2013-08-04, 10:06 | Link #29841 | |||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
The point of bringing this up was not to say that we should get rid of landlords. It was generated in response to the idea that the working poor are deserving of criticism for demanding higher wages. I chose a group of people who aren't poor, yet who siphon money from society while providing little to no value in return, and asked the group why they don't receive criticism. Quote:
Those comments weren't directed at you, but at kyp275. To be fair, he didn't complain about welfare recipients. I pre-empted it, but he didn't go there. Quote:
Quote:
Most of that line of argument wasn't what you were responding to, though. You were brought into the conversation over the calling out of landlords as parasites. While I am not opposed to the idea that people would receive compensation for going through the effort to secure a site and erect a structure for others to live in, I view what happens after as parasitism. If the property owner is not functioning as the property manager, then what more is he (or she) than another outstretched hand demanding money from people who must live somewhere and end up on his or her plot of land? What service is being provided? Quote:
"Living wherever you want" is not the issue. See what I wrote above regarding job location, supply and demand for housing prices, and the negotiating power of renters and landlords.
__________________
|
|||||
2013-08-04, 10:21 | Link #29842 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2013-08-04, 10:23 | Link #29843 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Sure, when everything's smooth sailing, they make more money than they spend for little to no effort. But when it isn't, they may well lose money. Holding the two possibilities in balance is what's capitalism is about. Construction isn't a charity, it's an investment. If it stops being a way to make money, it stops happening. And whether one pays for the construction directly, or buys the building years later from the one who did, what does it change? The owner still had to spend money to acquire a building. |
|
2013-08-04, 10:35 | Link #29844 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Quote:
This is why I think your gripe is more with capitalism itself and private land ownership. The "service" is the fact that they own and rent the land and there are intrinsic responsibilities and risks associated with such ownership. You don't just stumble into property ownership and reap all these benefits. You are making an investment and the money you put into it is at risk when you do so. The risk, the tying up of money, that isn't restricted to the initial purchase as you seem to be suggesting... they remain throughout the life of your ownership. This question serves as another example of why I see your problem as a fundamental dislike of private land ownership. |
|
2013-08-04, 11:37 | Link #29845 |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
This thread make me lol. But to be honest, in the last years I had to struggle and fight my way from doing Internship at $12 an hour all the way to the Senior Accountant at a major wall street firm while freelancing for a bunch of smaller firms.
I can tell you you will be surprised how many companies, especially mid (200 employee or less) are not making money, barely surviving because guess what? Their employees aren't even making enough to enjoy their company's products. Everything in capitalism depend on consumption (making sales) and reducing costs. If one constantly reduce the value of their workers, those workers (or laid off) will make less consumption. A CEO can't eat 50 worker worth of oranges a year, no matter how high his salary is. A grocer I do the books for in exchange for free picks from his stock is fretting his food aren't being sold fast enough, because the local economy is dying a slow death and everyone is cutting back. So once this vicious circle goes on long enough, the economic impact will be felt even for the mid managers and then the wealthy. Those countries that enjoy an outsourced economy (SK, China) will soon join Japan in the lost lands when their workers are outsourced to Africa, or replaced by robots completely.
__________________
|
2013-08-04, 12:33 | Link #29847 | |
Sensei, aishite imasu
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
|
Quote:
Imagine a setup where every company managed to replace the entirety of its work force with robots, yet still was providing services/goods under the assumption that there were still consumers with money left.
__________________
|
|
2013-08-04, 12:45 | Link #29848 | |
He Without a Title
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The land of tempura
|
Quote:
I could go on and on and every example I could think of is actually happening today. We're heading to a future where we may just turn ourselves obsolete and then what? How does capitalism itself, the concept of rewarding people with money for they work, continues to function when no-one needs to actually work any more? We're at the beginning of a time where humanity itself may just need to re-evaluate the basic trading system that has served us for millennia.
__________________
|
|
2013-08-04, 12:50 | Link #29849 |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
Real estate seems to attract some weird moralist views from people who otherwise have no qualms with capitalism.
There is some ongoing quarrel in Germany, where some entities build luxury appartments into so called "in-scene-quarters". These are the hippest and most promising places to live in cities and property prices are skyrocketing there, mind you. So they get called 'evil' because 'poor people can't pay those rents! how are they supposed to live there now'? Those companies must have payed fortunes to get a hold of the land. Of course they will build high value objects on them. And why would anyone have a right to live in the best quarters, in newly built appartments, for almost no cost? It makes no sense. But that's what these complainers seem to believe. If it was about anything else than real estate, they would get it. But somehow that's different. |
2013-08-04, 12:56 | Link #29850 | |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
Quote:
Do you understand that the word computer comes from actual guys sitting at a desk all workday, computing stuff? And not in a way a mathematician would work on a problem. No, just adding numbers, because someone has to do it. Are we sad, these jobs do not exist anymore? Where are all the jobless computers today? We will never be 'obsolete', we will become more free. Free to do things we couldn't do before, because we were locked in some mundane activity. Who wants to work at an assembly line? No one. Maybe that actor will control a whole bunch of virtual characters instead and make their own movie? That doctor can use his time to attend to difficult cases and leave the routine work to the robots. Or a doctor will be someone that trains robots? Finally good treatment for everyone, even the poor? yay. Office workers already got a huge boost from the introduction of personal computers. There are still office workers, but they are more empowered now. This has happened for over a hundred years now, so I'll assume the current system is well prepared for it. Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2013-08-04 at 13:06. |
|
2013-08-04, 13:10 | Link #29851 | |
He Without a Title
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The land of tempura
|
Quote:
We're reaching unbearable levels of unemployment precisely because we have so much stuff automated nowadays that we end up with people who aren't capable of doing anything that's needed anymore. I get how you say that replacing humans with machines leaves people free to do something better, more high level, but that only works if we as a society are willing to put in the time and money needed to train those people and we clearly aren't doing it at the moment going by the insane student loans we see people take on these days.
