We don't need jobs, stop believing this lie

a reply to: ForteanOrg
Yes.

I agree with everytbing you just said.

I'm of the increasing opinion that we humans will continue to behave in whatever manner any given paradigm draws out for us until we simply can't anymore - that's all there is to it. It's not bad or sad it's just the way is as we usually behave in an "all or nothing" manner. In a world of nations, gods, and money tribal behavior is going to rule the day - we still have a foot in the dark ages. In this paradigm you need money to breathe - that requires employment. When the next big shoe drops and we're forced to change how we live on this planet and relate to one another because of circumstance - maybe it will be different.

Very seldom do humans chose to bring great change - we simply follow it as it manifests (seemingly 'outside' of us even if that may be an illusion) IMO.

a reply to: Floydshayvious

Sadly I have to agree with your position.

a reply to: onequestion

Try not to be pessimistic about it - at least in the long run lol.

We're still infants trying to make sense of everything (and stumbling often) - we are xenophobic and superstitious wandering around with a flashlight that sputters and dims constantly.

We are growing, learning and changing every second of every day - that creates a lot of confusion and conflict by nature. There are many pitfalls still to come and dangers all around - but we will persist - at least by our massive numbers - we will persist I believe.

The whole world and the human race is like one big writhing pregnant belly in (to our perception) a very slow labor.

That's very exciting to me - in the long run lol.

Let me take you back a couple of hundred years. Totally relevant to this thread. now a couple of hundred years ago most people worked on the land, then along comes a clever guy who invented a machine to make mans life easier. Of course the farmer who employed these men said"with these machines your work will be easier and you will do the work quicker and you will have more leisure time". Now the workers knew this to be a lie. Knew that when these machines were used the farmer would think "why should I employ all these men when I have these machine to do the work for me", hence sack the workers. This lead to the Tolpudle martyrs. Have you got your answer yet? It's exactly the same with modern technology. A firm employs say 100 men, it upgrades with computers and robots that do 50% of the work. Now to believe the lie told at the start of the industrial revolution" the machine will make it easier to do your job and you will have more leisure time" ie. you will still be employed but the machines will earn your money. THAT IS WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. That is where the OP is coming from"why should we work for our money when the machines are earning it for us"? Now the real world. The employers saw that they didn't need the workforce so the got rid of them and the money that should have gone to the workforce to pay their wages they pocketed. That's why you have multi billionaires owning firms and millions of unemployed. But you yanks wont see that as you use the excuse(yes it is an excuse) that the man owns the firm so he's entitled to the profit. It was the same 200 years ago as it is today.

originally posted by: onequestion
I'm not educating you in this thread.

Of course you won't. Because you can't.

You have an idea of what you think is the ideal. You do not have plan to get there, or a plan to make everybody else want the same ideal as you.

One Question, you might enjoy reading this. It was written by an ATS member years ago, and she imagines that working is obsolete. Perhaps not very realistic, too many holes.

But fun to read.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

I have a job but I really don't work much.

a reply to: onequestion

Sooo basically you want humanity to end up like the people from Wall-E?

Hey everyone,

I've been lurking for years and finally joined to put some effort into threads such as the OP

There are people working hard to solve the problems of our current culture. There is enough info available to make obvious the end result of our trajectory. Unsustainable and suicidal. So although the OP hasn't really laid out the specifics of how to correct this, the gist has some merit (community work vs jobs). I don't personally want to put any effort in defending and thereby strengthening our current paradigm, so alternatively, any effort in brainstorming (not "prove every possible nuance of your OP!") is worth it to me. This requires all our effort, including the OP. Here is the result of my education and research in regards to the OP.

Permies website devoted to discussion of the nuances of a permanent culture:
www.permies.com...

Example of a community effort to actually see this as a reality:
www.permaldea.net

Digital currency is encouraging as a response to a usury-based currency that profits the few and provisionally answers the question of how we deal without paper money. This could be a currency agreed upon by ANY SIZE of community. Bitcoin is not perfect but it is a start. I know it takes a long time to change a ship's direction but, imo, any effort in maintaining our current direction or any lethargy based on a pessimistic view of our race is a waste of time.

btw, happy to be here. Love this forum!

a reply to: onequestion

We need to work together and allow technology to replace jobs as a goal for humanity.

I think that's an odd thought since I work in Technology. There are more IT jobs out there than anything. "Technology" is the reason there are so many jobs in the first place. Someone has to build the technology and someone has to maintain the technology. It never ends.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein
Inspiring emotional thoughts, but...what is your template for change?
Ah, you have no plan? Just bitch about it on t'interwebs eh? lol
I'm all ears if you have something realistic to support over the current situation, but if you have nothing to share I shall just dismiss it as emotional dreaming.

