Little John wrote:Ken Neil. Yes it can be said women have equal pay for equal work. We can say this because it is the law. .........
Please reread as I certainly did not say that. What I did say was
"and it certainly cannot be said that women have equality in pay yet."
This is even while it is law and that is why so many women will be incensed that a man is saying that they have equality.
If you didn't mean equality of pay for equal work, then what on earth did you mean? Equality of pay for unequal work?
Women have equality of opportunity of occupations and equality of pay for equal work in this country at least. We know this because it is illegal to discriminate, as an employer, on the basis of sex and a whole host of other immutable characteristics. Whether or not a minority of largely middle to upper-middle class women dissatisfied with their lives, a few don't know their arse from their elbows wanna-be middle class female university students and a small minority of bourgeois males wishing to virtue signal their "solidarity" are incensed by that statement is neither here nor there.
The fact is that pay equality claims in the courts have not dried up yet.
Your expressed hatred of a certain type of women does not look well on you, Little Jehn. Equality implies the same for every one, be they bourgeois, petit bourgeois or working class of either variety or none!
kenneal - lagger wrote:The fact is that pay equality claims in the courts have not dried up yet.
Your expressed hatred of a certain type of women does not look well on you, Little Jehn. Equality implies the same for every one, be they bourgeois, petit bourgeois or working class of either variety or none!
Of course pay equality claims have not dried up. Just like any number of claims in any number of areas of the law have not dried up in the courts. Newsflash - some people try to break the law and some people try to use the law to their own nefarious advantage.
And?
And do pack it in the the personal slurs on my character in the absence of a coherent argument and certainly one lacking in any evidence. It makes you look really pathetic.
I can more or less agree with your main points UE. But, with the initial proviso that it must be put in as transparently an economic format as possible in terms of people's relative well being. Appealing to something that is abstract to their lived lives, no matter how laudable or, indeed, "realistic" over the longer term that abstract ideal may be, will fail.
One other qualification as well. Whilst I agree that it is impossible to run, for any length of time, any society without some degree of stick and carrot in terms of remuneration for work done, if the exceptionally poor are (a) left to rot and (b) are anything other than a tiny minority, then that too will not be sustainable.
Little John wrote:..............And do pack it in the the personal slurs on my character in the absence of a coherent argument and certainly one lacking in any evidence. It makes you look really pathetic.
What's all this about then, LJ?
Little John wrote:Whether or not a minority of largely middle to upper-middle class women dissatisfied with their lives, a few don't know their arse from their elbows wanna-be middle class female university students and a small minority of bourgeois males wishing to virtue signal their "solidarity" are incensed by that statement is neither here nor there.
Certainly not loving them! It seems that derogatory remarks are OK for the New Right/Left, or what ever you wish to be called, but not anyone else. But that has always been the same in extreme politics.
Little John wrote:................ if the exceptionally poor are (a) left to rot and (b) are anything other than a tiny minority, then that too will not be sustainable.
That forms part of the case for a Universal Basic Income which should probably be part of the New Order.
Little John wrote:I can more or less agree with your main points UE. But, with the initial proviso that it must be put in as transparently an economic format as possible in terms of people's relative well being. Appealing to something that is abstract to their lived lives, no matter how laudable or, indeed, "realistic" over the longer term that abstract ideal may be, will fail.
What I am proposing has both short-term and long-term goals. Short-term all it can offer is to cushion the blow. It may only be able to offer survival over non-survival. But it also provides a possible long-term happy ending - or at least happier.
One other qualification as well. Whilst I agree that it is impossible to run, for any length of time, any society without some degree of stick and carrot in terms of remuneration for work done, if the exceptionally poor are (a) left to rot and (b) are anything other than a tiny minority, then that too will not be sustainable.
The plight of the lowest level of society will be an ongoing major problem, which will have to shape policy on an ongoing basis, and on the understanding that the more out of hand that problem gets, the less stable the system will be.
UndercoverElephant wrote:..................The plight of the lowest level of society will be an ongoing major problem, which will have to shape policy on an ongoing basis, and on the understanding that the more out of hand that problem gets, the less stable the system will be.
There will always be a lowest level of society, some people make less effort while some get there by misfortune and some by inability, and some will always rise to the top. In an ideal world we should always try to ensure that everybody can live reasonably although that might not be an option in the future if economic and environmental collapse happen. We might be alright locally but without the benefit of modern communications we might not know what is happening ten miles away let alone across the Channel. Things could once again become very parochial.
