Sign On
Create Account


multiple10-Feb-2013politics/religionKristal_Rose unsorted29153.6%


Which do you consider the ideal social employment structure.

I'm asking the same question twice here, for the time being, and ultimately.
If your response is 'other', just pick the best option and make your preferred suggestion in the comments.

The intended gist of this survey is "How do we cope with the ongoing welfare of society when the ratio of work required for necessary goods produced is perpetually reduced, and yet people are supposed to have incomes to pay for their goods?"

1 For the time being
1Automate or foreign-outsource all jobs, trivial or complex to save retail costs. Let people go unemployed.
3Encourage trivial employment for all, i.e. middle-man jobs, recreation, security, advertising, frivolous law-suits, etc.
0Automation/outsourcing in combo with government subsidies for people who's jobs were pretty frivolous and unnecessary to begin with.
5Government subsidy training and employment for worthwhile jobs in creating green infrastructure and such.
3Socialize ownership of the monopolistic entities which produce necessary goods.
1 Ultimately
1Automate or foreign-outsource all jobs, trivial or complex to save retail costs. Let people go unemployed.
1Encourage trivial employment for all, i.e. middle-man jobs, recreation, security, advertising, frivolous law-suits, etc.
0Automation/outsourcing in combo with government subsidies for people who's jobs were pretty frivolous and unnecessary to begin with.
5Government subsidy training and employment for worthwhile jobs in creating green infrastructure and such.
3Socialize ownership of the monopolistic entities which produce necessary goods.

posted 10-Feb-2013 8:28am  
All of these answers assume a central control that I think is unwise.
LindaH Bronze Star Survey Creator
posted 10-Feb-2013 11:13am  
Encourage trivial employment for the time being, ultimately subsidy training for worthwhile jobs
(reply to dab) posted 10-Feb-2013 11:25am  
I agree
Enheduanna Survey Central Subscriber
posted 10-Feb-2013 11:51am  
Why are these the only options? Why not stop outsourcing? Why not develop new technologies, with or without government subsidies, that will create more jobs?
posted 10-Feb-2013 12:19pm  
If there is a job, and it is legal and moral, serves a purpose, it's not trivial.

There needs to be some regulation on Wall Street, banks. We need to keep things honest.

I feel free enterprise is needed for individual freedom. On the necessities of life...water, food, heat, sewage system...there needs to be oversight.

I feel healthy, creativity deserves reward, but not outrageously disproportionate.. I recently talked to a woman that said her husband was a former CEO, and said they, the CEO's were fairly rewarded, but she said today, the CEO'S are outrageously disproportionately compensated,

The nation has lost it's conscience. We need to turn back to God's Word, and instruction on how to live, and on business.

Government thuggery needs to be held accountable. Business thuggery needs to be held accountable.
posted 10-Feb-2013 1:10pm  
for the time being, some combination of:

Automate or foreign-outsource all jobs, trivial or complex to save retail costs. Let people go unemployed.
Encourage trivial employment for all, i.e. middle-man jobs, recreation, security, advertising, frivolous law-suits, etc.
Government subsidy training and employment for worthwhile jobs in creating green infrastructure and such.

for the long term:

Automate or foreign-outsource all jobs, trivial or complex to save retail costs. Let people go unemployed.
Government subsidy training and employment for worthwhile jobs in creating green infrastructure and such.

We're always going to need some type of policing, firefighting, street cleaners, etc. Also, how about cutting people's hours to down to 35, and/or having someone stay home with the kids (doesn't have to necessarily be the woman). I think at some point, our culture is going to have to adopt and change.
bill Survey Central Gold Subscriber
posted 10-Feb-2013 1:52pm  
This mostly feels like the wrong way to look at it to me. Or, partly your wording seems to imply negativity that I'm not sure is applicable. And, I don't accept your premise as stated, so it's hard to respond. Honestly, this sounds like it's based on a Marxist economic model and while I'm not an economic expert, from what I've read of that model seems flawed. And, I think the 20th century gives us good evidence that when people have tried to implement Marxist economies it leads to all kinds of problems and essentially human suffering.

Yes, many forms of production become more efficient over time thus requiring less labor. But, that frees people up to get involved in other, higher forms of production. Instead of working in a plant that makes nails, you might work in a plant that makes buttons that are used in a smartphone, for example. The problem we face seems more likely that we need a more and more skilled labor force capable of doing more sophisticated work since the simpler tasks are easier to automate. But, that just means we'll need to educate workers better and that seems like a good thing to me. And, it basically what has been happening over the centuries; just a natural progression.

