21–30 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I was hoping for some insights - some idea of what to do about it For that, you'd need to read Marx.
Or Piketty (quoted in the article). The book also contains ideas how to solve the phenomens described.
http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_piketty_new_thoughts_on_capi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or Piketty (quoted in the article). The book also contains ideas how to solve the phenomens described.
Is the book readable, as in well-written? Edit: I just read a detailed synopsis of the book (I know it's not the same as the book). I strongly agree with his diagnosis, but not his cure. I think two things have gotten us into this mess: (general commentary, my remarks are not aimed at parent comment) 1) Corporations (as in the legal construct) and all the legal and financial benefits they enjoy, which allows capital…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I was hoping for some insights - some idea of what to do about it For that, you'd need to read Marx.
Yes, because it worked great in Cuba, the USSR, Eastern Europe, etc "But nobody was unemployed" sure, and if you live in a hut by the Amazon river you'll never be in need of water, but it pretty much sucks otherwise.
I don't mind soaring returns for owners of tech companies as long as the state run redistribution of wealth allows everybody to live a life in dignity.
I'm not really sure what you're proposing here.
I don't mind soaring returns for owners of tech companies as long as the state run redistribution of wealth allows everybody to live a life in dignity.
> as long as the state run redistribution of wealth allows everybody to live a life in dignity. I'm not really sure what you're proposing here.
Dr Schmidt’s smart creatives work all the hours that God sends, and then some. They are, to use his term, “overworked in a good way”. The concept of work-life balance can, he thinks, “be insulting to smart, dedicated employees”, for whom work is an important part of life, not something to be separated. The best corporate cultures, he thinks, “invite and enable people to be overworked in a good way, with too many inte…
I disagree. I have some big-picture Passions and Projects. More than one, actually. There is more to be done in the fields I want to work in than I could ever do, in my entire life.
Nonetheless, sometimes I am tired of working and want to "go the fuck home" and just do something else. I have family and friends whom I care for and with whom I want to spend time. I have other hobbies and activities outside work. I have places to go, things to do, people to see outside work. I'm not balancing work against daytime television, I'm balancing it against all the other brilliant, wonderful things in my life.
I'm also balancing it against the immense willingness of employers in almost all sectors to exploit the hell out of me should I actually become that invested in my work, and against the simple fact that I have to work on what an employer wants (ultimately, what a market wants) to earn a salary, since funding cuts and such have made a life "pursuing my passions" in research academia economically nonviable for all but 2% of trained researchers.
So yeah: let me work well and with reasonable, but not passionate, enthusiasm, and then give me my salary and my benefits and let me go home. It's the only human way to run things when there are this many conflicting demands, pressures, and interests creating the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because it worked great in Cuba, the USSR, Eastern Europe, etc "But nobody was unemployed" sure, and if you live in a hut by the Amazon river you'll never be in need of water, but it pretty much sucks otherwise.
Did you read Marx, so we can have a discussion about his theories here or do you just talk in platitudes to disrail any serious discussion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read Marx, so we can have a discussion about his theories here or do you just talk in platitudes to disrail any serious discussion?
Some of it, yeah, and I don't blame him for what came to be, in theory everything is nice and should work, in practice, it's been shown what can be done in guise of it.
Once that is fully understood, then we can return to ask the question: "Why hasn't this fully happened yet?" and look to history to provide the answers of the failures of the attempts, but more pertinently the techniques the West applied to avoid the scenario from playing out.
As my other comment states, the thing to do... given that everyone on here is in the top 5%, and a few in the top 1%... is to realise that it is actually up to us as those in positions of influence, power and wealth to re-engineer the system to help make it a sustainable one.
Inequality, or specifically the symptoms of inequality, are an issue that we need to address.
Tech elites have always existed in a parallel universe. Careful tending to their needs and acceptance of their peculiarities has been part of the bargain with those in power.