A 3 or 4 day work week to solve unemployment

[luiz]

Nice to know that I won without even having to enter into an argument with you (which is not a good prospect, TBH).

You won what, exactly? Marx-bucks?

I can have a better discussion with my dog than with a Marxist; I learned this much on CFC. Keep repeating your crap about surplus value and whatnot. Nobody is listening, nobody cares. Communism and communists are an archaic relic fading away, the sooner you all realize it (or the sooner you reach intellectual puberty), the better for everyone, specially yourselves.

 

[Merkinball]

Why not? Communists don't like big government too. - Aelf

Because in the past you have advocated for all kinds of coercive policies.

Really? You need to buy an ipad for its price (whatever that is) in order to be more efficient? Do you really think Apple makes ipad so that people can be more efficient?

How much efficiency do you gain from an ipad compared to its cost? - Aelf

Yes, I do think that one reason Apple made the ipad is for efficiency. Although, honestly I would say that it's main goal is to better today's simple net books. It's smaller and of much higher quality than a typical net-book for the price. I personally have no need for one, but many people who travel a lot do. Is it worth the cost? Is it worth the cost in labor? I personally don't think so because I have no need for it. But I can't judge anybody else as I'm not walking in their shoes.

 

[Newbunkle]

You start cutting people's heads off.

Or you could try firing squads like North Korea, but even they can't stop the markets and recently had to issue an apology to their people for the action they tried to take against them.

 

[aelf]

You won what, exactly? Marx-bucks?

I can have a better discussion with my dog than with a Marxist; I learned this much on CFC. Keep repeating your crap about surplus value and whatnot. Nobody is listening, nobody cares. Communism and communists are an archaic relic fading away, the sooner you all realize it (or the sooner you reach intellectual puberty), the better for everyone, specially yourselves.

Pathetic attempt, no points for you.

Yes, I do think that one reason Apple made the ipad is for efficiency. Although, honestly I would say that it's main goal is to better today's simple net books. It's smaller and of much higher quality than a typical net-book for the price. I personally have no need for one, but many people who travel a lot do. Is it worth the cost? Is it worth the cost in labor? I personally don't think so because I have no need for it. But I can't judge anybody else as I'm not walking in their shoes.

Come on, you know that's BS. The amount of money you pay for an ipad could definitely be spent in a much more worthwhile fashion unless you're so rich it amounts to nothing. After all, I'm sure you have plenty to say about getting one's priorities right.

Maybe looking at it from the perspective pay per hour makes more sense. Assuming the same salary, how do you get someone to work for less per hour willingly? By modifying their expectations. People don't take too kindly to a pay cut, but they're much more willing to take a free-time cut if they expect that it would allow them to get more in the future. That way, a guy who only needs, say, $4000 a month to pay his bills and live a relatively comfortable life might lose the job to a person who is willing to work longer for roughly the same pay because he expects that it would allow him to earn $5000, $6000 and so forth in the future (which is labeled as "showing commitment to the company").

The result is everyone is forced to modify their outlook and expectations in order to remain competitive.

How do we prevent this? We can either limit the number of hours people can work or we can change people's expectations. But the first wouldn't work without the second because people would keep demanding to be able to work more hours. And whether working longer hours actually increases their income in the short run, let alone their general well-being, might not really matter.

And, yes, I think that if people are more satisfied with what they have, so to speak, employers would be less able to make individuals take on extra workload for less than proportionate increases in wages and more people could be employed. It's just that this is much trickier than simply mandating the number of working hours.

 

[Merkinball]

Come on, you know that's BS. The amount of money you pay for an ipad could definitely be spent in a much more worthwhile fashion unless you're so rich it amounts to nothing. After all, I'm sure you have plenty to say about getting one's priorities right. - Aelf

I don't think that Apple will be selling a lot of Ipads to people that aren't rich. It's quite the niche device don't you think? I have objections to people setting their priorities straight when it effects my pocket book. When people neglect the healthcare of their children so that they can get an ipad, and I end up supporting SCHIP so their children can have healthcare, that's one thing. But if people are left to their own devices I could care less what they spend their money on. Just so long as they aren't begging with their hands out it doesn't bother me.

