On the Nature of Things | Forum

http://theleisuresociety.tumblr.com/pos ... a-linkfest

This guy has an interesting comment that I hadn't thought of. Crowd-sourcing represents a massive explosion of productive leisuretime activity that is not paid for and that this is disruptive to capital formation.

My thoughts on that are that is that it has ruined a lot of potential lucrative low-wage jobs that companies crowd-source instead of paying workers. It also undermines capital because if a crowd-sourcing effort is effective then it is difficult to compete when it costs you money.

Enki wrote:http://theleisuresociety.tumblr.com/pos ... a-linkfest

This guy has an interesting comment that I hadn't thought of. Crowd-sourcing represents a massive explosion of productive leisuretime activity that is not paid for and that this is disruptive to capital formation.

My thoughts on that are that is that it has ruined a lot of potential lucrative low-wage jobs that companies crowd-source instead of paying workers. It also undermines capital because if a crowd-sourcing effort is effective then it is difficult to compete when it costs you money.

Interesting articles and comments.

I don't see how this is undermining "capital." How do you define capital in this instance?

Seems to be efficient use of people's skills and capital. Sounds like the concept of "neighbors" on a larger scale.

Hurray for capitalism and volutary transactions!!

Those who choose to work ("perform tasks?") for small wages today, are usually learning skills and discipline that will increase their value tomorrow. Often value can not be measured in $. Many people may simply be doing things for the challenge, boredom, the need to feel useful, recreation, or just being social.

Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, guys find solving problems satisfying, woman find nurturing satisfying. Volutary transactions satisfy both.

Those who have invested in status quo power structures (politicans, unions, corporations) may find this disturbing, but so what, life is always dynamic, people change, conditions change.

He who adapts fastest, will always piss off the others......

i tend to agree with simple minded on this - its more tech enabling good ole community cooperation and community cooperation has always made both public and private suppliers of service irrelevant... much to the chagrin of both... mayhaps some new legislation on safety is required

I would like to see a poll of say 500 people who claim to be supporters of unions and higher minimum wage laws to see if they are philosophically consistent and oppose crowd sourcing and free market financing.

Simple Minded wrote:I don't see how this is undermining "capital."

Agreed. If people are willing to work for free, it undermines labor, not capital. Capital gains at labor's expense.

Simple Minded wrote:I would like to see a poll of say 500 people who claim to be supporters of unions and higher minimum wage laws to see if they are philosophically consistent and oppose crowd sourcing and free market financing.

I don't see how it is inconsistent. Freedom of Association, which is protected by the Constitution, gives people the right to unionize and also gives people the right to cooperate on a project, regardless of whether they receive monetary compensation or not.

i think the american hypercapitalist mentality seems to really get into the fine lines on these issues - one of my friends over here who is very much into america is always saying things like "dont pick up your rubbish at mc donalds, that kills the job of some poor teenager".

in aus their is lots of volunteer based services - the bulk of the fire departments here are volunteer because we are so prone to bushfires that it would be incredibly expensive to make all that government service so the costs are reduced by paying for the equipment only and relying on the fact that most people do have an interest in stopping their suburb burning down.

noddy wrote:i think the american hypercapitalist mentality seems to really get into the fine lines on these issues - one of my friends over here who is very much into america is always saying things like "dont pick up your rubbish at mc donalds, that kills the job of some poor teenager".

in aus their is lots of volunteer based services - the bulk of the fire departments here are volunteer because we are so prone to bushfires that it would be incredibly expensive to make all that government service so the costs are reduced by paying for the equipment only and relying on the fact that most people do have an interest in stopping their suburb burning down.

I work for the federal government, and our building is cleaned by a union contractor. We are literally forbidden from cleaning up after ourselves, emptying trash, etc. I'm not joking... there are actual rules.

Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:

noddy wrote:i think the american hypercapitalist mentality seems to really get into the fine lines on these issues - one of my friends over here who is very much into america is always saying things like "dont pick up your rubbish at mc donalds, that kills the job of some poor teenager".

in aus their is lots of volunteer based services - the bulk of the fire departments here are volunteer because we are so prone to bushfires that it would be incredibly expensive to make all that government service so the costs are reduced by paying for the equipment only and relying on the fact that most people do have an interest in stopping their suburb burning down.

