Supermarket self service checkouts.

[UndercoverElephant]

Surely this Luddite "makework" attitude is just a waste of labour ? When will it stop ? Shall we have school-leavers out counting daisies or painting coal black ?

If technology can replace a job it frees up a human to do something useful, that's what we should be looking for.

How does that solve the unemployment crisis?

There's lots of unemployed people and lots of things that need to be done (e.g. insulating every house in the UK.) The problem is that unless those things produce a profit and enough customers are willing and able to stump up the money, only the state can be the employer.

[UndercoverElephant]

Clv
No, we find other productive things to do.

You mean "profitable", not "productive", I think...

[snow hope]

I would rather be doing that than be in the employment 'machine', a loathsome hideous place filled with largely jaded, unhappy people. I just cannot imagine being a cog in someone else's machine, the thought is too awful.

It seems you are one of the luckier ones then.

Here's a song about the machine - from the video it is very much the war machine. A note of nice irony right at the end. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCfVFxRsKQc

[Catweazle]

Surely this Luddite "makework" attitude is just a waste of labour ? When will it stop ? Shall we have school-leavers out counting daisies or painting coal black ?

If technology can replace a job it frees up a human to do something useful, that's what we should be looking for.

How does that solve the unemployment crisis?

How does letting people do useless jobs solve it ? Answer; It doesn't. To solve the problem people need to be usefully employed. I agree there is a problem paying for these jobs, but as I wrote earlier taxes on the wages saved by technology could help as could incentives for companies using these technologies to invest in new ventures.

[snow hope]

We have to innovate! We have to do things in a different way than we have in the past. We have to be intelligent about our decisions and make the right choices that allow us to live within our ecological linmits while also sustaining our species.

If we don't make intelligent decisions now about our future, we are not going to survive as we do now. Crunch time is here and now.

What can we do to ensure we get it right? Somehow, I think the internet actually will be involved in saving our future. We need a global concensus by the thinking people, that sovereign Govts. can't ignore.

In fact thinking about this give me a real sense of excitement! Maybe we can strike out and really change the way we as a species move forward?

[UndercoverElephant]

Surely this Luddite "makework" attitude is just a waste of labour ? When will it stop ? Shall we have school-leavers out counting daisies or painting coal black ?

If technology can replace a job it frees up a human to do something useful, that's what we should be looking for.

How does that solve the unemployment crisis?

How does letting people do useless jobs solve it ? Answer; It doesn't. To solve the problem people need to be usefully employed. I agree there is a problem paying for these jobs, but as I wrote earlier taxes on the wages saved by technology could help as could incentives for companies using these technologies to invest in new ventures.

"Usefully" or "profitably"?

I don't think there are ever going to be enough jobs which are profitable in a free market system. I can only think of two ways to solve the problem. The first is to implement a "planned economy" where everything is orchestrated by the government. The second is to implement a global 4-day week, or widespread jobsharing. All of the usual capitalist solutions will fail, because full employment now under a capitalist system could only be accompanied by an increase in consumption of resources that is physically impossible.

[UndercoverElephant]

We need a global concensus by the thinking people, that sovereign Govts. can't ignore.

In fact thinking about this give me a real sense of excitement! Maybe we can strike out and really change the way we as a species move forward?

Nice idea. Only one problem. This forum is like a testbed for that "thinking" you are speaking of. We are trying to have many of the discussions that are not happening in the mainstream media or (at least openly) at government level. What is the result? Ongoing, poisonous political bitching is the result. We can't even reach a consensus on what it means for the UK - nowhere even close. And there's a reason for this too: as times get harder and the stakes get higher and higher, so the left-right political disagreements get more serious. All the old problems about distribution of wealth and power just became harder to solve, not easier. In fact the political disagreements have been cited by many people as the reason some of the regulars have left this board. Which is odd really, since this board has always been fundamentally political in nature (not because it was ever promoting a particular political stance, but because the issue it concerns itself with has enormous political significance for the future of the UK.)

Rant over.

[emordnilap]

I don't think there are ever going to be enough jobs which are profitable in a free market system.

Bang on. One of the basic drivers of the system is that of eliminating costs - wages, materials, whatever. It is exemplified by the companies who simply have a brand but no workers or production facilities. An American dream.

Therefore, cheering and supporting job losses through technology is one important stage in this.

[Ludwig]

I don't think there are ever going to be enough jobs which are profitable in a free market system.

Bang on. One of the basic drivers of the system is that of eliminating costs - wages, materials, whatever. It is exemplified by the companies who simply have a brand but no workers or production facilities. An American dream.

Therefore, cheering and supporting job losses through technology is one important stage in this.

Indeed.

Remember that publicly listed companies require not just profits, but ever-increasing profits, to keep their share prices up. Why would I invest in a company that looked likely to keep its profits steady, when I could invest in another one whose profits were increasing? So companies are in competition with each other not just for market share - "soft" capitalism - but also for shareholders.

That is largely what has brought us to this insane pass.

Remember to that it is enshrined in US law that corporations MUST put share price above all other considerations, including moral ones. The whole system is just barking.

[DominicJ]

Ludwig, have you EVER invested in the stockmarket?

Remember to that it is enshrined in US law that corporations MUST put share price above all other considerations

Is it?
Which law?
I've never seen that law, and its utterly impossible, the price of a share drops by the dividend per share everytime dividends are paid, if the law says you must mazimise share price, you could never pay dividends.
Nor could you ever issue more shares

The principle of a limited liability corporation is the maximisation of shareholder wealth, but thats very different from high share price, and law.

Why would I invest in a company that looked likely to keep its profits steady, when I could invest in another one whose profits were increasing?