Maybe looking at it from the perspective pay per hour makes more sense. Assuming the same salary, how do you get someone to work for less per hour willingly? By modifying their expectations. - Aelf

Sounds coercive to me...

The result is everyone is forced - aelf

Sounds coercive to me...

 

[aelf]

I don't think that Apple will be selling a lot of Ipads to people that aren't rich. It's quite the niche device don't you think?

You think that everyone who buys an ipad can easily afford everything that is of much greater use to him already?

Frankly, I don't buy it. That's not how marketing works. You create a need. You don't tell people "Hey, by the way, if you've got everything that you need already, do take a look at the ipad."

I have objections to people setting their priorities straight when it effects my pocket book. When people neglect the healthcare of their children so that they can get an ipad, and I end up supporting SCHIP so their children can have healthcare, that's one thing. But if people are left to their own devices I could care less what they spend their money on. Just so long as they aren't begging with their hands out it doesn't bother me.

What if it's the banks that are begging with their hands? Yeah, I know what your answer is. But the guys at the Fed don't think it's a good option when it comes down to that.

How people choose to live have bigger ramifications on society.

Sounds coercive to me...

Do you think education is coercive?

A lot of things that make society work are coercive to some extent. We just have to ask whether they are necessary or good.

Sounds coercive to me...

Um, that one you can credit to capitalism.

 

[Merkinball]

You think that everyone who buys an ipad can easily afford everything that is of much greater use to him already? - aelf

Not everyone, but the vast majority. Most people don't need it, so they won't buy it.

Frankly, I don't buy it. That's not how marketing works. You create a need. - Aelf

Actually, it doesn't work like that. You can't create need out of thin air. I'm at school, and actually have some handy stats written down in one of my notebooks.

- Only %14 of new products make it to market
- 59% of marketed products succeed
- #1 product failure is that it doesn't solve a problem
- #2 is that it does a crappy job at solving the problem
- 46% of money in R&D goes to canceled projects/products (read stuff that doesn't make it to market)

That's out of a process engineering book.

Your comment may hold sway in socialist/communist dogma, but it doesn't hold up in reality.

What if it's the banks that are begging with their hands? Yeah, I know what your answer is. - aelf

So why waste your time asking it? Dramatic effect?

How people choose to live have bigger ramifications on society. - aelf

Thus we must coerce and dictate. Amiright?

Do you think education is coercive? - aelf

It depends. Objective science isn't coercive. But some education can be coercive.

A lot of things that make society work are coercive to some extent. We just have to ask whether they are necessary or good. - Aelf

Absurd. Those poor Amish people wouldn't know what to do if you had your way.

Um, that one you can credit to capitalism. - aelf

Capitalism doesn't force anyone to do anything. Just ask the Amish people of America. Socialism and communism on the other hand, you can ask a Bulgarian Gypsy about.

 

[BasketCase]

A 3 or 4 day work week would not solve unemployment.

In the strict technical sense, it does--"unemployed" means you're not working at all. So if you're working 2 hours a week (if only) you're technically employed.

The problem with a 3-4 day work week is that it produces UNDERemployment. And one of the things a lot of workers demand when they do protests and strikes is a guarantee of sufficient hours per week to provide a survivable standard of living. Simply solving unemployment isn't enough, we need to find ways to improve the overall human condition.

 

[aelf]

Not everyone, but the vast majority. Most people don't need it, so they won't buy it.

Only in fantasy land. When was the last time someone really needed a Brooks Brothers shirt as opposed to something much less exorbitant but functionally the same and not aesthetically inferior?

People don't only buy things because they have a need for them. They also buy things because they think they need them.

Actually, it doesn't work like that. You can't create need out of thin air.

In a sense, yes. That's why they are called 'false needs'.

I'm at school, and actually have some handy stats written down in one of my notebooks.

- Only %14 of new products make it to market
- 59% of marketed products succeed
- #1 product failure is that it doesn't solve a problem
- #2 is that it does a crappy job at solving the problem
- 46% of money in R&D goes to canceled projects/products (read stuff that doesn't make it to market)

That's out of a process engineering book.

Your comment may hold sway in socialist/communist dogma, but it doesn't hold up in reality.

The fact that marketing doesn't solve everything means marketing doesn't really work? What?

Sure, the market is an interaction between demand and supply, but producers do influence the market to a significant extent. How is that deniable?

So why waste your time asking it? Dramatic effect?

And how is this a relevant criticism? What I wanted to show was how the consequences of people's lifestyles don't only affect themselves.

Thus we must coerce and dictate. Amiright?

Like I said, a lot of coercion is good and necessary. What we don't want is unnecessary or the bad sort of coercion.

It depends. Objective science isn't coercive. But some education can be coercive.

The fact that kids are forced to be in some place in order to learn stuff that is pre-packaged for them (and that their parents are compelled to consent to this) is coercive. But it is to a great extent good and necessary.

Capitalism doesn't force anyone to do anything. Just ask the Amish people of America.

Yeah, and I just described how it might. But you automatically assumed that it's socialism that is doing the forcing, didn't you?

Whoosh.

 

[Merkinball]

Only in fantasy land. When was the last time someone really needed a Brooks Brothers shirt as opposed to something much less exorbitant but functionally the same and not aesthetically inferior?

People don't only buy things because they have a need for them. They also buy things because they think they need them. - Aelf

Stop inserting your own subjective opinions into this argument. Aesthetic appeal is a legitimate need for people. I've seen your pics on the board in the past bro, you're not exactly a "practical" dresser yourself.

In a sense, yes. That's why they are called 'false needs'. - Aelf

False needs are purely subjective. If I recall correctly you have a penchant for travel and leisure. I call that a false need. Just as I'm sure you'd consider some of my hobbies or needs to be false needs. To each their own brotha.

The fact that marketing doesn't solve everything means marketing doesn't really work? What?

Sure, the market is an interaction between demand and supply, but producers do influence the market to a significant extent. How is that deniable? - Aelf

All of that stuff above, and this issue you raise, has been discussed in two quarter senior design project. As an engineer, I'm a marketer in a sense. In our project we have had to deal with lots of people who aren't technically oriented and don't really know what we want. My job as an engineer has not necessarily been to create a product that they don't need, but to assist our customer in realizing things that they do need in order to solve and address their very real problems. The Ipad addresses a number of problems and it competes against other net books on different merits. They cater to the upper middle class and upper class in providing a similar service. They don't cater to a number of people who don't need it, or could care less about the quality of the screen or the processor. What of it?

And how is this a relevant criticism? What I wanted to show was how the consequences of people's lifestyles don't only affect themselves. - Aelf

It wasn't. I was trying to lighten the mood.

Like I said, a lot of coercion is good and necessary. What we don't want is unnecessary or the bad sort of coercion. - Aelf

Don't you understand that the definition of good coercion and bad coercion is purely subjective? I mean, seriously. This is how you end up with a dictator or a soft tyranny.

The fact that kids are forced to be in some place in order to learn stuff that is pre-packaged for them (and that their parents are compelled to consent to this) is coercive. But it is to a great extent good and necessary. - Aelf

It can be and it can't be. There is no universality when it comes to educating youths.

Yeah, and I just described how it might. But you automatically assumed that it's socialism that is doing the forcing, didn't you?

Whoosh. - Aelf

Capitalism doesn't force people to do anything. And I fail to see how you described capitalism forcing people to do anything. Socialism is compulsory force my friend. I mean, except when it comes to the bedroom, but pretty soon even that'll get regulated for the public good.

 

[aelf]

Stop inserting your own subjective opinions into this argument. Aesthetic appeal is a legitimate need for people. I've seen your pics on the board in the past bro, you're not exactly a "practical" dresser yourself.

I never said aesthetics are not part of the consideration. In fact, if you noticed, I took it as a consideration.

By the way, I mostly get cheap stuff on sale.

False needs are purely subjective. If I recall correctly you have a penchant for travel and leisure. I call that a false need. Just as I'm sure you'd consider some of my hobbies or needs to be false needs. To each their own brotha.

Leisure is part of a reasonable need. How reasonable, though, depends on what exactly you spend on and how much you spend on it. A trip to a historical or cultural hotspot is much more likely to be reasonable than a luxury cruise.

Granted it might be relative to your financial situation, but there are still some parameters.

Don't you understand that the definition of good coercion and bad coercion is purely subjective? I mean, seriously. This is how you end up with a dictator or a soft tyranny.

It's not all that hard. The penal code is a good and necessary form of coercion. Pretty much everyone can tell you that.

Capitalism doesn't force people to do anything. And I fail to see how you described capitalism forcing people to do anything. Socialism is compulsory force my friend. I mean, except when it comes to the bedroom, but pretty soon even that'll get regulated for the public good.

What I'm saying is capitalism creates a culture that you have to play along with. You can "turn on, tune in, drop out", but chances are that would deprive you of quality living conditions. It has subtle forms of coercion like that.

I'm not spartan, and I don't believe Communists have to be either. I like a balance of things in life, and that includes the aesthetic. But balance also implies moderation. You certainly won't find me checking out some clearly overpriced stuff. I bought an ipod at sticker price when I was stupid a few years ago and I regret that today.

 

[Merkinball]

Leisure is part of a reasonable need. How reasonable, though, depends on what exactly you spend on and how much you spend on it. A trip to a historical or cultural hotspot is much more likely to be reasonable than a luxury cruise. - Aelf

Why? Seriously dude, what if some official decided that international travel for leisure was a "false need." You'd be irate! Just as irate as another guy would be if you decided that the Ipad was a false need and to be done away with because it was frivolous.

It's not all that hard. The penal code is a good and necessary form of coercion. Pretty much everyone can tell you that. - Aelf

Oh yeah, I mean, unless you're gay in Texas, or a polygamist, or smoke a bit of marijuana every now and then. Do you think the War on Drugs is good and necessary simply because it exists in the penal code? Do you think it was right for Virginia to prosecute black and white people for getting married simply because it was in the law?

What I'm saying is capitalism creates a culture that you have to play along with. - aelf

And I'm saying that this is foolish. We have Hasidic (sp?) Jews, strict Muslims, Amish people, hundreds of thousands of Mennonites, Native Americans, Fundamentalist Mormons, and numerous other subgroups that do not fit into this preconceived notion of what you view a capitalist society to be. Capitalism is the freedom that allows other freedoms to exist.

I like a balance of things in life, and that includes the aesthetic. But balance also implies moderation. You certainly won't find me checking out some clearly overpriced stuff. I bought an ipod at sticker price when I was stupid a few years ago and I regret that today. - Aelf

But there's not universality as to how to balance ones life. I enjoy really good beer. I won't hesitate spending $15 on a bottle of beer. You prolly won't. You like to go on exotic vacations. We both shop the sale wracks for fashionable but cheap clothes that fit into our idiom. Why do you insist on believing that your way of life is the right way, and that way of life is wrong? What's worse is that you insist on reforming the way I want to live out of some preconcieved and ill-defined notion that my needs are false?

 

[aelf]

Why? Seriously dude, what if some official decided that international travel for leisure was a "false need." You'd be irate! Just as irate as another guy would be if you decided that the Ipad was a false need and to be done away with because it was frivolous.

But there's not universality as to how to balance ones life. I enjoy really good beer. I won't hesitate spending $15 on a bottle of beer. You prolly won't. You like to go on exotic vacations. We both shop the sale wracks for fashionable but cheap clothes that fit into our idiom. Why do you insist on believing that your way of life is the right way, and that way of life is wrong? What's worse is that you insist on reforming the way I want to live out of some preconcieved and ill-defined notion that my needs are false?

Quite simply because I believe in rationality and that it implies some parameters on what is reasonable. Seriously, dude, it's not that difficult and it leaves a lot more leeway than you might perhaps imagine. It's not an extraordinarily authoritarian viewpoint either. Read some works by liberals (in the classical sense) and you'd see them talk about similar stuff, about the bounds of rationality or reasonableness.

That's why we can have debates on the good and the good life. Without parameters, everything becomes relative and debate becomes meaningless. And I think it's not hard to say that some of the excesses in society as we know it are definitely beyond some good parameters.

But this is veering away from the OP. I think it's certainly true that free time is a merit good whose under-consumption is partly due to the fact that those who don't pay for it (in terms of wages or potential wages lost) can 'free ride' by stealing the places of those who do in a highly competitive labour market.

