And also, is it possible to posit some kind of workable universal floor in terms of what we consider humane work? And is there any way to actually make such a thing economically viable?
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:36 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark
probably the only rule that everybody can universally agree on is that you be 'properly compensated' in proportion to the work you do
if you are, how much you want to 'work' is up to you
― dayo, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:12 (twelve years ago) link
that just moves the ball to another cup. what's 'properly compensated'? what does a human being need to live? etc.
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:17 (twelve years ago) link
I just mean that nobody thinks it's bad that we americans allow some people to work 100 hour work weeks because hey, we're paying them six figure salaries or higher!
― dayo, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:18 (twelve years ago) link
I think it's bad!
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:18 (twelve years ago) link
mostly in the big picture cultural sense tho
what we really are some philosopher kings who will govern wisely and prevent us from excess
― dayo, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:19 (twelve years ago) link
yeah but iirc that entails shooting all yr musicians oh hang on
― summer sun, something's begun, but uh-oh those tumblr whites (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:20 (twelve years ago) link
often those people who work 100h weeks and making 6 figures don't believe that they're properly compensated
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/goldman-sachs-bonus-day-is-a-bloobath.html
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:21 (twelve years ago) link
and are
yeah but nobody else thinks they aren't, so they can go thumb themselves
― dayo, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:21 (twelve years ago) link
workers reacted by forming trade unions, often in the face of extreme hostility from factory owners and their friends in positions of political power
Funnily enough, trade unions still face extreme hostility from factory owners and their friends in positions of political power... in 2012... in the UK
― Charles Kennedy Jumped Up, He Called 'Oh No'. (Tom D.), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:23 (twelve years ago) link
I sorta get at this logical endpoint a lot when I think about this stuff but coming off what I said I think are the big two moral q's (destitute poverty, climate change) there's a question about whether we should be 'economically efficient consumers' (possibly helps the most amount of people?), 'better consumers' (buy only from 'nice factories', helps certain people more) or 'not consumers at all' (the bad environmental effects from consumption matter more than helping people in china)
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:27 (twelve years ago) link
the answer is def 'consume less' but oh hey look the iphone 4s talks to you
― dayo, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:27 (twelve years ago) link
usual problem of utilitarian ethics tho isn't it? if you only had a computer and a clear view of the future you could calculate the answer precisely but
― summer sun, something's begun, but uh-oh those tumblr whites (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:28 (twelve years ago) link
destitute poverty and climate change/sustainability are two good places to draw firm lines, agreed, i think sustainability points towards answers in the questions you raise too? maybe?
― teaky frigger (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:29 (twelve years ago) link
sorta, but sustainability is still 'picking sides' (the environmental side > helping people in china) and there's a huge gap between living a nearly-emissions-free lifestyle (an a question about how many people could feasibly do it, and what we'd be giving up, etc.) and making some half-hearted gestures towards sustainability.
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:32 (twelve years ago) link
economic sustainability, lower profits for greater stability, etc
― teaky frigger (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:35 (twelve years ago) link
ah
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:36 (twelve years ago) link
i think i've written an exam answer on it 7 years ago please don't ask me to start dredging tho
― teaky frigger (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:37 (twelve years ago) link
I mean ultimately the need for gdp growth is more of a cultural thing than a 'requirement' for a market economy. would everyone here be happy making the same amount of money for the rest of their lives?
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:38 (twelve years ago) link
if prices continued to fall due to increased efficiencies ya sure
― teaky frigger (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:40 (twelve years ago) link
*claps hands, shooes away servants*
as long as the prices of everything stay the same!
― dayo, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:40 (twelve years ago) link
exactly
― summer sun, something's begun, but uh-oh those tumblr whites (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:41 (twelve years ago) link
fuck prices 'staying the same' some of the people in this economy are paid to invent eg kindles
― teaky frigger (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:42 (twelve years ago) link
also no growth probably will make it harder to find a cure for every disease in the world ever, and the iphone 6 will never come out, just saying
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:42 (twelve years ago) link
on the league table of lifestyle we're all sitting happy in the top division let's be honest
― summer sun, something's begun, but uh-oh those tumblr whites (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:42 (twelve years ago) link
nah i don't believe that capitalist expansion is the only driver for invention
― summer sun, something's begun, but uh-oh those tumblr whites (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:43 (twelve years ago) link
regulate the price of new technology and ruthlessly cull outdated industries
xp can you tie 'no growth' to 'no scientific discoveries' tho iatee?
― teaky frigger (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:43 (twelve years ago) link
xp what nv said
invention almost by definition would create growth
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:43 (twelve years ago) link
lots of new shit only becomes really expensive after venture capitalists pay the penniless inventor $$$$$$ for a cut
― teaky frigger (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:44 (twelve years ago) link
xp
again i don't see why? invention tied to markets yeah but
― summer sun, something's begun, but uh-oh those tumblr whites (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:44 (twelve years ago) link
to be precise, i'm not advocating a lack of growth by never inventing anything new of allowing for technological shift, it's growth through little more than inflation of unchanging assets that gets you into the deep shit, right?
― teaky frigger (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:45 (twelve years ago) link
because somebody buying medicine that they couldn't buy yesterday increases the gdp! I mean it's hard to do this math in an imaginary socialist world but if we're talking about a slow-growth market economy...
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:46 (twelve years ago) link
they're not buying the old medicine they used to buy though
― teaky frigger (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:47 (twelve years ago) link
just different medicine
― teaky frigger (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:48 (twelve years ago) link
and yes there's high lead-in times and developmental costs for new medicines, but the price of that type of product in first world markets tends towards the obscene due to nothing more than the economic/social agreement that allows it to be
also I think a lot of the health-related discoveries pre-capitalism were, in the historical perspective, 'the low hanging fruit'
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:49 (twelve years ago) link
I mean it's hard to do this math in an imaginary socialist world but if we're talking about a slow-growth market economy...
this is the heart of what i'm nagging at. it seems quite possible that the big concerns you raise - destitution and environmental destruction - just cannot be fixed by the kind of market economies we have now
― summer sun, something's begun, but uh-oh those tumblr whites (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:49 (twelve years ago) link
(e.g. 'don't rub feces on sword wounds')
xpost
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:50 (twelve years ago) link
the economic/social agreement that allows it to be
The consensus that w/o high profits to reward long-term investments and counter the possibility that your drug ends up useless or getting banned, new drugs wouldn't be developed?
― Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:51 (twelve years ago) link
yes, essentially?
― teaky frigger (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:52 (twelve years ago) link
I think they can w/ heavy global market-based environmental regulation - emissions markets etc.
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:52 (twelve years ago) link
you could have a university model, where knowledge is pursued for the sake of knowledge
― dayo, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:53 (twelve years ago) link
okay, but what about the human impact of increasingly scarce finite resources e.g. oil?
― summer sun, something's begun, but uh-oh those tumblr whites (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:55 (twelve years ago) link
just cannot be fixed by the kind of market economies we have now
We will have growth as long as there are more ppl on the planet when you leave as there were when you came in. The question to me, therefore, is, "Are we a plague for life on theis planet?" If there's any hope that we're not, does it mean we must live considerably less comfortable lives than we do now? Is there any other system than the market that's more likely to provide us with the means, such as new growing techniques or new energy sources, to continue to thrive here on Earth?
― Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:55 (twelve years ago) link
everybody moves to big cities, that's always been my answer xp
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:55 (twelve years ago) link
xxp arguably allocating scarce resources is what market economies are best at.
i dunno if i buy this tho: I think they can w/ heavy global market-based environmental regulation - emissions markets etc.
― lukas, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:57 (twelve years ago) link