Surely, it's not always a smooth process and current economic trouble has left a lot of people unemployed. But, step back a little and it can be seen as a correction and something we'll eventually get back on track with as innovation and confidence is restored.
posted 10-Feb-2013 6:51pm  
Well for one thing get rid of welfare and unemployment or at least limit them to a few months and then cut the payments off. There are plenty of jobs if people would be willing to do the work.
posted 11-Feb-2013 8:14am  
I think I've just realised how brainless I am. I work in education which is even more shocking. I guess I'm suffering from Ostrich Syndrome. I am aware of the growing seriousness of the problem, I'm just clueless on how to solve it.
I live in the Olympic Borough and there was a big fanfare about the number of jobs it would create by having the London 2012 Olympics here. It was here for four weeks. What it left/encouraged was a giant shopping mall to be erected. So we now have a ton of employed people in the area. All working minimum wage jobs selling clothes/perfume/coffee.
I would have preferred a manufacturing plant to have been built instead. As to what it would manufacture is unknown to me - and clearly to a lot of people.
What do we manufacture that pays workers a decent living wage?
cerealkiller Survey Qualifier
posted 11-Feb-2013 5:30pm  
How about " Leave employment as it is"? As in, you want a job you get out and look for one. With NO government involvement. What is social employment anyhow?
JessicaWoman99 Bronze Star Survey Creator
posted 13-Feb-2013 6:25pm  
Government subsidy and training programs I think and I don,t know
posted 14-Feb-2013 7:57am  
Worthwhile jobs, subsidies for less employment, and paid for by socializing the large corporations.
(reply to Dino) posted 14-Feb-2013 8:39am  
If you just took your own comment to further depth, you'd see the problem.
We are dying of the same thing ancient Rome died of. Our systems are based on exploiting the frontier which eventually becomes the citizenry. Asia has caught up to the US. We can't get by exploiting them now. We can't use their labor or materials, nor sale them cars. They do all that for themselves now.

Likewise, presume other locales are in the same fix as your borough. The question is not 'what' could you manufacture, but who could you sell it to? As other boroughs are in the same fix, that means you might just as well sell it to your own borough. If that could work for your borough though, likewise you could improve your own condition by making a cup of coffee in the morning and selling it to yourself.

The fundamental premise of capitalism is 'leveraging'. It ceases to function when there is no longer someone to leverage against. Because we are becoming a single homogenous world, we are now up against economic entropy. 'Insiders vs. outsiders' models are obsolete. Only 'good of the collective' logistics are sustainable.

It's true that if your borough has unemployment, some manufacturing may be in order, but it only works now if you distribute the work and distribute the goods produced to your collective, no profit, just more goods in the collective. It's also true that you could trade these for goods with other collectives, 'but not at a profit'. Profit is the thing which has become obsolete. If you profit, you are setting back another collective to that degree. Material gain is limited to goods produced, nothing further, if the world is going to go on or grow fairly. Unfortunately the whole western economic system has been built upon the notion of profit for millenia. Profit is essentially slavery. No one in the world wants to be a slave anymore. The only reason it has worked as long as it has is that there has always been excessive production, and even an unfairly small proportion of that production has still been material gain. The world is getting tighter though, no resources for excess production, and a limited share of meager production is not sufficient to live on. The tighter times are, the more burden profit is on the poor.

Americans are the most backwards of all in that respect today. We realize that we are essentially owned by the mega-corporations, but no one wants to replace capitalism with socialism becasue we all still selfishly cling to the notion that at least we can climb above the herd through clever leveraging of our own, and damn anyone who obstructs that unsubstantiated right.
(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 14-Feb-2013 8:54am  
My reason to preferring capitalism to socialism is not even close to what you describe. I simply think that capitalism (aka freedom, they really are the same thing) is more effective at improving the life of more people. Central control concentrates power in the hands of a few who are generally less competent than average, can't respond to changing situations effectively, and becomes an attraction for exactly the sort of people who should not have control over others.
(reply to Enheduanna) posted 14-Feb-2013 9:08am  
Go ahead then, develop a new technology.
There are only two types entities capable of creating new tech AND new employment, big corporations and the gov't. Even the big corporations do not bother to have the think tanks they had in the 60's.
They don't need to. The majority of new tech is now being created by unemployed engineers on the internet who have nothing better to do. The president of Google once said in succinctly "There are two types of people, those who create the ideas, and those who make money from them". Of the two, corporations are only motivated by money. If they can make money without creating jobs (or even producing anything), they'll certainly take that option. There's no immediate profit in offshore wind generation so long as oil remains profitable. Corporations will sell oil; The gov't could fund wind production.
The bottom line is that society as a collective will benefit from what society collectively produces. Unlike the potential of the gov't, corporations have no direct interest in benefit to society. They do it only if that's how they can turn a profit. Generally, aside from volume of sales, the less benefit to society, the greater their profit. What we should be looking at is what increases the material wealth of collective society while reducing the work burden. Corporations haven't seen it that way for at least a couple decades now. Their formula is essentially how do the few milk the masses at least cost. If your cable company's costs dropped to a quarter, you still wouldn't see your rates drop. They know what you are willing to pay.

I lean on the notion of government employment because they are the only ones with any power I can imagine operating with collective benefit rather than profit as a motive.
The course I would prefer (as suggested in the survey options) is that we take ownership of the corporations, and change their motives.
(reply to dab) posted 14-Feb-2013 9:16am  
I never said it had to be centralized. As I was just writing, so much engineering (and art and music) is all done for free on the internet now. The people making the money today are the ones selling physical products like iPhones based on this free IP.

