Economic Slavery

[Shadow Wolf]

I remember going to a group(who prided themselves on being Liberal) that was trying to address local food insecurity. One woman said "there's really no reason to give lower income people money directly for food, because all they do is buy ramen".

It took a lot to stop me from saying "*****, all they can afford is ramen noodles! You think they eat that **** by choice?"

Still makes me angry....

Should have let her have it.

 

[The Hammer]

@Augustus @Vouthon

Is it possible to create a functioning, prosperous economy without some kind of slavery? Whether it be conquest, sweatshops, wage slavery, etc. Has it been or can it ever be done? Is there a prosperous nation that hasn't utilised some kind of slave system to make itself rich? Is it possible to build a nation from the ground without it? Is it within our human capacity to do so? Is it possible to live in the kind of materialist society we want to live in without some form of slavery?

Basically, is it possible to become rich without slavery in any form.

Through reimplementing the Cultural Standard of the Potlatch. (Aka real Trickle Down Economics)

potlatch | Definition, Ceremony, & Facts

 

[SomeRandom]

@Augustus @Vouthon

Is it possible to create a functioning, prosperous economy without some kind of slavery? Whether it be conquest, sweatshops, wage slavery, etc. Has it been or can it ever be done? Is there a prosperous nation that hasn't utilised some kind of slave system to make itself rich? Is it possible to build a nation from the ground without it? Is it within our human capacity to do so? Is it possible to live in the kind of materialist society we want to live in without some form of slavery?

Basically, is it possible to become rich without slavery in any form.

Ideally yes. But people are too materialistic, imo.

I know many folks who work jobs that would be the sort of “wage slavery” type jobs the US would refer to as and they live reasonably comfortable lives. Granted that’s usually because they have a partner who also earns. That’s not to say my country doesn’t have those sorts of awful exploitative jobs also. But many of the big brand retail companies for example do tend to pay above minimum wage for its permanent employees. Though they can be rather cutthroat in many other aspects.

Out of curiosity, does the US have a mandatory Superannuation scheme for employees? Or equivalent?
I feel compelled to ask since I know the US doesn’t have many of the mandatory benefits other Western Nations must provide employees by law.

 

[Rival]

Ideally yes. But people are too materialistic, imo.

I know many folks who work jobs that would be the sort of “wage slavery” type jobs the US would refer to as and they live reasonably comfortable lives. Granted that’s usually because they have a partner who also earns. That’s not to say my country doesn’t have those sorts of awful exploitative jobs also. But many of the big brand retail companies for example do tend to pay above minimum wage for its permanent employees. Though they can be rather cutthroat in many other aspects.

Out of curiosity, does the US have a mandatory Superannuation scheme for employees? Or equivalent?
I feel compelled to ask since I know the US doesn’t have many of the mandatory benefits other Western Nations must provide employees by law.

No idea mate, I'm

 

[SomeRandom]

No idea mate, I'm

Oh whoops. Beg your pardon, governor

 

[Nimos]

What is going to change about humans that 'almost all' could possibly be working as designers or engineers in the future?
There are plenty who simply aren't up to it mentally, not to mention that there is a limited demand for new designs.

Ultimately, automation would mean a substantial level of current labour isn't required, all whilst the total available labour probably grows (unless something happens to our population growth rates).

When I say designer, I mean technical designer/engineers of some sort, whether that is within computer software or robotics etc. Which to me is simply because if you can't do these things, you are simply not qualified for what is needed. Im not saying that every single job is going to go away, but I think you could see it sort of like a person today, that is unable to use or work with a computer, but I think these requirements will escalate in the future, so a huge amount of jobs will require people to be able to this, and if they cant, then they will just hire someone else, because there will be enough to chose from.

For instance, self driven cars. These are coming sooner or later, its just a matter of time, they are also working on ships, trains (Already here), planes (a lot of this is already automated) so when cars comes, or if its drones or whatever. All people that are delivering goods or transporting stuff or people will be obsolete and will have to move to other sectors. And as you say these don't have a technical background, but the chance is that whatever jobs they have to jump to, also requires a technical background, and that is simply one sector.

So as you say not all people are capable of these things, but since when have a company ever cared about that? They are there to make a profit, not charity and they will get rid of people, if they can earn more from it. It have always been like that, so I don't see why they would care?

The only time they will care is when there is not enough purchasing power to buy their stuff, and then **** will hit the fan so to speak, because should that happen then the economy will collapse.

