PDA

View Full Version : Equal Money System



xCrucialDudex
09-10-2010, 07:51 AM
http://equalmoney.org/

Here's an item list of the core ideas as perceived and understood by me:


The rules of how money is used is what causing inequality and poverty today, not the money itself.
Realization of that resources are finite leads to fear and consequently to greed which is driving people in power (especially them) to deny everyone equal access to resources. Everyone basically tries to selfishly get more and disregard everyone else which is truly a huge problem.
The currently used money system is wholly based on debt & loan notions that are used to exploit fellow people and put them down.
The proposed Equal money system is going to ensure everyone gets access to the required amount and types of resources defined as beforehand agreed upon minimum required for an equal and dignified standard of living.
This will be done through creation of a special type of money that could be exchanged only for the resources mentioned in the previous item of the list.
Continuously distributing the required resources to people creates all kinds of problems. It is seen easier and of more practical use to distribute one single resource to everyone - the Equal money system - so that people could make their own decisions on what they need and go get stuff say in a shop themselves.
This minimum would include at least: water, food, clothing, housing, basically all the essential types of utilities: gas, electricity, etc., healthcare, education, etc.
The created infrastructure of this required minimum for an equal living of all must be developed and supported by someone. So, a 4-year obligation to work in development and support of this infrastructure supporting life of everyone else is suggested to be taken by school/college graduates as a sort of "necessary evil". Which isn't really one since you'd still get all the resources not to be poor AND you get Labor Money for your service. It can also be viewed as an internship opportunity or simply a work life experience which is still good.
Labor Money is another type of money suggested to account for the need of an analogue of free market space - an opportunity for businesses to rise and offer goods and services that may not necessarily be vital to supporting human life and agreed upon standard of living but are of interest to people nevertheless. On the other hand, Labor Money can be used by people to buy services and goods on this market (think all the iPods, iPhones, iPads, Blackberries, Laptops, nice evening dresses, fancy cars and shoes etc.)
In this Labor-system everyone would be paid equal amount of money regardless of nature of their activity, according to the time-units they've worked.
This kind of system would require some sort of administration and maintenance crew. The suggested solution would be to have an administration comprised of members appointed through elections. Each member can be a member of administration only once and never again. Voting would take place yearly. Specific training would be set up to ensure the people running for this administration would have proper skills, and be tested for aptness to perform this kind of duty, if they'll be able to always act in a way that's best for all.


Well, what do you think?

xsecx
09-10-2010, 09:09 AM
sounds like communism and that it wouldn't work.

xAdamSx
09-10-2010, 11:27 AM
It didn't exactly go down smoothly in Russia this, did it? I don't like the ideas behind communism, which is what this basically is-an economic communism idea-and in practice it just has never worked.

xCrucialDudex
09-10-2010, 01:55 PM
sounds like communism and that it wouldn't work.

Why wouldn't it?


It didn't exactly go down smoothly in Russia this, did it? I don't like the ideas behind communism, which is what this basically is-an economic communism idea-and in practice it just has never worked.

If you're referring to Soviet Union the communism there was badly misinterpreted by the ruling party. The theory was exploited by malicious people, there was never a true communism in Soviet Union.

What's more even though this system may remind one of communism it takes a little different approach by being explicit and specific about how a social system would work. Something the masterminds of communism theory avoided purposefully.

This system is basically what we have today only that it ensures everyone has this sort of safety net, really. It's basically about this extra level and being very vigilant citizens, policing the rulers - something some countries like USA and UK have done better than say Ukraine or Russia. None are ideal, though. Each country suffers from corruption, the difference is degree.

mouseman004
09-10-2010, 05:48 PM
Why wouldn't it?

It draws on the assumption that everybody wants to be equal.

xsecx
09-10-2010, 10:48 PM
It draws on the assumption that everybody wants to be equal.

not just that, it expects people to work for the same pay across the board, and that will never work. In that kind of system, innovation won't work, because there's no real motivation. You don't care about saving money, doing something faster or better.

Labor Money is another type of money suggested to account for the need of an analogue of free market space - an opportunity for businesses to rise and offer goods and services that may not necessarily be vital to supporting human life and agreed upon standard of living but are of interest to people nevertheless. On the other hand, Labor Money can be used by people to buy services and goods on this market (think all the iPods, iPhones, iPads, Blackberries, Laptops, nice evening dresses, fancy cars and shoes etc.)

In this Labor-system everyone would be paid equal amount of money regardless of nature of their activity, according to the time-units they've worked.


these to points are mainly why it wouldn't work. Why would anyone do anything dangerous or that requires years and years of training? Why wouldn't everyone just simply do the most basic job?

xCrucialDudex
09-11-2010, 12:38 AM
It draws on the assumption that everybody wants to be equal.

It doesn't in a sense as you mean it. It assumes equality on a sort of basic level, something I think many would be really happy to have, wouldn't you?

If you're a lazy ass or simply into things that aren't economically profitable you're going to stay on this basic level. Otherwise you'd be busy doing something that generates money. The only difference is that today you'd die not doing a very specific range of jobs, you're forced to do something that will give you money and that something is largely dictated by what's currently in demand on markets.


not just that, it expects people to work for the same pay across the board, and that will never work. In that kind of system, innovation won't work, because there's no real motivation. You don't care about saving money, doing something faster or better.

Honestly, I don't see how we could differentiate the importance of a job of a janitor and say deputy. Really, what measure are you proposing to use? AFAIK, there's no meaningful approach to assess the value of different types of occupations. Most of those that are currently in place were created artificially.

More realistic example would be to try and compare the value of the work of a teacher, a journalist, networking engineer and government official. I simply fail to see why would any of these occupations be any more important than any other.

For instance, in the developed countries, specifically Japan, government officials do not earn that much more than other people. Over here in Ukraine this is not the case. The more seemingly important, or more precisely the more status and prestige is associated with an occupation, the more government officials and generally speaking the ruling group of people deems it necessary to divide resources in a proportion that accounts for these qualities. Simply put the more important or cool your status is the more money you should be paid. Which is ridiculous and simply is not right.

I also disagree that innovation requires restriction and scarcity to flourish. The motivation behind innovation may be the desire to improve on the things you mentioned but essentially the biggest innovations were made due to gigantic enthusiasm, not the desire to make more money. Think Tesla, the man was never concerned with profitability of his ideas. Think Google Inc., a bunch of geeks largely doing what they do for the fun of it, but they of course also remember to harvest the benefits of being able to capitalize on what they're doing. Think Linux and GNU folks, not interested in money on purpose yet were able to bring to the table one of the most popular and easy to use UNIX. It's really not money that drives innovation. People simply love and are passionate about what they're doing. There's obviously an industry of some sort around this notion and innovation is cherished on the national level (I'm talking about US specifically now) since it surely gives an edge in economic competitiveness but really innovation comes mainly not from desire to make more money or become economically dominant.

xsecx
09-11-2010, 08:54 AM
Honestly, I don't see how we could differentiate the importance of a job of a janitor and say deputy. Really, what measure are you proposing to use? AFAIK, there's no meaningful approach to assess the value of different types of occupations. Most of those that are currently in place were created artificially.

More realistic example would be to try and compare the value of the work of a teacher, a journalist, networking engineer and government official. I simply fail to see why would any of these occupations be any more important than any other.

For instance, in the developed countries, specifically Japan, government officials do not earn that much more than other people. Over here in Ukraine this is not the case. The more seemingly important, or more precisely the more status and prestige is associated with an occupation, the more government officials and generally speaking the ruling group of people deems it necessary to divide resources in a proportion that accounts for these qualities. Simply put the more important or cool your status is the more money you should be paid. Which is ridiculous and simply is not right.


The market does it for you. It decides what people should be paid. The idea that people will all happily be paid the same regardless of job is unfeasible. There is no motivation for anyone to do anything difficult or dangerous or that requires higher skill, which you ignored and removed from your reply. Why would most people to go years of schooling when they can make the same money by not and just doing something else? Because humanity is suddenly going to stop being materialistic and greedy? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that since you didn't reply to the dangerous part, you accept that this is a major flaw in this system.



