None of this fucking matters. Wait for murder only.

Somewhere along the line we lost sight of what surely ought to have been the ultimate goal of organised society; for our lives to be getting ever easier; for the amount of bullshit and mindless drudgery we need to do in order to survive to be ever decreasing. I don't see why such a society can't exist. Everyone born into this world should stand to inherit the their share of all the physical and intellectual progress made before them. The sum of our cross-generational toils (and the security, freedom and dignity it affords) shouldn't exist as a collectible to be appropriated and hoarded by those who were able to game a broken system to their advantage. 

The scarcity of comfort is an absolute scam, and if more people realised this we'd be lolling hard at the idea that we can fix our problems by fighting harder amongst ourselves for the scraps.

Just to address the point about pay

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/30/we-have-to-fight-for-these-conditions-why-danish-meat-plant-workers-are-europes-best-paid

Unions and workers securing good pay for hard, undesirable jobs. These jobs need to be done, but should be well paid. Is that so tough to do?

Funkstain wrote:

Just to address the point about pay https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/30/we-have-to-fight-for-these-conditions-why-danish-meat-plant-workers-are-europes-best-paid Unions and workers securing good pay for hard, undesirable jobs. These jobs need to be done, but should be well paid. Is that so tough to do?

I dont think it is, the balance will be what will other people be willing to give to make up the difference. Not just with these jobs but any time money is transfered in some form. I have posted numerous times on this forum that I believe food is under valued both in terms of its cost of production from a material point and from the staff aspect.  I would be happier paying more for less knowing that the producer is earning a decent wage. 

Further to other points (given you asked me to address them)

Mattys point about high pay meaning a spotless street is probably nice to say but I think provably wrong. High pay has nothing to do with a job being doing well (or poorly). I have lots of personal experience of over paying some people and of being under paid myself. But there are lots of incidents in everyones life where we can point to someone who does. Look at modern celebs, pro athletes and politicians - they work hard at maintaining their status, but not all work hard at the job they are actually paid to do.                                       

Jons points make a lot of sense and are a fine counterpoint to my own - what good is hard work if there are no jobs or opportunity to create one. This ties to Funks point about how by virtue of my place of birth, genes etc e.g. luck has as much impact. And I'd probably have to agree, and I dont have a counter to that. But it doesn't give me an idea of how we move beyond the current job/ cash model. 

Further to Funks points about why should someone born lazy suffer compared to someone who works hard. I'm not sure if I'm reading this right but if the concept is that Society should carry those who just dont want to than I dont agree. I dont think its healthy for society or the individual. I think you can allow not everyone to work as hard, but everyone should be made to contribute to a society for it to function. If we take away the current model of jobs and everyone still had reasonable resources, I would still argue the point that allowing someone to think it ok to just stagnate and use up resources is a broken concept. 

Equinox raises the idea that our lives should be getting easier and that makes complete sense but we have limited resources -to go around. And a population that is still going up.  Lets say we bring everyone to the same level - is there a point where we could all agree thats fair? Its probably not possible to bring everyone up to the highest standard of living (resources likely being the issues more than money) so some of us (most people on this board most likely) would lose a lot of their gains. But the other gains might be a planet that can sustain us again, a fair overall society etc. In theory, I would be fine with this. How it would actually be put into practice is not really the point but a society where we don't have many of the niceties of current life but less the stress for everyone could be worth it. 

One point I'll quote direct - "Work Harder Scum"

Just to be clear, I think this shows a huge difference in how we view work (and I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong) I'm only typing this bit to show why I think the way I do. I appreciate when it comes to work, I'm a glass half full person. Some are a glass half empty. Others maybe rightly realise the glass is distracting us from the real issue.

Anyway, I've worked shit pay jobs, overtime, 7 days a week etc. I always (and still do) view this type of work as working towards my goals and not work as is. When I needed to put together a deposit for my first apartment I worked 3 jobs because I really wanted that apartment. I viewed it as sacrifice to get to my goal. This is how I view all work in general. Whether it was work put into trying to get into shape, work put into trying to make a go of a band when I was younger, or in building a cv. 

