Stupid World

[blue rider]

interesting read

http://www.prwatch.org/files/Dissent...%20FINAL_0.pdf

[mashman]

Employment Court decision a victory for working women...it is 2013 and not 1913 isn't it?

[Ocean1]

Employment Court decision a victory for working women. ...it is 2013 and not 1913 isn't it?

So women are exactly equal to men, eh?

Sounds more like a victory for PC bullshit to me.

[mashman]

So women are exactly equal to men, eh?

Sounds more like a victory for PC bullshit to me.

In many cases no. They're better.

Sounds like more Victorian bullshit to me.

[blue rider]

http://enenews.com/japan-times-land-...turning-to-mud

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-it-different/

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wil...each-us-about-

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...?service=print

ahh fun times all around

[Ocean1]

In many cases no. They're better.

Aye. So in those cases why wouldn't you pay them accordingly?

Sounds like more Victorian bullshit to me.

That's 'cause you're fucking clueless.

[mashman]

Aye. So in those cases why wouldn't you pay them accordingly?

That's 'cause you're fucking clueless.

Because trying to quantify the unquantifiable and then justify a decision to pay someone less based on some notion that I know what they do better than what they do is what I've come to expect from fucktards with entitlement complexes. Ignorant fucktards that should have read.

Clueless? Dude, you need a clue before you can start throwing clueless around... and, you sunshine, ain't got one.

In the meantime an interesting article "On "bullshit jobs"". The economy you revere is bullshit in the extreme. If you had a clue, you'd grasp why. You have a chance to redeem yourself, but I reckon the challenge is beyond your capability. Go ahead, astound me, show me that you understand what you're talking about... the worst that can happen is that I'll get a laugh out of it.

[Ocean1]

Because trying to quantify the unquantifiable

You mean like this?

In many cases no. They're better.

and then justify a decision to pay someone less based on some notion that I know what they do better than what they do

But I wasn't deciding to pay them less. I was suggesting that if they're better we should pay them more.

Sorta fucks up your wee rant, dunnit?

Clueless drivel

Meh.

[mashman]

You mean like this?

But I wasn't deciding to pay them less. I was suggesting that if they're better we should pay them more.

Sorta fucks up your wee rant, dunnit?

Meh.

Does it? They were being paid what they were worth weren't they?

And I was suggesting, well more than suggesting, that you haven't got a fuckin clue as you still believe that you can decide who should be paid more than who irrespective of colour, gender, age etc...

Oddly enough, no, it doesn't.

You didn't read the article did ya? Wotcha so scared of dude?

[Ocean1]

Does it?

Comprehensively. You just can't understand because it's not a cartoon.

And I was suggesting, well more than suggesting, that you haven't got a fuckin clue as you still believe that you can decide who should be paid more than who irrespective of colour, gender, age etc...

You can pay whoever you want whatever you want. Which is exactly what I do.

See? You're an evel capitalist after all.

You didn't read the article did ya? Wotcha so scared of dude?

Actually, the link didn't load in the 10 seconds I had to waste on your pathetic tirade. If I have time later I'll try again, if I can't dredge up the courage to slit my wrists first.


Oh, and nothing you've got, dude.

[mashman]

Comprehensively. You just can't understand because it's not a cartoon.

You can pay whoever you want whatever you want. Which is exactly what I do.

See? You're an evel capitalist after all.

Actually, the link didn't load in the 10 seconds I had to waste on your pathetic tirade. If I have time later I'll try again, if I can't dredge up the courage to slit my wrists first.

Oh, and nothing you've got, dude.

Interesting, coz it plays out as a string of cartoons in my head.

That's kind of my point.

No, I'm clueless.

And coz I;m a caring sharing kind of guy

On "bullshit jobs"
Aug 21st 2013, 12:59 by R.A. | LONDON

ANTHROPOLOGIST David Graeber has written an amusing essay on the nature of work in a modern economy, which seems to involve lots of people doing meaningless tasks they hate:

In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshalled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

It is not the case, he writes, that people have to keep working to produce the consumer goods for which the rich world hungers. Outrageously, meaningless employment—in what he calls "bullshit jobs"—is concentrated in “professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers”:

In other words, productive jobs have, just as predicted, been largely automated away (even if you count industrial workers globally, including the toiling masses in India and China, such workers are still not nearly so large a percentage of the world population as they used to be).

But rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world’s population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning not even so much of the “service” sector as of the administrative sector...

Why in the world would firms spend extraordinary amounts of money employing people to do worthless tasks (especially when they've shown themselves to be exceedingly good at not employing people to do worthless tasks)? Says Mr Graeber:

The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s).

I am immediately bursting with questions. Such as, should we conclude that protesters around the world—in Brazil, India, North Africa, Turkey—are in fact too happy? How does the ruling class co-ordinate all this hiring, and if much of the economy's employment is useless in the first place why not just keep them on during recessions?

But there is actually an important point here. The place to start is to recognise that, romance aside, many of the industrial jobs that have been automated away were incredibly tedious and unpleasant for those doing them. The development of assembly line processes contributed to rising worker wages in part because of increased productivity...but also because employers were tired of training workers only to lose them once they realised they'd be affixing Tab A to Frame B, repeatedly, all day long.

Employers had to retain such workers—had to pay them a wage sufficient to keep them on the job despite its dreadful tedium—because the machines of the era lacked the manual dexterity to complete the required tasks, and so a line of human machines was the only way to make the highly productive assembly-line system work. As technology evolved, however, automating routine tasks became ever easier. And the high wages needed to compensate labourers for the soul-crushing repetitiveness of their work gave employers every incentive to automate routine tasks as soon as it was technically feasible.

Perhaps you see where this is going.

As technology has improved, it has become ever easier to dispense with human labour in mechanical processes. There are still jobs where a very high level of physical dexterity and task flexibility is needed—in construction, for example, or janitorial work—and people continue to do those jobs. But it is not surprising that employment growth has shifted elsewhere. And administrative jobs are the modern equivalent of the industrial line worker.

Over the past century the world economy has grown increasingly complex. The goods being provided are more complex; the supply chains used to build them are more complex; the systems to market, sell and distribute them are more complex; the means to finance it all is more complex; and so on. This complexity is what makes us rich. But it is an enormous pain to manage. I'd say that one way to manage it all would be through teams of generalists—craftsman managers who mind the system from the design stage right through to the customer service calls—but there is no way such complexity would be economically workable in that world (just as cheap, ubiquitous automobiles would have been impossible in a world where teams of generalist mechanics produced cars one at a time).

No, the efficient way to do things is to break businesses up into many different kinds of tasks, allowing for a very high level of specialisation. And so you end up with the clerical equivalent of repeatedly affixing Tab A to Frame B: shuffling papers, management of the minutiae of supply chains, and so on. Disaggregation may make it look meaningless, since many workers end up doing things incredibly far removed from the end points of the process; the days when the iron ore goes in one door and the car rolls out the other are over. But the idea is the same.

One question is why today's workers aren't rewarded with high wages for their suffering. And one possible answer is that, well, they are. Real wages for today's clerical workers are far higher than they were for manufacturing workers a century ago, and the work, for all its tedium, probably isn't nearly as unpleasant. Administrative workers get to sit down in climate-controlled offices, tweeting and playing fantasy football on their desktop when time allows. If firms had to pay more to get a body in the deskchair, they would.

Technology continues to improve, however. Just as robots became ever better at various manual tasks over the past century—and were therefore able to replace human labour in a growing array of jobs, beginning with the most routine—computer control systems are able to handle ever more of the work done by human administrative workers. Jobs from truck driver to legal aid to medical diagnostician to customer service technician will soon be threatened by machines. Starting with the most routine tasks. Human labour will not be eliminated entirely from these sectors. Jobs that require a particularly high level of task flexibility, or creativity, or empathy may continue to employ people (for a while). Yet most office jobs will eventually go the way of the dodo.