I also disagree that innovation requires restriction and scarcity to flourish. The motivation behind innovation may be the desire to improve on the things you mentioned but essentially the biggest innovations were made due to gigantic enthusiasm, not the desire to make more money. Think Tesla, the man was never concerned with profitability of his ideas. Think Google Inc., a bunch of geeks largely doing what they do for the fun of it, but they of course also remember to harvest the benefits of being able to capitalize on what they're doing. Think Linux and GNU folks, not interested in money on purpose yet were able to bring to the table one of the most popular and easy to use UNIX. It's really not money that drives innovation. People simply love and are passionate about what they're doing. There's obviously an industry of some sort around this notion and innovation is cherished on the national level (I'm talking about US specifically now) since it surely gives an edge in economic competitiveness but really innovation comes mainly not from desire to make more money or become economically dominant.

You're naive if you think that google were and are just doing it for the fun of it. Or that the linux and gnu folks don't have day jobs that either benefit directly from that work or that allow them to do it on their off time. The biggest innovations always, either directly or indirectly from commercial sources. It's not simply because people want to do it. Or enjoy doing it. They do it because they know it'll make them rich. You take that away and the vast majority of people involved wouldn't put in the kind of hours necessary to make that happen.


I'd like to hear from you why you think it would work or why you think it's a good idea?

xCrucialDudex
09-11-2010, 10:51 AM
The market does it for you. It decides what people should be paid.

How does the market do it for us? How specifically does it decide what people should be paid?


The idea that people will all happily be paid the same regardless of job is unfeasible. There is no motivation for anyone to do anything difficult or dangerous or that requires higher skill, which you ignored and removed from your reply. Why would most people to go years of schooling when they can make the same money by not and just doing something else? Because humanity is suddenly going to stop being materialistic and greedy? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that since you didn't reply to the dangerous part, you accept that this is a major flaw in this system.

I did not ignore nor remove anything from my reply. I champion the argument that essentially people work, create and innovate because they love to do what they are doing, because they're so immersed and excited about what they're doing, they get very enthusiastic and don't really care for money that much. I'm willing to bet that most of the innovators would support this statement. Besides, imagine there's no need to work for money. What would you do? Maybe you'd go for sports and become extremely good at swimming. Or embrace photography and start an arts school since you love teaching people and are good at it. How many times in life you were in a situation when you thought to yourself: "Man, I really like what I'm doing, and I seem good at it, too bad there's no way to find a job that would pay for this."?


You're naive if you think that google were and are just doing it for the fun of it. Or that the linux and gnu folks don't have day jobs that either benefit directly from that work or that allow them to do it on their off time. The biggest innovations always, either directly or indirectly from commercial sources. It's not simply because people want to do it. Or enjoy doing it. They do it because they know it'll make them rich.

Google, yes, might not be the best example. GNU/Linux folks are forced to live the present reality, no wonder what you say is true but idealistically their model of kernel and software development isn't based on "innovation for profit". Most of the software is created "just for fun" so to say. It's funny that you disregarded Tesla completely. Speaking of real inventors and innovators, the great scientists, are you going to postulate what Einstein and Mendeleev, for instance, did was to profit from their discoveries?

I cannot disagree there's an innovation market and certain people are stimulated by this. But essentially if they're capable of innovating they'd be doing it regardless. If it's not for money it might be for fame. We could have an innovation market replaced by glory and fame which could also greatly stimulate and motivate this category of people, "the mercantile innovators".


You take that away and the vast majority of people involved wouldn't put in the kind of hours necessary to make that happen.

I have great trouble agreeing with you here.



I'd like to hear from you why you think it would work or why you think it's a good idea?

It's a good idea because I think there are enough resources to provide for this safety net/equality net infrastructure and simply not enough political will to do it. It's a good idea to raise standard of living for all. Basically, the world would remain more or less the same, only that everyone gets a decent start so to say. With the advance of technology this becomes more and more feasible and affordable. It would work just fine, why wouldn't it? There are plenty of examples when good social projects got blown off due to politics. Lots of people could embrace previously not thought of as viable options for their daily activities and that would address the issue of what will people do if they don't have to work to survive anymore. Lots, most active and ambitious, would still have opportunity to participate in economical life.

xsecx
09-12-2010, 09:30 AM
How does the market do it for us? How specifically does it decide what people should be paid?

that's how the free market works. If you don't understand it, I suggest you do some research on it.



I did not ignore nor remove anything from my reply. I champion the argument that essentially people work, create and innovate because they love to do what they are doing, because they're so immersed and excited about what they're doing, they get very enthusiastic and don't really care for money that much. I'm willing to bet that most of the innovators would support this statement. Besides, imagine there's no need to work for money. What would you do? Maybe you'd go for sports and become extremely good at swimming. Or embrace photography and start an arts school since you love teaching people and are good at it. How many times in life you were in a situation when you thought to yourself: "Man, I really like what I'm doing, and I seem good at it, too bad there's no way to find a job that would pay for this."?

You did actually, and you ignored it again in this reply. The simple reality is that for the world to function there are some really nasty fucked up jobs that have to be done. If economic conditions didn't force people to do them, people wouldn't chose to them. Do you really think there are enough people who would choose to be miners, farmers, construction, soldiers, etc if they had the choice to anything they wanted to? This kind of system would have giant holes since everyone would be living the dream and no one would be doing the nasty shit. This is why this kind of utopian ideas never work, they never take into account the shit no one wants to do but has to survive.



Google, yes, might not be the best example. GNU/Linux folks are forced to live the present reality, no wonder what you say is true but idealistically their model of kernel and software development isn't based on "innovation for profit". Most of the software is created "just for fun" so to say. It's funny that you disregarded Tesla completely. Speaking of real inventors and innovators, the great scientists, are you going to postulate what Einstein and Mendeleev, for instance, did was to profit from their discoveries?


Except that they do either directly or indirectly profit from the innovation. Their software doesn't exist in a bubble. It doesn't just serve a purpose for it's own sake, it's done specifically for business reasons. So instead of paying for licenses you spend some time adding to the collective GNU library and you take what you want from it. There are most certainly business interests at work here. In most cases, yes, most inventors, scientists, etc profit from their discoveries. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to continue to. I also think it's interesting that the only examples you name are not current. The world is different place now than it was at the turn of the 20th century. Instead of governments paying people to come up with shit for the sake of it, companies are paying researchers through grants, patents, etc. It's a commercial world now, thinking that everyone is going to just work for the love of it, just isn't realistic.



I cannot disagree there's an innovation market and certain people are stimulated by this. But essentially if they're capable of innovating they'd be doing it regardless. If it's not for money it might be for fame. We could have an innovation market replaced by glory and fame which could also greatly stimulate and motivate this category of people, "the mercantile innovators".


Certain people? What makes you think this isn't a primary motivator for most? How many inventors do you know that are just doing things for the sake of it? Fame only matters because it increases wealth. what's the point of fame if everyone has the same?




I have great trouble agreeing with you here.

Well. I've worked at a couple of start ups for little pay and long hours. The reason I and the others with me did it was for an eventual pay out. I could have easily worked somewhere else that was established for less hours. We didn't do it for the love of the work, we could have gotten that elsewhere. we did it because we knew that if it was successful we'd all profit. We sacrificed for eventual profit.




It's a good idea because I think there are enough resources to provide for this safety net/equality net infrastructure and simply not enough political will to do it. It's a good idea to raise standard of living for all. Basically, the world would remain more or less the same, only that everyone gets a decent start so to say. With the advance of technology this becomes more and more feasible and affordable. It would work just fine, why wouldn't it? There are plenty of examples when good social projects got blown off due to politics. Lots of people could embrace previously not thought of as viable options for their daily activities and that would address the issue of what will people do if they don't have to work to survive anymore. Lots, most active and ambitious, would still have opportunity to participate in economical life.

How would you ensure that every job that needs to be done, gets done? How do you get enough people to be doctors, lawyers and architects when they can be paid exactly the same as someone else without doing the years to school to do it? How do you get people to do the unpleasant jobs? This kind of thing works in a world where everyone is living their dream and doing fun things, but for society to work, some people have to do some not so great things.

xCrucialDudex
09-12-2010, 02:12 PM
that's how the free market works. If you don't understand it, I suggest you do some research on it.

