|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 7:14 pm
I.Am The examples you made? Yeah, there's no way they got rid of all the middle management. They may have gotten rid of the manager of an, or multiple, Taco Bells, or mostly integrated the manager into the workers, but there are still plenty of people between the workers in the individual Taco Bells and the CEO. Bored now. But it's not my ideal capitalist society; Unlike you, I don't act like my ideal is or could be reality. wink I simply have realistic expectations of how people work, I accept their faults, and I try to work around that instead of trying to force humans to become something inhumanly moral and motivated and spirited. I try to understand how things work based on what I've seen, and what I know, not on what I want. Mm. Eventually, maybe I'll write up my ideal society. You might be surprised at how close it is to your ideal society. But the problem is, I know it wouldn't work. It would require expecting everyone to act for the benefit of the society, before acting for themselves. But it would require them doing this on their own, because I believe in freedom, and I wouldn't be willing to have them brainwashed. It would never happen. I do not think that people must benefit for society. I have said time and time again that this would not be a motivation for work. The motivation would be to feed, shelter and entertain oneself, as it is in this societ.y HOWEVER, the difference is, the work would NOT benefit the higher-ups, as there would be no higher-ups. FURTHERMORE, The REASON for work (Not motivation. Motivation is WHY people do it, reason is the desired result. Similar, but on different perspectives.) would be to accomplish the tasks of work. They would act for themselves, but the work would all be equal and benefit all others. Thus, when the quota was met, the workers would no longer need to fill in the rest of their 40 hours. Job done. Brainwashing? No, you are just massively misunderstanding and misrepresenting my meaning. I could explain it better over the phone, as I could say more and you could miss less. And as for your ideal society- Why can we not pull ourselves out of the trap? It is clearly a trap- the rich own everything, we need to work and make money for the rich to take a pittance to spend it on the production of the rich's other equally underpaid workforce. It is not impossible. Just not easy with what I would consider brainwashing in this society. Money isn't brainwashing? Then why is it that resessions cause so much trouble? The imaginary value of money drops, and suddenly the fields are barren and the farms no longer produce cows? The cows that are produced are thinner and give less meat? Bullshit. Physically, nothing has changed. Only the imaginary system of money has failed, yet when it does, since we "need" money to survive... People starve. All over the imaginary yet so necessary system.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 7:40 pm
lymelady divineseraph lymelady divineseraph Wrong, to an extent. One man cannot properly rule an entire working class. So, he hires people below him to do his work for him, who in turn hire more below them for less until finally we get to the minimum wage worker. It's a pyramid scheme of paying people less and less to do the actual task at hand. Say for example a company that makes staples. The owner cant overlook the whole thing, so he hires 5 managers paid a million a year. They don't want to watch over the entire factories themselves, so they hire 10 managers each for seperate wings at 90k a year. Those managers hire 20 workers each to do the actual task at minimum wage. What we have here is people handing down the actual thing that needs to be done- the production of staples- through millions of dollars. The continual handing down of tasks ends up leaving the working class with the minimum, and the guys who tell them how to make themselves and those above them more money with...the most money. And your last paragraph goes completely against what I am for. You have the wrong idea of communism. What is work for? In capitalism, it is hard to tell if work is to gain money or to produce something needed for society. They are nearly one in the same now. I believe work should be to produce things needed by society. This is not to say that people would work on good will and happy thoughts of society- Working would be required to gain food, shelter, entertainment, just as it is. However, there would be no "making up" of jobs or menial tasks. Once the quotas were met, the funcion of work would have been fulfilled. This means that should it only take 20 hours a week to get everything done, you've done what you needed to do and are done with work for that week. For example- Say the quota for staples at the company is 10,000 boxes a week. Since the management was broken down and given to the workers, and all those in management positions are now working to produce staples, they can finish their quota if everyone takes only a 30 hour shift, instead of the full 40. Fine. Quota met. The stores are full of the staples they need, the job is done, they get a long weekend. They can still take as they want from the stores as they have done the task they have to do. It's not about "ruling" anyone, it's about running a business efficiently. In a capitalist society, there is competition which means that businesses MUST be efficient to get ahead. They actually hire consultants to come in and suggest ways to make things more efficient so they produce more. If middle management was truly unnecessary, it wouldn't be there because it's not cost-effective. You're of the opinion that companies will try to screw their workers over, so why would they give some people unnecessary jobs with higher pay, especially if it involves slowing down production to do so? Also, you're of the opinion that manual workers deserve more because they're doing the manual work, but the people at the top are running the business. They're the ones with the experience, knowledge, and skills to make it successful, and the ones who make sure things get done. Anyone can flip a burger. Anyone can stock a shelf. Anyone can stand in an assembly line putting things together. Not just anyone can run a business well, and that expertise of running the business is a big benefit to society because without it there would be no business. When you have a society of millions of people, there will always be a demand for things, and there is nothing in our marketplace that doesn't benefit someone in society (otherwise no one would buy it). The work being done by the management is the work of managing; of making sure a project runs efficiently, making sure workers are afforded their rights, making sure the schedules work for people, ordering the right supplies in the right amount, making sure workers are on task, etc. They don't just sit there on their butts going, "Let's see what's on the telly." Probably because they're not British for the most part. The same goes with the people at the top. They are doing work, and it is essential work, it's just not obvious work. You can look at an assembly line worker and then look at a CEO on the phone with someone and it seems that the assembly worker is doing more work, but that's not necessarily the case. Also I want to know where the management one up from the bottom rung of the pyramid is making 90k a year because I want to work for that company. Middle management? Get in the right company, middle middle row, and you're looking at around 3 million. Even mcdonalds, the lowest rung of floor managers are paid 21 dollars an hour to stand in the corner and tell the burger-flippers how to flip burgers faster. A company which is run by democratic process cannot be efficient? I disagree, and the success of the experiments done by Taco Bell and whatever