originally posted by: peck420
The 'real' world is the one that nature has laid out before us. That would be a world where you pull your own weight, or your own community kills you
outright, or banishes you and leaves you for dead. And, that is assuming that you have already killed enough to sustain your own existence just to
get to that point.
Nature shows us this, time and time again...we continue to believe that we are inherently different, or better, than nature. We aren't even close
Oh, no, another believer in "Social Darwinism" that doesn't know the difference between it and "Evolution".
You do realize that the concept of "Social Darwinism" is different than the theory of "Evolution"? What you are describing is NOT "Evolution", what
you are describing is "Social Darwinism". They are NOT the same thing and the terms are not interchangeable.
In actually, in the times of tribal, chiefdom and early agricultural societies, those whom were most "fierce" and took the "most risks" were either
quickly killed or seriously injured during, hunts, battles or during day to day labor. In those days, those whom were neither the "most fierce" nor
the "most timid" ALWAYS fathered the most offspring and lived longer than average lives. Our current society has been structured in a way to shield
these imbalanced "fierce" individuals from receiving what "nature" would have normally dealt them, which is death or serious injury, due to poor
decision making and underestimating "risk".
originally posted by: OrphanApology
You are making the assumption that we are actually in a free market society. We are not in a capitalistic society or a free market society.
The current corporations are simply appendages of the state. You have to think of things in terms of their relation to the state(in this case the
worker's relation to state).
So as the state grows it will matter less and less how good you are at performing a task. The good workers are not rewarded as much those who are good
at seeming like they are good(great skills for working in government..cough..corporations).
This early answer in the thread is absolutely correct and supports my above description of how "nature" ACTUALLY deals with risk taking individuals,
versus how our current economic structure insulates them from the natural consequences they would normally face. Essentially our modern society is a
form of "insurance" for the fool-hady and sociopathic.
Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.
Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology
advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a reason they don’t want people dropping out of
high school and then at the same time, encourage those high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters
degree or PhD. They do so because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market
that CANNOT provide employment for everyone looking for, able, qualified for and willing to work.
Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then
jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort.
Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within
their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their
Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career
type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!!!
This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for
work and typically found it, that’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of
people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Not to the specific detriment of society, but to continue to mask the illusion that
jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE
less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum
education levels for employment, with the real goal of decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time. This
cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government
assistance. If everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and "entrepreneurs"
suggest these days, we would all be making 0.25 cents a day.
With big business being hell bent on replacing living workers with machines, such comments as those in this post, miss a subtle point that ONLY the
children of the wealthy will have the opportunity to become TRUE experts in such fields. Let me clarify, through the prior 20th century, a poor kid
who studied hard could become a lawyer, engineer, accountant, even a doctor sometimes with the right combination of hard work, savings, scholarships,
family support, etc, OR they simply went into the trades and learned on the job WITH pay. HOWEVER, in engineering and technician curriculum’s today,
times are changing, which now favors kids whom have access to expensive software and hardware to “experiment” with and “practice” on before
entering college or a particular training program. So when they finally get to college or to their first apprenticeship, those whom have had lots of
free time to “play” with robotics and programming, outside of the classroom, WILL CERTAINLY outpace their less privileged peer, who flips burgers
part-time, to pay rent and school expenses.
Those whom are going to be rendered jobless by automation/robotics/tech are going to be the least likely to be able to pick up these pieces in the
coming era of traditional jobs destruction. Its going to IMPOSSIBLE for the poor to go back to school, get a masters degree in robotics, in
full-time-only engineering programs, that strongly discourage their admitted students from taking part-time jobs, while favoring students who have
both the money and free time and don’t EVER work at an unrelated job to their majors, who then buy expensive robotics hardware/software to
experiment with outside of class.
They will certainly need to be supported in some manner because there are never going to be enough jobs available to pay them for the labor they are
willing to provide. I can't say what that "support" may be, but the "boot straps" paradigm has long sailed off into the sunset, never to return. Too
many people and not enough jobs available, permanently.
edit on 9-2-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)