I work for the federal government, and our building is cleaned by a union contractor. We are literally forbidden from cleaning up after ourselves, emptying trash, etc. I'm not joking... there are actual rules.

It's getting bad. The men's room at the restaurant we went to last night had a sign over the sink - "Employees Must Wash Hands". We can't even wash our own hands anymore?

Azrael wrote:

Simple Minded wrote:I would like to see a poll of say 500 people who claim to be supporters of unions and higher minimum wage laws to see if they are philosophically consistent and oppose crowd sourcing and free market financing.

I don't see how it is inconsistent. Freedom of Association, which is protected by the Constitution, gives people the right to unionize and also gives people the right to cooperate on a project, regardless of whether they receive monetary compensation or not.

You are right that it is freedom of association that allows people to unionize, but unions are very much anti freedom of association when it comes to employers firing incompetent or dishonest existing workers or saboteurs. When the whole clan sticks together to protect those who are doing things that are illegal, that strikes me as more coercive than voluntary.

Unions are also very much anti freedom of association when it comes to the interaction between potential new hires and employers. The most ironic sight I saw during OWS was the unemployed college grad protesting along side the existing union member. The goal of one was to get a job, the goal of the other was to prevent any potential competitor from getting "their" job.

Most of my experience with unions comes from dealing with the UAW, and a few small local construction unions, I'm sure most unions are not anywhere near as corrupt or coercive as what I have witnessed.

Not something one usually hears, which is good. Another one floating around has capital in the opposite role of undermining capital, chiefly by neglecting crucial investments in innovation and RnD and instead lusting and chasing over the vast labor "dumps" of the BRIC nations (chiefly China and India) plus Bangladesh and Vietnam. Why bother investing in potentially groundbreaking technology when you increase your profits and productivity by recruiting those Asian workers for $3-$20 at most a day?

Simple Minded wrote: You are right that it is freedom of association that allows people to unionize, but unions are very much anti freedom of association when it comes to employers firing incompetent or dishonest existing workers or saboteurs. When the whole clan sticks together to protect those who are doing things that are illegal, that strikes me as more coercive than voluntary.

That is part of the union agreement and is therefore covered under freedom of association. I don't see why you have a problem with this unless you also have a problem with contracts and agreements.

Unions are also very much anti freedom of association when it comes to the interaction between potential new hires and employers. The most ironic sight I saw during OWS was the unemployed college grad protesting along side the existing union member. The goal of one was to get a job, the goal of the other was to prevent any potential competitor from getting "their" job.

Are you sure you know what 'freedom of association' means? I don't see how any of this is inconsistent with that notion. The problems you seem to have with unions are also problems in non-union workplaces (e.g., office politics, cronyism, discrimination, elitism, etc.)

Most of my experience with unions comes from dealing with the UAW, and a few small local construction unions, I'm sure most unions are not anywhere near as corrupt or coercive as what I have witnessed.

Unions have certainly gone on the defensive because of their decline. Most of the workforce is not unionized, however, and you are only seeing a very small fraction of the US labor force at work when dealing even with the UAW. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill and the anti-labor corporate forces that have dominated our politics and economy for the last few decades are very happy to keep the spotlight on unions while they make off like bandits with your (and your childrens') future.

Ammianus wrote:Not something one usually hears, which is good. Another one floating around has capital in the opposite role of undermining capital, chiefly by neglecting crucial investments in innovation and RnD and instead lusting and chasing over the vast labor "dumps" of the BRIC nations (chiefly China and India) plus Bangladesh and Vietnam. Why bother investing in potentially groundbreaking technology when you increase your profits and productivity by recruiting those Asian workers for $3-$20 at most a day?

The elimination of long time horizon R&D is an interesting phenomenon. Of course, neither frictionless, efficient markets nor capitalism itself are guarantors of innovation. It is certainly possible that money can be made without innovation and if that becomes sufficiently easy relative to long-term endeavours, then naturally, the path of least resistance will be taken. Having spent some time in solid state physics, I'm contnually amazed at the primitve, linear thinking demonstrated by the most ardent free marketeers.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:

noddy wrote:i think the american hypercapitalist mentality seems to really get into the fine lines on these issues - one of my friends over here who is very much into america is always saying things like "dont pick up your rubbish at mc donalds, that kills the job of some poor teenager".

in aus their is lots of volunteer based services - the bulk of the fire departments here are volunteer because we are so prone to bushfires that it would be incredibly expensive to make all that government service so the costs are reduced by paying for the equipment only and relying on the fact that most people do have an interest in stopping their suburb burning down.