brazilian steel company it was are evidence. Unnamed because I don't want to type in the search for it. And again- It is always about dropping down tasks to the next person. Pushing papers, hiring other workers and making things? Too much for the owner. Hiring other workers and actually producing things? Too much work for the CEO. Actually putting making things? Too much work for the manager. Until we get down to the worker. And notice, the other areas of excess work all exist because of themselves. Hiring workers could be democratic. Paperwork could be done just as easily by the workers. And why not have the ones who work in the factories collectively own them? And remember, if ALL of the workers were trained to do EVERYTHING and all worked collectively at once, everything would get finished equally if not faster, due to concentrated workforces. Give me a company where the manager one up from the bottom rung is making 90k a year. You're talking as if it's a common thing. I've known many managers at many places, and they make much less than 90k. My point is this: If CEOs are so concerned with getting money, why would they bring in management that is not necessary? They wouldn't. It's the same point Andy's making. There are multiple reasons why a democratic process would not be as efficient; for one thing, unless everyone is extremely cooperative, scheduling conflicts, bitterness over successful employees, widespread bias against certain people (consider a community that is largely racist; they still exist.), unscrupulous yet charismatic employees stealing but being so likable no one suspects them, etc, etc...there is someone with authority for a reason, and companies aren't paying them more for no reason. It doesn't make sense. It's not about dropping down tasks to the next level, it's about delegating tasks efficiently based on the abilities of the employees. Have you ever actually worked with a bunch of people? A job should not be a popularity contest, rather, you should be hired based on your abilities, not how many people like you. Which sounds more efficient, one person deciding something should be done, or a group of individuals who meet, argue, debate, vote, recount the votes, re-vote until everyone is satisfied that there isn't a problem, and then something gets decided? Either way there's room for the decision to be the wrong one, but at least in one case it takes less time and if it's wrong, someone is liable for it and can be disciplined, trained, or whatever is necessary for them to make a better decision the next time. Also, you seem to be working under the impression that things aren't done fast enough as it is. If that's the case, where is the news report about staple shortages? The lack of books on the stores of bookshelves? Is there a severe depletion of cheap tacky thing 98410? Are iPods in demand because they can't be made fast enough? Perhaps birth control isn't used not because people are lazy or unable to drive to go get it, but because it just isn't being made fast enough. But no. No, this is not the case. This system you're so opposed to is working. Pushing papers is necessary. There are things that are more efficiently accomplished using these papers, having someone in charge, having someone who can be held accountable for making things run smoothly. Managing oneself and all others...I'm sorry, but that sounds like too hostile a work environment, for me, if I have to make sure I don't offend anyone, look at someone the wrong way, or express myself in my off time for fear of someone hating me, starting rumors about me, and being collectively voted off the island (lose my job). It's sort of like how shampoo and conditioner separately tend to work better than shampoo with conditioner. Shampoo concentrated and conditioner concentrated are better than a 2 in 1 product. What you are talking about is not a super-concentrated workforce; that's what we have now. What you are talking about is a 2 in 1 product...it addresses multiple needs but does it do it as well? No. Are the results as good? No. Most people do better at a task when they are fully concentrated on that task, not when they need to focus on multiple tasks at once. It's just common sense. Again, this is my main question for you...WHY would money-hungry CEOs create needless jobs that require paying more money when it is cheaper to train everyone in those tasks and pay them less money? There is absolutely no reason to if it can be done just as well in the way which costs less money. Again, it is all about handing down tasks which are alway implied to be neccesary to be a seperate job. There are no more succesful employees in my world. Everyone is equal. How can one be more successful when there is no money to base success off of? And yes, this may still happen with theives. But it happens in capitalism, and out of the pocket of another. In capitalism, it actually harms people, rather than just being a leech. I prefer voting. The same, though, could be argued of a democratic governing system. And jobs would be based on ability- While popularity contests may be a slight issue- Firstly, I would bet that many groups would hire based on the skills demonstrated. Also, popularity contests happen in capitalism, but at again a higher stake. Others lose out on that job. Powerful individuals can get incompetent relatives into high positions. (Middle management, upper management) (cough george bush paris hilton cough) And you would need to piss off several people to be voted off. One person saying "Eh, I don't really like Lyme. Let's fire her." =/= being fired. It's not hostile in the least. But if you notice somebody slacking, you have a right to mention it. And if enough people mention it and pull together a meeting to do something about it, the person being voted on is probably deserving of it. And again, even this has capitalistic counterparts with harsher realities, such as a single boss being able to fire at will, for any reason. At least in the democratic process it would be a vote, rather than one guy slapping a pink slip on you. And many hands make light work. They would all be trained to do everything. There would, of course, be significantly fewer papers to push, since there woiuld be no funds to track, no investors to keep in order, no accounts payable, no debit or credit. There would be far less paperwork, at most logs of where things were going in what quantities, and who worked and for how long. Much of this could even be computerized, making the actual work next to nonexistant. Because they THINK they need it. Just like capitalists THINK we need money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 9:12 pm
Mm. I didn't read most of your post; And you can tell when I don't read your post because I'll tell you. wink
Capitalists don't think you -need- money. They/we think that money is a more efficient way of barter, and we recognize that no system is actually without barter. For example, even your ideal society would, I'd hope, have items of differing values. Even just different options; If I like chocolate more than I like cheese, but I'm going to buy both. Chocolate is worth more than cheese to me. But more importantly to your system, there are going to be things that are universally of different values; For example, a work of art. It's going to, by nature, have a limited supply. So people who don't get there in time to grab the piece of art they want or whatever are sometimes going to try to barter with someone who did get the piece of art.
But it's more efficient to trade using money than it is using items like that; Otherwise I would get paid for working by receiving, I don't know, ten gallons of milk each week, and then I'd have to figure out a way of trading that for what I actually want. It's a lot more efficient for me to receive $250, and then go buy what I want or need.
