Namely, that we now have a mass-production consumer culture that is objectifying and killing off the middle class. namely, that the market has replaced the "bosses" as a reflection in discourse to the working class.
What do you mean by this?
The second question is me being a theory-wanker. Namely, that older Marxist distinctions of bosses vs. labor is not longer applicable in our current context. Instead we have a mass-production consumer culture in which everyone is just as screwed as labor was in the 19th century, just in a different way. Like how the financial industry relies on making money from more money, our market focuses on exploiting consumption from all social walks of life in order to continue to expand and consume. "New markets", in the traditional sense, are no longer the areas of capital's expansion. Instead capitalism co-opts the "green movement" and "animal cruelty" as a marketable, consumable expansion of the market.
This is pretty important not to understate. Classic Marxist theory works on the worker vs. boss dichotomy. You are a cog in a machine, and there's someone who operates that machine who is far above you.
It doesn't work like that anymore. Everyone is a cog of one size or another, and the machine isn't the construct of a higher power but an overarching system that comprises many smaller machines, each of which is not necessarily headed by a distinct entity.
This leads to an immense and unguided frustration amongst workers, who now lack the ability to focus their anger toward their bosses and must instead accept that being stepped on is just how life works.
At least Marxism could postulate some solutions to the malaise of the proletariat (overthrow the bourgeoisie!) as unlikely as they might be. The world we're in now offers no such simple solutions other than total anarchy, a complete dismantling of the system. And let's face it, nobody wants that. It'd suck a whole lot more.
And all of this leads further to the postulation that the "solution" isn't some grandly imagined utopia, but a concrete march toward the eventual destruction of capital.
In the form of "socialist-capitalism" we can take steps to level the field.
The real revolution will, eventually, be against the amorphous "market", and not, necessarily, against a specific entity as defined in the government-corporate power dynamic.
What I'd like to see done away with is golden parachutes. Corporate heads can run their company into the ground and be rewarded for it, their employees who don't have the golden parachute are fucked.
And all of this leads further to the postulation that the "solution" isn't some grandly imagined utopia, but a concrete march toward the eventual destruction of capital.
In the form of "socialist-capitalism" we can take steps to level the field.
The real revolution will, eventually, be against the amorphous "market", and not, necessarily, against a specific entity as defined in the government-corporate power dynamic.
This theory-crafting is incredibly interesting. There sounds like a lot of downsides to that "revolution" though, even if the ideal is genuine. I wish I had more to continue the discussion with, and I wish the one entire political science class I took wasn't just a regurgitation of political events in history (so I could contribute more!)
What I'd like to see done away with is golden parachutes. Corporate heads can run their company into the ground and be rewarded for it, their employees who don't have the golden parachute are fucked.
And all of this leads further to the postulation that the "solution" isn't some grandly imagined utopia, but a concrete march toward the eventual destruction of capital.
In the form of "socialist-capitalism" we can take steps to level the field.
The real revolution will, eventually, be against the amorphous "market", and not, necessarily, against a specific entity as defined in the government-corporate power dynamic.
This theory-crafting is incredibly interesting. There sounds like a lot of downsides to that "revolution" though, even if the ideal is genuine. I wish I had more to continue the discussion with, and I wish the one entire political science class I took wasn't just a regurgitation of political events in history (so I could contribute more!)
What I'd like to see done away with is golden parachutes. Corporate heads can run their company into the ground and be rewarded for it, their employees who don't have the golden parachute are fucked.
I think this can be neatly solved by giving them parachutes of actual gold. And then throw them out of an airplane.
:^:
Well the things I've been hearing from the more radical sides are usually about how when the system collapses in on itself, which by itself is a pretty big assumption that has been tested before and failed, we will revert to scaling down economies and societies and rebuilding everything on a local community-based level. You can see things heading that way already with new urbanism and the local foods movement. It's not just hippies who are moving into communes, I remember seeing an article somewhere about a bunch of eccentric billionaires who made plans to build these self-sustaining cities floating around in the ocean somewhere. For those on the far edge it's about returning to something like pre-columbian native american culture while plenty of contemporary folks are jumping on the bandwagon and pushing for localization, a word I just made up that means the opposite of globalization, while keeping the free market and democracy intact.
I think this is my 4th rant about this on this thread alone so far but this is really the only alternative I see out there to the status quo which is what we're all bitching about so I'm just gonna keep on beating my drum.
Crowing One: I have read the last few pages and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Most of the (few) Communists I know confuse ideals with what is practically possible in the current global situation. Even if a revolution were the road to the perfect society, there aren't enough pissed off people around and that's not going to change unless the recession goes into a depression or we have a huge war or something. A slow shift towards social democracy is probably all we're going to get in our lifetimes, if that.
