by liberal japonicus
Some weekend food for thought. Not sure if I agree, so I’d love to hear other thoughts.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
by liberal japonicus
Some weekend food for thought. Not sure if I agree, so I’d love to hear other thoughts.
Interesting….a left wing George Gilder.
Interesting….a left wing George Gilder.
Interesting….a left wing George Gilder.
The feudal model of agriculture collided, first, with environmental limits and then with a massive external shock – the Black Death. After that, there was a demographic shock: too few workers for the land, which raised their wages and made the old feudal obligation system impossible to enforce.
…
Then, what gave the new system its energy was the discovery of a virtually unlimited source of free wealth in the Americas.
The author mentions these external factors which galvanized the massive economic change to capitalism. But he says nothing about what kind of external factors, or shocks, might galvanize the economic change to move beyond capitalism.
Granted, it can be difficult (impossible?) to predict such externalities. But it seems wrong to simply ignore something which may be critical to making this particular change happen.
The feudal model of agriculture collided, first, with environmental limits and then with a massive external shock – the Black Death. After that, there was a demographic shock: too few workers for the land, which raised their wages and made the old feudal obligation system impossible to enforce.
…
Then, what gave the new system its energy was the discovery of a virtually unlimited source of free wealth in the Americas.
The author mentions these external factors which galvanized the massive economic change to capitalism. But he says nothing about what kind of external factors, or shocks, might galvanize the economic change to move beyond capitalism.
Granted, it can be difficult (impossible?) to predict such externalities. But it seems wrong to simply ignore something which may be critical to making this particular change happen.
The feudal model of agriculture collided, first, with environmental limits and then with a massive external shock – the Black Death. After that, there was a demographic shock: too few workers for the land, which raised their wages and made the old feudal obligation system impossible to enforce.
…
Then, what gave the new system its energy was the discovery of a virtually unlimited source of free wealth in the Americas.
The author mentions these external factors which galvanized the massive economic change to capitalism. But he says nothing about what kind of external factors, or shocks, might galvanize the economic change to move beyond capitalism.
Granted, it can be difficult (impossible?) to predict such externalities. But it seems wrong to simply ignore something which may be critical to making this particular change happen.
Open thread.
I was in Pittsburgh the last two weeks and ran across this editorial by black Libertarian and far-right conservative Walter Williams in the Pittsburgh Tribune, whose editorial page is a trough for far-right pigf*cking liars:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/walter-e-williams/the-war-of-1861/
The man, now 80 years old, is a pervert. He’s not an American. The least of the perversions is his extraordinary refusal to refer to the “Civil War”, but rather as the “The War of 1861”.
Then on to denigrating the Gettysburg Address.
He should write school textbooks for the children of pigf*ckers in Texas.
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today in America, he would, Groundhog Day-style, attend the theater every evening with his wife and every evening a contemporary pigf*cking conservative would shoot him in the back of the head for his crimes against conservative pigf*ckers.
It would be an affirmative action program, a rainbow coalition for conservative pigf*ckers, with conservative black, Jewish, Asian, Hispanic, Russian, gay and an endless queue of white NRA, anti-American pigf*ckers pulling the trigger night after night after night to avenge Lincoln’s crimes against the murderous America they envision to this day.
If Lincoln is the father of the Republican Party, why isn’t Williams calling him Daddy?
George Mason University is in Virginia, where the capitol of the Confederacy resided, and would have seceded under Williams’ fever dreams.
His lynching would have been a certainty as the conservative pigf*cking vermin in that State sought their self-determination apart from America.
His last words would have been “yeah, but …”
Open thread.
I was in Pittsburgh the last two weeks and ran across this editorial by black Libertarian and far-right conservative Walter Williams in the Pittsburgh Tribune, whose editorial page is a trough for far-right pigf*cking liars:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/walter-e-williams/the-war-of-1861/
The man, now 80 years old, is a pervert. He’s not an American. The least of the perversions is his extraordinary refusal to refer to the “Civil War”, but rather as the “The War of 1861”.
Then on to denigrating the Gettysburg Address.
He should write school textbooks for the children of pigf*ckers in Texas.
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today in America, he would, Groundhog Day-style, attend the theater every evening with his wife and every evening a contemporary pigf*cking conservative would shoot him in the back of the head for his crimes against conservative pigf*ckers.
It would be an affirmative action program, a rainbow coalition for conservative pigf*ckers, with conservative black, Jewish, Asian, Hispanic, Russian, gay and an endless queue of white NRA, anti-American pigf*ckers pulling the trigger night after night after night to avenge Lincoln’s crimes against the murderous America they envision to this day.
If Lincoln is the father of the Republican Party, why isn’t Williams calling him Daddy?
George Mason University is in Virginia, where the capitol of the Confederacy resided, and would have seceded under Williams’ fever dreams.
His lynching would have been a certainty as the conservative pigf*cking vermin in that State sought their self-determination apart from America.
His last words would have been “yeah, but …”
Open thread.
I was in Pittsburgh the last two weeks and ran across this editorial by black Libertarian and far-right conservative Walter Williams in the Pittsburgh Tribune, whose editorial page is a trough for far-right pigf*cking liars:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/walter-e-williams/the-war-of-1861/
The man, now 80 years old, is a pervert. He’s not an American. The least of the perversions is his extraordinary refusal to refer to the “Civil War”, but rather as the “The War of 1861”.
Then on to denigrating the Gettysburg Address.
He should write school textbooks for the children of pigf*ckers in Texas.
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today in America, he would, Groundhog Day-style, attend the theater every evening with his wife and every evening a contemporary pigf*cking conservative would shoot him in the back of the head for his crimes against conservative pigf*ckers.
It would be an affirmative action program, a rainbow coalition for conservative pigf*ckers, with conservative black, Jewish, Asian, Hispanic, Russian, gay and an endless queue of white NRA, anti-American pigf*ckers pulling the trigger night after night after night to avenge Lincoln’s crimes against the murderous America they envision to this day.
If Lincoln is the father of the Republican Party, why isn’t Williams calling him Daddy?
George Mason University is in Virginia, where the capitol of the Confederacy resided, and would have seceded under Williams’ fever dreams.
His lynching would have been a certainty as the conservative pigf*cking vermin in that State sought their self-determination apart from America.
His last words would have been “yeah, but …”
LJ, do people take this kind of writing/”thinking” seriously? How does the author proposed to plant, harvest and process enough food to feed all these folks who are hanging out, wallowing in all of the information washing over them?
LJ, do people take this kind of writing/”thinking” seriously? How does the author proposed to plant, harvest and process enough food to feed all these folks who are hanging out, wallowing in all of the information washing over them?
LJ, do people take this kind of writing/”thinking” seriously? How does the author proposed to plant, harvest and process enough food to feed all these folks who are hanging out, wallowing in all of the information washing over them?
ever see The Matrix?
ever see The Matrix?
ever see The Matrix?
McK, I think the folks who write this kind of thing are simply unaware of the difference between vastly lowered labor requirements and zero labor requirements. Technology reduces labor requirements. But, in most cases, it doesn’t eliminate them.
And they also don’t consider that, if you are using this wonderful new information economy to support everybody without significant work on their part, you are going to have to pay those who do the labor that is still needed a lot. Sure, lots of people will do some kinds of work voluntarily. That’s what makes Open Source software possible. But no way you are going to go that route when it comes to farm labor! And probably lots of other jobs which are a) hard work, and b) not really automatable.
In short, it’s something you can come up with in an academic environment. But it is, at best, a wild over-simplification.
McK, I think the folks who write this kind of thing are simply unaware of the difference between vastly lowered labor requirements and zero labor requirements. Technology reduces labor requirements. But, in most cases, it doesn’t eliminate them.
And they also don’t consider that, if you are using this wonderful new information economy to support everybody without significant work on their part, you are going to have to pay those who do the labor that is still needed a lot. Sure, lots of people will do some kinds of work voluntarily. That’s what makes Open Source software possible. But no way you are going to go that route when it comes to farm labor! And probably lots of other jobs which are a) hard work, and b) not really automatable.
In short, it’s something you can come up with in an academic environment. But it is, at best, a wild over-simplification.
McK, I think the folks who write this kind of thing are simply unaware of the difference between vastly lowered labor requirements and zero labor requirements. Technology reduces labor requirements. But, in most cases, it doesn’t eliminate them.
And they also don’t consider that, if you are using this wonderful new information economy to support everybody without significant work on their part, you are going to have to pay those who do the labor that is still needed a lot. Sure, lots of people will do some kinds of work voluntarily. That’s what makes Open Source software possible. But no way you are going to go that route when it comes to farm labor! And probably lots of other jobs which are a) hard work, and b) not really automatable.
In short, it’s something you can come up with in an academic environment. But it is, at best, a wild over-simplification.
You really only need a few bytes of food every day to survive.
You really only need a few bytes of food every day to survive.
You really only need a few bytes of food every day to survive.
Yeah, wj put it effectively (and, I might add, far more gently than I would have) with this:
In short, it’s something you can come up with in an academic environment. But it is, at best, a wild over-simplification.
The article is full of grand assertions and short on reality.
As an example: Once you understand that information is physical, and that software is a machine, and that storage, bandwidth and processing power are collapsing in price at exponential rates, the value of Marx’s thinking becomes clear. We are surrounded by machines that cost nothing and could, if we wanted them to, last forever.
No, we very much are not. And the entire article is full of assertions similarly disconnected from reality.
If this is the threat to capitalism, I think capitalism will be around awhile.
Yeah, wj put it effectively (and, I might add, far more gently than I would have) with this:
In short, it’s something you can come up with in an academic environment. But it is, at best, a wild over-simplification.
The article is full of grand assertions and short on reality.
As an example: Once you understand that information is physical, and that software is a machine, and that storage, bandwidth and processing power are collapsing in price at exponential rates, the value of Marx’s thinking becomes clear. We are surrounded by machines that cost nothing and could, if we wanted them to, last forever.
No, we very much are not. And the entire article is full of assertions similarly disconnected from reality.
If this is the threat to capitalism, I think capitalism will be around awhile.
Yeah, wj put it effectively (and, I might add, far more gently than I would have) with this:
In short, it’s something you can come up with in an academic environment. But it is, at best, a wild over-simplification.
The article is full of grand assertions and short on reality.
As an example: Once you understand that information is physical, and that software is a machine, and that storage, bandwidth and processing power are collapsing in price at exponential rates, the value of Marx’s thinking becomes clear. We are surrounded by machines that cost nothing and could, if we wanted them to, last forever.
No, we very much are not. And the entire article is full of assertions similarly disconnected from reality.
If this is the threat to capitalism, I think capitalism will be around awhile.
I might add, far more gently than I would have
Yes. Really, it was almost painful to read. Do people actually believe this sh*t?
I might add, far more gently than I would have
Yes. Really, it was almost painful to read. Do people actually believe this sh*t?
I might add, far more gently than I would have
Yes. Really, it was almost painful to read. Do people actually believe this sh*t?
Leaving the article to the side, the future of capitalism, like the future of every other human institution or ideology, depends on whether it’s beneficial or not.
Here in the US, capitalism is almost a fetish, and has become so closely identified with political and civil liberty that the concepts are considered to be synonymous. So whatever happens, its future and ours will likely be joined at the hip.
What’s weird to me, in the article, is that the things that the author thinks are going to make capitalism irrelevant all either are, or depend completely upon, capital goods.
Leaving the article to the side, the future of capitalism, like the future of every other human institution or ideology, depends on whether it’s beneficial or not.
Here in the US, capitalism is almost a fetish, and has become so closely identified with political and civil liberty that the concepts are considered to be synonymous. So whatever happens, its future and ours will likely be joined at the hip.
What’s weird to me, in the article, is that the things that the author thinks are going to make capitalism irrelevant all either are, or depend completely upon, capital goods.
Leaving the article to the side, the future of capitalism, like the future of every other human institution or ideology, depends on whether it’s beneficial or not.
Here in the US, capitalism is almost a fetish, and has become so closely identified with political and civil liberty that the concepts are considered to be synonymous. So whatever happens, its future and ours will likely be joined at the hip.
What’s weird to me, in the article, is that the things that the author thinks are going to make capitalism irrelevant all either are, or depend completely upon, capital goods.
Google, Uber, and Facebook are jointly working to develop edible stock certificates, which can also be consumed in an option format via an intravenous digital drip directly into the blood stream.
When all we have are driverless cars, this will free up the carless drivers as a food source.
Google, Uber, and Facebook are jointly working to develop edible stock certificates, which can also be consumed in an option format via an intravenous digital drip directly into the blood stream.
When all we have are driverless cars, this will free up the carless drivers as a food source.
Google, Uber, and Facebook are jointly working to develop edible stock certificates, which can also be consumed in an option format via an intravenous digital drip directly into the blood stream.
When all we have are driverless cars, this will free up the carless drivers as a food source.
depends on whether it’s beneficial or not.
Do you see a difference between capitalism and a regulated free market/private sector? I’m not even sure what capitalism means anymore. The more sophisticated and complex the manufacturing process, the more attendant regulation is needed for pollution and other byproducts of industry, worker safety, product labeling, product safety etc.
I don’t see the private sector going away ever absent Armageddon-like cataclysm. Too many people like running their own show.
What’s weird to me, in the article, is that the things that the author thinks are going to make capitalism irrelevant all either are, or depend completely upon, capital goods
Yes, and capital goods that seemingly appear out of thin air.
depends on whether it’s beneficial or not.
Do you see a difference between capitalism and a regulated free market/private sector? I’m not even sure what capitalism means anymore. The more sophisticated and complex the manufacturing process, the more attendant regulation is needed for pollution and other byproducts of industry, worker safety, product labeling, product safety etc.
I don’t see the private sector going away ever absent Armageddon-like cataclysm. Too many people like running their own show.
What’s weird to me, in the article, is that the things that the author thinks are going to make capitalism irrelevant all either are, or depend completely upon, capital goods
Yes, and capital goods that seemingly appear out of thin air.
depends on whether it’s beneficial or not.
Do you see a difference between capitalism and a regulated free market/private sector? I’m not even sure what capitalism means anymore. The more sophisticated and complex the manufacturing process, the more attendant regulation is needed for pollution and other byproducts of industry, worker safety, product labeling, product safety etc.
I don’t see the private sector going away ever absent Armageddon-like cataclysm. Too many people like running their own show.
What’s weird to me, in the article, is that the things that the author thinks are going to make capitalism irrelevant all either are, or depend completely upon, capital goods
Yes, and capital goods that seemingly appear out of thin air.
Do you see a difference between capitalism and a regulated free market/private sector? I’m not even sure what capitalism means anymore
I don’t see capitalism as being identical to market economy + private ownership of the means of production. There are a variety of economic models that include both of those things.
That’s especially so if they are seen as points on a spectrum. I.e., a market economy that permits public regulation as needed, and also public ownership of capital goods where that makes sense.
I’m neither for nor against capitalism. Things work, or they don’t, and if they don’t you change whatever isn’t working.
Do you see a difference between capitalism and a regulated free market/private sector? I’m not even sure what capitalism means anymore
I don’t see capitalism as being identical to market economy + private ownership of the means of production. There are a variety of economic models that include both of those things.
That’s especially so if they are seen as points on a spectrum. I.e., a market economy that permits public regulation as needed, and also public ownership of capital goods where that makes sense.
I’m neither for nor against capitalism. Things work, or they don’t, and if they don’t you change whatever isn’t working.
Do you see a difference between capitalism and a regulated free market/private sector? I’m not even sure what capitalism means anymore
I don’t see capitalism as being identical to market economy + private ownership of the means of production. There are a variety of economic models that include both of those things.
That’s especially so if they are seen as points on a spectrum. I.e., a market economy that permits public regulation as needed, and also public ownership of capital goods where that makes sense.
I’m neither for nor against capitalism. Things work, or they don’t, and if they don’t you change whatever isn’t working.
McK,
Really, it was almost painful to read.
I agree 100%. This is just blather. Of, course, I have to qualify my opinion by admitting that I only made it about halfway through.
McK,
Really, it was almost painful to read.
I agree 100%. This is just blather. Of, course, I have to qualify my opinion by admitting that I only made it about halfway through.
McK,
Really, it was almost painful to read.
I agree 100%. This is just blather. Of, course, I have to qualify my opinion by admitting that I only made it about halfway through.
Eh. He says some interesting things, such as “Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly.” Not sure if that’s true, but if so it would have certain consequences for a market-based economy that is, at bottom, based on price signals.
But I think he ignores people’s base instincts and completely omits any role for small things like, e.g., religion and violence (separate and together).
The future, if anything, will be just one long episode of TMZ.
Eh. He says some interesting things, such as “Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly.” Not sure if that’s true, but if so it would have certain consequences for a market-based economy that is, at bottom, based on price signals.
But I think he ignores people’s base instincts and completely omits any role for small things like, e.g., religion and violence (separate and together).
The future, if anything, will be just one long episode of TMZ.
Eh. He says some interesting things, such as “Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly.” Not sure if that’s true, but if so it would have certain consequences for a market-based economy that is, at bottom, based on price signals.
But I think he ignores people’s base instincts and completely omits any role for small things like, e.g., religion and violence (separate and together).
The future, if anything, will be just one long episode of TMZ.
Of, course, I have to qualify my opinion by admitting that I only made it about halfway through.
It didn’t get better.
What’s weird to me, in the article, is that the things that the author thinks are going to make capitalism irrelevant all either are, or depend completely upon, capital goods.
This struck me too. Also the weird distinction between the “sharing economy” and capitalism…they aren’t contradictory in my mind. If I use AirBnB to rent my house while I’m away, isn’t that basically capitalism? I own the house, and I’m using it for profit.
My assumption, perhaps uncharitable, is that the author is misusing the word ‘capitalism’ to represent things he currently doesn’t like in society (big banks, cronyism, etc). It’s unclear he understands the word beyond it as an amorphous boogeyman. But like I said, perhaps that’s uncharitable.
Of, course, I have to qualify my opinion by admitting that I only made it about halfway through.
It didn’t get better.
What’s weird to me, in the article, is that the things that the author thinks are going to make capitalism irrelevant all either are, or depend completely upon, capital goods.
This struck me too. Also the weird distinction between the “sharing economy” and capitalism…they aren’t contradictory in my mind. If I use AirBnB to rent my house while I’m away, isn’t that basically capitalism? I own the house, and I’m using it for profit.
My assumption, perhaps uncharitable, is that the author is misusing the word ‘capitalism’ to represent things he currently doesn’t like in society (big banks, cronyism, etc). It’s unclear he understands the word beyond it as an amorphous boogeyman. But like I said, perhaps that’s uncharitable.
Of, course, I have to qualify my opinion by admitting that I only made it about halfway through.
It didn’t get better.
What’s weird to me, in the article, is that the things that the author thinks are going to make capitalism irrelevant all either are, or depend completely upon, capital goods.
This struck me too. Also the weird distinction between the “sharing economy” and capitalism…they aren’t contradictory in my mind. If I use AirBnB to rent my house while I’m away, isn’t that basically capitalism? I own the house, and I’m using it for profit.
My assumption, perhaps uncharitable, is that the author is misusing the word ‘capitalism’ to represent things he currently doesn’t like in society (big banks, cronyism, etc). It’s unclear he understands the word beyond it as an amorphous boogeyman. But like I said, perhaps that’s uncharitable.
“Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly.” Not sure if that’s true
First, if you’re not sure its true, its probably because he offered zero evidence for that assertion.
Second, that’s such a bizarre assertion to me. Better information should *improve* the free market’s ability to form prices correctly. Long time since econ, but I think complete information is one of the assumptions of the idealized free market system.
As a practical example, if I go my corner store and see something I want to buy for $10, I can now whip out my smartphone and check prices at dozens of other retailers. If $10 is high, I won’t buy, the store won’t sell, and they will reduce their prices.
“Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly.” Not sure if that’s true
First, if you’re not sure its true, its probably because he offered zero evidence for that assertion.
Second, that’s such a bizarre assertion to me. Better information should *improve* the free market’s ability to form prices correctly. Long time since econ, but I think complete information is one of the assumptions of the idealized free market system.
As a practical example, if I go my corner store and see something I want to buy for $10, I can now whip out my smartphone and check prices at dozens of other retailers. If $10 is high, I won’t buy, the store won’t sell, and they will reduce their prices.
“Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly.” Not sure if that’s true
First, if you’re not sure its true, its probably because he offered zero evidence for that assertion.
Second, that’s such a bizarre assertion to me. Better information should *improve* the free market’s ability to form prices correctly. Long time since econ, but I think complete information is one of the assumptions of the idealized free market system.
As a practical example, if I go my corner store and see something I want to buy for $10, I can now whip out my smartphone and check prices at dozens of other retailers. If $10 is high, I won’t buy, the store won’t sell, and they will reduce their prices.
My assumption, perhaps uncharitable, is that the author is misusing the word ‘capitalism’ to represent things he currently doesn’t like in society (big banks, cronyism, etc). It’s unclear he understands the word beyond it as an amorphous boogeyman. But like I said, perhaps that’s uncharitable.
I think he has no clear idea of what he means by “capitalism” at all. And that’s not surprising. Clear definitions of that term are missing from most discussions of the concept.
My assumption, perhaps uncharitable, is that the author is misusing the word ‘capitalism’ to represent things he currently doesn’t like in society (big banks, cronyism, etc). It’s unclear he understands the word beyond it as an amorphous boogeyman. But like I said, perhaps that’s uncharitable.
I think he has no clear idea of what he means by “capitalism” at all. And that’s not surprising. Clear definitions of that term are missing from most discussions of the concept.
My assumption, perhaps uncharitable, is that the author is misusing the word ‘capitalism’ to represent things he currently doesn’t like in society (big banks, cronyism, etc). It’s unclear he understands the word beyond it as an amorphous boogeyman. But like I said, perhaps that’s uncharitable.
I think he has no clear idea of what he means by “capitalism” at all. And that’s not surprising. Clear definitions of that term are missing from most discussions of the concept.
I think he meant that it’s hard to value information (including data and intellectual property), and that in the future (in his view) everything of value will be in those things so nothing or very little can be priced.
I think he meant that it’s hard to value information (including data and intellectual property), and that in the future (in his view) everything of value will be in those things so nothing or very little can be priced.
I think he meant that it’s hard to value information (including data and intellectual property), and that in the future (in his view) everything of value will be in those things so nothing or very little can be priced.
I think he meant…
Thanks, Ugh, I think that makes sense. Definitely didn’t get that from reading it myself.
I think he’s massively wrong about that on the timescales he was referring to. But hey, maybe everything *will* be free in 2075. I’d be happy to be wrong about that.
I think he meant…
Thanks, Ugh, I think that makes sense. Definitely didn’t get that from reading it myself.
I think he’s massively wrong about that on the timescales he was referring to. But hey, maybe everything *will* be free in 2075. I’d be happy to be wrong about that.
I think he meant…
Thanks, Ugh, I think that makes sense. Definitely didn’t get that from reading it myself.
I think he’s massively wrong about that on the timescales he was referring to. But hey, maybe everything *will* be free in 2075. I’d be happy to be wrong about that.
I’m curious – which jobs are “not really automatable” ?
I’m curious – which jobs are “not really automatable” ?
I’m curious – which jobs are “not really automatable” ?
Fond though I am of Paul Mason – he was a pretty good BBC journalist (though unusually left wing even for the BBC in being a genuine Marxist) – he’s a rather better journalist than economic prognosticator.
Fond though I am of Paul Mason – he was a pretty good BBC journalist (though unusually left wing even for the BBC in being a genuine Marxist) – he’s a rather better journalist than economic prognosticator.
Fond though I am of Paul Mason – he was a pretty good BBC journalist (though unusually left wing even for the BBC in being a genuine Marxist) – he’s a rather better journalist than economic prognosticator.
I am skeptical and cynical enough to assume that our little experiment of liberty for almost all (in our parts ot the woods at least) will not last long when the real scarcity of key resources begins to bite. Those who can keep control of the flow then will be the new feudal masters (although outwardly some democratic varnish will likely be allowed to remain).
Putin’s Russia with a bit of China mixed in looks like a not improbable model for the future to me.
I am skeptical and cynical enough to assume that our little experiment of liberty for almost all (in our parts ot the woods at least) will not last long when the real scarcity of key resources begins to bite. Those who can keep control of the flow then will be the new feudal masters (although outwardly some democratic varnish will likely be allowed to remain).
Putin’s Russia with a bit of China mixed in looks like a not improbable model for the future to me.
I am skeptical and cynical enough to assume that our little experiment of liberty for almost all (in our parts ot the woods at least) will not last long when the real scarcity of key resources begins to bite. Those who can keep control of the flow then will be the new feudal masters (although outwardly some democratic varnish will likely be allowed to remain).
Putin’s Russia with a bit of China mixed in looks like a not improbable model for the future to me.
Yes. Really, it was almost painful to read. Do people actually believe this sh*t?
My comparison to Gilder was not meant as a compliment. I couldn’t get through the whole thing either.
Yes. Really, it was almost painful to read. Do people actually believe this sh*t?
My comparison to Gilder was not meant as a compliment. I couldn’t get through the whole thing either.
Yes. Really, it was almost painful to read. Do people actually believe this sh*t?
My comparison to Gilder was not meant as a compliment. I couldn’t get through the whole thing either.
I’m curious – which jobs are “not really automatable” ?
My question is which jobs can’t be automated without an undesirable change in the quality of the work product.
And/or, without shifting the burden of generating a quality work product onto somebody else.
I think he has no clear idea of what he means by “capitalism” at all
To me, what makes capitalism capitalism is the doctrine that the value created by productive effort belongs by right to capital investors. Other factors of production – labor, raw goods – are compensated on a for-hire or for-sale basis at some market-determined rate.
Capital confers ownership with the privileges that flow from that.
I’m curious to know how other folks see it.
I’m curious – which jobs are “not really automatable” ?
My question is which jobs can’t be automated without an undesirable change in the quality of the work product.
And/or, without shifting the burden of generating a quality work product onto somebody else.
I think he has no clear idea of what he means by “capitalism” at all
To me, what makes capitalism capitalism is the doctrine that the value created by productive effort belongs by right to capital investors. Other factors of production – labor, raw goods – are compensated on a for-hire or for-sale basis at some market-determined rate.
Capital confers ownership with the privileges that flow from that.
I’m curious to know how other folks see it.
I’m curious – which jobs are “not really automatable” ?
My question is which jobs can’t be automated without an undesirable change in the quality of the work product.
And/or, without shifting the burden of generating a quality work product onto somebody else.
I think he has no clear idea of what he means by “capitalism” at all
To me, what makes capitalism capitalism is the doctrine that the value created by productive effort belongs by right to capital investors. Other factors of production – labor, raw goods – are compensated on a for-hire or for-sale basis at some market-determined rate.
Capital confers ownership with the privileges that flow from that.
I’m curious to know how other folks see it.
I think there’s something to be gleaned from the article, even if the terminology and the conceptual relationships are misstated or misunderstood. I think it’s not so much the end of capitalism as it is the birth of new business models.
In any case, the discussion of Marx was kind of interesting. Good think it was in the first half, because, like others, I lost interest part of the way through.
I think there’s something to be gleaned from the article, even if the terminology and the conceptual relationships are misstated or misunderstood. I think it’s not so much the end of capitalism as it is the birth of new business models.
In any case, the discussion of Marx was kind of interesting. Good think it was in the first half, because, like others, I lost interest part of the way through.
I think there’s something to be gleaned from the article, even if the terminology and the conceptual relationships are misstated or misunderstood. I think it’s not so much the end of capitalism as it is the birth of new business models.
In any case, the discussion of Marx was kind of interesting. Good think it was in the first half, because, like others, I lost interest part of the way through.
I think there’s something to be gleaned from the article, even if the terminology and the conceptual relationships are misstated or misunderstood
I agree with this. I don’t know that capitalism will just die all by itself, and be replaced with something more Utopian. I think we need to work with the fact that “jobs” (not necessarily “work”, say creative endeavors by people who want to do stuff and charge money for it) are going to be obsolete. Working for a corporation, with any promise of decent remuneration, may become a thing of the past.
From the article:
“I believe it offers an escape route – but only if these micro-level projects are nurtured, promoted and protected by a fundamental change in what governments do. And this must be driven by a change in our thinking – about technology, ownership and work. So that, when we create the elements of the new system, we can say to ourselves, and to others: ‘This is no longer simply my survival mechanism, my bolt hole from the neoliberal world; this is a new way of living in the process of formation.'”
The author suggests that we need to be a part of forming what this future looks like.
A lot of liberals (and I count myself as a liberal, but not among these) talk about “bringing back manufacturing jobs!!!”. But how many people really want to work on an assembly line when a robot can, perhaps, do that? I think we need to think further (we liberals) into changing the economy so that we have more free time. Some people will use that time to smoke dope and be ridiculous, perhaps, but most people have dreams and creativity beyond the 9 to 5. And for those (like McKinney) who love their professions, it’s unlikely that everything (such as lawyering) will completely go away.
I think there’s something to be gleaned from the article, even if the terminology and the conceptual relationships are misstated or misunderstood
I agree with this. I don’t know that capitalism will just die all by itself, and be replaced with something more Utopian. I think we need to work with the fact that “jobs” (not necessarily “work”, say creative endeavors by people who want to do stuff and charge money for it) are going to be obsolete. Working for a corporation, with any promise of decent remuneration, may become a thing of the past.
From the article:
“I believe it offers an escape route – but only if these micro-level projects are nurtured, promoted and protected by a fundamental change in what governments do. And this must be driven by a change in our thinking – about technology, ownership and work. So that, when we create the elements of the new system, we can say to ourselves, and to others: ‘This is no longer simply my survival mechanism, my bolt hole from the neoliberal world; this is a new way of living in the process of formation.'”
The author suggests that we need to be a part of forming what this future looks like.
A lot of liberals (and I count myself as a liberal, but not among these) talk about “bringing back manufacturing jobs!!!”. But how many people really want to work on an assembly line when a robot can, perhaps, do that? I think we need to think further (we liberals) into changing the economy so that we have more free time. Some people will use that time to smoke dope and be ridiculous, perhaps, but most people have dreams and creativity beyond the 9 to 5. And for those (like McKinney) who love their professions, it’s unlikely that everything (such as lawyering) will completely go away.
I think there’s something to be gleaned from the article, even if the terminology and the conceptual relationships are misstated or misunderstood
I agree with this. I don’t know that capitalism will just die all by itself, and be replaced with something more Utopian. I think we need to work with the fact that “jobs” (not necessarily “work”, say creative endeavors by people who want to do stuff and charge money for it) are going to be obsolete. Working for a corporation, with any promise of decent remuneration, may become a thing of the past.
From the article:
“I believe it offers an escape route – but only if these micro-level projects are nurtured, promoted and protected by a fundamental change in what governments do. And this must be driven by a change in our thinking – about technology, ownership and work. So that, when we create the elements of the new system, we can say to ourselves, and to others: ‘This is no longer simply my survival mechanism, my bolt hole from the neoliberal world; this is a new way of living in the process of formation.'”
The author suggests that we need to be a part of forming what this future looks like.
A lot of liberals (and I count myself as a liberal, but not among these) talk about “bringing back manufacturing jobs!!!”. But how many people really want to work on an assembly line when a robot can, perhaps, do that? I think we need to think further (we liberals) into changing the economy so that we have more free time. Some people will use that time to smoke dope and be ridiculous, perhaps, but most people have dreams and creativity beyond the 9 to 5. And for those (like McKinney) who love their professions, it’s unlikely that everything (such as lawyering) will completely go away.
First: tl;dr I think we have a consensus on that.
I’d be willing to bet that the economic arrangements a hundred years from now bear only a superficial resemblance to those today.
(modern, corporate) capitalism, socialism, communism, are all creatures of the industrial revolution. We’re still in the early days of the information (and biotech) revolution, and what “Capitalism 2.0” looks like is anyone’s guess at this point, particularly if AI gets going.
WRT computerization messing with price signals: yes, they should be more efficient. Therefore much harder to make a living exploiting information asymmetries.
First: tl;dr I think we have a consensus on that.
I’d be willing to bet that the economic arrangements a hundred years from now bear only a superficial resemblance to those today.
(modern, corporate) capitalism, socialism, communism, are all creatures of the industrial revolution. We’re still in the early days of the information (and biotech) revolution, and what “Capitalism 2.0” looks like is anyone’s guess at this point, particularly if AI gets going.
WRT computerization messing with price signals: yes, they should be more efficient. Therefore much harder to make a living exploiting information asymmetries.
First: tl;dr I think we have a consensus on that.
I’d be willing to bet that the economic arrangements a hundred years from now bear only a superficial resemblance to those today.
(modern, corporate) capitalism, socialism, communism, are all creatures of the industrial revolution. We’re still in the early days of the information (and biotech) revolution, and what “Capitalism 2.0” looks like is anyone’s guess at this point, particularly if AI gets going.
WRT computerization messing with price signals: yes, they should be more efficient. Therefore much harder to make a living exploiting information asymmetries.
My question is which jobs can’t be automated without an undesirable change in the quality of the work product.
That is the real question, isn’t it?
1) picking any kind of fruit. Yes, you can automate getting them off the trees before they are ripe, and then sort-of ripening them (usually by applying lots of CO2) later. But the quality of the product goes way down.
2) pretty much any of the personal care required by the very elderly. Or most of those hospitalized for any length of time. (Sorry, but automating sponge baths just doesn’t seem feasible.)
3) anything else where exercising some discretion is required. Is that trash on the floor of this hotel room? Or someone’s diamond bracelet?
4) anything requiring initiative or inventiveness. You can write automated software to apply rules (once you have figured out the rules). But figuring out what rules to write? No. Inventing something new? Also no.
Just for 4 quick groups off the top of my head.
My question is which jobs can’t be automated without an undesirable change in the quality of the work product.
That is the real question, isn’t it?
1) picking any kind of fruit. Yes, you can automate getting them off the trees before they are ripe, and then sort-of ripening them (usually by applying lots of CO2) later. But the quality of the product goes way down.
2) pretty much any of the personal care required by the very elderly. Or most of those hospitalized for any length of time. (Sorry, but automating sponge baths just doesn’t seem feasible.)
3) anything else where exercising some discretion is required. Is that trash on the floor of this hotel room? Or someone’s diamond bracelet?
4) anything requiring initiative or inventiveness. You can write automated software to apply rules (once you have figured out the rules). But figuring out what rules to write? No. Inventing something new? Also no.
Just for 4 quick groups off the top of my head.
My question is which jobs can’t be automated without an undesirable change in the quality of the work product.
That is the real question, isn’t it?
1) picking any kind of fruit. Yes, you can automate getting them off the trees before they are ripe, and then sort-of ripening them (usually by applying lots of CO2) later. But the quality of the product goes way down.
2) pretty much any of the personal care required by the very elderly. Or most of those hospitalized for any length of time. (Sorry, but automating sponge baths just doesn’t seem feasible.)
3) anything else where exercising some discretion is required. Is that trash on the floor of this hotel room? Or someone’s diamond bracelet?
4) anything requiring initiative or inventiveness. You can write automated software to apply rules (once you have figured out the rules). But figuring out what rules to write? No. Inventing something new? Also no.
Just for 4 quick groups off the top of my head.
The Marx point was interesting (a pdf is here) as was this assertion.
Even now many people fail to grasp the true meaning of the word “austerity”. Austerity is not eight years of spending cuts, as in the UK, or even the social catastrophe inflicted on Greece. It means driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China and India on the way up.
I often encounter tourists, Chinese, Thai, Korean, on a big family trip not only to places in Japan, but in other countries in Asia. It seems very strange to me to encounter these families, doing the middle class thing. On the one hand, they are probably very rich by the standards of their countries, (though obviously not the gold faucet and private jet kind of rich) and it seems like they are moving into this template that we have for middle class. The teenagers are not as sullen as I was when I got dragged around, but take away the tonal language, and you probably have the same conversations that my family had driving through Amish country one summer or trying to find our way around San Francisco. But it seems a bit overly optimistic that this influx of people moving into the middle class is going to allow our concepts of middle class remain the same.
As for the complaints about naivete on the part of the author, I thought the contrast between Horatio in Hamlet and Daniel Doyce in Little Dorrit was an attempt to address that. A bit strained, but to apply it to the notion of lowered versus zero labor requirements, at some point, a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. What Mason is suggesting is that we are reaching a point where that difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. I tend to have a view similar to Hartmut’s, but Mason’s notion of ‘networks that can’t be defaulted on’is a touch more optimistic.
As far as timescales, 10 years ago, if you told me about gay marriage and the confederate flag as it stands now, I’d say yeah, yeah, like that’s going to happen in my lifetime.
Anyways, thanks, as always, for the various points of view.
The Marx point was interesting (a pdf is here) as was this assertion.
Even now many people fail to grasp the true meaning of the word “austerity”. Austerity is not eight years of spending cuts, as in the UK, or even the social catastrophe inflicted on Greece. It means driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China and India on the way up.
I often encounter tourists, Chinese, Thai, Korean, on a big family trip not only to places in Japan, but in other countries in Asia. It seems very strange to me to encounter these families, doing the middle class thing. On the one hand, they are probably very rich by the standards of their countries, (though obviously not the gold faucet and private jet kind of rich) and it seems like they are moving into this template that we have for middle class. The teenagers are not as sullen as I was when I got dragged around, but take away the tonal language, and you probably have the same conversations that my family had driving through Amish country one summer or trying to find our way around San Francisco. But it seems a bit overly optimistic that this influx of people moving into the middle class is going to allow our concepts of middle class remain the same.
As for the complaints about naivete on the part of the author, I thought the contrast between Horatio in Hamlet and Daniel Doyce in Little Dorrit was an attempt to address that. A bit strained, but to apply it to the notion of lowered versus zero labor requirements, at some point, a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. What Mason is suggesting is that we are reaching a point where that difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. I tend to have a view similar to Hartmut’s, but Mason’s notion of ‘networks that can’t be defaulted on’is a touch more optimistic.
As far as timescales, 10 years ago, if you told me about gay marriage and the confederate flag as it stands now, I’d say yeah, yeah, like that’s going to happen in my lifetime.
Anyways, thanks, as always, for the various points of view.
The Marx point was interesting (a pdf is here) as was this assertion.
Even now many people fail to grasp the true meaning of the word “austerity”. Austerity is not eight years of spending cuts, as in the UK, or even the social catastrophe inflicted on Greece. It means driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China and India on the way up.
I often encounter tourists, Chinese, Thai, Korean, on a big family trip not only to places in Japan, but in other countries in Asia. It seems very strange to me to encounter these families, doing the middle class thing. On the one hand, they are probably very rich by the standards of their countries, (though obviously not the gold faucet and private jet kind of rich) and it seems like they are moving into this template that we have for middle class. The teenagers are not as sullen as I was when I got dragged around, but take away the tonal language, and you probably have the same conversations that my family had driving through Amish country one summer or trying to find our way around San Francisco. But it seems a bit overly optimistic that this influx of people moving into the middle class is going to allow our concepts of middle class remain the same.
As for the complaints about naivete on the part of the author, I thought the contrast between Horatio in Hamlet and Daniel Doyce in Little Dorrit was an attempt to address that. A bit strained, but to apply it to the notion of lowered versus zero labor requirements, at some point, a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. What Mason is suggesting is that we are reaching a point where that difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. I tend to have a view similar to Hartmut’s, but Mason’s notion of ‘networks that can’t be defaulted on’is a touch more optimistic.
As far as timescales, 10 years ago, if you told me about gay marriage and the confederate flag as it stands now, I’d say yeah, yeah, like that’s going to happen in my lifetime.
Anyways, thanks, as always, for the various points of view.
what makes capitalism capitalism is the doctrine that the value created by productive effort belongs by right to capital investors.
I’d say that the defining characteristic of capitalism is that the owners of capital deserve some return in exchange for supplying that input. Just as those who supply other raw materials, or labor, deserve some return in exchange for their contribution. There is room for argument about whose inputs deserve how much of the return. But that’s about it.
Certainly you can abuse the capitalist system by directing all of the profits to the owners of capital. Just as you can abuse another economic system by directing none of the profits to them. But those are abuses, not defining characteristics.
what makes capitalism capitalism is the doctrine that the value created by productive effort belongs by right to capital investors.
I’d say that the defining characteristic of capitalism is that the owners of capital deserve some return in exchange for supplying that input. Just as those who supply other raw materials, or labor, deserve some return in exchange for their contribution. There is room for argument about whose inputs deserve how much of the return. But that’s about it.
Certainly you can abuse the capitalist system by directing all of the profits to the owners of capital. Just as you can abuse another economic system by directing none of the profits to them. But those are abuses, not defining characteristics.
what makes capitalism capitalism is the doctrine that the value created by productive effort belongs by right to capital investors.
I’d say that the defining characteristic of capitalism is that the owners of capital deserve some return in exchange for supplying that input. Just as those who supply other raw materials, or labor, deserve some return in exchange for their contribution. There is room for argument about whose inputs deserve how much of the return. But that’s about it.
Certainly you can abuse the capitalist system by directing all of the profits to the owners of capital. Just as you can abuse another economic system by directing none of the profits to them. But those are abuses, not defining characteristics.
As far as timescales, 10 years ago, if you told me about gay marriage and the confederate flag as it stands now, I’d say yeah, yeah, like that’s going to happen in my lifetime.
It can be harder to change customs than to change technology. But customs can also change faster, given the motivation. And, technology changes (which is what the author is talking about) are really hard to mandate. Changes to custom can be mandated by law (and let custom catch up) — that’s what happened with, for example, interracial marriage.
As far as timescales, 10 years ago, if you told me about gay marriage and the confederate flag as it stands now, I’d say yeah, yeah, like that’s going to happen in my lifetime.
It can be harder to change customs than to change technology. But customs can also change faster, given the motivation. And, technology changes (which is what the author is talking about) are really hard to mandate. Changes to custom can be mandated by law (and let custom catch up) — that’s what happened with, for example, interracial marriage.
As far as timescales, 10 years ago, if you told me about gay marriage and the confederate flag as it stands now, I’d say yeah, yeah, like that’s going to happen in my lifetime.
It can be harder to change customs than to change technology. But customs can also change faster, given the motivation. And, technology changes (which is what the author is talking about) are really hard to mandate. Changes to custom can be mandated by law (and let custom catch up) — that’s what happened with, for example, interracial marriage.