I also wouldn't have to lug 10 gallons of milk to the store to get what I want. xd Really, except in a society where everything's free, money only makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 9:36 pm
divineseraph Brainwashing? No, you are just massively misunderstanding and misrepresenting my meaning. I could explain it better over the phone, as I could say more and you could miss less. Okay, this always pisses me off; Divine, I rarely miss your meaning. I disagree with you. That doesn't mean I misunderstand you. It's pretty arrogant of you to think that your idea is so perfect that the only possible way for me to disagree is if I don't understand it. But that's what you do. And so when I say, "I disagree, and here's why," you don't even read my post all the way; Or at least you don't process it. You just say, "You just don't understand" and then repeat yourself. I GET IT. You think that money is useless, that everyone should do their part for the sake of society and then receive what has been created by everyone in equal parts. You think that jobs should be filled by need. Which, there's never a definite need for musicians, artists, etc, but there is always -a- need; How do you decide who gets the dream job and who doesn't? Rather, how is it decided, since apparently there's also nobody in charge, everybody just does it. You think there should be no government, no classes or distinctions between one person and another. Which, I don't know how you planned to manage that either, because people tend to give each other values based on their opinions of each other; Like celebrities. I get that. I really really do. I get that, I respect the idea behind it, it's a wonderful ideal as we have all said many times, it really sounds great if it would work, unfortunately, no one is perfect, and that would require everyone to be perfect. Your system is all about -should- and not -would-. Should is wonderful. If there were a society based on the real Christian faith? That'd be great. Because there are some good values there. But it never happens. You know why? Because PEOPLE AREN'T PERFECT and there is NEVER a large enough group of people who always do what they "should" do, even by their own beliefs, rather than what they want to do. Mm. And your assessment of capitalism and American society is so ridiculous. It's so very stereotypical rubber stamped Communist propaganda. I know you didn't read the Communist's Manifesto, but you don't have to read that to get all the party lines; You just have to know other Communists who feed you this crap. The rich don't own everything. I mean, seriously, a) Are you rich? I assume no, the rich are rarely communists, and b) Do you own things? I assume yes, because you must have access to a computer. And probably clothes. God, I hope clothes. So that's bullshit.
And what you translate as me "misrepresenting your meaning" is actually me taking what you are suggesting and showing you why it wouldn't work through more realistic examples. I.e, the job market you create. You say that, oh, people will just work jobs as they come up. But that's not only unfair, because the first people there will get all the dream jobs and everyone else is stuck with the shitty office job or the garbage detail, but it wouldn't work without somebody assigning jobs. Someone who workplaces report to with slots that need to be filled, and then gives them to the people waiting. That person would be the government, whether you like it or not. Along with the people who make sure that you only get things from your money-less supermarket if they work.
Or the fact that, in your system of "Do any work, receive the same thing everyone else gets," no one take the time to get educated to do the really tough stuff. It's better to flip burgers at a fast food joint your whole life then to have to go to college for 4 years to learn how to do a more necessary job, when both jobs have the same payout.
In neither case am I misrepresenting what you have said; You say that jobs are filled as people come to them, and that everyone receives the same thing, regardless of whether they are the garbage man or the teacher. That only makes sense for a communist society; Any system that gives one person more for doing more work is a capitalist society, whether there is actual money or not.
The problem is that that's an ideal, a framework. I'm sorry, but I'm a logical thinker; I have an engineer's mind, you might say, as well as a psychologist's mind. I don't look at what you say and go, "Oh yeah, that's a great idea!" and just end there. Because that's the first impulse. But the large logical area of my brain is itching at it, so my second impulse is, "Wait a second. Yeah, it's a great idea. But will it work?" and so I put your system to practice, mentally, and it just. Doesn't. Work. This doesn't mean I don't understand you. And it's not misrepresenting you to disagree with you and show why it doesn't work. I'm not changing anything about what you said, I'm just filling in the realistic results of such a system.
(This part looks out of place because I edited that part in; Don't feel like going back and redoing it.)
Honestly, I have no desire to be really rich. It's a hassle. Which sounds silly, but it is. Having all that money makes you a target for the public, for the paparazzi, and you've got to deal with people who want to take your money, who want to befriend you just for your money... It's crap. Which really means I'm not a hardcore capitalist, you might say, even though I believe in money as a barter system.
Give me a middle class, upper middle class lifestyle. That'll do me fine. I really don't have that many needs; I'm enjoying life right now on $1000 a month, and there aren't many things I'd like to have that I don't have. That's based on $12,000 a year, and I not only have nearly everything I could want at the moment, but I'm also saving up money. At $24,000 a year? I would have nearly more money than I know what to do with. Of course, I want a family. But even then, the most expensive things are already figured into the $12,000 a year; The apartment, electricity, and internet. That's about half of the money I spend. And they wouldn't change just because I had a kid or two.