I think I do understand the mechanics behind this process I was driving at the idea that since in any case people go through negotiation and agreement upon the price (value) of their labor, which is done currently in most cases very unfair and through all sorts of exploitation, we could essentially kind of regulate this process and introduce justice.

By saying "the market does it for you" one make it sound as if it happens magically, uncontrollably, the focus is shifted from the very fact that the laborer is in control of presenting and negotiating his/her labor value/price.

It's people negotiating the value and price of their labor and so it happens that those in employ are often not enough savvy in this kind of matters, I think most don't even realize that they basically trade with employers and happily or unhappily stick to what is offered which in my mind is very wrong, and often, if not always, is consciously exploited by employers.

The point is we could address this kind of issues in a very conscious and fair manner. In my eyes, it only makes sense that we do.


You did actually, and you ignored it again in this reply. The simple reality is that for the world to function there are some really nasty fucked up jobs that have to be done. If economic conditions didn't force people to do them, people wouldn't chose to them. Do you really think there are enough people who would choose to be miners, farmers, construction, soldiers, etc if they had the choice to anything they wanted to?

Yes, I do. Currently most people tend to avoid "shitty" jobs chiefly for economical reasons. I know quite a lot of people who still go for "shitty" jobs, though.

I went out with a girl some time ago, subjectively gorgeous and all, well was I surprised to discover that she was a chef and she studies not in a fancy institution with a big name... I mean you don't usually expect young, gorgeous girls to be your average chefs. She's allegedly good at cooking, she likes it and she'd be a chef if it wasn't for the reality where cooks never make anything, and thus it isn't a "cool" occupation.

I also know a guy who's a very sporty pal, he likes doing stuff where he can use his body and he works often as lifeguard, which is too underpaid and thus a "shitty" job. He likes the job but he hates the pay.

I've had co-worker who'd happily spent his life climbing mountains and walknig caves saving people. Speleologist.

Now, if these people had an "equality net" they may have never considered going for a manager in some office or some other, "cool" and highly paid, prestige job.

Then to further address your argument there are people who enjoy doing "shitty" jobs simply because they've come to the realization of the importance of doing these jobs and they took responsibility to do it. It's the kind of importance and responsibility when you realize that you have to take care of your body or never through out trash in the middle of the street.

More importantly, designing a new society model from the ground up opens doors for a possibility to make best of the technology. Fresco guy I talked about here some time ago has some amazing solutions to this kind of problem. What he basically suggests is that we use technology to do most of the "shitty" jobs. It is very possible to have machines doing what so many people do today: mines, sewage systems, etc. Devise effective infrastructure and machines to do the job and then it would take only a relatively small maintenance crew to attend this machinery which well could be the engineers themselves.

It's all very real. People already created stuff like ASIMO and "Luke hand" and other robotic marvels.

Just think about it.


This kind of system would have giant holes since everyone would be living the dream and no one would be doing the nasty shit. This is why this kind of utopian ideas never work, they never take into account the shit no one wants to do but has to survive.

Well, I think I've made my point. Given new conditions people could really change their attitude towards "shitty" jobs.



Except that they do either directly or indirectly profit from the innovation. Their software doesn't exist in a bubble. It doesn't just serve a purpose for it's own sake, it's done specifically for business reasons. So instead of paying for licenses you spend some time adding to the collective GNU library and you take what you want from it. There are most certainly business interests at work here. In most cases, yes, most inventors, scientists, etc profit from their discoveries. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to continue to. I also think it's interesting that the only examples you name are not current. The world is different place now than it was at the turn of the 20th century. Instead of governments paying people to come up with shit for the sake of it, companies are paying researchers through grants, patents, etc. It's a commercial world now, thinking that everyone is going to just work for the love of it, just isn't realistic.

Here's an example from the modern world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems#The_Poincar.C3.A9_conjec ture_.28proven.29
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/07/01/russian_mathematician_rejects_1_million_prize/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed1

I was basically told about this theorem and the guy who proved it by a guy whose friend knows the prize winner personally. The guy, the one who proved the theorem, simply doesn't need money. He believes that money has nothing to do with true science. Go figure, the real scientist.

I completely agree that people are using all of the options they've got to get money, like grants, etc. - that's understandable. But that's it, there's nothing more to it. If these innovators had enough money/resource so they didn't have to worry about the shelter, clothing and food they'd be happily off doing innovations for the sake of the progress or improvement and not the money.

I think you've been kinda misguided by the idea that you need money for people to do something that breaks ground, really.


Certain people? What makes you think this isn't a primary motivator for most? How many inventors do you know that are just doing things for the sake of it? Fame only matters because it increases wealth. what's the point of fame if everyone has the same?

I believe I explained already a number of times what makes me think that money isn't a primary motivator for most. There's a "special" category of inventors and innovators - kids and very young people - who most likely don't fully realize the importance of monetary incentives to the quality of their lives. They invent and innovate for fun, because they can and they're enthusiastic. This should be too evident for me to even mention this but since you insist so intently that it is only money that motivates people well I had to.

Wikipedia:


There are several sources of innovation. In the linear model of innovation the traditionally recognized source is manufacturer innovation. This is where an agent (person or business) innovates in order to sell the innovation. Another source of innovation, only now becoming widely recognized, is end-user innovation. This is where an agent (person or company) develops an innovation for their own (personal or in-house) use because existing products do not meet their needs. Eric von Hippel has identified end-user innovation as, by far, the most important and critical in his classic book on the subject, Sources of Innovation.[8]

Which further proves my idea that people on the very basic level are not doing it for money. It simply doesn't sound to me like a guy sitting on a couch in his house's basement watches TV that stands on empty boxes and has this idea to build a sophisticated mount that uses ceiling and two walls coming into his mind simply because he has intention to make a profit.


How would you ensure that every job that needs to be done, gets done? How do you get enough people to be doctors, lawyers and architects when they can be paid exactly the same as someone else without doing the years to school to do it? How do you get people to do the unpleasant jobs? This kind of thing works in a world where everyone is living their dream and doing fun things, but for society to work, some people have to do some not so great things.

Are you serious? Did you ever meet people that love teaching? Did you ever meet people that love being doctors? For instance, I've a friend that puts other people's needs above her most of the times and she enjoys teaching people. She's a "Teacher" according to MBTI. She's just such type of a person. That's what she is.

I also used to date a girl that firmly decided to become a doctor at 16 and she is now studying in the medical University. She's obsessed with the idea of being a doctor and taking care of fellow human beings. And she's coming from a financially stable family, I'd even say a rich one.

Believe it or not these are real people making this kind of choices to do "shitty" jobs in the current economic and social situation.

I suspect that given even more financial/resource security their numbers would only grow.

xsecx
09-12-2010, 02:35 PM
I think I do understand the mechanics behind this process I was driving at the idea that since in any case people go through negotiation and agreement upon the price (value) of their labor, which is done currently in most cases very unfair and through all sorts of exploitation, we could essentially kind of regulate this process and introduce justice.

By saying "the market does it for you" one make it sound as if it happens magically, uncontrollably, the focus is shifted from the very fact that the laborer is in control of presenting and negotiating his/her labor value/price.

It's people negotiating the value and price of their labor and so it happens that those in employ are often not enough savvy in this kind of matters, I think most don't even realize that they basically trade with employers and happily or unhappily stick to what is offered which in my mind is very wrong, and often, if not always, is consciously exploited by employers.

The point is we could address this kind of issues in a very conscious and fair manner. In my eyes, it only makes sense that we do.


The fact that you think that the laborer is in control of negotiating their labor price means you don't understand how things work. The employets, collectively, set what they will pay, not the worker. The worker can decide that they don't want to work for that price, and yes, if enough of them do, then the employer will increase the wage, but as long as they're able to find someone willing to work for the price they're willing to pay, the labor wages won't change.



Yes, I do. Currently most people tend to avoid "shitty" jobs chiefly for economical reasons. I know quite a lot of people who still go for "shitty" jobs, though.

I went out with a girl some time ago, subjectively gorgeous and all, well was I surprised to discover that she was a chef and she studies not in a fancy institution with a big name... I mean you don't usually expect young, gorgeous girls to be your average chefs. She's allegedly good at cooking, she likes it and she'd be a chef if it wasn't for the reality where cooks never make anything, and thus it isn't a "cool" occupation.