It can be harder to change customs than to change technology. But customs can also change faster, given the motivation.
Also, kids are different now. The people who are “millenials” are trying to change what we know about capitalism. Mostly, what they’re trying to do is really good (with some curmudgeonly reservations).
It can be harder to change customs than to change technology. But customs can also change faster, given the motivation.
Also, kids are different now. The people who are “millenials” are trying to change what we know about capitalism. Mostly, what they’re trying to do is really good (with some curmudgeonly reservations).
It can be harder to change customs than to change technology. But customs can also change faster, given the motivation.
Also, kids are different now. The people who are “millenials” are trying to change what we know about capitalism. Mostly, what they’re trying to do is really good (with some curmudgeonly reservations).
I’d say that the defining characteristic of capitalism is that the owners of capital deserve some return in exchange for supplying that input.
Whether that’s the defining characteristic or not, it certainly is a valid point. In the ideal capitalistic model the return to capital – to investors – is determined competitively, just as the return to labor is. Capitalists have no special claims. They earn the minimum amount necessary to get them to risk their capital. You can check out “Zero Profit Theorem,” but I’d advise against the Wikipedia explanation.
I’d say that the defining characteristic of capitalism is that the owners of capital deserve some return in exchange for supplying that input.
Whether that’s the defining characteristic or not, it certainly is a valid point. In the ideal capitalistic model the return to capital – to investors – is determined competitively, just as the return to labor is. Capitalists have no special claims. They earn the minimum amount necessary to get them to risk their capital. You can check out “Zero Profit Theorem,” but I’d advise against the Wikipedia explanation.
I’d say that the defining characteristic of capitalism is that the owners of capital deserve some return in exchange for supplying that input.
Whether that’s the defining characteristic or not, it certainly is a valid point. In the ideal capitalistic model the return to capital – to investors – is determined competitively, just as the return to labor is. Capitalists have no special claims. They earn the minimum amount necessary to get them to risk their capital. You can check out “Zero Profit Theorem,” but I’d advise against the Wikipedia explanation.
The biggest difference in kids today? They have access to a far, far larger range of opinions and information (reality).
When most of us were growing up, it was pretty easy for parents to largely control what information we got, and what opinions we were exposed to. Today? Not a chance.
The biggest difference in kids today? They have access to a far, far larger range of opinions and information (reality).
When most of us were growing up, it was pretty easy for parents to largely control what information we got, and what opinions we were exposed to. Today? Not a chance.
The biggest difference in kids today? They have access to a far, far larger range of opinions and information (reality).
When most of us were growing up, it was pretty easy for parents to largely control what information we got, and what opinions we were exposed to. Today? Not a chance.
Yeah, these days, a teenager can pull an all-nighter and see more porn than his parents or grandparents saw in a lifetime.
Yeah, these days, a teenager can pull an all-nighter and see more porn than his parents or grandparents saw in a lifetime.
Yeah, these days, a teenager can pull an all-nighter and see more porn than his parents or grandparents saw in a lifetime.
10 years ago, gay marriage was already legal here. I’d have thought it would take at least 20 or 30 years for it to go nationwide, though.
10 years ago, gay marriage was already legal here. I’d have thought it would take at least 20 or 30 years for it to go nationwide, though.
10 years ago, gay marriage was already legal here. I’d have thought it would take at least 20 or 30 years for it to go nationwide, though.
The article was lame but the common thread in the comments was uplifting to this conservative. Or maybe it’s the late hour, the Vitamin V and the bottle of red.
The article was lame but the common thread in the comments was uplifting to this conservative. Or maybe it’s the late hour, the Vitamin V and the bottle of red.
The article was lame but the common thread in the comments was uplifting to this conservative. Or maybe it’s the late hour, the Vitamin V and the bottle of red.
4) anything requiring initiative or inventiveness. You can write automated software to apply rules (once you have figured out the rules). But figuring out what rules to write? No.
I agree with your general point, but to re-harp-upon an old hobby-horse, machine learning and other statistical techniques are actually effectively automating “figuring out the rules”. An awful lot of our software is no longer applying rules to determine outcomes or responses, but instead applying statistically-derived models to do so. It’s not autonomous, of course, but compared to prevalent rule-based systems from thirty years ago, it’s getting an awful lot closer. I’d hesitate to identify this as an area that is significantly resistant, let alone entirely impervious, to automation.
4) anything requiring initiative or inventiveness. You can write automated software to apply rules (once you have figured out the rules). But figuring out what rules to write? No.
I agree with your general point, but to re-harp-upon an old hobby-horse, machine learning and other statistical techniques are actually effectively automating “figuring out the rules”. An awful lot of our software is no longer applying rules to determine outcomes or responses, but instead applying statistically-derived models to do so. It’s not autonomous, of course, but compared to prevalent rule-based systems from thirty years ago, it’s getting an awful lot closer. I’d hesitate to identify this as an area that is significantly resistant, let alone entirely impervious, to automation.
4) anything requiring initiative or inventiveness. You can write automated software to apply rules (once you have figured out the rules). But figuring out what rules to write? No.
I agree with your general point, but to re-harp-upon an old hobby-horse, machine learning and other statistical techniques are actually effectively automating “figuring out the rules”. An awful lot of our software is no longer applying rules to determine outcomes or responses, but instead applying statistically-derived models to do so. It’s not autonomous, of course, but compared to prevalent rule-based systems from thirty years ago, it’s getting an awful lot closer. I’d hesitate to identify this as an area that is significantly resistant, let alone entirely impervious, to automation.
How much porn did my grandmothers see in a lifetime I’d like to know, because they never let on?
Hey look, American kids:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/07/usa-usa-usa-american-math-prodigies-beat-out-china-south-korea
Despite the Socialist teachers with ample healthcare plans and tenure.
What is Vitamin V?
Is it what I think it is?
How much porn did my grandmothers see in a lifetime I’d like to know, because they never let on?
Hey look, American kids:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/07/usa-usa-usa-american-math-prodigies-beat-out-china-south-korea
Despite the Socialist teachers with ample healthcare plans and tenure.
What is Vitamin V?
Is it what I think it is?
How much porn did my grandmothers see in a lifetime I’d like to know, because they never let on?
Hey look, American kids:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/07/usa-usa-usa-american-math-prodigies-beat-out-china-south-korea
Despite the Socialist teachers with ample healthcare plans and tenure.
What is Vitamin V?
Is it what I think it is?
Valium and wine?
Valium and wine?
Valium and wine?
Vodka. But I like the way you think.
Vodka. But I like the way you think.
Vodka. But I like the way you think.
Snarki’s 8:12 last night was dead on.
(modern, corporate) capitalism, socialism, communism, are all creatures of the industrial revolution.
I think much of that is based on the need for relatively massive amounts of capital in order to produce and distribute goods competitively after the industrial revolution. A small group of people could not reasonably produce and sell cars, for example, but a large factory could.
I think, to some extent, that’s changing. There are some really cool fabrication/automation technologies (like 3D printing, Arduinos, etc) that are coming along, but honestly the big difference right now is distribution is somewhat of a solved problem. I have a friend that knits and supplements her income via Etsy. 20 years ago, I think it would have been almost impossible for her to reach a large enough audience to make any real money. But today she can.
As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving). Hell, people in cities can rent their parking spaces these days (SPOT, and others).
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas. I don’t think that will require, or even encourage, a shift away from capitalism. I think it will just lead to smaller capital interests.
Long story short, I don’t think capitalism is going anywhere. I think, if we play our cards right, increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
WRT computerization messing with price signals: yes, they should be more efficient. Therefore much harder to make a living exploiting information asymmetries.
I’m assuming we agree on this point, but just to be clear, I think this is a very good thing.
Snarki’s 8:12 last night was dead on.
(modern, corporate) capitalism, socialism, communism, are all creatures of the industrial revolution.
I think much of that is based on the need for relatively massive amounts of capital in order to produce and distribute goods competitively after the industrial revolution. A small group of people could not reasonably produce and sell cars, for example, but a large factory could.
I think, to some extent, that’s changing. There are some really cool fabrication/automation technologies (like 3D printing, Arduinos, etc) that are coming along, but honestly the big difference right now is distribution is somewhat of a solved problem. I have a friend that knits and supplements her income via Etsy. 20 years ago, I think it would have been almost impossible for her to reach a large enough audience to make any real money. But today she can.
As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving). Hell, people in cities can rent their parking spaces these days (SPOT, and others).
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas. I don’t think that will require, or even encourage, a shift away from capitalism. I think it will just lead to smaller capital interests.
Long story short, I don’t think capitalism is going anywhere. I think, if we play our cards right, increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
WRT computerization messing with price signals: yes, they should be more efficient. Therefore much harder to make a living exploiting information asymmetries.
I’m assuming we agree on this point, but just to be clear, I think this is a very good thing.
Snarki’s 8:12 last night was dead on.
(modern, corporate) capitalism, socialism, communism, are all creatures of the industrial revolution.
I think much of that is based on the need for relatively massive amounts of capital in order to produce and distribute goods competitively after the industrial revolution. A small group of people could not reasonably produce and sell cars, for example, but a large factory could.
I think, to some extent, that’s changing. There are some really cool fabrication/automation technologies (like 3D printing, Arduinos, etc) that are coming along, but honestly the big difference right now is distribution is somewhat of a solved problem. I have a friend that knits and supplements her income via Etsy. 20 years ago, I think it would have been almost impossible for her to reach a large enough audience to make any real money. But today she can.
As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving). Hell, people in cities can rent their parking spaces these days (SPOT, and others).
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas. I don’t think that will require, or even encourage, a shift away from capitalism. I think it will just lead to smaller capital interests.
Long story short, I don’t think capitalism is going anywhere. I think, if we play our cards right, increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
WRT computerization messing with price signals: yes, they should be more efficient. Therefore much harder to make a living exploiting information asymmetries.
I’m assuming we agree on this point, but just to be clear, I think this is a very good thing.
you probably have the same conversations that my family had driving through Amish country one summer or trying to find our way around San Francisco.
That sentence was really amusing when I misread it as: ‘driving through Amish country trying to find our way around San Francisco.’
I thought you must have been *really* lost.
you probably have the same conversations that my family had driving through Amish country one summer or trying to find our way around San Francisco.
That sentence was really amusing when I misread it as: ‘driving through Amish country trying to find our way around San Francisco.’
I thought you must have been *really* lost.
you probably have the same conversations that my family had driving through Amish country one summer or trying to find our way around San Francisco.
That sentence was really amusing when I misread it as: ‘driving through Amish country trying to find our way around San Francisco.’
I thought you must have been *really* lost.
I agree with your general point, but to re-harp-upon an old hobby-horse, machine learning and other statistical techniques are actually effectively automating “figuring out the rules”.
And in my newsfeed this morning:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/0717/Experimental-robot-shows-signs-of-self-awareness
I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.
I agree with your general point, but to re-harp-upon an old hobby-horse, machine learning and other statistical techniques are actually effectively automating “figuring out the rules”.
And in my newsfeed this morning:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/0717/Experimental-robot-shows-signs-of-self-awareness
I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.
I agree with your general point, but to re-harp-upon an old hobby-horse, machine learning and other statistical techniques are actually effectively automating “figuring out the rules”.
And in my newsfeed this morning:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/0717/Experimental-robot-shows-signs-of-self-awareness
I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.
increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
And that may be enough of a change to (marginally) merit the label of “post-capitalism”.
In traditional capitalism, a small fraction of the population provides the large amounts of capital required, and reaps the rewards. Spreading share ownership achieves a small broadening of the pool, but not all that much.
Whereas where we are going will allow a far larger portion of the population (perhaps even a majority?) to reap rewards from their personal, relatively small, capital.
increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
And that may be enough of a change to (marginally) merit the label of “post-capitalism”.
In traditional capitalism, a small fraction of the population provides the large amounts of capital required, and reaps the rewards. Spreading share ownership achieves a small broadening of the pool, but not all that much.
Whereas where we are going will allow a far larger portion of the population (perhaps even a majority?) to reap rewards from their personal, relatively small, capital.
increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
And that may be enough of a change to (marginally) merit the label of “post-capitalism”.
In traditional capitalism, a small fraction of the population provides the large amounts of capital required, and reaps the rewards. Spreading share ownership achieves a small broadening of the pool, but not all that much.
Whereas where we are going will allow a far larger portion of the population (perhaps even a majority?) to reap rewards from their personal, relatively small, capital.
Post capitalist Society? Not so fast.
Reddit comments on the article
Post capitalist Society? Not so fast.
Reddit comments on the article
Post capitalist Society? Not so fast.
Reddit comments on the article
Post capitalist Society? Not so fast.
Post capitalist Society? Not so fast.
Post capitalist Society? Not so fast.
Reddit comments on the article
Reddit comments on the article
Reddit comments on the article
As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving).
Just to look at this from a slightly different angle:
The business model for AirBnB and Uber is, more or less, act as brokers for lodging and transportation, by facilitating connections between buyers and sellers.
The capital investment that creates the tangible good or service – the place to sleep, or the car – is made by someone who is, from AirBnB and Uber’s point of view, basically a free lancer. The obligation of those companies toward the folks who are making their property available for use is not entirely clear at this point, but is definitely toward the “none whatsoever” end of the spectrum.
A full time Uber driver makes $30-$60K a year, maybe a little more. They provide their own car, pay for their own gas, maintenance, insurance, tolls, parking, etc. They also pay for their own health insurance, retirement, etc.
Uber, the company, which owns and operates no vehicles-for-hire whatsoever, is currently valued at about $50B. That’s a ‘B’, for billion. I believe it’s still privately held, basically by its two founders and their investors, who are basically some angels, VCs, and a sovereign wealth fund or two.
The significant tangible asset of Uber, the company, is it’s IP, which is a mobile phone application.
The introduction of Uber into a number of markets has been “disruptive”, which is to say, in lots of places it has created a number of legal, regulatory, and other problems. Uber’s approach to addressing the issues created by its entrance into new markets is described on the Wiki page as follows:
As an aside, yes, *that* David Plouffe.
It’s nice that folks can make a few bucks off of their downtime by booking some Uber rides, but I’m not sure I see much difference between that and delivering pizzas for Dominoes. Uber probably has a better app, other than that, I’m not seeing a big difference.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not seeing a brave new world there.
As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving).
Just to look at this from a slightly different angle:
The business model for AirBnB and Uber is, more or less, act as brokers for lodging and transportation, by facilitating connections between buyers and sellers.
The capital investment that creates the tangible good or service – the place to sleep, or the car – is made by someone who is, from AirBnB and Uber’s point of view, basically a free lancer. The obligation of those companies toward the folks who are making their property available for use is not entirely clear at this point, but is definitely toward the “none whatsoever” end of the spectrum.
A full time Uber driver makes $30-$60K a year, maybe a little more. They provide their own car, pay for their own gas, maintenance, insurance, tolls, parking, etc. They also pay for their own health insurance, retirement, etc.
Uber, the company, which owns and operates no vehicles-for-hire whatsoever, is currently valued at about $50B. That’s a ‘B’, for billion. I believe it’s still privately held, basically by its two founders and their investors, who are basically some angels, VCs, and a sovereign wealth fund or two.
The significant tangible asset of Uber, the company, is it’s IP, which is a mobile phone application.
The introduction of Uber into a number of markets has been “disruptive”, which is to say, in lots of places it has created a number of legal, regulatory, and other problems. Uber’s approach to addressing the issues created by its entrance into new markets is described on the Wiki page as follows:
As an aside, yes, *that* David Plouffe.
It’s nice that folks can make a few bucks off of their downtime by booking some Uber rides, but I’m not sure I see much difference between that and delivering pizzas for Dominoes. Uber probably has a better app, other than that, I’m not seeing a big difference.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not seeing a brave new world there.
As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving).
Just to look at this from a slightly different angle:
The business model for AirBnB and Uber is, more or less, act as brokers for lodging and transportation, by facilitating connections between buyers and sellers.
The capital investment that creates the tangible good or service – the place to sleep, or the car – is made by someone who is, from AirBnB and Uber’s point of view, basically a free lancer. The obligation of those companies toward the folks who are making their property available for use is not entirely clear at this point, but is definitely toward the “none whatsoever” end of the spectrum.
A full time Uber driver makes $30-$60K a year, maybe a little more. They provide their own car, pay for their own gas, maintenance, insurance, tolls, parking, etc. They also pay for their own health insurance, retirement, etc.
Uber, the company, which owns and operates no vehicles-for-hire whatsoever, is currently valued at about $50B. That’s a ‘B’, for billion. I believe it’s still privately held, basically by its two founders and their investors, who are basically some angels, VCs, and a sovereign wealth fund or two.
The significant tangible asset of Uber, the company, is it’s IP, which is a mobile phone application.
The introduction of Uber into a number of markets has been “disruptive”, which is to say, in lots of places it has created a number of legal, regulatory, and other problems. Uber’s approach to addressing the issues created by its entrance into new markets is described on the Wiki page as follows:
As an aside, yes, *that* David Plouffe.
It’s nice that folks can make a few bucks off of their downtime by booking some Uber rides, but I’m not sure I see much difference between that and delivering pizzas for Dominoes. Uber probably has a better app, other than that, I’m not seeing a big difference.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not seeing a brave new world there.
NYC Bill to Stop Uber From Growing Now About Protecting Passengers, or Something: The latest in the Uber wars is more inanity.
NYC Bill to Stop Uber From Growing Now About Protecting Passengers, or Something: The latest in the Uber wars is more inanity.
NYC Bill to Stop Uber From Growing Now About Protecting Passengers, or Something: The latest in the Uber wars is more inanity.
Uber, the company, which owns and operates no vehicles-for-hire whatsoever, is currently valued at about $50B.
I think its overvalued, as an aside. I think people are valuing the hype more then anything else. I think Uber has some critical flaws in their business model.
but I’m not sure I see much difference between that and delivering pizzas for Dominoes.
It is relatively easy to become an Uber driver, and you can set your own hours. To deliver for Dominos, there has to be an opening, you have to be hired, and its unlikely you’ll get to set your hours.
The high barrier of entry of being a Domino’s driver might sound ridiculous, but I have friends that are struggling to find work, and I assure you its not a joke to them. Some of them use the ‘gig economy’ to keep themselves afloat (not Uber specifically, I’m not personal friends with any Uber drivers). But I can definitely see advantages to paychecks stemming from erratic work with negligible barriers to enter or exit the workforce.
Are Uber drivers paid enough? I’m not sure. The ones I’ve had have been pretty happy doing it. Maybe there are hidden costs that the drivers aren’t accounting for properly. Or maybe they are playing it up so they don’t get bad reviews. Personally, I think they are likely a little undervalued, but I think that will adjust upward over time.
Uber, the company, which owns and operates no vehicles-for-hire whatsoever, is currently valued at about $50B.
I think its overvalued, as an aside. I think people are valuing the hype more then anything else. I think Uber has some critical flaws in their business model.
but I’m not sure I see much difference between that and delivering pizzas for Dominoes.
It is relatively easy to become an Uber driver, and you can set your own hours. To deliver for Dominos, there has to be an opening, you have to be hired, and its unlikely you’ll get to set your hours.
The high barrier of entry of being a Domino’s driver might sound ridiculous, but I have friends that are struggling to find work, and I assure you its not a joke to them. Some of them use the ‘gig economy’ to keep themselves afloat (not Uber specifically, I’m not personal friends with any Uber drivers). But I can definitely see advantages to paychecks stemming from erratic work with negligible barriers to enter or exit the workforce.
Are Uber drivers paid enough? I’m not sure. The ones I’ve had have been pretty happy doing it. Maybe there are hidden costs that the drivers aren’t accounting for properly. Or maybe they are playing it up so they don’t get bad reviews. Personally, I think they are likely a little undervalued, but I think that will adjust upward over time.
Uber, the company, which owns and operates no vehicles-for-hire whatsoever, is currently valued at about $50B.
I think its overvalued, as an aside. I think people are valuing the hype more then anything else. I think Uber has some critical flaws in their business model.
but I’m not sure I see much difference between that and delivering pizzas for Dominoes.
It is relatively easy to become an Uber driver, and you can set your own hours. To deliver for Dominos, there has to be an opening, you have to be hired, and its unlikely you’ll get to set your hours.
The high barrier of entry of being a Domino’s driver might sound ridiculous, but I have friends that are struggling to find work, and I assure you its not a joke to them. Some of them use the ‘gig economy’ to keep themselves afloat (not Uber specifically, I’m not personal friends with any Uber drivers). But I can definitely see advantages to paychecks stemming from erratic work with negligible barriers to enter or exit the workforce.
Are Uber drivers paid enough? I’m not sure. The ones I’ve had have been pretty happy doing it. Maybe there are hidden costs that the drivers aren’t accounting for properly. Or maybe they are playing it up so they don’t get bad reviews. Personally, I think they are likely a little undervalued, but I think that will adjust upward over time.
from the guardian article– “Austerity is not eight years of spending cuts, as in the UK, or even the social catastrophe inflicted on Greece. It means driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China and India on the way up.”
i think this is probably the most relevant passage of the entire piece but the author doesn’t actually carry it far enough to get to the most likely outcomes for post-capitalist society. those professions which cannot be automated will be safe until all of sudden they aren’t. the majority of us will have the following choices–servants to the 0.01%, law enforcement/military to keep everyone in line (this includes the staff of prisons), abject poverty, or imprisonment. without a major shift of political or economic system that utopian idea of a post-work word where everyone will have a chance to realize their talents and avocation will never happen. tragically i see this dystopia coming to life as i watch more and more of the wealth of our nation vacuumed up by the wealthiest of our society while those who are down are getting beaten down even more. like what’s happening to greece on the scale of the individual. the only thing that makes me even a little hopeful is that the imf, of all organizations, has publicly pointed out that the emperor has no clothes.
from the guardian article– “Austerity is not eight years of spending cuts, as in the UK, or even the social catastrophe inflicted on Greece. It means driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China and India on the way up.”
i think this is probably the most relevant passage of the entire piece but the author doesn’t actually carry it far enough to get to the most likely outcomes for post-capitalist society. those professions which cannot be automated will be safe until all of sudden they aren’t. the majority of us will have the following choices–servants to the 0.01%, law enforcement/military to keep everyone in line (this includes the staff of prisons), abject poverty, or imprisonment. without a major shift of political or economic system that utopian idea of a post-work word where everyone will have a chance to realize their talents and avocation will never happen. tragically i see this dystopia coming to life as i watch more and more of the wealth of our nation vacuumed up by the wealthiest of our society while those who are down are getting beaten down even more. like what’s happening to greece on the scale of the individual. the only thing that makes me even a little hopeful is that the imf, of all organizations, has publicly pointed out that the emperor has no clothes.
from the guardian article– “Austerity is not eight years of spending cuts, as in the UK, or even the social catastrophe inflicted on Greece. It means driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China and India on the way up.”
i think this is probably the most relevant passage of the entire piece but the author doesn’t actually carry it far enough to get to the most likely outcomes for post-capitalist society. those professions which cannot be automated will be safe until all of sudden they aren’t. the majority of us will have the following choices–servants to the 0.01%, law enforcement/military to keep everyone in line (this includes the staff of prisons), abject poverty, or imprisonment. without a major shift of political or economic system that utopian idea of a post-work word where everyone will have a chance to realize their talents and avocation will never happen. tragically i see this dystopia coming to life as i watch more and more of the wealth of our nation vacuumed up by the wealthiest of our society while those who are down are getting beaten down even more. like what’s happening to greece on the scale of the individual. the only thing that makes me even a little hopeful is that the imf, of all organizations, has publicly pointed out that the emperor has no clothes.
Russell,
No brave new world, but some improvement, I think.
I use Uber. I like it. Mostly, the value to me is that the company brings sensible technology to bear on the taxi business. I tap the screen on my phone a few times and a car shows up with a driver who knows where I’m going and uses GPS to get there. I get billed on my credit card. (By the way, several of the drivers I’ve had were former cab drivers who told me they like this feature a lot. It spares them carrying a lot of cash, and thus being robbery targets.)
It’s also cheaper than a cab, at least from my house to Logan. That may be regulatory arbitrage, but we could use some of that around here. The Boston-area cab system is terrible.
The relevant comparison for a driver, I think, is between Uber and driving a cab, which is not such a great job, as I’m sure you are aware. I don’t know which is better, but the willingness of some cab drivers to switch suggests Uber is at least not a ton worse.
Russell,
No brave new world, but some improvement, I think.
I use Uber. I like it. Mostly, the value to me is that the company brings sensible technology to bear on the taxi business. I tap the screen on my phone a few times and a car shows up with a driver who knows where I’m going and uses GPS to get there. I get billed on my credit card. (By the way, several of the drivers I’ve had were former cab drivers who told me they like this feature a lot. It spares them carrying a lot of cash, and thus being robbery targets.)
It’s also cheaper than a cab, at least from my house to Logan. That may be regulatory arbitrage, but we could use some of that around here. The Boston-area cab system is terrible.
The relevant comparison for a driver, I think, is between Uber and driving a cab, which is not such a great job, as I’m sure you are aware. I don’t know which is better, but the willingness of some cab drivers to switch suggests Uber is at least not a ton worse.
Russell,
No brave new world, but some improvement, I think.
I use Uber. I like it. Mostly, the value to me is that the company brings sensible technology to bear on the taxi business. I tap the screen on my phone a few times and a car shows up with a driver who knows where I’m going and uses GPS to get there. I get billed on my credit card. (By the way, several of the drivers I’ve had were former cab drivers who told me they like this feature a lot. It spares them carrying a lot of cash, and thus being robbery targets.)
It’s also cheaper than a cab, at least from my house to Logan. That may be regulatory arbitrage, but we could use some of that around here. The Boston-area cab system is terrible.
The relevant comparison for a driver, I think, is between Uber and driving a cab, which is not such a great job, as I’m sure you are aware. I don’t know which is better, but the willingness of some cab drivers to switch suggests Uber is at least not a ton worse.
Mostly, the value to me is that the company brings sensible technology to bear on the taxi business.
Perhaps because its relatively new, but the thing that really sells it to me are that the Uber drivers I’ve had have been uniformly friendly and their cars are clean and in good working order.
In contrast, I can only think of one cab ride in my life which I would describe as ‘pleasant’. Rude drivers, ‘shortcuts’, and one time no seatbelt. Seriously.
Anytime someone talks about the importance of regulating Uber like cabs, I think of the cab ride without a seatbelt. I understand the overall issue is more complex than that, but that’s my own mental association.
Mostly, the value to me is that the company brings sensible technology to bear on the taxi business.
Perhaps because its relatively new, but the thing that really sells it to me are that the Uber drivers I’ve had have been uniformly friendly and their cars are clean and in good working order.
In contrast, I can only think of one cab ride in my life which I would describe as ‘pleasant’. Rude drivers, ‘shortcuts’, and one time no seatbelt. Seriously.
Anytime someone talks about the importance of regulating Uber like cabs, I think of the cab ride without a seatbelt. I understand the overall issue is more complex than that, but that’s my own mental association.
Mostly, the value to me is that the company brings sensible technology to bear on the taxi business.
Perhaps because its relatively new, but the thing that really sells it to me are that the Uber drivers I’ve had have been uniformly friendly and their cars are clean and in good working order.
In contrast, I can only think of one cab ride in my life which I would describe as ‘pleasant’. Rude drivers, ‘shortcuts’, and one time no seatbelt. Seriously.
Anytime someone talks about the importance of regulating Uber like cabs, I think of the cab ride without a seatbelt. I understand the overall issue is more complex than that, but that’s my own mental association.
Sigh. The article was excellent, as a stab at making difficult ideas accessible. Looking for more Paul Mason.
There’s a joke, that is not quite a joke, that instead of an argument a post-structuralist hands you a bibliography. That’s because post-fuckall is not an argument, an answer, a prediction but a discourse, a communal activity. Leaving most of the relevant names and schools out:
Lacan, Foucault, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari, Antonio Negri, Said, Continental feminists, Nick Land, MacKenzie Wark,Castells, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Regulation School, post-colonialism, World-System Theory (Wallerstein, Arrighi, Samir Amin).
Don’t worry about any of the above, it’ll happen without you.
Sigh. The article was excellent, as a stab at making difficult ideas accessible. Looking for more Paul Mason.
There’s a joke, that is not quite a joke, that instead of an argument a post-structuralist hands you a bibliography. That’s because post-fuckall is not an argument, an answer, a prediction but a discourse, a communal activity. Leaving most of the relevant names and schools out:
Lacan, Foucault, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari, Antonio Negri, Said, Continental feminists, Nick Land, MacKenzie Wark,Castells, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Regulation School, post-colonialism, World-System Theory (Wallerstein, Arrighi, Samir Amin).
Don’t worry about any of the above, it’ll happen without you.
Sigh. The article was excellent, as a stab at making difficult ideas accessible. Looking for more Paul Mason.
There’s a joke, that is not quite a joke, that instead of an argument a post-structuralist hands you a bibliography. That’s because post-fuckall is not an argument, an answer, a prediction but a discourse, a communal activity. Leaving most of the relevant names and schools out:
Lacan, Foucault, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari, Antonio Negri, Said, Continental feminists, Nick Land, MacKenzie Wark,Castells, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Regulation School, post-colonialism, World-System Theory (Wallerstein, Arrighi, Samir Amin).
Don’t worry about any of the above, it’ll happen without you.
No seatbelt?
Must have been a libertarian, regulation-free cabbie. 😉
No seatbelt?
Must have been a libertarian, regulation-free cabbie. 😉
No seatbelt?
Must have been a libertarian, regulation-free cabbie. 😉
Must have been a libertarian, regulation-free cabbie. 😉
Yeah, it was my mistake taking a cab in the anarchist utopia of San Francisco. 🙂
Must have been a libertarian, regulation-free cabbie. 😉
Yeah, it was my mistake taking a cab in the anarchist utopia of San Francisco. 🙂
Must have been a libertarian, regulation-free cabbie. 😉
Yeah, it was my mistake taking a cab in the anarchist utopia of San Francisco. 🙂
Once robots start making Domino’s pizzas and drones and driverless cars deliver them, as well as replace all of the UBER drivers, this conversation will seem like talking about the pros and cons of buggy whips.
The out-of-work drivers and pizza makers will stand on street corners offering to clean the windshields of driverless cars, although without a driver who cares if the windshield is dirty.
Even then, robots (the ones decommissioned from their former work) will replace the hobos and their squeegees.
Salute to McManus.
Once robots start making Domino’s pizzas and drones and driverless cars deliver them, as well as replace all of the UBER drivers, this conversation will seem like talking about the pros and cons of buggy whips.
The out-of-work drivers and pizza makers will stand on street corners offering to clean the windshields of driverless cars, although without a driver who cares if the windshield is dirty.
Even then, robots (the ones decommissioned from their former work) will replace the hobos and their squeegees.
Salute to McManus.
Once robots start making Domino’s pizzas and drones and driverless cars deliver them, as well as replace all of the UBER drivers, this conversation will seem like talking about the pros and cons of buggy whips.
The out-of-work drivers and pizza makers will stand on street corners offering to clean the windshields of driverless cars, although without a driver who cares if the windshield is dirty.
Even then, robots (the ones decommissioned from their former work) will replace the hobos and their squeegees.
Salute to McManus.
In the third world, I once rode on a cab that had no back seat whatsoever.
Also rode on the roof of buses and hung off the side of them with one hand free like a trapeze artist.
However, a seat belt may well have saved my life right here in America when I was young and stupid.
In the third world, I once rode on a cab that had no back seat whatsoever.
Also rode on the roof of buses and hung off the side of them with one hand free like a trapeze artist.
However, a seat belt may well have saved my life right here in America when I was young and stupid.
In the third world, I once rode on a cab that had no back seat whatsoever.
Also rode on the roof of buses and hung off the side of them with one hand free like a trapeze artist.
However, a seat belt may well have saved my life right here in America when I was young and stupid.
Sigh. The article was excellent, as a stab at making difficult ideas accessible. Looking for more Paul Mason.
The article was excellent if you overlook all its shortcomings. Of which there were more than a few, and which were significant enough to reduce me to exasperated skimming by the halfway point.
Like many post-foo theorists, the author does a good job of presenting ideas within the structural framework of his ideological theory, but does not do a particularly good job of considering ideas outside of it, or ideas that the theory doesn’t deem significant. This actually tends to be a rather bad means of making difficult ideas accessible, because it ignores or handwaves difficult fundemental problems that the theorists wrestle with at length and possibly not even to their own satisfaction. This often leads to evangelical neophytes who understand the conclusions a particular theory reaches, but have poor or no understanding of the reasoning behind them, let alone the assumptions required and concessions made IOT reach those conclusions.
The author is lost in the assumptions of his ideologies, and unable to communicate without them. It’s a typical shortcoming in the bibliography you cite. Which is depressing since there – as here – you can find value in said works, but the value tends to be nearly intractably welded into a messy web of necessary presumptions hanging from further presumptions, etc.
Sigh. The article was excellent, as a stab at making difficult ideas accessible. Looking for more Paul Mason.
The article was excellent if you overlook all its shortcomings. Of which there were more than a few, and which were significant enough to reduce me to exasperated skimming by the halfway point.
Like many post-foo theorists, the author does a good job of presenting ideas within the structural framework of his ideological theory, but does not do a particularly good job of considering ideas outside of it, or ideas that the theory doesn’t deem significant. This actually tends to be a rather bad means of making difficult ideas accessible, because it ignores or handwaves difficult fundemental problems that the theorists wrestle with at length and possibly not even to their own satisfaction. This often leads to evangelical neophytes who understand the conclusions a particular theory reaches, but have poor or no understanding of the reasoning behind them, let alone the assumptions required and concessions made IOT reach those conclusions.
The author is lost in the assumptions of his ideologies, and unable to communicate without them. It’s a typical shortcoming in the bibliography you cite. Which is depressing since there – as here – you can find value in said works, but the value tends to be nearly intractably welded into a messy web of necessary presumptions hanging from further presumptions, etc.
Sigh. The article was excellent, as a stab at making difficult ideas accessible. Looking for more Paul Mason.
The article was excellent if you overlook all its shortcomings. Of which there were more than a few, and which were significant enough to reduce me to exasperated skimming by the halfway point.
Like many post-foo theorists, the author does a good job of presenting ideas within the structural framework of his ideological theory, but does not do a particularly good job of considering ideas outside of it, or ideas that the theory doesn’t deem significant. This actually tends to be a rather bad means of making difficult ideas accessible, because it ignores or handwaves difficult fundemental problems that the theorists wrestle with at length and possibly not even to their own satisfaction. This often leads to evangelical neophytes who understand the conclusions a particular theory reaches, but have poor or no understanding of the reasoning behind them, let alone the assumptions required and concessions made IOT reach those conclusions.
The author is lost in the assumptions of his ideologies, and unable to communicate without them. It’s a typical shortcoming in the bibliography you cite. Which is depressing since there – as here – you can find value in said works, but the value tends to be nearly intractably welded into a messy web of necessary presumptions hanging from further presumptions, etc.
In the third world, I once rode on a cab that had no back seat whatsoever.
I spent some time riding around in the back of a pickup truck in Guatemala, which seemed to unnerve the locals. When I asked why it was so remarkable, given that pretty much every pickup bed you see is loaded down with passengers, it was explained to me that for a white to fall low enough to ride in the *back* of a pickup they must be a criminal or social outcast.
In the third world, I once rode on a cab that had no back seat whatsoever.
I spent some time riding around in the back of a pickup truck in Guatemala, which seemed to unnerve the locals. When I asked why it was so remarkable, given that pretty much every pickup bed you see is loaded down with passengers, it was explained to me that for a white to fall low enough to ride in the *back* of a pickup they must be a criminal or social outcast.
In the third world, I once rode on a cab that had no back seat whatsoever.
I spent some time riding around in the back of a pickup truck in Guatemala, which seemed to unnerve the locals. When I asked why it was so remarkable, given that pretty much every pickup bed you see is loaded down with passengers, it was explained to me that for a white to fall low enough to ride in the *back* of a pickup they must be a criminal or social outcast.
thanks for thompson and bernie for your replies to my comment.
i’m sure the end user experience of Uber is positive. i’m also glad that folks with a car but no job can scratch together a few bucks to keep body and soul together.
I’m sure Uber is wildly overvalued. Knock it down by 90% and my overall point holds.
i’m sorry domino’s driver is a hard job to come by in SF, the fact that enough folks want to deliver pizzas that it makes the job opportunities along those lines scarce says nothing but scary stuff to me.
the tl:dr version of my comment is pretty simple:
If AirBnB and Uber are examples of what technology is bringing us, we are screwed. They do not provide the basis for a robust economy, or one in which the rudiments of a minimally comfortable and secure life are available to a broad section of the population.
If you live in a market where driving for Uber is remotely viable, $30-$60K a year is not gonna make your nut.
AirBnB is a great way to monetize unused real estate – I have family members who rent a guest house via AirBnB – but to even play in that game you have to have enough money to buy a property that somebody will pay money to stay in in the first place.
Tech is great. The gig economy is not the basis for a robust society.
thanks for thompson and bernie for your replies to my comment.
i’m sure the end user experience of Uber is positive. i’m also glad that folks with a car but no job can scratch together a few bucks to keep body and soul together.
I’m sure Uber is wildly overvalued. Knock it down by 90% and my overall point holds.
i’m sorry domino’s driver is a hard job to come by in SF, the fact that enough folks want to deliver pizzas that it makes the job opportunities along those lines scarce says nothing but scary stuff to me.
the tl:dr version of my comment is pretty simple:
If AirBnB and Uber are examples of what technology is bringing us, we are screwed. They do not provide the basis for a robust economy, or one in which the rudiments of a minimally comfortable and secure life are available to a broad section of the population.
If you live in a market where driving for Uber is remotely viable, $30-$60K a year is not gonna make your nut.
AirBnB is a great way to monetize unused real estate – I have family members who rent a guest house via AirBnB – but to even play in that game you have to have enough money to buy a property that somebody will pay money to stay in in the first place.
Tech is great. The gig economy is not the basis for a robust society.
thanks for thompson and bernie for your replies to my comment.
i’m sure the end user experience of Uber is positive. i’m also glad that folks with a car but no job can scratch together a few bucks to keep body and soul together.
I’m sure Uber is wildly overvalued. Knock it down by 90% and my overall point holds.
i’m sorry domino’s driver is a hard job to come by in SF, the fact that enough folks want to deliver pizzas that it makes the job opportunities along those lines scarce says nothing but scary stuff to me.
the tl:dr version of my comment is pretty simple:
If AirBnB and Uber are examples of what technology is bringing us, we are screwed. They do not provide the basis for a robust economy, or one in which the rudiments of a minimally comfortable and secure life are available to a broad section of the population.
If you live in a market where driving for Uber is remotely viable, $30-$60K a year is not gonna make your nut.
AirBnB is a great way to monetize unused real estate – I have family members who rent a guest house via AirBnB – but to even play in that game you have to have enough money to buy a property that somebody will pay money to stay in in the first place.
Tech is great. The gig economy is not the basis for a robust society.
An video hour with Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, 2014, systems analysis and English literature, New Media and cybertheory theorist. She’s very confidant. Fun!
MV: 3:00…and unable to communicate without them.
…but the value tends to be nearly intractably welded into a messy web of necessary presumptions hanging from further presumptions
One of favorite Internet sites is a magazine of, not sure, Claire Fontaine, Invisible Committee, out of San Francisco called…MUTE.
Current reading:Senko Maynard, Japanese linguistics. From Linguistic Emotivity:
She uses (so far as I have read her) G Vico and that’s Yujiro Nakamura, 80s-90s philosopher, vastly untranslated.
I think the babelfish, the incommensurable discourses that fill each of our imaginaries are part of the point. No more metanarratives.
And my larger point is that Paul Mason is in now some weirdo with strange ideas. Nor is he really bleeding edge, the Marx fragment is perhaps a century old hat.
But I really don’t have much to say, just pointing, mutely. Got too much reading to do.
An video hour with Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, 2014, systems analysis and English literature, New Media and cybertheory theorist. She’s very confidant. Fun!
MV: 3:00…and unable to communicate without them.
…but the value tends to be nearly intractably welded into a messy web of necessary presumptions hanging from further presumptions
One of favorite Internet sites is a magazine of, not sure, Claire Fontaine, Invisible Committee, out of San Francisco called…MUTE.
Current reading:Senko Maynard, Japanese linguistics. From Linguistic Emotivity:
She uses (so far as I have read her) G Vico and that’s Yujiro Nakamura, 80s-90s philosopher, vastly untranslated.
I think the babelfish, the incommensurable discourses that fill each of our imaginaries are part of the point. No more metanarratives.
And my larger point is that Paul Mason is in now some weirdo with strange ideas. Nor is he really bleeding edge, the Marx fragment is perhaps a century old hat.
But I really don’t have much to say, just pointing, mutely. Got too much reading to do.
An video hour with Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, 2014, systems analysis and English literature, New Media and cybertheory theorist. She’s very confidant. Fun!
MV: 3:00…and unable to communicate without them.
…but the value tends to be nearly intractably welded into a messy web of necessary presumptions hanging from further presumptions
One of favorite Internet sites is a magazine of, not sure, Claire Fontaine, Invisible Committee, out of San Francisco called…MUTE.
Current reading:Senko Maynard, Japanese linguistics. From Linguistic Emotivity:
She uses (so far as I have read her) G Vico and that’s Yujiro Nakamura, 80s-90s philosopher, vastly untranslated.
I think the babelfish, the incommensurable discourses that fill each of our imaginaries are part of the point. No more metanarratives.
And my larger point is that Paul Mason is in now some weirdo with strange ideas. Nor is he really bleeding edge, the Marx fragment is perhaps a century old hat.
But I really don’t have much to say, just pointing, mutely. Got too much reading to do.
A question ocurs to me. What fraction of Uber drivers are high school kids? That is, someone who has room and board already covered, but time (say in the summer or between terms) to make some money.
A question ocurs to me. What fraction of Uber drivers are high school kids? That is, someone who has room and board already covered, but time (say in the summer or between terms) to make some money.
A question ocurs to me. What fraction of Uber drivers are high school kids? That is, someone who has room and board already covered, but time (say in the summer or between terms) to make some money.