A lot of people just don't know how to be happy with what they have. Or to work for what they want. That's my opinion on the matter, and I like that capitalism rewards those who work; Those who don't want to work much, can get a near minimum wage job, work their way up to manager, and can have a small family off of that, with the necessities. For those who are willing to work for it? I'd say the sky's the limit, but that also takes a certain amount of talent, skill, and/or luck. Still, you can make enough money to add in some luxuries. Certainly as much as you'd be getting in crazy Communist society. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 9:57 pm
sad It makes me sad that I wrote this thought out, highly inclusive explanation of my side of things, but you (divine) are going to tl;dr it, and only get maybe the first paragraph and the last paragraph. Maybe. I hope you get the first paragraph at least, that's the most important one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 10:11 pm
divineseraph Again, it is all about handing down tasks which are alway implied to be neccesary to be a seperate job. I already explained them. They are necessary, and it's more efficient if they're separate jobs. Ask me if I stock candles faster if I'm just stocking candles or if I'm stocking candles+doing paperwork+dealing with customers+planning things with the person at the head of the company. Even if you had the managers in on it, the small amount that would be done faster is outweighed by the large amount of time that would be lost with everyone doing all of the extra things that can be more efficiently done by one or two managers. Quote: There are no more succesful employees in my world. Everyone is equal. How can one be more successful when there is no money to base success off of? And yes, this may still happen with theives. But it happens in capitalism, and out of the pocket of another. In capitalism, it actually harms people, rather than just being a leech. Sure there are, or there should be. In your system, there will still be people doing the bare minimum, and people doing more than that because they're the type of people who want to better society and do a job properly, not just the bare minimum. In your system, if both the slacker and the overachiever are treated the same, it's completely unfair and encourages the bare minimum. Luckily, some people will go above and beyond because that's the kind of people they are, but it'll be rarer. Quote: I prefer voting. The same, though, could be argued of a democratic governing system. You may prefer voting, but it's not as efficient, and yes, the same could be said about the democratic governing system, but there's a difference between the importance of delegating and maintaining rights and privileges and delegating and maintaining a business. Quote: And jobs would be based on ability- While popularity contests may be a slight issue- Firstly, I would bet that many groups would hire based on the skills demonstrated. But would they take the best worker, across the board, or the one they like the best? It's a problem now, just with managers hiring, I can guarantee it would be a problem if people were electing their own coworkers. If faced with a friend who I know needs a job or someone who may be more skilled, I will admit that I would vote for the friend, even though I'd have to think long and hard about it first. Think about people who don't have those scruples, because not everyone does, and even those that do (such as myself) won't necessarily pick a stranger over a friend based on ability. Quote: Also, popularity contests happen in capitalism, but at again a higher stake. Others lose out on that job. Powerful individuals can get incompetent relatives into high positions. (Middle management, upper management) (cough george bush paris hilton cough) Indeed they can, but it's the same stake. Others lose out on the job. I don't see what's changed. Quote: And you would need to piss off several people to be voted off. One person saying "Eh, I don't really like Lyme. Let's fire her." =/= being fired. It's not hostile in the least. But if you notice somebody slacking, you have a right to mention it. And if enough people mention it and pull together a meeting to do something about it, the person being voted on is probably deserving of it. And again, even this has capitalistic counterparts with harsher realities, such as a single boss being able to fire at will, for any reason. At least in the democratic process it would be a vote, rather than one guy slapping a pink slip on you. I have been complained about to the manager by enough other people because after 3 months, I was working harder and being given more responsibility and they got jealous because I was new, I wasn't much older than they were, and meanwhile, Mary, who had been slacking off and even mouthing off to customers but was very popular among the coworkers, was in trouble and lost her job. Seriously, people are people wherever you go. Sure, the same thing could happen if I pissed off the manager, but the manager isn't likely to dislike me for working hard. Quote: And many hands make light work. They would all be trained to do everything. There would, of course, be significantly fewer papers to push, since there woiuld be no funds to track, no investors to keep in order, no accounts payable, no debit or credit. There would be far less paperwork, at most logs of where things were going in what quantities, and who worked and for how long. Much of this could even be computerized, making the actual work next to nonexistant. There would be the equivalent. Where the goods are being shipped to involves paperwork. How much to which places. You'd still have scheduling. You'd still have tons of paperwork to fill out to keep track of your inventory (paperwork includes things that are computerized, and still need to be checked just as diligently because of computer error and human error). Add in the chaos of everyone doing these things, add in the extra work. Secondly, I must be mistaken, I thought we were still talking about within a capitalist society, but even without money, you still need people in charge who are liable, who settle in-house disputes, who organize, etc. You can't just have all the workers suddenly know what's going on and go do it without any direction. Quote: Because they THINK they need it. Just like capitalists THINK we need money. Divine, in the system of capitalism, they DO need it. If we're not working in that system, we still need it. Imagine a military where everyone was an ensign or a cadet. It would break down, quickly. The most efficient systems involve a hierarchy, not to be oppressive, but because it's the fastest and most effective way to do things. In your system, things honestly wouldn't be done as quickly because voting isn't efficient. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but we're talking about efficiency. You don't need money to have an efficient hierarchy, it (edit: "it "refers to taking money out, not leaving money in, I was very confusing. I blame the influence of someone sexy.) just evens the pay if you will. In a large-scale operation, like the one you're discussing? You NEED middle management to make things run efficiently. If you want them to be slower, then eliminate the position, which is fine to me because I won't be part of that project since the idea of the slacker getting paid the same as the overachiever makes me shudder and I'll stay far away from that society except to come pretend to join it, work a week, take everything I want from the store and leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 6:07 am
I.Am divineseraph Brainwashing? No, you are just massively misunderstanding and misrepresenting my meaning. I could explain it better over the phone, as I could say more and you could miss less. Okay, this always pisses me off; Divine, I rarely miss your meaning. I disagree with you. That doesn't mean I misunderstand you. It's pretty arrogant of you to think that your idea is so perfect that the only possible way for me to disagree is if I don't understand it. But that's what you do. And so when I say, "I disagree, and here's why," you don't even read my post all the way; Or at least you don't process it. You just say, "You just don't understand" and then repeat yourself. I GET IT. You think that money is useless, that everyone should do their part for the sake of society and then receive what has been created by everyone in equal parts. You think that jobs should be filled by need. Which, there's never a definite need for musicians, artists, etc, but there is always -a- need; How do you decide who gets the dream job and who doesn't? Rather, how is it decided, since apparently there's also nobody in charge, everybody just does it. You think there should be no government, no classes or distinctions between one person and another. Which, I don't know how you planned to manage that either, because people tend to give each other values based on their opinions of each other; Like celebrities. I get that. I really really do. I get that, I respect the idea behind it, it's a wonderful ideal as we have all said many times, it really sounds great if it would work, unfortunately, no one is perfect, and that would require everyone to be perfect. Your system is all about -should- and not -would-. Should is wonderful. If there were a society based on the real Christian faith? That'd be great. Because there are some good values there. But it never happens. You know why? Because PEOPLE AREN'T PERFECT and there is NEVER a large enough group of people who always do what they "should" do, even by their own beliefs, rather than what they want to do. Mm. And your assessment of capitalism and American society is so ridiculous. It's so very stereotypical rubber stamped Communist propaganda. I know you didn't read the Communist's Manifesto, but you don't have to read that to get all the party lines; You just have to know other Communists who feed you this crap. The rich don't own everything. I mean, seriously, a) Are you rich? I assume no, the rich are rarely communists, and b) Do you own things? I assume yes, because you must have access to a computer. And probably clothes. God, I hope clothes. So that's bullshit.