I also know a guy who's a very sporty pal, he likes doing stuff where he can use his body and he works often as lifeguard, which is too underpaid and thus a "shitty" job. He likes the job but he hates the pay.

I've had co-worker who'd happily spent his life climbing mountains and walknig caves saving people. Speleologist.

Now, if these people had an "equality net" they may have never considered going for a manager in some office or some other, "cool" and highly paid, prestige job.

Then to further address your argument there are people who enjoy doing "shitty" jobs simply because they've come to the realization of the importance of doing these jobs and they took responsibility to do it. It's the kind of importance and responsibility when you realize that you have to take care of your body or never through out trash in the middle of the street.

More importantly, designing a new society model from the ground up opens doors for a possibility to make best of the technology. Fresco guy I talked about here some time ago has some amazing solutions to this kind of problem. What he basically suggests is that we use technology to do most of the "shitty" jobs. It is very possible to have machines doing what so many people do today: mines, sewage systems, etc. Devise effective infrastructure and machines to do the job and then it would take only a relatively small maintenance crew to attend this machinery which well could be the engineers themselves.

It's all very real. People already created stuff like ASIMO and "Luke hand" and other robotic marvels.

Just think about it.

I think you have a warped sense of reality if you think that most people high paying and rewarding jobs. Most people don't. The majority of the world are doing shitty horrible jobs. You're not going to get machines to take over everything. That's not even close to realistic, and certainly not in your or my lifetime. Your utopian world is still back to people doing what they want to, but that's certainly not realistic. there will always be jobs that will need to be done that people won't want to do, you haven't addressed that simple reality. Where do you think the money to fund those machines would come from? now, in the free market world, it'd be to eliminate the jobs and increase productivity. In the world you're talking about, there's no need to increase productivity and actually people are rewarded for being less productive.



Well, I think I've made my point. Given new conditions people could really change their attitude towards "shitty" jobs.


awesome, so you'd start cleaning toilets or working in a mine, working at mcdonalds, etc tomorrow if you got paid the same amount you are now?




Here's an example from the modern world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems#The_Poincar.C3.A9_conjec ture_.28proven.29
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/07/01/russian_mathematician_rejects_1_million_prize/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed1

I was basically told about this theorem and the guy who proved it by a guy whose friend knows the prize winner personally. The guy, the one who proved the theorem, simply doesn't need money. He believes that money has nothing to do with true science. Go figure, the real scientist.

I completely agree that people are using all of the options they've got to get money, like grants, etc. - that's understandable. But that's it, there's nothing more to it. If these innovators had enough money/resource so they didn't have to worry about the shelter, clothing and food they'd be happily off doing innovations for the sake of the progress or improvement and not the money.

I think you've been kinda misguided by the idea that you need money for people to do something that breaks ground, really.


And how many people that get nobel prizes give the money back? How does this one example disprove or even counter what I've said up to this point? And especially since in this example, he didn't need the money because he's being paid by a university, which still goes back to my original point. He's not just some guy sitting around in his garage.



I believe I explained already a number of times what makes me think that money isn't a primary motivator for most. There's a "special" category of inventors and innovators - kids and very young people - who most likely don't fully realize the importance of monetary incentives to the quality of their lives. They invent and innovate for fun, because they can and they're enthusiastic. This should be too evident for me to even mention this but since you insist so intently that it is only money that motivates people well I had to.

Even Wikipedia states that the most important kind of innovation is that that happens outside the business:



Which further proves my idea that people on the very basic level are not doing it for money. It simply doesn't sound to me like a guy sitting on a couch in his house's basement watches TV that stands on empty boxes and has this idea to build a sophisticated mount that uses ceiling and two walls coming into his mind simply because he has intention to make a profit.


This is the thing though. young people and kids are naive. Especially since someone else will take those ideas and use them commercially if they're valid. Sit back and think about the number of innovations that have happened in the last 30 years, and try and tell me which ones have not been for commercial reasons? If you take away those commerical reasons, you take away that commercial funding and all your left with are people in their garage. You don't have labs, you don't have research facilities. hell, you don't really have factories at that point.



Are you serious? Did you ever meet people that love teaching? Did you ever meet people that love being doctors? For instance, I've a friend that puts other people's needs above her most of the times and she enjoys teaching people. She's a "Teacher" according to MBTI. She's just such type of a person. That's what she is.

I also used to date a girl that firmly decided to become a doctor at 16 and she is now studying in the medical University. She's obsessed with the idea of being a doctor and taking care of fellow human beings. And she's coming from a financially stable family, I'd even say a rich one.

Believe it or not these are real people making this kind of choices to do "shitty" jobs in the current economic and social situation.

I suspect that given even more financial/resource security their numbers would only grow.

I have, and I've also met a lot more people that are doing what they have to, to pay the bills because that's the basic reality for most people. Very few people get to live their dream or do their dream job. It's great that you want people to be able to, but it's not a functional reality.

xCrucialDudex
09-12-2010, 04:57 PM
The fact that you think that the laborer is in control of negotiating their labor price means you don't understand how things work. The employets, collectively, set what they will pay, not the worker. The worker can decide that they don't want to work for that price, and yes, if enough of them do, then the employer will increase the wage, but as long as they're able to find someone willing to work for the price they're willing to pay, the labor wages won't change.

Now you got me really puzzled here. Why is it that employer somehow is the one who sets the price? I think the very way you worded it is a BIG problem all around the world. Why do people even think like that? The truth is that an employer is just as dependent on you as you're on him. You're equal in this. Now why would you want an employer to dictate the rules of the game? Every laborer can just as well do the same. If you see they pay you less than you think you deserve/want (be sensible of course!) just say it and let them deal with it. The real problem is that some people think that by selling themselves for less they somehow win or solve a problem of being underpaid. What they do in fact is doom everyone else to low wages and rates.

Am I missing something here?



I think you have a warped sense of reality if you think that most people high paying and rewarding jobs. Most people don't. The majority of the world are doing shitty horrible jobs. You're not going to get machines to take over everything. That's not even close to realistic, and certainly not in your or my lifetime. Your utopian world is still back to people doing what they want to, but that's certainly not realistic. there will always be jobs that will need to be done that people won't want to do, you haven't addressed that simple reality. Where do you think the money to fund those machines would come from? now, in the free market world, it'd be to eliminate the jobs and increase productivity. In the world you're talking about, there's no need to increase productivity and actually people are rewarded for being less productive.

No, I live in a developing country where disparity between rich and poor people is even higher than that in the developed ones. I know quite well that most of people do shitty jobs because they have no other choice and basically are forced to continue doing it.

That is very true that machines can't replace people completely and do every chore there is to do. What the proponents of such solutions talk about is reducing as much as possible the percentage of people involved in dangerous occupations and the ones that require hard work. Specifically Fresco, being an inventor and innovator of this sort of technology, has everything already designed and prepared. All he lacks is financial support and political acceptance. That means he is claiming that this could happen basically today. There is a technological solution to address these issues and use machines to build machines, houses and other architectural objects.

Even though there will always be a range of must-do jobs wouldn't be it a MUCH better world to keep the list of these jobs to a minimum and rely on technology to do the rest?

It's really strange to me why you keep on calling these views as utopian when the view of the world discussed is far from perfect. It's just WAY better than what we've got today. It's not ideal, it would still have problems of its own. It's not a utopia in any way.

On funding. It's in a way a resource-based economy. The rules of the game are different. As far as I understand from the description of this system the infrastructure put in place and obligatory 4-year work in development and support of this infrastructure would provide for obtaining the required resources to fund the infrastructure, machines and everything else. A sort of a sustainable system.


awesome, so you'd start cleaning toilets or working in a mine, working at mcdonalds, etc tomorrow if you got paid the same amount you are now?

As a matter of fact, yes. For example, I'd be happily cleaning the streets of my community area early in the morning after doing my morning exercises. The only thing that stops me today is that economically it's not profitable. That is, to survive I have to do something else. You know the deal. I'd happily maintained and fixed stuff around the area too. I do it sometimes even now. Like fixing basketball court hoops for instance. I wish I could do more but some things require financing and so we're back to this ugly deal. I take genuine pleasure in doing such things. It takes relatively small amounts of time and it pays big time for everyone.