Link to MUTE:
http://www.metamute.org/editorial/magazine
From the current issue:
“But, as the articles in this issue by Alberto Toscano, Bogdan Dragos & Inigo Wilkins, and Benedict Seymour relate, the adoption of algorithmic tools begun by financial traders in the 1990s has expanded exponentially since 2008 in response to the intensified profits crisis as much as the maturation of tools. Toscano [p. 68] soberingly illustrates the effects of this shift: ‘In 1945, US stock was held on average for four years; this dropped to eight months in 2000, two months in 2008, and 22 seconds in 2011.’ So algorithms are widely experienced as the replicant horsemen of the apocalypse, swarming through and clogging up markets in their pursuit of tradeable differentials, creating an endless churn of shares which foreclose longer term investment strategies, dangerously automating the assessment of risk and precipitating ‘flash crashes’, hitting labour markets as supply chain management systems react at light-speed to human or material frictions, sucking up huge financial and energy resources to construct the data infrastructures they require, and even creating tens of thousands of unemployed traders as this elite profession falls victim to its own drive towards efficiency.”
A share of stock was held in 2011 for an average 22 seconds. The holding time now must be less than 0 seconds.
Capital formation, my underemployed ass.
Link to MUTE:
http://www.metamute.org/editorial/magazine
From the current issue:
“But, as the articles in this issue by Alberto Toscano, Bogdan Dragos & Inigo Wilkins, and Benedict Seymour relate, the adoption of algorithmic tools begun by financial traders in the 1990s has expanded exponentially since 2008 in response to the intensified profits crisis as much as the maturation of tools. Toscano [p. 68] soberingly illustrates the effects of this shift: ‘In 1945, US stock was held on average for four years; this dropped to eight months in 2000, two months in 2008, and 22 seconds in 2011.’ So algorithms are widely experienced as the replicant horsemen of the apocalypse, swarming through and clogging up markets in their pursuit of tradeable differentials, creating an endless churn of shares which foreclose longer term investment strategies, dangerously automating the assessment of risk and precipitating ‘flash crashes’, hitting labour markets as supply chain management systems react at light-speed to human or material frictions, sucking up huge financial and energy resources to construct the data infrastructures they require, and even creating tens of thousands of unemployed traders as this elite profession falls victim to its own drive towards efficiency.”
A share of stock was held in 2011 for an average 22 seconds. The holding time now must be less than 0 seconds.
Capital formation, my underemployed ass.
Link to MUTE:
http://www.metamute.org/editorial/magazine
From the current issue:
“But, as the articles in this issue by Alberto Toscano, Bogdan Dragos & Inigo Wilkins, and Benedict Seymour relate, the adoption of algorithmic tools begun by financial traders in the 1990s has expanded exponentially since 2008 in response to the intensified profits crisis as much as the maturation of tools. Toscano [p. 68] soberingly illustrates the effects of this shift: ‘In 1945, US stock was held on average for four years; this dropped to eight months in 2000, two months in 2008, and 22 seconds in 2011.’ So algorithms are widely experienced as the replicant horsemen of the apocalypse, swarming through and clogging up markets in their pursuit of tradeable differentials, creating an endless churn of shares which foreclose longer term investment strategies, dangerously automating the assessment of risk and precipitating ‘flash crashes’, hitting labour markets as supply chain management systems react at light-speed to human or material frictions, sucking up huge financial and energy resources to construct the data infrastructures they require, and even creating tens of thousands of unemployed traders as this elite profession falls victim to its own drive towards efficiency.”
A share of stock was held in 2011 for an average 22 seconds. The holding time now must be less than 0 seconds.
Capital formation, my underemployed ass.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/is-uber-a-middle-class-job-creator-or-not/384763/
More to the point, what percentage of drivers are retirees supplementing a guaranteed retirement income, this nudging out working-age prospective drivers who need the income to survive.
I’ve thought about becoming an UBER driver, but I’d have to first purchase a new car (thompson wouldn’t approve of the back seat in my Tercel) and a smartphone.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/is-uber-a-middle-class-job-creator-or-not/384763/
More to the point, what percentage of drivers are retirees supplementing a guaranteed retirement income, this nudging out working-age prospective drivers who need the income to survive.
I’ve thought about becoming an UBER driver, but I’d have to first purchase a new car (thompson wouldn’t approve of the back seat in my Tercel) and a smartphone.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/is-uber-a-middle-class-job-creator-or-not/384763/
More to the point, what percentage of drivers are retirees supplementing a guaranteed retirement income, this nudging out working-age prospective drivers who need the income to survive.
I’ve thought about becoming an UBER driver, but I’d have to first purchase a new car (thompson wouldn’t approve of the back seat in my Tercel) and a smartphone.
They do not provide the basis for a robust economy
I would agree with that, but I also think that’s missing the point. I don’t think anybody is arguing Uber is the basis of the economy.
I think, in terms of the workers, firms like Uber can provide some fluidity which is good. Too much of our economy is tied up in things with relatively high barriers to entry and exit. I’m not saying a stable 9-5 job isn’t great for most people, but it doesn’t work for everybody.
The best example I can provide is a friend who is trying to get into video game design. Fiercely competitive field, and securing longterm stable employment is hard enough that a lot of people give up and do something else. Because she could sell things via Etsy, she could bridge herself between design contracts. Etsy gave her a way to get some income with minimal entry/exit requirements. Getting a “real job” would have made it functionally impossible to deliver on design contracts when they became available. Was she rich? No. Is she now getting to do things she loves? Yes.
but to even play in that game you have to have enough money to buy a property that somebody will pay money to stay in in the first place.
Or have a rental that allows sublets/doesn’t care. The last AirBnB I stayed at was an apartment, the last AirBnB my wife stayed at was a spare bedroom in someones rental, as was the AirBnB that an international scholar used when they visited me.
AirBnB isn’t going to be sole source income for 99.9% of the people who list on it. But it will be a way they can supplement their income by deploying their unused capital. Additionally, it reduces the stranglehold that large corporate interests have on capital intensive projects. In many cases, that would have been functionally impossible a decade or so ago.
Is AirBnB the backbone of the new economy? No. Is it part of it? Yes.
They do not provide the basis for a robust economy
I would agree with that, but I also think that’s missing the point. I don’t think anybody is arguing Uber is the basis of the economy.
I think, in terms of the workers, firms like Uber can provide some fluidity which is good. Too much of our economy is tied up in things with relatively high barriers to entry and exit. I’m not saying a stable 9-5 job isn’t great for most people, but it doesn’t work for everybody.
The best example I can provide is a friend who is trying to get into video game design. Fiercely competitive field, and securing longterm stable employment is hard enough that a lot of people give up and do something else. Because she could sell things via Etsy, she could bridge herself between design contracts. Etsy gave her a way to get some income with minimal entry/exit requirements. Getting a “real job” would have made it functionally impossible to deliver on design contracts when they became available. Was she rich? No. Is she now getting to do things she loves? Yes.
but to even play in that game you have to have enough money to buy a property that somebody will pay money to stay in in the first place.
Or have a rental that allows sublets/doesn’t care. The last AirBnB I stayed at was an apartment, the last AirBnB my wife stayed at was a spare bedroom in someones rental, as was the AirBnB that an international scholar used when they visited me.
AirBnB isn’t going to be sole source income for 99.9% of the people who list on it. But it will be a way they can supplement their income by deploying their unused capital. Additionally, it reduces the stranglehold that large corporate interests have on capital intensive projects. In many cases, that would have been functionally impossible a decade or so ago.
Is AirBnB the backbone of the new economy? No. Is it part of it? Yes.
They do not provide the basis for a robust economy
I would agree with that, but I also think that’s missing the point. I don’t think anybody is arguing Uber is the basis of the economy.
I think, in terms of the workers, firms like Uber can provide some fluidity which is good. Too much of our economy is tied up in things with relatively high barriers to entry and exit. I’m not saying a stable 9-5 job isn’t great for most people, but it doesn’t work for everybody.
The best example I can provide is a friend who is trying to get into video game design. Fiercely competitive field, and securing longterm stable employment is hard enough that a lot of people give up and do something else. Because she could sell things via Etsy, she could bridge herself between design contracts. Etsy gave her a way to get some income with minimal entry/exit requirements. Getting a “real job” would have made it functionally impossible to deliver on design contracts when they became available. Was she rich? No. Is she now getting to do things she loves? Yes.
but to even play in that game you have to have enough money to buy a property that somebody will pay money to stay in in the first place.
Or have a rental that allows sublets/doesn’t care. The last AirBnB I stayed at was an apartment, the last AirBnB my wife stayed at was a spare bedroom in someones rental, as was the AirBnB that an international scholar used when they visited me.
AirBnB isn’t going to be sole source income for 99.9% of the people who list on it. But it will be a way they can supplement their income by deploying their unused capital. Additionally, it reduces the stranglehold that large corporate interests have on capital intensive projects. In many cases, that would have been functionally impossible a decade or so ago.
Is AirBnB the backbone of the new economy? No. Is it part of it? Yes.
And Count’s link is worth reading.
And Count’s link is worth reading.
And Count’s link is worth reading.
“I don’t think anybody is arguing Uber is the basis of the economy.”
Uber would. Though their top people tend to fib.
Another $100 bill is offered betting that all 721 Republican candidates for President will, from today until November of 2016, cite UBER and AirBNB as the basis for the future New Economy and Hillary of trying to kill the future New Economy.
True, they won’t use the word “robust” because that’s the last thing they want as they shove the future of a part-time, independent, no benefits, no health insurance, no retirement new economy down just about everyone’s throats while a very few, very rich reap the benefits of “efficiency” and “labor-saving”.
They’ll call it Capitalism, in case anyone is still looking for a definition.
“I don’t think anybody is arguing Uber is the basis of the economy.”
Uber would. Though their top people tend to fib.
Another $100 bill is offered betting that all 721 Republican candidates for President will, from today until November of 2016, cite UBER and AirBNB as the basis for the future New Economy and Hillary of trying to kill the future New Economy.
True, they won’t use the word “robust” because that’s the last thing they want as they shove the future of a part-time, independent, no benefits, no health insurance, no retirement new economy down just about everyone’s throats while a very few, very rich reap the benefits of “efficiency” and “labor-saving”.
They’ll call it Capitalism, in case anyone is still looking for a definition.
“I don’t think anybody is arguing Uber is the basis of the economy.”
Uber would. Though their top people tend to fib.
Another $100 bill is offered betting that all 721 Republican candidates for President will, from today until November of 2016, cite UBER and AirBNB as the basis for the future New Economy and Hillary of trying to kill the future New Economy.
True, they won’t use the word “robust” because that’s the last thing they want as they shove the future of a part-time, independent, no benefits, no health insurance, no retirement new economy down just about everyone’s throats while a very few, very rich reap the benefits of “efficiency” and “labor-saving”.
They’ll call it Capitalism, in case anyone is still looking for a definition.
I would agree with that, but I also think that’s missing the point. I don’t think anybody is arguing Uber is the basis of the economy.
Hey, I didn’t bring Uber and AirBnB up.
If I’m missing the point, what is the point? If the economy is changing, what is the economy going to look like 10 or`15 or 50 years from now?
it’s great that your friend can leverage Etsy to make it possible to live her creative dream. that tells me that Etsy is today’s version of waiting tables.
If Uber and AirBnB – your examples – are any kind of model going forward, you are correct. They are not the basis for a robust economy.
sapient asks, who wants to work a manufacturing job? well, who wants to be an Uber driver? what else is going to be on offer?
I would agree with that, but I also think that’s missing the point. I don’t think anybody is arguing Uber is the basis of the economy.
Hey, I didn’t bring Uber and AirBnB up.
If I’m missing the point, what is the point? If the economy is changing, what is the economy going to look like 10 or`15 or 50 years from now?
it’s great that your friend can leverage Etsy to make it possible to live her creative dream. that tells me that Etsy is today’s version of waiting tables.
If Uber and AirBnB – your examples – are any kind of model going forward, you are correct. They are not the basis for a robust economy.
sapient asks, who wants to work a manufacturing job? well, who wants to be an Uber driver? what else is going to be on offer?
I would agree with that, but I also think that’s missing the point. I don’t think anybody is arguing Uber is the basis of the economy.
Hey, I didn’t bring Uber and AirBnB up.
If I’m missing the point, what is the point? If the economy is changing, what is the economy going to look like 10 or`15 or 50 years from now?
it’s great that your friend can leverage Etsy to make it possible to live her creative dream. that tells me that Etsy is today’s version of waiting tables.
If Uber and AirBnB – your examples – are any kind of model going forward, you are correct. They are not the basis for a robust economy.
sapient asks, who wants to work a manufacturing job? well, who wants to be an Uber driver? what else is going to be on offer?
in other words, if what all these technical marvels are bringing us is a more convenient and frictionless way to keep the wolf from the door while we wait for our real job to arrive, what is the real job?
in other words, if what all these technical marvels are bringing us is a more convenient and frictionless way to keep the wolf from the door while we wait for our real job to arrive, what is the real job?
in other words, if what all these technical marvels are bringing us is a more convenient and frictionless way to keep the wolf from the door while we wait for our real job to arrive, what is the real job?
Commenting at Obsidian Wings, just like now.
😉
Commenting at Obsidian Wings, just like now.
😉
Commenting at Obsidian Wings, just like now.
😉
Maybe bartending too, though except for amateur relationship and psychological advice, I don’t see the real need for bartenders either.
How about the bartenderless bar? There’s an innovation. Remove the bar blocking our way and let us mix our own damned drinks.
Think of the savings and the unintended consequences.
Maybe bartending too, though except for amateur relationship and psychological advice, I don’t see the real need for bartenders either.
How about the bartenderless bar? There’s an innovation. Remove the bar blocking our way and let us mix our own damned drinks.
Think of the savings and the unintended consequences.
Maybe bartending too, though except for amateur relationship and psychological advice, I don’t see the real need for bartenders either.
How about the bartenderless bar? There’s an innovation. Remove the bar blocking our way and let us mix our own damned drinks.
Think of the savings and the unintended consequences.
Always remember that the wolf at the door isn’t standing still either.
He’s always thinking of new, innovative, convenient, and frictionless, ways to get in the door and eat us.
He has a sizable lobbying presence on Capitol Hill too.
Always remember that the wolf at the door isn’t standing still either.
He’s always thinking of new, innovative, convenient, and frictionless, ways to get in the door and eat us.
He has a sizable lobbying presence on Capitol Hill too.
Always remember that the wolf at the door isn’t standing still either.
He’s always thinking of new, innovative, convenient, and frictionless, ways to get in the door and eat us.
He has a sizable lobbying presence on Capitol Hill too.
How about the bartenderless bar?
The words “moral hazard” seem to leaping into my mind…
I will say that, in most clubs I play, I have the bartenders trained to let me refill my own sodas from the Wonderbar.
How about the bartenderless bar?
The words “moral hazard” seem to leaping into my mind…
I will say that, in most clubs I play, I have the bartenders trained to let me refill my own sodas from the Wonderbar.
How about the bartenderless bar?
The words “moral hazard” seem to leaping into my mind…
I will say that, in most clubs I play, I have the bartenders trained to let me refill my own sodas from the Wonderbar.
Another $100 bill is offered betting that all 721 Republican candidates for President will, from today until November of 2016, cite UBER and AirBNB as the basis for the future New Economy and Hillary of trying to kill the future New Economy.
Jeb’s on it.
Lately, when I hear the word “disrupt”, I don’t know whether to check my wallet or reach for my revolver.
Another $100 bill is offered betting that all 721 Republican candidates for President will, from today until November of 2016, cite UBER and AirBNB as the basis for the future New Economy and Hillary of trying to kill the future New Economy.
Jeb’s on it.
Lately, when I hear the word “disrupt”, I don’t know whether to check my wallet or reach for my revolver.
Another $100 bill is offered betting that all 721 Republican candidates for President will, from today until November of 2016, cite UBER and AirBNB as the basis for the future New Economy and Hillary of trying to kill the future New Economy.
Jeb’s on it.
Lately, when I hear the word “disrupt”, I don’t know whether to check my wallet or reach for my revolver.
Hey, I didn’t bring Uber and AirBnB up.
No, you were the one you argued against them being “the basis for a robust economy”. Which, I tried to point out, is not an argument that anybody is making here.
russell, I’m sure we disagree on some of the finer points of the “gig economy”. That could be an interesting discussion to have. But I think we have to understand each others viewpoints first. And it seems clear to me that I’m not explaining myself well.
So, to be clear, I’m definitely not saying every corner of our economy is going to turn into Uber. It is not the basis, the backbone, or the foundation of our economy.
As an aside, I can, perhaps, imagine a future where the ‘gig economy’ plays a much larger role, but there are some large questions in mind how that would work.
But really, I’m just saying that companies like Uber/AirBnB provide some fluidity to the economy by allowing underutilized capital and labor to enter and exit the market almost at will. And I think that’s a good thing.
it’s great that your friend can leverage Etsy to make it possible to live her creative dream. that tells me that Etsy is today’s version of waiting tables.
It is great. That was my point. And it’s good that it exists, because picking up jobs like waiting tables is actually pretty hard these days.
sapient asks, who wants to work a manufacturing job? well, who wants to be an Uber driver?
I’m guessing people with cars and not enough money. I’m lost as to your point.
what is the real job?
Do you want me to list every possible way people can be employed? I’m honestly unclear on where you are going, or what kind of answer you are seeking.
If people can’t make a living off of Uber, they will find try to find other jobs, and Uber will either fail or be staffed by people who have jobs but need the extra cash.
If your point is that Uber isn’t the answer to everything, I agree. It’s not. It’s an company which links people who need to go places with people who have cars and want money, and does so in such a way that there are negligible entrance/exit barriers.
Hey, I didn’t bring Uber and AirBnB up.
No, you were the one you argued against them being “the basis for a robust economy”. Which, I tried to point out, is not an argument that anybody is making here.
russell, I’m sure we disagree on some of the finer points of the “gig economy”. That could be an interesting discussion to have. But I think we have to understand each others viewpoints first. And it seems clear to me that I’m not explaining myself well.
So, to be clear, I’m definitely not saying every corner of our economy is going to turn into Uber. It is not the basis, the backbone, or the foundation of our economy.
As an aside, I can, perhaps, imagine a future where the ‘gig economy’ plays a much larger role, but there are some large questions in mind how that would work.
But really, I’m just saying that companies like Uber/AirBnB provide some fluidity to the economy by allowing underutilized capital and labor to enter and exit the market almost at will. And I think that’s a good thing.
it’s great that your friend can leverage Etsy to make it possible to live her creative dream. that tells me that Etsy is today’s version of waiting tables.
It is great. That was my point. And it’s good that it exists, because picking up jobs like waiting tables is actually pretty hard these days.
sapient asks, who wants to work a manufacturing job? well, who wants to be an Uber driver?
I’m guessing people with cars and not enough money. I’m lost as to your point.
what is the real job?
Do you want me to list every possible way people can be employed? I’m honestly unclear on where you are going, or what kind of answer you are seeking.
If people can’t make a living off of Uber, they will find try to find other jobs, and Uber will either fail or be staffed by people who have jobs but need the extra cash.
If your point is that Uber isn’t the answer to everything, I agree. It’s not. It’s an company which links people who need to go places with people who have cars and want money, and does so in such a way that there are negligible entrance/exit barriers.
Hey, I didn’t bring Uber and AirBnB up.
No, you were the one you argued against them being “the basis for a robust economy”. Which, I tried to point out, is not an argument that anybody is making here.
russell, I’m sure we disagree on some of the finer points of the “gig economy”. That could be an interesting discussion to have. But I think we have to understand each others viewpoints first. And it seems clear to me that I’m not explaining myself well.
So, to be clear, I’m definitely not saying every corner of our economy is going to turn into Uber. It is not the basis, the backbone, or the foundation of our economy.
As an aside, I can, perhaps, imagine a future where the ‘gig economy’ plays a much larger role, but there are some large questions in mind how that would work.
But really, I’m just saying that companies like Uber/AirBnB provide some fluidity to the economy by allowing underutilized capital and labor to enter and exit the market almost at will. And I think that’s a good thing.
it’s great that your friend can leverage Etsy to make it possible to live her creative dream. that tells me that Etsy is today’s version of waiting tables.
It is great. That was my point. And it’s good that it exists, because picking up jobs like waiting tables is actually pretty hard these days.
sapient asks, who wants to work a manufacturing job? well, who wants to be an Uber driver?
I’m guessing people with cars and not enough money. I’m lost as to your point.
what is the real job?
Do you want me to list every possible way people can be employed? I’m honestly unclear on where you are going, or what kind of answer you are seeking.
If people can’t make a living off of Uber, they will find try to find other jobs, and Uber will either fail or be staffed by people who have jobs but need the extra cash.
If your point is that Uber isn’t the answer to everything, I agree. It’s not. It’s an company which links people who need to go places with people who have cars and want money, and does so in such a way that there are negligible entrance/exit barriers.
Bob,
The article was excellent, as a stab at making difficult ideas accessible.
But the ideas were not made accessible, as is obvious from the comments, to a lot of people here, who are neither fools or illiterates. The article is typical of this sort of thing where, I have to say, I often simply have no idea what the writer is talking about.
Bob,
The article was excellent, as a stab at making difficult ideas accessible.
But the ideas were not made accessible, as is obvious from the comments, to a lot of people here, who are neither fools or illiterates. The article is typical of this sort of thing where, I have to say, I often simply have no idea what the writer is talking about.
Bob,
The article was excellent, as a stab at making difficult ideas accessible.
But the ideas were not made accessible, as is obvious from the comments, to a lot of people here, who are neither fools or illiterates. The article is typical of this sort of thing where, I have to say, I often simply have no idea what the writer is talking about.
If you live in a market where driving for Uber is remotely viable, $30-$60K a year is not gonna make your nut.
Russell,
But why single out Uber? Cab drivers do no better. Maybe worse.
Indeed, if Uber breaks the hold that medallion owners have on drivers, which those owners do nothing to merit, we could even see it as a blow against one sort of worker exploitation.
No. Uber is not the basis for a new economy. It’s a convenient product that some people like better than its competition. That’s all.
If you live in a market where driving for Uber is remotely viable, $30-$60K a year is not gonna make your nut.
Russell,
But why single out Uber? Cab drivers do no better. Maybe worse.
Indeed, if Uber breaks the hold that medallion owners have on drivers, which those owners do nothing to merit, we could even see it as a blow against one sort of worker exploitation.
No. Uber is not the basis for a new economy. It’s a convenient product that some people like better than its competition. That’s all.
If you live in a market where driving for Uber is remotely viable, $30-$60K a year is not gonna make your nut.
Russell,
But why single out Uber? Cab drivers do no better. Maybe worse.
Indeed, if Uber breaks the hold that medallion owners have on drivers, which those owners do nothing to merit, we could even see it as a blow against one sort of worker exploitation.
No. Uber is not the basis for a new economy. It’s a convenient product that some people like better than its competition. That’s all.
Or, far shorter, what byomtov said:
No. Uber is not the basis for a new economy. It’s a convenient product that some people like better than its competition. That’s all.
Or, far shorter, what byomtov said:
No. Uber is not the basis for a new economy. It’s a convenient product that some people like better than its competition. That’s all.
Or, far shorter, what byomtov said:
No. Uber is not the basis for a new economy. It’s a convenient product that some people like better than its competition. That’s all.
I’m honestly unclear on where you are going, or what kind of answer you are seeking.
Because dudes like the author of the article, and Jeb Bush, and a gazillion other folks, want to tell us that technical innovation is ushering in a wonderful new economic world.
And companies like Uber, and AirBnB, and Etsy, and Thumbtack, et al, are presented as examples, as demonstration cases for how the frictionless flow of information is going to transform society and put a chicken in every pot.
And I don’t see it. Those are all great products and services, in their way, but there is not enough substance to them to support an economy that generates and distributes sufficient wealth to make most folks’ lives secure and minimally comfortable.
This is a really rich country, but things aren’t actually all that great for a lot of people. Speaking of capitalism, a common phenomenon under capitalism is that wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. That’s what is happening in this country, and it’s not really good.
Uber as a service is fine. In most markets, it’s arguably preferable to cabs, due to the convenience and efficiency of the app. Somebody found a handy way to match people who need a ride with people who are willing to provide one.
Well done.
As a model for, or example of, what a “gig economy” or “sharing economy” looks like, it isn’t really something to look forward to.
And I beg to differ that “nobody” is presenting it as an example of such. In this thread, or elsewhere.
How people are going to make a living is actually a pretty relevant question, at this point, for this country. The kind of answer I’m looking for is one that actually *is* the basis of a robust economy, where for “robust” I mean one that generates sufficient wealth *and distributes that wealth sufficiently broadly* that most folks can live lives of reasonable security and comfort. And my bar for “reasonable security and comfort” is not particularly high.
I’m honestly unclear on where you are going, or what kind of answer you are seeking.
Because dudes like the author of the article, and Jeb Bush, and a gazillion other folks, want to tell us that technical innovation is ushering in a wonderful new economic world.
And companies like Uber, and AirBnB, and Etsy, and Thumbtack, et al, are presented as examples, as demonstration cases for how the frictionless flow of information is going to transform society and put a chicken in every pot.
And I don’t see it. Those are all great products and services, in their way, but there is not enough substance to them to support an economy that generates and distributes sufficient wealth to make most folks’ lives secure and minimally comfortable.
This is a really rich country, but things aren’t actually all that great for a lot of people. Speaking of capitalism, a common phenomenon under capitalism is that wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. That’s what is happening in this country, and it’s not really good.
Uber as a service is fine. In most markets, it’s arguably preferable to cabs, due to the convenience and efficiency of the app. Somebody found a handy way to match people who need a ride with people who are willing to provide one.
Well done.
As a model for, or example of, what a “gig economy” or “sharing economy” looks like, it isn’t really something to look forward to.
And I beg to differ that “nobody” is presenting it as an example of such. In this thread, or elsewhere.
How people are going to make a living is actually a pretty relevant question, at this point, for this country. The kind of answer I’m looking for is one that actually *is* the basis of a robust economy, where for “robust” I mean one that generates sufficient wealth *and distributes that wealth sufficiently broadly* that most folks can live lives of reasonable security and comfort. And my bar for “reasonable security and comfort” is not particularly high.
I’m honestly unclear on where you are going, or what kind of answer you are seeking.
Because dudes like the author of the article, and Jeb Bush, and a gazillion other folks, want to tell us that technical innovation is ushering in a wonderful new economic world.
And companies like Uber, and AirBnB, and Etsy, and Thumbtack, et al, are presented as examples, as demonstration cases for how the frictionless flow of information is going to transform society and put a chicken in every pot.
And I don’t see it. Those are all great products and services, in their way, but there is not enough substance to them to support an economy that generates and distributes sufficient wealth to make most folks’ lives secure and minimally comfortable.
This is a really rich country, but things aren’t actually all that great for a lot of people. Speaking of capitalism, a common phenomenon under capitalism is that wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. That’s what is happening in this country, and it’s not really good.
Uber as a service is fine. In most markets, it’s arguably preferable to cabs, due to the convenience and efficiency of the app. Somebody found a handy way to match people who need a ride with people who are willing to provide one.
Well done.
As a model for, or example of, what a “gig economy” or “sharing economy” looks like, it isn’t really something to look forward to.
And I beg to differ that “nobody” is presenting it as an example of such. In this thread, or elsewhere.
How people are going to make a living is actually a pretty relevant question, at this point, for this country. The kind of answer I’m looking for is one that actually *is* the basis of a robust economy, where for “robust” I mean one that generates sufficient wealth *and distributes that wealth sufficiently broadly* that most folks can live lives of reasonable security and comfort. And my bar for “reasonable security and comfort” is not particularly high.
As an aside on the topic of “gig economies” and “creative economies”, about half of the people I know live in those economies, either as musicians, or artists, or something similar.
Many if not most of them live precarious lives. They work their freaking asses off, but the price they pay for being self-employed in a “gig economy” is that they are vulnerable to a variety of kinds of disaster.
Two of the best musicians I know are currently running Kickstarter campaigns to try to raise money for essential health care. One guy had a stroke, so he can’t work. No work, no money.
The other guy is a trumpet player, with a wife and kid, no health insurance, so he avoided the doctor for years, and now what should have been a very treatable case of diabetes has advanced to the point where his teeth are falling out. No teeth, not trumpet playing. No trumpet playing, no work. No work, no money.
Both of these guys are facing serious financial, physical, and personal disaster. They are extremely accomplished guys, and in the world they live and work in, they are tremendously successful.
But, they live in a gig economy. A gig economy is one where quite normal setbacks can crush you like a freaking bug.
And yes, they’re musicians, so it’s more or less on them. They could have done something else for a living.
They could have either been exceptional, outstanding, gifted, one-in-a-million, anointed-by-god musicians, or they could have been pretty good [insert some job description here].
The gig economy is a ruthless bitch. Some folks put up with it because it’s the only way available for them to do what they were manifestly meant to do in life, but it’s not a model for a stable society.
As an aside on the topic of “gig economies” and “creative economies”, about half of the people I know live in those economies, either as musicians, or artists, or something similar.
Many if not most of them live precarious lives. They work their freaking asses off, but the price they pay for being self-employed in a “gig economy” is that they are vulnerable to a variety of kinds of disaster.
Two of the best musicians I know are currently running Kickstarter campaigns to try to raise money for essential health care. One guy had a stroke, so he can’t work. No work, no money.
The other guy is a trumpet player, with a wife and kid, no health insurance, so he avoided the doctor for years, and now what should have been a very treatable case of diabetes has advanced to the point where his teeth are falling out. No teeth, not trumpet playing. No trumpet playing, no work. No work, no money.
Both of these guys are facing serious financial, physical, and personal disaster. They are extremely accomplished guys, and in the world they live and work in, they are tremendously successful.
But, they live in a gig economy. A gig economy is one where quite normal setbacks can crush you like a freaking bug.
And yes, they’re musicians, so it’s more or less on them. They could have done something else for a living.
They could have either been exceptional, outstanding, gifted, one-in-a-million, anointed-by-god musicians, or they could have been pretty good [insert some job description here].
The gig economy is a ruthless bitch. Some folks put up with it because it’s the only way available for them to do what they were manifestly meant to do in life, but it’s not a model for a stable society.
As an aside on the topic of “gig economies” and “creative economies”, about half of the people I know live in those economies, either as musicians, or artists, or something similar.
Many if not most of them live precarious lives. They work their freaking asses off, but the price they pay for being self-employed in a “gig economy” is that they are vulnerable to a variety of kinds of disaster.
Two of the best musicians I know are currently running Kickstarter campaigns to try to raise money for essential health care. One guy had a stroke, so he can’t work. No work, no money.
The other guy is a trumpet player, with a wife and kid, no health insurance, so he avoided the doctor for years, and now what should have been a very treatable case of diabetes has advanced to the point where his teeth are falling out. No teeth, not trumpet playing. No trumpet playing, no work. No work, no money.
Both of these guys are facing serious financial, physical, and personal disaster. They are extremely accomplished guys, and in the world they live and work in, they are tremendously successful.
But, they live in a gig economy. A gig economy is one where quite normal setbacks can crush you like a freaking bug.
And yes, they’re musicians, so it’s more or less on them. They could have done something else for a living.
They could have either been exceptional, outstanding, gifted, one-in-a-million, anointed-by-god musicians, or they could have been pretty good [insert some job description here].
The gig economy is a ruthless bitch. Some folks put up with it because it’s the only way available for them to do what they were manifestly meant to do in life, but it’s not a model for a stable society.
russell:
And I beg to differ that “nobody” is presenting it as an example of such. In this thread, or elsewhere.
It would be helpful if you could point to where that happened in this thread. That way I can more intelligently engage with what you are responding to.
Otherwise, honestly, I’m totally lost as to what you are targeting with your criticisms. If you disagree with something I’ve said, quote it and I’ll defend or reevaluate my position. If you disagree with something somebody else said, quote it, and I’ll take a side.
How people are going to make a living is actually a pretty relevant question, at this point, for this country. The kind of answer I’m looking for is one that actually *is* the basis of a robust economy
If you’re looking for a singular answer to that question, you are going to be sorely disappointed by this economy and any future economy I can envisage.
russell:
And I beg to differ that “nobody” is presenting it as an example of such. In this thread, or elsewhere.
It would be helpful if you could point to where that happened in this thread. That way I can more intelligently engage with what you are responding to.
Otherwise, honestly, I’m totally lost as to what you are targeting with your criticisms. If you disagree with something I’ve said, quote it and I’ll defend or reevaluate my position. If you disagree with something somebody else said, quote it, and I’ll take a side.
How people are going to make a living is actually a pretty relevant question, at this point, for this country. The kind of answer I’m looking for is one that actually *is* the basis of a robust economy
If you’re looking for a singular answer to that question, you are going to be sorely disappointed by this economy and any future economy I can envisage.
russell:
And I beg to differ that “nobody” is presenting it as an example of such. In this thread, or elsewhere.
It would be helpful if you could point to where that happened in this thread. That way I can more intelligently engage with what you are responding to.
Otherwise, honestly, I’m totally lost as to what you are targeting with your criticisms. If you disagree with something I’ve said, quote it and I’ll defend or reevaluate my position. If you disagree with something somebody else said, quote it, and I’ll take a side.
How people are going to make a living is actually a pretty relevant question, at this point, for this country. The kind of answer I’m looking for is one that actually *is* the basis of a robust economy
If you’re looking for a singular answer to that question, you are going to be sorely disappointed by this economy and any future economy I can envisage.
I think one way to rephrase russell’s question might be, “What sectors of the economy will produce the bulk of the jobs that will allow the bulk of the population to live stable, middle-class lives, and what sorts of jobs would they be, generally speaking?”
It’s going to take a good number of people to care for the aging Boomers. I don’t know how much of that can be automated, though I could see where some apps could come into play in terms of getting needs met in an appropriately timely fashion.
Sooner or later they’re going to die off, though, so what happens then?
I think one way to rephrase russell’s question might be, “What sectors of the economy will produce the bulk of the jobs that will allow the bulk of the population to live stable, middle-class lives, and what sorts of jobs would they be, generally speaking?”
It’s going to take a good number of people to care for the aging Boomers. I don’t know how much of that can be automated, though I could see where some apps could come into play in terms of getting needs met in an appropriately timely fashion.
Sooner or later they’re going to die off, though, so what happens then?
I think one way to rephrase russell’s question might be, “What sectors of the economy will produce the bulk of the jobs that will allow the bulk of the population to live stable, middle-class lives, and what sorts of jobs would they be, generally speaking?”
It’s going to take a good number of people to care for the aging Boomers. I don’t know how much of that can be automated, though I could see where some apps could come into play in terms of getting needs met in an appropriately timely fashion.
Sooner or later they’re going to die off, though, so what happens then?
hsh:
What sectors of the economy will produce the bulk of the jobs that will allow the bulk of the population to live stable, middle-class lives, and what sorts of jobs would they be, generally speaking?
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/industry-employment-and-output-projections-to-2022-1.htm
hsh:
What sectors of the economy will produce the bulk of the jobs that will allow the bulk of the population to live stable, middle-class lives, and what sorts of jobs would they be, generally speaking?
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/industry-employment-and-output-projections-to-2022-1.htm
hsh:
What sectors of the economy will produce the bulk of the jobs that will allow the bulk of the population to live stable, middle-class lives, and what sorts of jobs would they be, generally speaking?
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/industry-employment-and-output-projections-to-2022-1.htm
I don’t know if 7 years into the future was what russell (or whoever) was thinking about, thompson, but I appreciate the link.
I think we’re collective fools for not investing heavily in our national infrastructure and renewing dilapidated urban areas, but I’m an engineer, so I like seeing stuff get built (or knocked down in a well-planned manner, as the case may be).
I don’t know if 7 years into the future was what russell (or whoever) was thinking about, thompson, but I appreciate the link.
I think we’re collective fools for not investing heavily in our national infrastructure and renewing dilapidated urban areas, but I’m an engineer, so I like seeing stuff get built (or knocked down in a well-planned manner, as the case may be).
I don’t know if 7 years into the future was what russell (or whoever) was thinking about, thompson, but I appreciate the link.
I think we’re collective fools for not investing heavily in our national infrastructure and renewing dilapidated urban areas, but I’m an engineer, so I like seeing stuff get built (or knocked down in a well-planned manner, as the case may be).
I think we’re collective fools for not investing heavily in our national infrastructure
I’m all for investing in infrastructure. But that’s not the entire economy. Nor is healthcare, or agriculture, or whatever. The economy is diverse, both in sector and in pay rate.
I think we’re collective fools for not investing heavily in our national infrastructure
I’m all for investing in infrastructure. But that’s not the entire economy. Nor is healthcare, or agriculture, or whatever. The economy is diverse, both in sector and in pay rate.
I think we’re collective fools for not investing heavily in our national infrastructure
I’m all for investing in infrastructure. But that’s not the entire economy. Nor is healthcare, or agriculture, or whatever. The economy is diverse, both in sector and in pay rate.
Hey! You sound like russell now. I never said it was the entire economy! ;^)
Hey! You sound like russell now. I never said it was the entire economy! ;^)
Hey! You sound like russell now. I never said it was the entire economy! ;^)
Hey! You sound like russell now. I never said it was the entire economy! ;^)
Fair enough. Withdrawn. 🙂
Hey! You sound like russell now. I never said it was the entire economy! ;^)
Fair enough. Withdrawn. 🙂
Hey! You sound like russell now. I never said it was the entire economy! ;^)
Fair enough. Withdrawn. 🙂
thompson, as simple examples, sapient’s 8:01 and the article excerpt he cites discuss how “micro-level” projects are going to do an end run around the need for big capital and usher in some new economic structure. one in which most folks might not even need to work.
In your 10:11 you refer to technology as enabling people to enter into the marketplace without the need for large capital investments. You think this may be leading toward a capitalistic economy more oriented toward small producers.
In that context, you offer AirBNB and Uber as examples.
When I read those things, I walk away with the impression that you, and others, are viewing things like, for example, AirBnB and Uber as innovations that are going to be, somehow, transformative.
I don’t necessarily disagree with that. However, I felt obliged to point out that the business model of, for example, Uber, was one in which the person doing the hands-on providing of the service was assuming pretty much all of the risk, and much of the capital investment. And, in return, was getting basically a part-time income, and no benefits.
While Uber’s founders and investors were looking at sharing a $50B pie.
Good on them, well done, we’d all like to be billionaires. I just don’t see that as a particularly desirable innovation *as a model for how the economy might be changed going forward*. Which certainly seemed, to me, to be at least part of the point you were trying to make in citing them.
If anything, I see it as an example of technology enabling an extraordinary concentration of wealth, and a deferral of the general risks and costs of doing business to the grunts.
I have nothing in particular against Uber, I have no wish to demonize Uber’s owners, or the people who drive for them, or the people who use their service. In many markets, it is arguably a better service than traditional taxis.
I’m just not sure that, for example, this:
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas.
is likely to pan out as a major win. If examples like Uber etc. are to be considered to be typical.
thompson, as simple examples, sapient’s 8:01 and the article excerpt he cites discuss how “micro-level” projects are going to do an end run around the need for big capital and usher in some new economic structure. one in which most folks might not even need to work.
In your 10:11 you refer to technology as enabling people to enter into the marketplace without the need for large capital investments. You think this may be leading toward a capitalistic economy more oriented toward small producers.
In that context, you offer AirBNB and Uber as examples.
When I read those things, I walk away with the impression that you, and others, are viewing things like, for example, AirBnB and Uber as innovations that are going to be, somehow, transformative.
I don’t necessarily disagree with that. However, I felt obliged to point out that the business model of, for example, Uber, was one in which the person doing the hands-on providing of the service was assuming pretty much all of the risk, and much of the capital investment. And, in return, was getting basically a part-time income, and no benefits.
While Uber’s founders and investors were looking at sharing a $50B pie.
Good on them, well done, we’d all like to be billionaires. I just don’t see that as a particularly desirable innovation *as a model for how the economy might be changed going forward*. Which certainly seemed, to me, to be at least part of the point you were trying to make in citing them.
If anything, I see it as an example of technology enabling an extraordinary concentration of wealth, and a deferral of the general risks and costs of doing business to the grunts.
I have nothing in particular against Uber, I have no wish to demonize Uber’s owners, or the people who drive for them, or the people who use their service. In many markets, it is arguably a better service than traditional taxis.
I’m just not sure that, for example, this:
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas.
is likely to pan out as a major win. If examples like Uber etc. are to be considered to be typical.
thompson, as simple examples, sapient’s 8:01 and the article excerpt he cites discuss how “micro-level” projects are going to do an end run around the need for big capital and usher in some new economic structure. one in which most folks might not even need to work.
In your 10:11 you refer to technology as enabling people to enter into the marketplace without the need for large capital investments. You think this may be leading toward a capitalistic economy more oriented toward small producers.
In that context, you offer AirBNB and Uber as examples.
When I read those things, I walk away with the impression that you, and others, are viewing things like, for example, AirBnB and Uber as innovations that are going to be, somehow, transformative.
I don’t necessarily disagree with that. However, I felt obliged to point out that the business model of, for example, Uber, was one in which the person doing the hands-on providing of the service was assuming pretty much all of the risk, and much of the capital investment. And, in return, was getting basically a part-time income, and no benefits.
While Uber’s founders and investors were looking at sharing a $50B pie.
Good on them, well done, we’d all like to be billionaires. I just don’t see that as a particularly desirable innovation *as a model for how the economy might be changed going forward*. Which certainly seemed, to me, to be at least part of the point you were trying to make in citing them.
If anything, I see it as an example of technology enabling an extraordinary concentration of wealth, and a deferral of the general risks and costs of doing business to the grunts.
I have nothing in particular against Uber, I have no wish to demonize Uber’s owners, or the people who drive for them, or the people who use their service. In many markets, it is arguably a better service than traditional taxis.
I’m just not sure that, for example, this:
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas.
is likely to pan out as a major win. If examples like Uber etc. are to be considered to be typical.
When I read those things, I walk away with the impression that you, and others, are viewing things like, for example, AirBnB and Uber as innovations that are going to be, somehow, transformative.
I think they are going to be transformative in the way that I specified: As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving).
More expansively, I think my larger point that having easy entrance and exit from markets is a good thing. To the extent that Uber, etc facilitates that, I think that’s a good thing.