And what you translate as me "misrepresenting your meaning" is actually me taking what you are suggesting and showing you why it wouldn't work through more realistic examples. I.e, the job market you create. You say that, oh, people will just work jobs as they come up. But that's not only unfair, because the first people there will get all the dream jobs and everyone else is stuck with the shitty office job or the garbage detail, but it wouldn't work without somebody assigning jobs. Someone who workplaces report to with slots that need to be filled, and then gives them to the people waiting. That person would be the government, whether you like it or not. Along with the people who make sure that you only get things from your money-less supermarket if they work.
Or the fact that, in your system of "Do any work, receive the same thing everyone else gets," no one take the time to get educated to do the really tough stuff. It's better to flip burgers at a fast food joint your whole life then to have to go to college for 4 years to learn how to do a more necessary job, when both jobs have the same payout.
In neither case am I misrepresenting what you have said; You say that jobs are filled as people come to them, and that everyone receives the same thing, regardless of whether they are the garbage man or the teacher. That only makes sense for a communist society; Any system that gives one person more for doing more work is a capitalist society, whether there is actual money or not.
The problem is that that's an ideal, a framework. I'm sorry, but I'm a logical thinker; I have an engineer's mind, you might say, as well as a psychologist's mind. I don't look at what you say and go, "Oh yeah, that's a great idea!" and just end there. Because that's the first impulse. But the large logical area of my brain is itching at it, so my second impulse is, "Wait a second. Yeah, it's a great idea. But will it work?" and so I put your system to practice, mentally, and it just. Doesn't. Work. This doesn't mean I don't understand you. And it's not misrepresenting you to disagree with you and show why it doesn't work. I'm not changing anything about what you said, I'm just filling in the realistic results of such a system.
(This part looks out of place because I edited that part in; Don't feel like going back and redoing it.)
Honestly, I have no desire to be really rich. It's a hassle. Which sounds silly, but it is. Having all that money makes you a target for the public, for the paparazzi, and you've got to deal with people who want to take your money, who want to befriend you just for your money... It's crap. Which really means I'm not a hardcore capitalist, you might say, even though I believe in money as a barter system.
Give me a middle class, upper middle class lifestyle. That'll do me fine. I really don't have that many needs; I'm enjoying life right now on $1000 a month, and there aren't many things I'd like to have that I don't have. That's based on $12,000 a year, and I not only have nearly everything I could want at the moment, but I'm also saving up money. At $24,000 a year? I would have nearly more money than I know what to do with. Of course, I want a family. But even then, the most expensive things are already figured into the $12,000 a year; The apartment, electricity, and internet. That's about half of the money I spend. And they wouldn't change just because I had a kid or two.
A lot of people just don't know how to be happy with what they have. Or to work for what they want. That's my opinion on the matter, and I like that capitalism rewards those who work; Those who don't want to work much, can get a near minimum wage job, work their way up to manager, and can have a small family off of that, with the necessities. For those who are willing to work for it? I'd say the sky's the limit, but that also takes a certain amount of talent, skill, and/or luck. Still, you can make enough money to add in some luxuries. Certainly as much as you'd be getting in crazy Communist society. wink NO. You do NOT get it. If you did, I would not repeat myself. People would not work to benefit society, as I have said time and time again. People would work or they would starve. Same tug as in capitalism. I think that as a result of ending money, there would be less of a reason for government as a result. Logically, think about how many laws there would be and on what things if there was no such thing as money, and none of the needs that come with it. There would be fewer drug dealers, since why would you give away drugs for free on a black non-market? Less prostitution. Less bribery, extortion, scamming, stealing. Fewer laws regarding tax and commerce. I am not against the government, but I believe that it would be dulled down with the destruction of money. And society could still like people more than others. But nobody would be able to "survive" more than others because thye are liked more. Never talked to an actual communist either. I just looked it up in the dictionary since I'd heard all the hubub about communism and it's evils. To my surprise, it wasn't "A puppy-killing totalitarian rule of thieving russians" but "A society in which there is no class system and all means of production are owned by the working class." Real communism allows for money. But I realize that money is the cause of the capitalist problems and a poor management of money caused the soviet union to become capitalist again and fail. That and it had classes and a leader, making it non-communist to begin with. Which is why the basics come first. The factories come first, the food and shelter. It will work exactly as it does in this society. Why can't everyone be a musician? Because not everyone is good enough. That would not change. Those not good enough would simply not be hired and would have to work in someplace they had the skill for. Why go to school? To do what you enjoy. To be an artist or do something other than the repetitive, boring factory work. But remember, with no business or accounting to need training for, the education would be along the lines of arts, engineering, chemistry, nursing and those lines. But, as the factories filled up, nursed and chemists would be needed, and people would need to get the education to get the job. Just as it is here. The rich do own everything. Do you own a company? Can you set up teams of lobbyists and lawyers to give you multi-million dollar tax breaks? Can you bribe presidents into buying your war-products? Can you control the media? Can you be the president? There hasn't been a non-millionaire president in a very long time. Those with the money write the law. Ok, or you could have that and likely work a shorter shift. You would give up nothing, the streets would be cleaner and more free of crime. Beurocrats would not own your laws, nor would your work go to pa someone higher than you who did not do any of the actual work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 6:19 am
lymelady divineseraph Again, it is all about handing down tasks which are alway implied to be neccesary to be a seperate job. I already explained them. They are necessary, and it's more efficient if they're separate jobs. Ask me if I stock candles faster if I'm just stocking candles or if I'm stocking candles+doing paperwork+dealing with customers+planning things with the person at the head of the company. Even if you had the managers in on it, the small amount that would be done faster is outweighed by the large amount of time that would be lost with everyone doing all of the extra things that can be more efficiently done by one or two managers. Quote: There are no more succesful employees in my world. Everyone is equal. How can one be more successful when there is no money to base success off of? And yes, this may still happen with theives. But it happens in capitalism, and out of the pocket of another. In capitalism, it actually harms people, rather than just being a leech. Sure there are, or there should be. In your system, there will still be people doing the bare minimum, and people doing more than that because they're the type of people who want to better society and do a job properly, not just the bare minimum. In your system, if both the slacker and the overachiever are treated the same, it's completely unfair and encourages the bare minimum. Luckily, some people will go above and beyond because that's the kind of people they are, but it'll be rarer. Quote: I prefer voting. The same, though, could be argued of a democratic governing system. You may prefer voting, but it's not as efficient, and yes, the same could be said about the democratic governing system, but there's a difference between the importance of delegating and maintaining rights and privileges and delegating and maintaining a business. Quote: And jobs