Or the neocons could completely take over the US and run it into the ground. That might do it.
Namely, that we now have a mass-production consumer culture that is objectifying and killing off the middle class. namely, that the market has replaced the "bosses" as a reflection in discourse to the working class.
What do you mean by this?
The second question is me being a theory-wanker. Namely, that older Marxist distinctions of bosses vs. labor is not longer applicable in our current context. Instead we have a mass-production consumer culture in which everyone is just as screwed as labor was in the 19th century, just in a different way. Like how the financial industry relies on making money from more money, our market focuses on exploiting consumption from all social walks of life in order to continue to expand and consume. "New markets", in the traditional sense, are no longer the areas of capital's expansion. Instead capitalism co-opts the "green movement" and "animal cruelty" as a marketable, consumable expansion of the market.
This is pretty important not to understate. Classic Marxist theory works on the worker vs. boss dichotomy. You are a cog in a machine, and there's someone who operates that machine who is far above you.
It doesn't work like that anymore. Everyone is a cog of one size or another, and the machine isn't the construct of a higher power but an overarching system that comprises many smaller machines, each of which is not necessarily headed by a distinct entity.
Just as a sidenote, have you seen The Wire? The first season at least explores this very idea in relation to the War on Drugs as a self-sustaining institution with no distinct entity in charge of it all.
The problem isnt feeling entitled to walking in and making cash...
There is an feeling of deserving somewhat of a shot and not every job requiring 5-8 years of experience.
The problem is, we need to spend that 80k to do what people 20 years ago could just decide they wanted to. The education just gets us in the door at an entry level. Yes, you're probably completely screwed if you didnt have that education to get that entry level spot. But our parents and grandparents didnt have that problem. They didnt have to start off their adult lives at -80k. When you look at it that way, its understandable our generation is a little peeved.
I think it's more the younger generation feels entitled to a job a fucking trained monkey couldn't do.
There are very few jobs available that require any actual creativity or thought. And funnily enough, the least creative jobs go to the Uneducated and the Overeducated (ie - people with useless University degrees).
Or, perhaps the better way to approach the problem is to look at what has changed in our culture and society that requires a college education in order to get a decent job.
A good place to start is in education standards (numbers) and looking at who benefits.
The loss of manufacturing, I'd guess. Define "decent job".
I don't think loss of manufacturing has anything to do with it. Manufacturing (at least, industrialised manufacturing) is by design a task completely lacking creativity.
I'd say it more ... well, marketing. Our children have spent the last like 30 years being sold the idea that you can do what you love. That you can be fulfilled at your job.
And the truth is, most jobs these days AREN'T fulfilling. They are mindless, but necessary, busywork that in no way exploit the creativity of those doing them.
The problem isnt feeling entitled to walking in and making cash...
There is an feeling of deserving somewhat of a shot and not every job requiring 5-8 years of experience.
The problem is, we need to spend that 80k to do what people 20 years ago could just decide they wanted to. The education just gets us in the door at an entry level. Yes, you're probably completely screwed if you didnt have that education to get that entry level spot. But our parents and grandparents didnt have that problem. They didnt have to start off their adult lives at -80k. When you look at it that way, its understandable our generation is a little peeved.
I think it's more the younger generation feels entitled to a job a fucking trained monkey couldn't do.
There are very few jobs available that require any actual creativity or thought. And funnily enough, the least creative jobs go to the Uneducated and the Overeducated (ie - people with useless University degrees).
Or, perhaps the better way to approach the problem is to look at what has changed in our culture and society that requires a college education in order to get a decent job.
A good place to start is in education standards (numbers) and looking at who benefits.
The loss of manufacturing, I'd guess. Define "decent job".
I don't think loss of manufacturing has anything to do with it. Manufacturing (at least, industrialised manufacturing) is by design a task completely lacking creativity.
I'd say it more ... well, marketing. Our children have spent the last like 30 years being sold the idea that you can do what you love. That you can be fulfilled at your job.
And the truth is, most jobs these days AREN'T fulfilling. They are mindless, but necessary, busywork that in no way exploit the creativity of those doing them.
.....
wut.
I've done small time marketing and PR for people. Some graphic design etc. Even teaching on the side.
I wouldn't call any of that lacking creativity. Or not fun - the only parts that weren't fun were the mindless people that would hold you back.
The problem isnt feeling entitled to walking in and making cash...
There is an feeling of deserving somewhat of a shot and not every job requiring 5-8 years of experience.
The problem is, we need to spend that 80k to do what people 20 years ago could just decide they wanted to. The education just gets us in the door at an entry level. Yes, you're probably completely screwed if you didnt have that education to get that entry level spot. But our parents and grandparents didnt have that problem. They didnt have to start off their adult lives at -80k. When you look at it that way, its understandable our generation is a little peeved.