That is a far cry from saying its a ‘robust basis for the economy’, or a universal (or even dominant) model for the economy writ large. In short, you are reading way, WAY, to much into my comments.
Sapient I can’t speak for, beyond saying I didn’t draw the same expansive conclusions you did from reading his comment.
When I read those things, I walk away with the impression that you, and others, are viewing things like, for example, AirBnB and Uber as innovations that are going to be, somehow, transformative.
I think they are going to be transformative in the way that I specified: As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving).
More expansively, I think my larger point that having easy entrance and exit from markets is a good thing. To the extent that Uber, etc facilitates that, I think that’s a good thing.
That is a far cry from saying its a ‘robust basis for the economy’, or a universal (or even dominant) model for the economy writ large. In short, you are reading way, WAY, to much into my comments.
Sapient I can’t speak for, beyond saying I didn’t draw the same expansive conclusions you did from reading his comment.
When I read those things, I walk away with the impression that you, and others, are viewing things like, for example, AirBnB and Uber as innovations that are going to be, somehow, transformative.
I think they are going to be transformative in the way that I specified: As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving).
More expansively, I think my larger point that having easy entrance and exit from markets is a good thing. To the extent that Uber, etc facilitates that, I think that’s a good thing.
That is a far cry from saying its a ‘robust basis for the economy’, or a universal (or even dominant) model for the economy writ large. In short, you are reading way, WAY, to much into my comments.
Sapient I can’t speak for, beyond saying I didn’t draw the same expansive conclusions you did from reading his comment.
russell: …[they claim that] technical innovation is ushering in a wonderful new economic world.
And companies like Uber, and AirBnB, and Etsy, and Thumbtack, et al, are presented as examples
Unfortunately, even if technical innovation is ushering a wonderful new economic world, and it well may be, those companies are not examples of it. Which the politicians talking (or, more accurately, their speechwriters) don’t know — having no clue about technology. Not that being clueless causes them to refrain from pontificating on the subject.
russell: …[they claim that] technical innovation is ushering in a wonderful new economic world.
And companies like Uber, and AirBnB, and Etsy, and Thumbtack, et al, are presented as examples
Unfortunately, even if technical innovation is ushering a wonderful new economic world, and it well may be, those companies are not examples of it. Which the politicians talking (or, more accurately, their speechwriters) don’t know — having no clue about technology. Not that being clueless causes them to refrain from pontificating on the subject.
russell: …[they claim that] technical innovation is ushering in a wonderful new economic world.
And companies like Uber, and AirBnB, and Etsy, and Thumbtack, et al, are presented as examples
Unfortunately, even if technical innovation is ushering a wonderful new economic world, and it well may be, those companies are not examples of it. Which the politicians talking (or, more accurately, their speechwriters) don’t know — having no clue about technology. Not that being clueless causes them to refrain from pontificating on the subject.
Look, not to be a jerk, but here’s the context:
Snarki’s 8:12 last night was dead on.
(modern, corporate) capitalism, socialism, communism, are all creatures of the industrial revolution.
I think much of that is based on the need for relatively massive amounts of capital in order to produce and distribute goods competitively after the industrial revolution. A small group of people could not reasonably produce and sell cars, for example, but a large factory could.
I think, to some extent, that’s changing.
Then, on to examples like Etsy, AirBnB, Uber.
Then:
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas. I don’t think that will require, or even encourage, a shift away from capitalism. I think it will just lead to smaller capital interests.
Long story short, I don’t think capitalism is going anywhere. I think, if we play our cards right, increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
You know what your intent was, and I’m not here to claim you were saying something you didn’t intend to say.
That said, I don’t think that reading your comment to be about something more than “it’s nice that people can make a few bucks off of their apartments and cars” was a stretch.
I’m happy to leave it there.
Look, not to be a jerk, but here’s the context:
Snarki’s 8:12 last night was dead on.
(modern, corporate) capitalism, socialism, communism, are all creatures of the industrial revolution.
I think much of that is based on the need for relatively massive amounts of capital in order to produce and distribute goods competitively after the industrial revolution. A small group of people could not reasonably produce and sell cars, for example, but a large factory could.
I think, to some extent, that’s changing.
Then, on to examples like Etsy, AirBnB, Uber.
Then:
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas. I don’t think that will require, or even encourage, a shift away from capitalism. I think it will just lead to smaller capital interests.
Long story short, I don’t think capitalism is going anywhere. I think, if we play our cards right, increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
You know what your intent was, and I’m not here to claim you were saying something you didn’t intend to say.
That said, I don’t think that reading your comment to be about something more than “it’s nice that people can make a few bucks off of their apartments and cars” was a stretch.
I’m happy to leave it there.
Look, not to be a jerk, but here’s the context:
Snarki’s 8:12 last night was dead on.
(modern, corporate) capitalism, socialism, communism, are all creatures of the industrial revolution.
I think much of that is based on the need for relatively massive amounts of capital in order to produce and distribute goods competitively after the industrial revolution. A small group of people could not reasonably produce and sell cars, for example, but a large factory could.
I think, to some extent, that’s changing.
Then, on to examples like Etsy, AirBnB, Uber.
Then:
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas. I don’t think that will require, or even encourage, a shift away from capitalism. I think it will just lead to smaller capital interests.
Long story short, I don’t think capitalism is going anywhere. I think, if we play our cards right, increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
You know what your intent was, and I’m not here to claim you were saying something you didn’t intend to say.
That said, I don’t think that reading your comment to be about something more than “it’s nice that people can make a few bucks off of their apartments and cars” was a stretch.
I’m happy to leave it there.
Blockchain technology spells the end of middlemen: The technology behind bitcoin could disrupt every transaction, from money transfers to real estate, by cutting out third parties
Blockchain technology spells the end of middlemen: The technology behind bitcoin could disrupt every transaction, from money transfers to real estate, by cutting out third parties
Blockchain technology spells the end of middlemen: The technology behind bitcoin could disrupt every transaction, from money transfers to real estate, by cutting out third parties
I’m sorry I didn’t get to this thread earlier, or I could have hazarded a guess (erroneous) that McKT’s “vitamin V” referred to Viagra.
I could also have chimed in on the dangerous overseas travel experiences not just with riding on provincial Philippine jeepneys but flying in a Chinese plane in which a couple of our seats were not actually securely bolted to the floor.
(I.e., I’ll see your “no seatbelts in my taxi” and raise you a bunch.)
I’m sorry I didn’t get to this thread earlier, or I could have hazarded a guess (erroneous) that McKT’s “vitamin V” referred to Viagra.
I could also have chimed in on the dangerous overseas travel experiences not just with riding on provincial Philippine jeepneys but flying in a Chinese plane in which a couple of our seats were not actually securely bolted to the floor.
(I.e., I’ll see your “no seatbelts in my taxi” and raise you a bunch.)
I’m sorry I didn’t get to this thread earlier, or I could have hazarded a guess (erroneous) that McKT’s “vitamin V” referred to Viagra.
I could also have chimed in on the dangerous overseas travel experiences not just with riding on provincial Philippine jeepneys but flying in a Chinese plane in which a couple of our seats were not actually securely bolted to the floor.
(I.e., I’ll see your “no seatbelts in my taxi” and raise you a bunch.)
dr ngo, CAAC (Chinese Airline Always Crashes)?
dr ngo, CAAC (Chinese Airline Always Crashes)?
dr ngo, CAAC (Chinese Airline Always Crashes)?
I am interested in the reaction to Uber an AirBnb only because they challenges notions that I think are held across the political spectrum. Uber is clearly an end run around safety protections, licensing etc. So less government folks should be for it. It is also the newest exchange economy model that many progressive economists should be for. Yet, there is trepidation on both sides because bypassing safety regulation is uncomfortable for some progressives while essentially empowering people to break licensing laws is really uncomfortable for conservatives.
There will need to be a new paradigm politically/sociologically to accommodate what I see as the ongoing creation of cognitive dissonance in our current accepted views.
I am interested in the reaction to Uber an AirBnb only because they challenges notions that I think are held across the political spectrum. Uber is clearly an end run around safety protections, licensing etc. So less government folks should be for it. It is also the newest exchange economy model that many progressive economists should be for. Yet, there is trepidation on both sides because bypassing safety regulation is uncomfortable for some progressives while essentially empowering people to break licensing laws is really uncomfortable for conservatives.
There will need to be a new paradigm politically/sociologically to accommodate what I see as the ongoing creation of cognitive dissonance in our current accepted views.
I am interested in the reaction to Uber an AirBnb only because they challenges notions that I think are held across the political spectrum. Uber is clearly an end run around safety protections, licensing etc. So less government folks should be for it. It is also the newest exchange economy model that many progressive economists should be for. Yet, there is trepidation on both sides because bypassing safety regulation is uncomfortable for some progressives while essentially empowering people to break licensing laws is really uncomfortable for conservatives.
There will need to be a new paradigm politically/sociologically to accommodate what I see as the ongoing creation of cognitive dissonance in our current accepted views.
Part of the challenge with things like Uber is that they don’t fit the pattern. That is, one one hand, they are unlicensed and therefore potentially lacking safety protections, etc. On the other hand, anyone who has taken both regular cabs and Uber is aware that the Uber vehicles are routinely just as safe, and indeed far less grubby, than regular cabs. Not to mention less likely to take wandering routes to run up the fare.
Similar differences occur between AirBnB and hotels (at least those featuring roughly similar rates). AirBnB may be closer to a Bed & Breakfast, I suppose.**
What it comes down to, I suspect, is that both of the new approaches appeal to those who feel capable of doing their own evaluation (or acepting a Yelp evaluation) of the service provider. If you can’t tell that a vehicle is in decent running order, a regular cab gives you security; if you generally can, then Uber saves you a ton of money — because it isn’t operating in a government-enforced monopoly.
** I’m reminded of a B&B I stayed at many years ago near Salt Lake City. We were graciously greeted. The room was great. Breakfast was quite good. And we never saw anyone over the age of 15 the whole time we were there. If there was an adult even on premises, you couldn’t prove it by me. For a hotel, that would be unthinkable. But for a B&B….
Part of the challenge with things like Uber is that they don’t fit the pattern. That is, one one hand, they are unlicensed and therefore potentially lacking safety protections, etc. On the other hand, anyone who has taken both regular cabs and Uber is aware that the Uber vehicles are routinely just as safe, and indeed far less grubby, than regular cabs. Not to mention less likely to take wandering routes to run up the fare.
Similar differences occur between AirBnB and hotels (at least those featuring roughly similar rates). AirBnB may be closer to a Bed & Breakfast, I suppose.**
What it comes down to, I suspect, is that both of the new approaches appeal to those who feel capable of doing their own evaluation (or acepting a Yelp evaluation) of the service provider. If you can’t tell that a vehicle is in decent running order, a regular cab gives you security; if you generally can, then Uber saves you a ton of money — because it isn’t operating in a government-enforced monopoly.
** I’m reminded of a B&B I stayed at many years ago near Salt Lake City. We were graciously greeted. The room was great. Breakfast was quite good. And we never saw anyone over the age of 15 the whole time we were there. If there was an adult even on premises, you couldn’t prove it by me. For a hotel, that would be unthinkable. But for a B&B….
Part of the challenge with things like Uber is that they don’t fit the pattern. That is, one one hand, they are unlicensed and therefore potentially lacking safety protections, etc. On the other hand, anyone who has taken both regular cabs and Uber is aware that the Uber vehicles are routinely just as safe, and indeed far less grubby, than regular cabs. Not to mention less likely to take wandering routes to run up the fare.
Similar differences occur between AirBnB and hotels (at least those featuring roughly similar rates). AirBnB may be closer to a Bed & Breakfast, I suppose.**
What it comes down to, I suspect, is that both of the new approaches appeal to those who feel capable of doing their own evaluation (or acepting a Yelp evaluation) of the service provider. If you can’t tell that a vehicle is in decent running order, a regular cab gives you security; if you generally can, then Uber saves you a ton of money — because it isn’t operating in a government-enforced monopoly.
** I’m reminded of a B&B I stayed at many years ago near Salt Lake City. We were graciously greeted. The room was great. Breakfast was quite good. And we never saw anyone over the age of 15 the whole time we were there. If there was an adult even on premises, you couldn’t prove it by me. For a hotel, that would be unthinkable. But for a B&B….
Watch a building go up. Nearly all of the components are placed by hand. You need big factories to produce all the marvelous goodies we enjoy…and envision for the future. Building them and the physical infrastructure to support them will require hands.
When they automate sex workers, you will know the utopia has arrived.
Watch a building go up. Nearly all of the components are placed by hand. You need big factories to produce all the marvelous goodies we enjoy…and envision for the future. Building them and the physical infrastructure to support them will require hands.
When they automate sex workers, you will know the utopia has arrived.
Watch a building go up. Nearly all of the components are placed by hand. You need big factories to produce all the marvelous goodies we enjoy…and envision for the future. Building them and the physical infrastructure to support them will require hands.
When they automate sex workers, you will know the utopia has arrived.
Uber vs. its workforce…some things never change.
Uber vs. its workforce…some things never change.
Uber vs. its workforce…some things never change.
Marty is mostly right. I’m not sure that “empowering people to break licensing laws is really uncomfortable for conservatives”, but otherwise I agree that our “current accepted views” are pretty dissonant.
In my naive view, Uber is to would-be chauffeurs what a talent agency is to would-be actors: a middleman between many buyers and many sellers. Middlemen can be a boon to civilization or parasites on society, depending on many particulars.
One of those is monopoly: a middleman with a monopoly is worse than your average monopolist. Let a hundred Ubers bloom, competing against each other to offer sellers or buyers or both a better deal, and I’ll be happy to watch the fun. Naturally, the next thing will be a proliferation of what you might call micro-travel agencies pushing apps that check hundreds of ride-sharing sites to find you the best deal, which will be even more fun. I doubt that all those companies put together would be valued at $50B by The Market, though. The Market is willing to pay a premium for monopoly power, not workaday competition.
Which brings me to a question I’ve been trying to formulate for a couple of days now:
Are investment bankers and hedge fund managers the only true capitalists?
It’s been many centuries since the time when “capital” meant, in English, such things as a sawmill, a ship, a printing press — things that are not land or labor but nevertheless “produce value”. And it’s been a long time since “capitalist” has meant something different from, and more abstract than, “industrialist”. Consider JP Morgan versus Henry Ford, or Warren Buffett versus Bill Gates.
I’m just asking how we define words, here. So a follow-up question: do you have to own any capital to be a capitalist?
Anyway, turning to the gig economy: I have argued for years that the best way to encourage entrepreneurship is public-option health insurance. Living gig-to-gig is, in fact, entrepreneurship. Something else that would help: a more steeply graduated tax system, meaning lower tax rates at the bottom and higher tax rates at the top than we have at present. I have lived gig-to-gig for over 20 years now. Although my gigs tend to be longer-term and better-paid than an Uber driver’s or a jazz musician’s, they come when they come and I’ve had lean years as well as fat ones. Over two decades, the steeper graduation I’m talking about would have cost me roughly the same total tax dollars, but made the lean years easier to live through.
–TP
Marty is mostly right. I’m not sure that “empowering people to break licensing laws is really uncomfortable for conservatives”, but otherwise I agree that our “current accepted views” are pretty dissonant.
In my naive view, Uber is to would-be chauffeurs what a talent agency is to would-be actors: a middleman between many buyers and many sellers. Middlemen can be a boon to civilization or parasites on society, depending on many particulars.
One of those is monopoly: a middleman with a monopoly is worse than your average monopolist. Let a hundred Ubers bloom, competing against each other to offer sellers or buyers or both a better deal, and I’ll be happy to watch the fun. Naturally, the next thing will be a proliferation of what you might call micro-travel agencies pushing apps that check hundreds of ride-sharing sites to find you the best deal, which will be even more fun. I doubt that all those companies put together would be valued at $50B by The Market, though. The Market is willing to pay a premium for monopoly power, not workaday competition.
Which brings me to a question I’ve been trying to formulate for a couple of days now:
Are investment bankers and hedge fund managers the only true capitalists?
It’s been many centuries since the time when “capital” meant, in English, such things as a sawmill, a ship, a printing press — things that are not land or labor but nevertheless “produce value”. And it’s been a long time since “capitalist” has meant something different from, and more abstract than, “industrialist”. Consider JP Morgan versus Henry Ford, or Warren Buffett versus Bill Gates.
I’m just asking how we define words, here. So a follow-up question: do you have to own any capital to be a capitalist?
Anyway, turning to the gig economy: I have argued for years that the best way to encourage entrepreneurship is public-option health insurance. Living gig-to-gig is, in fact, entrepreneurship. Something else that would help: a more steeply graduated tax system, meaning lower tax rates at the bottom and higher tax rates at the top than we have at present. I have lived gig-to-gig for over 20 years now. Although my gigs tend to be longer-term and better-paid than an Uber driver’s or a jazz musician’s, they come when they come and I’ve had lean years as well as fat ones. Over two decades, the steeper graduation I’m talking about would have cost me roughly the same total tax dollars, but made the lean years easier to live through.
–TP
Marty is mostly right. I’m not sure that “empowering people to break licensing laws is really uncomfortable for conservatives”, but otherwise I agree that our “current accepted views” are pretty dissonant.
In my naive view, Uber is to would-be chauffeurs what a talent agency is to would-be actors: a middleman between many buyers and many sellers. Middlemen can be a boon to civilization or parasites on society, depending on many particulars.
One of those is monopoly: a middleman with a monopoly is worse than your average monopolist. Let a hundred Ubers bloom, competing against each other to offer sellers or buyers or both a better deal, and I’ll be happy to watch the fun. Naturally, the next thing will be a proliferation of what you might call micro-travel agencies pushing apps that check hundreds of ride-sharing sites to find you the best deal, which will be even more fun. I doubt that all those companies put together would be valued at $50B by The Market, though. The Market is willing to pay a premium for monopoly power, not workaday competition.
Which brings me to a question I’ve been trying to formulate for a couple of days now:
Are investment bankers and hedge fund managers the only true capitalists?
It’s been many centuries since the time when “capital” meant, in English, such things as a sawmill, a ship, a printing press — things that are not land or labor but nevertheless “produce value”. And it’s been a long time since “capitalist” has meant something different from, and more abstract than, “industrialist”. Consider JP Morgan versus Henry Ford, or Warren Buffett versus Bill Gates.
I’m just asking how we define words, here. So a follow-up question: do you have to own any capital to be a capitalist?
Anyway, turning to the gig economy: I have argued for years that the best way to encourage entrepreneurship is public-option health insurance. Living gig-to-gig is, in fact, entrepreneurship. Something else that would help: a more steeply graduated tax system, meaning lower tax rates at the bottom and higher tax rates at the top than we have at present. I have lived gig-to-gig for over 20 years now. Although my gigs tend to be longer-term and better-paid than an Uber driver’s or a jazz musician’s, they come when they come and I’ve had lean years as well as fat ones. Over two decades, the steeper graduation I’m talking about would have cost me roughly the same total tax dollars, but made the lean years easier to live through.
–TP
I wondeer when Uber will figure out that a better business model would be to charge the drivers for the service of connecting them to potential riders. At which point, there is no argument about whether they should be considered employees or contractors — because they clearly would be neither, they would be customers. And Uber could (for an additional fee) deal with credit card payment transactions.
I wondeer when Uber will figure out that a better business model would be to charge the drivers for the service of connecting them to potential riders. At which point, there is no argument about whether they should be considered employees or contractors — because they clearly would be neither, they would be customers. And Uber could (for an additional fee) deal with credit card payment transactions.
I wondeer when Uber will figure out that a better business model would be to charge the drivers for the service of connecting them to potential riders. At which point, there is no argument about whether they should be considered employees or contractors — because they clearly would be neither, they would be customers. And Uber could (for an additional fee) deal with credit card payment transactions.
You know what your intent was, and I’m not here to claim you were saying something you didn’t intend to say.
I appreciate that.
That said, I don’t think that reading your comment to be about something more than “it’s nice that people can make a few bucks off of their apartments and cars” was a stretch.
As far as that statement goes, good. I am trying to say more then that. There is just *a lot* of daylight between nice to make a few bucks and ‘robust basis for the economy’.
I’m happy to leave it there.
Fair enough. I’ll make one more attempt, and I’m comfortable dropping it.
So, I want to point out two key parts of what I said and you just quoted:
I think, to some extent, that’s changing.
and
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas.
and
I think, if we play our cards right, increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
Emphasis added to drive home the point that I am not, was not, and am unlikely to make the argument that Uber is the rock upon which the future economy will be built. Hyperbole added to (hopefully) keep the conversation lighthearted.
What I am saying, is that markets with low barriers to entrance and exit are really good for people who are chronically un/underemployed, or people for whatever reason can’t do/don’t want the regular 9-5, vested pension, 20 years at the same company. As it so happens, a large portion of my friends and family fall into that category, and contract work is great for them. It keeps them busy, it gives them some money, and it holds off the severe depression that is associated longterm unemployment (http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/05/news/economy/longterm-unemployed-depression/ ). All good, and imo, great for adding fluidity to the economy and preventing resources from lying fallow for too long. Transformative? I would say so, for the people who are in those situations.
If your point is that is not a plan for employing the entire working population, great, no argument from me. I never said (or at least never tried to say) otherwise. Driving for Uber is not going to replace blue/white collar jobs writ large. Nor did waiting tables. And to draw a corollary between what I said:
As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving).
If I were to say instead:
As another example, waiting tables allows people to gain income on a temporary basis.
Would you think I was talking about replacing the entire economy with waitstaff? I like to think probably not. I am likewise not suggesting everybody can just start driving for Uber.
Finally, I want to jump over to fabrication, and expand on what I was saying there.
As an example, a 3D printing shop opened up near where I work a few years back. While a lot of their work seems to be hobby/toys/etc that rely on the novelty of the device, they also do a lot of work for local startups. Prototypes, custom jigs, etc. A colleague of mine recently built a custom jig that included a relatively complex transmission. The 3D printing cost him a couple hundred bucks, while hiring a machinist to do similar work would have readily run into the 1000s.
As another example, someone I went to grad school with built a 5-axis for cutting airfoil shapes. Capital costs were in the low thousands, and he converted an enormously expensive and specialized process (he designs drones) into something that can be done in a garage. His goal was to start building drones for custom uses. While I’ve since lost touch with him and don’t know if he was successful business-wise, I can see how he would at least have a shot.
Those kind of drops in required capital puts much larger capabilities into the hands of small, capital-poor businesses, especially startups. Again, a good thing imo.
Does this mean I’m suggesting you should dump investments in Ford and GE because large scale manufacturing is a thing of the past? No, of course not. I’m just saying in some arenas (some!) capital costs are dropping precipitously, opening up markets to smaller players. I am perfectly comfortable describing that as transformative *for the affected markets, not for the entire economy at once.*
I’m perfectly happy to discuss why I think those things, but if you still don’t get what I’m saying, I’m also happy to drop it.
You know what your intent was, and I’m not here to claim you were saying something you didn’t intend to say.
I appreciate that.
That said, I don’t think that reading your comment to be about something more than “it’s nice that people can make a few bucks off of their apartments and cars” was a stretch.
As far as that statement goes, good. I am trying to say more then that. There is just *a lot* of daylight between nice to make a few bucks and ‘robust basis for the economy’.
I’m happy to leave it there.
Fair enough. I’ll make one more attempt, and I’m comfortable dropping it.
So, I want to point out two key parts of what I said and you just quoted:
I think, to some extent, that’s changing.
and
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas.
and
I think, if we play our cards right, increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
Emphasis added to drive home the point that I am not, was not, and am unlikely to make the argument that Uber is the rock upon which the future economy will be built. Hyperbole added to (hopefully) keep the conversation lighthearted.
What I am saying, is that markets with low barriers to entrance and exit are really good for people who are chronically un/underemployed, or people for whatever reason can’t do/don’t want the regular 9-5, vested pension, 20 years at the same company. As it so happens, a large portion of my friends and family fall into that category, and contract work is great for them. It keeps them busy, it gives them some money, and it holds off the severe depression that is associated longterm unemployment (http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/05/news/economy/longterm-unemployed-depression/ ). All good, and imo, great for adding fluidity to the economy and preventing resources from lying fallow for too long. Transformative? I would say so, for the people who are in those situations.
If your point is that is not a plan for employing the entire working population, great, no argument from me. I never said (or at least never tried to say) otherwise. Driving for Uber is not going to replace blue/white collar jobs writ large. Nor did waiting tables. And to draw a corollary between what I said:
As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving).
If I were to say instead:
As another example, waiting tables allows people to gain income on a temporary basis.
Would you think I was talking about replacing the entire economy with waitstaff? I like to think probably not. I am likewise not suggesting everybody can just start driving for Uber.
Finally, I want to jump over to fabrication, and expand on what I was saying there.
As an example, a 3D printing shop opened up near where I work a few years back. While a lot of their work seems to be hobby/toys/etc that rely on the novelty of the device, they also do a lot of work for local startups. Prototypes, custom jigs, etc. A colleague of mine recently built a custom jig that included a relatively complex transmission. The 3D printing cost him a couple hundred bucks, while hiring a machinist to do similar work would have readily run into the 1000s.
As another example, someone I went to grad school with built a 5-axis for cutting airfoil shapes. Capital costs were in the low thousands, and he converted an enormously expensive and specialized process (he designs drones) into something that can be done in a garage. His goal was to start building drones for custom uses. While I’ve since lost touch with him and don’t know if he was successful business-wise, I can see how he would at least have a shot.
Those kind of drops in required capital puts much larger capabilities into the hands of small, capital-poor businesses, especially startups. Again, a good thing imo.
Does this mean I’m suggesting you should dump investments in Ford and GE because large scale manufacturing is a thing of the past? No, of course not. I’m just saying in some arenas (some!) capital costs are dropping precipitously, opening up markets to smaller players. I am perfectly comfortable describing that as transformative *for the affected markets, not for the entire economy at once.*
I’m perfectly happy to discuss why I think those things, but if you still don’t get what I’m saying, I’m also happy to drop it.
You know what your intent was, and I’m not here to claim you were saying something you didn’t intend to say.
I appreciate that.
That said, I don’t think that reading your comment to be about something more than “it’s nice that people can make a few bucks off of their apartments and cars” was a stretch.
As far as that statement goes, good. I am trying to say more then that. There is just *a lot* of daylight between nice to make a few bucks and ‘robust basis for the economy’.
I’m happy to leave it there.
Fair enough. I’ll make one more attempt, and I’m comfortable dropping it.
So, I want to point out two key parts of what I said and you just quoted:
I think, to some extent, that’s changing.
and
As fabrication/automation technologies keep coming along, I think we’ll start shifting further away from the big corporate form towards smaller producers, at least in some economic arenas.
and
I think, if we play our cards right, increased automation and information will spread the capital around a little more.
Emphasis added to drive home the point that I am not, was not, and am unlikely to make the argument that Uber is the rock upon which the future economy will be built. Hyperbole added to (hopefully) keep the conversation lighthearted.
What I am saying, is that markets with low barriers to entrance and exit are really good for people who are chronically un/underemployed, or people for whatever reason can’t do/don’t want the regular 9-5, vested pension, 20 years at the same company. As it so happens, a large portion of my friends and family fall into that category, and contract work is great for them. It keeps them busy, it gives them some money, and it holds off the severe depression that is associated longterm unemployment (http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/05/news/economy/longterm-unemployed-depression/ ). All good, and imo, great for adding fluidity to the economy and preventing resources from lying fallow for too long. Transformative? I would say so, for the people who are in those situations.
If your point is that is not a plan for employing the entire working population, great, no argument from me. I never said (or at least never tried to say) otherwise. Driving for Uber is not going to replace blue/white collar jobs writ large. Nor did waiting tables. And to draw a corollary between what I said:
As another example, AirBnB and Uber allow people to gain income on temporary under-utilization of their capital (homes, cars) and labor (driving).
If I were to say instead:
As another example, waiting tables allows people to gain income on a temporary basis.
Would you think I was talking about replacing the entire economy with waitstaff? I like to think probably not. I am likewise not suggesting everybody can just start driving for Uber.
Finally, I want to jump over to fabrication, and expand on what I was saying there.
As an example, a 3D printing shop opened up near where I work a few years back. While a lot of their work seems to be hobby/toys/etc that rely on the novelty of the device, they also do a lot of work for local startups. Prototypes, custom jigs, etc. A colleague of mine recently built a custom jig that included a relatively complex transmission. The 3D printing cost him a couple hundred bucks, while hiring a machinist to do similar work would have readily run into the 1000s.
As another example, someone I went to grad school with built a 5-axis for cutting airfoil shapes. Capital costs were in the low thousands, and he converted an enormously expensive and specialized process (he designs drones) into something that can be done in a garage. His goal was to start building drones for custom uses. While I’ve since lost touch with him and don’t know if he was successful business-wise, I can see how he would at least have a shot.
Those kind of drops in required capital puts much larger capabilities into the hands of small, capital-poor businesses, especially startups. Again, a good thing imo.
Does this mean I’m suggesting you should dump investments in Ford and GE because large scale manufacturing is a thing of the past? No, of course not. I’m just saying in some arenas (some!) capital costs are dropping precipitously, opening up markets to smaller players. I am perfectly comfortable describing that as transformative *for the affected markets, not for the entire economy at once.*
I’m perfectly happy to discuss why I think those things, but if you still don’t get what I’m saying, I’m also happy to drop it.
Let a hundred Ubers bloom, competing against each other to offer sellers or buyers or both a better deal, and I’ll be happy to watch the fun.
Not quite a hundred, but they are competing with Lyft and Sidecar. Drivers can actually work for all 3 at once.
And that’s actually one of my major problems with how highly Uber is valued…there isn’t that much of a barrier to entry. If someone wants to build a better rideshare app, its not going to be hard to get drivers, *because Uber can’t prevent their drivers from working for other companies*.
Obviously, I think that’s a good thing. It’s just not good for their $50B valuation.
Let a hundred Ubers bloom, competing against each other to offer sellers or buyers or both a better deal, and I’ll be happy to watch the fun.
Not quite a hundred, but they are competing with Lyft and Sidecar. Drivers can actually work for all 3 at once.
And that’s actually one of my major problems with how highly Uber is valued…there isn’t that much of a barrier to entry. If someone wants to build a better rideshare app, its not going to be hard to get drivers, *because Uber can’t prevent their drivers from working for other companies*.
Obviously, I think that’s a good thing. It’s just not good for their $50B valuation.
Let a hundred Ubers bloom, competing against each other to offer sellers or buyers or both a better deal, and I’ll be happy to watch the fun.
Not quite a hundred, but they are competing with Lyft and Sidecar. Drivers can actually work for all 3 at once.
And that’s actually one of my major problems with how highly Uber is valued…there isn’t that much of a barrier to entry. If someone wants to build a better rideshare app, its not going to be hard to get drivers, *because Uber can’t prevent their drivers from working for other companies*.
Obviously, I think that’s a good thing. It’s just not good for their $50B valuation.
How To Earn a Six-Figure Income in the Sharing Economy
How To Earn a Six-Figure Income in the Sharing Economy
How To Earn a Six-Figure Income in the Sharing Economy
I ran through the linked article and searched for “Uber”. Didn’t find it. Post-capitalism is also about services, but more about knowledge, information, communication and Gawker may be a better paradigm than Uber.
Neo-liberalism or post-capitalism is, to use Marxist jargon, about the real subsumption of social reproduction and the commodification of affect. In Foucauldian terms, it is about making bodies (biopolitics) in sites of capitalist production and sources of surplus/profits.
Disagreeing somewhat with Mason, post-capitalism isn’t about “capital” disappearing, but about capital subsuming, eating everything so that it can no longer be differentiated from labor, recreation, and individual emotion. Your socialized rage against the machine creates twitter and facebook profits, as does your family photos and affections.
Some theory posits that when capital is completely triumphant, and we all finally accept our total commodification, and see ourselves as nothing but things, then socialism emerges. Some say it has always been thus, that labor seeing itself as free and human was the delusion that supported capitalism all along.
I ran through the linked article and searched for “Uber”. Didn’t find it. Post-capitalism is also about services, but more about knowledge, information, communication and Gawker may be a better paradigm than Uber.
Neo-liberalism or post-capitalism is, to use Marxist jargon, about the real subsumption of social reproduction and the commodification of affect. In Foucauldian terms, it is about making bodies (biopolitics) in sites of capitalist production and sources of surplus/profits.
Disagreeing somewhat with Mason, post-capitalism isn’t about “capital” disappearing, but about capital subsuming, eating everything so that it can no longer be differentiated from labor, recreation, and individual emotion. Your socialized rage against the machine creates twitter and facebook profits, as does your family photos and affections.
Some theory posits that when capital is completely triumphant, and we all finally accept our total commodification, and see ourselves as nothing but things, then socialism emerges. Some say it has always been thus, that labor seeing itself as free and human was the delusion that supported capitalism all along.
I ran through the linked article and searched for “Uber”. Didn’t find it. Post-capitalism is also about services, but more about knowledge, information, communication and Gawker may be a better paradigm than Uber.
Neo-liberalism or post-capitalism is, to use Marxist jargon, about the real subsumption of social reproduction and the commodification of affect. In Foucauldian terms, it is about making bodies (biopolitics) in sites of capitalist production and sources of surplus/profits.
Disagreeing somewhat with Mason, post-capitalism isn’t about “capital” disappearing, but about capital subsuming, eating everything so that it can no longer be differentiated from labor, recreation, and individual emotion. Your socialized rage against the machine creates twitter and facebook profits, as does your family photos and affections.
Some theory posits that when capital is completely triumphant, and we all finally accept our total commodification, and see ourselves as nothing but things, then socialism emerges. Some say it has always been thus, that labor seeing itself as free and human was the delusion that supported capitalism all along.
Getting By in the ‘Gig Economy’: Part-Time Jobs That Pay
Getting By in the ‘Gig Economy’: Part-Time Jobs That Pay
Getting By in the ‘Gig Economy’: Part-Time Jobs That Pay
Sounds like someone at the Salt Lake City B&B could be charged with statutory breakfasting.
“When they automate sex workers, you will know the utopia has arrived.”
Utopia, thy name is Android Asuna:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841273/The-hyper-real-robots-replace-receptionists-pop-stars-sex-dolls-Unnervingly-human-androids-coming-future-near-you.html
If sex is classified as work, when does my unemployment compensation start?
re bobbyp’s other link regarding UBER, maybe the company could encourage their drivers, who, natch, are treated like renewable garbage by their employer, to provide sex to their passengers as well, as a way of supplementing their driving income.
I mean, after all, aren’t many sex workers now contacted via smartphone to show up somewhere at a certain time (sometimes performing their work in a car) and coo and act as if they love their jobs so the johns get to their pleasurable destination and the pimps don’t mistreat the prostitute if she complains about her working conditions.
What’s the diff? David Vitter pays for rides too and I’m sure loves (too much) the “new economy”.
I think we’re getting closer to a definition of Capitalism hereabouts, which sounds like my definition of so-called humans who exploit other humans (we are FORCED to work according to others’ conditions, are we not?) as subhumans who have sex with live pork, but the pork are too cowed to carry creampies in self-defense when they are exploited at work.
That Obama’s former political director David Plouffe has now lended his name to UBER and its exploitive practices leads me to the bi-partisan, objective (this for Marty’s et al’s sake as a show of good faith) conclusion that when payback and blowback finally come in this country, it will divvy out rough, dangerous judgement to the parties of both parts.
Also, Russell’s depiction of his musician buddies sickens me. Since Harry Truman suggested a national health care scheme in 1948-51, everything attempted in that direction has been torpedoed by the usual suspects for 60 years, until the completely inadequate and quaretr-measure Obamacare was instituted.
It was the choice of the American people that a trumpet player who loses all of his teeth and a musician who has a stroke or a poet who comes with MS, or an Uber driver who has a heart attack, or a waitress who goes blind should have to be punished by living without health insurance and a pittance of income support after being quickly bankrupted by their medical bills and their inability to work.
Exploited and then thrown away. Capitalized upon and spat out.
Tony p’s scheme sounds like the right direction.
Yeah, I know, all of these people could have “chosen” to become accountants, but since boredom doesn’t qualify as a disability, the compensations are weak.
We’re a f’cking disgrace, including me, for letting that happen all of these decades without burning the house down to the foundation.
At least ISIS proudly puts its subhuman degradations on video for all to see, while we strut around proclaiming our exceptionalism.
We’re cold-blooded killers, looking for the main exploitative weakness in our fellow human beings just like everybody else around the globe.
When the UBER henchman laughed in the union guy’s face (see bobbyp’s link), I wish I had been there to show the guy what real laughter feels like when it’s choked on, just as I wanted to be the Census worker that would-be murderer Erick Erickson wanted to threaten with his wife’s shotgun in 2010.
Also, on a lighter note, it kills me that we refer to UBER driving and other nothingburger employment as “entrepreneurship”.
What, we’re so language-deficient that we have to rely on the French to speak for us.
“Merde” would be a closer translation.
As in: eat your “Merde Fries”, or maybe eat your “Freedom Merde”.
And, yes, yes, America is a great place to live compared to much of the globe, so spare me.
Being a little better than much of the globe is a low bar.
Sounds like someone at the Salt Lake City B&B could be charged with statutory breakfasting.
“When they automate sex workers, you will know the utopia has arrived.”
Utopia, thy name is Android Asuna:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841273/The-hyper-real-robots-replace-receptionists-pop-stars-sex-dolls-Unnervingly-human-androids-coming-future-near-you.html
If sex is classified as work, when does my unemployment compensation start?
re bobbyp’s other link regarding UBER, maybe the company could encourage their drivers, who, natch, are treated like renewable garbage by their employer, to provide sex to their passengers as well, as a way of supplementing their driving income.
I mean, after all, aren’t many sex workers now contacted via smartphone to show up somewhere at a certain time (sometimes performing their work in a car) and coo and act as if they love their jobs so the johns get to their pleasurable destination and the pimps don’t mistreat the prostitute if she complains about her working conditions.
What’s the diff? David Vitter pays for rides too and I’m sure loves (too much) the “new economy”.
I think we’re getting closer to a definition of Capitalism hereabouts, which sounds like my definition of so-called humans who exploit other humans (we are FORCED to work according to others’ conditions, are we not?) as subhumans who have sex with live pork, but the pork are too cowed to carry creampies in self-defense when they are exploited at work.
That Obama’s former political director David Plouffe has now lended his name to UBER and its exploitive practices leads me to the bi-partisan, objective (this for Marty’s et al’s sake as a show of good faith) conclusion that when payback and blowback finally come in this country, it will divvy out rough, dangerous judgement to the parties of both parts.
Also, Russell’s depiction of his musician buddies sickens me. Since Harry Truman suggested a national health care scheme in 1948-51, everything attempted in that direction has been torpedoed by the usual suspects for 60 years, until the completely inadequate and quaretr-measure Obamacare was instituted.
It was the choice of the American people that a trumpet player who loses all of his teeth and a musician who has a stroke or a poet who comes with MS, or an Uber driver who has a heart attack, or a waitress who goes blind should have to be punished by living without health insurance and a pittance of income support after being quickly bankrupted by their medical bills and their inability to work.
Exploited and then thrown away. Capitalized upon and spat out.
Tony p’s scheme sounds like the right direction.
Yeah, I know, all of these people could have “chosen” to become accountants, but since boredom doesn’t qualify as a disability, the compensations are weak.
We’re a f’cking disgrace, including me, for letting that happen all of these decades without burning the house down to the foundation.
At least ISIS proudly puts its subhuman degradations on video for all to see, while we strut around proclaiming our exceptionalism.
We’re cold-blooded killers, looking for the main exploitative weakness in our fellow human beings just like everybody else around the globe.
When the UBER henchman laughed in the union guy’s face (see bobbyp’s link), I wish I had been there to show the guy what real laughter feels like when it’s choked on, just as I wanted to be the Census worker that would-be murderer Erick Erickson wanted to threaten with his wife’s shotgun in 2010.
Also, on a lighter note, it kills me that we refer to UBER driving and other nothingburger employment as “entrepreneurship”.
What, we’re so language-deficient that we have to rely on the French to speak for us.
“Merde” would be a closer translation.
As in: eat your “Merde Fries”, or maybe eat your “Freedom Merde”.
And, yes, yes, America is a great place to live compared to much of the globe, so spare me.
Being a little better than much of the globe is a low bar.
Sounds like someone at the Salt Lake City B&B could be charged with statutory breakfasting.
“When they automate sex workers, you will know the utopia has arrived.”
Utopia, thy name is Android Asuna:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841273/The-hyper-real-robots-replace-receptionists-pop-stars-sex-dolls-Unnervingly-human-androids-coming-future-near-you.html
If sex is classified as work, when does my unemployment compensation start?
re bobbyp’s other link regarding UBER, maybe the company could encourage their drivers, who, natch, are treated like renewable garbage by their employer, to provide sex to their passengers as well, as a way of supplementing their driving income.
I mean, after all, aren’t many sex workers now contacted via smartphone to show up somewhere at a certain time (sometimes performing their work in a car) and coo and act as if they love their jobs so the johns get to their pleasurable destination and the pimps don’t mistreat the prostitute if she complains about her working conditions.
What’s the diff? David Vitter pays for rides too and I’m sure loves (too much) the “new economy”.
I think we’re getting closer to a definition of Capitalism hereabouts, which sounds like my definition of so-called humans who exploit other humans (we are FORCED to work according to others’ conditions, are we not?) as subhumans who have sex with live pork, but the pork are too cowed to carry creampies in self-defense when they are exploited at work.
That Obama’s former political director David Plouffe has now lended his name to UBER and its exploitive practices leads me to the bi-partisan, objective (this for Marty’s et al’s sake as a show of good faith) conclusion that when payback and blowback finally come in this country, it will divvy out rough, dangerous judgement to the parties of both parts.
Also, Russell’s depiction of his musician buddies sickens me. Since Harry Truman suggested a national health care scheme in 1948-51, everything attempted in that direction has been torpedoed by the usual suspects for 60 years, until the completely inadequate and quaretr-measure Obamacare was instituted.