would be based on ability- While popularity contests may be a slight issue- Firstly, I would bet that many groups would hire based on the skills demonstrated. But would they take the best worker, across the board, or the one they like the best? It's a problem now, just with managers hiring, I can guarantee it would be a problem if people were electing their own coworkers. If faced with a friend who I know needs a job or someone who may be more skilled, I will admit that I would vote for the friend, even though I'd have to think long and hard about it first. Think about people who don't have those scruples, because not everyone does, and even those that do (such as myself) won't necessarily pick a stranger over a friend based on ability. Quote: Also, popularity contests happen in capitalism, but at again a higher stake. Others lose out on that job. Powerful individuals can get incompetent relatives into high positions. (Middle management, upper management) (cough george bush paris hilton cough) Indeed they can, but it's the same stake. Others lose out on the job. I don't see what's changed. Quote: And you would need to piss off several people to be voted off. One person saying "Eh, I don't really like Lyme. Let's fire her." =/= being fired. It's not hostile in the least. But if you notice somebody slacking, you have a right to mention it. And if enough people mention it and pull together a meeting to do something about it, the person being voted on is probably deserving of it. And again, even this has capitalistic counterparts with harsher realities, such as a single boss being able to fire at will, for any reason. At least in the democratic process it would be a vote, rather than one guy slapping a pink slip on you. I have been complained about to the manager by enough other people because after 3 months, I was working harder and being given more responsibility and they got jealous because I was new, I wasn't much older than they were, and meanwhile, Mary, who had been slacking off and even mouthing off to customers but was very popular among the coworkers, was in trouble and lost her job. Seriously, people are people wherever you go. Sure, the same thing could happen if I pissed off the manager, but the manager isn't likely to dislike me for working hard. Quote: And many hands make light work. They would all be trained to do everything. There would, of course, be significantly fewer papers to push, since there woiuld be no funds to track, no investors to keep in order, no accounts payable, no debit or credit. There would be far less paperwork, at most logs of where things were going in what quantities, and who worked and for how long. Much of this could even be computerized, making the actual work next to nonexistant. There would be the equivalent. Where the goods are being shipped to involves paperwork. How much to which places. You'd still have scheduling. You'd still have tons of paperwork to fill out to keep track of your inventory (paperwork includes things that are computerized, and still need to be checked just as diligently because of computer error and human error). Add in the chaos of everyone doing these things, add in the extra work. Secondly, I must be mistaken, I thought we were still talking about within a capitalist society, but even without money, you still need people in charge who are liable, who settle in-house disputes, who organize, etc. You can't just have all the workers suddenly know what's going on and go do it without any direction. Quote: Because they THINK they need it. Just like capitalists THINK we need money. Divine, in the system of capitalism, they DO need it. If we're not working in that system, we still need it. Imagine a military where everyone was an ensign or a cadet. It would break down, quickly. The most efficient systems involve a hierarchy, not to be oppressive, but because it's the fastest and most effective way to do things. In your system, things honestly wouldn't be done as quickly because voting isn't efficient. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but we're talking about efficiency. You don't need money to have an efficient hierarchy, it (edit: "it "refers to taking money out, not leaving money in, I was very confusing. I blame the influence of someone sexy.) just evens the pay if you will. In a large-scale operation, like the one you're discussing? You NEED middle management to make things run efficiently. If you want them to be slower, then eliminate the position, which is fine to me because I won't be part of that project since the idea of the slacker getting paid the same as the overachiever makes me shudder and I'll stay far away from that society except to come pretend to join it, work a week, take everything I want from the store and leave. Every issue you mention, however, exists right here in capitalism. The only difference is, of course, that capitalist slackers and liars are paid to slack. They get MORE than someone else, rather than just equal. And again, slackers would be dealt with as often as they are in capitalism. As for heirarchy- workers would not run around at random completeing any task they saw. They would have defined jobs- For example, you go to work at the staple factory. You apply. They need people in the steel-smelting section. So, they vote, quick raise of the hands, you're in. You go get trained to use the equipment, work there for a week until one day some guy over in boxing calls in sick. So, since they have an extra smelter, they call you over, show you how to box. It's your new task for the day. In down time, or in times of need, people could do any task needed but specialize in what they were hired to do. There could be book-keepers as well, but keeping books would be more simple. Fewer things to track.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 6:26 am
I.Am Mm. I didn't read most of your post; And you can tell when I don't read your post because I'll tell you. wink Capitalists don't think you -need- money. They/we think that money is a more efficient way of barter, and we recognize that no system is actually without barter. For example, even your ideal society would, I'd hope, have items of differing values. Even just different options; If I like chocolate more than I like cheese, but I'm going to buy both. Chocolate is worth more than cheese to me. But more importantly to your system, there are going to be things that are universally of different values; For example, a work of art. It's going to, by nature, have a limited supply. So people who don't get there in time to grab the piece of art they want or whatever are sometimes going to try to barter with someone who did get the piece of art. But it's more efficient to trade using money than it is using items like that; Otherwise I would get paid for working by receiving, I don't know, ten gallons of milk each week, and then I'd have to figure out a way of trading that for what I actually want. It's a lot more efficient for me to receive $250, and then go buy what I want or need. I also wouldn't have to lug 10 gallons of milk to the store to get what I want. xd Really, except in a society where everything's free, money only makes sense. Nope. Just take it. No barter. Just take it. You like chocolate more than cheese? I don't care. Take some chocolate then. Want cheese too? Ok. And? And people wouldn't take 10 gallons of milk for the sake of having 10 gallons of milk. I'm not sure you get my economic system. Working gets you full access to the store. Take what you want and what you need. Now, some people may try and take more than they need, but then, capitalists can buy what they need. Most people in a capitalist society get everything they need and still 40% of it goes to waste. (I heard this in a report on wasting food, not sure of the reliability. But working at a groccery store, I notice more things on the shelves than customers.) So even if soe jackass used the lowest part of his irrationality to justify taking 20 gallons of milk and 30 pounds of beef, there would still be enough for everyone else. And if they took it to stockpile it and not work anymore- Well, utilities (being produced by workers) and electricity would be supplied by working as well. Have fun cooking it, bathing or seeing at night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 11:22 pm
I didn't read all of your first post after the part where you, once again, assumed that I didn't understand you because I disagreed with you. Which, do you not get that I was giving you the benefit of the ******** doubt? That's even worse! If you're assuming people will "work so they don't starve," you run into the exact problem we talked about several times in the communist thread: People will work as little as they can get away with, because they don't have to work any harder.