I think it's more the younger generation feels entitled to a job a fucking trained monkey couldn't do.
There are very few jobs available that require any actual creativity or thought. And funnily enough, the least creative jobs go to the Uneducated and the Overeducated (ie - people with useless University degrees).
Or, perhaps the better way to approach the problem is to look at what has changed in our culture and society that requires a college education in order to get a decent job.
A good place to start is in education standards (numbers) and looking at who benefits.
The loss of manufacturing, I'd guess. Define "decent job".
I don't think loss of manufacturing has anything to do with it. Manufacturing (at least, industrialised manufacturing) is by design a task completely lacking creativity.
I'd say it more ... well, marketing. Our children have spent the last like 30 years being sold the idea that you can do what you love. That you can be fulfilled at your job.
And the truth is, most jobs these days AREN'T fulfilling. They are mindless, but necessary, busywork that in no way exploit the creativity of those doing them.
.....
wut.
I've done small time marketing and PR for people. Some graphic design etc. Even teaching on the side.
I wouldn't call any of that lacking creativity. Or not fun - the only parts that weren't fun were the mindless people that would hold you back.
Um, you do understand that what you said it not at all incompatible with what I wrote, right?
This is pretty important not to understate. Classic Marxist theory works on the worker vs. boss dichotomy. You are a cog in a machine, and there's someone who operates that machine who is far above you.
Uhh, no. Classic Marxist theory relies on "value added appropriation". Which is to say how the distribution of income due to production occurs between capital and labor[not bosses and labor, capital]
I am not sure how you can argue that the machines are any materially more complex for the worker that now they suddenly don't have an output for their "rage". Then again, they didn't have any output for their rage in Marx's time either[I would suggest reading some Zola, such as Germinal for a decent look at that time period] until it boiled over.
I really don't think these "omg consumerism" has any sort of economic backing in its argument. Psychological and normative backings maybe, but not economic[though possibly economic solutions]
Honestly, I don't see what's so wrong about expecting a job as good as or better than previous generations could get with qualifications far inferior to my own.
Honestly, I don't see what's so wrong about expecting a job as good as or better than previous generations could get with qualifications far inferior to my own.
Lots of reasons.
First, some of those jobs don't exist anymore.
Second, some of those jobs have been devalued by improved technology.
Third, global competition has severely reduced competition of wages.
Fourth, comparisons between those jobs and the jobs of today are inappropriate as standards and relative costs are higher due to cultural improvements.
A car in 1960 might only cost you $1500, but it also wouldn't have seatbelts, a radio, sat/nat, stereo speakers, power steering, an acceptable crash rating, a gas mileage rating higher than 12-15 mpg, and anti-lock brakes.
Honestly, I don't see what's so wrong about expecting a job as good as or better than previous generations could get with qualifications far inferior to my own.
Lots of reasons.
First, some of those jobs don't exist anymore.
Second, some of those jobs have been devalued by improved technology.
Third, global competition has severely reduced competition of wages.
Fourth, comparisons between those jobs and the jobs of today are inappropriate as standards and relative costs are higher due to cultural improvements.
A car in 1960 might only cost you $1500, but it also wouldn't have seatbelts, a radio, sat/nat, stereo speakers, power steering, an acceptable crash rating, a gas mileage rating higher than 12-15 mpg, and anti-lock brakes.
It might not be correct, but it's also not a sign of entitlement.
Honestly, I don't see what's so wrong about expecting a job as good as or better than previous generations could get with qualifications far inferior to my own.
Lots of reasons.
First, some of those jobs don't exist anymore.
Second, some of those jobs have been devalued by improved technology.
Third, global competition has severely reduced competition of wages.
Fourth, comparisons between those jobs and the jobs of today are inappropriate as standards and relative costs are higher due to cultural improvements.
A car in 1960 might only cost you $1500, but it also wouldn't have seatbelts, a radio, sat/nat, stereo speakers, power steering, an acceptable crash rating, a gas mileage rating higher than 12-15 mpg, and anti-lock brakes.
It might not be correct, but it's also not a sign of entitlement.
Honestly, I don't see what's so wrong about expecting a job as good as or better than previous generations could get with qualifications far inferior to my own.
Lots of reasons.
First, some of those jobs don't exist anymore.
Second, some of those jobs have been devalued by improved technology.
Third, global competition has severely reduced competition of wages.
Fourth, comparisons between those jobs and the jobs of today are inappropriate as standards and relative costs are higher due to cultural improvements.
A car in 1960 might only cost you $1500, but it also wouldn't have seatbelts, a radio, sat/nat, stereo speakers, power steering, an acceptable crash rating, a gas mileage rating higher than 12-15 mpg, and anti-lock brakes.