I work for the federal government, and our building is cleaned by a union contractor. We are literally forbidden from cleaning up after ourselves, emptying trash, etc. I'm not joking... there are actual rules.

It's getting bad. The men's room at the restaurant we went to last night had a sign over the sink - "Employees Must Wash Hands". We can't even wash our own hands anymore?

Very good.

Reminds me of the now classic

Ammianus wrote:Not something one usually hears, which is good. Another one floating around has capital in the opposite role of undermining capital, chiefly by neglecting crucial investments in innovation and RnD and instead lusting and chasing over the vast labor "dumps" of the BRIC nations (chiefly China and India) plus Bangladesh and Vietnam. Why bother investing in potentially groundbreaking technology when you increase your profits and productivity by recruiting those Asian workers for $3-$20 at most a day?

They also undermine their consumer base this way.

Zack Morris wrote:

Simple Minded wrote: You are right that it is freedom of association that allows people to unionize, but unions are very much anti freedom of association when it comes to employers firing incompetent or dishonest existing workers or saboteurs. When the whole clan sticks together to protect those who are doing things that are illegal, that strikes me as more coercive than voluntary.

That is part of the union agreement and is therefore covered under freedom of association. I don't see why you have a problem with this unless you also have a problem with contracts and agreements.

Unions are also very much anti freedom of association when it comes to the interaction between potential new hires and employers. The most ironic sight I saw during OWS was the unemployed college grad protesting along side the existing union member. The goal of one was to get a job, the goal of the other was to prevent any potential competitor from getting "their" job.

Are you sure you know what 'freedom of association' means? I don't see how any of this is inconsistent with that notion. The problems you seem to have with unions are also problems in non-union workplaces (e.g., office politics, cronyism, discrimination, elitism, etc.)

Most of my experience with unions comes from dealing with the UAW, and a few small local construction unions, I'm sure most unions are not anywhere near as corrupt or coercive as what I have witnessed.

Unions have certainly gone on the defensive because of their decline. Most of the workforce is not unionized, however, and you are only seeing a very small fraction of the US labor force at work when dealing even with the UAW. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill and the anti-labor corporate forces that have dominated our politics and economy for the last few decades are very happy to keep the spotlight on unions while they make off like bandits with your (and your childrens') future.

Zack, Are you talking about theory or your personal experience? I am talking about what I have witnessed. Since humans don't need knowledge to form opinions, don't expect me to value your opinion regarding my experience of which you have no knowledge.

Unions are representations of freedom of association, as I said. In much the same way that the KKK or the Black Panthers are representations of freedom of association. People freely join a group for the protection that exists in numbers, or to gain an advantage over the little guy who is not part of the larger gang. Once the group is formed, to say the goal is continued freedom of association is ignorant. The goal is power and the spoils that go with it.

What happened in Wisconsin was an excellent example, all the spinmeisters, observing from a distance had opinions without knowledge. Was the issue of the day gaining liberation thru the union from corporate oppression? Or gaining liberation thru the corporation from union oppression? At the end of the day, given the right to vote to determine their futures, the little guys voted 2 to 1 to dump the unions. I imagine the little guy on the street had much better information than the casual observer/spinmeister hundreds of miles away. Another day, another town, different corporations, different unions, I would expect different outcomes. A generation from now, I woud expect the reverse will occur in WI.

Believe it or not, there are cities and counties in America today, where if you stop for lunch, and your vehicle has some magnetic signs on it that say "Zack's Contracting" when you get back from lunch you will find your vehicle vandalized beyond drivability because you had the audacity of accidentally trespassing in a union controlled region. Luckily, they didn't catch you at a stop sign, or they would have broke your legs.

When you find yourself (or worse, one of your loved ones) on the nasty end of sabotage and physical violence, I think your defintion of voluntary association will align quite nicely with my own definition.

Be advised, there are parts of this world are very, very different from what you imagine.