Is that the argument? Because the person I responded to said ‘people shouldn’t have jobs’
If you are arguing for an anti capitalist (or what appears to be an anti commerce) position, it’s almost entirely irrelevant.
No matter what, people will have to work, whether it is homesteading or a global network of logistics, food has to be grown and since we have a generally global society, goods and services need to be provided all around the planet, regardless if people are getting paid or exploited to do so.
I’m arguing that we have rights to our collective infrastructure. You seem to be incorrectly correlating infrastructure existing to infrastructure being owned or something? Or having to require some specific person to create or maintain it?
Work can and will get done without remuneration.
We don’t need servitude to an organization, which is what a job is.
Sooo, what do we call the thing that is a collection of work in which someone is expected to complete it? Maybe a jobby instead?
I mean I don’t really get what the argument is here, are you mad at the word job? No matter what, the role of ‘farmer’ will exist and will be a full time [collection of work that the person in the role is expected to complete] in which other people will be dependant on them doing. You can call it a shmackadoodle if you want, it doesn’t change it’s existence.
A job is a collection of work, sometimes for pay, sometimes not, but really this is idiotic pedantry, if the argument that op was making is that communism is great, or, I don’t want to work, or people should not have to work to survive, then they should have stated that. But claiming jobs aren’t natural is just stupid, conceptually, they are just as natural as anything else humanity has developed since basic agriculture.
And besides all of that, the point doesn’t make sense anyway, the right to a job is a great thing, rights are not obligations, fundamentally the right to a job doesn’t mean you have to have one.
We don’t need to designate specific people to specific work, there’s no real reason for that except to assume that the person with the job is qualified. This is detrimental, qualifications can be maintained without jobs.
I know a dozen people that would be excited to drive heavy equipment and crush things, I don’t think garbage collection would be as hard to staff as you think.
People would also have the opportunity to skill up and become qualified for a larger range of work if they were not committed to a single role as well. It seems like jobs reduce labour liquidity.
Garbage collection, sure, what about the engineers that designed the garbage truck, the manufacturing process, the miners, the chemical engineers figuring out how to properly handle it the mechanics repairing it, the planners designing routes, the mangers coordinating between the many many people that it takes to do this etc.
However that is irrelevant to the conversation at hand, which is, that of a right to a job and whether or not a job is natural and should exist. Collecting garbage is a job by any reasonable definition, whether you are paid to do it or not, or if you do it every single day or not. That’s why we have words for those scenarios such as ‘paid full time job’.
If you want to engage, I would ask that you actually respond to my statements instead of of just responding with non sequiturs.
I don’t even know what your point is, because you haven’t stated it clearly, at first you claimed that you are arguing for rights to collective infrastructure, which is completely and wholly unrelated to that of a right to and the existence of the concept of a job (again, the topic at hand), and now you seem to be arguing against something that doesn’t exist (at least not in the United States) which is that people are committed to a single role. I have changed careers multiple times, cross trained, and have degrees in different fields. Part time, contract, and freelance jobs exist. It isn’t illegal for you to hop between jobs, or work multiple jobs at once there are no obligations for you to have a specific job.
If your point is about the money attached, i again would argue that it’s irrelevant, the concept of a job is fundamentally divorced from any payment, charge, reward, or punishment. Jobs will always exist, because collections of work need to be accomplished (someone will always have to take the trash) and the right to a job is a good thing because it allows, but does not obligate, an individual to make a choice about their contribution while guaranteeing both outcomes are available, which is giving a person freedom.
So I ask again, what would you call a collection of related work and tasks that need to be done?
My point is, jobs and work aren’t the same thing. We can organise and complete work without it being a job.
It seems like you are using the term job to mean only a collection of work, and I’m using it to describe not that, but the ownership and employment paradigm that people think of when they “get a job”
The ownership of work stops being a “job” when it’s a collective responsibility.
Yeah sure, but unlike a job, the Internet and computers are the en vogue method of communications, access to which is absolutely essential.