Just what I think we can expect in the future and why humans can't compete (just some short videos):

And the list goes on, there are people working on some crazy (cool) stuff out there

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When I say designer, I mean technical designer/engineers of some sort, whether that is within computer software or robotics etc. Which to me is simply because if you can't do these things, you are simply not qualified for what is needed. Im not saying that every single job is going to go away, but I think you could see it sort of like a person today, that is unable to use or work with a computer, but I think these requirements will escalate in the future, so a huge amount of jobs will require people to be able to this, and if they cant, then they will just hire someone else, because there will be enough to chose from.

For instance, self driven cars. These are coming sooner or later, its just a matter of time, they are also working on ships, trains (Already here), planes (a lot of this is already automated) so when cars comes, or if its drones or whatever. All people that are delivering goods or transporting stuff or people will be obsolete and will have to move to other sectors. And as you say these don't have a technical background, but the chance is that whatever jobs they have to jump to, also requires a technical background, and that is simply one sector.

So as you say not all people are capable of these things, but since when have a company ever cared about that? They are there to make a profit, not charity and they will get rid of people, if they can earn more from it. It have always been like that, so I don't see why they would care?

The only time they will care is when there is not enough purchasing power to buy their stuff, and then **** will hit the fan so to speak, because should that happen then the economy will collapse.

Just what I think we can expect in the future and why humans can't compete (just some short videos):

And the list goes on, there are people working on some crazy (cool) stuff out there

Without going into too much detail, I agree with a lot of what you say there.
But, to me, that is fundamentally different to 'almost all' people moving into technically demanding jobs. What you seem to be saying is that almost all jobs will have technical components to them. Which I agree with.

I would foresee large amounts of people moving from full-time to casual/part-time work (only voluntarily in some cases) and other people becoming unemployed, tbh.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I prefer to let the market determine wages.

I think that works exceedingly poorly for low-skilled jobs.

The UBI is a better fix for low earners.

In many ways I agree, although I think there is a role for both.

 

[Nimos]

Without going into too much detail, I agree with a lot of what you say there.
But, to me, that is fundamentally different to 'almost all' people moving into technically demanding jobs. What you seem to be saying is that almost all jobs will have technical components to them. Which I agree with.

I would foresee large amounts of people moving from full-time to casual/part-time work (only voluntarily in some cases) and other people becoming unemployed, tbh.

Obviously it depends on how you define or understand "almost all". I use it in the sense that we simply won't have enough jobs for people without such background, because it is going to affect a lot more jobs than people can probably imagine.

If you watched just the last two videos, which seems rather harmless, but imagine how this is going to affect shopping. Walmart can cut down on their employees like crazy, because people just go in and take what they want and the system automatically make sure that they pay. Even in Denmark now, Mcdonalds have ordering screens, so most of the time there might be one employee standing at the desk serving people and handing out food, where there used to be maybe 3-5 people standing there taking orders. And as this automation expands and more and more people want it, things are going to go fast I think.

And I agree with you, that first we are going to see people cut down on time they work, but eventually the reason people work have to change as well, meaning you don't go to work to earn money. I don't know how this will be in the future and it won't be in the next 50 years (I think, depending on breakthroughs ), but humans have to adjust, because the way we do things now, which seems logically, simply wont make sense in the future.

 

[JustGeorge]

Obviously it depends on how you define or understand "almost all". I use it in the sense that we simply won't have enough jobs for people without such background, because it is going to affect a lot more jobs than people can probably imagine.

If you watched just the last two videos, which seems rather harmless, but imagine how this is going to affect shopping. Walmart can cut down on their employees like crazy, because people just go in and take what they want and the system automatically make sure that they pay. Even in Denmark now, Mcdonalds have ordering screens, so most of the time there might be one employee standing at the desk serving people and handing out food, where there used to be maybe 3-5 people standing there taking orders. And as this automation expands and more and more people want it, things are going to go fast I think.

And I agree with you, that first we are going to see people cut down on time they work, but eventually the reason people work have to change as well, meaning you don't go to work to earn money. I don't know how this will be in the future and it won't be in the next 50 years (I think, depending on breakthroughs ), but humans have to adjust, because the way we do things now, which seems logically, simply wont make sense in the future.

I think with all the cutback of human interaction, the need for therapy will increase. That might be a good field to get into, too!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Out of curiosity, does the US have a mandatory Superannuation scheme for employees? Or equivalent?