It was the choice of the American people that a trumpet player who loses all of his teeth and a musician who has a stroke or a poet who comes with MS, or an Uber driver who has a heart attack, or a waitress who goes blind should have to be punished by living without health insurance and a pittance of income support after being quickly bankrupted by their medical bills and their inability to work.
Exploited and then thrown away. Capitalized upon and spat out.
Tony p’s scheme sounds like the right direction.
Yeah, I know, all of these people could have “chosen” to become accountants, but since boredom doesn’t qualify as a disability, the compensations are weak.
We’re a f’cking disgrace, including me, for letting that happen all of these decades without burning the house down to the foundation.
At least ISIS proudly puts its subhuman degradations on video for all to see, while we strut around proclaiming our exceptionalism.
We’re cold-blooded killers, looking for the main exploitative weakness in our fellow human beings just like everybody else around the globe.
When the UBER henchman laughed in the union guy’s face (see bobbyp’s link), I wish I had been there to show the guy what real laughter feels like when it’s choked on, just as I wanted to be the Census worker that would-be murderer Erick Erickson wanted to threaten with his wife’s shotgun in 2010.
Also, on a lighter note, it kills me that we refer to UBER driving and other nothingburger employment as “entrepreneurship”.
What, we’re so language-deficient that we have to rely on the French to speak for us.
“Merde” would be a closer translation.
As in: eat your “Merde Fries”, or maybe eat your “Freedom Merde”.
And, yes, yes, America is a great place to live compared to much of the globe, so spare me.
Being a little better than much of the globe is a low bar.
Rant now out of my system, I met a woman last year who gigs at a taco truck, but also ghost writes posts for political websites, one liberal and one conservative.
I asked her the names of the websites so I could lurk, but the terms of her employment wouldn’t permit her to divulge them.
It would be funny if all of Moe Lane’s claptrap at Redstate was ghost-written.
I feel sorry for the ghost.
Rant now out of my system, I met a woman last year who gigs at a taco truck, but also ghost writes posts for political websites, one liberal and one conservative.
I asked her the names of the websites so I could lurk, but the terms of her employment wouldn’t permit her to divulge them.
It would be funny if all of Moe Lane’s claptrap at Redstate was ghost-written.
I feel sorry for the ghost.
Rant now out of my system, I met a woman last year who gigs at a taco truck, but also ghost writes posts for political websites, one liberal and one conservative.
I asked her the names of the websites so I could lurk, but the terms of her employment wouldn’t permit her to divulge them.
It would be funny if all of Moe Lane’s claptrap at Redstate was ghost-written.
I feel sorry for the ghost.
I read charleswt’s link, and that sounds OK I guess, if true.
The dog-walking jobs are something I’ve thought about too, but I’m not a dog person.
Much more of a cat person, but you can’t make much money offering to watch people’s cats sleep.
In some parts of Asia, you can supplement your dog walking income by marching the dogs right over to the backdoor of a sleazy restaurant and handing them over to serve as the amuse bouche.
Problem is, you don’t get repeat dog-owning customers at the front end.
Besides, a la Seinfeld, walking and picking up after dogs on a leash in public with a little bag and a plastic glove gives extraterrestrial aliens who might be observing us from afar the wrong idea about which beings on Earth are running the show.
“Take me to your Leader”, they might ask upon arrival.
You’d point at the dog and be off the hook.
I read charleswt’s link, and that sounds OK I guess, if true.
The dog-walking jobs are something I’ve thought about too, but I’m not a dog person.
Much more of a cat person, but you can’t make much money offering to watch people’s cats sleep.
In some parts of Asia, you can supplement your dog walking income by marching the dogs right over to the backdoor of a sleazy restaurant and handing them over to serve as the amuse bouche.
Problem is, you don’t get repeat dog-owning customers at the front end.
Besides, a la Seinfeld, walking and picking up after dogs on a leash in public with a little bag and a plastic glove gives extraterrestrial aliens who might be observing us from afar the wrong idea about which beings on Earth are running the show.
“Take me to your Leader”, they might ask upon arrival.
You’d point at the dog and be off the hook.
I read charleswt’s link, and that sounds OK I guess, if true.
The dog-walking jobs are something I’ve thought about too, but I’m not a dog person.
Much more of a cat person, but you can’t make much money offering to watch people’s cats sleep.
In some parts of Asia, you can supplement your dog walking income by marching the dogs right over to the backdoor of a sleazy restaurant and handing them over to serve as the amuse bouche.
Problem is, you don’t get repeat dog-owning customers at the front end.
Besides, a la Seinfeld, walking and picking up after dogs on a leash in public with a little bag and a plastic glove gives extraterrestrial aliens who might be observing us from afar the wrong idea about which beings on Earth are running the show.
“Take me to your Leader”, they might ask upon arrival.
You’d point at the dog and be off the hook.
Soon Google may help you find anyone – a plumber, painter, carpenter or other services you need
Soon Google may help you find anyone – a plumber, painter, carpenter or other services you need
Soon Google may help you find anyone – a plumber, painter, carpenter or other services you need
Business in 2035: What can we expect to find? And what challenges will we face?: From artificial intelligence to the growth of biometrics, business is going to change dramatically over the next 20 years. Nick Webb, Harry Leech and Gavin McLoughlin ask big thinkers to pick the key trends in business
Business in 2035: What can we expect to find? And what challenges will we face?: From artificial intelligence to the growth of biometrics, business is going to change dramatically over the next 20 years. Nick Webb, Harry Leech and Gavin McLoughlin ask big thinkers to pick the key trends in business
Business in 2035: What can we expect to find? And what challenges will we face?: From artificial intelligence to the growth of biometrics, business is going to change dramatically over the next 20 years. Nick Webb, Harry Leech and Gavin McLoughlin ask big thinkers to pick the key trends in business
mcmanus wrote:
“Disagreeing somewhat with Mason, post-capitalism isn’t about “capital” disappearing, but about capital subsuming, eating everything so that it can no longer be differentiated from labor, recreation, and individual emotion. Your socialized rage against the machine creates twitter and facebook profits, as does your family photos and affections.
Some theory posits that when capital is completely triumphant, and we all finally accept our total commodification, and see ourselves as nothing but things, then socialism emerges. Some say it has always been thus, that labor seeing itself as free and human was the delusion that supported capitalism all along.”
He says what I try to get across by different methods, but with fewer, better, smarter, and frictionless words.
In an odd way, and from a completely different direction, he says what Walker Percy was trying to say too about the nature of being human, and the devaluation of that humanity, in the 20th, and now the 21st century, though why we would leave out all of the other centuries with that observation is beyond me.
That comparison is completely out of left field, but it’s all one big outfield.
mcmanus wrote:
“Disagreeing somewhat with Mason, post-capitalism isn’t about “capital” disappearing, but about capital subsuming, eating everything so that it can no longer be differentiated from labor, recreation, and individual emotion. Your socialized rage against the machine creates twitter and facebook profits, as does your family photos and affections.
Some theory posits that when capital is completely triumphant, and we all finally accept our total commodification, and see ourselves as nothing but things, then socialism emerges. Some say it has always been thus, that labor seeing itself as free and human was the delusion that supported capitalism all along.”
He says what I try to get across by different methods, but with fewer, better, smarter, and frictionless words.
In an odd way, and from a completely different direction, he says what Walker Percy was trying to say too about the nature of being human, and the devaluation of that humanity, in the 20th, and now the 21st century, though why we would leave out all of the other centuries with that observation is beyond me.
That comparison is completely out of left field, but it’s all one big outfield.
mcmanus wrote:
“Disagreeing somewhat with Mason, post-capitalism isn’t about “capital” disappearing, but about capital subsuming, eating everything so that it can no longer be differentiated from labor, recreation, and individual emotion. Your socialized rage against the machine creates twitter and facebook profits, as does your family photos and affections.
Some theory posits that when capital is completely triumphant, and we all finally accept our total commodification, and see ourselves as nothing but things, then socialism emerges. Some say it has always been thus, that labor seeing itself as free and human was the delusion that supported capitalism all along.”
He says what I try to get across by different methods, but with fewer, better, smarter, and frictionless words.
In an odd way, and from a completely different direction, he says what Walker Percy was trying to say too about the nature of being human, and the devaluation of that humanity, in the 20th, and now the 21st century, though why we would leave out all of the other centuries with that observation is beyond me.
That comparison is completely out of left field, but it’s all one big outfield.
It occurs to me that if sex, like work, becomes completely frictionless in this new era
we’re in, some of the fun will be lost in both areas.
When we yearn for the abolition of the middleman, which I do like everyone else, I hope we’re prepared for a 50% unemployment rate, or higher.
Everyman is a Middleman.
Even trumpet players. Not to mention their trumpets.
Unfortunately, AI will overtake trumpet playing too.
Driverless cars roaming the empty city streets with the car radio tuned to the jazz station for the trumpetplayerless, trumpetless Fugue for Trumpet on Z minor searching for drunk, out-of work middleman to schlepp to the AIR BnB homeless shelters.
I’m beginning to see the sense in Death.
It occurs to me that if sex, like work, becomes completely frictionless in this new era
we’re in, some of the fun will be lost in both areas.
When we yearn for the abolition of the middleman, which I do like everyone else, I hope we’re prepared for a 50% unemployment rate, or higher.
Everyman is a Middleman.
Even trumpet players. Not to mention their trumpets.
Unfortunately, AI will overtake trumpet playing too.
Driverless cars roaming the empty city streets with the car radio tuned to the jazz station for the trumpetplayerless, trumpetless Fugue for Trumpet on Z minor searching for drunk, out-of work middleman to schlepp to the AIR BnB homeless shelters.
I’m beginning to see the sense in Death.
It occurs to me that if sex, like work, becomes completely frictionless in this new era
we’re in, some of the fun will be lost in both areas.
When we yearn for the abolition of the middleman, which I do like everyone else, I hope we’re prepared for a 50% unemployment rate, or higher.
Everyman is a Middleman.
Even trumpet players. Not to mention their trumpets.
Unfortunately, AI will overtake trumpet playing too.
Driverless cars roaming the empty city streets with the car radio tuned to the jazz station for the trumpetplayerless, trumpetless Fugue for Trumpet on Z minor searching for drunk, out-of work middleman to schlepp to the AIR BnB homeless shelters.
I’m beginning to see the sense in Death.
CharlesWT, your second link sounds very exciting, until I start to think about some of it, and that is always dangerous for all of us … when I start to think, that is. 😉
Like this:
“Technology will also transform health, with high-functioning wearables monitoring your vital signs. “It’ll be like going to the doctor every day and having bloodworks done every day,” he says.”
I’ve never worn a watch. I’m not wearing wearables. Besides, having bloodwork done every day, even if it is non-invasive, doesn’t sound like Utopia to me.
Of course, I’m not diabetic.
No doubt, though, I’ll be reaching my health care deductible limits much faster with the constant monitoring by the low-overhead robot on the other end.
I’m trying to imagine having a probe installed up my fundament as a 24-hour a day virtual colonoscopy is conducted.
How many false polyp alarms will go off every year, I wonder?
What fun, to be on the edge of one’s seat, so to speak, constantly on the look-out for bad news.
What’s that noise? Oh, that’s just my polyp alarm sounding to alert me to pop over to a Doctor Robot for a virtual look-see … third time this month.
Besides, I’ve read somewhere that even the annual hands-on physical is pretty much a pointless exercise. Despite that, I just made my appointment, while I still can afford insurance.
I agree that consumers of all goods want transparency, but we’re under the thumb of the sellers with deep political money-is-speech, corporations-are-people PFs (I’ll resort to the acronym) doing their very best to prevent transparency at every turn.
Case in point: the trade Asian-US trade deal recently had language inserted (guess by whom?) making it illegal to label the origin and provenance of products from abroad.
To prevent the consumer from being choosy.
Every product labeling proposal is fought tooth and nail by the producers and their paid PFs in Congress, as Marty alluded to with his Uber comment above.
Which brings me to GPS devices in cars.
Story: I was driving through northern PA last year with my sister on our way to upper NY state. My sister was outfitted with a GPS device, Google maps on her smartphone and her Ipad mapping AP, all three going at the same time.
After about two hours of misdirection and turning devices to and fro and upside down to read the maps properly, I pulled the car into a gas station with tires squealing and gravel flying, bought a paper map and presto-zippo we were set in the right direction and the right roads.
I guess driverless cars will solve that problem, but how will the passenger know they are going in the right direction, since everyone will eventually lose the ability to know where they are going.
My sister swore like a sailor trying to fold the paper map back up, but that is friction I can live with.
The wonderful technological of innovation of phone trees and directories also drives me berserk. How how that worked out?
Press 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or stay on the line while the one remaining operator in the country gets to you in about an hour while you listen to a static-filled version of tie a yellow ribbon on the old oak tree.
How bout someone pick up the phone after one ring and ask “How may I help you?, for eff sakes.
It seems to me that most technologically based improvement is geared toward keeping the consumer at an even greater arm’s length from talking to the Wizard behind the curtain who has the answers and hands out the medals.
So, plenty of upside to these transformative technologies, yes, but what if I don’t feel like being identified via eyeball ID sensors.
I know these eyes are my eyes. What if I wink at the wrong time? No banking for me?
But I’ll be forced to, don’t ya think, and not by the government, though I’m sure they’ll be in on it too.
Hey, I buy books on Amazon and love it.
I do miss browsing in the meat world bookstores however, which are mostly kaputnik.
Succeeding generations might experience an ultimate Utopia as biology and technological machines become completely interfaced.
Newborn infants’ brains could be downloaded directly via a shunt just above the hairline with all of the world’s literature, music, and knowledge (to be updated constantly via subscription, like the Encyclopedia Britannica).
No need for reading, listening, or searching. No need for an Oculus headset either, since all experience and its sensations, can be downloaded directly into the brain’s storage.
We’ll live like those chickens in little cages who have no need to move or seek or live life directly by pecking at it. Just being fattened .. but for what?
But somehow, the succeeding generations might, subconsciously, miss the friction, which as in sex, and in reasonable amounts, is half the fun of being alive.
I’m sure I’m wrong about all of this.
Not that it matters.
CharlesWT, your second link sounds very exciting, until I start to think about some of it, and that is always dangerous for all of us … when I start to think, that is. 😉
Like this:
“Technology will also transform health, with high-functioning wearables monitoring your vital signs. “It’ll be like going to the doctor every day and having bloodworks done every day,” he says.”
I’ve never worn a watch. I’m not wearing wearables. Besides, having bloodwork done every day, even if it is non-invasive, doesn’t sound like Utopia to me.
Of course, I’m not diabetic.
No doubt, though, I’ll be reaching my health care deductible limits much faster with the constant monitoring by the low-overhead robot on the other end.
I’m trying to imagine having a probe installed up my fundament as a 24-hour a day virtual colonoscopy is conducted.
How many false polyp alarms will go off every year, I wonder?
What fun, to be on the edge of one’s seat, so to speak, constantly on the look-out for bad news.
What’s that noise? Oh, that’s just my polyp alarm sounding to alert me to pop over to a Doctor Robot for a virtual look-see … third time this month.
Besides, I’ve read somewhere that even the annual hands-on physical is pretty much a pointless exercise. Despite that, I just made my appointment, while I still can afford insurance.
I agree that consumers of all goods want transparency, but we’re under the thumb of the sellers with deep political money-is-speech, corporations-are-people PFs (I’ll resort to the acronym) doing their very best to prevent transparency at every turn.
Case in point: the trade Asian-US trade deal recently had language inserted (guess by whom?) making it illegal to label the origin and provenance of products from abroad.
To prevent the consumer from being choosy.
Every product labeling proposal is fought tooth and nail by the producers and their paid PFs in Congress, as Marty alluded to with his Uber comment above.
Which brings me to GPS devices in cars.
Story: I was driving through northern PA last year with my sister on our way to upper NY state. My sister was outfitted with a GPS device, Google maps on her smartphone and her Ipad mapping AP, all three going at the same time.
After about two hours of misdirection and turning devices to and fro and upside down to read the maps properly, I pulled the car into a gas station with tires squealing and gravel flying, bought a paper map and presto-zippo we were set in the right direction and the right roads.
I guess driverless cars will solve that problem, but how will the passenger know they are going in the right direction, since everyone will eventually lose the ability to know where they are going.
My sister swore like a sailor trying to fold the paper map back up, but that is friction I can live with.
The wonderful technological of innovation of phone trees and directories also drives me berserk. How how that worked out?
Press 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or stay on the line while the one remaining operator in the country gets to you in about an hour while you listen to a static-filled version of tie a yellow ribbon on the old oak tree.
How bout someone pick up the phone after one ring and ask “How may I help you?, for eff sakes.
It seems to me that most technologically based improvement is geared toward keeping the consumer at an even greater arm’s length from talking to the Wizard behind the curtain who has the answers and hands out the medals.
So, plenty of upside to these transformative technologies, yes, but what if I don’t feel like being identified via eyeball ID sensors.
I know these eyes are my eyes. What if I wink at the wrong time? No banking for me?
But I’ll be forced to, don’t ya think, and not by the government, though I’m sure they’ll be in on it too.
Hey, I buy books on Amazon and love it.
I do miss browsing in the meat world bookstores however, which are mostly kaputnik.
Succeeding generations might experience an ultimate Utopia as biology and technological machines become completely interfaced.
Newborn infants’ brains could be downloaded directly via a shunt just above the hairline with all of the world’s literature, music, and knowledge (to be updated constantly via subscription, like the Encyclopedia Britannica).
No need for reading, listening, or searching. No need for an Oculus headset either, since all experience and its sensations, can be downloaded directly into the brain’s storage.
We’ll live like those chickens in little cages who have no need to move or seek or live life directly by pecking at it. Just being fattened .. but for what?
But somehow, the succeeding generations might, subconsciously, miss the friction, which as in sex, and in reasonable amounts, is half the fun of being alive.
I’m sure I’m wrong about all of this.
Not that it matters.
CharlesWT, your second link sounds very exciting, until I start to think about some of it, and that is always dangerous for all of us … when I start to think, that is. 😉
Like this:
“Technology will also transform health, with high-functioning wearables monitoring your vital signs. “It’ll be like going to the doctor every day and having bloodworks done every day,” he says.”
I’ve never worn a watch. I’m not wearing wearables. Besides, having bloodwork done every day, even if it is non-invasive, doesn’t sound like Utopia to me.
Of course, I’m not diabetic.
No doubt, though, I’ll be reaching my health care deductible limits much faster with the constant monitoring by the low-overhead robot on the other end.
I’m trying to imagine having a probe installed up my fundament as a 24-hour a day virtual colonoscopy is conducted.
How many false polyp alarms will go off every year, I wonder?
What fun, to be on the edge of one’s seat, so to speak, constantly on the look-out for bad news.
What’s that noise? Oh, that’s just my polyp alarm sounding to alert me to pop over to a Doctor Robot for a virtual look-see … third time this month.
Besides, I’ve read somewhere that even the annual hands-on physical is pretty much a pointless exercise. Despite that, I just made my appointment, while I still can afford insurance.
I agree that consumers of all goods want transparency, but we’re under the thumb of the sellers with deep political money-is-speech, corporations-are-people PFs (I’ll resort to the acronym) doing their very best to prevent transparency at every turn.
Case in point: the trade Asian-US trade deal recently had language inserted (guess by whom?) making it illegal to label the origin and provenance of products from abroad.
To prevent the consumer from being choosy.
Every product labeling proposal is fought tooth and nail by the producers and their paid PFs in Congress, as Marty alluded to with his Uber comment above.
Which brings me to GPS devices in cars.
Story: I was driving through northern PA last year with my sister on our way to upper NY state. My sister was outfitted with a GPS device, Google maps on her smartphone and her Ipad mapping AP, all three going at the same time.
After about two hours of misdirection and turning devices to and fro and upside down to read the maps properly, I pulled the car into a gas station with tires squealing and gravel flying, bought a paper map and presto-zippo we were set in the right direction and the right roads.
I guess driverless cars will solve that problem, but how will the passenger know they are going in the right direction, since everyone will eventually lose the ability to know where they are going.
My sister swore like a sailor trying to fold the paper map back up, but that is friction I can live with.
The wonderful technological of innovation of phone trees and directories also drives me berserk. How how that worked out?
Press 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or stay on the line while the one remaining operator in the country gets to you in about an hour while you listen to a static-filled version of tie a yellow ribbon on the old oak tree.
How bout someone pick up the phone after one ring and ask “How may I help you?, for eff sakes.
It seems to me that most technologically based improvement is geared toward keeping the consumer at an even greater arm’s length from talking to the Wizard behind the curtain who has the answers and hands out the medals.
So, plenty of upside to these transformative technologies, yes, but what if I don’t feel like being identified via eyeball ID sensors.
I know these eyes are my eyes. What if I wink at the wrong time? No banking for me?
But I’ll be forced to, don’t ya think, and not by the government, though I’m sure they’ll be in on it too.
Hey, I buy books on Amazon and love it.
I do miss browsing in the meat world bookstores however, which are mostly kaputnik.
Succeeding generations might experience an ultimate Utopia as biology and technological machines become completely interfaced.
Newborn infants’ brains could be downloaded directly via a shunt just above the hairline with all of the world’s literature, music, and knowledge (to be updated constantly via subscription, like the Encyclopedia Britannica).
No need for reading, listening, or searching. No need for an Oculus headset either, since all experience and its sensations, can be downloaded directly into the brain’s storage.
We’ll live like those chickens in little cages who have no need to move or seek or live life directly by pecking at it. Just being fattened .. but for what?
But somehow, the succeeding generations might, subconsciously, miss the friction, which as in sex, and in reasonable amounts, is half the fun of being alive.
I’m sure I’m wrong about all of this.
Not that it matters.
He says what I try to get across by different methods, but with fewer, better, smarter, and frictionless words.
I agree with Countme, and I had exactly the same thoughts. Thanks, Bob M.
He says what I try to get across by different methods, but with fewer, better, smarter, and frictionless words.
I agree with Countme, and I had exactly the same thoughts. Thanks, Bob M.
He says what I try to get across by different methods, but with fewer, better, smarter, and frictionless words.
I agree with Countme, and I had exactly the same thoughts. Thanks, Bob M.
What I am saying, is that markets with low barriers to entrance and exit are really good for people who are chronically un/underemployed
I agree that that is great, and it’s a completely relevant point.
My point, overall, about Uber is that it doesn’t really represent, to use your words, a “spreading of capital”. Kind of the reverse, actually. In terms of capital allocation, the drivers are making *their* capital – their automobiles and their time – available to Uber. In return, Uber sends some work their way.
It’s an OK deal for the driver, and a great deal for Uber. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but IMO it’s useful to be accurate about what the deal actually is.
I understand that you, personally, are not saying that Uber and “sharing economy” companies like them are the basis for a transformed US economy, but other folks are. For example, Jeb Bush, who is running for President.
So, in the context of a thread which appears to be about how the economy is changing, it seemed like relevant point to raise. If things like Uber are where we are heading, that might not be an altogether good thing. At best, it will be mixed.
That is the sum total of what I’m trying to say here.
Personally, if we want to ease barrier to entry for entrepreneurial people who don’t have a lot of capital, my vote would go to Tony’s proposal of universal health care, plus some kind of micro loan infrastructure.
But, you can’t always get what you want. We all make do with what’s available to us. If Uber etc make it possible for folks you know to pay their bills, I think that’s great.
What I am saying, is that markets with low barriers to entrance and exit are really good for people who are chronically un/underemployed
I agree that that is great, and it’s a completely relevant point.
My point, overall, about Uber is that it doesn’t really represent, to use your words, a “spreading of capital”. Kind of the reverse, actually. In terms of capital allocation, the drivers are making *their* capital – their automobiles and their time – available to Uber. In return, Uber sends some work their way.
It’s an OK deal for the driver, and a great deal for Uber. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but IMO it’s useful to be accurate about what the deal actually is.
I understand that you, personally, are not saying that Uber and “sharing economy” companies like them are the basis for a transformed US economy, but other folks are. For example, Jeb Bush, who is running for President.
So, in the context of a thread which appears to be about how the economy is changing, it seemed like relevant point to raise. If things like Uber are where we are heading, that might not be an altogether good thing. At best, it will be mixed.
That is the sum total of what I’m trying to say here.
Personally, if we want to ease barrier to entry for entrepreneurial people who don’t have a lot of capital, my vote would go to Tony’s proposal of universal health care, plus some kind of micro loan infrastructure.
But, you can’t always get what you want. We all make do with what’s available to us. If Uber etc make it possible for folks you know to pay their bills, I think that’s great.
What I am saying, is that markets with low barriers to entrance and exit are really good for people who are chronically un/underemployed
I agree that that is great, and it’s a completely relevant point.
My point, overall, about Uber is that it doesn’t really represent, to use your words, a “spreading of capital”. Kind of the reverse, actually. In terms of capital allocation, the drivers are making *their* capital – their automobiles and their time – available to Uber. In return, Uber sends some work their way.
It’s an OK deal for the driver, and a great deal for Uber. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but IMO it’s useful to be accurate about what the deal actually is.
I understand that you, personally, are not saying that Uber and “sharing economy” companies like them are the basis for a transformed US economy, but other folks are. For example, Jeb Bush, who is running for President.
So, in the context of a thread which appears to be about how the economy is changing, it seemed like relevant point to raise. If things like Uber are where we are heading, that might not be an altogether good thing. At best, it will be mixed.
That is the sum total of what I’m trying to say here.
Personally, if we want to ease barrier to entry for entrepreneurial people who don’t have a lot of capital, my vote would go to Tony’s proposal of universal health care, plus some kind of micro loan infrastructure.
But, you can’t always get what you want. We all make do with what’s available to us. If Uber etc make it possible for folks you know to pay their bills, I think that’s great.
Unfortunately, AI will overtake trumpet playing too.
we are now in “which jobs can’t be automated without an undesirable change in the quality of the work product” territory.
my personal theory about this specific issue is that, at some point, machines are going to start making something that is, in some way shape or form, art, but they are going to make art that appeals to them, not us.
they may already be doing so. how would we know?
Unfortunately, AI will overtake trumpet playing too.
we are now in “which jobs can’t be automated without an undesirable change in the quality of the work product” territory.
my personal theory about this specific issue is that, at some point, machines are going to start making something that is, in some way shape or form, art, but they are going to make art that appeals to them, not us.
they may already be doing so. how would we know?
Unfortunately, AI will overtake trumpet playing too.
we are now in “which jobs can’t be automated without an undesirable change in the quality of the work product” territory.
my personal theory about this specific issue is that, at some point, machines are going to start making something that is, in some way shape or form, art, but they are going to make art that appeals to them, not us.
they may already be doing so. how would we know?
The sharing, gig, on-demand paradigm combined with blockchain technology might create a ghost economy that is largely invisible to governments and their tax collectors.
The sharing, gig, on-demand paradigm combined with blockchain technology might create a ghost economy that is largely invisible to governments and their tax collectors.
The sharing, gig, on-demand paradigm combined with blockchain technology might create a ghost economy that is largely invisible to governments and their tax collectors.
Russell, I agree with that, but I’m not sure Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, and the smirking thugs running Uber do.
I doubt that I’ll live to see the likes of AI produce (simulate) anything as appealing, strange, and so beautifully human as John Lennon’s “Strawberry Fields Forever” with the attendant collaboration of McCartney’s (though the opening notes on the mellotron were to some primitive extent played on a very early AI (simulation) device, if you think about it) and Harrison’s genius and Ringo’s brilliant drumming, not to mention the remarkably creative producing and engineering of George Martin and Geoff Emerick.
Let alone a Sonnet by Shakespeare or Richard III’s opening lines.
Russell, I agree with that, but I’m not sure Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, and the smirking thugs running Uber do.
I doubt that I’ll live to see the likes of AI produce (simulate) anything as appealing, strange, and so beautifully human as John Lennon’s “Strawberry Fields Forever” with the attendant collaboration of McCartney’s (though the opening notes on the mellotron were to some primitive extent played on a very early AI (simulation) device, if you think about it) and Harrison’s genius and Ringo’s brilliant drumming, not to mention the remarkably creative producing and engineering of George Martin and Geoff Emerick.
Let alone a Sonnet by Shakespeare or Richard III’s opening lines.
Russell, I agree with that, but I’m not sure Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, and the smirking thugs running Uber do.
I doubt that I’ll live to see the likes of AI produce (simulate) anything as appealing, strange, and so beautifully human as John Lennon’s “Strawberry Fields Forever” with the attendant collaboration of McCartney’s (though the opening notes on the mellotron were to some primitive extent played on a very early AI (simulation) device, if you think about it) and Harrison’s genius and Ringo’s brilliant drumming, not to mention the remarkably creative producing and engineering of George Martin and Geoff Emerick.
Let alone a Sonnet by Shakespeare or Richard III’s opening lines.
Digital disruption is so yesterday, the next disruption is here: Digital disruption is tangible. As a CIO you can quantify it and react to protect your organization but a new technology has arrived and entrepreneurs are creating open source organizations that no longer need humans to function. Could this be the death of your job as you know it?
Digital disruption is so yesterday, the next disruption is here: Digital disruption is tangible. As a CIO you can quantify it and react to protect your organization but a new technology has arrived and entrepreneurs are creating open source organizations that no longer need humans to function. Could this be the death of your job as you know it?
Digital disruption is so yesterday, the next disruption is here: Digital disruption is tangible. As a CIO you can quantify it and react to protect your organization but a new technology has arrived and entrepreneurs are creating open source organizations that no longer need humans to function. Could this be the death of your job as you know it?
Charles, if you are right about the invisibility of the gig economy and its refusal to help pay the freight, then unemployed downtime for the giggers, giggolists, gigopolists, and gigomaniacs is going to be some fun starvation time if government can’t collect revenue to fund the safety net, unemployment compensation to be begin with.
They’ll have to turn off their wearable devices because they won’t be able to afford the feedback.
Not to mention Putin, ISIS, and whomever invading/nuking the country once the defense budget is cut to zero because there are no tax revenues.
We’ll be an easy mark with no government to suck it up.
No fake photos from Pluto either, without the government to fund the fake exploration.
Unless Domino’s Pizza finds a market on Pluto.
Then, maybe, but only if the high human aspirations of getting pepperoni to Pluto can be economically justified.
Charles, if you are right about the invisibility of the gig economy and its refusal to help pay the freight, then unemployed downtime for the giggers, giggolists, gigopolists, and gigomaniacs is going to be some fun starvation time if government can’t collect revenue to fund the safety net, unemployment compensation to be begin with.
They’ll have to turn off their wearable devices because they won’t be able to afford the feedback.
Not to mention Putin, ISIS, and whomever invading/nuking the country once the defense budget is cut to zero because there are no tax revenues.
We’ll be an easy mark with no government to suck it up.
No fake photos from Pluto either, without the government to fund the fake exploration.
Unless Domino’s Pizza finds a market on Pluto.
Then, maybe, but only if the high human aspirations of getting pepperoni to Pluto can be economically justified.
Charles, if you are right about the invisibility of the gig economy and its refusal to help pay the freight, then unemployed downtime for the giggers, giggolists, gigopolists, and gigomaniacs is going to be some fun starvation time if government can’t collect revenue to fund the safety net, unemployment compensation to be begin with.
They’ll have to turn off their wearable devices because they won’t be able to afford the feedback.
Not to mention Putin, ISIS, and whomever invading/nuking the country once the defense budget is cut to zero because there are no tax revenues.
We’ll be an easy mark with no government to suck it up.
No fake photos from Pluto either, without the government to fund the fake exploration.
Unless Domino’s Pizza finds a market on Pluto.
Then, maybe, but only if the high human aspirations of getting pepperoni to Pluto can be economically justified.
CharlesWT must be a robot or simply an algorithm to be able to simulate so accurately the human thrill of expectation of an existence in which humanity is no longer required.
I kid.
But I was around the mark earlier, it will be just a few exceptional humans running the show and the rest of us in chicken cages being fattened for no reason whatsoever.
Ayn Rand would have a frictionless orgasm up against an empty, peopleless Chrysler Building if she could witness that.
I’m pretty sure AI produced “Atlas Shrugged”, because it meets all of Russell’s parameters for an undesirable change in the work product that is not appealing to real humans.
CharlesWT must be a robot or simply an algorithm to be able to simulate so accurately the human thrill of expectation of an existence in which humanity is no longer required.
I kid.
But I was around the mark earlier, it will be just a few exceptional humans running the show and the rest of us in chicken cages being fattened for no reason whatsoever.
Ayn Rand would have a frictionless orgasm up against an empty, peopleless Chrysler Building if she could witness that.
I’m pretty sure AI produced “Atlas Shrugged”, because it meets all of Russell’s parameters for an undesirable change in the work product that is not appealing to real humans.
CharlesWT must be a robot or simply an algorithm to be able to simulate so accurately the human thrill of expectation of an existence in which humanity is no longer required.
I kid.
But I was around the mark earlier, it will be just a few exceptional humans running the show and the rest of us in chicken cages being fattened for no reason whatsoever.
Ayn Rand would have a frictionless orgasm up against an empty, peopleless Chrysler Building if she could witness that.
I’m pretty sure AI produced “Atlas Shrugged”, because it meets all of Russell’s parameters for an undesirable change in the work product that is not appealing to real humans.
to use your words, a “spreading of capital”.
Ok, that is a completely valid criticism of how I phrased that. I think a better way of phrasing it would be “spreading of capital utilization”. Or “allowing utilization of smaller bits of capital”.
I like to think the surrounding text of my comments would have more effectively glossed over that error, but hey, I’m a scientist not communications director. 🙂
companies like them are the basis for a transformed US economy, but other folks are. For example, Jeb Bush, who is running for President.
If you want my opinion on something Jeb Bush has said, you’ll have to point me to it. I haven’t been tracking the race that closely. But your link upthread does not, imo, make any claims as to Uber or Thumbtack or whatever being a “basis for a transformed US economy”. I could criticize a lot of that article, mostly on the *lack of policy positions* not on the policy positions recommended.
Because as far as I could tell, there were none.
I mean, the article doesn’t say much of anything, but the closest it gets to what you’re saying is “And I want to continue the transformation of our economy through technology and digital innovation.”
Which is several hops away from being a “basis” for the economy. Meaningless fluff, absolutely, because it isn’t saying anything remotely contentious. Technology and innovation have always transformed the economy, and I’m guessing they will for the foreseeable future.
The reason why I’m harping on “basis” so much is because I don’t have a firm grasp on your point, and that seems to be an important word, or at least consistent with the idea you are trying to convey.
To the extent I understand you, you don’t want Uber to be the basis of the future economy, and you feel some people are advocating for that. But what exactly that means, I really have no clue.
I’ve seen a lot of opinion back and forth as Uber fights regulatory hurdles, etc, but most of it is relatively confined to the narrow domain that is Uber. I can’t say I’ve seen a large contingent arguing that its the basis for the economy. The closest I can think of is that its a good model for connecting sellers and consumers of services in general…but you seem to be arguing against something more then that.
Now, I don’t want to put you in the position of having to explain what your opponent(s) are advocating for. But if you could point me towards a good example of someone advocating for reshaping the basis of the future economy in Uber, I might be able to intelligently take a position.
So, in the context of a thread which appears to be about how the economy is changing, it seemed like relevant point to raise. If things like Uber are where we are heading, that might not be an altogether good thing.
I’d really like to understand that point. I swear I’m not be deliberately obtuse. What do you mean by ‘things like Uber are where we are heading’? What does that destination look like, and why is it good/bad?
I think, the best I can understand your point, is that Uber drivers aren’t making a lot of money and don’t have job security, and you don’t want that to be replicated across all sectors of the economy?
I’d agree with that, but I think it has far less to do with the ‘gig economy’ and more with the issue of being a taxi driver being not that great of a job (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/22/labor-vs-capital-datapoint-of-the-day-nyc-taxi-edition/ ). It wasn’t before Uber entered the scene, its not now, and it’s not going to be after Uber is dust. It’s the best some people can get though, and I’d rather they were employed than not.
Because being unemployed sucks.
If Uber etc make it possible for folks you know to pay their bills, I think that’s great.
I don’t know any Uber drivers personally. But I can readily imagine people in a situation where driving for Uber would be a desirable opportunity.
to use your words, a “spreading of capital”.
Ok, that is a completely valid criticism of how I phrased that. I think a better way of phrasing it would be “spreading of capital utilization”. Or “allowing utilization of smaller bits of capital”.
I like to think the surrounding text of my comments would have more effectively glossed over that error, but hey, I’m a scientist not communications director. 🙂
companies like them are the basis for a transformed US economy, but other folks are. For example, Jeb Bush, who is running for President.
If you want my opinion on something Jeb Bush has said, you’ll have to point me to it. I haven’t been tracking the race that closely. But your link upthread does not, imo, make any claims as to Uber or Thumbtack or whatever being a “basis for a transformed US economy”. I could criticize a lot of that article, mostly on the *lack of policy positions* not on the policy positions recommended.
Because as far as I could tell, there were none.
I mean, the article doesn’t say much of anything, but the closest it gets to what you’re saying is “And I want to continue the transformation of our economy through technology and digital innovation.”
Which is several hops away from being a “basis” for the economy. Meaningless fluff, absolutely, because it isn’t saying anything remotely contentious. Technology and innovation have always transformed the economy, and I’m guessing they will for the foreseeable future.
The reason why I’m harping on “basis” so much is because I don’t have a firm grasp on your point, and that seems to be an important word, or at least consistent with the idea you are trying to convey.
To the extent I understand you, you don’t want Uber to be the basis of the future economy, and you feel some people are advocating for that. But what exactly that means, I really have no clue.
I’ve seen a lot of opinion back and forth as Uber fights regulatory hurdles, etc, but most of it is relatively confined to the narrow domain that is Uber. I can’t say I’ve seen a large contingent arguing that its the basis for the economy. The closest I can think of is that its a good model for connecting sellers and consumers of services in general…but you seem to be arguing against something more then that.
Now, I don’t want to put you in the position of having to explain what your opponent(s) are advocating for. But if you could point me towards a good example of someone advocating for reshaping the basis of the future economy in Uber, I might be able to intelligently take a position.
So, in the context of a thread which appears to be about how the economy is changing, it seemed like relevant point to raise. If things like Uber are where we are heading, that might not be an altogether good thing.
I’d really like to understand that point. I swear I’m not be deliberately obtuse. What do you mean by ‘things like Uber are where we are heading’? What does that destination look like, and why is it good/bad?
I think, the best I can understand your point, is that Uber drivers aren’t making a lot of money and don’t have job security, and you don’t want that to be replicated across all sectors of the economy?
I’d agree with that, but I think it has far less to do with the ‘gig economy’ and more with the issue of being a taxi driver being not that great of a job (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/22/labor-vs-capital-datapoint-of-the-day-nyc-taxi-edition/ ). It wasn’t before Uber entered the scene, its not now, and it’s not going to be after Uber is dust. It’s the best some people can get though, and I’d rather they were employed than not.
Because being unemployed sucks.
If Uber etc make it possible for folks you know to pay their bills, I think that’s great.
I don’t know any Uber drivers personally. But I can readily imagine people in a situation where driving for Uber would be a desirable opportunity.
to use your words, a “spreading of capital”.
Ok, that is a completely valid criticism of how I phrased that. I think a better way of phrasing it would be “spreading of capital utilization”. Or “allowing utilization of smaller bits of capital”.
I like to think the surrounding text of my comments would have more effectively glossed over that error, but hey, I’m a scientist not communications director. 🙂
companies like them are the basis for a transformed US economy, but other folks are. For example, Jeb Bush, who is running for President.
If you want my opinion on something Jeb Bush has said, you’ll have to point me to it. I haven’t been tracking the race that closely. But your link upthread does not, imo, make any claims as to Uber or Thumbtack or whatever being a “basis for a transformed US economy”. I could criticize a lot of that article, mostly on the *lack of policy positions* not on the policy positions recommended.
Because as far as I could tell, there were none.
I mean, the article doesn’t say much of anything, but the closest it gets to what you’re saying is “And I want to continue the transformation of our economy through technology and digital innovation.”
Which is several hops away from being a “basis” for the economy. Meaningless fluff, absolutely, because it isn’t saying anything remotely contentious. Technology and innovation have always transformed the economy, and I’m guessing they will for the foreseeable future.
The reason why I’m harping on “basis” so much is because I don’t have a firm grasp on your point, and that seems to be an important word, or at least consistent with the idea you are trying to convey.
To the extent I understand you, you don’t want Uber to be the basis of the future economy, and you feel some people are advocating for that. But what exactly that means, I really have no clue.
I’ve seen a lot of opinion back and forth as Uber fights regulatory hurdles, etc, but most of it is relatively confined to the narrow domain that is Uber. I can’t say I’ve seen a large contingent arguing that its the basis for the economy. The closest I can think of is that its a good model for connecting sellers and consumers of services in general…but you seem to be arguing against something more then that.
Now, I don’t want to put you in the position of having to explain what your opponent(s) are advocating for. But if you could point me towards a good example of someone advocating for reshaping the basis of the future economy in Uber, I might be able to intelligently take a position.
So, in the context of a thread which appears to be about how the economy is changing, it seemed like relevant point to raise. If things like Uber are where we are heading, that might not be an altogether good thing.
I’d really like to understand that point. I swear I’m not be deliberately obtuse. What do you mean by ‘things like Uber are where we are heading’? What does that destination look like, and why is it good/bad?
I think, the best I can understand your point, is that Uber drivers aren’t making a lot of money and don’t have job security, and you don’t want that to be replicated across all sectors of the economy?
I’d agree with that, but I think it has far less to do with the ‘gig economy’ and more with the issue of being a taxi driver being not that great of a job (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/22/labor-vs-capital-datapoint-of-the-day-nyc-taxi-edition/ ). It wasn’t before Uber entered the scene, its not now, and it’s not going to be after Uber is dust. It’s the best some people can get though, and I’d rather they were employed than not.
Because being unemployed sucks.
If Uber etc make it possible for folks you know to pay their bills, I think that’s great.
I don’t know any Uber drivers personally. But I can readily imagine people in a situation where driving for Uber would be a desirable opportunity.
“Because being unemployed sucks.”
This is true, which is why the owners of taxi companies, restaurants, and other suchlike gig enterprises can get way with paying a pittance to their employees.
Anything is more desirable than starvation.
“Because being unemployed sucks.”
This is true, which is why the owners of taxi companies, restaurants, and other suchlike gig enterprises can get way with paying a pittance to their employees.
