It’s a meme

  • Devouring@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nice try evading the question. Try again.

    Read the post. Read my question. Tell me what’s wrong in my scenario and how it’ll work in your “well-educated” mind.

    If you understand it, you can explain it to a 5-year old.

    Let’s see what your next excuse is gonna be.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You literally only have one question, the rest of it is opining.

      You’re assuming a wage labor model and that people working twice as efficiently and at half intensity would result in decreased production.

      1. wage labor models aren’t universal

      2. there is no reasoning stated for why production would go down

      You’re assuming people would have to be fired to maintain competitive growth. This is based on the logic of firms competing to capture market share. There isn’t really a rational reason for this to need to happen under systems were the point is to accommodate human need, not to maximize profit.

      • Devouring@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I haven’t said that people have to be fired to maintain competitive growth. I said that assuming a normal/average growth (and let’s even make it simpler for you and ignore growth), and assuming a breakthrough requires many new people to hired to work with a new technology, then the people who are there and who aren’t interested in learning the new way of doing things, will just become a burden to the company. Let’s do the math:

        • More people are hired
        • Same output is maintained

        Let’s do the 5th grade math: Same output / More people = less earner per person every time this happens

        Meaning: If this trend continuous due to multiple breakthroughs (which isn’t crazy, we have seen tons of those in the last 25 years in different sectors), then this company is destined to become bankrupt, especially because people will continuously keep earning less with no lower-bound to that other zero, to the point where it’s not enough to make a living.

        Nothing you said answers this dilemma. You keep talking about general things and avoid this (very realistic) scenario that keeps happening. How will such a company survive?

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Thats it interesting scenario, but why are you assuming that there is a significant segment that won’t want to learn, especially when they’re no longer alienated from their labor? And why are you assuming that the total laborers will increase with new technology, when you can retrain existing workers?

          I dont think your scenario is realistic, it kinda reads as really misanthropic

          • Devouring@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because the fraction of the current world that reads every day and learns every day is extremely small. Again, like I said before, how many people around you come back from work and want to read technical books and watch courses instead of chilling, or hanging out with friends? I have two friends who are nut jobs like me and work all the time. EVERYONE else is lazy and just wants to have fun after work, and that’s in my circle. This spans over decades in the different jobs and sectors I worked at, in different countries. Do you have a different experience around you? I have trouble convincing people to read for 30 minutes every day.

            Are you trying to argue that the majority of people watch educational videos in their free time and read technical books and prefer that over hanging out?

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because the fraction of the current world that reads every day and learns every day is extremely small.

              Socialist countries are famous for literacy and education drives

              Again, like I said before, how many people around you come back from work and want to read technical books and watch courses instead of chilling, or hanging out with friends? I have two friends who are nut jobs like me and work all the time. EVERYONE else is lazy and just wants to have fun after work, and that’s in my circle. This spans over decades in the different jobs and sectors I worked at, in different countries. Do you have a different experience around you? I have trouble convincing people to read for 30 minutes every day.

              I dont think it is reasonable to assume humans will act the same way in all conditions. I know people who just slack off, and its generally because there is no incentive not to do the bare minimum when you are alienated from your labor

              • Devouring@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Humans will be humans wherever they go.

                But to summarize. You basically want to wreck the current system on the basis that everyone will be diligent, reading all the time, just for the “greater good”, more so than their own profit.

                And btw, about the “bare minimum”. No one has a reason to not do the bare minimum as they don’t get fired (consequences). There will always be the lazy guy who does the bare minimum, and everyone will get lazier because they’ll get jealous with zero consequences.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  But to summarize. You basically want to wreck the current system on the basis that everyone will be diligent, reading all the time, just for the “greater good”, more so than their own profit.

                  No, that’s a strawman. People won’t all be diligent. But they will be more productive in general when they are not alienated from their labor. This has been proven with a bunch of economic data on socialist countries and data on cooperatives even within a capitalist environment.

                  And btw, about the “bare minimum”. No one has a reason to not do the bare minimum as they don’t get fired (consequences). There will always be the lazy guy who does the bare minimum, and everyone will get lazier because they’ll get jealous with zero consequences.

                  You’re just literally describing capitalism and being like, what about this problem under socialism? The consequences are youre not contributing. Do you think everyone is suddenly going to be less motivated when they’re actually able to realize the product of their labor, instead of having a parasite on top taking it?

                  • Devouring@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah… right. People will stop being lazy even though they can be, and will just work day and night to benefit others. Very convincing. I’ve seen all kinds of people who were put in cushy cushion jobs for decades and didn’t learn shit. Never heard of boomers?

                    Under capitalism, you can do the bare minimum, but a job cut will always hit you first if you make yourself worthless to the company. Is it perfect? No. But the incentive is clear, at least.