Dilemma
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2016, 04:44 AM
RE: Dilemma
(04-08-2016 03:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 12:08 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  And one of these Jews even talked about Marx. Coincidence? I think not.

Laugh out load

Groucho or Harpo? Consider

Karl.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
04-08-2016, 05:46 AM
RE: Dilemma
(04-08-2016 12:42 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 12:36 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Why cant i triple-like this? Censored Tongue

To show your appreciation you could post in in Words I want to remember thread Wink

Being there is one of my life goals.


Big Grin

Ask and ye shall receive. Big Grin

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1041982

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
04-08-2016, 07:59 AM
RE: Dilemma
(04-08-2016 03:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-08-2016 10:04 PM)I Am Wrote:  I think we should strive for a classless society, in which people have access to decision-making power in proportion to how they are affected by the decision, and access to resources according to the effort and sacrifice they make in their work.

To keep high-effort or high-sacrifice jobs from attaining disproportionate resource control, work should be apportioned in a balanced way, so that jobs include a fair distribution of manual labor, creative work, executive work, desk drudgery, &etc.

For instance, a job that includes assembly-line work might have that for half a day, with the other half split between bookkeeping and a committee on designing a new output for the factory. Or, a nurse might do two shifts a week in an OR, one in the laundry, and one on the Medical Executive Committee.

But that's just me and a few other geeky radicals. Many other atheists will disagree.

Not necessarily, but any intelligent person will disagree. Drinking Beverage
In a commune, fair distribution of labor works. Just because I can fix the tractor does not mean I won't be pulling some weeds, shoveling some poo.
Society is quite a bit more complicated than that. I'm not going to treat people in the clinic or conduct research in the lab, then go out and work heavy equipment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skyking's post
04-08-2016, 08:06 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 08:21 AM by I Am.)
RE: Dilemma
(04-08-2016 12:27 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(03-08-2016 10:04 PM)I Am Wrote:  To keep high-effort or high-sacrifice jobs from attaining disproportionate resource control, work should be apportioned in a balanced way, so that jobs include a fair distribution of manual labor, creative work, executive work, desk drudgery, &etc.

For instance, a job that includes assembly-line work might have that for half a day, with the other half split between bookkeeping and a committee on designing a new output for the factory. Or, a nurse might do two shifts a week in an OR, one in the laundry, and one on the Medical Executive Committee.

But that's just me and a few other geeky radicals. Many other atheists will disagree.

... This sounds ludicrous to me. What's the point of going through the effort of training for a difficult job for which there are already shortages (nursing) only to be told that you must split your time between the laundry and the job for which you are actually specialised? Maybe in order to have more nurses we should just drop the requirement that they qualify? Then any old laundry service employee can be a nurse too. Dodgy

The point is to balance the mix of tasks so that everyone has a job that is approximately equal in empowerment. There are many ways to accomplish that, if laundry isn't to one's liking. A person could choose to do a different low-skill task instead, like washing dishes or tending the check-out line in the cafeteria. One could even split work tasks between workplaces, being a nurse in a hospital, pouring cement on a construction site, and being a member of an executive council somewhere else.

Of course I don't want people to be unqualified for their jobs. I also don't think that all of the people, and only the people, who can successfully train for a skilled position do so. So yes, the laundry worker could be a nurse, because s/he can successfully complete the training to become one. And they can also successfully complete any remedial training necessary to get them to the point of beginning training as a nurse, during which time they will have opportunities to discover other areas of interest that they can also pursue. So, the system I propose does not put unskilled people in skilled jobs, it creates a population in which everyone is skilled in multiple areas. It has some startup cost (what societal revolution doesn't?) in terms of education and training.

Edit to add: That training and education would apply to getting people to participate in creative and executive positions they are currently unfamiliar with, too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 08:15 AM
RE: Dilemma
(01-08-2016 11:21 PM)omarsabbagh Wrote:  From an atheist perspective, how can we understand the society classes i.e rich and poor??

True Dilemma
Define rich and define poor.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 08:32 AM
RE: Dilemma
(04-08-2016 08:06 AM)I Am Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 12:27 AM)morondog Wrote:  ... This sounds ludicrous to me. What's the point of going through the effort of training for a difficult job for which there are already shortages (nursing) only to be told that you must split your time between the laundry and the job for which you are actually specialised? Maybe in order to have more nurses we should just drop the requirement that they qualify? Then any old laundry service employee can be a nurse too. Dodgy

The point is to balance the mix of tasks so that everyone has a job that is approximately equal in empowerment. There are many ways to accomplish that, if laundry isn't to one's liking. A person could choose to do a different low-skill task instead, like washing dishes or tending the check-out line in the cafeteria. One could even split work tasks between workplaces, being a nurse in a hospital, pouring cement on a construction site, and being a member of an executive council somewhere else.