But to your second post: You're not ******** listening. You're not reading my post. I didn't say that there's an official barter system. Oooh! Are you going to make barter illegal? Wait, no, that's impossible; You have no government. But assuming that the people unanimously decide to use your system, why wouldn't they barter? What would keep them from it?
And this isn't about food. Not for the most part, although I could see one person taking all the chocolate in the store because he sees an oppurtunity. wink I guess you may be able to get away with this society if all you're producing is food, and other things that everyone needs to survive. Then you could conceivably have enough for everyone. xd But then no one would want to live there, because you would be surviving not living. You completely run over the main point though: Art. What of art? What of rare, one of a kind, ********, art, of any sort? And prints or industrially recreated pieces don't count; While I'm sure they're nice, it's just not the same. A copy of the Mona Lisa isn't anywhere near the same as having the actual Mona Lisa, no matter how good a copy it is. And this includes all things that are of value because they are unique.
One person gets there first. He takes it, because it looks pretty. Another person had seen or heard of it, or saw a picture of it online, and wanted it desperately. He goes to the store, finds it's not there, somehow finds out who has it, and barters with him. With what? ********, I don't know. Whatever the guy wants. Hang out with him on weekends. A piece of art he has. Work a week of his shift. ******** sexual favors. Whatever. It's still bartering. Your having a communist society does not get rid of the barter system.
For that matter, and I just thought of this, what about concerts? I assume that your society, hopefully, does not make music illegal. How are you going to fit everyone who wants to go to a concert into the venue? Or a movie, are you just going to build huge theaters that can hold everyone who wants to see the movie on opening night?
And a some of that, the stuff about 10 gallons of milk especially, was about why money is more efficient than barter. It was an example of why it's better to have money than barter, after showing that barter is inevitable. It was not a direct example of how barter would work in your dreamland, but rather how it would work in the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 11:44 pm
Hmm. I do find it amusing that your society seems to be based on the idea of fairness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your communist society is about everyone being equal, right? No one person being better than another? Mm. But you're achieving that through materialistic means; Everyone can have a car, everyone can have whatever they want out of the store, blah blah blah. You're not addressing stress issues. Again I raise the fact that not everyone can have their dream job; Someone is going to have to clean out the gutters. Someone is going to have to pick up the garbage. Someone is going to have to dig the ditches. So what of the people who -do- get their dream jobs? Money isn't the only reason people are looked up to and respected. Money isn't the only class divider.
Do you ever stop and wonder -why- the Soviet Union became divided into classes? Why there was a leader? Did you think that the people who started the revolution did so thinking, "I'm going to create a class-based society with leaders! Dur!"? No. They created it with just the ideals you have, and then realized, "Well crap. This doesn't work without some sort of government. This doesn't work with a leader. Without these things, our utopia becomes a chaotic anarchy, where the weak are ruled by the strong, just without money." And that was the start of a class system too, because people in the government had power even if money didn't exist.
Even assuming you somehow managed to get this to work without a government, highly unlikely, you would still have a class divide. You'd have musicians, and artists, who get to do what they love, and people love them. And by the way, whether someone is good or not is entirely a matter of opinion; And if you are having someone judge them before they get the job, ta-da! You have government. wink But anyways, you have a class divide right there. The people who are doing what they love, the people who are skilled, become the "elite." People who pick up garbage, dig graves, clean hallways, and flip burgers are going to become the lower class. And of course you have all the in between people, ranging from the monotonous factory jobs of the lower middle class to the stressful but necessary job of the teacher. ...What's this? A class system nearly identical to the one that currently exists? Shocking.
PLEASE READ THIS SO I DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN:
You seem to have this idea that I think communists are all dog kicking, thieving Russians. I don't. I am not bigoted against communism. I think it's a great idea, a great ideal. And I'm not necessarily saying that there will never be a form of communism that does work. What I'm saying is that it hasn't worked yet. What I am saying is that your idea is great, but what about ? What I am saying is show me how it will work. I'm challenging you. And I get angry and frustrated because you don't even address the challenge, you completely ignore it with stars in your eyes, acting like this idea will work because it should work. You don't even think about it, you don't even consider it or try to come up with solutions for the problems I expose, you just act like they aren't there!
Just for example, do you really think people will put up with 4+ years of school, just to do a something they enjoy? When they'll get the exact same thing for sweeping the streets? ******** that. I wouldn't. College is fun, in a way, but only outside of everything that is College. If I were able to get the same things working at the coffeeshop I work at now that I could without my degree? Why would I waste my time like that?
And for the rich, do you want any of that? I don't. And you can't control the media. xd Even large corporations can't control the media. As for becoming President, although I don't want it, it's true that right now only the rich make it into a political office. And that should change. But that hardly means we should switch to a money less society. xd For that matter, do you think that Presidents were ever anything but the elites in society? The political system was started by white landowners. People were picked to become the politicians because they were respected in their communities, just as they are now. And people were picked out of the politicians to become President based on how effectively they put themselves out there. But honestly, it's still the best form of picking a leader that we have. You still haven't shown me any way that your system would work without a leader. Would you have a better way of picking one? Something that isn't corruptible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 12:54 am
Mm. One more post for the night/early morning. xd I highly suggest everything written by Max Barry: Syrup (He's down as "Maxx Barry" Because he thought two 'x's were more marketable. xd ), Jennifer Government, and Company. Especially the last two. My God, the man is a genius writer. And I'm sure that you'll see a lot of your fears in there, divine, because he's all about Capitalism gone too far. 3nodding Especially Jennifer Government; it's all dystopian, post-Capitalistic, corporate run world stuff. Great, great stuff.
