It’s a meme

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately in the case of econ 101, you are taught that 2+2=5 most modern econ is neoclassical, which means operating on pre-marx economics and just ignoring marxist critiques of the political economy.

    and money falls from the sky, and everyone being lazy leads to growth, I’ll ask them to justify.

    Thats a mighty strawman you invented. Workers are going to do the bare minimum to not get fired when it literally doesn’t matter how much they work, their income will be the same. When workers are invested in an organization, they do more work.

    • @Devouring
      link
      01 year ago

      Either answer my questions, or go away. This conversation is over.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Your only question is “what am I missing” and the answer is an economics education.

        But to address your “concerns” you’re operating on the mindset of maximizing profit to compete against other firms maximizing profit, which is only a problem under capitalism (until you reach the monopoly stage)

        • @Devouring
          link
          01 year ago

          Nice try evading the question. Try again.

          Read the post. Read my question. Tell me what’s wrong in my scenario and how it’ll work in your “well-educated” mind.

          If you understand it, you can explain it to a 5-year old.

          Let’s see what your next excuse is gonna be.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You literally only have one question, the rest of it is opining.

            You’re assuming a wage labor model and that people working twice as efficiently and at half intensity would result in decreased production.

            1. wage labor models aren’t universal

            2. there is no reasoning stated for why production would go down

            You’re assuming people would have to be fired to maintain competitive growth. This is based on the logic of firms competing to capture market share. There isn’t really a rational reason for this to need to happen under systems were the point is to accommodate human need, not to maximize profit.

            • @Devouring
              link
              01 year ago

              I haven’t said that people have to be fired to maintain competitive growth. I said that assuming a normal/average growth (and let’s even make it simpler for you and ignore growth), and assuming a breakthrough requires many new people to hired to work with a new technology, then the people who are there and who aren’t interested in learning the new way of doing things, will just become a burden to the company. Let’s do the math:

              • More people are hired
              • Same output is maintained

              Let’s do the 5th grade math: Same output / More people = less earner per person every time this happens

              Meaning: If this trend continuous due to multiple breakthroughs (which isn’t crazy, we have seen tons of those in the last 25 years in different sectors), then this company is destined to become bankrupt, especially because people will continuously keep earning less with no lower-bound to that other zero, to the point where it’s not enough to make a living.

              Nothing you said answers this dilemma. You keep talking about general things and avoid this (very realistic) scenario that keeps happening. How will such a company survive?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -3
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Thats it interesting scenario, but why are you assuming that there is a significant segment that won’t want to learn, especially when they’re no longer alienated from their labor? And why are you assuming that the total laborers will increase with new technology, when you can retrain existing workers?

                I dont think your scenario is realistic, it kinda reads as really misanthropic

                • @Devouring
                  link
                  11 year ago

                  Because the fraction of the current world that reads every day and learns every day is extremely small. Again, like I said before, how many people around you come back from work and want to read technical books and watch courses instead of chilling, or hanging out with friends? I have two friends who are nut jobs like me and work all the time. EVERYONE else is lazy and just wants to have fun after work, and that’s in my circle. This spans over decades in the different jobs and sectors I worked at, in different countries. Do you have a different experience around you? I have trouble convincing people to read for 30 minutes every day.

                  Are you trying to argue that the majority of people watch educational videos in their free time and read technical books and prefer that over hanging out?

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -41 year ago

                    Because the fraction of the current world that reads every day and learns every day is extremely small.

                    Socialist countries are famous for literacy and education drives

                    Again, like I said before, how many people around you come back from work and want to read technical books and watch courses instead of chilling, or hanging out with friends? I have two friends who are nut jobs like me and work all the time. EVERYONE else is lazy and just wants to have fun after work, and that’s in my circle. This spans over decades in the different jobs and sectors I worked at, in different countries. Do you have a different experience around you? I have trouble convincing people to read for 30 minutes every day.

                    I dont think it is reasonable to assume humans will act the same way in all conditions. I know people who just slack off, and its generally because there is no incentive not to do the bare minimum when you are alienated from your labor