Of course I don't want people to be unqualified for their jobs. I also don't think that all of the people, and only the people, who can successfully train for a skilled position do so. So yes, the laundry worker could be a nurse, because s/he can successfully complete the training to become one. And they can also successfully complete any remedial training necessary to get them to the point of beginning training as a nurse, during which time they will have opportunities to discover other areas of interest that they can also pursue. So, the system I propose does not put unskilled people in skilled jobs, it creates a population in which everyone is skilled in multiple areas. It has some startup cost (what societal revolution doesn't?) in terms of education and training.

Edit to add: That training and education would apply to getting people to participate in creative and executive positions they are currently unfamiliar with, too.

You're missing the point. I like to code. I am good at coding. It is a skilled job with a lot of time investment necessary to get good at it. I have zero interest in other economic activities and *I am not good at them*. I am perfectly happy to pay a premium to someone else to do those tasks which I don't want to do. Not only do I avoid doing things that I don't want to, other people gain economically. And they can be extra specially good at those jobs and thus be more efficient than me at doing them. Likewise, they don't have to code, but they can if they want to - it's their choice. Now you're going to legislate that I must make inefficient use of my time doing shit that I hate doing purely because you've got some ridiculous utopian ideal idea of how economy works? Get stuffed. While you and your idealistic army are arguing over who does the dishes and who does guard duty my mercenary army of professionals will wipe you out.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
04-08-2016, 09:26 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 09:57 AM by I Am.)
RE: Dilemma
(04-08-2016 08:32 AM)morondog Wrote:  You're missing the point. I like to code. I am good at coding. It is a skilled job with a lot of time investment necessary to get good at it. I have zero interest in other economic activities and *I am not good at them*. I am perfectly happy to pay a premium to someone else to do those tasks which I don't want to do. Not only do I avoid doing things that I don't want to, other people gain economically. And they can be extra specially good at those jobs and thus be more efficient than me at doing them. Likewise, they don't have to code, but they can if they want to - it's their choice. Now you're going to legislate that I must make inefficient use of my time doing shit that I hate doing purely because you've got some ridiculous utopian ideal idea of how economy works? Get stuffed. While you and your idealistic army are arguing over who does the dishes and who does guard duty my mercenary army of professionals will wipe you out.

I am glad you have a paid activity you enjoy. I suspect, though I may be wrong, that you also do other things that have value to society, but you don't currently get rewarded for. Maybe you can think of some examples. For instance, you went to some kind of school or training that helped you become a programmer. By attending school, you did something of value to society. You increased the skills available in the workplace. In this system, where economically socially valuable effort is rewarded according to how hard and how long someone works, your effort and sacrifice in going to school would be paid. Maybe not much, because after all going to class is much less onerous than, for instance, working in a factory or a mine, but it would still be rewarded to some degree. If you got a small stipend for attending class and increasing your skill set, would you do it? Maybe you personally would not, that's for you to decide, but many people would.

I think it is a rare person, maybe an autistic one, who finds one and only one thing they enjoy doing exclusively for their whole lives. Such rare cases must be allowed for, and perhaps experts in such mono-focused people can help in planning for that. For everyone else, there is such a tremendous variety of socially valuable work to do that, given open and equal opportunity, I think people will have to choose which few of their many interests to engage in at one time. Some of them will want to code. Some of them, right now, live in a society in which they cannot afford the cost of learning to code, or the time away from a low-waged job to attend class. These people may be competent or even brilliant coders given the opportunity, but that opportunity is squandered in a society that makes trying to pursue it too risky for them.

No one said anything about legislation. This plan can start within a participatory workplace, and spread to others by advocacy and by having members of the workplace start other workplaces. For instance, if a non-profit organized itself this way internally and shared it's success and what it learns transparently with other non-profits, then other non-profits could also choose to divide work and pay this way. Workers move through non-profits all the time, and some of those workers will carry the ideas of balanced jobs and pay for effort into other workplaces. A few could create their own workplaces arranged along these lines. Rinse and repeat, and the practice spreads without any law forcing it on anyone. I have no interest in legislating this.

As far as military force goes - every economic system is vulnerable to military attack. That is why every economic system interacts with and is protected by a political system of some kind. I admit freely that I have no interest in military planning. It sounds like you might though. It also sounds like that has some social value that could be paid for, according to the effort you put into it. Any interest in arranging a defensive force, as a replacement for part of your coding job? Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:18 PM
Dilemma
[Image: ff14a79359180f19db1101c2f08f4cec.jpg]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ricepudding12's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: