"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[El_Machinae]

Why not look at real experiments that don't take place in the middle of a global crisis?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/basic-income-mcmaster-report-1.5485729

We did. It's not like more data is useless. That experiment also has deficits, and we definitely don't have enough information to make good predictions, nevermind predictions good enough that will detect failure points in time

Remember when people tout WWII as evidence that massive spending is its own type of evidence? We didn't disregard that, merely because it's during a global crisis. Natural experiments are natural experiments.

Small scale experiments won't create data that can be easily extrapolated to the national level, which is vital when working with a sovereign currency and national basic income.

I am surrounded by people completely dependant upon increasing total taxable productivity. If we bungle it, things get worse.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not saying everyone should have their own garden but it's nice to be able to have the opinion to get local fresh food.

Sure, but at this point we're not really discussing supply chains or peoples' awareness of their position and role in them, so. I agree with the option to get local fresh food where possible, assuming it's maintainable?

You romantic passion for creation involves programming, but not for 40 hours a week of, sayu, TDD meets 2 week sprints to maintain x website or whatever. You would engineer software rather than be Job Title: Software Engineer.

Ah, I see! Yeah, I get you.

But on the flipside, I'm also capable of burning 60 hours in a week on a personal project. Have done before. More than once

There's a lot that goes wrong in project management of stuff like software, for sure. But some of it is useful. The problem is it's often incompatible with both human ego and the need to turn a profit. For example, it's one thing to be reactive; to be agile (while also having a reasonable scope and planning for tasks over the next X days / weeks). But if you're being reactive just so you can throw people are whatever problem is cropping up, you're not being agile. You're abandoning the need to be proactive. And then you just spend your time patching holes in a sinking ship, adding more and more people to it, until nobody is working on anything but patching those things.

And why are those things being patched? Because paying customers are yelling about them, and nobody is pushing back because they're paying. They don't care about your roadmap more often than not, they care about the things that impact them directly. If money wasn't in the equation it'd be a lot healthier of a dynamic. They would use the product if it fit their use case, and you could develop it within design guidelines that make sense for the product, and fix bugs based on severity, instead of essentially what is "whoever shouts about it the loudest". It also de-incentivises chasing the latest and greatest fad, because there's no financial reward for following that kind of nonsense. It's one of the great strengths of open source software, for example. The problem with OSS is that its maintainers earn next-to-no money, but need to have a full-time job in order to survive in the first place. The OSS maintenance is often a (full) full-time job on top of that.

I could talk about this for hours. I could literally give talks on this. I watch talks on it. I read about it. The problem isn't so much the 40 hours a week, or the being forced to do dumb things that are only there to give someone else purpose (though, sure, I agree, they get in the way and shouldn't be there). The core problem is having to turn a profit. Having to earn money.

 

[Narz]

capitalist or capitalists'?

Obviously capitalism, and more so, a capitalist nation-state, and more so, the population that make up a capitalist system, benefits from healthier people, educated people, and people with more free time.

That's a fun theory.

The Paul Romer growth equation makes the x-factor for growth the proportion of people spending their time on ideas instead of laboring existing ideas. The more educated, energized, and liberated the people, able to act on their educated ideas, the faster the national rate of growth. Who knows, it's just a model, but if all the work is automated and all the people are free thinkers able to communicate with the automation, we have infinite growth at time.

If any1 in power actually believed anything of that sort we'd have a very different education system

 

[Birdjaguar]

I could talk about this for hours. I could literally give talks on this. I watch talks on it. I read about it. The problem isn't so much the 40 hours a week, or the being forced to do dumb things that are only there to give someone else purpose (though, sure, I agree, they get in the way and shouldn't be there). The core problem is having to turn a profit. Having to earn money.

If one's goal is all about making a profit, then company leaders will not employ extra people for useless work. That is left for the government to do. One of the fastest ways to increase profits is to cut payroll. I'm sure you know that.

 

[Gorbles]

If one's goal is all about making a profit, then company leaders will not employ extra people for useless work. That is left for the government to do. One of the fastest ways to increase profits is to cut payroll. I'm sure you know that.

The work described serves a purpose for the company. Trend-chasing, for example, inflates value if public. There are other examples.

But yes, generally, those doing the actual work will have the smallest teams, and will be frequently told there isn't resource for more. I am well aware of that

 

[El_Machinae]

The work has perceived value according to whoever is paying for it. And, hopefully, enough effort to create value eventually creates aggregate benefits.

I get to see the direct results of my work, but morale is rough when we know society doesn't value it. Not really.

 

[Hygro]

That's a fun theory.


If any1 in power actually believed anything of that sort we'd have a very different education system

We were going in that direction as a nation for about a third of the 20th century, maybe more. And generally the democrats push that, but have structural disadvantage.

Obviously hardly anyone believes that economic theory, as
A) hardly anyone knows economics
B) there are competing theories

In total, too many competing interests, earnest and evil, leads to our society that doesn’t promote our wellbeing maximally. But it is of course obvious from a national perspective rather than an individual Winner of Highlander perspective that all things economic improve with our population’s wellbeing.

Lots of people in power “get it” and are “for it”. But lots of people in power are in the other 3 quadrants of that equation.

 

[Narz]

But it is of course obvious from a national perspective rather than an individual Winner of Highlander perspective that all things economic improve with our population’s wellbeing.

Is it obvious?

Seems like unhappy people compulsively spend the most money. If national well being increased many industries would collapse.

And generally the democrats push that

Which ones? Biden?

but have structural disadvantage.

The Republicans should be easy to defeat despite disadvantage but looks like democrats will get walloped in midterms. I don't think left-leaning media wants them to win, way more $ to be made w click bait w Republicans in chagre.