I don't see a problem with that if it could integrated into a sustainable system. Let people do whatever art or engineering they feel like producing free on the internet, but pay for their groceries and iPhone. Profit has inevitably evolved into what we see today, a few corporations controlling everything. Eradicate profit, socialize, and we can network again, instead of centralizing.
(reply to dab) posted 14-Feb-2013 9:19am  
Big things like hydro-electric dam construction do require massive centralized corpoartions or centralized (hopefully democratic) government to achieve though.

Unlike many other socialists, part of my goals are to increase libertarian freedoms. That package doesn't include economic freedom, i.e. profit, though. Just the freedom of activity.
Enheduanna Survey Central Subscriber
(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 14-Feb-2013 11:18am  
I think communism has shown itself not to be a better option.

It wasn't clear from your options what exactly you were talking about in terms of creating new technology. It seemed like you weren't really emphasizing that as an option. The survey also set me on edge because it seemed that you were making judgments about many kinds of jobs. You see them as trivial, but that may not be true of everyone.
(reply to Enheduanna) posted 14-Feb-2013 11:27pm  
I'm of the opinion that that necessary things should be produced and distributed most efficiently, leaving us more free time to create exquisite things.

Middle-men were the sort of thing I deemed as unnecessary inefficiency, existing only to provide incomes for people who otherwise had nothing to do. Now that large chain stores have increasingly found ways of reducing all middle-men though, I'm seeing that this too is job reduction with no replacement, even if I wasn't keen on the job existing in the first place.

The only communism that has ever been tried is centralized communism. I think some sort of networked democratic libertarian communism would suit civilization fine.

Mostly I'm coming at this from an economic analysis which becomes obvious just studying a Monopoly game. The game is based on capitalism, and always results in one person winning while everyone else loses. CEOs are basically the people who end up with hotels on the Boardwalk while everyone else pays rent to them. If you look at society as the collective board, then putting up hotels is an improvement, but the only way to keep everyone in the game, even with that new production, is to rent for free or distribute the rents equally.

The formula for sustainable capitalism is not too complicated. Production must equal congregate vital consumption plus profit consumption. At least vital production must be socialized, even if only by giving everyone an equal share of production employment.
The sustainable communism formula is simpler. Congregate production must exceed congregate vital consumption, and additional production is congregate profit.

The safety-net of communism is explicit. One problem with capitalism is that vital production tends to be in the hands of the few now, and not easily socialized by any means at all. This leaves the populace in the position of having to create excess recreational production equivalent to all profit in the chain. It stops working when the people who sell milk for a profit have no interest in accepting poodle pedicures as profit, and want instead money of the sort which buys vital materials.

Because available jobs are now mostly to produce unnecessary excess, jobs are worth less, and the result is people now having to hold down three jobs to pay the profiteers, working airport security, display painting, and telemarketing in order to pay rent and buy milk. If rent and milk were non-profit institutions, these make-work jobs would be less necessary. As is, western culture is only sustainable to the extent that we promote ever-increasing consumption to at least the extent which profiteers automate jobs. It puts us all in an unnecessary rat-race, whether we choose it or not, to produce excess at at least the rate at which others profit. If a CEO who sells mayannaise owns a private jet, we were forced to produce that much more poodle manicures to sell to the guy who made the jet or someone. The traditional communist alternative is no jet and no poodle manicures, free milk. What I would prefer to see is a hybrid, free milk, no need to work much, but by all means do poodle manicures if you wish to work towards owning a jet.

Some people are concerned with freedom. So am I, but from a different perspective. In the system as is, how much we have to work is determined by how much profit those who control vital production desire. I don't consider that a very libertarian system from that angle. Not only do we not have an individual say in participating in the profit paradigm, we don't even have a congregate democratic say in it. Essentially, because others choose to profit on things you need but don't have production access to yourself, you are forced to work to the extent that others choose to profit. If there were competition, and we could choose to go with those who profit least, that situation wouldn't exist so much, but this is decreasingly the case.
posted 16-Feb-2013 10:53am  
More 24 hour operations should be encouraged.

Shorter work days/weeks.
(reply to Zang) posted 18-Feb-2013 2:35am  
That would be hugely significant, the question is how. When times are tight, people race to work more than each other, and cause further devaluation of labor.
(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 25-Feb-2013 9:00am  
How? Tax incentives, zoning, other legislative changes... You can make laws that encourage rather than enforce. Overtime, for example... rather than 8 hours a day/40 hours a week, it could be 6 hours a day/24 hours a week.
(reply to Zang) posted 25-Feb-2013 8:57pm  
That's an idea.
Working short weeks becomes inefficient for employers though. Perhaps a system of annual overtime, based on 6 mo.s/year.
That might encourage working parents to take turns working.
Hmm. It would have to be done employer side though (same with hourly), otherwise you're just going to further encourage multiple jobs at once.

If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On

Link this survey:

Hits: 0 today (0 in the last 30 days)