And I think this will be the case as long as capitalism controls people's wants, needs and expectations, as long as people over-value material wealth and demand an ever-growing list of commodities that they don't actually have much use value for.

 

[lovett]

Quite simply because I believe in rationality and that it implies some parameters on what is reasonable.

How do you use rationality to assess the validity of peoples preferences (I.e Needs/Wants)? I don't see what process you would go through here; preferences are private and subjective things that rely on the specific individual. I fail to see how you can justifiably override someones private preferences, you're essentially saying that their preferences are wrong. Given preferences are private and subjective, how can you possibly say this?

It reminds me a bit of a hypothetical to do with pain. A man is in extraordinary pain; he's writhing around, screaming and generally exhibiting those behaviors which we'd associate with being in pain. He is honest, and says that he is in pain. A doctor hooks him up to a shiny measuring device which shows nerve activity; it doesn't show any evidence of pain. Can the doctor then tell the man that actually he's wrong about his own pain and he's not really in pain at all? I don't think so, that's absurd. Pain is a private subjective experience and I don't think the sentence 'I was wrong about being in pain' makes any sense. The same reasoning applies to preferences.

 

[Mise]

iPods are useless, that's why nobody buys them.

 

[aelf]

How do you use rationality to assess the validity of peoples preferences (I.e Needs/Wants)? I don't see what process you would go through here; preferences are private and subjective things that rely on the specific individual. I fail to see how you can justifiably override someones private preferences, you're essentially saying that their preferences are wrong. Given preferences are private and subjective, how can you possibly say this?

It's got nothing to do with the validity of preferences. It's got everything to do with values and conceptions of the good that guide people's preferences. Preferences can be private and subjective and, at the same time, be based on common or shared values and conceptions of the good, which are in turn reasoned out through faculties common to all of mankind.

 

[lovett]

It's got nothing to do with the validity of preferences. It's got everything to do with values and conceptions of the good that guide people's preferences. Preferences can be private and subjective and, at the same time, be based on common or shared values and conceptions of the good, which are in turn reasoned out through faculties common to all of mankind.

So what is my conception of 'the good' which I share with you? You seem to be talking about the good in a platonic sense; an objectively knowable entity which doesn't rely on our own opinions (and do correct me if this is a misunderstanding). Could you describe it, or at least justify the idea that it exists?

 

[aelf]

So what is my conception of 'the good' which I share with you? You seem to be talking about the good in a platonic sense; an objectively knowable entity which doesn't rely on our own opinions (and do correct me if this is a misunderstanding). Could you describe it, or at least justify the idea that it exists?

I'm not really that up on the ancient Greeks, but I'm pretty sure that conceptions of the good are not reserved only for Platonists. Heck, liberals talk about conceptions of the good too. Are they all necessarily Platonists?

And of course there are probably conceptions of the good that you share with me. It's quite likely that you think autonomy (or liberty) is a good as well, for example. Is it an objectively knowable entity? First, you have to answer the question of whether anything is objective or in fact knowable at all, yes? Are we going to be trapped in some solipsistic quandary? Is even sense perception reliable?

There might not be an end to these questions. But at the same time, we are living in societies that are at least partly built on values and conceptions of the good, whatever they may be. So if you ask me whether there are such things as conceptions of the good, I'd say yes. At least in practice, and maybe that's all that really matters.

Anyway, I think it's possible to say that something is not worthwhile without only meaning to say that you don't like that thing. After all, the very act of convincing someone to buy something that is inherent to many commercial transactions implies that there is some sort of external (at least to the individual subject) standards that can be appealed to.

 

[lovett]

I'm not really that up on the ancient Greeks, but I'm pretty sure that conceptions of the good are not reserved only for Platonists. Heck, liberals talk about conceptions of the good too. Are they all necessarily Platonists?

And of course there are probably conceptions of the good that you share with me. It's quite likely that you think autonomy (or liberty) is a good as well, for example. Is it an objectively knowable entity? First, you have to answer the question of whether anything is objective or in fact knowable at all, yes? Are we going to be trapped in some solipsistic quandary? Is even sense perception reliable?