Isn't that what speaking about changing the "American way" is? Emotional dreaming.....How in the hell is someone, anyone supposed to come up with a plan to get rid of our monetary system in place? I am speaking in what I feel humans are "supposed" to do while here, not be legal slaves for a fake monetary system that empowers people with the most fake money...When you break it down into thought, try to think about what money really is and what we are doing, what we are trying so hard to achieve in life....It is really a joke when you REALLY think about it in it's basic form...

a reply to: tavi45
Most folks have it engrained into the fundament of their survival mechanism that they MUST work.

It is a belief and we know that changing beliefs is an onerous, long-term and rarely appreciated effort. You may not need the flexibility of an intellectual gymnast to overhaul this thought but for many it's a core principle. It becomes who they are.

They are of course suffering from a strong and regularly reinforced delusion foisted on them by the ELITE.

The average neolithic tribesperson worked far less than we do. Most of our work is that of servicing. We do not make things. We have moved into a near singularity condition as to work. Machinery is replacing us at every stage where labor has much cost. Why are we not replacing people even more quickly?

Because of two reasons (off the top of my head). The first is that in third world conditions humans can be deployed to perform tasks due to their innate flexibility and miserable wages. When the task becomes routine less and less human labor is needed for this is is the province of rudimentary AI and mechanical human surrogates.

The biggest reason is social unrest and TPTB likes where they sit now. Employing the underclass continues the false paradigm that they must work in order to live.

When a contingent of society promulgates that work is NECESSARY, follow the money.

This situation will continue to progress, less employees performing more productively with the TPTB tightening their grip. This is shown by the disparity of what a worker makes, (Bermuda is better?) and what is earned. About half of the potential income is not distributed to the workers. Taxation is not considered here.

As products durability is lifted (regulate this, please), styles become more plebian and population movement becomes less approved the NEED for production will decrease and standardization a readier resort, jobs, where?

If I were King, everyone would receive a National Share. I do not see where many complain about our citizenry being born to debts, why not resources to countervail this burden?

The mechanics to implement this would be relatively simple and a modest lifetime income would alleviate poverty, level the playing field and allow for better competition in the 'job market place'.

Forcing the work week to conform to a rational amount (24 hours?) would induce the increase of a working class. Tied to a REAL adjustment in wages, virtually no difference in living standards would occur.

I know many, maybe most, will view this as something horrible. I know that everything here is open to criticism. I would prefer that those thoughts are thought through. This is an exercise of moving away from this system (Rampantly corrupt!) and a future of egalitarian enjoyments.

We do not have to repeat the past. We do not have to be hobbled by it. Model Ts may have been the best car ever but we do not drive them. You do not have to be only chauffeurs for the ELITE forever. Less fear, more fun.

I completely get what you are saying OQ, and I agree.

Baby steps are important though, or people mistakenly think you are talking about a welfare state (even if its the exact opposite).

Just as it hasn't always been this way, humanity will eventually come up with new economic systems. Barter isn't the only other option either, lots of aspects could change. It could be some sort of hybrid, or perhaps an entirely new idea.

It isn't likely to be a change that comes from the top down, but it is something that can be done at the grass-roots level and built upon. Of course, this would take effort and participation to have any meaningful impact. I'm not sure that is any more likely than change from the top, perhaps less.

But, it is one thing to merely suggest change, and another to suggest actionable ideas for change. I think the t&c's can get iffy in that arena though ('recruiting,' etc.).

originally posted by: onequestion
No we don't need jobs. This is one of the biggest distractions used against us. We need to work together and allow technology to replace jobs as a goal for humanity.

The job paradigm is to keep us focused on the economy which is to distract us from something...

They want to keep us from pursuing spirituality and to keep us from being curious as to our origins. It's a tool to divide us and pit us against each other.

Someone wants to keep us busy, But why?

Understand this.

"Jobs" are only needed to provide personal wealth, so you can have more than the next person. It is based on greed.

If your goal is to work with your fellow man to produce for everyone, then you do projects. Your community gets together and grows gardens, and builds houses for people who need it. The people share the work, and the wealth and the raising of children and animals.

While I agree in some areas, this is the same picture painted by the communists throughout history.

The problem comes when in reality the people on top are lying and are really waiting to take over once the mechanisms are in place.

The true answer is to stop the whole war mentality, stop all of the direct competition mentality, why is it me or you?

Why are all of our sports one team against another, why not two teams trying to reach a goal together?

The the biggest part is a change in the corporate by laws, changing the CEO's fiduciary responsibility to also include a healthy community, and watch everything change overnight.

You see a CEO can not be personally sued if his company launders billions in drug money, or if it pollutes a river, or poisons a bunch of people, he can not be legally held responsible.

However he has a fiduciary responsibility to the share holders, and if he does something that means less profit for them then he can be help personally responsible, does that make any sense to anyone?

a reply to: onequestion
Would end up in a situation like Vonnegut's "Player Piano".