And how many people that get nobel prizes give the money back? How does this one example disprove or even counter what I've said up to this point? And especially since in this example, he didn't need the money because he's being paid by a university, which still goes back to my original point. He's not just some guy sitting around in his garage.

I fear I won't be able to come across enough examples to quantitatively demonstrate the validity of my argument. Again, it's only natural that people seek out profitability living in a system like we live in today but I still maintain that essentially money have little to do with bringing about innovation and invention. It can well be a motivator, can't argue, but it's not the only or primary one.


This is the thing though. young people and kids are naive. Especially since someone else will take those ideas and use them commercially if they're valid. Sit back and think about the number of innovations that have happened in the last 30 years, and try and tell me which ones have not been for commercial reasons? If you take away those commerical reasons, you take away that commercial funding and all your left with are people in their garage. You don't have labs, you don't have research facilities. hell, you don't really have factories at that point.

You'd still have free-market zone, remember? Innovate and invent for profit all you want. The only difference would be to have people aware of the fact that by conscious effort we make life better for everyone. Is that really much of Utopian view to you?


I have, and I've also met a lot more people that are doing what they have to, to pay the bills because that's the basic reality for most people. Very few people get to live their dream or do their dream job. It's great that you want people to be able to, but it's not a functional reality.

You know, I think there are quite a lot of examples in history of the world when people were not ready for big changes and only a few brave, "mad" kind of people were able to pull it off. Remember what people thought about replacing horses with cars? Well, we're talking about a similar change here I think.

xVeganAnarchistx
09-13-2010, 06:23 PM
crucial dude, check out Murray Bookchin's Post-Scarcity Anarchism. He articulated basically the view you seem to be talking about back in the 70's. It's a great book. If you have any anarchist spaces around where you live, they probably have it in the lending library (those utopian spaces where we all benefit without a profit being made).

Don't worry about the people who think this world can't work. We can create our utopias community at a time, and when we get so good that capitalist powers have to destroy us, people will see that what we are doing is working, at least working better than this neoliberalism shit is.


for xSECx just briefly, at least for most of these left types of government, the technology is usually first choice for shitty jobs, if that doesn't work, most people who "PLAN" for the future we are all supposed to make collectively/democratically suggest a divvying of the shit jobs left over, we all who are able must work 5 or 10 or whatever, doing jobs that aren't filled up by those who love doing that sort of work. Many more jobs than we think would be filled by choice believe though, i want to be a teacher cause i love learning and teaching. Some of my friends are doing architecture because they are art types. But in reality, the concrete plans have to be open to change. we haven't tried them to see what works best. thats why i'm all for left anarchists trying there shit, and minarchist or right anarchists doing their shit, and we'll see what works. and for those who think what we have works just fine, you guys just don't fucking kill us like the capitalists and the communists did in spain alright :-P

xsecx
09-13-2010, 09:08 PM
Now you got me really puzzled here. Why is it that employer somehow is the one who sets the price? I think the very way you worded it is a BIG problem all around the world. Why do people even think like that? The truth is that an employer is just as dependent on you as you're on him. You're equal in this. Now why would you want an employer to dictate the rules of the game? Every laborer can just as well do the same. If you see they pay you less than you think you deserve/want (be sensible of course!) just say it and let them deal with it. The real problem is that some people think that by selling themselves for less they somehow win or solve a problem of being underpaid. What they do in fact is doom everyone else to low wages and rates.

Am I missing something here?

Because the employer is the one that has the money and therefore the power. They set what they're willing to pay, and as long as they're able to find someone willing to wok for that price, they will. The fact that you say that the laborer has to be sensible when making demands shows that the laborer isn't the one with the power. There is a market salary for a job. That's what a business is willing to pay, regardless of what an individual may want. Go into your job tomorrow and ask for significantly more money. What do you think would happen? How do you decide how much you're worth and how do you convince businesses to pay you that, even if that amount is much higher than others?




No, I live in a developing country where disparity between rich and poor people is even higher than that in the developed ones. I know quite well that most of people do shitty jobs because they have no other choice and basically are forced to continue doing it.

That is very true that machines can't replace people completely and do every chore there is to do. What the proponents of such solutions talk about is reducing as much as possible the percentage of people involved in dangerous occupations and the ones that require hard work. Specifically Fresco, being an inventor and innovator of this sort of technology, has everything already designed and prepared. All he lacks is financial support and political acceptance. That means he is claiming that this could happen basically today. There is a technological solution to address these issues and use machines to build machines, houses and other architectural objects.

Even though there will always be a range of must-do jobs wouldn't be it a MUCH better world to keep the list of these jobs to a minimum and rely on technology to do the rest?

It's really strange to me why you keep on calling these views as utopian when the view of the world discussed is far from perfect. It's just WAY better than what we've got today. It's not ideal, it would still have problems of its own. It's not a utopia in any way.

On funding. It's in a way a resource-based economy. The rules of the game are different. As far as I understand from the description of this system the infrastructure put in place and obligatory 4-year work in development and support of this infrastructure would provide for obtaining the required resources to fund the infrastructure, machines and everything else. A sort of a sustainable system.


Your statements contradict each other. Either people do shitty jobs because they have to, or they avoid them for economic reasons.

Say you, by some miracle you can use technology to reduce the hard, unpleasant and difficult jobs. How do you deal with the unemployment? How do you even create jobs? Who even would be capable of creating jobs? I mean. there's no reason for anyone to own businesses in this world. Your explanation of funding doesn't make sense. How is is sustainable? Where would the funding come from?



As a matter of fact, yes. For example, I'd be happily cleaning the streets of my community area early in the morning after doing my morning exercises. The only thing that stops me today is that economically it's not profitable. That is, to survive I have to do something else. You know the deal. I'd happily maintained and fixed stuff around the area too. I do it sometimes even now. Like fixing basketball court hoops for instance. I wish I could do more but some things require financing and so we're back to this ugly deal. I take genuine pleasure in doing such things. It takes relatively small amounts of time and it pays big time for everyone.


Have you done street cleaning as a job? Have you done maintenance work? I'm also talking about doing unpleasant jobs. Pick any unpleasant job. You'd do them? I wouldn't.



I fear I won't be able to come across enough examples to quantitatively demonstrate the validity of my argument. Again, it's only natural that people seek out profitability living in a system like we live in today but I still maintain that essentially money have little to do with bringing about innovation and invention. It can well be a motivator, can't argue, but it's not the only or primary one.


How is it not a primary one? Look at the world around you. It's a capitalist world, everything has value. Everything has a cost. What you're talking about is removing a huge driving force for innovation. You're also removing a huge funding source for it as well. The vast majority of people don't do things for the love of it, they do it for money. That's a simple reality of this world. You remove the money from it, you remove a lot of the motivation.



You'd still have free-market zone, remember? Innovate and invent for profit all you want. The only difference would be to have people aware of the fact that by conscious effort we make life better for everyone. Is that really much of Utopian view to you?


You wouldn't though. You'd have to redistribute any profits to pay for the jobs that don't actually generate revenue. How would you even have profits in your model?



You know, I think there are quite a lot of examples in history of the world when people were not ready for big changes and only a few brave, "mad" kind of people were able to pull it off. Remember what people thought about replacing horses with cars? Well, we're talking about a similar change here I think.

