The Yes Men

[chequita guevara]

For efficiency's sake, specialization is indeed a nice thing. On the other hand, specialization has reduced people in many jobs into an appendage of a machine. This has the effect of causing people to be alienated from their work. Yay, I'm the most efficient button pusher on the assembly line. Efficiency for the market isn't necessarily efficiency for the worker or for society.

But efficiency also means we can do more work for less effort. So increasing efficiency also means that we won't need to work as much. In capitalism, increasing efficiency, i.e., increasing productivity doesn't lead to less work. It leads to more people being out of work, at least until the market figures out a use for them, if it does.

Productivity has increased more than 200% since 1949. That means, we could live 1949 middle class life styles on 20 hours a week work. Depending on which economist you believe, productivity doubles every 33 to 25 years, meaning that by 2034 to 2042, we could live a 1949 middle class lifestyle for ten hours of work a week.

Fantasies aside, in the 1960s, capitalism had become so productive that almost half of labor was used on non-productive activities, activities that don't add to the overall society: things like advertisement, sales, the military, etc. It had increased to 55% by the mid 80s. So even if we wanted to live at today's living standards, we could have all the productivity for half the work. Add in the people who don't work at all, and we're adding some serious free time to our lives.

I think we can have some extra inefficiency in garbage collection by sharing the necessary maintenance work rof society, with certain specialists remaining, like the engineers and scientists who maintain the dumps and water treatment plants, etc., without really harming society Course, the day's not far off when garbage collection will be handled by robots. Think, giant Roombas.

As for trying to win people over, I don't try and win people over on Poly. I just do this to have fun and have flaws in my thinking pointed out, so I can rethink things.

And I just made a key lime pie. I'd share, but you're there and I'm here. It's an heirloom recipe, with a shortbread crust and meringue instead of graham cracker crust and whipped cream. Hope it works. Wife might not be happy.

[Solomwi]

And I just made a key lime pie. I'd share, but you're there and I'm here. It's an heirloom recipe, with a shortbread crust and meringue instead of graham cracker crust and whipped cream. Hope it works. Wife might not be happy.

You may be a dirty commie, but I can never think too badly of someone who appreciates a good key lime pie.

[ricketyclik]

For efficiency's sake, specialization is indeed a nice thing. On the other hand, specialization has reduced people in many jobs into an appendage of a machine. This has the effect of causing people to be alienated from their work. Yay, I'm the most efficient button pusher on the assembly line. Efficiency for the market isn't necessarily efficiency for the worker or for society.

But efficiency also means we can do more work for less effort. So increasing efficiency also means that we won't need to work as much. In capitalism, increasing efficiency, i.e., increasing productivity doesn't lead to less work. It leads to more people being out of work, at least until the market figures out a use for them, if it does.

Productivity has increased more than 200% since 1949. That means, we could live 1949 middle class life styles on 20 hours a week work. Depending on which economist you believe, productivity doubles every 33 to 25 years, meaning that by 2034 to 2042, we could live a 1949 middle class lifestyle for ten hours of work a week.

Fantasies aside, in the 1960s, capitalism had become so productive that almost half of labor was used on non-productive activities, activities that don't add to the overall society: things like advertisement, sales, the military, etc. It had increased to 55% by the mid 80s. So even if we wanted to live at today's living standards, we could have all the productivity for half the work. Add in the people who don't work at all, and we're adding some serious free time to our lives.

I think we can have some extra inefficiency in garbage collection by sharing the necessary maintenance work rof society, with certain specialists remaining, like the engineers and scientists who maintain the dumps and water treatment plants, etc., without really harming society Course, the day's not far off when garbage collection will be handled by robots. Think, giant Roombas.

As for trying to win people over, I don't try and win people over on Poly. I just do this to have fun and have flaws in my thinking pointed out, so I can rethink things.

And I just made a key lime pie. I'd share, but you're there and I'm here. It's an heirloom recipe, with a shortbread crust and meringue instead of graham cracker crust and whipped cream. Hope it works. Wife might not be happy.

I basically agree re. the productivity being wasted in capitalism argument, but still there are so many specialist positions. I think the better way is to retain specialisation and work 50% less. If only my boss would see it my way

[Imran Siddiqui]

A lot of the necessary but unpleasant tasks can be handled either collectively, i.e., the second week of May is your day to collect garbage on the garbage truck

Hahahahaha... oh, you were serious

Good luck with selling that

[ZEE]

It's great in the real world too, especially when human beings get involved. What's not so great is stupid people repeating the same tired argument about it being great on paper until you get human beings involved.

you just lost my vote, wow you're not a very good politician are you? :wiglaf:

[BunnyGrrl]

um, i think chegitz is just a wee bit cranky when he gets bombarded with the same defeatist arguments that were used for like a hundred some years....people seem to have so little faith in humanity and come up with nihilistic horsetwattle. I'd like people to come to revolutionary socialism from an optimistic place and a real understanding of how we live in cooperation with our fellow humans most everyday. Everyday we entrust our livelihoods to bank personnel. Our food production to food process workers. Most of us don't kill our neighbors even if we really cant stand that racket they call music, etc....