It might not be correct, but it's also not a sign of entitlement.
Entitlement to what?
Read the discussion below about how Skye thinks that today's graduates are young punks for thinking that their degrees should be worth something.
Actually companies like degrees alot. They show a certain level of intelligence and hard work.
Sure, you're not going to get a job without a degree, but a degree doesn't imply inherent employment. The tail doesn't wag the dog, as they say.
True, but people complaining about "those arrogant young people"...you know I don't know what their point is supposed to be. They're not being forced to hire anyone. At best it seems to be "wahh! I can't abuse a powerless labor force anymore!".
Considering that the median American is well on track to working harder for less benefit than many other economies with a fraction of our GDP, I'd say expecting that to not happen isn't entitlement. I would expect the opposite, in fact.
There's no reason anyone in the US who is willing to put in 40 hours should be below the poverty line, in my opinion. I mean other than all those multi millionaires needing to buy extra yachts or have extra zeros to leave to their offspring
I'm what you would probably call a "radical" though, it's socialism to think that hard work in the richest land in the history of human civilization should be enough to give you some assurance of quality of life.
Edit: this isn't to piss on people in poorer nations who have it far, far worse, not at all.
override367 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
There's no reason anyone in the US who is willing to put in 40 hours should be below the poverty line, in my opinion.
$10,830 is the single person annual income the federal government defines as at the poverty line.
Minimum wage is $7.25/hr, which when working 40hrs/wk lends to an annual income of about $14,500.
So, no, you're exactly right. There is no reason people working 40 hours a week should be below be poverty line. Because it's kind of impossible.
Oh okay, the federal government says $14,500 a year isn't in poverty, my mistake.
You know full well what I meant. Truth be told I could easily get by on that, but then again cost of living in some parts of the country trounces that, and if you'll noticed I said "be willing to put in 40 hours", not that they would get 40 hours.
A great many businesses keep you under full time to avoid having to pay health insurance (depending on the state)
Also some estimates put nearly a fifth of the country out of work, and I doubt they all want to be out of work.
override367 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Truth be told I could easily get by on that, but then again cost of living in some parts of the country trounces that . . .
I've never thought this to be a very good argument. If a location is too expensive to live in, or live comfortably in, you need to change something about your situation. It's not that community's or society's obligation to fix that problem.
I didn't like how little my income could get me when I lived in NYC. I really like how I'm doing in Texas.
its almost as if welfare is a subjective measure but we can still determine that people generally prefer the more expensive good. Stop talking out of your ass Ross
Goumindong on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Yes I'm sure that we started freaking out over the decline of our manufacturing economy right about the time that we stopped worrying about the decline of our agricultural society. Heck, we're already heating up the panic over the decline of our information market. How fortunate we are that we get to move on to new markets and pass on the old ones to other countries.
Yar on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Yes I'm sure that we started freaking out over the decline of our manufacturing economy right about the time that we stopped worrying about the decline of our agricultural society. Heck, we're already heating up the panic over the decline of our information market. How fortunate we are that we get to move on to new markets and pass on the old ones to other countries.
We really should have bailed out the horse-and-buggy market when we had the chance.
I don't think I could move to texas for anything other than survival. Far away from family, a population that really clashes with my values (aside from the cities obviously), different weather and problems.
I prefer northeast or midwest. Jobs are northeast though.
You definitely need a lot of money to live comfortably up here. I couldn't imagine anyone living in anything other than a cardboard box at $14,500.
Yes I'm sure that we started freaking out over the decline of our manufacturing economy right about the time that we stopped worrying about the decline of our agricultural society. Heck, we're already heating up the panic over the decline of our information market. How fortunate we are that we get to move on to new markets and pass on the old ones to other countries.
We really should have bailed out the horse-and-buggy market when we had the chance.
Look at them now. Pitiful.
We really should have supported the wind turbine market when we had the chance; a market now cornered by Denmark and Germany, countries which still have healthy manufacturing sectors.
ve been hearing from the more radical sides are usually about how when the system collapses in on itself, which by itself is a pretty big assumption that has been tested before and failed, we will revert to scaling down economies and societies and rebuilding everything on a local community-based level. You can see things heading that way already with new urbanism and the local foods movement. It's not just hippies who are moving into communes, I remember seeing an article somewhere about a bunch of eccentric billionaires who made plans to build these self-sustaining cities floating around in the ocean somewhere. For those on the far edge it's about returning to something like pre-columbian native american culture while plenty of contemporary folks are jumping on the bandwagon and pushing for localization, a word I just made up that means the opposite of globalization, while keeping the free market and democracy intact.
I think this is my 4th rant about this on this thread alone so far but this is really the only alternative I see out there to the status quo which is what we're all bitching about so I'm just gonna keep on beating my drum.
