How come "make-work" is bad but "creating jobs" is good?
@peterdrake I never think of creating jobs as good, since a job is a cost of production.
Also, usually the people who talk about job creation are talking about creating them in a specific place, which I don't care about.
Though in reality a useful job is much better than make work, since make work is paying the cost without producing anything.
@pganssle @lucifargundam Related question: Why do we always complain about technology "destroying jobs"? Wasn't the point of creating all this technology to reduce the amount of work we have to do?
Yes and no. It makes life easier and makes tasks require less work- but we had people to do that work we didn't want to do.
Those people who did unsavory jobs are displaced and now have to elevate themselves. This shifts the social class ladder upwards each time technology progresses.
@lucifargundam @pganssle I don't understand your second paragraph. In what way do the displaced "have to elevate themselves"? Do you mean that they are obligated to go further into debt so they can get additional training so they can compete for the jobs that still exist? How does this shift "the social class ladder upward"?
I seems that the benefits of technology largely accrue to the higher end of the socioeconomic ladder. The lives of the people at the top improve; the people at the bottom just gain new responsibilities.
Here's a very watered-down example:
--Class A (wealthy), B(mid), C(low income)
All classes drink water daily. Only class A does not get water for themselves. Class B and C get water for themselves, but B only sometimes. C gets water for all classes depicted. In exchange, C gets a small enough portion of income to barely sustain itself.
One day, A decides to design a system for B to construct that will allow both parties to retrieve water without the need for C. This gets implemented and C no longer has income and less water than before.
In this predicament, C can either retaliate against B and A- or improvise into a new market and adapt to new market. The only other option is for C to try and usurp B and try to compete with an already existing market.
A had the most advanced technical knowledge
B had some technical knowledge(hence the construction)
C did not have any aforementioned knowledge.
If A had skipped to C to do the construction and promised a lesser bargain than would have been given to B, C would have had more benefit than B regardless.
However, because of that scenario- B would likely feel jilted and betrayed by both sides. This furthering the conspiracy, should the 3 classes continue to interact.
####################################
Why did these hypothetical classes exist in the first place? Resources. In the end, whoever has the best/most tech(knowledge in this case) comes out on top. The goal was to have the most water access as possible. Those who figured out how to make it easier for themselves, did so- but at the cost of others. If such resources as mentioned in the entirety of the preceding example be plentiful- there would hardly be any excuse for having classes.
@lucifargundam @pganssle In the real world, there is more than enough food, water, shelter, etc. to go around. So why do we have classes?
@lucifargundam @pganssle
Exactly.
Isn't the original system inherently unjust?
Why does B, but not C, benefit from the new system?
What has C gained except the obligation to either revolt or vaguely "improvise" and "adapt"?