[Kuciwalker]

For efficiency's sake, specialization is indeed a nice thing. On the other hand, specialization has reduced people in many jobs into an appendage of a machine. This has the effect of causing people to be alienated from their work. Yay, I'm the most efficient button pusher on the assembly line. Efficiency for the market isn't necessarily efficiency for the worker or for society.

This is meaningless until you provide a metric for "efficiency for the worker" or "efficiency for society" as distinct from the efficiency of the market as traditionally understood.

But efficiency also means we can do more work for less effort. So increasing efficiency also means that we won't need to work as much. In capitalism, increasing efficiency, i.e., increasing productivity doesn't lead to less work. It leads to more people being out of work, at least until the market figures out a use for them, if it does.

Can you even see the blatant internal contradiction in this paragraph?

Productivity has increased more than 200% since 1949. That means, we could live 1949 middle class life styles on 20 hours a week work.

Non sequitur. You haven't established that individual production scales with individual hours worked.

Depending on which economist you believe, productivity doubles every 33 to 25 years, meaning that by 2034 to 2042, we could live a 1949 middle class lifestyle for ten hours of work a week.

See above. You introduce an additional flaw here: assumption that this 'doubling time' wouldn't increase as we reduced hours worked.

Fantasies aside, in the 1960s, capitalism had become so productive that almost half of labor was used on non-productive activities, activities that don't add to the overall society: things like advertisement, sales, the military, etc. It had increased to 55% by the mid 80s. So even if we wanted to live at today's living standards, we could have all the productivity for half the work. Add in the people who don't work at all, and we're adding some serious free time to our lives.

Apart from repeating the fallacies above, you introduce several additional flaws:
1) Some [much? most?] of this 'non-productive labor' would be things like environmental regulators, police, etc., or things like management or the financial industry. Removing these would reduce efficiency and therefore output.
2) If you "add in the people who don't work at all" you will be adding in many people who don't work because they're unemployable.

I think we can have some extra inefficiency in garbage collection by sharing the necessary maintenance work rof society, with certain specialists remaining, like the engineers and scientists who maintain the dumps and water treatment plants, etc., without really harming society Course, the day's not far off when garbage collection will be handled by robots. Think, giant Roombas.

Multiple flaws here:
1) You, personally, would be willing to accept a lower standard of living in return for reduced working hours. Why can't you achieve this by... working fewer hours and accepting a pay cut? [Hint: it's because of the fallacy above.]
2) Most people are not willing to accept a lower standard of living in return for reduced working hours.
2a) A substantial part of that reduced standard of living would be a regression of the quality of health care.
3) Similar to above, the day of giant Roombas may be put off indefinitely if all of your robotics PhDs are working 20-hour weeks instead of 70-hour weeks.

[a.kitman]

problem whit this movie is that its basicly one and a half hour whit two jokes. and the rest is basicly them explaining to the viewer that they should laugh.

i do endorse more pranks like this tho

[Sava]

There are jobs that absolutely no one would volunteer for, such as going down in a sewer, collecting garbage, working in a factory on a 90 degree day... my guess is that you would not do a lousy, sweaty, backbreaking job either. So, unless society gets to the point where you need nothing to survive, your idea isn't going to work. I think you may have been smokin' one & watching Startrek The Next Generation when you thought this up. Nice idea tho

You've never lived on a farm before, huh?

[Sava]

Most of us don't kill our neighbors

speak for yourself

[chequita guevara]

you just lost my vote, wow you're not a very good politician are you? :wiglaf:

Do you live in my congressional district? No, then I don't care about your vote.

[DirtyMartini]

no, i am a Buddhist.

When did that happen? Blake all over again?

[Zevico]

um, i think chegitz is just a wee bit cranky when he gets bombarded with the same defeatist arguments that were used for like a hundred some years....people seem to have so little faith in humanity and come up with nihilistic horsetwattle. I'd like people to come to revolutionary socialism from an optimistic place and a real understanding of how we live in cooperation with our fellow humans most everyday. Everyday we entrust our livelihoods to bank personnel. Our food production to food process workers. Most of us don't kill our neighbors even if we really cant stand that racket they call music, etc....

Get back to us when your 'political' movement amounts to more than a bizarre religious sect.

[chequita guevara]

It already is. Look around the world.

[Sava]

bizarre religious sect

redundant