You're not though. You're talking about redistribution of wealth, replacing tiered society and creating some kind of utopia where people can all be employed in whatever they want and be paid the same regardless. It's an unrealistic dream.

xsecx
09-13-2010, 09:13 PM
for xSECx just briefly, at least for most of these left types of government, the technology is usually first choice for shitty jobs, if that doesn't work, most people who "PLAN" for the future we are all supposed to make collectively/democratically suggest a divvying of the shit jobs left over, we all who are able must work 5 or 10 or whatever, doing jobs that aren't filled up by those who love doing that sort of work. Many more jobs than we think would be filled by choice believe though, i want to be a teacher cause i love learning and teaching. Some of my friends are doing architecture because they are art types. But in reality, the concrete plans have to be open to change. we haven't tried them to see what works best. thats why i'm all for left anarchists trying there shit, and minarchist or right anarchists doing their shit, and we'll see what works. and for those who think what we have works just fine, you guys just don't fucking kill us like the capitalists and the communists did in spain alright :-P

That kind of thing works in small collectives, it doesn't scale. It isn't realistic or even possible for anything other than a handful of people. It's great when everyone is on board and think it's this great possible thing, but the vast majority of people aren't on board and that's why things like this won't even work.

xVeganAnarchistx
09-13-2010, 10:03 PM
i'm serious though. we might both be dead, so tell your kids too, don't kill us because we are trying something different, im confident that if our propaganda of book doesn't convince you, propaganda of deed surely will!

xVeganAnarchistx
09-13-2010, 10:04 PM
and im speaking of you as in anyone who does not want to take the chance for the better world themselves. or are just fine with what the world looks like now

mouseman004
09-13-2010, 10:39 PM
crucial dude, check out Murray Bookchin's Post-Scarcity Anarchism. He articulated basically the view you seem to be talking about back in the 70's. It's a great book. If you have any anarchist spaces around where you live, they probably have it in the lending library (those utopian spaces where we all benefit without a profit being made).

Yeah, but Bookchin might not be the best way to plug anarchism seeing as he renounced his anarchist views and moved on to much more convoluted ideas.

And Libraries make profit, it is just through donations rather than fees.


Don't worry about the people who think this world can't work. We can create our utopias community at a time, and when we get so good that capitalist powers have to destroy us, people will see that what we are doing is working, at least working better than this neoliberalism shit is.

Capitalist powers "destroy" Anarchy not because anarchy gets so good that it needs to be destroyed, but rather because capitalism is a much more dominant and realistic system. Even anarchists don't agree on how a state or society should be organised, hence the ridiculous amount of anarchist schools of thought. In my opinion, Anarchy destroys itself.


and im speaking of you as in anyone who does not want to take the chance for the better world themselves. or are just fine with what the world looks like now

I would love a better world, but in my opinion, Anarchy has nothing to do with creating a better world.

xVeganAnarchistx
09-14-2010, 01:57 PM
bookchin is a municipalist, which means he just like small directly democratic governments like new England town halls, or a inclusive spartan or Athenian system. He abandoned anarchism per se primarily because of the rise in the lifestyle anarchism, (i edited out my comment about primitivists, cause it was really unfair, just for the record :-P) just think anarchism has a long storied history that we who value an egalitarian mass society shouldn't abandon just because some people we may disagree with call themselves anarchist too, its a free people thing, that's what we are about.

Here in the states, most libraries (if they are state run) get most revenue from taxes, and only a small percentage from fees, or if they are private, like the anarchist lending libraries i was really speaking too, they are operated on a donation basis, and that donation usually goes to rent, or ongoing projects.

I'm talking here about actually military destruction of anarchist and proto-anarchist societies but liberal bourgeoisie and state communist (or capitalist, they are the same) powers such as the 1910's and 20's in russia or spain in the 30's. Along with all of the destruction of communes/collectives, orchestrated by red round ups and or informants and other cia paid snitches in the 60's or 70's.

that's cool mouseman, just don't allow your governments (you do control them right :-P) to destroy our projects. and by destroy i mostly mean physically. the propaganda war is important to help figure out which sort of system deals with societies problems without as much trial and error. (which i see as quite necessary too, the problem with ideologies is often that they haven't been tried)

mouseman004
09-15-2010, 08:26 AM
bookchin is a municipalist, which means he just like small directly democratic governments like new England town halls, or a inclusive spartan or Athenian system. He abandoned anarchism per se primarily because of the rise in the lifestyle anarchism, (i edited out my comment about primitivists, cause it was really unfair, just for the record :-P) just think anarchism has a long storied history that we who value an egalitarian mass society shouldn't abandon just because some people we may disagree with call themselves anarchist too, its a free people thing, that's what we are about.

My problem is that there are just far too many radical anarchist viewpoints. I have read anarchist theory, anywhere from bakunin to bookchin, including some books on eco-feminism, and other critical perspectives on capitalism, and there are just too many radical ideas for me to ever jump on board. I don't mean radical as in different, I mean radical in the sense of calling for world wide revolution, things like that.


Here in the states, most libraries (if they are state run) get most revenue from taxes, and only a small percentage from fees, or if they are private, like the anarchist lending libraries i was really speaking too, they are operated on a donation basis, and that donation usually goes to rent, or ongoing projects.

Yeah I did some research, it is the same here in ontario, so I was wrong, I apologize.


I'm talking here about actually military destruction of anarchist and proto-anarchist societies but liberal bourgeoisie and state communist (or capitalist, they are the same) powers such as the 1910's and 20's in russia or spain in the 30's. Along with all of the destruction of communes/collectives, orchestrated by red round ups and or informants and other cia paid snitches in the 60's or 70's.

All of those situations of anarchy being destroyed weren't really the result of capitalism, but moreso a result of the turbulent times each of those countries were facing. Russia in 1910 was on the eve of revolution and still run by the csar, the Soviet Union in 1920 was a "communist" entity where even other forms of communism that strayed from the Soviet model were stamped out; Spain was in the midst of a civil war that was politically based, so of course there is going to be tension at the existence of different schools of thought; and I don't know anything about the red round ups by the CIA but during the 60s and 70s the US feared everything that was different was Commie, it was a result of the Cold War. So in all of those situations (the last one excluded I suppose) it wasn't really Capitalism vs. Anarchism as much as it was simply a consequence of the turbulent eras in Spanish, Russian and American history.


that's cool mouseman, just don't allow your governments (you do control them right :-P) to destroy our projects. and by destroy i mostly mean physically. the propaganda war is important to help figure out which sort of system deals with societies problems without as much trial and error. (which i see as quite necessary too, the problem with ideologies is often that they haven't been tried)

You are the first Anarchist I have ever had a conversation with where the conversation remained completely civil and didn't result in insult throwing, or somebody essentially saying that anybody who beleives in anything other than anarchism is ignorant and a bad person. I respect that.

xVeganAnarchistx
09-15-2010, 01:58 PM
My problem is that there are just far too many radical anarchist viewpoints. I have read anarchist theory, anywhere from bakunin to bookchin, including some books on eco-feminism, and other critical perspectives on capitalism, and there are just too many radical ideas for me to ever jump on board. I don't mean radical as in different, I mean radical in the sense of calling for world wide revolution, things like that.

I dunno i guess i value the various viewpoints. I heard a talk last night about how the adjectives with anarchism should really be valued, we say we want to live in a free society but yet alot of radicals (i find not so much anarchists, but even them too) want everyone to be Exactly like them, thats not free, and i don't want to live in that kind of world. I call myself an Anarcho-Communist, or sometimes Vegan Anarcho-Communist, because i think veganism and the community aspects of a anarchism are really important, that doesn't mean i'm not into the anti-racism of APOC or opposed to women's rights like the Anarcho-Feminists, or uninterested in having a real discussion about the environment like a green anarchist (though i do think deep green stuff is really a stretch, one that could lead to much pain for sentient life human or not). These are all diffirences that i value in anarchism. I love the abundance of "anarchisms" because i don't want to live in a society where i need to tow the party line be it some Neoliberal shit or Marxist-Leninist (which usually means Stalin and Mao are cool too). I value the importance liberalism gives to the individual, while also seeing that i shouldn't just do what i want at the expense of others that communism offers as advice.




All of those situations of anarchy being destroyed weren't really the result of capitalism, but moreso a result of the turbulent times each of those countries were facing. Russia in 1910 was on the eve of revolution and still run by the csar, the Soviet Union in 1920 was a "communist" entity where even other forms of communism that strayed from the Soviet model were stamped out; Spain was in the midst of a civil war that was politically based, so of course there is going to be tension at the existence of different schools of thought; and I don't know anything about the red round ups by the CIA but during the 60s and 70s the US feared everything that was different was Commie, it was a result of the Cold War. So in all of those situations (the last one excluded I suppose) it wasn't really Capitalism vs. Anarchism as much as it was simply a consequence of the turbulent eras in Spanish, Russian and American history.

Well i guess it depends what you think capitalism is. I tie capitalism right to the state that works for the capitalists classes (i don't always mean their is some group of powerful people like the Carnegie's and Rockefeller's of old. I just mean the state works for the interests of the wealthy classes, even without the dark back room). I don't really think state communism is much different since it just replaces the czar and nobles with some other authoritarian class that has society working for its benefit on the backs of others (thus the term State Capitalism).