Nope.
Here, a life of jobs that pay below poverty and provide no benefits and self employment has left me with nothing for retirement at this point in my life (that's no exaggeration. I literally have nothing for retirement).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think that works exceedingly poorly for low-skilled jobs.

What's "low skilled"?
Fast food is still among the hardest I've done, requiring more energy, effort, and practice to get good at, not too mention the risks of injury.
Case management was way easier. It just doesn't pay enough for what it demands (like paying a poverty wage despite being on call 24/7).

 

[SomeRandom]

Nope.
Here, a life of jobs that pay below poverty and provide no benefits and self employment has left me with nothing for retirement at this point in my life (that's no exaggeration. I literally have nothing for retirement).

Whoa seriously? I mean I guess I’m not particularly surprised to hear that. Just saddened. How do people in the US retire then?

 

[Shaul]

It is certainly possible to live a modern urbane lifestyle that doesn’t rely on the exploitation of others. For example getting clothes produced using no sweatshop labor is a market choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that works exceedingly poorly for low-skilled jobs.

Be careful to not price them out of the market.
I've had employees who aren't worth $15/hr.
Otherwise they'll just go on the dole.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Whoa seriously? I mean I guess I’m not particularly surprised to hear that. Just saddened. How do people in the US retire then?

Well, in the past jobs paid relatively more and employers took care of their employees once upon a time.
Today, those not lucky enough, we don't retire because we can't afford to.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well, in the past jobs paid relatively more and employers took care of their employees once upon a time.
Today, those not lucky enough, we don't retire because we can't afford to.

I don’t understand. Well I do but you know. How come employers were allowed to not take care of their employees?
I mean I recognise that businesses particularly big businesses have to be forced into providing benefits to employees. So like it’s illegal here to have an employer not contribute to a worker’s Superannuation in every paycheck. A scheme which invests money on your behalf and with which you eventually retire with. I think mine is currently 45,000 AUD. Which I think equates to 32 odd thousand US. Which doesn’t sound like much but I have like 3 more decades at least before I’m allowed to retire

 

[Revoltingest]

I don’t understand. Well I do but you know. How come employers were allowed to not take care of their employees?
I mean I recognise that businesses particularly big businesses have to be forced into providing benefits to employees. So like it’s illegal here to have an employer not contribute to a worker’s Superannuation in every paycheck. A scheme which invests money on your behalf and with which you eventually retire with. I think mine is currently 45,000 AUD. Which I think equates to 32 odd thousand US. Which doesn’t sound like much but I have like 3 more decades at least before I’m allowed to retire

Government shouldn't train employees to see employers
as parental figures. Give'm a fair wage & independence.

 

[JustGeorge]

I don’t understand. Well I do but you know. How come employers were allowed to not take care of their employees?

I think to an extent, its hard to demand more.

Our culture is terribly individualistic(for better and for worse), and this exists within families as well. Adult children living at home tends to be frowned on(both from the peers of the parents and their sons/daughters). When all you can find are crap jobs, and you have no one to catch you if you fall, you take whatever menial job you can get and put up with the awful conditions, because hunger and homelessness may very well be what you face if you don't. Your hours may suck, your wages may suck, and your job description may suck, but if you quit, you just face another job just like it, and no one's lining up to take care of you.

Up until this pandemic hit, grunt workers were a dime a dozen in many fields. You could use 'em, abuse 'em, and another would come and take their place. The labor shortages have been interesting. I wonder if this will change the playing field any.

 

[SomeRandom]

Government shouldn't train employees to see employers
as parental figures. Give'm a fair wage & independence.

I don’t see my employer as a parental figure. But they are beholden to the duty of care (even though it is admittedly coerced in a capitalist society.) If I injure myself doing my job, my employer is the one who has to take legal responsibility. They created the working conditions and if those fail to meet the standards of health and safety in my country, then they are at fault. Likewise I am responsible for reporting any concerns with a drop in safety standards and to not overexert myself which is dangerous to my health. It takes two to tango. And you know in society the government should ideally answer to its citizens. It has a duty of care. One that again is also usually coerced in a capitalist society. But nonetheless exists. If my government fails me, then I am allowed to call them out. Granted mine has arguably already failed my generation, but that’s a topic for another thread.
My government wants me to contribute? Fine by me. But they need to provide a proper safety net to ensure I can retire in peace after having done my bit. Otherwise they have failed in my eyes