 

[Gorbles]

Seems like unhappy people compulsively spend the most money.

What?

I don't think left-leaning media wants them to win, way more $ to be made w click bait w Republicans in chagre.

What? I think you're confusing liberals and centrism with "left-leaning".

 

[stinkubus]

We were going in that direction as a nation for about a third of the 20th century, maybe more. And generally the democrats push that, but have structural disadvantage.

Obviously hardly anyone believes that economic theory, as
A) hardly anyone knows economics
B) there are competing theories

In total, too many competing interests, earnest and evil, leads to our society that doesn’t promote our wellbeing maximally. But it is of course obvious from a national perspective rather than an individual Winner of Highlander perspective that all things economic improve with our population’s wellbeing.

Lots of people in power “get it” and are “for it”. But lots of people in power are in the other 3 quadrants of that equation.

The United States' commitment to public education in the 20th century was a project of the cold war and was explicitly framed as such at the time. Economic theories didn't inform the decisions, the needs of America's empire did.

 

[Hygro]

The United State's commitment to public education in the 20th century was a project of the cold war and was explicitly framed as such at the time. Economic theories didn't inform the decisions, the needs of America's empire did.

FUNNY HOW THATS NOT ACTUALLY DIFFERENT

 

[stinkubus]

If you can point me to the chapter on imperialism in your Economics text I'd be happy to read it. Somehow I doubt where ever you've studied somewhere that assigned Lenin.

 

[Hygro]

You are misinformed.

 

[stinkubus]

Alright, then I'll try another means of convincing you there's a difference.

If our post WWII investment in human capital did not have such a militaristic focus would defense contractors have such a stranglehold on our politics today? Once the Soviet Union eventually collapsed the raison d'etre for those investments vanished. The aforementioned defense contractors seem A-OK supporting politicians who are currently gutting the education system because growth and the well being of the population was never the goal. The National Security state and the defense contractors still call the shots and they only care about their own well-being. They have no ideological commitment to the prosperity of every day Americans.

 

[Lexicus]

For my part I agree with Kalecki, who says in short yes, it would be better for the capitalists if things were better for everyone. But capitalists would rather preserve their relative social position than take steps to grow the pie.

It's a slightly different version of what is happening with the Russian army in Ukraine. A military is more effective with junior officers who can take the initiative. The political leadership in Russia accepts a drastically less effective military as a tradeoff for preserving their relative power in the system, because junior officers who think for themselves are frequent coup initiators.

If we're on the left we must believe there is a certain point at which people get too fed up with this kind of thing, or the system is subjected to stress that, for the system to survive, requires the kinds of changes that undermine the relative power of the powerful.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh and by the way if you wanna realize the world Romer envisioned in his theory, you need to support employee ownership. Try to buy from employee-owned businesses, tell your elected representatives that you want preferential treatment for employee-owned businesses. Tell your congresscritters to vote for Bernie Sanders' bill to establish a Cooperative Bank of the Unites States.

 

[Hygro]

Alright, then I'll try another means of convincing you there's a difference.

If our post WWII investment in human capital did not have such a militaristic focus would defense contractors have such a stranglehold on our politics today? Once the Soviet Union eventually collapsed the raison d'etre for those investments vanished. The aforementioned defense contractors seem A-OK supporting politicians who are currently gutting the education system because growth and the well being of the population was never the goal. The National Security state and the defense contractors still call the shots and they only care about their own well-being. They have no ideological commitment to the prosperity of every day Americans.

Yes, when the stakeholders don’t have shared incentives, oftentimes there is no critical mass to enact much of anything productive.

The education system ebbs and flows but mostly grows in total. The defense contractors get lazy but no one wants to lose ground so they stay fed. Michelle Obama tries to push childhood health but the Republicans don’t want to lose any ground so attack. It is not a coincidence that when there is a threat, disparate groups unite and put together a cohesive and economically progressive total package.

 

[Narz]

What?

Advertisers seek to create suffering to create artifical need so people spend more money. Think of the fashion industry as a prime example.

 

[El_Machinae]

Advertisers seek to create suffering to create artifical need so people spend more money. Think of the fashion industry as a prime example.

You're not wrong. Enough people benefit from misery that they prefer to foster it, and then are able to compound their profits so that they gain ever more presence in the economy and we pretend "the economy is benefitting". But, when we use more robust definitions of 'benefitting the economy', then a lot of the things that empower people tend to end up benefitting it. There's the other side of the 'risk' though, that comfortable people are less productive. So, we want people empowered but still motivated to produce. If someone's motivation is comfort, then those two inputs might not be capable of both increasing.

 

[Narz]

You're not wrong. Enough people benefit from misery that they prefer to foster it, and then are able to compound their profits so that they gain ever more presence in the economy and we pretend "the economy is benefitting".

It's not pretend, the economy is benefiting. Cancer is a huge economic driver. A lonely child in a room full of plastic toys and screens drives economic growth. One who plays outside and gets new outfits once a year not so much.

Public library use enriches communities but not the economy, as does exercise, community social engagement (not revolving around consumption), etc. The best things in life are free. Money is meant to keep us alive not a god to whore ourselves to.

But, when we use more robust definitions of 'benefitting the economy', then a lot of the things that empower people tend to end up benefitting it. There's the other side of the 'risk' though, that comfortable people are less productive. So, we want people empowered but still motivated to produce. If someone's motivation is comfort, then those two inputs might not be capable of both increasing.

Selfish comfort is the best most people can hope for at the peak of the anthropocene.

A healthier, smarter, more quick-witted populace certainly may lead to innovation and growth long term but almost no one in power seems to gaf about the timeline beyond their next quarter or term.