Would you rather buy a share that pays £10 a year in dividends for £1 per share, or a share that pays £1 a year in dividends, increasing by 10% per year, for £10 per share.

UE

All of the usual capitalist solutions will fail, because full employment now under a capitalist system could only be accompanied by an increase in consumption of resources that is physically impossible.

Bollocks
I'd love to have someone clean my house, wash and iron my clothes, fill/empty the dishwasher, cook my meals and maintain my garden.
I dont employ anyone to do these tasks, not because there are not people available but because the law prevents me from employing them at an acceptable price.
This would require no more resources, because its things I already do myself, but would for which I am ruinously over qualified, and would be happy to pay someone poor to do for me, netting me a few hours of leisure time.

As I keept telling you all, we do not live in a capitalist world, we live in a corporitist one.

A 4 day week wouldnt change anything in my role, I'd just ignore it, it wouldnt add another job vacancy. Even if it was enforced, Two people quit my job THE SAME WEEK I started, the first guy didnt last monday, the second managed tuesday and wednesday morning, I started thursday. There had been half a dozen in the months before.

I'm sure France implemented a 20 hour working week at one point, "doubling" the number of jobs, but it doesnt double output, or value, so nothing is fixed.

[Ludwig]

Ludwig, have you EVER invested in the stockmarket?

Remember to that it is enshrined in US law that corporations MUST put share price above all other considerations

Is it?
Which law?
I've never seen that law, and its utterly impossible, the price of a share drops by the dividend per share everytime dividends are paid, if the law says you must mazimise share price, you could never pay dividends.
Nor could you ever issue more shares

The principle of a limited liability corporation is the maximisation of shareholder wealth, but thats very different from high share price, and law.

OK, slight error on my part: it's not simply share prices, but the interests of shareholders. From http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm:

The provision in the law I am talking about is the one that says the purpose of the corporation is simply to make money for shareholders. Every jurisdiction where corporations operate has its own law of corporate governance. But remarkably, the corporate design contained in hundreds of corporate laws throughout the world is nearly identical. That design creates a governing body to manage the corporation�usually a board of directors�and dictates the duties of those directors. In short, the law creates corporate purpose. That purpose is to operate in the interests of shareholders. In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads:

...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders....

Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.

Bollocks
I'd love to have someone clean my house, wash and iron my clothes, fill/empty the dishwasher, cook my meals and maintain my garden.
I dont employ anyone to do these tasks, not because there are not people available but because the law prevents me from employing them at an acceptable price.

Acceptable to you, though it's not a liveable wage for the people you employ? Other people are just ants to you, aren't they?

This would require no more resources, because its things I already do myself, but would for which I am ruinously over qualified, and would be happy to pay someone poor to do for me, netting me a few hours of leisure time.

Well Dom, whatever you base your disgustingly inflated sense of self-worth on, you will always be a moral dwarf.

As I keept telling you all, we do not live in a capitalist world, we live in a corporitist one.

When a dogma stops working, people always start saying it's because it wasn't being followed properly. Corporatism is capitalism and nobody was claiming otherwise until the banks failed.

I'm sure France implemented a 20 hour working week at one point, "doubling" the number of jobs, but it doesnt double output, or value, so nothing is fixed.

Yes it is. Everybody gets a living wage.

But there is no "everybody" in your world, is there Dom? There's just YOU.

If you would just come clean and say, "Behind all my arguments is the conviction that nobody but myself matters", I'd have a smidgeon of grudging respect for you.

[emordnilap]

DFTTs

[Ludwig]

Acceptable to you, though it's not a liveable wage for the people you employ? Other people are just ants to you, aren't they?

Why do you insist its better to be unemployed than low paid?

I insist on no such thing, I insist that it is common decency to pay someone a living wage when you can afford to.

I'll say it again: other people are just ants to you, aren't they?

So quit all this self-justifying shit and admit you're a vicious, selfish c*nt.

I frequently tell you I do not owe you a cooked meal and a wiped arse.
There is no such thing as society, just other individuals who struggle to pay the gas bill, stop sponging of them you ungratful layabout.

Does that cover it?

I am not sponging off anyone you c*nt. I've encountered some nasty fuckers on the Internet but none as downright evil as you.

One thing I'm glad about is your being public about your active membership of the Tory party. It's good for them to be shown in their true colours.

[DominicJ]

I insist on no such thing, I insist that it is common decency to pay someone a living wage when you can afford to.

Which of course is the problem.
I could and would happily pay one of my unemployed neighbours to do some domestic work.
I can not afford pay them £8 an hour including taxes, offer paid holidays, a pension and deal with employment law.

There is no option of "living wage" here.

I'll say it again: other people are just ants to you, aren't they?

Nope, other people, are people

So quit all this self-justifying shit and admit you're a vicious, selfish c*nt.

Vicious? Not sure where that came from?
Selfish? No, I am not selfish, a selfish person refuses to work and then demands others feed him. I work and feed myself, I am neither selfish nor generous , well thats untrue, I'm generous with my friends when I can afford to be.

I am not sponging off anyone you c*nt.

You told me to "come clean", I did.
You said you would respect me for it, you lied.

I've encountered some nasty fuckers on the Internet but none as downright evil as you.

I dont see how I'm evil, I dislike slavery, I heartily dislike being treated as a slave. Why should I toil in the fields so another can sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle whilst waiting for me to drop off his daily bread?
Whats evil about that?

[UndercoverElephant]

It's no use getting angry, Ludwig. You aren't going to suddenly convince a paid-up member of the Tory party to be anything other than a Tory.