | 68 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 08:05:56 |
| Calls: | 853 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 7,823 |
| Messages: | 294,175 |