I value work like this because I feel it makes me a better person. I fully accept that not everyone feels this way but honestly the only time I really didn't put in the effort was between my years of 12 to 15 in school. And I was a miserable person because it left me feeling dead ended in terms of outlook and also I genuinely felt stupid as I slipped down the class pecking orders. What made really feel shit was when joking around with some friends I realize how they saw me - I was just going to flunk out with the final exams (leaving cert in Ireland) And I knew they had a point but not because I was disadvantaged but because I just had not bothered. This really stuck with me and from 16 to 18 I tried at School. I still wasn't great but I improved and it set a bar that I can feel I can rely on.

Since then I've worked good jobs and bad. I've made errors, mistakes but I've always felt when i put the effort in, I've gotten some reward. Absolutely I think its fair to say where I was born, the colour of my skin, my genes has a place in helping me along the way as well as some good honest luck. But even leaving aside the job/ career stuff. If I really want something or to be good at something I have to put the work in. Want to be good at guitar? Gotta work. Want to shed the weight? Gotta work. Want to cook a nice meal for friends? Gotta work. And so on. 

If you respond and say for other people its too hard, I'm not going to argue. In many cases you could be sadly right. None of the above might be scalable beyond my own local - but I've never felt that work was a negative is my basic point. Yeah, working in a dead-end job is heart breaking and I've done that but I always say it as a way to get to another place. Maybe I'm being way too optimistic on that.

davyK wrote:

We want too much stuff.  The idea of having stuff equalling fulfillment is perhaps the greatest con ever pulled. Even our billionaires, those who run it, are slaves to it. They are the hollowest of us all. You can never have enough of what you don't need.

Thats so true. I think we are all guilty of this and its probably the biggest thing to get over.

How do you measure how hard anyone works anyway?

That's always been the management challenge. The act of measuring changes things too. Once people know how they are measured then maximising the score becomes the goal instead of the desired outcome.

Measuring the outcome is better but that's harder.

Brooks wrote:

K/D

Nah, I play the objective.

RedDave2 wrote:

Further to Funks points about why should someone born lazy suffer compared to someone who works hard. I'm not sure if I'm reading this right but if the concept is that Society should carry those who just dont want to than I dont agree. I dont think its healthy for society or the individual. I think you can allow not everyone to work as hard, but everyone should be made to contribute to a society for it to function. If we take away the current model of jobs and everyone still had reasonable resources, I would still argue the point that allowing someone to think it ok to just stagnate and use up resources is a broken concept.

Just to pick up on one thing, I think the whole concept of 'contributing to society' is worth unpicking here.

It often feels like social contribution, and our sense of value as individuals, is reduced to how much income tax we pay. But other than income tax, what do a lot of jobs actually contribute? Many of them cause pollution and use up limited environmental resources to offer superficial services or luxury goods. Plenty of people are miserable in part because they feel their jobs are actually pointless. Other jobs, e.g. in finance, exist purely to make certain people wealthier at the expense of others.

How do any of those jobs compare to, say, someone who's unemployed but volunteers to do some sort of community or charity work? Who is contributing more? Now, imagine if the economy could change to free more people from pointless work, and imagine that we were encouraged to help out with local projects more instead. Or what if the unemployed were asked to participate in regeneration projects rather than spend their days on soul-sapping hunts for meaningless jobs?

Is society carrying the people not doing paid work? Or is society carrying the people doing unnecessary work that causes pollution and inequality?

I suppose my whole point at the start was that we need to break this ideological connection we have between (hard) paid work and the idea of contributing to or being a valuable member of society. That's what any progressive political party should be doing, more so in this century, given the incredible inequality we have these days, the environmental issues linked to overproduction (too much work), and the gradual shift towards automation.

JonB wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

Further to Funks points about why should someone born lazy suffer compared to someone who works hard. I'm not sure if I'm reading this right but if the concept is that Society should carry those who just dont want to than I dont agree. I dont think its healthy for society or the individual. I think you can allow not everyone to work as hard, but everyone should be made to contribute to a society for it to function. If we take away the current model of jobs and everyone still had reasonable resources, I would still argue the point that allowing someone to think it ok to just stagnate and use up resources is a broken concept.