In Russia, that lack of tolerance is exactly the problem of statist ideologies, they don't allow that much room to disagree, and it began under lenin, Stalin just did it more explicitly. After reading a book by Voline (an anarchist in the russian rev, so take it with the grains of salt that you may wish haha) It seems quite clear that the communist governments where targeting the Ukrainian revolutionaries, and the People of Kronstadt because of their alternative way of governing, so i guess you might not tie them as directly communism or capitalism, but for me, that state, and the classes they work for cannot be easily separated.

In Spain, it was again a conscious choice, at least for the communists, to target and kill anarchists, and put out propaganda against them. The Liberal "Democracies" may not have targeted the anarchists as directly, but i tend to think, that the economic ideas the syndicalists were putting forward were certainly troublesome to the western nations that could have easily won the Spanish civil war if only they send more aid to the Popular Front.


You are the first Anarchist I have ever had a conversation with where the conversation remained completely civil and didn't result in insult throwing, or somebody essentially saying that anybody who beleives in anything other than anarchism is ignorant and a bad person. I respect that.

thanks

xCrucialDudex
01-16-2011, 08:32 AM
You're naive if you think that google were and are just doing it for the fun of it. Or that the linux and gnu folks don't have day jobs that either benefit directly from that work or that allow them to do it on their off time. The biggest innovations always, either directly or indirectly from commercial sources. It's not simply because people want to do it. Or enjoy doing it. They do it because they know it'll make them rich. You take that away and the vast majority of people involved wouldn't put in the kind of hours necessary to make that happen.

I've been mulling over this position of yours ever since you posted this message and I still stick to what I wrote about what I think motivates people, including creating innovations. I've stumbled upon this video that goes about how motivation and incentives correlate yesterday and I want you to see it:

u6XAPnuFjJc

xsecx
01-16-2011, 08:54 AM
I've been mulling over this position of yours ever since you posted this message and I still stick to what I wrote about what I think motivates people, including creating innovations. I've stumbled upon this video that goes about how motivation and incentives correlate yesterday and I want you to see it:

u6XAPnuFjJc

of course you do, you have an unrealistic view of the world, if you didn't you wouldn't think that people do things just for the love of it. I'm sure you're no closer to cleaning toilets for a living than you were before either. I mean, if you actually want to discuss it, you could go back to the posts before this one and actually answer it.

xCrucialDudex
01-16-2011, 10:01 AM
of course you do, you have an unrealistic view of the world, if you didn't you wouldn't think that people do things just for the love of it. I'm sure you're no closer to cleaning toilets for a living than you were before either. I mean, if you actually want to discuss it, you could go back to the posts before this one and actually answer it.

eh? what kind of reaction is that? having a bad day or what?
and is that all you have to say after seeing this video? "mainstream of mainstream", "top tier of economists" are saying that money has very little to do with motivation and you comeback with just that?

xsecx
01-16-2011, 10:11 AM
eh? what kind of reaction is that? having a bad day or what?
and is that all you have to say after seeing this video? "mainstream of mainstream", "top tier of economists" are saying that money has very little to do with motivation and you comeback with just that?

i'm saying that if you want to continue the conversation then do so, but coming back and ignoring the questions you were already asked isn't really good form. If you're not going to invest the time to have address the existing conversation, why should I invest the time to watch your video?

xCrucialDudex
01-16-2011, 10:29 AM
i'm saying that if you want to continue the conversation then do so, but coming back and ignoring the questions you were already asked isn't really good form. If you're not going to invest the time to have address the existing conversation, why should I invest the time to watch your video?

Dude why so emotional all of a sudden? "your" video? I've merely given you a link to it, it's not my video.

What question do you want me to answer specifically? All those questions you posed are largely irrelevant to what this video talks about anyway. You have a completely distorted idea of what motivates people I'm not even sure where it comes from whether thriving capitalist environment or lack of information. Just click the play button and watch the video.

If you really need me to answer any of your questions, shoot. I'm not sure which one(s) you refer to specifically, though. So, it would be really great if you repeated them once again.

xsecx
01-16-2011, 10:33 AM
Dude why so emotional all of a sudden? "your" video? I've merely given you a link to it, it's not my video.

What question do you want me to answer specifically? All those questions you posed are largely irrelevant to what this video talks about anyway. You have a completely distorted idea of what motivates people I'm not even sure where it comes from whether thriving capitalist environment or lack of information. Just click the play button and watch the video.

If you really need me to answer any of your questions, shoot. I'm not sure which one(s) you refer to specifically, though. So, it would be really great if you repeated them once again.

I'm not being emotional at all. Like I said, if you want to keep having a conversation go back and continue the one that's already in place. If not, then I really don't see the point in having any further dialog with you about this since you clearly don't care about having a conversation.

xCrucialDudex
01-16-2011, 12:02 PM
I'm not being emotional at all. Like I said, if you want to keep having a conversation go back and continue the one that's already in place. If not, then I really don't see the point in having any further dialog with you about this since you clearly don't care about having a conversation.

As I said your questions a largely irrelevant but yes I am interested in this conversation and here are my answers to the last post you left. I hope it is the one with questions you'd like to see my answers to.


Because the employer is the one that has the money and therefore the power. They set what they're willing to pay, and as long as they're able to find someone willing to wok for that price, they will. The fact that you say that the laborer has to be sensible when making demands shows that the laborer isn't the one with the power. There is a market salary for a job. That's what a business is willing to pay, regardless of what an individual may want. Go into your job tomorrow and ask for significantly more money. What do you think would happen? How do you decide how much you're worth and how do you convince businesses to pay you that, even if that amount is much higher than others?

An employee holds just as much power as employer. The only real difference, a sick one, is that monetary system was designed with differential advantage in mind. And it works only as long people are fooled into believing there's only this, only this one way things can work. What if there was no money at all? Who'd be in power then? What if money would not be required to get job done? What would be an agreement and/or requirement to engage in any work? The kind of power you refer to was basically contrived and is rooted in fraud and deceit. I'm approaching this whole debate from the standpoint that money must not conduce to fraud, deceit, exploitation and other sick social relationships. But I truly believe that even in the current monetary system if employees fully realized that if they refuse to work for say 60 bucks a week, and demand 300 instead, and show the backbone employers would have to comply. That's an ideal scenario, in reality there are always people who don't get it and think that if they agree to less they'll win. In fact they loose, they loose money, power and most importantly they create expectations on behalf of employers to pay even less. Therefore, these people are responsible for dooming themselves.

Sensibility bit should be applied to both parties. Assuming people are decent and seek to maintain equality and justice.

Going into job demanding more money as a single instant, it wouldn't work, of course, if this was to happen on a global scale all over the world it would, though. Because corporations, businesses, governments, employers wouldn't have any other choice but to comply.


Your statements contradict each other. Either people do shitty jobs because they have to, or they avoid them for economic reasons.

Say you, by some miracle you can use technology to reduce the hard, unpleasant and difficult jobs. How do you deal with the unemployment? How do you even create jobs? Who even would be capable of creating jobs? I mean. there's no reason for anyone to own businesses in this world. Your explanation of funding doesn't make sense. How is is sustainable? Where would the funding come from?

Unemployment wouldn't matter all that much because people would have resources and money to sustain themselves. That's what EMS strives to achieve, as it seems. With machines doing the job people would have more time to pursuit whatever they're pleased to do. Creating jobs wouldn't be a problem either. In EMS model there's still place for business and thus jobs.

My explanation of funding does make perfect sense. It is sustainable because it ensures minimal, equal resources allocation to all people and it there's an infrastructure that supports this economic and financial model.


Have you done street cleaning as a job? Have you done maintenance work? I'm also talking about doing unpleasant jobs. Pick any unpleasant job. You'd do them? I wouldn't.

No, I haven't. Do you do unpleasant jobs about your house? Also, there are always people who are not afraid of this kind of jobs. This doesn't have to be like pickering shit manually with your naked hands. Use machines, gear, etc. I love doing chores about my apartment simply because it instills discipline, and gives a sense of accomplishment of something useful also. I'm pretty sure it would be possible to phase out people doing even these "shitty" jobs with robots. We have lawn mower robots today. We can't we have toilet cleaning ones?