The collapse theory, which you're almost spot on in describing, is also more complex both in concept and practice. Marx and the Second Internationale began with the "inevitable" revolution as a means of predicting the advent of socialism. In fact, many smart members of the intellectual communist movement believed that they would, within the decade, see an armed rebellion against capital. This is, in part, a reflection on the Utopian models of the 18th and 19th centuries in which philosophers would plan in intimate detail every aspect of the Utopian society, just as Plato planned his Republic.
Toni Negri, one of the last major Marxist theorists before the mass-shift to neo-Marxism, addresses this question of "collapse" pretty directly in noting that it is, essentially, the conditions of capital to provoke collapse. What Marx, et. all did not account for was the postmodern power structures which push back in a non-dual arrangement. Negri speaks specifically to what he calls the "Crisis of the Planner-State" in which he notes that the function of Keynesian economics is to provide for a grounding point between boom and bust and, most importantly, to postpone and continually "salvage" capital when it tips off the deep end.
We've seen the market destroy and consume itself in a major way at least twice, now. The continual boom and bust cycles we think of as "normal" are also minor functions of the market's same urge to consume itself. The purpose of the modern state (at least in the 1970's) was to regulate, pump-prime and act as a safety net for the market when it begins to implode.
It may not be as simple as "the market will or will not destroy itself", but instead more like "the market attempts to destroy itself and external forces of power must continually save the market".
I'm not certain if the example could be any clearer: we just saw the largest bust since 1929, yet the market survived because government pumped billions of dollars into the market in order to prevent widespread collapse.
I tend to fall into a mixture of Neo-Marxist and Ultra-Leftist (collapse and reorganize) belief. I also know that power will preserve the market at the expense of who or whatever it has it hurt. "Collapse" isn't some inevitable fact, it is a well-documented and understood economic activity which has provoked an immense and violent economic reaction from those who benefit from sustaining the current market.
Yes I'm sure that we started freaking out over the decline of our manufacturing economy right about the time that we stopped worrying about the decline of our agricultural society. Heck, we're already heating up the panic over the decline of our information market. How fortunate we are that we get to move on to new markets and pass on the old ones to other countries.
Yar, I'm immensely convinced that you probably don't actually read things that other people post.
This is an immense perversion of my post and takes a posited single sentence and turns it into a statement that you should know that I don't support.
This is an immense perversion of my post and takes a posited single sentence and turns it into a statement that you should know that I don't support.
True that you in particular were merely commenting that the loss of manufacturing led to an increase need for higher education, but the relevance of that point in the larger conversation you were having seemed very much to be pointing at a common discussion thread regarding the woe that is our so-called "export" of "good" manufacturing jobs. I don't know what your stance is there, so please take my response as a comment on what I saw as the direction of the discussion and not a direct response to your position in it.
- Society expects all children to go to college. Teenagers are bombarded from all sides with this message.
- Colleges advertise themselves based on job placement and promises of high-paying careers to justify the expense.
- Students spend another few years hearing over and over about the incomes they'll be earning.
- Reality.
So, the real reason "they feel entitled" is because everyone's been lying to them their whole life?
- Society expects all children to go to college. Teenagers are bombarded from all sides with this message.
- Colleges advertise themselves based on job placement and promises of high-paying careers to justify the expense.
- Students spend another few years hearing over and over about the incomes they'll be earning.
- Reality.
So, the real reason "they feel entitled" is because everyone's been lying to them their whole life?
Well from what I've heard the majority of young people don't go to college and then a good portion of those that do don't finish. As a whole, people with degrees are a minority. Kinda makes it hard to believe that a degree is necessary for a good job. I know with myself personally I've heard people state on more than one occasion that it isn't necessary for a lot of positions in the art, games, and film industries.
Artistic fields don't really need college at all if you're talented, as your work is demonstrable and speaks for itself. If you're an amazing level designer, you make levels for games and when you apply in the game's industry, your creations will speak more powerfully than a resume saying you got a game design degree will.
In fact I dare say a game design degree is one step above useless.
Edit: Actually artistic degrees are completely worthless if you're not an artist. My sister in law has a degree in graphic design but has no functional artistic ability whatsoever. She couldn't make a simple flash animation if her life depended on it. Shockingly, she hasn't been able to find a job with her degree.
As someone that does the hiring and firing at my job, I've got to say I do see a whole lot of entitlement from my employees with degrees. They tend to behave as if their degree obviously shows how smart and or accomplished they are, so they obviously are doing a great job, regardless of whether or not that is true. I have not found them to be either any better or worse workers than anyone else. It's similar to that guy you know who's way smarter than you, and has great ideas, but never seems to go anywhere because he doesn't have the work ethic to back it up. His intelligence makes him feel too entitled to success to actually achieve it.