Just to pick up on one thing, I think the whole concept of 'contributing to society' is worth unpicking here. It often feels like social contribution, and our sense of value as individuals, is reduced to how much income tax we pay. But other than income tax, what do a lot of jobs actually contribute? Many of them cause pollution and use up limited environmental resources to offer superficial services or luxury goods. Plenty of people are miserable in part because they feel their jobs are actually pointless. Other jobs, e.g. in finance, exist purely to make certain people wealthier at the expense of others. How do any of those jobs compare to, say, someone who's unemployed but volunteers to do some sort of community or charity work? Who is contributing more? Now, imagine if the economy could change to free more people from pointless work, and imagine that we were encouraged to help out with local projects more instead. Or what if the unemployed were asked to participate in regeneration projects rather than spend their days on soul-sapping hunts for meaningless jobs? Is society carrying the people not doing paid work? Or is society carrying the people doing unnecessary work that causes pollution and inequality? I suppose my whole point at the start was that we need to break this ideological connection we have between (hard) paid work and the idea of contributing to or being a valuable member of society. That's what any progressive political party should be doing, more so in this century, given the incredible inequality we have these days, the environmental issues linked to overproduction (too much work), and the gradual shift towards automation.

I'd completely agree with the above Jon - contribution to society does not and should not equal monetary value all the time - be it a consumer spend leading to VAT or income tax etc. I was just making the point that even if we take away the concept of "working for a living" I still would argue against some being allowed to be lazy and contribute nothing. That something can be any variety of things.

b0r1s wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

I appreciate when it comes to work, I'm a glass half full person. Some are a glass half empty. Others maybe rightly realise the glass is distracting us from the real issue. Anyway, I've worked shit pay jobs, overtime, 7 days a week etc. I always (and still do) view this type of work as working towards my goals and not work as is. When I needed to put together a deposit for my first apartment I worked 3 jobs because I really wanted that apartment. I viewed it as sacrifice to get to my goal. This is how I view all work in general.

While I appreciate this viewpoint, I too have done a load of "shit" jobs, whatever that means (for me it's stuff I didn't want to do, working rather than a career), for 10 years after I left school. And now I have a great job/career. Was it due to hard work? Well, I took a chance, I quit my last job as team leader in a factory and risked savings on a web design course. I worked hard to pass the course quickly and then started applying for web design jobs. But here's the kicker... I got lucky. I had applied for loads of web design jobs, no experience, nearly 30 years old and I got lucky because the IT Director employed me for whatever reason (my portfolio at the time was made up of tiny website projects) and the marketing manager was on annual leave. She came back and months later told me if she wouldn't have even interviewed me. Working hard, as hard as you possibly can to achieve your goals, doesn't correlate with ending up doing what you dream of doing. You're either born into it or you get lucky imo.

I think its how you look at it, i really do. I'd look at your story in a different way. You built up both funds and workplace experience in the factory (include team leader which is always a plus). This allowed you to go for the web design course. You worked hard to pass the course and started applying for jobs. Getting your current job, yeah, sure stroke of luck with that particular one but all your previous experience even not linked to the web design stuff was building a CV that can both help in terms of getting a job but also will give you experience in working in a similar environment. You also did the work in applying to loads of jobs. You could have done none of the above and you definitely would not have gotten the job you are in.

Plus, getting the job is part of the deal. You still have to keep it. You must be a decent employee if, despite being hired by the wrong person and not meeting the criteria of the person who should have hired you, they kept you past probation.

As a similar point, when I first got in the door of my current job I was simply walking past a sign in a window for a chef after being out of Dublin for the past 2 years. The Head Chef asked could I start straight away and he would pay me for what I worked if I stayed or not for the job full time and things went from there. Luck? Sure. But previous work made me comfortable enough to know I could walk into most kitchens and get straight to work and continued work say me move up in position and pay consistently. 

So I think its a combination but I cant think that in either scenario of ours that someone who couldn't be arsed would have put themselves in the position to get the lucky break. My view is being Proactive will always increase your chances more than doing nothing.

That’s true, but many people lack that ability to be proactive for whatever reason, potentially owing to current circumstances, or potentially due to being wired differently to you. Expecting them to be proactive is like expecting someone without legs to become a high jumper.

