OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


Fwiffo 22 June 2015 05:36 PM
55%

I find it a good decision, yes. We can develop electronic social services that can drive down bureacrazy and there is no excuse that information or connection opportunities would be available.

For 0.00$ if you still have job duties you are essentially a slave. If you do not have job duties you can use your time for example food scavenging. Even in a urban environment it is quite likely that you end up with more nutrition with garbage diving than working to 0.07$ and then buying your food for a week. We don't think that garbage diving is a good use of humans and the louzy job is economically even more useless than that so clearly we need a better use for people, right?

Even if you are a slave you usually are provided nutrition, some rudimentary healthcare and accomendation. If you have a bad job and have to in addition to provide yourself with nutrition, apartment and healthcare you can end up being materially worse off than a slave.

I am saying that there are other factors rather than the ask price on whethewr you should do a job offered or not. Accepting jobs that don't sustain you can fall out of a way of life where people particiapte in society by working (you can isolate yourself form the majority of society by not being able to reach its services). There are legimate reasons to reject market prices.

If a person makes a product in one day for which his salary is 0.01$ and the company sells it for 10$ the deal is hugely favouring the company. Someone might also think that they can outcompete other workers by settling for less salary and cut into his nutrition, health care etc to make the difference. This can end in a race to the most miserable existence possible. At some point a persons accepts into working conditions that result in too little salary to be able to maintain the imagined lifestyle. For really crappy working conditions it should be ... read more

stars0
Reply


VoiceOfRa 26 June 2015 07:23 PM
60%

> For 0.00$ if you still have job duties you are essentially a slave.

No, because no one is forcing you to take the job.


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 28 June 2015 09:46 AM
55%

It still applies that it is all downside with no upside. You should quit the job in order to scavenge more efficiently. Usually the scavenge efficiency is more valuable than 0.01$. That it can make sense to turn down a job if no job is better than the job. When a person uses all their productive time outside of working places they often can't perform to the best of their ability. When a persons time is better spent dumpster diving than do the job that is not a place of employment that we want keep around. Going industrial over hunter-gatherer is supposed to upgrade your wealth and it would be a real pity if wage levels would make people go back to gathering.

stars0
Reply


VoiceOfRa 28 June 2015 11:15 AM
63%


You should quit the job in order to scavenge more efficiently.


If nobody would take the job, then why is it necessary to bad offering it?


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 17 July 2015 07:04 AM
56%

Well part of the problem is that some people accept jobs when they could be more economically beneficial without a job. A lot of people live a lifestyle and a directed to live one where they get their income from working for someone else ie accept jobs. For these people it doesn't occur that they could themselfs start running economical activity. Calling sucha thing an enterprise might be a little grandeur but that is what it is. These people might be capable of operating in a job but can't create the social and economical framework for the job to take place.

Usually talk of enterpreneurship is about moderate income or trying to strike it rich. If the problem is that you are unemployed and poor it is seldom suggested that a possible cure would be to self-employ. Rather people accept job positions with bad conditions essentially buying job creation skill at a really bad exchange rate. That is specialising away from job-creation so you can focus on job operating ultimately bites them in the ankle. We either need to guarantee that such specialization in job-operating can never be detrimental or that everybody be expected to enterpreneur in economical self-defence if it comes down to that. But if there are no job-operation specialsts then it means also that persons that specialise in job-creation over operation can't sustain themselfs. Thus the minimum standard for a job creator is to make jobs that reward their acceptors. Otherwise there is pressure to demolish the job creation specialization and use that person as a operator too.

And if everybody works just for themselfs we are basically back to hunter-gatherers that survive even without mutual trade. Offering too crappy jobs opens the door for possibly accidentally unraveling the institution of employment (or a is a legimate sign that the institution of employment starts to be a net drag). ... read more


stars0
Reply