Anything is more desirable than starvation.
“Because being unemployed sucks.”
This is true, which is why the owners of taxi companies, restaurants, and other suchlike gig enterprises can get way with paying a pittance to their employees.
Anything is more desirable than starvation.
Here ya go, from the indispensable Sunday Reading at New Inquiry, Literary Theory:
We Are All Neoliberals Now Part One, Huffington Post
New Genre of Plastic Realism Part Two
(Damn, I find it amazing when a site makes cut and paste impossible. I hate typing)
“In novel after novel of multiculturalism, neoliberalism’s narrow interpretation (replacement of identity for economic rights) is never skeptically questioned”
“ethic of unlimited individual responsibility…therapeutic narrative that individuals can only learn and grow from bad experience”
“the emotional terrain is nostalgia rather than reality”
I would disagree with hir characterization of both 19th century realism/naturalism (Balzac,Dostoevsky, Wharton, Henry James) and its current resurgence as a close reading of the opening quotes (link one) can show. I follow Peter Brooks in The Melodramatic Imagination that “bourgeois realism” is remarkable for its poesis and florid language, its immanent anti-realism that is justified by the withdrawal of direct authorial address.
Here ya go, from the indispensable Sunday Reading at New Inquiry, Literary Theory:
We Are All Neoliberals Now Part One, Huffington Post
New Genre of Plastic Realism Part Two
(Damn, I find it amazing when a site makes cut and paste impossible. I hate typing)
“In novel after novel of multiculturalism, neoliberalism’s narrow interpretation (replacement of identity for economic rights) is never skeptically questioned”
“ethic of unlimited individual responsibility…therapeutic narrative that individuals can only learn and grow from bad experience”
“the emotional terrain is nostalgia rather than reality”
I would disagree with hir characterization of both 19th century realism/naturalism (Balzac,Dostoevsky, Wharton, Henry James) and its current resurgence as a close reading of the opening quotes (link one) can show. I follow Peter Brooks in The Melodramatic Imagination that “bourgeois realism” is remarkable for its poesis and florid language, its immanent anti-realism that is justified by the withdrawal of direct authorial address.
Here ya go, from the indispensable Sunday Reading at New Inquiry, Literary Theory:
We Are All Neoliberals Now Part One, Huffington Post
New Genre of Plastic Realism Part Two
(Damn, I find it amazing when a site makes cut and paste impossible. I hate typing)
“In novel after novel of multiculturalism, neoliberalism’s narrow interpretation (replacement of identity for economic rights) is never skeptically questioned”
“ethic of unlimited individual responsibility…therapeutic narrative that individuals can only learn and grow from bad experience”
“the emotional terrain is nostalgia rather than reality”
I would disagree with hir characterization of both 19th century realism/naturalism (Balzac,Dostoevsky, Wharton, Henry James) and its current resurgence as a close reading of the opening quotes (link one) can show. I follow Peter Brooks in The Melodramatic Imagination that “bourgeois realism” is remarkable for its poesis and florid language, its immanent anti-realism that is justified by the withdrawal of direct authorial address.
Could La’Zooz Be The Ride-Sharing App We’ve Been Waiting For?: To be worthy of its name, the sharing economy needs platforms that are owned by the people who use them.
Could La’Zooz Be The Ride-Sharing App We’ve Been Waiting For?: To be worthy of its name, the sharing economy needs platforms that are owned by the people who use them.
Could La’Zooz Be The Ride-Sharing App We’ve Been Waiting For?: To be worthy of its name, the sharing economy needs platforms that are owned by the people who use them.
A mash-up of mcmanus’ ” Your socialized rage against the machine creates twitter and facebook profits, as does your family photos and affections.” with CharlesWT’s link depicting huge enterprises run by one person with no employees leads me to untoward places.
First off, Facebook and all social media should be paying their contributors and posters for their personal information, which the companies have monetized to realize fantastic profits, if Facebook’s and Google’s latest quarterly results are any indication.
I’d be happy to accept payment in shares in both companies backdated to 2010.
My weight, my eye color, my shirt size, and my credit history are mine. Pay up, capitalists!
Now, the employeeless corporation, which nevertheless under our current asinine legal bullsh*t imaginations, are people, even if no people work there, poses the questions, like, well if no one is going to be hired as an employee, then the entire universe of alienations, like alienation from my labor (actually, I don’t mind being as far away from labor as possible) and alienation from my personal information becomes moot as starvation sets in.
Who will these corporations sell their products to, if no one is working, or will we be alloted a sum of Bitcoin at birth to buy Fitbits all of our lives?
When the lone CEOs of these gigantic employeeless enterprises roll down the windows of their driverless cars and turn down the trumpetless trumpet sonata they are enjoying to offer helpful nut unsolicited advice to the hoards of unemployed standing around on streetless and cornerless street corners, like “Get a Job, losers!” or “A little work never hurt anybody, even parasites like you!” … what will the response be.
Maybe these CEOs will be eyed as a food source and be torn to bits, a bitter meat for the starving, though toothless trumpet players, now completely alienated, may wonder how they are going to gum these bastards to death.
The edible CEO.
I suppose, therefore, there will still be a need for robotic bodyguards, sort of walking, talking turreted anti-aircraft guns to protect the precious butts of these geniuses.
A mash-up of mcmanus’ ” Your socialized rage against the machine creates twitter and facebook profits, as does your family photos and affections.” with CharlesWT’s link depicting huge enterprises run by one person with no employees leads me to untoward places.
First off, Facebook and all social media should be paying their contributors and posters for their personal information, which the companies have monetized to realize fantastic profits, if Facebook’s and Google’s latest quarterly results are any indication.
I’d be happy to accept payment in shares in both companies backdated to 2010.
My weight, my eye color, my shirt size, and my credit history are mine. Pay up, capitalists!
Now, the employeeless corporation, which nevertheless under our current asinine legal bullsh*t imaginations, are people, even if no people work there, poses the questions, like, well if no one is going to be hired as an employee, then the entire universe of alienations, like alienation from my labor (actually, I don’t mind being as far away from labor as possible) and alienation from my personal information becomes moot as starvation sets in.
Who will these corporations sell their products to, if no one is working, or will we be alloted a sum of Bitcoin at birth to buy Fitbits all of our lives?
When the lone CEOs of these gigantic employeeless enterprises roll down the windows of their driverless cars and turn down the trumpetless trumpet sonata they are enjoying to offer helpful nut unsolicited advice to the hoards of unemployed standing around on streetless and cornerless street corners, like “Get a Job, losers!” or “A little work never hurt anybody, even parasites like you!” … what will the response be.
Maybe these CEOs will be eyed as a food source and be torn to bits, a bitter meat for the starving, though toothless trumpet players, now completely alienated, may wonder how they are going to gum these bastards to death.
The edible CEO.
I suppose, therefore, there will still be a need for robotic bodyguards, sort of walking, talking turreted anti-aircraft guns to protect the precious butts of these geniuses.
A mash-up of mcmanus’ ” Your socialized rage against the machine creates twitter and facebook profits, as does your family photos and affections.” with CharlesWT’s link depicting huge enterprises run by one person with no employees leads me to untoward places.
First off, Facebook and all social media should be paying their contributors and posters for their personal information, which the companies have monetized to realize fantastic profits, if Facebook’s and Google’s latest quarterly results are any indication.
I’d be happy to accept payment in shares in both companies backdated to 2010.
My weight, my eye color, my shirt size, and my credit history are mine. Pay up, capitalists!
Now, the employeeless corporation, which nevertheless under our current asinine legal bullsh*t imaginations, are people, even if no people work there, poses the questions, like, well if no one is going to be hired as an employee, then the entire universe of alienations, like alienation from my labor (actually, I don’t mind being as far away from labor as possible) and alienation from my personal information becomes moot as starvation sets in.
Who will these corporations sell their products to, if no one is working, or will we be alloted a sum of Bitcoin at birth to buy Fitbits all of our lives?
When the lone CEOs of these gigantic employeeless enterprises roll down the windows of their driverless cars and turn down the trumpetless trumpet sonata they are enjoying to offer helpful nut unsolicited advice to the hoards of unemployed standing around on streetless and cornerless street corners, like “Get a Job, losers!” or “A little work never hurt anybody, even parasites like you!” … what will the response be.
Maybe these CEOs will be eyed as a food source and be torn to bits, a bitter meat for the starving, though toothless trumpet players, now completely alienated, may wonder how they are going to gum these bastards to death.
The edible CEO.
I suppose, therefore, there will still be a need for robotic bodyguards, sort of walking, talking turreted anti-aircraft guns to protect the precious butts of these geniuses.
A easier alternative to La-zooz would be to make hitchhiking legal on all thoroughfares across the country, thus cutting out La-zooz, the middleman.
I remember the sharing hitchhiking economy from 40 years ago.
Then actual scalping, especially for longhairs, set in and ruined it.
Maybe scalping with an app wouldn’t be too painful.
A easier alternative to La-zooz would be to make hitchhiking legal on all thoroughfares across the country, thus cutting out La-zooz, the middleman.
I remember the sharing hitchhiking economy from 40 years ago.
Then actual scalping, especially for longhairs, set in and ruined it.
Maybe scalping with an app wouldn’t be too painful.
A easier alternative to La-zooz would be to make hitchhiking legal on all thoroughfares across the country, thus cutting out La-zooz, the middleman.
I remember the sharing hitchhiking economy from 40 years ago.
Then actual scalping, especially for longhairs, set in and ruined it.
Maybe scalping with an app wouldn’t be too painful.
I see the Jeffersonian impulse inherent in these trends — a nation of independent yeoman gentleman farmers — in this new Economy talk, but actually the yeoman Jeffersonian farmer depended on slave and very-low wage labor to get his crops in and to market.
I suspect the same thing will happen with all of these ideas.
Every gig has a con and a grift and every con and grift depend on a nation of suckers.
I see the Jeffersonian impulse inherent in these trends — a nation of independent yeoman gentleman farmers — in this new Economy talk, but actually the yeoman Jeffersonian farmer depended on slave and very-low wage labor to get his crops in and to market.
I suspect the same thing will happen with all of these ideas.
Every gig has a con and a grift and every con and grift depend on a nation of suckers.
I see the Jeffersonian impulse inherent in these trends — a nation of independent yeoman gentleman farmers — in this new Economy talk, but actually the yeoman Jeffersonian farmer depended on slave and very-low wage labor to get his crops in and to market.
I suspect the same thing will happen with all of these ideas.
Every gig has a con and a grift and every con and grift depend on a nation of suckers.
mcmanus, in neglecting his reading today, has given me reams of reading in this thread to try and not neglect, so I’ll be off.
Thanks for the conversations.
The friction of it all was the enjoyment.
mcmanus, in neglecting his reading today, has given me reams of reading in this thread to try and not neglect, so I’ll be off.
Thanks for the conversations.
The friction of it all was the enjoyment.
mcmanus, in neglecting his reading today, has given me reams of reading in this thread to try and not neglect, so I’ll be off.
Thanks for the conversations.
The friction of it all was the enjoyment.
What do you mean by ‘things like Uber are where we are heading’? What does that destination look like, and why is it good/bad?
I don’t really have a strong feeling about Uber, per se, one way or the other.
I don’t expect Uber, specifically, to be the basis for much of anything except catching a ride.
The trend over the last 30 or so years has been for employers to shed any obligations possible toward folks who work for them. Lately, that shows up in all kinds of ways, including the increasing prevalence of temp jobs, hiring people as ‘contractors’ rather than proper employees, outsourcing and offshoring work whenever possible, etc.
To the degree that that trend continues and increases, people’s lives will be increasingly precarious. Because temp / casual / “gig” labor is precarious.
If you decide to take that path because your personal calling in life makes it a good choice, for whatever reason, that’s great. Apparently both of us know lots of folks like that. And/or, perhaps have been a person like that, I have been at various points in my life.
To the degree that something like that become the normal model of employer / employee relations, IMVHO it will be harmful to the general economic and social fabric of the nation.
At least, not unless other things are put into place to make up for what is lost in the decline of a more traditional employer / employee relationship. Health insurance, for one simple example.
Running Kickstarters to pay for your physical therapy when you have a massive stroke is not an approach that scales well. For example. And again, nothing against Kickstarter, I’m referring to my bass playing friend Thomas, who is basically shit out of luck after 30 or 40 years in the “gig economy”.
I hope that helps clarify my position here, if not I’m at a loss as to how to make it any clearer.
It’s not about Uber, they’re just a ride-sharing service. It’s about the relationship of enterprises to the folks who work for them.
What do you mean by ‘things like Uber are where we are heading’? What does that destination look like, and why is it good/bad?
I don’t really have a strong feeling about Uber, per se, one way or the other.
I don’t expect Uber, specifically, to be the basis for much of anything except catching a ride.
The trend over the last 30 or so years has been for employers to shed any obligations possible toward folks who work for them. Lately, that shows up in all kinds of ways, including the increasing prevalence of temp jobs, hiring people as ‘contractors’ rather than proper employees, outsourcing and offshoring work whenever possible, etc.
To the degree that that trend continues and increases, people’s lives will be increasingly precarious. Because temp / casual / “gig” labor is precarious.
If you decide to take that path because your personal calling in life makes it a good choice, for whatever reason, that’s great. Apparently both of us know lots of folks like that. And/or, perhaps have been a person like that, I have been at various points in my life.
To the degree that something like that become the normal model of employer / employee relations, IMVHO it will be harmful to the general economic and social fabric of the nation.
At least, not unless other things are put into place to make up for what is lost in the decline of a more traditional employer / employee relationship. Health insurance, for one simple example.
Running Kickstarters to pay for your physical therapy when you have a massive stroke is not an approach that scales well. For example. And again, nothing against Kickstarter, I’m referring to my bass playing friend Thomas, who is basically shit out of luck after 30 or 40 years in the “gig economy”.
I hope that helps clarify my position here, if not I’m at a loss as to how to make it any clearer.
It’s not about Uber, they’re just a ride-sharing service. It’s about the relationship of enterprises to the folks who work for them.
What do you mean by ‘things like Uber are where we are heading’? What does that destination look like, and why is it good/bad?
I don’t really have a strong feeling about Uber, per se, one way or the other.
I don’t expect Uber, specifically, to be the basis for much of anything except catching a ride.
The trend over the last 30 or so years has been for employers to shed any obligations possible toward folks who work for them. Lately, that shows up in all kinds of ways, including the increasing prevalence of temp jobs, hiring people as ‘contractors’ rather than proper employees, outsourcing and offshoring work whenever possible, etc.
To the degree that that trend continues and increases, people’s lives will be increasingly precarious. Because temp / casual / “gig” labor is precarious.
If you decide to take that path because your personal calling in life makes it a good choice, for whatever reason, that’s great. Apparently both of us know lots of folks like that. And/or, perhaps have been a person like that, I have been at various points in my life.
To the degree that something like that become the normal model of employer / employee relations, IMVHO it will be harmful to the general economic and social fabric of the nation.
At least, not unless other things are put into place to make up for what is lost in the decline of a more traditional employer / employee relationship. Health insurance, for one simple example.
Running Kickstarters to pay for your physical therapy when you have a massive stroke is not an approach that scales well. For example. And again, nothing against Kickstarter, I’m referring to my bass playing friend Thomas, who is basically shit out of luck after 30 or 40 years in the “gig economy”.
I hope that helps clarify my position here, if not I’m at a loss as to how to make it any clearer.
It’s not about Uber, they’re just a ride-sharing service. It’s about the relationship of enterprises to the folks who work for them.
“The trend over the last 30 or so years has been for employers to shed any obligations possible toward folks who work for them. Lately, that shows up in all kinds of ways, including the increasing prevalence of temp jobs, hiring people as ‘contractors’ rather than proper employees, outsourcing and offshoring work whenever possible, etc.”
That’s the nub, and the rub, of the entire movement to the gig economy.
An economy free of the currency of obligation, not to mention the currency of a living wage.
But it sounds hip and cool. Hey, baby got a gig for you. Is zat jass, man, cuz it sure sounds like it? Sign me up. What are the hours? How many you got? Twenty-four every day seven days a week. Then, man, I can fill 23 of them. You’ll be free, self-directed, an entrepreneur, mon ami, a master of your time and destiny. An entrepreneur like Maurice Chevalier and Georges Pompidou, and Bridgett Bardot.
Here’s ten bucks to see you through. Now smile and get lost.
“The trend over the last 30 or so years has been for employers to shed any obligations possible toward folks who work for them. Lately, that shows up in all kinds of ways, including the increasing prevalence of temp jobs, hiring people as ‘contractors’ rather than proper employees, outsourcing and offshoring work whenever possible, etc.”
That’s the nub, and the rub, of the entire movement to the gig economy.
An economy free of the currency of obligation, not to mention the currency of a living wage.
But it sounds hip and cool. Hey, baby got a gig for you. Is zat jass, man, cuz it sure sounds like it? Sign me up. What are the hours? How many you got? Twenty-four every day seven days a week. Then, man, I can fill 23 of them. You’ll be free, self-directed, an entrepreneur, mon ami, a master of your time and destiny. An entrepreneur like Maurice Chevalier and Georges Pompidou, and Bridgett Bardot.
Here’s ten bucks to see you through. Now smile and get lost.
“The trend over the last 30 or so years has been for employers to shed any obligations possible toward folks who work for them. Lately, that shows up in all kinds of ways, including the increasing prevalence of temp jobs, hiring people as ‘contractors’ rather than proper employees, outsourcing and offshoring work whenever possible, etc.”
That’s the nub, and the rub, of the entire movement to the gig economy.
An economy free of the currency of obligation, not to mention the currency of a living wage.
But it sounds hip and cool. Hey, baby got a gig for you. Is zat jass, man, cuz it sure sounds like it? Sign me up. What are the hours? How many you got? Twenty-four every day seven days a week. Then, man, I can fill 23 of them. You’ll be free, self-directed, an entrepreneur, mon ami, a master of your time and destiny. An entrepreneur like Maurice Chevalier and Georges Pompidou, and Bridgett Bardot.
Here’s ten bucks to see you through. Now smile and get lost.
I don’t know any Uber drivers personally. But I can readily imagine people in a situation where driving for Uber would be a desirable opportunity.
A brief anecdote of the “things are not always what they seem” (or what we assume they are) variety.
A bunch of co-workers and I were in New Orleans earlier this week. And a bunch of us were heading out for dinner. We used Uber to get transport. What we got was great, and did the job for us.
But the driver wasn’t an individual making a little extra on the side using his personal car. It was a guy working for a company that uses Uber to generate clients. It’s basically, from what I could see, an alternative to a cabbie working for someone who owns (but never personally uses) a taxi medallion. Just at a much lower cost to the driver.
No individual using his personal capital to better effect. Even though that is the image we all have in our heads of what Uber does. Just a slightly different way of doing the same thing that has constituted the taxi business for decades.
I don’t know any Uber drivers personally. But I can readily imagine people in a situation where driving for Uber would be a desirable opportunity.
A brief anecdote of the “things are not always what they seem” (or what we assume they are) variety.
A bunch of co-workers and I were in New Orleans earlier this week. And a bunch of us were heading out for dinner. We used Uber to get transport. What we got was great, and did the job for us.
But the driver wasn’t an individual making a little extra on the side using his personal car. It was a guy working for a company that uses Uber to generate clients. It’s basically, from what I could see, an alternative to a cabbie working for someone who owns (but never personally uses) a taxi medallion. Just at a much lower cost to the driver.
No individual using his personal capital to better effect. Even though that is the image we all have in our heads of what Uber does. Just a slightly different way of doing the same thing that has constituted the taxi business for decades.
I don’t know any Uber drivers personally. But I can readily imagine people in a situation where driving for Uber would be a desirable opportunity.
A brief anecdote of the “things are not always what they seem” (or what we assume they are) variety.
A bunch of co-workers and I were in New Orleans earlier this week. And a bunch of us were heading out for dinner. We used Uber to get transport. What we got was great, and did the job for us.
But the driver wasn’t an individual making a little extra on the side using his personal car. It was a guy working for a company that uses Uber to generate clients. It’s basically, from what I could see, an alternative to a cabbie working for someone who owns (but never personally uses) a taxi medallion. Just at a much lower cost to the driver.
No individual using his personal capital to better effect. Even though that is the image we all have in our heads of what Uber does. Just a slightly different way of doing the same thing that has constituted the taxi business for decades.
bob, if you drop the link in the comment box, it will become clickable.
Interesting you are reading Maynard and her notions of emotivity. It seems to me that other Japanese linguists end up in similar places as she does because Japanese has a number of constraints that are really cultural rather than grammatical.
for ex Susumu Kuno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susumu_Kuno
The issues he analyses here are a small restricted group of features of the language overall, but of crucial importance for mastery of Japanese, features which ‘make Japanese Japanese’ and mark it out from other languages, including those, especially, which share the basic SOV structure of that language.
and Ikegami’s DO vs BECOME distinction.
https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/fos.8.14ike/details
bob, if you drop the link in the comment box, it will become clickable.
Interesting you are reading Maynard and her notions of emotivity. It seems to me that other Japanese linguists end up in similar places as she does because Japanese has a number of constraints that are really cultural rather than grammatical.
for ex Susumu Kuno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susumu_Kuno
The issues he analyses here are a small restricted group of features of the language overall, but of crucial importance for mastery of Japanese, features which ‘make Japanese Japanese’ and mark it out from other languages, including those, especially, which share the basic SOV structure of that language.
and Ikegami’s DO vs BECOME distinction.
https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/fos.8.14ike/details
bob, if you drop the link in the comment box, it will become clickable.
Interesting you are reading Maynard and her notions of emotivity. It seems to me that other Japanese linguists end up in similar places as she does because Japanese has a number of constraints that are really cultural rather than grammatical.
for ex Susumu Kuno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susumu_Kuno
The issues he analyses here are a small restricted group of features of the language overall, but of crucial importance for mastery of Japanese, features which ‘make Japanese Japanese’ and mark it out from other languages, including those, especially, which share the basic SOV structure of that language.
and Ikegami’s DO vs BECOME distinction.
https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/fos.8.14ike/details
Everybody’s talking ABOUT IT:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/19/1403058/-Why-the-GOP-loves-the-Secondhand-Economy
Everybody’s talking ABOUT IT:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/19/1403058/-Why-the-GOP-loves-the-Secondhand-Economy
Everybody’s talking ABOUT IT:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/19/1403058/-Why-the-GOP-loves-the-Secondhand-Economy
It’s not about Uber, they’re just a ride-sharing service. It’s about the relationship of enterprises to the folks who work for them.
That horse is way out of the barn, when pensions became a thing of the past (except, perhaps, for public employees and union workers). The Count’s link recounts the history.
The question is, what do we do about it, when the American public refuses to vote for people who want to raise taxes to create real jobs building infrastructure, creating new energy sources, conducting scientific (medical) research, etc., Maybe we can rebuild a “manufacturing” economy by training people to manage robots, but I don’t think that bringing back the assembly lines, or large scale factory work is feasible or even desirable.
We need to redesign the economy to provide comfortable lives for the people who live in our world without resorting to creating cheaper Christmas lights for people who don’t really want or need any more of those kinds of things.
It’s not about Uber, they’re just a ride-sharing service. It’s about the relationship of enterprises to the folks who work for them.
That horse is way out of the barn, when pensions became a thing of the past (except, perhaps, for public employees and union workers). The Count’s link recounts the history.
The question is, what do we do about it, when the American public refuses to vote for people who want to raise taxes to create real jobs building infrastructure, creating new energy sources, conducting scientific (medical) research, etc., Maybe we can rebuild a “manufacturing” economy by training people to manage robots, but I don’t think that bringing back the assembly lines, or large scale factory work is feasible or even desirable.
We need to redesign the economy to provide comfortable lives for the people who live in our world without resorting to creating cheaper Christmas lights for people who don’t really want or need any more of those kinds of things.
It’s not about Uber, they’re just a ride-sharing service. It’s about the relationship of enterprises to the folks who work for them.
That horse is way out of the barn, when pensions became a thing of the past (except, perhaps, for public employees and union workers). The Count’s link recounts the history.
The question is, what do we do about it, when the American public refuses to vote for people who want to raise taxes to create real jobs building infrastructure, creating new energy sources, conducting scientific (medical) research, etc., Maybe we can rebuild a “manufacturing” economy by training people to manage robots, but I don’t think that bringing back the assembly lines, or large scale factory work is feasible or even desirable.
We need to redesign the economy to provide comfortable lives for the people who live in our world without resorting to creating cheaper Christmas lights for people who don’t really want or need any more of those kinds of things.
russell:
I hope that helps clarify my position here, if not I’m at a loss as to how to make it any clearer.
Thanks for putting up with it and giving it one last try. I’m pretty much with you now, I think. One of those situations where we were talking about different, but similar things, and kept misunderstanding each other.
So, I want to engage on some of the points you raised:
The trend over the last 30 or so years has been for employers to shed any obligations possible toward folks who work for them.
I also have concerns along this vein, although for various reasons (the major one outlined below, Uber et al doesn’t increase my concerns). I understand that there is a lot of security, stability, etc associated with a job at a large firm. I have friends that work for big business…there is a lot to be said for the stability associated with that, and the (relative) ease with which regulators can regulate it. After all, having a handful of large businesses is way easier that scads of smaller ones.
I think that also comes with large interests, lobbyists, and influence. If you are talking about raising minimum wage, you can be damn sure McDs and Walmart are going to have big seats at the table. Companies that are too big to fail provide stability for their employees, I suppose, but they provide even more for their C-level.
While stable work is great and essential to a lot of people’s lives, I have zero objection to encouraging alternatives to act in concert with, not supplant traditional employment models.
If you decide to take that path because your personal calling in life makes it a good choice, for whatever reason, that’s great.
I agree with the personal choice thing, but I also want to rasie an additional point: some people are temporarily underemployed and don’t have a lot of options. It would be great if we could garuntee every person a nice, stable, middle-class job when they want it, but we can’t. There will always be cracks, and some people will always slip through. If picking up some extra work via Uber or whatever means their life is a little easier, great. If better jobs become available, they can readily leave the ‘gig economy.’
As to your bass player, that sucks. It does, and I have no answer. But if you think the same thing doesn’t happen in more traditional forms of employment, I think you’re wrong. I graduated college right before 08. Some of my friends got nice, stable jobs at big companies, some even public union positions. Then the crash, and layoffs, and some still haven’t found permenent positions. If someone comes up with a way to connect them with someone that needs their skills/car/whatever, even on a gig basis, that’s huge.
To the degree that something like that become the normal model of employer / employee relations, IMVHO it will be harmful to the general economic and social fabric of the nation.
If I saw any indication of gigs displacing traditional employment in any substational way, I would share your concerns. I don’t see that happening, not for a long time, anyway. Why? Because in large swathes of the economy, it would be staggeringly inefficient.
Could you do any sort of research and development with people randomly entering and exiting gigs? No. Hell, it would probably be awful to run a grocery store with contract employees. Run a nightclub? What if you clicked your app and nobody wanted to tend bar that night. Or bounce? You’d close, and you’d lose a lot of money.
Pretty much any job that requires training (which is a lot of jobs, even basic things like schedules, organization and where things are aren’t something you want to redo with each new gig)
And it just becomes absurd in more capital intensive industries…you couldn’t staff a factory or a plant with gigs.
Etc, etc.
Could some things be gigged? Sure, and a lot of them already are. Handymen, plumbers, mechanics, coders, web designers, etc all have examples of both independent and more corporate forms.
My point is: Uber, or sharing economies, or gigs, are not going to be the basis of the economy in the foreseeable future. Or most of the economy, or whatever. It’s just not going to happen. There are just too many people that benefit from stable jobs on *both* sides of the employee/employer relationship.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t encourage and foster parts of the gig economy: it can provide fluidity and dynamism that help smooth over the cracks that some people fall into, or alternatively provide employment for people that just don’t fit into the 9-5 life for whatever reason.
In short, its a bonus to our economy, not a replacement for it.
russell:
I hope that helps clarify my position here, if not I’m at a loss as to how to make it any clearer.
Thanks for putting up with it and giving it one last try. I’m pretty much with you now, I think. One of those situations where we were talking about different, but similar things, and kept misunderstanding each other.
So, I want to engage on some of the points you raised:
The trend over the last 30 or so years has been for employers to shed any obligations possible toward folks who work for them.
I also have concerns along this vein, although for various reasons (the major one outlined below, Uber et al doesn’t increase my concerns). I understand that there is a lot of security, stability, etc associated with a job at a large firm. I have friends that work for big business…there is a lot to be said for the stability associated with that, and the (relative) ease with which regulators can regulate it. After all, having a handful of large businesses is way easier that scads of smaller ones.
I think that also comes with large interests, lobbyists, and influence. If you are talking about raising minimum wage, you can be damn sure McDs and Walmart are going to have big seats at the table. Companies that are too big to fail provide stability for their employees, I suppose, but they provide even more for their C-level.
While stable work is great and essential to a lot of people’s lives, I have zero objection to encouraging alternatives to act in concert with, not supplant traditional employment models.
If you decide to take that path because your personal calling in life makes it a good choice, for whatever reason, that’s great.
I agree with the personal choice thing, but I also want to rasie an additional point: some people are temporarily underemployed and don’t have a lot of options. It would be great if we could garuntee every person a nice, stable, middle-class job when they want it, but we can’t. There will always be cracks, and some people will always slip through. If picking up some extra work via Uber or whatever means their life is a little easier, great. If better jobs become available, they can readily leave the ‘gig economy.’
As to your bass player, that sucks. It does, and I have no answer. But if you think the same thing doesn’t happen in more traditional forms of employment, I think you’re wrong. I graduated college right before 08. Some of my friends got nice, stable jobs at big companies, some even public union positions. Then the crash, and layoffs, and some still haven’t found permenent positions. If someone comes up with a way to connect them with someone that needs their skills/car/whatever, even on a gig basis, that’s huge.
To the degree that something like that become the normal model of employer / employee relations, IMVHO it will be harmful to the general economic and social fabric of the nation.
If I saw any indication of gigs displacing traditional employment in any substational way, I would share your concerns. I don’t see that happening, not for a long time, anyway. Why? Because in large swathes of the economy, it would be staggeringly inefficient.
Could you do any sort of research and development with people randomly entering and exiting gigs? No. Hell, it would probably be awful to run a grocery store with contract employees. Run a nightclub? What if you clicked your app and nobody wanted to tend bar that night. Or bounce? You’d close, and you’d lose a lot of money.
Pretty much any job that requires training (which is a lot of jobs, even basic things like schedules, organization and where things are aren’t something you want to redo with each new gig)
And it just becomes absurd in more capital intensive industries…you couldn’t staff a factory or a plant with gigs.
Etc, etc.
Could some things be gigged? Sure, and a lot of them already are. Handymen, plumbers, mechanics, coders, web designers, etc all have examples of both independent and more corporate forms.
My point is: Uber, or sharing economies, or gigs, are not going to be the basis of the economy in the foreseeable future. Or most of the economy, or whatever. It’s just not going to happen. There are just too many people that benefit from stable jobs on *both* sides of the employee/employer relationship.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t encourage and foster parts of the gig economy: it can provide fluidity and dynamism that help smooth over the cracks that some people fall into, or alternatively provide employment for people that just don’t fit into the 9-5 life for whatever reason.
In short, its a bonus to our economy, not a replacement for it.
russell:
I hope that helps clarify my position here, if not I’m at a loss as to how to make it any clearer.
Thanks for putting up with it and giving it one last try. I’m pretty much with you now, I think. One of those situations where we were talking about different, but similar things, and kept misunderstanding each other.
So, I want to engage on some of the points you raised:
The trend over the last 30 or so years has been for employers to shed any obligations possible toward folks who work for them.
I also have concerns along this vein, although for various reasons (the major one outlined below, Uber et al doesn’t increase my concerns). I understand that there is a lot of security, stability, etc associated with a job at a large firm. I have friends that work for big business…there is a lot to be said for the stability associated with that, and the (relative) ease with which regulators can regulate it. After all, having a handful of large businesses is way easier that scads of smaller ones.
I think that also comes with large interests, lobbyists, and influence. If you are talking about raising minimum wage, you can be damn sure McDs and Walmart are going to have big seats at the table. Companies that are too big to fail provide stability for their employees, I suppose, but they provide even more for their C-level.
While stable work is great and essential to a lot of people’s lives, I have zero objection to encouraging alternatives to act in concert with, not supplant traditional employment models.
If you decide to take that path because your personal calling in life makes it a good choice, for whatever reason, that’s great.
I agree with the personal choice thing, but I also want to rasie an additional point: some people are temporarily underemployed and don’t have a lot of options. It would be great if we could garuntee every person a nice, stable, middle-class job when they want it, but we can’t. There will always be cracks, and some people will always slip through. If picking up some extra work via Uber or whatever means their life is a little easier, great. If better jobs become available, they can readily leave the ‘gig economy.’
As to your bass player, that sucks. It does, and I have no answer. But if you think the same thing doesn’t happen in more traditional forms of employment, I think you’re wrong. I graduated college right before 08. Some of my friends got nice, stable jobs at big companies, some even public union positions. Then the crash, and layoffs, and some still haven’t found permenent positions. If someone comes up with a way to connect them with someone that needs their skills/car/whatever, even on a gig basis, that’s huge.
To the degree that something like that become the normal model of employer / employee relations, IMVHO it will be harmful to the general economic and social fabric of the nation.
If I saw any indication of gigs displacing traditional employment in any substational way, I would share your concerns. I don’t see that happening, not for a long time, anyway. Why? Because in large swathes of the economy, it would be staggeringly inefficient.
Could you do any sort of research and development with people randomly entering and exiting gigs? No. Hell, it would probably be awful to run a grocery store with contract employees. Run a nightclub? What if you clicked your app and nobody wanted to tend bar that night. Or bounce? You’d close, and you’d lose a lot of money.
Pretty much any job that requires training (which is a lot of jobs, even basic things like schedules, organization and where things are aren’t something you want to redo with each new gig)
And it just becomes absurd in more capital intensive industries…you couldn’t staff a factory or a plant with gigs.
Etc, etc.
Could some things be gigged? Sure, and a lot of them already are. Handymen, plumbers, mechanics, coders, web designers, etc all have examples of both independent and more corporate forms.
My point is: Uber, or sharing economies, or gigs, are not going to be the basis of the economy in the foreseeable future. Or most of the economy, or whatever. It’s just not going to happen. There are just too many people that benefit from stable jobs on *both* sides of the employee/employer relationship.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t encourage and foster parts of the gig economy: it can provide fluidity and dynamism that help smooth over the cracks that some people fall into, or alternatively provide employment for people that just don’t fit into the 9-5 life for whatever reason.
In short, its a bonus to our economy, not a replacement for it.
There are just too many people that benefit from stable jobs on *both* sides of the employee/employer relationship.
I agree with most of what you said here, thompson. What I’m skeptical about is that there is such a thing as “stable jobs”. At least, job stability in 2015 doesn’t look the same to me as when I entered the workforce in 1978.
I don’t think we can count on the economic models that have carried us through the past century. Small entrepreneurial businesses have a lot of administrative overhead that larger companies can concentrate in a few people (an h.r. and a finance department). The most efficient thing for society would be for large companies to pay more for less work. Or have government do that. We should come to terms with the fact that we just don’t need as much labor, but we still want people to do well.
There are just too many people that benefit from stable jobs on *both* sides of the employee/employer relationship.
I agree with most of what you said here, thompson. What I’m skeptical about is that there is such a thing as “stable jobs”. At least, job stability in 2015 doesn’t look the same to me as when I entered the workforce in 1978.
I don’t think we can count on the economic models that have carried us through the past century. Small entrepreneurial businesses have a lot of administrative overhead that larger companies can concentrate in a few people (an h.r. and a finance department). The most efficient thing for society would be for large companies to pay more for less work. Or have government do that. We should come to terms with the fact that we just don’t need as much labor, but we still want people to do well.
There are just too many people that benefit from stable jobs on *both* sides of the employee/employer relationship.
I agree with most of what you said here, thompson. What I’m skeptical about is that there is such a thing as “stable jobs”. At least, job stability in 2015 doesn’t look the same to me as when I entered the workforce in 1978.
I don’t think we can count on the economic models that have carried us through the past century. Small entrepreneurial businesses have a lot of administrative overhead that larger companies can concentrate in a few people (an h.r. and a finance department). The most efficient thing for society would be for large companies to pay more for less work. Or have government do that. We should come to terms with the fact that we just don’t need as much labor, but we still want people to do well.
Small entrepreneurial businesses have a lot of administrative overhead that larger companies can concentrate in a few people (an h.r. and a finance department).
And, eventually — or perhaps already — the “gig” economy is filling that slack. People get extended (recurring?) gigs, with multiple small companies, filling those roles. You end up with a similar ratio of HR or Finance people to total corporate stafff, and provide similar expertise where it is needed. What the “gig economy” mostly does is provide a way for the entrepreneurs providing those services to connect with the entrepreneur who need those services.
Small entrepreneurial businesses have a lot of administrative overhead that larger companies can concentrate in a few people (an h.r. and a finance department).
And, eventually — or perhaps already — the “gig” economy is filling that slack. People get extended (recurring?) gigs, with multiple small companies, filling those roles. You end up with a similar ratio of HR or Finance people to total corporate stafff, and provide similar expertise where it is needed. What the “gig economy” mostly does is provide a way for the entrepreneurs providing those services to connect with the entrepreneur who need those services.
Small entrepreneurial businesses have a lot of administrative overhead that larger companies can concentrate in a few people (an h.r. and a finance department).
And, eventually — or perhaps already — the “gig” economy is filling that slack. People get extended (recurring?) gigs, with multiple small companies, filling those roles. You end up with a similar ratio of HR or Finance people to total corporate stafff, and provide similar expertise where it is needed. What the “gig economy” mostly does is provide a way for the entrepreneurs providing those services to connect with the entrepreneur who need those services.
What wj said. One of the advantages of “gig economy” is that it can spread specialists around to smaller firms, that couldn’t by themselves afford someone fulltime.
That is, of course, not new, but technology can make that a little more fluid.
What wj said. One of the advantages of “gig economy” is that it can spread specialists around to smaller firms, that couldn’t by themselves afford someone fulltime.
That is, of course, not new, but technology can make that a little more fluid.
What wj said. One of the advantages of “gig economy” is that it can spread specialists around to smaller firms, that couldn’t by themselves afford someone fulltime.
That is, of course, not new, but technology can make that a little more fluid.
For several years I was a construction laborer. I’d show up at a site and get a job. Then after a while I was laid off or quit.
Did this constitute a “gig”?
I’ve had few minor needs for legal services. I called an attorney, and they provided some service.
Did this constitute a “gig”?
Is my dentist a “gigger”?
I’m seeing a lot of old wine in new shiny bottles here….with a big slice creamed off for the app developers and funders, who then get protected by copyright (sorry about that CharlesWT–no underground economy for you!) and float massively overvalued stock (another highly state supported market…sorry again Charles) to cash in on their “creation”.
And Sapient is correct. We need to expand the public sphere, not shrink it.
For several years I was a construction laborer. I’d show up at a site and get a job. Then after a while I was laid off or quit.
Did this constitute a “gig”?
I’ve had few minor needs for legal services. I called an attorney, and they provided some service.
Did this constitute a “gig”?
Is my dentist a “gigger”?
I’m seeing a lot of old wine in new shiny bottles here….with a big slice creamed off for the app developers and funders, who then get protected by copyright (sorry about that CharlesWT–no underground economy for you!) and float massively overvalued stock (another highly state supported market…sorry again Charles) to cash in on their “creation”.
And Sapient is correct. We need to expand the public sphere, not shrink it.
For several years I was a construction laborer. I’d show up at a site and get a job. Then after a while I was laid off or quit.
Did this constitute a “gig”?
I’ve had few minor needs for legal services. I called an attorney, and they provided some service.
Did this constitute a “gig”?
Is my dentist a “gigger”?
I’m seeing a lot of old wine in new shiny bottles here….with a big slice creamed off for the app developers and funders, who then get protected by copyright (sorry about that CharlesWT–no underground economy for you!) and float massively overvalued stock (another highly state supported market…sorry again Charles) to cash in on their “creation”.
And Sapient is correct. We need to expand the public sphere, not shrink it.
bobby p:” I’ve had few minor needs for legal services. I called an attorney, and they provided some service.
Did this constitute a “gig”?”
This is interesting to me, because once upon a time, I provided legal services to middle class people, some of whom had complicated legal problems. Legal representation is difficult and time consuming, and getting paid by the hour for doing highly skilled, extremely soul crushing work (like child custody cases) doesn’t get easier just because a client isn’t wealthy. So what do you do if you’re a lawyer? You don’t get paid. That’s what the “gig” economy is like for a lawyer who represents folks who are doing “gigs”. Obviously, big firms can subsidize their pro bono work with rich clients. How often do they do that? Sometimes, but not enough to meet the need.
bobby p:” I’ve had few minor needs for legal services. I called an attorney, and they provided some service.
Did this constitute a “gig”?”
This is interesting to me, because once upon a time, I provided legal services to middle class people, some of whom had complicated legal problems. Legal representation is difficult and time consuming, and getting paid by the hour for doing highly skilled, extremely soul crushing work (like child custody cases) doesn’t get easier just because a client isn’t wealthy. So what do you do if you’re a lawyer? You don’t get paid. That’s what the “gig” economy is like for a lawyer who represents folks who are doing “gigs”. Obviously, big firms can subsidize their pro bono work with rich clients. How often do they do that? Sometimes, but not enough to meet the need.
bobby p:” I’ve had few minor needs for legal services. I called an attorney, and they provided some service.
Did this constitute a “gig”?”
This is interesting to me, because once upon a time, I provided legal services to middle class people, some of whom had complicated legal problems. Legal representation is difficult and time consuming, and getting paid by the hour for doing highly skilled, extremely soul crushing work (like child custody cases) doesn’t get easier just because a client isn’t wealthy. So what do you do if you’re a lawyer? You don’t get paid. That’s what the “gig” economy is like for a lawyer who represents folks who are doing “gigs”. Obviously, big firms can subsidize their pro bono work with rich clients. How often do they do that? Sometimes, but not enough to meet the need.
Anyway, what I was trying to illustrate in my previous comment is that capitalism doesn’t solve some of the essential problems that lots of people face.