I was surprised today to find that some of the flagmen that work on construction work sites have been replaced by robots. I came upon a work site where they were replacing a utility pole that had been snapped off by an errant vehicle. Instead of the two flag persons that normally conduct traffic through this pretty common work zone there were two sets of lights with an arm that closed down with a stop sign that communicated with each other and did the job flag people do in the same situation.
This would not work on a work zone the preceded down the road as the work progressed but for work sites that spend most of the day in the same location start to finish this is a game changer. The robots on each end don't get tired, need any pee or lunch breaks and never charge the crew with sexual harassment. Also they will show up each morning if the boss that drives the truck they are stored in shows up.
Sorry college kids you just lost a major summer job opportunity.
This is a 500KW autonomous GPS guided tractor. It doesn't get into the recharge source but I would imagine grid tied so will become more renewable as the grid does as a whole. https://horsepowersonline.com/video/joh ... 4ANFEvPzGY
I hate to disappoint all of the techno-fetishists out there, but a point will be reached in, I suspect, a much nearer future than many realize, when it will be cheaper to employ people to do stuff than it will be to employ ever more complex technology.
This is about economic feasibility. Not technological feasibility. Lot's of things will be technologically feasible. But, will no longer be economically so. I can see technological development and deployment continuing apace in relatively low energy consumption things like data processing. But, not in big energy hungry things like construction etc.
I have read that the above phenomenon is already the case in some "3rd world" countries where it is more cost effective to hire twenty men to do a construction job than it is to hire the machinery to do it with one man.
Little John wrote:I hate to disappoint all of the techno-fetishists out there, but a point will be reached in, I suspect, a much nearer future than many realize, when it will be cheaper to employ people to do stuff than it will be to employ ever more complex technology.
This is about economic feasibility. Not technological feasibility. Lot's of things will be technologically feasible. But, will no longer be economically so. I can see technological development and deployment continuing apace in relatively low energy consumption things like data processing. But, not in big energy hungry things like construction etc.
I have read that the above phenomenon is already the case in some "3rd world" countries where it is more cost effective to hire twenty men to do a construction job than it is to hire the machinery to do it with one man.
Coming to a civilization near you
I think you are way off there LJ. Look at that film clip again. Just the ground tilled in those few seconds of video. That would take a crew of laborers days to accomplish by hand. The economics of big tractors vs. smaller units or hand labor have favored the larger machines for decades. Switching from fossil fuels to electricity and removing the operator just made a quantum leap ahead.
The problem will be what the now unemployed operators will find for a new job.
Little John wrote:I hate to disappoint all of the techno-fetishists out there, but a point will be reached in, I suspect, a much nearer future than many realize, when it will be cheaper to employ people to do stuff than it will be to employ ever more complex technology.
This is about economic feasibility. Not technological feasibility. Lot's of things will be technologically feasible. But, will no longer be economically so. I can see technological development and deployment continuing apace in relatively low energy consumption things like data processing. But, not in big energy hungry things like construction etc.
I have read that the above phenomenon is already the case in some "3rd world" countries where it is more cost effective to hire twenty men to do a construction job than it is to hire the machinery to do it with one man.
Coming to a civilization near you
I think you are way off there LJ. Look at that film clip again. Just the ground tilled in those few seconds of video. That would take a crew of laborers days to accomplish by hand. The economics of big tractors vs. smaller units or hand labor have favored the larger machines for decades. Switching from fossil fuels to electricity and removing the operator just made a quantum leap ahead.
The problem will be what the now unemployed operators will find for a new job.
I am not disputing the economics of the last few decades or, indeed, the last century and a half. I am disputing the projected economics of the coming decades.
Little John wrote:I am not disputing the economics of the last few decades or, indeed, the last century and a half. I am disputing the projected economics of the coming decades.
Unless some new religion comes in that burns all the books and smashes all the computer drives we will not digress to where manual labor is more economical then that done by machine. We have found better ways to do things and unless we are stripped of that knowledge we will continue to use it.
vtsnowedin wrote:This is a 500KW autonomous GPS guided tractor. It doesn't get into the recharge source but I would imagine grid tied so will become more renewable as the grid does as a whole. https://horsepowersonline.com/video/joh ... 4ANFEvPzGY
I'm surprised it took so long to appear, electric tractors have seemed an obvious choice to me. With automatic docking to charge, 24hr work, no worker accommodation needed and the ability to simply be mothballed in the down season they make perfect sense for remote farms.
