Found 400 results
Found 400 results
yo nath, i got rid of your shitty creeper hole entrance to the skeleton grinder
it's now a ladder inside the tiny mausoleum in the unfinished graveyard like 10 blocks away from where your old entrance was
apparently MC 1.9.4 is "too outdated" to use realms
also i don't know how to connect to realms
i made a new profile for 1.10.2 or w/e the latest version is, and the realms menu just prompts me to buy a realm or make a trial one
i can't promise i'll join
Should I even ask about...
I think I still remember my login info?
I might check it out
Probs not til tomorrow tho
Next you're going to want to hang dogs from trees, I suppose.
Imagine a capitalist society with 100% employment, and all jobs involve providing goods and services that are reasonably necessary, not plastic novelty crap that breaks right after you buy it, or other junk that you have to sell people on with aggressive marketing because no one really wants or needs it. Now, imagine this society produces 100% of what the population needs, with slight surplus.
Now, imagine a technological advance happens that, overnight, doubles the productivity of every worker in every industry.
There are pretty much two reactions people can have to this.
First, some people might think, "That is awesome! If everyone is twice as productive, and you were already producing everything you needed, than now everyone can just work half as hard... You can go to 20 hour work weeks, or 3 day work weeks, or everyone can have 26 weeks vacation each year, or everyone can retire at 40... What a paradise!!" Yes, this technological advance could, theoretically, lead to this kind of society-wide change and benefit, if the powers that governed were inclined to manage and steer the resulting societal changes in that direction.
But, let's look at the second reaction people might have: "Oh, shit!!! Suddenly half the people will be out of work!! 50% unemployment, resulting economic collapse, depression, out of work people cut back on spending, now there is even less demand for goods, so the businesses have to lay off even more people, unemployment rises to 60% or higher... Jobs are so scarce that employers can suddenly get very demanding, insisting workers take pay cuts, give up benefits, work 80 hour work weeks, etc. The quality of life for workers -- even those with jobs -- declines. Misery abounds.
Problem = where? Bureaucracy is annoying, but in what way is it inherently a detractor?
And, for the insightful pessimists, the fall out does not stop there. The 50+% unemployed are not going to just sit idly by with no income till they starve. They will look for ways to insert themselves into the economy, to generate some form of income. Traditionally, people in these circumstances do a few things; Invent make-work jobs, or boondoggles. Afraid of being fired? Convince your boss there needs to be an additional layer of middle managment or red tape or quality control, maybe that company only lays off 30% of its workers. Popular vote may drive government to set up more bureaucracy to employ more people. Government agencies grow big, more red tape and needless paperwork and checks and balances up the wazoo rather than relying on common sense and decency, maybe a few more people find work that way.
But that's not all, the unemployed can earn incomes by inventing new jobs, perhaps whole new industries, selling goods and services people don't need, relying on aggressive or misleading advertising. Look at the door to door salesmen in the depression? The aluminum siding salesmen? Snake oil salesmen? Telemarketers? A lot of the unemployed may find work, but it'll be worked doing stuff no one really needs or wants. Why is that bad?
Well, just to the extent these people start making plastic crappy doodads and trinkets and novelty items and junk no one really needs, where do they get the resources for those things? From the planet. Even crappy plastic stuff takes petroleum, makes waste products, kills trees for packaging, burns fossil fuels to ship stuff from one place to another.
If you and 10 other people lived on a desert island with 20 trees and two fresh water lakes, what you would say if one of those people said, I'm going to cut down half these trees to build wooden nutcrackers that look like Pokémon, and I'll have to pollute one of the lakes with waste from the manufacturing... You -- and the rest of the people on that island -- would say, "WTF???!! Like hell you are!! Are you insane? We have scarce resources!! We should not be wasting our scarce resources on useless crap that will just be garbage in a few months!"
See, going back to the original analogy, capitalism does not lead to any kind of "share the benefit of technology" approach. It's not designed for it. Technological advances profit the owners of capital, and the workers suffer as a result. In the early 1900's there was a lot of implied promises that the growth of new technologies would make life easier for everyone, we'd all become men of leisure as machines did more and more necessary labor. But that did not happen. Why? Because when a worker becomes a man of leisure, he becomes unemployed and unpaid and desperate to find another source of income. That's not a good result.
The problem with capitalism is that there is no recognition when is "enough enough", as in, "We're producing enough stuff to give everyone food, clothing, and other important stuff to live on...we do not NEED everyone to be working to satisfy the demands of society, and if you FORCE people to work for income, you will get people doing jobs that only have an ILLUSORY BENEFIT, and that are really just make-work. But in a planet of scarce resources, the last think you want are millions of people looking for make-work that uses up scarce resources in order to create plastic crap nobody wants, or other useless products.
Go to Walmart. Go to Sears. Go to Target. Look around with open eyes. You'll see just how much crap is out there that no one really needs, or would want if not for the power of marketing. And we all pay a price, because it speeds up our destruction of the planet.
Going back to the initial example, the technological advances actually were implemented in a way that led to everyone having more free time, but still getting their standard wages, it could have been a utopia. But, in a capitalistic society, it would become a nightmare. And where does it stop?
You're misrepresenting society today to favor your argument. Nobody would answer that question with "People would just sit around and do whatever they wanted for half the week, and then they'd reluctantly go to work the other half" when asked that question either. Labor has inherent value.Does anyone, if asked, "What would the ideal future look like in 500 years? In 5000 years?" Would anyone say, "Well, it would look a lot like today. Poor people & rich people, most people working 50 hours a week, getting maybe a week and a half of vacation per week, most living lives of quiet desperation hoping, despite enormous odds, they might break into a higher income level...that's a great way to live, and I hope it never changes." No, what kind of moron would want that, forever, as some kind of utopian ideal? And if you agree that is NOT the ideal we should be striving for, then you are admitting we need to re-think capitalism, because capitalism will NEVER lead to any future where the general populace has it easy, works less, has more leisure and an overall sweet life.