How is it not a primary one? Look at the world around you. It's a capitalist world, everything has value. Everything has a cost. What you're talking about is removing a huge driving force for innovation. You're also removing a huge funding source for it as well. The vast majority of people don't do things for the love of it, they do it for money. That's a simple reality of this world. You remove the money from it, you remove a lot of the motivation.

It's not primary, it's not even huge. Funding would come under different circumstances, we could instead create R&D complexes for people to engage and cooperatively work on any inventions they find interesting or necessary.

The reality is that you remove the money, you remove only some motivation. And it's not crucial to bringing about innovation.

See this video for details:
u6XAPnuFjJc


You wouldn't though. You'd have to redistribute any profits to pay for the jobs that don't actually generate revenue. How would you even have profits in your model?

I'm not going into this because I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.


You're not though. You're talking about redistribution of wealth, replacing tiered society and creating some kind of utopia where people can all be employed in whatever they want and be paid the same regardless. It's an unrealistic dream.

There's no such things as utopia, okay? Nothing is perfect, nothing can be perfect. Things always evolve, change and therefore we cannot achieve an absolute, permanent state of anything, a utopia included. If you mean it's too good to be true, well let's examine why it looks to you as such. I may not be entirely capable of answering all of your questions but I'll do all I can.

xsecx
01-16-2011, 03:29 PM
As I said your questions a largely irrelevant but yes I am interested in this conversation and here are my answers to the last post you left. I hope it is the one with questions you'd like to see my answers to.


how exactly are they irrelevant?



An employee holds just as much power as employer. The only real difference, a sick one, is that monetary system was designed with differential advantage in mind. And it works only as long people are fooled into believing there's only this, only this one way things can work. What if there was no money at all? Who'd be in power then? What if money would not be required to get job done? What would be an agreement and/or requirement to engage in any work? The kind of power you refer to was basically contrived and is rooted in fraud and deceit. I'm approaching this whole debate from the standpoint that money must not conduce to fraud, deceit, exploitation and other sick social relationships. But I truly believe that even in the current monetary system if employees fully realized that if they refuse to work for say 60 bucks a week, and demand 300 instead, and show the backbone employers would have to comply. That's an ideal scenario, in reality there are always people who don't get it and think that if they agree to less they'll win. In fact they loose, they loose money, power and most importantly they create expectations on behalf of employers to pay even less. Therefore, these people are responsible for dooming themselves.


The employer decides when and if the employee stays employed. How exactly does that mean that they hold as much power as the employer? This statement shows me that you are completely out of touch. What if everyone could just sit on their couch and be paid for it? Be paid as much as someone who works. in that situation, why would anyone work? If there's no money who would be in charge? How would ownership work? If everyone is paid the same regardless of task why would people strive when they could work less and have more time to do things that are fun? How is it rooted in fraud and deceit?



Sensibility bit should be applied to both parties. Assuming people are decent and seek to maintain equality and justice.

Going into job demanding more money as a single instant, it wouldn't work, of course, if this was to happen on a global scale all over the world it would, though. Because corporations, businesses, governments, employers wouldn't have any other choice but to comply.


And world peace would happen if everyone just got together and decided to not fight wars. As long as you have people willing to do the job for the wage offered and/or that's all an employer can afford that's all there's going to be. You wanting more money doesn't mean that the employer can afford to. This model works fine when you're talking about large business with large profits but fails to take into account small and medium sized businesses with very small profit margins. In the scenario you just raised, those businesses would simply close and those employees would be out of work.




Unemployment wouldn't matter all that much because people would have resources and money to sustain themselves. That's what EMS strives to achieve, as it seems. With machines doing the job people would have more time to pursuit whatever they're pleased to do. Creating jobs wouldn't be a problem either. In EMS model there's still place for business and thus jobs.

My explanation of funding does make perfect sense. It is sustainable because it ensures minimal, equal resources allocation to all people and it there's an infrastructure that supports this economic and financial model.


Listen to what you've just said. You've got machines doing everything, and somehow there would be enough money to pay people for everything. So where exactly would that money come from? Why would anyone create a business if they are going to be given money to sustain themselves? How is this such a hard concept for you to understand? Saying that it's sustainable because it's sustainable doesn't really explain it. You've got a system that is literally paying people for nothing. Somehow that's supposed to be sustainable? You have consumers but not producers. You've got no reason for people to produce.



No, I haven't. Do you do unpleasant jobs about your house? Also, there are always people who are not afraid of this kind of jobs. This doesn't have to be like pickering shit manually with your naked hands. Use machines, gear, etc. I love doing chores about my apartment simply because it instills discipline, and gives a sense of accomplishment of something useful also. I'm pretty sure it would be possible to phase out people doing even these "shitty" jobs with robots. We have lawn mower robots today. We can't we have toilet cleaning ones?


Why not? Quit your job and go house cleaning or street cleaning. Why don't you do this today? I'd like your opinion on this subject when it's all you do and not something that gives you a sense of accomplishment because you cleaned up after yourself. If this is something you enjoy, why don't you make it your career? Why assume that robots are the answer, especially since the world population isn't shrinking and the people who do that work today would still need something to do.






It's not primary, it's not even huge. Funding would come under different circumstances, we could instead create R&D complexes for people to engage and cooperatively work on any inventions they find interesting or necessary.

The reality is that you remove the money, you remove only some motivation. And it's not crucial to bringing about innovation.

See this video for details:
u6XAPnuFjJc


How is it not, saying that it's not doesn't make it so? Where would that funding come from, exactly? How and who would decide how the funding was distributed? Right now, it's all decided privately and through commerce.

The video isn't really relevant to what we're talking about. It's talking about motivation in a world where money exists. You're talking about a paradigm shift. A handful of studies showing that people work for the sake of it, within a capitalist system isn't really applicable to talking about what would happen when/if money no longer exists.



I'm not going into this because I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.

You were the one talking about profit. I'd like to know how anyone could profit? Not everything would generate goods for commerce. Not every job would be a service that someone would pay for. So for your system to work, profits can't actually exist, because anything that was left after paying for operations would need to be redistributed throughout the system to pay for the jobs that didn't generate revenue. This is why your model is dumb and would never work. If you think the entire world would work simply for the love of whatever, you're delusional.



There's no such things as utopia, okay? Nothing is perfect, nothing can be perfect. Things always evolve, change and therefore we cannot achieve an absolute, permanent state of anything, a utopia included. If you mean it's too good to be true, well let's examine why it looks to you as such. I may not be entirely capable of answering all of your questions but I'll do all I can.

But what you're talking about is a utopian society. If nothing is perfect, then how exactly can you think this is something that is even possible?

radical
01-18-2011, 12:41 PM
What if money would not be required to get job done? What would be an agreement and/or requirement to engage in any work?

That would probably start massive chaos as people would be at each other's throats over who should get the credit for the accomplished work...

xvunderx
01-19-2011, 08:42 AM
eh? what kind of reaction is that? having a bad day or what?
and is that all you have to say after seeing this video? "mainstream of mainstream", "top tier of economists" are saying that money has very little to do with motivation and you comeback with just that?

I'm self-employed, I graduated from art school, and I love to do things for the sake of it. To a point.

For example I design and make clothing and accessories. I do simple T-shirts all the way up to super complicated corsetry. Over the past week I made a corset I'm really proud of. Developed a new pattern solving problems in fit and comfort with traditional versions and a few other things. It was a tough project, my hands are covered in cuts and blisters as a result, and both my wrists and thumbs are super painful today from all the physical parts that went into making the garment.

Now if I could get paid the same amount selling and designing T-shirts as I could making corsets like this that require recovery time before attempting again, I'd only sell T-shirts. Sure I would still have made that corset because I want to wear it, but I wouldn't make it to sell to any one else but me. Hobby only.

I do genuinely enjoy what I do, but if pay wasn't on a graduated scale, I sure wouldn't put myself through all that struggle if it wasn't going to improve my lot in life.

I get a great satisfaction out of T-shirts too, so if I was going to come home with the same amount of money no matter what I did, I'd do the least amount of work and enjoy my free time.