A big part of the problem as I see it, is just kind of an economic truth. If you do your job twice as well as your coworker, you will not make twice as much money as him. There are plenty of other benefits such as acquiring useful skills, and having the opportunity to get a better job. Unfortunately these things are less immediate and visceral which makes them significantly less motivating.
I am a big proponent of systems which provide clear steps of advancement, so that when you wake up at the age of twenty-three, and realize you've been doing crappy work for the last five years, you can see the way to change that. I think a good system provides opportunity, rather than privilege and entitlement. I will be happy to pay off my $50,000 in school loans because it will be worth it for me. I want the opportunity to obtain those loans. I also however don't want people requiring a $50,000 degree for a job that doesn't need it.
MentalExercise on
"More fish for Kunta!"
--LeVar Burton
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Yes I'm sure that we started freaking out over the decline of our manufacturing economy right about the time that we stopped worrying about the decline of our agricultural society. Heck, we're already heating up the panic over the decline of our information market. How fortunate we are that we get to move on to new markets and pass on the old ones to other countries.
We really should have bailed out the horse-and-buggy market when we had the chance.
Look at them now. Pitiful.
Support your local blacksmith!
mrt144 on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
This is an immense perversion of my post and takes a posited single sentence and turns it into a statement that you should know that I don't support.
True that you in particular were merely commenting that the loss of manufacturing led to an increase need for higher education, but the relevance of that point in the larger conversation you were having seemed very much to be pointing at a common discussion thread regarding the woe that is our so-called "export" of "good" manufacturing jobs. I don't know what your stance is there, so please take my response as a comment on what I saw as the direction of the discussion and not a direct response to your position in it.
I feel bad for people in countries with cheaper labor being deprived of these good manufacturing jobs. It's like someone expects them to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
As someone that does the hiring and firing at my job, I've got to say I do see a whole lot of entitlement from my employees with degrees. They tend to behave as if their degree obviously shows how smart and or accomplished they are, so they obviously are doing a great job, regardless of whether or not that is true. I have not found them to be either any better or worse workers than anyone else. It's similar to that guy you know who's way smarter than you, and has great ideas, but never seems to go anywhere because he doesn't have the work ethic to back it up. His intelligence makes him feel too entitled to success to actually achieve it.
A big part of the problem as I see it, is just kind of an economic truth. If you do your job twice as well as your coworker, you will not make twice as much money as him. There are plenty of other benefits such as acquiring useful skills, and having the opportunity to get a better job. Unfortunately these things are less immediate and visceral which makes them significantly less motivating.
I am a big proponent of systems which provide clear steps of advancement, so that when you wake up at the age of twenty-three, and realize you've been doing crappy work for the last five years, you can see the way to change that. I think a good system provides opportunity, rather than privilege and entitlement. I will be happy to pay off my $50,000 in school loans because it will be worth it for me. I want the opportunity to obtain those loans. I also however don't want people requiring a $50,000 degree for a job that doesn't need it.
Precisely. What bugs me right now is that, for instance, I know someone who has gone through college in communications. That communications degree, with a specialization in marketing, is not enough. Employers want multiple internships or years of experience - which then begs the question - what's the point of a college degree if in order to get a job, you need the degree AND experience? Couldn't one have obtained that experience through internships, gained real world skills and their applications within the field, rather than wasting money and time on a college degree? And for what? To say you can conform?
If the purpose of a college degree is to get a job and have more knowledge about a specific field...it seems like a lot of that can be obtained through internships.
If a college degree is about making you a better person, expanding your knowledge base, consequently causing you to grow...it needs to be cheaper.
Posts
And all of this leads further to the postulation that the "solution" isn't some grandly imagined utopia, but a concrete march toward the eventual destruction of capital.
In the form of "socialist-capitalism" we can take steps to level the field.
The real revolution will, eventually, be against the amorphous "market", and not, necessarily, against a specific entity as defined in the government-corporate power dynamic.
I think this can be neatly solved by giving them parachutes of actual gold. And then throw them out of an airplane.
This theory-crafting is incredibly interesting. There sounds like a lot of downsides to that "revolution" though, even if the ideal is genuine. I wish I had more to continue the discussion with, and I wish the one entire political science class I took wasn't just a regurgitation of political events in history (so I could contribute more!)
:^:
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
Well the things I've been hearing from the more radical sides are usually about how when the system collapses in on itself, which by itself is a pretty big assumption that has been tested before and failed, we will revert to scaling down economies and societies and rebuilding everything on a local community-based level. You can see things heading that way already with new urbanism and the local foods movement. It's not just hippies who are moving into communes, I remember seeing an article somewhere about a bunch of eccentric billionaires who made plans to build these self-sustaining cities floating around in the ocean somewhere. For those on the far edge it's about returning to something like pre-columbian native american culture while plenty of contemporary folks are jumping on the bandwagon and pushing for localization, a word I just made up that means the opposite of globalization, while keeping the free market and democracy intact.