There’s also a danger in branding that those who don’t contribute to society lazy in some way. Many will never be able to contribute to society owing to their personal situations, sometimes this will even occur in people who might outwardly seem like they aren’t struggling.

g.man wrote:

Brooks wrote:

K/D

Nah, I play the objective.

Ah, a saint.

b0r1s wrote:

I got lucky. I had applied for loads of web design jobs

None of this is simple so I'm only making one narrow point here. But it sounds like you rolled the dice a load of times and eventually got the six you needed. You may have been 'unlucky' on previous attempts. You still rolled the dice loads until you got the breakthrough. And if it hadn't been then, it would have been later as, I imagine, you'd have kept at it until you got there. Or taken something else and kept at it out of work. I don't know.

Luck is important. Especially in the higher eschelons. Right place, right time, right parents, right background. But it's not sufficient on its own most of the time. Even the job with the biggest luck to ability ratio I can think of (Tory cabinet minister) still means they've grafted to get there. How many arses has Grant Shapps had to kiss? How many meetings with donors has he had? How much media training has he gone through to lie so fluently and comfortably in front of millions of people? What usually happens with that mob and the broadsheet journalists and other wankers is it's a combination. And they don't really see the luck side of it. They feel the chapped lips from so many arses kissed, the interview they nailed, the years they spend pretending to like someone who could advance their career and they think they've earned it.

I think a large amount of the luck component isn't what you roll but how many re-rolls you're given, which is another consequence of earlier luck. Johnson for instance seems to have found some infinite re-roll cheat.

DrewMerson wrote:

While it may be true that any individual person has the potential to make it to (and in) their dream job, it’s not even remotely true to suggest that everyone who wants to can. There’s only room for a limited number of chefs, videogame journalists, architects, or whatever and, barring very occasional, time-limited exceptions, there are more people who want them than can ever make it. While it may be admirable for some to say that they just viewed the shit jobs as stepping stones, it’s not possible for that to be everyone’s view. The world needs too many cleaners, check-out assistants and bar staff for them to be done exclusively by people who are passing through to better things.

I think you maybe misunderstood me. I'm not saying everyones job will lead to their dream job - I'm saying it can be seen as getting to your next goal. Its absolutely true that there are only so many Top spots and this is a problem both in terms of the limited number and maybe more importantly the amount those top spots suck up in terms of the total wage bill. The overpaid American CEO is possibly the best example of this. So the issue we come back to is that the "shit jobs" under pay. This is trickier to get by but maybe this is where the top lot get taxed more and the bottom pay rate gets subsidised (as stated, not every company can afford to match the output of an Amzon or Tesco so paying a high minimum wage isnt doing any good). But the next issue is how many of us would work a cleaners job if it paid more per hour than what you are currently getting? Lets say 20% more - how many of you would take the trade?

equinox_code wrote:

I don’t even need to ‘succeed’, but getting by shouldn’t be this hard. When I think about how much of other people’s labour I consume I’m quite sure the amount is exceptionally low. Even when I was employed I very seldom bought stuff. I drink a handful of mass produced drinks every now and then on a night out, and I’d be surprised if the food I ate was particularly labour intensive, so I don’t see any reason for such a lifestyle should require a 40 hour working week. This level of comfort could surely be afforded on half a day of work. But even if success was the goal, with so many skills either behind a paywall or contingent upon having plenty of free time/spare hours, dedicating one’s life to rolling dice with an indeterminate number of faces over and over and over isn’t all that appealing, not least when so many others seem to just be flipping coins.

It really depends on which side of the transaction you are on. In the food business its not the cost of the item that is the big expense (usually 25 to 30% if you are eating in a restaurant, although some Fast Food are lower) its the cost of having the business running when it isnt so busy that jams you up. Along with Rent, Rates, Insurance which are calculated across the whole month/ week. So the Burger and Chips you buy at 7pm when its busy is cheaper than at 3pm when its quieter. And while you may think labour costs are low, for a lot of SMEs, they are quite the opposite, plus they come out each week. 

When you add in the new sides of the business like deliveroo and Just Eat who will take 30% of the sale price, along with sale tax you aren't left with much from that €15 meal deal. So I guess as a customer we can pay our staff more if we up our price to €25 lets say - but the knock on effect for you would be now your wage has been devalued further.