Who do you think built all of it? It didn’t just magically appear for us to consume. Throughout history people have worked hard to make all of this.
People work without being exploited. Nice things can be done without money exchanging hands.
Is that the argument? Because the person I responded to said ‘people shouldn’t have jobs’
If you are arguing for an anti capitalist (or what appears to be an anti commerce) position, it’s almost entirely irrelevant.
No matter what, people will have to work, whether it is homesteading or a global network of logistics, food has to be grown and since we have a generally global society, goods and services need to be provided all around the planet, regardless if people are getting paid or exploited to do so.
I’m arguing that we have rights to our collective infrastructure. You seem to be incorrectly correlating infrastructure existing to infrastructure being owned or something? Or having to require some specific person to create or maintain it?
Work can and will get done without remuneration.
We don’t need servitude to an organization, which is what a job is.
Sooo, what do we call the thing that is a collection of work in which someone is expected to complete it? Maybe a jobby instead?
I mean I don’t really get what the argument is here, are you mad at the word job? No matter what, the role of ‘farmer’ will exist and will be a full time [collection of work that the person in the role is expected to complete] in which other people will be dependant on them doing. You can call it a shmackadoodle if you want, it doesn’t change it’s existence.
A job is a collection of work, sometimes for pay, sometimes not, but really this is idiotic pedantry, if the argument that op was making is that communism is great, or, I don’t want to work, or people should not have to work to survive, then they should have stated that. But claiming jobs aren’t natural is just stupid, conceptually, they are just as natural as anything else humanity has developed since basic agriculture.
And besides all of that, the point doesn’t make sense anyway, the right to a job is a great thing, rights are not obligations, fundamentally the right to a job doesn’t mean you have to have one.
We don’t need to designate specific people to specific work, there’s no real reason for that except to assume that the person with the job is qualified. This is detrimental, qualifications can be maintained without jobs.
I know a dozen people that would be excited to drive heavy equipment and crush things, I don’t think garbage collection would be as hard to staff as you think.
People would also have the opportunity to skill up and become qualified for a larger range of work if they were not committed to a single role as well. It seems like jobs reduce labour liquidity.
Garbage collection, sure, what about the engineers that designed the garbage truck, the manufacturing process, the miners, the chemical engineers figuring out how to properly handle it the mechanics repairing it, the planners designing routes, the mangers coordinating between the many many people that it takes to do this etc.
However that is irrelevant to the conversation at hand, which is, that of a right to a job and whether or not a job is natural and should exist. Collecting garbage is a job by any reasonable definition, whether you are paid to do it or not, or if you do it every single day or not. That’s why we have words for those scenarios such as ‘paid full time job’.
If you want to engage, I would ask that you actually respond to my statements instead of of just responding with non sequiturs.
I don’t even know what your point is, because you haven’t stated it clearly, at first you claimed that you are arguing for rights to collective infrastructure, which is completely and wholly unrelated to that of a right to and the existence of the concept of a job (again, the topic at hand), and now you seem to be arguing against something that doesn’t exist (at least not in the United States) which is that people are committed to a single role. I have changed careers multiple times, cross trained, and have degrees in different fields. Part time, contract, and freelance jobs exist. It isn’t illegal for you to hop between jobs, or work multiple jobs at once there are no obligations for you to have a specific job.
If your point is about the money attached, i again would argue that it’s irrelevant, the concept of a job is fundamentally divorced from any payment, charge, reward, or punishment. Jobs will always exist, because collections of work need to be accomplished (someone will always have to take the trash) and the right to a job is a good thing because it allows, but does not obligate, an individual to make a choice about their contribution while guaranteeing both outcomes are available, which is giving a person freedom. So I ask again, what would you call a collection of related work and tasks that need to be done?
My point is, jobs and work aren’t the same thing. We can organise and complete work without it being a job.
It seems like you are using the term job to mean only a collection of work, and I’m using it to describe not that, but the ownership and employment paradigm that people think of when they “get a job”
The ownership of work stops being a “job” when it’s a collective responsibility.