__________________
|
|
2013-08-04, 13:24 | Link #29852 |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
Unemployment was high and low in the past no matter the state of automation.
But with automation the money you do earn will buy you so much more. It is not really about training either. A guy with bulldozer and a few days of training can do the job of a hundred men with showels. It just enables us to do so much more, for basicly the same cost in salaries (and a much higher cost in tools, but those are investments that can be written off with proper economics). In effect, so much more gets done overall that even if you only participate a little bit, it will (should?) in fact get you more than anyone in the past could dream of as a common worker. Automation is not the problem. I'd say the inequality in distribution of the profits of automation is. It's hardly linear to the importance of the work done. |
2013-08-04, 13:33 | Link #29853 | ||
Sensei, aishite imasu
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
|
Quote:
High unemployment is likely going to go hand in hand with rampant corporate failures in the aftermath of increasing automation in society. Yes, but what are they supposed to do that will also put food on the table? In a society where nearly all office/industrial/service jobs are automated? Maybe there'd be some creative stuff still needed (engineering/art), but whose to say that artificial intelligence couldn't do that as well? And it's not like everyone in a society can try to become designers or artists. Quote:
The problem with automation today is that nobody is really sure what kind of new economically viable jobs will be generated by having 100% automated service/industry jobs.
__________________
|
||
2013-08-04, 13:34 | Link #29854 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Theoretically, in such a society all production including food is received by the people who own the machines who make it. They trade the produce for whatever services the other people can provide. Basically a 100% service economy. |
||
2013-08-04, 13:48 | Link #29855 | ||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
As what Bri had said, a service economy. In that case, who would be doing the research and development for the production side of the economy when nobody has experience in that?
__________________
|
||
2013-08-04, 13:49 | Link #29856 |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Just to point out guys, as an Accountant, I can tell you I know my job will value less and less going forward because a machine can do 80% of my job now. It take three accountants to take care what used to take 30. I once remarked to my ex on this, and she said she is working on a project at IBM to have computer write their own codes.
It might be somewhat lolz to think about it now, but someday even comp sci people will replace themselves. After that, then what? Who need supply chain managers, high finance people, engineers or even scientists if machine can do their research more efficiently? This also affect the gilded 1% people as well. As a person who work in High Speed Trading firm, most of our clients (I.E big monies traders, funds, wall street firms) are also becoming frustrated. 10 years ago, Mom and Pop traders and "average investors" used to float the market with massive volume. Now after the scandals and the economy crash, the volume is a quarter where its used to be, and half of that are bots doing high frequency duels against each other. (while Tele-com and artificial costs are strangling the market by eating smaller firms alive.) Very soon, it is entirely possible Wall Street itself will be displaced by capitalism. Then what?
__________________
|
2013-08-04, 14:04 | Link #29857 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
With robots everywhere? We're talking about a society where only the 1% most creative has real, useful jobs. Training robots or tackling problems they aren't smart enough to solve. Everything else? Robots. And for the remaining 99%? Make-work and hobbies. We can't all be Stephen Hawking or GRR Martin. Or maybe we'll all prostitute ourselves to each other, because I imagine most people will prefer real flesh and blood to even the most realistic robot. Though I could be wrong there... And of course, the next question, tied to the end of capitalism, is this: what happens when the rich, the robot owners, realize they don't need the poor? Not even to clean their robots? Do they tell us to starve? Do we storm their castles? Maybe start the Butlerian Jihad? Or maybe we'll all live comfortable lives, supported by our robot slaves, writing fanfiction all day, for lack of a better thing to do. |
|
2013-08-04, 14:05 | Link #29858 |
Sensei, aishite imasu
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
|
Who gives them a replicator? And how do they convince the people who operate the robot mines to send them raw materials for their replicator, and convince the people who own the power utilities to send them the power needed to power their replicator?
For that matter. Why wouldn't the people who owned the mines/power plants not have their own, industrial sized replicators? But what services could they provide to somebody with a replicator, who could just manufacture robot servants/workers for himself?
__________________
|
2013-08-04, 14:05 | Link #29859 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
|
Quote:
We can also become more free if everyone's got free food and housing, except every government that attempted it on a scale larger than a small village has failed miserably. |
|
2013-08-04, 14:09 | Link #29860 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Right now, every meal we eat was made with somebody's sweat. Someone somewhere always pay. But if it could all be done by robots? Well, someone would have to design them first, and build the first few to build the rest, but ultimately we'd get to a point where a handful of guys worked hard for a bit and fed everyone, forever. Then what? |
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|