And at that point advanced economies may find it necessary to address what is really the central complaint in Mr Graeber's essay. The issue is not that jobs used to have meaning and now they don't; most jobs in most periods have undoubtedly been staffed by people who would prefer to be doing something else. The issue is that too little of the recent gains from technological advance and economic growth have gone toward giving people the time and resources to enjoy their lives outside work. Early in the industrial era real wages soared and hours worked declined. In the past generation, by contrast, real wages have grown slowly and workweeks haven't grown shorter.

The development of large-scale technological unemployment or underemployment, however, would force rich societies to revisit a system that primarily allocates purchasing power via earned wages. And that, in turn, could allow households to get by or even thrive while working many fewer hours than is now typically the case—albeit through a pretty hefty level of income redistribution. They would then be free to write poetry or tutor disadvantaged children, though we shouldn't be surprised if most use their new leisure to spend more time with a beloved video game.

We can't be certain that the robots are coming for all our jobs. Disemployment in administrative jobs could create new, and perhaps highly remunerative, work in sectors or occupations we can't yet anticipate. If we're lucky, that work will be engaging and meaningful. Yet there is a decent chance that "bullshit" administrative jobs are merely a halfway house between "bullshit" industrial jobs and no jobs at all. Not because of the conniving of rich interests, but because machines inevitably outmatch humans at handling bullshit without complaining.

[Ocean1]

You didn't read the article did ya?

Just did.

Let me astound you by saying that I agree with almost every sentiment and opinion expressed therein.

Except for the tinfoil hat shit about the "ruling class".

But there's absolutely nothing there that indicates the performance of an economic system. Mostly just observations about the undesirable effects of ballooning administration and compliance related costs and the effect such bullshit has on morale.

Which, as I said is all perfectly correct, anathema to the free market.

[mashman]

Just did.

Let me astound you by saying that I agree with almost every sentiment and opinion expressed therein.

Except for the tinfoil hat shit about the "ruling class".

But there's absolutely nothing there that indicates the performance of an economic system. Mostly just observations about the undesirable effects of ballooning administration and compliance related costs and the effect such bullshit has on morale.

Which, as I said is all perfectly correct, anathema to the free market.

I thought you would agree with most of it. Given that you, and the "ruling class", understand A reason why this "attitude" exists, do you take the "attitude" into account when remunerating your staff? The "ruling class" obviously do, which is why these jobs are seen as less deserving of a high wage.

The "ruling class" exists. I've met at least one of them and that "attitude" doesn't disappear overnight, if ever.

The jobs are the economic system. I thought the article made that clear. The Graeber article kind of misses the point though.

Why is it an anathema to the free market when each job is an integral part of it?

[Ocean1]

I thought you would agree with most of it. Given that you, and the "ruling class", understand A reason why this "attitude" exists, do you take the "attitude" into account when remunerating your staff? The "ruling class" obviously do, which is why these jobs are seen as less deserving of a high wage.

I take it that by "ruling class" you mean those that believe they have the right to decide what to buy with their hard earned and how much to pay for it? And I'm pickin' that by "attitude" you mean disagreeing that those selling shit should dictate what we should pay for it?

In which case I'd say a massive majority of the population are "ruling class" with "attitude".

I've explained to you before how I remunerate my staff. I can't afford employees, but those that work with me from time to time are remunerated well above market rates because we produce superior results and I expect them to perform accordingly.

But, as I've pointed out before, just yesterday in fact, you should feel free to pay whatever the fuck you want for absolutely any service or trinket you buy. That's your right. As it is mine.

Why is it an anathema to the free market when each job is an integral part of it?

Overbearing administration and compliance related costs are pretty much 100% loss. They don't actually produce anything anyone wants, so they're not only not an integral part of any free market they're the complete opposite: a parasitic waste of resources.

[Brian d marge]

I dont know if you people have met any of these idiots

but they have " im better than you" attitude ,

J k , Ive seen him switch into this condescending attitude , I often see it , even in David lange

its wrong

its a perceived position of power and if you know what to look for "oh the fun and games that can be had"

Stephen