Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The sobering point of my girlfriend: "If I don't do anything useful, I would go absolutely bonkers." People like her always need something to do. If it's something that also gives them money for their basic needs, all the better.

Last year after graduating I wanted a job because I 1) really needed the money and 2) was going absolutely bonkers by not knowing for certain what I wanted to do.

So from my personal experience I'd propose the follow-up: "Do people always know what job they want to do?" And I guess this must come with the condition that people don't live in the poverty trap constantly battling to get their daily basics together...

by Nomad on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 06:05:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have a job, and I'm going absolutely bonkers by not knowing for certain what I want to do.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 06:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I have come to the realisation that I have great difficulty in being TOLD what to do, ie working FOR people, but am quite happy to work WITH people to an agreed common purpose.

The difference is between:

(a) one way / imposed / adversarially negotiated - "Jobs";

(b)"two way" / mutual / consensually negotiated (arising out of mutual trust & respect) - "Work".

And of course it is the latter that I perceive the partnership protocols of "Open" Corporates such as the UK LLP as enabling.

Marx had a lot to say early on in respect of the "Abolition Of Labour" which relates to this point.

Uri Zilbersheid's critique

The Vicissitudes of the idea of the Abolition of Labour in Marx's teachings - can the idea be revived"

I found extremely interesting, not only for what Marx initially said, but the fact that:

(a) he appeared to think that the advent of industrialisation and machinery had made the Abolition of Labour essentially unachievable;

(b) more recently, the advent of the "knowledge economy" may be re-opening the way.

I believe that the use of LLP's and LLC's for "Capital Partnerships" essentially allows "Capital" to work WITH "Labour", thereby "abolishing" Labour.

Marx's argument that the "Abolition of Labour" would lead to the "Abolition of Property" and the "Abolition of the State" is an interesting one.

I don't see it as causal: but I do see all three "Abolitions" as inherent in a "partnership-based" Society, where relationships are encapsulated in consensual "Open Corporate"  legal protocols.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 06:35:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you own capital why would you want to negotiate when you can impose?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 06:43:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You don't have a choice, because (rentier) Capital which does NOT use this "emerging"

LLP's Strike Again

model will be at a disadvantage to Capital that DOES.

Which is why it is "emerging": this furry little animal simply WORKS better than the dinosaurs....

"Competitive advantage" is being undercut by the "Cooperative advantage".

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 06:58:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Many of us here are "problem-solvers", aren't we?
I work as a software engineer, which at its core is all about problem solving. You receive a request for something, and then you figure out a way to do it. I'd like to think of it as being useful, even for products with a fairly small target demographic.
But sure, the money doesn't hurt either.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 06:20:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I like to think of myself as a problem solver too, but using different protocols.

"Law is Code", after all, but legal "programmers" aka lawyers get paid a multiple of what they are "worth" because they have Society by the balls, through a Monopoly on legal coding (alongside the Banks' monopoly on credit=money creation).

Shades of the medieval Guilds.

I'm about democratising the writing of legal "code", through the use of simple consensual protocols, as opposed to the detailed and prescriptive adaversarial protocols.

I aim to add value by architecting "enterprise model" (= legal and financial structure) solutions, it being my thesis that a "Capital Partnership" is an optimal structure.

It doesn't hurt to get paid, for sure - that's been the flaw in my own "enterprise model" until recently!

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 06:51:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
At least in English we have the fortune that

job != work

Let's not confuse the two.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 06:31:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's hard to get not confused...

job - Definitions from Dictionary.com

1.a piece of work, esp. a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price:
2. a post of employment; full-time or part-time position:

work - Definitions from Dictionary.com

1. exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something

(snip snip)

4. employment, as in some form of industry, esp. as a means of earning one's livelihood

by Nomad on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 09:13:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
social contribution != job != work

There's really no economic concept of the usefulness of social participation for its own sake. (Which is more or less what we do on ET.)

Which is why a lot of potentially useful work, from education to health care to artistic creation to scientific research, isn't being done.

There's also no concept of just allowing people to lie fallow for a while to see what they come up with when they don't feel they have to do something immediately, now, all of the time.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 10:02:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have read the book Le travail, une valeur en voie de disparition which was a very good summary of the various philosophical values attached to work, as personal accomplishment, as the means of social interaction, as the alienating means of earning one's bread...

I'll do a diary about it when I stop procrastinating. (Now I'll have to reread it as it takes me so long to write the damn diary...)

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 10:12:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
There's also no concept of just allowing people to lie fallow for a while to see what they come up with when they don't feel they have to do something immediately, now, all of the time.

This is something I've been puzzling about recently. If I now would leave geology and continue to receive the monthly income to sustain myself with food and shelter, what would I continue to do here in SA? I've already up to 5 projects in my head and no time left to execute them properly.

I do suspect that allowing people to lie fallow will result in a group of people that cherishes to just lie fallow all the time. We're descendants from apes after all.

by Nomad on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 10:31:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If I now would leave geology and continue to receive the monthly income to sustain myself with food and shelter...

In other words, if you were independently wealthy...

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 10:34:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would say financially independent.

The mind's eye on (financial) wealth somehow always conjures a number containing more digits than my monthly allocation.

by Nomad on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 10:44:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let me guess: you need $250k.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 10:47:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For my current living style, far less than that. I currently live perfectly happy on less than 1/20th of $250k. This is Africa. For half of that, I could upgrade from renting a cottage to buying an apartment, sustain a family of three and develop my pet projects to my heart's content.

Any particular reason why the $250k figure came up?

by Nomad on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 11:16:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, the correct number would have been more like $110k. (Hence your "for half of that")

I took ZA's GDP (nominal) per capita from wikipedia and multiplied by 20. The original figure came from taking the GDP (PPP), which was a mistake.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 11:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
not per annum.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 11:33:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do suspect that allowing people to lie fallow will result in a group of people that cherishes to just lie fallow all the time.

I suspect you may be right. I also suspect it wouldn't be a huge problem.

In fact I'd guess people who'd disappear into a haze of drugs, sleep and sex would probably be a very small minority. Apes like to keep busy, one way and another, and it might be surprising to see what happens if the usual social restrictions around work are relaxed.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2007 at 12:30:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series