What you are proposing is the need for self replicating machines to place our full trust of our lives in. There is a problem with that. I do think people should do things they want rather than forced to work just to live but some people want to work.

originally posted by: crayzeed
A firm employs say 100 men, it upgrades with computers and robots that do 50% of the work. Now to believe the lie told at the start of the industrial revolution" the machine will make it easier to do your job and you will have more leisure time" ie. you will still be employed but the machines will earn your money. THAT IS WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. That is where the OP is coming from"why should we work for our money when the machines are earning it for us"? Now the real world. The employers saw that they didn't need the workforce so the got rid of them and the money that should have gone to the workforce to pay their wages they pocketed. That's why you have multi billionaires owning firms and millions of unemployed. But you yanks wont see that as you use the excuse(yes it is an excuse) that the man owns the firm so he's entitled to the profit. It was the same 200 years ago as it is today.

Except that the employer had to put in his/her time to come up with the idea for the company/product, spend years perfecting it and sacrificing his/her time and leisure to make it profitable, had to pay for those machines either outright back then, or has to lease them from the company who produces them (not to mention maintenance), who in turn needs that profit to be able to pay their engineers and invest in future technologies. The employer can also now produce more product faster, therefore decreasing the demand for said product, lower the price of the product, stay more competitive in the market thanks to those machines, and the public benefits by getting what they want for a lot less effort (they don't have to work as hard to obtain the product). It's a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.

While I'm all for making money or existing in the lap of luxury without having to lift a finger, I don't think we're at a point where that's possible. Until every human and animal task is replaced by machine labor that will maintain itself, jobs will be necessary. What is one way of motivating individuals to use their brains and their hands in unison? The promise of greater luxury and freedom from various unpleasantries of -life-. If there are no unpleasant problems to face and if survival is absolutely assured regardless of whether or not you ever get out of bed again, what will humans do with themselves?

We'll have a lot more time to think, dream and create... but in doing so, work will have to be done in order to accomplish those new goals. We'll need help accomplishing those goals, and sometimes we might need more help than we can get from the volunteer force so we'll have to convince others to help us out. How do you convince someone to help you who doesn't really feel compelled to get out of bed if he doesn't have to? You motivate him by offering him rewards he feels are worth his time and labor. A bigger TV, a faster tablet, a smarter phone, a bigger and prettier house, better clothes, faster car, better food, more entertainment, etc. After all... now that you have all that time on your hands, a roof over your head and food in your belly, life is a bit boring. You need stuff to entertain you now, to make it seem like life is still worth living.

In today's society that reward is called money, which you can then exchange for whatever you want. Some people need a lot, some people don't. Some are content with a little shack and they'll eat beans for breakfast, lunch and dinner without batting an eye. Others need a proper meal and a nice house to make the job worth the trouble. Yes, there are also those who'd love a bigger house, a bigger family and varied meals, but their paychecks would never cover it, because too many people compete for the same labor and those content with a lot less will take a smaller paycheck. At that point a person will have to struggle and use their brain to figure out a different path, or suffer the miserable consequences.

As disturbing and grim as life can be, we enjoy challenges and we sometimes create them for ourselves in different ways. Many of us have a lot of time on our hands already. Millions of people have the time to play pretend-lives, slaughtering pretend-enemies and working on their pretend-farms. The more realistic and involved it is, the more fun we seem to be having. I wouldn't go around believing that we always want to be comfortable and at peace. Our entertainment choices should speak for themselves! Our actions should speak for themselves. We create problems where there are none.

Someday we'll get to this utopia some of you describe. Some people are already working on eradicating wold hunger and poverty, but not enough of us feel we are at the stage where we can secure ourselves as well as someone less fortunate for long enough. There's also the question of whether some of the less fortunate are trying hard enough to change their lives for the better. Are they putting in the effort to try to help themselves? Will they be able to appreciate and maintain their newly given opportunities? Too many questions are still left unanswered.

a reply to: onequestion

I think more specifically, we do not need the presently defined 40 hour work week Employment that have today. We still need jobs, but that means we need to have the skills and time to fruitfully contribute to our family and community. Whether that be growing food, educating the young, healing the sick, building shelter, or maintaining the machines that should be doing a lot of busy work, there will always be tasks that need to doing at human hands.

That said, society could do quite nicely with every person working only 10 relatively compulsory hours a week. Undoubtedly, restlessness among the most intelligent and capable will still fuel innovation and achievement, but we must first free society from the illusion of money which drives the bogus belief that everyone needs to be "employed" in some idle redundant busy work in exchange for imaginary used to purchase inflationarily priced goods and other meaningless crap.

a reply to: onequestion

I agree completely. The unfortunate circumstances of our current reality are holding humanity back. If technology and leadership were used to actually benefit mankind, the people in control would no longer be in control, and that is the problem.

We have to change the power structure before we can change the focus. We have to change the paradigms before we can change the structure. Educating the masses and shrugging off the controlling distractions is the first step toward freedom.

Wolves and Sheeple