There might not be an end to these questions. But at the same time, we are living in societies that are at least partly built on values and conceptions of the good, whatever they may be. So if you ask me whether there are such things as conceptions of the good, I'd say yes. At least in practice, and maybe that's all that really matters.

Anyway, I think it's possible to say that something is not worthwhile without only meaning to say that you don't like that thing. After all, the very act of convincing someone to buy something that is inherent to many commercial transactions implies that there is some sort of external (at least to the individual subject) standards that can be appealed to.

I said 'Platonic' because one finds in Plato a conception of the good as a distinct and objective thing you tend not to get in more modern philosophy. Certainly I wouldn't think it right to say liberal conceive of the good in the same way; liberalism is just an interpretation of utilitarianism.

As for my self, I'd argue that our conception of good is based on our preferences, not that our preferences are based on our conception of good. That is to say, the idea of what is 'good' must always align with what we prefer. Our preferences are immediate; we know them as soon as they form; that's tautological. In contrast, the idea of good is not immediate. It needs to be learned and there needs to be something for that learning to be based off. I would argue that the concept of 'good' as an objective distinct quality which tells us something about certain propositions or behaviors is nonsensical; I don't think the idea of such a thing is coherent. Consequently the only way we can really use the term good (meaningfully) is in indication of a preference. Indeed preferences seem to be the only meaningful guide to how we are to behave; it is tautologically that we prefer what we prefer and thus that we want to do what we prefer. There is then reason to follow our preferences whilst none to avoid our preferences. Using 'good' in a societal sense, in terms of common values and such, rather misses this point. There is no reason why I should act in accordance to common values if I prefer not to, it misses the idea of goodness as telling us how to behave. In contrast, it is contradictory to say 'I prefer not to follow my preference'.

Thus my original point; The validity of preferences is very important and I don't see how one can say 'Your preference is invalid'.

 

[aelf]

I said 'Platonic' because one finds in Plato a conception of the good as a distinct and objective thing you tend not to get in more modern philosophy.

Aristotle talked about the good too. It's pretty common back then, I'd reckon, and it's still pretty common today actually.

Certainly I wouldn't think it right to say liberal conceive of the good in the same way; liberalism is just an interpretation of utilitarianism.

And you'd be wrong on that. That's such a limited view of liberalism.

As for my self, I'd argue that our conception of good is based on our preferences, not that our preferences are based on our conception of good. That is to say, the idea of what is 'good' must always align with what we prefer. Our preferences are immediate; we know them as soon as they form; that's tautological. In contrast, the idea of good is not immediate. It needs to be learned and there needs to be something for that learning to be based off. I would argue that the concept of 'good' as an objective distinct quality which tells us something about certain propositions or behaviors is nonsensical; I don't think the idea of such a thing is coherent. Consequently the only way we can really use the term good (meaningfully) is in indication of a preference. Indeed preferences seem to be the only meaningful guide to how we are to behave; it is tautologically that we prefer what we prefer and thus that we want to do what we prefer. There is then reason to follow our preferences whilst none to avoid our preferences. Using 'good' in a societal sense, in terms of common values and such, rather misses this point. There is no reason why I should act in accordance to common values if I prefer not to, it misses the idea of goodness as telling us how to behave. In contrast, it is contradictory to say 'I prefer not to follow my preference'.

So I take it that you're a moral anti-realist and even a relativist?

As I said, what you're saying completely ignores the fact that we live amongst traditions and cultures that cultivate and encourage particular conceptions of the good, which people pick up on and which influence them profoundly. It also seems to ignore the fact that certain conceptions of the good are quite universal (how often do you you find a culture that condones wanton murder in the community?). If it's just down to individual preferences, how do you explain this? Is it all just some sort of false consciousness? Do we really live in a sort of moral anarchy despite the appearance of real affiliations?

It seems to me that the reality speaks against your theory. Hence, I think you'd have to go further to prove what you're saying than someone who simply asserts that the good exists.

Thus my original point; The validity of preferences is very important and I don't see how one can say 'Your preference is invalid'.

I'm not saying that some people's preferences are invalid. Given an internally coherent ethical system or philosophy, preferences within it can be valid and still be bad in the bigger picture. To speak about the validity of preferences is to miss the point.