Anyway, what I was trying to illustrate in my previous comment is that capitalism doesn’t solve some of the essential problems that lots of people face.
Anyway, what I was trying to illustrate in my previous comment is that capitalism doesn’t solve some of the essential problems that lots of people face.
What we are looking at is not the end of capitalism, but rather the next phase of its evolution. The world that is emerging is still a market-driven phenomenon that is recognizable as capitalism.
Is Capitalism Ending?
What we are looking at is not the end of capitalism, but rather the next phase of its evolution. The world that is emerging is still a market-driven phenomenon that is recognizable as capitalism.
Is Capitalism Ending?
What we are looking at is not the end of capitalism, but rather the next phase of its evolution. The world that is emerging is still a market-driven phenomenon that is recognizable as capitalism.
Is Capitalism Ending?
A few thoughts.
First, I agree completely that the days of “stable employment” in the sense of go to work for one company, put in 30 or 35 years, retire with a pension, are absolutely gone. Gone. Not coming back. So, that’s not on offer, and not really under discussion except as nostalgia.
What “stable employment” has meant for the last couple of decades is the availability of a job at all in a field you are qualified for. In other words, an approximate match between supply and demand in the labor market.
In some industries – especially manufacturing, maybe some others – that’s also gone, and is likely not coming back at a level that will replace what used to be there.
Even in skilled professions, where there is still a large demand for the skill set – tech, medicine, engineering, more sophisticated forms of manufacturing – workers are becoming increasingly fungible, because many of them can be outsourced a la wf’s 9:42, or simply moved offshore. That often comes with some level of decline in the quality of the work product, but if the efficiencies are there in terms of cost of labor, that’s viewed as an acceptable trade-off.
All of that is actually fine, in and of itself. Sort of, anyway. The problem is that in the US, unlike in many other places, “job” doesn’t just mean pay for labor. It also means, most notably, health insurance, and often a variety of other goods not specifically related to the job itself.
We don’t have anything in place right now to replace that. So, if you find yourself in the ever-expanding “gig” economy, you are probably looking at some scary choices. You are probably living, to a greater or lesser degree, a precarious life.
To the degree that that expands, the overall social fabric will continue to be stressed, and in some cases broken.
Another aspect to all of this is that the idea of a firm or an enterprise as an entity with anything resembling a long-term lifespan is also becoming less common. A very common business model now is to spin up a company to attract investment, then cash out, all in a 5 or 10 year time frame. It’s not just gig employment, it’s a kind of gig model of the firm.
As sapient, bobbyp, and TonyP suggest, one obvious solution to a lot of this is to move some of the things that are currently normally provided via an employer to the public sector. If nothing else, it will be enormously more efficient to provide something like, for example, health insurance, on a universal basis, than for everyone to have to make their own personal calculation about levels of risk vs cost, and for insurers and purchasers to negotiate 150 million different policies, finely tuned to each persons budget and risk tolerance.
Many people in this country object to that idea on philosophical grounds, and frankly *prefer* that everyone be able to roll their own as far as things like insurance. That’s a reasonable point of view, my only point about it is that it’s highly arguably less efficient. In other words, the overall costs and overall risks incurred are likely higher.
Lots of folks call for a more “entrepreneurial” economy, of which “gig” employment would likely be a part. All of that is, per se, fine. But if we want that, we need to put institutions in place to make that compatible with a stable society.
It is, indeed, kind of f****ed up to find yourself having to beg for handouts to pay for physical therapy after a massive stroke, or to have every tooth in your head replaced so you can continue to make a living, after working for 30 or 40 years. The two guys I referred to upthread will probably make it work somehow, because they are, in certain circles, widely known and respected. A lot of folks love them.
Plus, they’re musicians, and musicians are used to doing stuff like that to help bail each other out. They’ve been in the gig economy forever.
Not everyone has that to fall back on. Most likely, most people don’t. And even if they did, “hey brother can you spare a dime” doesn’t scale.
A few thoughts.
First, I agree completely that the days of “stable employment” in the sense of go to work for one company, put in 30 or 35 years, retire with a pension, are absolutely gone. Gone. Not coming back. So, that’s not on offer, and not really under discussion except as nostalgia.
What “stable employment” has meant for the last couple of decades is the availability of a job at all in a field you are qualified for. In other words, an approximate match between supply and demand in the labor market.
In some industries – especially manufacturing, maybe some others – that’s also gone, and is likely not coming back at a level that will replace what used to be there.
Even in skilled professions, where there is still a large demand for the skill set – tech, medicine, engineering, more sophisticated forms of manufacturing – workers are becoming increasingly fungible, because many of them can be outsourced a la wf’s 9:42, or simply moved offshore. That often comes with some level of decline in the quality of the work product, but if the efficiencies are there in terms of cost of labor, that’s viewed as an acceptable trade-off.
All of that is actually fine, in and of itself. Sort of, anyway. The problem is that in the US, unlike in many other places, “job” doesn’t just mean pay for labor. It also means, most notably, health insurance, and often a variety of other goods not specifically related to the job itself.
We don’t have anything in place right now to replace that. So, if you find yourself in the ever-expanding “gig” economy, you are probably looking at some scary choices. You are probably living, to a greater or lesser degree, a precarious life.
To the degree that that expands, the overall social fabric will continue to be stressed, and in some cases broken.
Another aspect to all of this is that the idea of a firm or an enterprise as an entity with anything resembling a long-term lifespan is also becoming less common. A very common business model now is to spin up a company to attract investment, then cash out, all in a 5 or 10 year time frame. It’s not just gig employment, it’s a kind of gig model of the firm.
As sapient, bobbyp, and TonyP suggest, one obvious solution to a lot of this is to move some of the things that are currently normally provided via an employer to the public sector. If nothing else, it will be enormously more efficient to provide something like, for example, health insurance, on a universal basis, than for everyone to have to make their own personal calculation about levels of risk vs cost, and for insurers and purchasers to negotiate 150 million different policies, finely tuned to each persons budget and risk tolerance.
Many people in this country object to that idea on philosophical grounds, and frankly *prefer* that everyone be able to roll their own as far as things like insurance. That’s a reasonable point of view, my only point about it is that it’s highly arguably less efficient. In other words, the overall costs and overall risks incurred are likely higher.
Lots of folks call for a more “entrepreneurial” economy, of which “gig” employment would likely be a part. All of that is, per se, fine. But if we want that, we need to put institutions in place to make that compatible with a stable society.
It is, indeed, kind of f****ed up to find yourself having to beg for handouts to pay for physical therapy after a massive stroke, or to have every tooth in your head replaced so you can continue to make a living, after working for 30 or 40 years. The two guys I referred to upthread will probably make it work somehow, because they are, in certain circles, widely known and respected. A lot of folks love them.
Plus, they’re musicians, and musicians are used to doing stuff like that to help bail each other out. They’ve been in the gig economy forever.
Not everyone has that to fall back on. Most likely, most people don’t. And even if they did, “hey brother can you spare a dime” doesn’t scale.
A few thoughts.
First, I agree completely that the days of “stable employment” in the sense of go to work for one company, put in 30 or 35 years, retire with a pension, are absolutely gone. Gone. Not coming back. So, that’s not on offer, and not really under discussion except as nostalgia.
What “stable employment” has meant for the last couple of decades is the availability of a job at all in a field you are qualified for. In other words, an approximate match between supply and demand in the labor market.
In some industries – especially manufacturing, maybe some others – that’s also gone, and is likely not coming back at a level that will replace what used to be there.
Even in skilled professions, where there is still a large demand for the skill set – tech, medicine, engineering, more sophisticated forms of manufacturing – workers are becoming increasingly fungible, because many of them can be outsourced a la wf’s 9:42, or simply moved offshore. That often comes with some level of decline in the quality of the work product, but if the efficiencies are there in terms of cost of labor, that’s viewed as an acceptable trade-off.
All of that is actually fine, in and of itself. Sort of, anyway. The problem is that in the US, unlike in many other places, “job” doesn’t just mean pay for labor. It also means, most notably, health insurance, and often a variety of other goods not specifically related to the job itself.
We don’t have anything in place right now to replace that. So, if you find yourself in the ever-expanding “gig” economy, you are probably looking at some scary choices. You are probably living, to a greater or lesser degree, a precarious life.
To the degree that that expands, the overall social fabric will continue to be stressed, and in some cases broken.
Another aspect to all of this is that the idea of a firm or an enterprise as an entity with anything resembling a long-term lifespan is also becoming less common. A very common business model now is to spin up a company to attract investment, then cash out, all in a 5 or 10 year time frame. It’s not just gig employment, it’s a kind of gig model of the firm.
As sapient, bobbyp, and TonyP suggest, one obvious solution to a lot of this is to move some of the things that are currently normally provided via an employer to the public sector. If nothing else, it will be enormously more efficient to provide something like, for example, health insurance, on a universal basis, than for everyone to have to make their own personal calculation about levels of risk vs cost, and for insurers and purchasers to negotiate 150 million different policies, finely tuned to each persons budget and risk tolerance.
Many people in this country object to that idea on philosophical grounds, and frankly *prefer* that everyone be able to roll their own as far as things like insurance. That’s a reasonable point of view, my only point about it is that it’s highly arguably less efficient. In other words, the overall costs and overall risks incurred are likely higher.
Lots of folks call for a more “entrepreneurial” economy, of which “gig” employment would likely be a part. All of that is, per se, fine. But if we want that, we need to put institutions in place to make that compatible with a stable society.
It is, indeed, kind of f****ed up to find yourself having to beg for handouts to pay for physical therapy after a massive stroke, or to have every tooth in your head replaced so you can continue to make a living, after working for 30 or 40 years. The two guys I referred to upthread will probably make it work somehow, because they are, in certain circles, widely known and respected. A lot of folks love them.
Plus, they’re musicians, and musicians are used to doing stuff like that to help bail each other out. They’ve been in the gig economy forever.
Not everyone has that to fall back on. Most likely, most people don’t. And even if they did, “hey brother can you spare a dime” doesn’t scale.
“wf’s 9:42” is actually “wj’s 9:42”.
Whoever invented auto-correct can bite me.
“wf’s 9:42” is actually “wj’s 9:42”.
Whoever invented auto-correct can bite me.
“wf’s 9:42” is actually “wj’s 9:42”.
Whoever invented auto-correct can bite me.
I’ve just taken in the last couple of days of comments on this thread and haven’t gone to any of the links provided, so I may risk being redundant.
But I got two words for this whole, damned thing: “shareholder value.”
Thanks.
I’ve just taken in the last couple of days of comments on this thread and haven’t gone to any of the links provided, so I may risk being redundant.
But I got two words for this whole, damned thing: “shareholder value.”
Thanks.
I’ve just taken in the last couple of days of comments on this thread and haven’t gone to any of the links provided, so I may risk being redundant.
But I got two words for this whole, damned thing: “shareholder value.”
Thanks.
also, too, a personal comment about “gig economies”.
for a while in my software career, I worked as a consultant. in many ways, it was great. my hours were almost completely flexible, i had lots of time to practice music, etc.
why did I change that?
within the boundaries of my skill set, I’m a really really good software engineer.
I’m a really crappy salesperson. Hate it, am not good at it. I’d rather stab myself in the eyeballs with rusty knives than spend ten or twenty hours a month networking, calling up old clients and/or new “contacts” to see what I could shake out of the tree, following up on “contract employee wanted” notices, etc.
I could, of course, work for an agency, and let them do the glad-handing, but there’s not that much difference between that and just working for a company.
So, I could spend a non-trivial amount of my time doing stuff that I suck at and hate, in order to live the flexible lifestyle-enhancing “gig” life, or I could just get a straight job and spend all of my work hours actually building stuff.
I went with the latter.
Some people are really really good at something useful, but are absolute crap entrepreneurs. Total and absolute crap. It would be good if those folks could just do the things they are actually really good at.
Just another thought.
also, too, a personal comment about “gig economies”.
for a while in my software career, I worked as a consultant. in many ways, it was great. my hours were almost completely flexible, i had lots of time to practice music, etc.
why did I change that?
within the boundaries of my skill set, I’m a really really good software engineer.
I’m a really crappy salesperson. Hate it, am not good at it. I’d rather stab myself in the eyeballs with rusty knives than spend ten or twenty hours a month networking, calling up old clients and/or new “contacts” to see what I could shake out of the tree, following up on “contract employee wanted” notices, etc.
I could, of course, work for an agency, and let them do the glad-handing, but there’s not that much difference between that and just working for a company.
So, I could spend a non-trivial amount of my time doing stuff that I suck at and hate, in order to live the flexible lifestyle-enhancing “gig” life, or I could just get a straight job and spend all of my work hours actually building stuff.
I went with the latter.
Some people are really really good at something useful, but are absolute crap entrepreneurs. Total and absolute crap. It would be good if those folks could just do the things they are actually really good at.
Just another thought.
also, too, a personal comment about “gig economies”.
for a while in my software career, I worked as a consultant. in many ways, it was great. my hours were almost completely flexible, i had lots of time to practice music, etc.
why did I change that?
within the boundaries of my skill set, I’m a really really good software engineer.
I’m a really crappy salesperson. Hate it, am not good at it. I’d rather stab myself in the eyeballs with rusty knives than spend ten or twenty hours a month networking, calling up old clients and/or new “contacts” to see what I could shake out of the tree, following up on “contract employee wanted” notices, etc.
I could, of course, work for an agency, and let them do the glad-handing, but there’s not that much difference between that and just working for a company.
So, I could spend a non-trivial amount of my time doing stuff that I suck at and hate, in order to live the flexible lifestyle-enhancing “gig” life, or I could just get a straight job and spend all of my work hours actually building stuff.
I went with the latter.
Some people are really really good at something useful, but are absolute crap entrepreneurs. Total and absolute crap. It would be good if those folks could just do the things they are actually really good at.
Just another thought.
“Whoever invented auto-correct can bite me.”
Looks like you already got bit.
“Whoever invented auto-correct can bite me.”
Looks like you already got bit.
“Whoever invented auto-correct can bite me.”
Looks like you already got bit.
As sapient, bobbyp, and TonyP suggest, one obvious solution to a lot of this is to move some of the things that are currently normally provided via an employer to the public sector.
Another fairly obvious solution is to remove the tax incentives that ties health insurance to employment and encourage formation of exchanges (yes, I do approve of the exchanges in the ACA).
I don’t disagree with much of what you said, I’m just less bullish on capability of the federal government to provide quality medical service. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration_scandal_of_2014 for example.
I think there is an important role of the government in encouraging pricing transparency and increase in accessibility, but I would prefer a robust private sector option. Not for philosophical reasons, but because I don’t have a strong expectation that the government will adequately provide care.
Note, I don’t have a particular objection to, for example, opening the VA system to the public for a fee. If they truly provide better value, good for them, people will migrate to that from the private sector.
As sapient, bobbyp, and TonyP suggest, one obvious solution to a lot of this is to move some of the things that are currently normally provided via an employer to the public sector.
Another fairly obvious solution is to remove the tax incentives that ties health insurance to employment and encourage formation of exchanges (yes, I do approve of the exchanges in the ACA).
I don’t disagree with much of what you said, I’m just less bullish on capability of the federal government to provide quality medical service. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration_scandal_of_2014 for example.
I think there is an important role of the government in encouraging pricing transparency and increase in accessibility, but I would prefer a robust private sector option. Not for philosophical reasons, but because I don’t have a strong expectation that the government will adequately provide care.
Note, I don’t have a particular objection to, for example, opening the VA system to the public for a fee. If they truly provide better value, good for them, people will migrate to that from the private sector.
As sapient, bobbyp, and TonyP suggest, one obvious solution to a lot of this is to move some of the things that are currently normally provided via an employer to the public sector.
Another fairly obvious solution is to remove the tax incentives that ties health insurance to employment and encourage formation of exchanges (yes, I do approve of the exchanges in the ACA).
I don’t disagree with much of what you said, I’m just less bullish on capability of the federal government to provide quality medical service. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration_scandal_of_2014 for example.
I think there is an important role of the government in encouraging pricing transparency and increase in accessibility, but I would prefer a robust private sector option. Not for philosophical reasons, but because I don’t have a strong expectation that the government will adequately provide care.
Note, I don’t have a particular objection to, for example, opening the VA system to the public for a fee. If they truly provide better value, good for them, people will migrate to that from the private sector.
“But I got two words for this whole, damned thing: “shareholder value.”
Any economic system, culture, or civilization that can perform a wealth-creating miracle like this — in a single day (hey, I’m all for it):
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/google-surge-leaves-co-founders-page-brin-dollar8-billion-richer/ar-AAd8S25
… can provide cradle to grave medical and dental coverage for trumpet players, bass players, and all God’s children.
That we are prevented from doing so by PFers with guns at every turn is a disgrace that looks a lot like genocide.
“But I got two words for this whole, damned thing: “shareholder value.”
Any economic system, culture, or civilization that can perform a wealth-creating miracle like this — in a single day (hey, I’m all for it):
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/google-surge-leaves-co-founders-page-brin-dollar8-billion-richer/ar-AAd8S25
… can provide cradle to grave medical and dental coverage for trumpet players, bass players, and all God’s children.
That we are prevented from doing so by PFers with guns at every turn is a disgrace that looks a lot like genocide.
“But I got two words for this whole, damned thing: “shareholder value.”
Any economic system, culture, or civilization that can perform a wealth-creating miracle like this — in a single day (hey, I’m all for it):
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/google-surge-leaves-co-founders-page-brin-dollar8-billion-richer/ar-AAd8S25
… can provide cradle to grave medical and dental coverage for trumpet players, bass players, and all God’s children.
That we are prevented from doing so by PFers with guns at every turn is a disgrace that looks a lot like genocide.
Speaking of how much the system can change in 20 years, and also speaking of people that slip through societies cracks:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/07/20/changes-the-nuts-and-bolts-of-prisoner-re-entry/
Speaking of how much the system can change in 20 years, and also speaking of people that slip through societies cracks:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/07/20/changes-the-nuts-and-bolts-of-prisoner-re-entry/
Speaking of how much the system can change in 20 years, and also speaking of people that slip through societies cracks:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/07/20/changes-the-nuts-and-bolts-of-prisoner-re-entry/
One day, there be things called auto-post, auto-comment, and auto-opinionate that will remove the need altogether for our meat-world minds and fingers on keyboards.
One day, there be things called auto-post, auto-comment, and auto-opinionate that will remove the need altogether for our meat-world minds and fingers on keyboards.
One day, there be things called auto-post, auto-comment, and auto-opinionate that will remove the need altogether for our meat-world minds and fingers on keyboards.
I’m starting to think we all exist in the imagination of some highly advanced AI entity as it is.
I’m starting to think we all exist in the imagination of some highly advanced AI entity as it is.
I’m starting to think we all exist in the imagination of some highly advanced AI entity as it is.
It’s sort of like the Matrix, only without the actual humans being used as power cells. There is no real world, and it doesn’t matter which color pill you swallow.
It’s sort of like the Matrix, only without the actual humans being used as power cells. There is no real world, and it doesn’t matter which color pill you swallow.
It’s sort of like the Matrix, only without the actual humans being used as power cells. There is no real world, and it doesn’t matter which color pill you swallow.
One day, there be things called auto-post, auto-comment, and auto-opinionate that will remove the need altogether for our meat-world minds and fingers on keyboards.
Who says we’re not there now?
On the internet, nobody knows you’re a machine.
One day, there be things called auto-post, auto-comment, and auto-opinionate that will remove the need altogether for our meat-world minds and fingers on keyboards.
Who says we’re not there now?
On the internet, nobody knows you’re a machine.
One day, there be things called auto-post, auto-comment, and auto-opinionate that will remove the need altogether for our meat-world minds and fingers on keyboards.
Who says we’re not there now?
On the internet, nobody knows you’re a machine.
Who says we’re not there now?
Because there are a lot of paid human trolls.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html
Who says we’re not there now?
Because there are a lot of paid human trolls.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html
Who says we’re not there now?
Because there are a lot of paid human trolls.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html
I remember, several election cycles ago, the anti-public library, anti-librarian meme that persisted for awhile among Republican candidates and their political media and blogging wurlitzer, among whom where those who predicted the disappearance of the public library as technology obviated their necessity and good riddance, and the utter sadistic glee that librarians, those parasites of the written page, would be unemployed, perhaps to become hired pigf*ckers for the new Republican economy.
Well, it passed, as public libraries adapted to Amazon and other entrants into their space and in most cases are flourishing and crowded, although in some municipalities, their hours are the first to be cut by conservative city council and mayoral ideologues who just can’t countenance the free dispersion of knowledge.
Although, it occurs to me that I paid for those books and their repository, so who are these guys to prevent me from using the resource.
I contemplated, as a thought experiment, becoming a library catburglar, breaking in and checking out books from the shuttered libraries and giving them to children while conservatives slept the sleep of illiterate hardheads.
What got me, right in the gut, though, was the sheer joyful, sadistic expectation by these cruelty mongers that people would be out of jobs.
I decided it’s a dominance thing with these people. They enjoy the suffering and debasement of others and maybe the chance to ridicule the hapless librarian whose teeth fall out because of no health insurance and to make them jump through the capitalist hoops to make ends meet.
They like unemployment. Fire at will. The Will to Power.
I see this among many of my conservative friends, this teeth-gritting contempt for the unemployed, unless of course its them whose teeth rot because they can’t afford the fix.
Then they have an epiphany, like politicians who find out they have a gay child or a relative without health insurance who finds a tumor the size of Nebraska in their liver.
Oh my God! What can we do to make things easier for these people, they ask, like Columbus sighting the new world, as if it wasn’t hovering right there in front of their eyes the entire time.
Maybe they admit to jumping the gun while haranguing the smirking Republican mob about these damned parasites handing out books for free, and receiving a salary and benies to boot for their trouble.
How about resigning from public life first and then I might listen to your second thoughts while keeping a pair of pliers handy to yank your rotting teeth out with prejudice as an act of charity.
If any of you recognize yourselves in these descriptions, be assured that I don’t sense that sadistic impulse among all of my friends of any political persuasion still at Obsidian Wings, but if YOU do, then fix it.
I remember, several election cycles ago, the anti-public library, anti-librarian meme that persisted for awhile among Republican candidates and their political media and blogging wurlitzer, among whom where those who predicted the disappearance of the public library as technology obviated their necessity and good riddance, and the utter sadistic glee that librarians, those parasites of the written page, would be unemployed, perhaps to become hired pigf*ckers for the new Republican economy.
Well, it passed, as public libraries adapted to Amazon and other entrants into their space and in most cases are flourishing and crowded, although in some municipalities, their hours are the first to be cut by conservative city council and mayoral ideologues who just can’t countenance the free dispersion of knowledge.
Although, it occurs to me that I paid for those books and their repository, so who are these guys to prevent me from using the resource.
I contemplated, as a thought experiment, becoming a library catburglar, breaking in and checking out books from the shuttered libraries and giving them to children while conservatives slept the sleep of illiterate hardheads.
What got me, right in the gut, though, was the sheer joyful, sadistic expectation by these cruelty mongers that people would be out of jobs.
I decided it’s a dominance thing with these people. They enjoy the suffering and debasement of others and maybe the chance to ridicule the hapless librarian whose teeth fall out because of no health insurance and to make them jump through the capitalist hoops to make ends meet.
They like unemployment. Fire at will. The Will to Power.
I see this among many of my conservative friends, this teeth-gritting contempt for the unemployed, unless of course its them whose teeth rot because they can’t afford the fix.
Then they have an epiphany, like politicians who find out they have a gay child or a relative without health insurance who finds a tumor the size of Nebraska in their liver.
Oh my God! What can we do to make things easier for these people, they ask, like Columbus sighting the new world, as if it wasn’t hovering right there in front of their eyes the entire time.
Maybe they admit to jumping the gun while haranguing the smirking Republican mob about these damned parasites handing out books for free, and receiving a salary and benies to boot for their trouble.
How about resigning from public life first and then I might listen to your second thoughts while keeping a pair of pliers handy to yank your rotting teeth out with prejudice as an act of charity.
If any of you recognize yourselves in these descriptions, be assured that I don’t sense that sadistic impulse among all of my friends of any political persuasion still at Obsidian Wings, but if YOU do, then fix it.
I remember, several election cycles ago, the anti-public library, anti-librarian meme that persisted for awhile among Republican candidates and their political media and blogging wurlitzer, among whom where those who predicted the disappearance of the public library as technology obviated their necessity and good riddance, and the utter sadistic glee that librarians, those parasites of the written page, would be unemployed, perhaps to become hired pigf*ckers for the new Republican economy.
Well, it passed, as public libraries adapted to Amazon and other entrants into their space and in most cases are flourishing and crowded, although in some municipalities, their hours are the first to be cut by conservative city council and mayoral ideologues who just can’t countenance the free dispersion of knowledge.
Although, it occurs to me that I paid for those books and their repository, so who are these guys to prevent me from using the resource.
I contemplated, as a thought experiment, becoming a library catburglar, breaking in and checking out books from the shuttered libraries and giving them to children while conservatives slept the sleep of illiterate hardheads.
What got me, right in the gut, though, was the sheer joyful, sadistic expectation by these cruelty mongers that people would be out of jobs.
I decided it’s a dominance thing with these people. They enjoy the suffering and debasement of others and maybe the chance to ridicule the hapless librarian whose teeth fall out because of no health insurance and to make them jump through the capitalist hoops to make ends meet.
They like unemployment. Fire at will. The Will to Power.
I see this among many of my conservative friends, this teeth-gritting contempt for the unemployed, unless of course its them whose teeth rot because they can’t afford the fix.
Then they have an epiphany, like politicians who find out they have a gay child or a relative without health insurance who finds a tumor the size of Nebraska in their liver.
Oh my God! What can we do to make things easier for these people, they ask, like Columbus sighting the new world, as if it wasn’t hovering right there in front of their eyes the entire time.
Maybe they admit to jumping the gun while haranguing the smirking Republican mob about these damned parasites handing out books for free, and receiving a salary and benies to boot for their trouble.
How about resigning from public life first and then I might listen to your second thoughts while keeping a pair of pliers handy to yank your rotting teeth out with prejudice as an act of charity.
If any of you recognize yourselves in these descriptions, be assured that I don’t sense that sadistic impulse among all of my friends of any political persuasion still at Obsidian Wings, but if YOU do, then fix it.
9:41:I’m starting to think we all exist in the imagination of some highly advanced AI entity as it is.
Konrad Zuse inventor of modern computer, in the early 1940s, wrote Calculating Space
“Zuse proposed that the universe is being computed by some sort of cellular automaton or other discrete computing machinery,[1] challenging the long-held view that some physical laws are continuous by nature. He focused on cellular automata as a possible substrate of the computation, and pointed out (among other things) that the classical notions of entropy and its growth do not make sense in deterministically computed universes.”
Not yet refuted, if refutable
9:41:I’m starting to think we all exist in the imagination of some highly advanced AI entity as it is.
Konrad Zuse inventor of modern computer, in the early 1940s, wrote Calculating Space
“Zuse proposed that the universe is being computed by some sort of cellular automaton or other discrete computing machinery,[1] challenging the long-held view that some physical laws are continuous by nature. He focused on cellular automata as a possible substrate of the computation, and pointed out (among other things) that the classical notions of entropy and its growth do not make sense in deterministically computed universes.”
Not yet refuted, if refutable
9:41:I’m starting to think we all exist in the imagination of some highly advanced AI entity as it is.
Konrad Zuse inventor of modern computer, in the early 1940s, wrote Calculating Space
“Zuse proposed that the universe is being computed by some sort of cellular automaton or other discrete computing machinery,[1] challenging the long-held view that some physical laws are continuous by nature. He focused on cellular automata as a possible substrate of the computation, and pointed out (among other things) that the classical notions of entropy and its growth do not make sense in deterministically computed universes.”
Not yet refuted, if refutable
Because there are a lot of paid human trolls.
The Russians may have the Internet Research Service, but we have Ken M!
Because there are a lot of paid human trolls.
The Russians may have the Internet Research Service, but we have Ken M!
Because there are a lot of paid human trolls.
The Russians may have the Internet Research Service, but we have Ken M!
Ken M is a treasure.
I wish I was him.
I don’t think AI could mimic his schtick, but when it does, then all that is human is lost.
thompson, that link should be the basis for a movie script.
I wonder, regarding the chemical plant bombing by ISIS and the false EBOLA meme, about the political profile of the Americans who bought these stories and help spread them.
I wish to confirm my thesis that Trump, Coulter, Cruz, Palin, et al and their paranoid base, share a macho, fascist manipulative outlook on the world with their compatriot, Vlad Putin.
Ken M is a treasure.
I wish I was him.
I don’t think AI could mimic his schtick, but when it does, then all that is human is lost.
thompson, that link should be the basis for a movie script.
I wonder, regarding the chemical plant bombing by ISIS and the false EBOLA meme, about the political profile of the Americans who bought these stories and help spread them.
I wish to confirm my thesis that Trump, Coulter, Cruz, Palin, et al and their paranoid base, share a macho, fascist manipulative outlook on the world with their compatriot, Vlad Putin.
Ken M is a treasure.
I wish I was him.
I don’t think AI could mimic his schtick, but when it does, then all that is human is lost.
thompson, that link should be the basis for a movie script.
I wonder, regarding the chemical plant bombing by ISIS and the false EBOLA meme, about the political profile of the Americans who bought these stories and help spread them.
I wish to confirm my thesis that Trump, Coulter, Cruz, Palin, et al and their paranoid base, share a macho, fascist manipulative outlook on the world with their compatriot, Vlad Putin.
I’m blaming the whole jade helm thing on the internet research service.
I’m blaming the whole jade helm thing on the internet research service.
I’m blaming the whole jade helm thing on the internet research service.
Count, that’s a well-known phenomenon: many humans have a deficit of imagination + empathy, such that they only really “get it” when it’s something that happens to THEM or someone close to them.
Those who build a political career based on this empathy deficit need to have ALL manner of calamities visited upon them, so that they might grow to be fully human.
We cannot rest until Scott Walker is lying in a ditch, after being wrongly convicted, broke and unemployable, hungry, addicted, ignorant and uneducated (okay, got that), with painful debilitating yet easily curable diseases and no healthcare.
Then, and only then, can we say “our job here is done”.
Count, that’s a well-known phenomenon: many humans have a deficit of imagination + empathy, such that they only really “get it” when it’s something that happens to THEM or someone close to them.
Those who build a political career based on this empathy deficit need to have ALL manner of calamities visited upon them, so that they might grow to be fully human.
We cannot rest until Scott Walker is lying in a ditch, after being wrongly convicted, broke and unemployable, hungry, addicted, ignorant and uneducated (okay, got that), with painful debilitating yet easily curable diseases and no healthcare.
Then, and only then, can we say “our job here is done”.
Count, that’s a well-known phenomenon: many humans have a deficit of imagination + empathy, such that they only really “get it” when it’s something that happens to THEM or someone close to them.
Those who build a political career based on this empathy deficit need to have ALL manner of calamities visited upon them, so that they might grow to be fully human.
We cannot rest until Scott Walker is lying in a ditch, after being wrongly convicted, broke and unemployable, hungry, addicted, ignorant and uneducated (okay, got that), with painful debilitating yet easily curable diseases and no healthcare.
Then, and only then, can we say “our job here is done”.
In your link to Ken M., Russel, he requests that people do a google search on bing.
That cracked me up.
Also, no matter the ridicule or name-calling directed his way, he responds with a winner EVERY time.
I love that his trolling his done on ridiculous, meaningless websites.
And that there are actually other people, besides him, who spend time on the Chef Boyardee site.
In your link to Ken M., Russel, he requests that people do a google search on bing.
That cracked me up.
Also, no matter the ridicule or name-calling directed his way, he responds with a winner EVERY time.
I love that his trolling his done on ridiculous, meaningless websites.
And that there are actually other people, besides him, who spend time on the Chef Boyardee site.
In your link to Ken M., Russel, he requests that people do a google search on bing.
That cracked me up.
Also, no matter the ridicule or name-calling directed his way, he responds with a winner EVERY time.
I love that his trolling his done on ridiculous, meaningless websites.
And that there are actually other people, besides him, who spend time on the Chef Boyardee site.
Snarki, love child of Loki, I’ll dig the ditch behind Walker and you push him in, though I’m perfectly willing to alternate those two jobs between us as part of the sharing economy.
Snarki, love child of Loki, I’ll dig the ditch behind Walker and you push him in, though I’m perfectly willing to alternate those two jobs between us as part of the sharing economy.
Snarki, love child of Loki, I’ll dig the ditch behind Walker and you push him in, though I’m perfectly willing to alternate those two jobs between us as part of the sharing economy.
Sorry, two more Ken M-isms:
Regarding Google’s new high-speed internet service:
“If the internet gets too fast, folks won’t have time to read the articles.”
AND
“The word “onomatopoeia” is also an onomatopoeia because it is derived from the sound produced when the word is spoken aloud”
True, both a dose.
Sorry, two more Ken M-isms:
Regarding Google’s new high-speed internet service:
“If the internet gets too fast, folks won’t have time to read the articles.”
AND
“The word “onomatopoeia” is also an onomatopoeia because it is derived from the sound produced when the word is spoken aloud”
True, both a dose.
Sorry, two more Ken M-isms:
Regarding Google’s new high-speed internet service:
“If the internet gets too fast, folks won’t have time to read the articles.”
AND
“The word “onomatopoeia” is also an onomatopoeia because it is derived from the sound produced when the word is spoken aloud”
True, both a dose.
It’s true, Ken M is my hero. His troll-fu is mighty, yet no-one is harmed.
Assuming of course that nobody follows his suggestion of cooking Chef Boy-R-Dee dinners in the oven, in the original box.
IMO one of the great boons of modern technology is the low barrier of entry it provides to unmitigated pranksterism.
We cannot rest until Scott Walker is lying in a ditch, …
“Not President” is sufficient for my needs.
It’s true, Ken M is my hero. His troll-fu is mighty, yet no-one is harmed.
Assuming of course that nobody follows his suggestion of cooking Chef Boy-R-Dee dinners in the oven, in the original box.
IMO one of the great boons of modern technology is the low barrier of entry it provides to unmitigated pranksterism.
We cannot rest until Scott Walker is lying in a ditch, …
“Not President” is sufficient for my needs.
It’s true, Ken M is my hero. His troll-fu is mighty, yet no-one is harmed.
Assuming of course that nobody follows his suggestion of cooking Chef Boy-R-Dee dinners in the oven, in the original box.
IMO one of the great boons of modern technology is the low barrier of entry it provides to unmitigated pranksterism.
We cannot rest until Scott Walker is lying in a ditch, …
“Not President” is sufficient for my needs.
Count, that’s a well-known phenomenon: many humans have a deficit of imagination + empathy, such that they only really “get it” when it’s something that happens to THEM or someone close to them.
I’ve probably mentioned my libertarian phase, mostly high school through college, which I outgrew as I came to better understand life and overcame what I now see as stunted growth as a human being in general. It wasn’t so much a matter of any particular misfortune smacking me upside the head as it was a gradual awakening as I gathered more information.
What bothers me most about the imagination- and empathy-deficient people in question is that I see my former self in them and can imagine thinking as they do, because I’ve done it, but I can’t understand how people can continue so far into adulthood still thinking that way.
My excuse is that I was an emotionally stunted youth/man-child, if that is any excuse. I don’t know what excuse someone beyond the age of, say, 35 has for continuing on in the same thoughtlessly pigheaded manner.
Count, that’s a well-known phenomenon: many humans have a deficit of imagination + empathy, such that they only really “get it” when it’s something that happens to THEM or someone close to them.
I’ve probably mentioned my libertarian phase, mostly high school through college, which I outgrew as I came to better understand life and overcame what I now see as stunted growth as a human being in general. It wasn’t so much a matter of any particular misfortune smacking me upside the head as it was a gradual awakening as I gathered more information.
What bothers me most about the imagination- and empathy-deficient people in question is that I see my former self in them and can imagine thinking as they do, because I’ve done it, but I can’t understand how people can continue so far into adulthood still thinking that way.
My excuse is that I was an emotionally stunted youth/man-child, if that is any excuse. I don’t know what excuse someone beyond the age of, say, 35 has for continuing on in the same thoughtlessly pigheaded manner.
Count, that’s a well-known phenomenon: many humans have a deficit of imagination + empathy, such that they only really “get it” when it’s something that happens to THEM or someone close to them.
I’ve probably mentioned my libertarian phase, mostly high school through college, which I outgrew as I came to better understand life and overcame what I now see as stunted growth as a human being in general. It wasn’t so much a matter of any particular misfortune smacking me upside the head as it was a gradual awakening as I gathered more information.
What bothers me most about the imagination- and empathy-deficient people in question is that I see my former self in them and can imagine thinking as they do, because I’ve done it, but I can’t understand how people can continue so far into adulthood still thinking that way.
My excuse is that I was an emotionally stunted youth/man-child, if that is any excuse. I don’t know what excuse someone beyond the age of, say, 35 has for continuing on in the same thoughtlessly pigheaded manner.
For several years I was a construction laborer. I’d show up at a site and get a job. Then after a while I was laid off or quit.
Did this constitute a “gig”?
Bobby, It won’t work in the future, most likely. But for the moment the easiest way to tell if it constitutes a “gig” is this: did you get a W-2 or a 1099? If the latter, it’s a “gig”. If the former, it’s not. (And if you got neither, it is either also a gig, or the person paying you is in violation of the Internal Revenue Code — assuming you made more than the minimum, which I think is around $600 at the moment.)
For several years I was a construction laborer. I’d show up at a site and get a job. Then after a while I was laid off or quit.
Did this constitute a “gig”?
Bobby, It won’t work in the future, most likely. But for the moment the easiest way to tell if it constitutes a “gig” is this: did you get a W-2 or a 1099? If the latter, it’s a “gig”. If the former, it’s not. (And if you got neither, it is either also a gig, or the person paying you is in violation of the Internal Revenue Code — assuming you made more than the minimum, which I think is around $600 at the moment.)
For several years I was a construction laborer. I’d show up at a site and get a job. Then after a while I was laid off or quit.
Did this constitute a “gig”?
Bobby, It won’t work in the future, most likely. But for the moment the easiest way to tell if it constitutes a “gig” is this: did you get a W-2 or a 1099? If the latter, it’s a “gig”. If the former, it’s not. (And if you got neither, it is either also a gig, or the person paying you is in violation of the Internal Revenue Code — assuming you made more than the minimum, which I think is around $600 at the moment.)
“wf’s 9:42” is actually “wj’s 9:42”.
Whoever invented auto-correct can bite me.
Hey, at least it didn’t auto-correct to WTF
“wf’s 9:42” is actually “wj’s 9:42”.
Whoever invented auto-correct can bite me.
Hey, at least it didn’t auto-correct to WTF
“wf’s 9:42” is actually “wj’s 9:42”.
Whoever invented auto-correct can bite me.
Hey, at least it didn’t auto-correct to WTF
When I was 13 or 14, I read Ayn Rand for the panting ideological bodice ripping scenes, just as I used to lie on the floor in front of the TV so I could look up the skirts of the June Taylor dancers on the Jackie Gleason show, not to mention, whatever dance troupe performed on the Jimmy Dean Show.
I thought, if I can only resist forcing hardheads to put balconies on their building designs, women who know what they want will find me irresistible and I too can get laid on the way to kicking homeless people in the short ribs as I trip the light fantastic to Galt’s Gulch.
I got over all of that about three weeks ago.
When I was 13 or 14, I read Ayn Rand for the panting ideological bodice ripping scenes, just as I used to lie on the floor in front of the TV so I could look up the skirts of the June Taylor dancers on the Jackie Gleason show, not to mention, whatever dance troupe performed on the Jimmy Dean Show.
I thought, if I can only resist forcing hardheads to put balconies on their building designs, women who know what they want will find me irresistible and I too can get laid on the way to kicking homeless people in the short ribs as I trip the light fantastic to Galt’s Gulch.
I got over all of that about three weeks ago.
When I was 13 or 14, I read Ayn Rand for the panting ideological bodice ripping scenes, just as I used to lie on the floor in front of the TV so I could look up the skirts of the June Taylor dancers on the Jackie Gleason show, not to mention, whatever dance troupe performed on the Jimmy Dean Show.
I thought, if I can only resist forcing hardheads to put balconies on their building designs, women who know what they want will find me irresistible and I too can get laid on the way to kicking homeless people in the short ribs as I trip the light fantastic to Galt’s Gulch.
I got over all of that about three weeks ago.
many of them can be outsourced a la wf’s [sic — that’s auto-correct: sick] 9:42, or simply moved offshore. That often comes with some level of decline in the quality of the work product, but if the efficiencies are there in terms of cost of labor, that’s viewed as an acceptable trade-off.
I’m not so sure about that. Typically, the decisions to off-shore work were taken by executives with no clue about what the work actually involved. As it became obvious that quality was dropping, the only reason not to reverse that decision was face-saving on the part of the guy who made the original decision. He didn’t want to admit he was wrong. Or, worse, that he was clueless about the work he was supposedly managing.
Increasingly (i.e. as the original guys get replaced), work is getting moved back. At least where companies can figure out how to recreate the skilled staff that they let go previously.
Quality actually does matter in a lot of cases. Matter measureably — which means that the sort of cost/benefit analysis that managers love can be applied.
Someday, today’s low wage places may acquire the skills to produce high quality work. But by then they are likely to no longer be all that much cheaper to use.
many of them can be outsourced a la wf’s [sic — that’s auto-correct: sick] 9:42, or simply moved offshore. That often comes with some level of decline in the quality of the work product, but if the efficiencies are there in terms of cost of labor, that’s viewed as an acceptable trade-off.
I’m not so sure about that. Typically, the decisions to off-shore work were taken by executives with no clue about what the work actually involved. As it became obvious that quality was dropping, the only reason not to reverse that decision was face-saving on the part of the guy who made the original decision. He didn’t want to admit he was wrong. Or, worse, that he was clueless about the work he was supposedly managing.
Increasingly (i.e. as the original guys get replaced), work is getting moved back. At least where companies can figure out how to recreate the skilled staff that they let go previously.
Quality actually does matter in a lot of cases. Matter measureably — which means that the sort of cost/benefit analysis that managers love can be applied.