I think this is my 4th rant about this on this thread alone so far but this is really the only alternative I see out there to the status quo which is what we're all bitching about so I'm just gonna keep on beating my drum.
Or the neocons could completely take over the US and run it into the ground. That might do it.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Just as a sidenote, have you seen The Wire? The first season at least explores this very idea in relation to the War on Drugs as a self-sustaining institution with no distinct entity in charge of it all.
I don't think loss of manufacturing has anything to do with it. Manufacturing (at least, industrialised manufacturing) is by design a task completely lacking creativity.
I'd say it more ... well, marketing. Our children have spent the last like 30 years being sold the idea that you can do what you love. That you can be fulfilled at your job.
And the truth is, most jobs these days AREN'T fulfilling. They are mindless, but necessary, busywork that in no way exploit the creativity of those doing them.
wut.
I've done small time marketing and PR for people. Some graphic design etc. Even teaching on the side.
I wouldn't call any of that lacking creativity. Or not fun - the only parts that weren't fun were the mindless people that would hold you back.
Um, you do understand that what you said it not at all incompatible with what I wrote, right?
Uhh, no. Classic Marxist theory relies on "value added appropriation". Which is to say how the distribution of income due to production occurs between capital and labor[not bosses and labor, capital]
I am not sure how you can argue that the machines are any materially more complex for the worker that now they suddenly don't have an output for their "rage". Then again, they didn't have any output for their rage in Marx's time either[I would suggest reading some Zola, such as Germinal for a decent look at that time period] until it boiled over.
I really don't think these "omg consumerism" has any sort of economic backing in its argument. Psychological and normative backings maybe, but not economic[though possibly economic solutions]
Lots of reasons.
First, some of those jobs don't exist anymore.
Second, some of those jobs have been devalued by improved technology.
Third, global competition has severely reduced competition of wages.
Fourth, comparisons between those jobs and the jobs of today are inappropriate as standards and relative costs are higher due to cultural improvements.
A car in 1960 might only cost you $1500, but it also wouldn't have seatbelts, a radio, sat/nat, stereo speakers, power steering, an acceptable crash rating, a gas mileage rating higher than 12-15 mpg, and anti-lock brakes.
It might not be correct, but it's also not a sign of entitlement.
Entitlement to what?
Read the discussion below about how Skye thinks that today's graduates are young punks for thinking that their degrees should be worth something.
Well that's all subjective to the market and the person, isn't it?
Most companies these days are onto the fact that a degree on its own can be fairly useless and obtained easily.
Actually companies like degrees alot. They show a certain level of intelligence and hard work.
The thing is, alot (most? all?) of those degrees are NOT gonna get you a high paying job with interesting work.
Sure, you're not going to get a job without a degree, but a degree doesn't imply inherent employment. The tail doesn't wag the dog, as they say.
True, but people complaining about "those arrogant young people"...you know I don't know what their point is supposed to be. They're not being forced to hire anyone. At best it seems to be "wahh! I can't abuse a powerless labor force anymore!".
There's no reason anyone in the US who is willing to put in 40 hours should be below the poverty line, in my opinion. I mean other than all those multi millionaires needing to buy extra yachts or have extra zeros to leave to their offspring
I'm what you would probably call a "radical" though, it's socialism to think that hard work in the richest land in the history of human civilization should be enough to give you some assurance of quality of life.
Edit: this isn't to piss on people in poorer nations who have it far, far worse, not at all.
$10,830 is the single person annual income the federal government defines as at the poverty line.
Minimum wage is $7.25/hr, which when working 40hrs/wk lends to an annual income of about $14,500.
So, no, you're exactly right. There is no reason people working 40 hours a week should be below be poverty line. Because it's kind of impossible.
Oh okay, the federal government says $14,500 a year isn't in poverty, my mistake.
You know full well what I meant. Truth be told I could easily get by on that, but then again cost of living in some parts of the country trounces that, and if you'll noticed I said "be willing to put in 40 hours", not that they would get 40 hours.
A great many businesses keep you under full time to avoid having to pay health insurance (depending on the state)
Also some estimates put nearly a fifth of the country out of work, and I doubt they all want to be out of work.
I've never thought this to be a very good argument. If a location is too expensive to live in, or live comfortably in, you need to change something about your situation. It's not that community's or society's obligation to fix that problem.
I didn't like how little my income could get me when I lived in NYC. I really like how I'm doing in Texas.
?
We really should have bailed out the horse-and-buggy market when we had the chance.
Look at them now. Pitiful.
I prefer northeast or midwest. Jobs are northeast though.