Syrup... Mm. Crap. Can't remember everything about Syrup. But it's about a guy who creates a new version of Coca Cola called Fukk. Need I say more?
Jennifer Government is about a world that has, for the most part, become totally Capitalist; Like if Capitalism actually were a form of government. Nobody does anything unless they are paid, surnames are replaced with the name of the company you work for, stuff like that.
Company is about... Well, it gets to it pretty quick, but I still don't want to ruin the main thing. sweatdrop But it's about a company where no one quite understands what the company does, and over all it's about how management doesn't care about the employees? Something like that. It's good. I just finished it. I'm quite happy. 3nodding
Oh, and since the topic has derailed (What were we talking about originally again? Illegal immigration? xd ) I'm changing the topic name. Because honestly, illegal immigration didn't get much of a response anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 11:11 am
divineseraph Every issue you mention, however, exists right here in capitalism. The only difference is, of course, that capitalist slackers and liars are paid to slack. They get MORE than someone else, rather than just equal. And again, slackers would be dealt with as often as they are in capitalism. As for heirarchy- workers would not run around at random completeing any task they saw. They would have defined jobs- For example, you go to work at the staple factory. You apply. They need people in the steel-smelting section. So, they vote, quick raise of the hands, you're in. You go get trained to use the equipment, work there for a week until one day some guy over in boxing calls in sick. So, since they have an extra smelter, they call you over, show you how to box. It's your new task for the day. In down time, or in times of need, people could do any task needed but specialize in what they were hired to do. There could be book-keepers as well, but keeping books would be more simple. Fewer things to track. So someone doing the bare minimum is more likely to be paid higher than someone going above and beyond? No. Companies tend to promote and give raises to the employees who put in more effort. The "slacker" in my definition is someone doing the bare minimum to keep a job. A D student. It's not an F, but that student isn't being put on the honor roll anytime soon. They wouldn't be fired in your system, because they'd do enough to get by. If I could get the same thing as a passable employee that I can as a good, hard worker? I wouldn't work that hard, quite frankly. And again with assuming CEOs are slackers. I'm about to quote snopes because they make a good point. Quote: The value of work can appear contradictory in that those who are visibly busy frequently earn but a fraction of those who seem to not be doing all that much. Judged by the eye alone, the secretary who at the end of the day point to the stack of letters she typed would appear to be worth more than the executive who at the end of the day can display no physical manifestations of what she's spent her time on. Equally, one who flips burgers and fills orders appears far more productive to the naked eye than the manager in charge of the place. What is the value of a task? As this legend points out, performing the actual labor can easily be the smallest part of the process, with the real value lying in correctly diagnosing the problem and coming up with a viable solution to it. Ultimately, a task is worth whatever the person who needs it performed is willing to pay, whether the work is cerebral or manual. And who would define those jobs? What you're talking about? That's really not very different than what we have now, quite frankly. "Someone's trained to do one task," is someone trained to do one task. That they can take over somewhere else if needed doesn't take away from them being concentrated on one thing; I'm sorry I misunderstood you, but it seemed like you meant everyone did everything and that would somehow get it done faster. Keeping this in mind, a specific job for doing the paperwork, scheduling, and organizing is efficient. If someone else is trained to be able to do it, okay, but that doesn't take that job away. It just means everyone is trained to be able to do it if they need someone for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 1:21 pm
I.Am Just for example, do you really think people will put up with 4+ years of school, just to do a something they enjoy? When they'll get the exact same thing for sweeping the streets? If sweeping streets paid a comfortable wage, then yes, I'd put up with 4+ years of college to do something more interesting. I could have stayed in a decent-paying job, but instead I put myself into thousands of dollars of debt to go back to college. Why? So I could do something more interesting. There will always be people who'll be too dumb for college and will just say "******** it, I'll be a street sweeper." And there'll be kids in high school (or college) who don't have any experience, so during the summer they get menial jobs. I don't think everyone should be paid the same amount for every job; wages rightly go up and down with demand. But they should never go below the poverty level, and this is a central tenet of communism. It is never okay for people to starve when others are well-fed. If this means well-fed people taking a pay cut so others don't starve, well, that's just the nice thing to do. We could attempt to rely on the kindness of strangers, but clearly that doesn't work. This is a matter of opinion, but I'd rather live in a command economy where everyone had enough than a free market in which people starved to death on the streets. Because you never know when your personal safety net will fail, unexpected s**t will happen and you'll be the one needing help. btw, there was also an auto plant--I'm fairly certain it was GM--at which the company instituted a worker-owned system. All the employees got a certain amount of stock, they democratically made decisions, they were all trained in both labor and management positions and rotated every few weeks so they weren't just doing one thing and seeing the company from one perspective. And everyone--EVERYONE--at the plant LOVED it. They enjoyed their jobs more, they were more loyal to the company and friendly to their coworkers and they wouldn't go back for anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:31 pm
Well I think I can honestly say you'd be the exception to the rule, as far as going to school for 4+ years to get absolutely no improvement to your pay. Most people know they really don't need to enjoy their job; That's what their free time is for. It's nice to enjoy your job, or at least be able to put up with it, but there are very few jobs that are actually actively enjoyable.
What you described, people not starving when others are well fed, that's a tenet of Socialism. Communism is everybody gets the same thing, or at the very least, that's what Divine is very enthusiastically stating, if you read what he's posted.
I still disagree with socialism as well, though. While everyone should be fed, and I believe that people should give money to the poor, set up non profit organizations and the like, I don't believe that it is the Government's responsibility to take money I worked hard for and give it to someone else. I don't believe it should be government mandated that I donate 20+% of my check to organizations and people I don't know, haven't looked into, and might even fundamentally disagree with, without my permission.
And I heard about that plant, but did their productivity go up as well? I'm sure that would be great fun, but fun is not the point of work. Is it still going? Or has it either gone under or been turned back over to the old system?
It is necessary, of course, to make sure that company's don't abuse their workers for the sake of profit. But it also makes no sense to do something just because it makes work fun, even though productivity goes way down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