Someday, today’s low wage places may acquire the skills to produce high quality work. But by then they are likely to no longer be all that much cheaper to use.
many of them can be outsourced a la wf’s [sic — that’s auto-correct: sick] 9:42, or simply moved offshore. That often comes with some level of decline in the quality of the work product, but if the efficiencies are there in terms of cost of labor, that’s viewed as an acceptable trade-off.
I’m not so sure about that. Typically, the decisions to off-shore work were taken by executives with no clue about what the work actually involved. As it became obvious that quality was dropping, the only reason not to reverse that decision was face-saving on the part of the guy who made the original decision. He didn’t want to admit he was wrong. Or, worse, that he was clueless about the work he was supposedly managing.
Increasingly (i.e. as the original guys get replaced), work is getting moved back. At least where companies can figure out how to recreate the skilled staff that they let go previously.
Quality actually does matter in a lot of cases. Matter measureably — which means that the sort of cost/benefit analysis that managers love can be applied.
Someday, today’s low wage places may acquire the skills to produce high quality work. But by then they are likely to no longer be all that much cheaper to use.
Hey, at least it didn’t auto-correct to WTF
I’m just trying to figure out why “wf” is a word and “wj” isn’t.
Hey, at least it didn’t auto-correct to WTF
I’m just trying to figure out why “wf” is a word and “wj” isn’t.
Hey, at least it didn’t auto-correct to WTF
I’m just trying to figure out why “wf” is a word and “wj” isn’t.
within the boundaries of my skill set, I’m a really really good software engineer.
I’m a really crappy salesperson. Hate it, am not good at it.
That is so me all over! I spent about two years between jobs a decade ago. In which time, I managed to get 3 (count ’em, three!) short gigs — all of which involved folks I know in the business calling me to ask for help on a consultation they were doing.
It later turned out I could do sales pretty well. If I had someone else to stand over me and push me to make the calls. Push hard. Because I still hate it.
within the boundaries of my skill set, I’m a really really good software engineer.
I’m a really crappy salesperson. Hate it, am not good at it.
That is so me all over! I spent about two years between jobs a decade ago. In which time, I managed to get 3 (count ’em, three!) short gigs — all of which involved folks I know in the business calling me to ask for help on a consultation they were doing.
It later turned out I could do sales pretty well. If I had someone else to stand over me and push me to make the calls. Push hard. Because I still hate it.
within the boundaries of my skill set, I’m a really really good software engineer.
I’m a really crappy salesperson. Hate it, am not good at it.
That is so me all over! I spent about two years between jobs a decade ago. In which time, I managed to get 3 (count ’em, three!) short gigs — all of which involved folks I know in the business calling me to ask for help on a consultation they were doing.
It later turned out I could do sales pretty well. If I had someone else to stand over me and push me to make the calls. Push hard. Because I still hate it.
but we have Ken M!
I love that man.
“seems like that would be cheating tho”
but we have Ken M!
I love that man.
“seems like that would be cheating tho”
but we have Ken M!
I love that man.
“seems like that would be cheating tho”
Someday, today’s low wage places may acquire the skills to produce high quality work. But by then they are likely to no longer be all that much cheaper to use.
One would hope, that over some period of time, quality and cost would converge at a proper valuation – even if it’s a matter of cost moving up to meet quality. Cost, at least when it comes to labor, seems to move down quite easily to match (or undervalue) the quality of labor, particularly over the last 40 years or so.
In the meantime, everyone’s going to have to suck it up, I guess. Yay!
Someday, today’s low wage places may acquire the skills to produce high quality work. But by then they are likely to no longer be all that much cheaper to use.
One would hope, that over some period of time, quality and cost would converge at a proper valuation – even if it’s a matter of cost moving up to meet quality. Cost, at least when it comes to labor, seems to move down quite easily to match (or undervalue) the quality of labor, particularly over the last 40 years or so.
In the meantime, everyone’s going to have to suck it up, I guess. Yay!
Someday, today’s low wage places may acquire the skills to produce high quality work. But by then they are likely to no longer be all that much cheaper to use.
One would hope, that over some period of time, quality and cost would converge at a proper valuation – even if it’s a matter of cost moving up to meet quality. Cost, at least when it comes to labor, seems to move down quite easily to match (or undervalue) the quality of labor, particularly over the last 40 years or so.
In the meantime, everyone’s going to have to suck it up, I guess. Yay!
Many years ago, I thought about becoming a stock broker/financial consultant.
I decided to interview my broker at the time (shh, E.F. Hutton is speaking) about the profession.
Among the questions he asked me were: “Can you handle being told “NO” 5000 times and continue to smile and dial and read the script with enthusiasm?”
“Do you have lots of friends and family you can enlist as clients” and “What would your mother think if you lost most of her money for her?”
“Are you aware that stock brokers have, among the professions, some of the highest incidences of heart attacks and strokes?”
He was pretty honest, but he could happy talk a stock on the phone to me like a bulldog on Viagra, which eventually drove me nuts.
Then, I had some other brokers (thieves) when I use to speculate in the penny-stock market, like a fool, who would lie to me like Donald Trump over the phone, and after awhile I thought, well, if I’m too shy to tell these guys to go eff themselves, then I certainly can’t make a living lying like a capitalist to Joe Schmoe over the phone.
Then, somewhere along the way, I read that some very successful brokers in bucket shops who recruit other brokers tell them that their main job is making sure you turn the client’s money into your money and then move on to fresh marks.
Sort of a wealth transfer.
I’m not shy any longer about speaking my mind, though I’m sure it seems that way to you people ;), but I just can’t sling the bullsh*t, unless it’s in the service of destroying the Republican Party, the broker’s party.
I also had a friend who sold pharmaceuticals to doctors.
From the stories she told, I don’t know how she slept at night, though I guess if you throw enough $100 bills on to a bed, it makes a very comfy mattress.
I’ve never bought a new or used car in my life from a dealer, because the very sight of a car salesman striding toward me with a 1000 watt smile in a showroom makes me want start swinging or laughing hysterically.
Especially if they are Christian and the dealer has a 50 yard long stars and stripes blowing in the wind on a 100 foot high flagpole in the parking lot.
That’s a sure sign that they think unregulated lying and theft are guaranteed by the Constitution, and they’d be right about that, the legal scholars.
I will say that new ways of buying new cars while bypassing the traditional dealers are one example of the new economy that I might like.
Buying used cars from individuals is about as much lying bullsh*t as I can handle, considering my experiences there as well.
I then drive them into the ground and junk them, mainly so I don’t have to be a seller.
I gave away a car once that was still drivable.
Now, I only buy used cars when they become available from good friends, because I know where they live.
Many years ago, I thought about becoming a stock broker/financial consultant.
I decided to interview my broker at the time (shh, E.F. Hutton is speaking) about the profession.
Among the questions he asked me were: “Can you handle being told “NO” 5000 times and continue to smile and dial and read the script with enthusiasm?”
“Do you have lots of friends and family you can enlist as clients” and “What would your mother think if you lost most of her money for her?”
“Are you aware that stock brokers have, among the professions, some of the highest incidences of heart attacks and strokes?”
He was pretty honest, but he could happy talk a stock on the phone to me like a bulldog on Viagra, which eventually drove me nuts.
Then, I had some other brokers (thieves) when I use to speculate in the penny-stock market, like a fool, who would lie to me like Donald Trump over the phone, and after awhile I thought, well, if I’m too shy to tell these guys to go eff themselves, then I certainly can’t make a living lying like a capitalist to Joe Schmoe over the phone.
Then, somewhere along the way, I read that some very successful brokers in bucket shops who recruit other brokers tell them that their main job is making sure you turn the client’s money into your money and then move on to fresh marks.
Sort of a wealth transfer.
I’m not shy any longer about speaking my mind, though I’m sure it seems that way to you people ;), but I just can’t sling the bullsh*t, unless it’s in the service of destroying the Republican Party, the broker’s party.
I also had a friend who sold pharmaceuticals to doctors.
From the stories she told, I don’t know how she slept at night, though I guess if you throw enough $100 bills on to a bed, it makes a very comfy mattress.
I’ve never bought a new or used car in my life from a dealer, because the very sight of a car salesman striding toward me with a 1000 watt smile in a showroom makes me want start swinging or laughing hysterically.
Especially if they are Christian and the dealer has a 50 yard long stars and stripes blowing in the wind on a 100 foot high flagpole in the parking lot.
That’s a sure sign that they think unregulated lying and theft are guaranteed by the Constitution, and they’d be right about that, the legal scholars.
I will say that new ways of buying new cars while bypassing the traditional dealers are one example of the new economy that I might like.
Buying used cars from individuals is about as much lying bullsh*t as I can handle, considering my experiences there as well.
I then drive them into the ground and junk them, mainly so I don’t have to be a seller.
I gave away a car once that was still drivable.
Now, I only buy used cars when they become available from good friends, because I know where they live.
Many years ago, I thought about becoming a stock broker/financial consultant.
I decided to interview my broker at the time (shh, E.F. Hutton is speaking) about the profession.
Among the questions he asked me were: “Can you handle being told “NO” 5000 times and continue to smile and dial and read the script with enthusiasm?”
“Do you have lots of friends and family you can enlist as clients” and “What would your mother think if you lost most of her money for her?”
“Are you aware that stock brokers have, among the professions, some of the highest incidences of heart attacks and strokes?”
He was pretty honest, but he could happy talk a stock on the phone to me like a bulldog on Viagra, which eventually drove me nuts.
Then, I had some other brokers (thieves) when I use to speculate in the penny-stock market, like a fool, who would lie to me like Donald Trump over the phone, and after awhile I thought, well, if I’m too shy to tell these guys to go eff themselves, then I certainly can’t make a living lying like a capitalist to Joe Schmoe over the phone.
Then, somewhere along the way, I read that some very successful brokers in bucket shops who recruit other brokers tell them that their main job is making sure you turn the client’s money into your money and then move on to fresh marks.
Sort of a wealth transfer.
I’m not shy any longer about speaking my mind, though I’m sure it seems that way to you people ;), but I just can’t sling the bullsh*t, unless it’s in the service of destroying the Republican Party, the broker’s party.
I also had a friend who sold pharmaceuticals to doctors.
From the stories she told, I don’t know how she slept at night, though I guess if you throw enough $100 bills on to a bed, it makes a very comfy mattress.
I’ve never bought a new or used car in my life from a dealer, because the very sight of a car salesman striding toward me with a 1000 watt smile in a showroom makes me want start swinging or laughing hysterically.
Especially if they are Christian and the dealer has a 50 yard long stars and stripes blowing in the wind on a 100 foot high flagpole in the parking lot.
That’s a sure sign that they think unregulated lying and theft are guaranteed by the Constitution, and they’d be right about that, the legal scholars.
I will say that new ways of buying new cars while bypassing the traditional dealers are one example of the new economy that I might like.
Buying used cars from individuals is about as much lying bullsh*t as I can handle, considering my experiences there as well.
I then drive them into the ground and junk them, mainly so I don’t have to be a seller.
I gave away a car once that was still drivable.
Now, I only buy used cars when they become available from good friends, because I know where they live.
I’ve never bought a new or used car in my life from a dealer, because the very sight of a car salesman striding toward me with a 1000 watt smile in a showroom makes me want start swinging or laughing hysterically.
So you’ve gotten the pleasure of meeting the salesman’s pal in the financing department? You’d really like him!
I’ve never bought a new or used car in my life from a dealer, because the very sight of a car salesman striding toward me with a 1000 watt smile in a showroom makes me want start swinging or laughing hysterically.
So you’ve gotten the pleasure of meeting the salesman’s pal in the financing department? You’d really like him!
I’ve never bought a new or used car in my life from a dealer, because the very sight of a car salesman striding toward me with a 1000 watt smile in a showroom makes me want start swinging or laughing hysterically.
So you’ve gotten the pleasure of meeting the salesman’s pal in the financing department? You’d really like him!
I also had a friend who sold pharmaceuticals to doctors.
From the stories she told, I don’t know how she slept at night, though I guess if you throw enough $100 bills on to a bed, it makes a very comfy mattress.
I have a PhD in chemistry and the position of pharma salesman is known as Chemikers Sargnagel (chemist’s coffin nail), i.e. the lowest one can sink (to?), a job for losers and bottom-feeders (who somehow managed to acquire a doctor’s degree in the natural sciences).
I also had a friend who sold pharmaceuticals to doctors.
From the stories she told, I don’t know how she slept at night, though I guess if you throw enough $100 bills on to a bed, it makes a very comfy mattress.
I have a PhD in chemistry and the position of pharma salesman is known as Chemikers Sargnagel (chemist’s coffin nail), i.e. the lowest one can sink (to?), a job for losers and bottom-feeders (who somehow managed to acquire a doctor’s degree in the natural sciences).
I also had a friend who sold pharmaceuticals to doctors.
From the stories she told, I don’t know how she slept at night, though I guess if you throw enough $100 bills on to a bed, it makes a very comfy mattress.
I have a PhD in chemistry and the position of pharma salesman is known as Chemikers Sargnagel (chemist’s coffin nail), i.e. the lowest one can sink (to?), a job for losers and bottom-feeders (who somehow managed to acquire a doctor’s degree in the natural sciences).
Oh, crap … “So you haven’t gotten the pleasure of meeting…?” is what I meant. (I couldn’t let that go, serious business that it is.)
Oh, crap … “So you haven’t gotten the pleasure of meeting…?” is what I meant. (I couldn’t let that go, serious business that it is.)
Oh, crap … “So you haven’t gotten the pleasure of meeting…?” is what I meant. (I couldn’t let that go, serious business that it is.)
I got it.
Speaking of Jade Helm:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/pete-lanteri-jade-helm-facebook
I got it.
Speaking of Jade Helm:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/pete-lanteri-jade-helm-facebook
I got it.
Speaking of Jade Helm:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/pete-lanteri-jade-helm-facebook
Twice as fast, half as expensive
Twice as fast, half as expensive
Twice as fast, half as expensive
I saw that Charles a couple of minutes ago.
So far, so good.
I saw that Charles a couple of minutes ago.
So far, so good.
I saw that Charles a couple of minutes ago.
So far, so good.
This Scott Walker?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/20/1403921/-Scott-Walker-says-maybe-he-ll-have-to-bomb-Iran-first-day-of-his-nbsp-presidency
This Scott Walker?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/20/1403921/-Scott-Walker-says-maybe-he-ll-have-to-bomb-Iran-first-day-of-his-nbsp-presidency
This Scott Walker?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/20/1403921/-Scott-Walker-says-maybe-he-ll-have-to-bomb-Iran-first-day-of-his-nbsp-presidency
Because there are a lot of paid human trolls.
Crap. I’ve never gotten a dime.
Because there are a lot of paid human trolls.
Crap. I’ve never gotten a dime.
Because there are a lot of paid human trolls.
Crap. I’ve never gotten a dime.
Bobby, I think to get a paid “gig” as a troll, you have to have no personal opinions about the subject. Otherwise, you are either getting paid to do something you would probably do anyway (and why pay you?) or you are going to slip away from the desired stance (i.e. not do a quality job on what you are being paid for).
Bobby, I think to get a paid “gig” as a troll, you have to have no personal opinions about the subject. Otherwise, you are either getting paid to do something you would probably do anyway (and why pay you?) or you are going to slip away from the desired stance (i.e. not do a quality job on what you are being paid for).
Bobby, I think to get a paid “gig” as a troll, you have to have no personal opinions about the subject. Otherwise, you are either getting paid to do something you would probably do anyway (and why pay you?) or you are going to slip away from the desired stance (i.e. not do a quality job on what you are being paid for).
….most likely. But for the moment the easiest way to tell if it constitutes a “gig” is this….
Or if somebody else determines the terms and conditions of employment…irrespective of the tax status.
In my industry we see many “independent contractors” performing craft labor so the people they are really working for can bid jobs at below prevailing wage rates. This dodge effectively cuts a $50/hr. job into a $25/hr. job as they now have to pick up all that overhead.
….most likely. But for the moment the easiest way to tell if it constitutes a “gig” is this….
Or if somebody else determines the terms and conditions of employment…irrespective of the tax status.
In my industry we see many “independent contractors” performing craft labor so the people they are really working for can bid jobs at below prevailing wage rates. This dodge effectively cuts a $50/hr. job into a $25/hr. job as they now have to pick up all that overhead.
….most likely. But for the moment the easiest way to tell if it constitutes a “gig” is this….
Or if somebody else determines the terms and conditions of employment…irrespective of the tax status.
In my industry we see many “independent contractors” performing craft labor so the people they are really working for can bid jobs at below prevailing wage rates. This dodge effectively cuts a $50/hr. job into a $25/hr. job as they now have to pick up all that overhead.
Late to this; sorry.
What I do is mostly non-automatable. The reason being that every single failure that I analyze has a different root cause, many of which wouldn’t be hypotheses in any automated data analysis engine because it wouldn’t have occured to the author (me) that this thing could fail in exactly this way.
I’ve had two of those in the last year, and spent a LOT of time trying to figure them out.
SO:
-Any activity that requires solving new-to-the-application problems.
-Any activity that involves building new models of how things work. This includes most of mathematics and physics.
-More generally: many (most) embedded programming tasks.
-Any task that involves working with people in a comforting or encouraging or reassuring way.
-Coaching
-Any performing art
-Teaching (see also: coaching, and working with people in ways that empower them).
-Any occupation where the decision tree is not yet defined, cannot be rigidly definable, or is subject to being redefined based on the authority of the person whose opinion would be automated.
That’s all I can think of off the top of my head.
Things that can be automated:
-Any process that involving the execution of well-defined actions as exactly as possible.
-Any communications with humans that are heedless of or exist for the purpose of annoying, antagonizing, or discouraging the human participant. See also: IRS, Comcast, etc.
Late to this; sorry.
What I do is mostly non-automatable. The reason being that every single failure that I analyze has a different root cause, many of which wouldn’t be hypotheses in any automated data analysis engine because it wouldn’t have occured to the author (me) that this thing could fail in exactly this way.
I’ve had two of those in the last year, and spent a LOT of time trying to figure them out.
SO:
-Any activity that requires solving new-to-the-application problems.
-Any activity that involves building new models of how things work. This includes most of mathematics and physics.
-More generally: many (most) embedded programming tasks.
-Any task that involves working with people in a comforting or encouraging or reassuring way.
-Coaching
-Any performing art
-Teaching (see also: coaching, and working with people in ways that empower them).
-Any occupation where the decision tree is not yet defined, cannot be rigidly definable, or is subject to being redefined based on the authority of the person whose opinion would be automated.
That’s all I can think of off the top of my head.
Things that can be automated:
-Any process that involving the execution of well-defined actions as exactly as possible.
-Any communications with humans that are heedless of or exist for the purpose of annoying, antagonizing, or discouraging the human participant. See also: IRS, Comcast, etc.
Late to this; sorry.
What I do is mostly non-automatable. The reason being that every single failure that I analyze has a different root cause, many of which wouldn’t be hypotheses in any automated data analysis engine because it wouldn’t have occured to the author (me) that this thing could fail in exactly this way.
I’ve had two of those in the last year, and spent a LOT of time trying to figure them out.
SO:
-Any activity that requires solving new-to-the-application problems.
-Any activity that involves building new models of how things work. This includes most of mathematics and physics.
-More generally: many (most) embedded programming tasks.
-Any task that involves working with people in a comforting or encouraging or reassuring way.
-Coaching
-Any performing art
-Teaching (see also: coaching, and working with people in ways that empower them).
-Any occupation where the decision tree is not yet defined, cannot be rigidly definable, or is subject to being redefined based on the authority of the person whose opinion would be automated.
That’s all I can think of off the top of my head.
Things that can be automated:
-Any process that involving the execution of well-defined actions as exactly as possible.
-Any communications with humans that are heedless of or exist for the purpose of annoying, antagonizing, or discouraging the human participant. See also: IRS, Comcast, etc.
Twice as fast, half as expensive
the chicken satay you can buy on the street in Bangkok is about 1/10th the price of what it would cost in the US. it’s also made from piles of raw chicken that sits out unrefrigerated, uncovered, crawling with flies. and they make it really quickly!
Twice as fast, half as expensive
the chicken satay you can buy on the street in Bangkok is about 1/10th the price of what it would cost in the US. it’s also made from piles of raw chicken that sits out unrefrigerated, uncovered, crawling with flies. and they make it really quickly!
Twice as fast, half as expensive
the chicken satay you can buy on the street in Bangkok is about 1/10th the price of what it would cost in the US. it’s also made from piles of raw chicken that sits out unrefrigerated, uncovered, crawling with flies. and they make it really quickly!
cleek: …now you’ve revealed the “secret sauce”.
cleek: …now you’ve revealed the “secret sauce”.
cleek: …now you’ve revealed the “secret sauce”.
More times than I care to admit, while I lived in the Philippines, I would eat food around which hovered a cloud of flies (most places on the provinces are(were)open air and if I happened to look around sometimes I would spot a big carabao cow pattie freshly deposited in the road nearby and would watch flies travel between that and the food being cooked and served.
Usually, places (or family dwellings) where you dined would have several people charged with waving a fan or newspaper around to keep the flies aloft.
Ate lots of satay in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bali.
Singapore too, but sanitation in the outdoor food courts there seemed impeccable given that it was, in many respects, a police state and breaking the law had dire results.
I saw worse than that in India, where toilet facilities in some areas (don’t walk the railroad tracks) are few and far between, though the Indian people are personally very clean, like Paul’s grandfather.
You get use to it, but in retrospect, it isn’t so much a gig as a gag.
I read somewhere recently (can’t find the link) that corporate CEOs of multinational corporations tend to favor by a majority setting up shop in countries with authoritarian regimes for the certainties implied.
Probably because labor unrest is quickly put down.
Not in the U.S., where they fight authority tooth and nail and with the speech that talks with the dollar signs.
More times than I care to admit, while I lived in the Philippines, I would eat food around which hovered a cloud of flies (most places on the provinces are(were)open air and if I happened to look around sometimes I would spot a big carabao cow pattie freshly deposited in the road nearby and would watch flies travel between that and the food being cooked and served.
Usually, places (or family dwellings) where you dined would have several people charged with waving a fan or newspaper around to keep the flies aloft.
Ate lots of satay in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bali.
Singapore too, but sanitation in the outdoor food courts there seemed impeccable given that it was, in many respects, a police state and breaking the law had dire results.
I saw worse than that in India, where toilet facilities in some areas (don’t walk the railroad tracks) are few and far between, though the Indian people are personally very clean, like Paul’s grandfather.
You get use to it, but in retrospect, it isn’t so much a gig as a gag.
I read somewhere recently (can’t find the link) that corporate CEOs of multinational corporations tend to favor by a majority setting up shop in countries with authoritarian regimes for the certainties implied.
Probably because labor unrest is quickly put down.
Not in the U.S., where they fight authority tooth and nail and with the speech that talks with the dollar signs.
More times than I care to admit, while I lived in the Philippines, I would eat food around which hovered a cloud of flies (most places on the provinces are(were)open air and if I happened to look around sometimes I would spot a big carabao cow pattie freshly deposited in the road nearby and would watch flies travel between that and the food being cooked and served.
Usually, places (or family dwellings) where you dined would have several people charged with waving a fan or newspaper around to keep the flies aloft.
Ate lots of satay in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bali.
Singapore too, but sanitation in the outdoor food courts there seemed impeccable given that it was, in many respects, a police state and breaking the law had dire results.
I saw worse than that in India, where toilet facilities in some areas (don’t walk the railroad tracks) are few and far between, though the Indian people are personally very clean, like Paul’s grandfather.
You get use to it, but in retrospect, it isn’t so much a gig as a gag.
I read somewhere recently (can’t find the link) that corporate CEOs of multinational corporations tend to favor by a majority setting up shop in countries with authoritarian regimes for the certainties implied.
Probably because labor unrest is quickly put down.
Not in the U.S., where they fight authority tooth and nail and with the speech that talks with the dollar signs.
-Any communications with humans that are heedless of or exist for the purpose of annoying, antagonizing, or discouraging the human participant. See also: IRS, Comcast, etc.
I would say that those are not so much “Things that can be automated” as “Things which have been automated.”
In addition to those listed, add any automated phone answering system.
-Any communications with humans that are heedless of or exist for the purpose of annoying, antagonizing, or discouraging the human participant. See also: IRS, Comcast, etc.
I would say that those are not so much “Things that can be automated” as “Things which have been automated.”
In addition to those listed, add any automated phone answering system.
-Any communications with humans that are heedless of or exist for the purpose of annoying, antagonizing, or discouraging the human participant. See also: IRS, Comcast, etc.
I would say that those are not so much “Things that can be automated” as “Things which have been automated.”
In addition to those listed, add any automated phone answering system.
I read the article.
It seemed to me much like reading mediaeval theology — assertions at such a high level of abstraction that they float far above the possibility of evidence and counter-example.
But even more, it reminded me of Giblets in Fafblog’s penultimate post “Down With The Ship”
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/down-with-ship.html
Humanity has almost completed its destruction of its own home.
The great fisheries of the oceans are fished out, and the oceans are acidifying.
Sea level rise forecasts must be revised upward, again.
It’s the hottest year on record, again.
Predictions are that 50% of the world’s species will go extinct in the next century.
The second derivative of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still positive.
Argument over what will replace capitalism seems obtuse in such circumstances — like a fight over sumptuary laws during the opening phases of the Black Death.
I read the article.
It seemed to me much like reading mediaeval theology — assertions at such a high level of abstraction that they float far above the possibility of evidence and counter-example.
But even more, it reminded me of Giblets in Fafblog’s penultimate post “Down With The Ship”
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/down-with-ship.html
Humanity has almost completed its destruction of its own home.
The great fisheries of the oceans are fished out, and the oceans are acidifying.
Sea level rise forecasts must be revised upward, again.
It’s the hottest year on record, again.
Predictions are that 50% of the world’s species will go extinct in the next century.
The second derivative of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still positive.
Argument over what will replace capitalism seems obtuse in such circumstances — like a fight over sumptuary laws during the opening phases of the Black Death.
I read the article.
It seemed to me much like reading mediaeval theology — assertions at such a high level of abstraction that they float far above the possibility of evidence and counter-example.
But even more, it reminded me of Giblets in Fafblog’s penultimate post “Down With The Ship”
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/down-with-ship.html
Humanity has almost completed its destruction of its own home.
The great fisheries of the oceans are fished out, and the oceans are acidifying.
Sea level rise forecasts must be revised upward, again.
It’s the hottest year on record, again.
Predictions are that 50% of the world’s species will go extinct in the next century.
The second derivative of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still positive.
Argument over what will replace capitalism seems obtuse in such circumstances — like a fight over sumptuary laws during the opening phases of the Black Death.
One day, there be things called auto-post, auto-comment, and auto-opinionate that will remove the need altogether for our meat-world minds and fingers on keyboards.
See Roald M. Dahl, “The Great Automatic Grammatizator”, first published in The Umbrella Man And Other Stories
http://lengish.com/texts/text-89.html
One day, there be things called auto-post, auto-comment, and auto-opinionate that will remove the need altogether for our meat-world minds and fingers on keyboards.
See Roald M. Dahl, “The Great Automatic Grammatizator”, first published in The Umbrella Man And Other Stories
http://lengish.com/texts/text-89.html
One day, there be things called auto-post, auto-comment, and auto-opinionate that will remove the need altogether for our meat-world minds and fingers on keyboards.
See Roald M. Dahl, “The Great Automatic Grammatizator”, first published in The Umbrella Man And Other Stories
http://lengish.com/texts/text-89.html
Thanks, Joel.
I’d like to see The Great Automatic Grammatizator come up with the closing lines of that story:
“This very moment, as I sit here listening to the crying of my nine starving children in the other room, I can feel my own hand creeping closer and closer to that golden contract that lies over on the other side of the desk.
Give us strength, Oh Lord, to let our children starve.”
Unfortunately, the leg of lamb in the freezer had already been eaten by the police so there was no fallback meal for the kids.
There are certain AI/special effects simulations I would like to see developed for films, and I bet they will be.
For example, I miss the actor Burt Lancaster, among others. I don’t see why an identical, completely realistic screen image of Burt Lancaster can’t be recreated and cast in movie roles only he could play effectively … for eternity.
He could have a virtual agent as well to pitch roles to his virtual screen image.
Also, I’m currently trying to re-read and read everything Philip Roth has written.
He’s 82 and retired from writing recently.
I’m going to miss his output, along with scores of other writers’ outputs, which puts me out.
Maybe AI could keep churning out Roth novels, though I’m sure Russell’s rule, invoked several times recently, would apply.
I’d love to read, for example, a novel by Saul Bellow depicting the rest of Augie March’s life.
I wonder what he got up to. Then again, maybe I don’t. Maybe he’ll find himself in a Joseph Heller novel and die of boredom, which he avoided at all costs in Bellow’s original creation.
I also imagine, at some point, that auto-correct will evolve so that we are prevented from re-correcting IT, probably because of some directive contained in Steve Jobs last will and testament.
They’ll call it “Auto-Correct and Now Shut Up”
Maybe you would be allowed to correct each auto-correct for a small fee, which would add up for those things who think they are people, creating shareholder value.
Imagine, if you will, this thread with commenters locked out of correcting auto-correct.
Every utterance would “mean” differently.
We’d never get our points across.
Just like now. It would give new meaning to “that’s not what I meant to say”.
Or, commenters could be allowed to go into auto-correct other commenters offerings, undermining the entire enterprise.
“I don’t agree” could be automatically altered to “I agree” and we’d live happily ever after.
However, as in sex, completely removing friction on a blog would take the paprika out of the paprikash.
Thanks, Joel.
I’d like to see The Great Automatic Grammatizator come up with the closing lines of that story:
“This very moment, as I sit here listening to the crying of my nine starving children in the other room, I can feel my own hand creeping closer and closer to that golden contract that lies over on the other side of the desk.
Give us strength, Oh Lord, to let our children starve.”
Unfortunately, the leg of lamb in the freezer had already been eaten by the police so there was no fallback meal for the kids.
There are certain AI/special effects simulations I would like to see developed for films, and I bet they will be.
For example, I miss the actor Burt Lancaster, among others. I don’t see why an identical, completely realistic screen image of Burt Lancaster can’t be recreated and cast in movie roles only he could play effectively … for eternity.
He could have a virtual agent as well to pitch roles to his virtual screen image.
Also, I’m currently trying to re-read and read everything Philip Roth has written.
He’s 82 and retired from writing recently.
I’m going to miss his output, along with scores of other writers’ outputs, which puts me out.
Maybe AI could keep churning out Roth novels, though I’m sure Russell’s rule, invoked several times recently, would apply.
I’d love to read, for example, a novel by Saul Bellow depicting the rest of Augie March’s life.
I wonder what he got up to. Then again, maybe I don’t. Maybe he’ll find himself in a Joseph Heller novel and die of boredom, which he avoided at all costs in Bellow’s original creation.
I also imagine, at some point, that auto-correct will evolve so that we are prevented from re-correcting IT, probably because of some directive contained in Steve Jobs last will and testament.
They’ll call it “Auto-Correct and Now Shut Up”
Maybe you would be allowed to correct each auto-correct for a small fee, which would add up for those things who think they are people, creating shareholder value.
Imagine, if you will, this thread with commenters locked out of correcting auto-correct.
Every utterance would “mean” differently.
We’d never get our points across.
Just like now. It would give new meaning to “that’s not what I meant to say”.
Or, commenters could be allowed to go into auto-correct other commenters offerings, undermining the entire enterprise.
“I don’t agree” could be automatically altered to “I agree” and we’d live happily ever after.
However, as in sex, completely removing friction on a blog would take the paprika out of the paprikash.
Thanks, Joel.
I’d like to see The Great Automatic Grammatizator come up with the closing lines of that story:
“This very moment, as I sit here listening to the crying of my nine starving children in the other room, I can feel my own hand creeping closer and closer to that golden contract that lies over on the other side of the desk.
Give us strength, Oh Lord, to let our children starve.”
Unfortunately, the leg of lamb in the freezer had already been eaten by the police so there was no fallback meal for the kids.
There are certain AI/special effects simulations I would like to see developed for films, and I bet they will be.
For example, I miss the actor Burt Lancaster, among others. I don’t see why an identical, completely realistic screen image of Burt Lancaster can’t be recreated and cast in movie roles only he could play effectively … for eternity.
He could have a virtual agent as well to pitch roles to his virtual screen image.
Also, I’m currently trying to re-read and read everything Philip Roth has written.
He’s 82 and retired from writing recently.
I’m going to miss his output, along with scores of other writers’ outputs, which puts me out.
Maybe AI could keep churning out Roth novels, though I’m sure Russell’s rule, invoked several times recently, would apply.
I’d love to read, for example, a novel by Saul Bellow depicting the rest of Augie March’s life.
I wonder what he got up to. Then again, maybe I don’t. Maybe he’ll find himself in a Joseph Heller novel and die of boredom, which he avoided at all costs in Bellow’s original creation.
I also imagine, at some point, that auto-correct will evolve so that we are prevented from re-correcting IT, probably because of some directive contained in Steve Jobs last will and testament.
They’ll call it “Auto-Correct and Now Shut Up”
Maybe you would be allowed to correct each auto-correct for a small fee, which would add up for those things who think they are people, creating shareholder value.
Imagine, if you will, this thread with commenters locked out of correcting auto-correct.
Every utterance would “mean” differently.
We’d never get our points across.
Just like now. It would give new meaning to “that’s not what I meant to say”.
Or, commenters could be allowed to go into auto-correct other commenters offerings, undermining the entire enterprise.
“I don’t agree” could be automatically altered to “I agree” and we’d live happily ever after.
However, as in sex, completely removing friction on a blog would take the paprika out of the paprikash.
It seemed to me much like reading mediaeval theology — assertions at such a high level of abstraction that they float far above the possibility of evidence and counter-example.
Nicely put. I wish I had thought of that.
I get a certain thrill from reading that sort of thing, but I’m always on the fence, when I don’t completely get it, as to whether I’m just an ignoramus or I’m reading highly intellectualized bullsh1t.
It seemed to me much like reading mediaeval theology — assertions at such a high level of abstraction that they float far above the possibility of evidence and counter-example.
Nicely put. I wish I had thought of that.
I get a certain thrill from reading that sort of thing, but I’m always on the fence, when I don’t completely get it, as to whether I’m just an ignoramus or I’m reading highly intellectualized bullsh1t.
It seemed to me much like reading mediaeval theology — assertions at such a high level of abstraction that they float far above the possibility of evidence and counter-example.
Nicely put. I wish I had thought of that.
I get a certain thrill from reading that sort of thing, but I’m always on the fence, when I don’t completely get it, as to whether I’m just an ignoramus or I’m reading highly intellectualized bullsh1t.
Indeed.
Indeed.
Indeed.
It occurs to me that Bob Newhart would never have made his comedic name with his one-sided phone calls schtick if he had an automated phone line with a lengthy multiple choice phone tree installed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfskp4R53Q0
I like to put telemarketers on hold. Then I walk away from the phone and provide some muzak by tooting an out-of-tune Inagaddadavida on a kazoo from across the room.
Then I scream “No, no, please, honey don’t, not that! Good God!” and fire a round from a pistol out the window and howl like I’m being murdered.
I eventually come back to the phone to find the caller had hung up and if he left a number on the caller ID, I call it, and they put ME on hold. I leave a message, imitating Alexander Portnoy’s mother and say, “Alex, I know you’re in there playing with your ‘little thing’ again. That’s the third time today. Other people need to use the toilet too, you know. Don’t make me tell your father.”
It occurs to me that Bob Newhart would never have made his comedic name with his one-sided phone calls schtick if he had an automated phone line with a lengthy multiple choice phone tree installed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfskp4R53Q0
I like to put telemarketers on hold. Then I walk away from the phone and provide some muzak by tooting an out-of-tune Inagaddadavida on a kazoo from across the room.
Then I scream “No, no, please, honey don’t, not that! Good God!” and fire a round from a pistol out the window and howl like I’m being murdered.
I eventually come back to the phone to find the caller had hung up and if he left a number on the caller ID, I call it, and they put ME on hold. I leave a message, imitating Alexander Portnoy’s mother and say, “Alex, I know you’re in there playing with your ‘little thing’ again. That’s the third time today. Other people need to use the toilet too, you know. Don’t make me tell your father.”
It occurs to me that Bob Newhart would never have made his comedic name with his one-sided phone calls schtick if he had an automated phone line with a lengthy multiple choice phone tree installed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfskp4R53Q0
I like to put telemarketers on hold. Then I walk away from the phone and provide some muzak by tooting an out-of-tune Inagaddadavida on a kazoo from across the room.
Then I scream “No, no, please, honey don’t, not that! Good God!” and fire a round from a pistol out the window and howl like I’m being murdered.
I eventually come back to the phone to find the caller had hung up and if he left a number on the caller ID, I call it, and they put ME on hold. I leave a message, imitating Alexander Portnoy’s mother and say, “Alex, I know you’re in there playing with your ‘little thing’ again. That’s the third time today. Other people need to use the toilet too, you know. Don’t make me tell your father.”
Count,
a dude in Louisville made his name by messing with telemarketers…stuff like “So, you clean carpets and furniture, can you get ANY stain out” “Sure”
“How about blood? Like, lots and lots of blood?” “Sure can”
“Can you come over right away, and do you take cash?”
Mabe has gone rather RWNJish, but his early, funny, work is hilarious.
Count,
a dude in Louisville made his name by messing with telemarketers…stuff like “So, you clean carpets and furniture, can you get ANY stain out” “Sure”
“How about blood? Like, lots and lots of blood?” “Sure can”
“Can you come over right away, and do you take cash?”
Mabe has gone rather RWNJish, but his early, funny, work is hilarious.
Count,
a dude in Louisville made his name by messing with telemarketers…stuff like “So, you clean carpets and furniture, can you get ANY stain out” “Sure”
“How about blood? Like, lots and lots of blood?” “Sure can”
“Can you come over right away, and do you take cash?”
Mabe has gone rather RWNJish, but his early, funny, work is hilarious.
I like to put telemarketers on hold.
You mean to say there isn’t an app for that? I sense opportunity.
Algorithms could be developed to mimic those used by high frequency traders to ping telemarketing firms and detect who they are dialing up before the last digit is pressed.
The app for the clients (“customers” is so, so passe) would then automatically put in place the response scenario you use, or any one of their choosing, or order one from Amazon. It would go into action, even if the client was not home, or even if they did not bother to answer the phone.
Screenwriters would at last be able to make a living.
Like all internet miracles arising from the movement of herded electrons, clients would not to pay for this service. Their names would be sold to the telemarketing companies, because anybody who buys into this really wants to be scammed to begin with.
Like bitcoins, an infinite series of hard to fathom algorithmic calls and counter-calls (“catcalls” is the industry term) will unfold…making everybody infinitely rich, or at least rich enough to buy a few bars of gold bullion, the real money.
Naturally, the government will get involved as the public clamors for an end to all the algorithms consuming every last electron that is not nailed down.
They will impose a tax.
This will end entrepreneurship as we know it. Volume will crater and spreads will go to infinity, destroying the social fabric and plunging us into a new Dark Ages where we might, just might, have a chance of surviving global warming.
Any of you VC types out there?…here’s your chance.
I like to put telemarketers on hold.
You mean to say there isn’t an app for that? I sense opportunity.
Algorithms could be developed to mimic those used by high frequency traders to ping telemarketing firms and detect who they are dialing up before the last digit is pressed.
The app for the clients (“customers” is so, so passe) would then automatically put in place the response scenario you use, or any one of their choosing, or order one from Amazon. It would go into action, even if the client was not home, or even if they did not bother to answer the phone.
Screenwriters would at last be able to make a living.
Like all internet miracles arising from the movement of herded electrons, clients would not to pay for this service. Their names would be sold to the telemarketing companies, because anybody who buys into this really wants to be scammed to begin with.
Like bitcoins, an infinite series of hard to fathom algorithmic calls and counter-calls (“catcalls” is the industry term) will unfold…making everybody infinitely rich, or at least rich enough to buy a few bars of gold bullion, the real money.
Naturally, the government will get involved as the public clamors for an end to all the algorithms consuming every last electron that is not nailed down.
They will impose a tax.
This will end entrepreneurship as we know it. Volume will crater and spreads will go to infinity, destroying the social fabric and plunging us into a new Dark Ages where we might, just might, have a chance of surviving global warming.
Any of you VC types out there?…here’s your chance.
I like to put telemarketers on hold.
You mean to say there isn’t an app for that? I sense opportunity.
Algorithms could be developed to mimic those used by high frequency traders to ping telemarketing firms and detect who they are dialing up before the last digit is pressed.
The app for the clients (“customers” is so, so passe) would then automatically put in place the response scenario you use, or any one of their choosing, or order one from Amazon. It would go into action, even if the client was not home, or even if they did not bother to answer the phone.
Screenwriters would at last be able to make a living.
Like all internet miracles arising from the movement of herded electrons, clients would not to pay for this service. Their names would be sold to the telemarketing companies, because anybody who buys into this really wants to be scammed to begin with.
Like bitcoins, an infinite series of hard to fathom algorithmic calls and counter-calls (“catcalls” is the industry term) will unfold…making everybody infinitely rich, or at least rich enough to buy a few bars of gold bullion, the real money.
Naturally, the government will get involved as the public clamors for an end to all the algorithms consuming every last electron that is not nailed down.
They will impose a tax.
This will end entrepreneurship as we know it. Volume will crater and spreads will go to infinity, destroying the social fabric and plunging us into a new Dark Ages where we might, just might, have a chance of surviving global warming.
Any of you VC types out there?…here’s your chance.
Doug Henwood takes on Paul Mason.
Doug Henwood takes on Paul Mason.
Doug Henwood takes on Paul Mason.
Good link, thanks, bobbyp.
Good link, thanks, bobbyp.
Good link, thanks, bobbyp.
Paul Mason will sell no whine before its time.
Paul Mason will sell no whine before its time.
Paul Mason will sell no whine before its time.
The Sharing Economy Is Really Relationship Capitalism
The Sharing Economy Is Really Relationship Capitalism
The Sharing Economy Is Really Relationship Capitalism
Have reports of the death of capitalism been greatly exaggerated?
Have reports of the death of capitalism been greatly exaggerated?
Have reports of the death of capitalism been greatly exaggerated?