You definitely need a lot of money to live comfortably up here. I couldn't imagine anyone living in anything other than a cardboard box at $14,500.
We really should have supported the wind turbine market when we had the chance; a market now cornered by Denmark and Germany, countries which still have healthy manufacturing sectors.
The collapse theory, which you're almost spot on in describing, is also more complex both in concept and practice. Marx and the Second Internationale began with the "inevitable" revolution as a means of predicting the advent of socialism. In fact, many smart members of the intellectual communist movement believed that they would, within the decade, see an armed rebellion against capital. This is, in part, a reflection on the Utopian models of the 18th and 19th centuries in which philosophers would plan in intimate detail every aspect of the Utopian society, just as Plato planned his Republic.
Toni Negri, one of the last major Marxist theorists before the mass-shift to neo-Marxism, addresses this question of "collapse" pretty directly in noting that it is, essentially, the conditions of capital to provoke collapse. What Marx, et. all did not account for was the postmodern power structures which push back in a non-dual arrangement. Negri speaks specifically to what he calls the "Crisis of the Planner-State" in which he notes that the function of Keynesian economics is to provide for a grounding point between boom and bust and, most importantly, to postpone and continually "salvage" capital when it tips off the deep end.
We've seen the market destroy and consume itself in a major way at least twice, now. The continual boom and bust cycles we think of as "normal" are also minor functions of the market's same urge to consume itself. The purpose of the modern state (at least in the 1970's) was to regulate, pump-prime and act as a safety net for the market when it begins to implode.
It may not be as simple as "the market will or will not destroy itself", but instead more like "the market attempts to destroy itself and external forces of power must continually save the market".
I'm not certain if the example could be any clearer: we just saw the largest bust since 1929, yet the market survived because government pumped billions of dollars into the market in order to prevent widespread collapse.
I tend to fall into a mixture of Neo-Marxist and Ultra-Leftist (collapse and reorganize) belief. I also know that power will preserve the market at the expense of who or whatever it has it hurt. "Collapse" isn't some inevitable fact, it is a well-documented and understood economic activity which has provoked an immense and violent economic reaction from those who benefit from sustaining the current market.
Yar, I'm immensely convinced that you probably don't actually read things that other people post.
This is an immense perversion of my post and takes a posited single sentence and turns it into a statement that you should know that I don't support.
- Society expects all children to go to college. Teenagers are bombarded from all sides with this message.
- Colleges advertise themselves based on job placement and promises of high-paying careers to justify the expense.
- Students spend another few years hearing over and over about the incomes they'll be earning.
- Reality.
So, the real reason "they feel entitled" is because everyone's been lying to them their whole life?
Well from what I've heard the majority of young people don't go to college and then a good portion of those that do don't finish. As a whole, people with degrees are a minority. Kinda makes it hard to believe that a degree is necessary for a good job. I know with myself personally I've heard people state on more than one occasion that it isn't necessary for a lot of positions in the art, games, and film industries.
In fact I dare say a game design degree is one step above useless.
Edit: Actually artistic degrees are completely worthless if you're not an artist. My sister in law has a degree in graphic design but has no functional artistic ability whatsoever. She couldn't make a simple flash animation if her life depended on it. Shockingly, she hasn't been able to find a job with her degree.
A big part of the problem as I see it, is just kind of an economic truth. If you do your job twice as well as your coworker, you will not make twice as much money as him. There are plenty of other benefits such as acquiring useful skills, and having the opportunity to get a better job. Unfortunately these things are less immediate and visceral which makes them significantly less motivating.
I am a big proponent of systems which provide clear steps of advancement, so that when you wake up at the age of twenty-three, and realize you've been doing crappy work for the last five years, you can see the way to change that. I think a good system provides opportunity, rather than privilege and entitlement. I will be happy to pay off my $50,000 in school loans because it will be worth it for me. I want the opportunity to obtain those loans. I also however don't want people requiring a $50,000 degree for a job that doesn't need it.
--LeVar Burton
Support your local blacksmith!
I feel bad for people in countries with cheaper labor being deprived of these good manufacturing jobs. It's like someone expects them to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Precisely. What bugs me right now is that, for instance, I know someone who has gone through college in communications. That communications degree, with a specialization in marketing, is not enough. Employers want multiple internships or years of experience - which then begs the question - what's the point of a college degree if in order to get a job, you need the degree AND experience? Couldn't one have obtained that experience through internships, gained real world skills and their applications within the field, rather than wasting money and time on a college degree? And for what? To say you can conform?
If the purpose of a college degree is to get a job and have more knowledge about a specific field...it seems like a lot of that can be obtained through internships.
If a college degree is about making you a better person, expanding your knowledge base, consequently causing you to grow...it needs to be cheaper.