Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Steve Jurvetson- end of working because "you have to".

2»

Comments

  • #32
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    nokia69 wrote:
    And yet plenty of fools in Europe want take in any African who can reach the Med


    Eh, they are not fleeing overpopulation...


  • #33
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,895 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Kev W wrote: »
    Why is South Africa the best developed country in Africa?

    Because up until 94 the people running the country were competent and for the most part free of corruption, its because of these people that the country is the best developed in Africa, however a poster above claims that Botswana has over taken South Africa, he might be right, I expect South Africa to slowly sink down to the general African average, just like their northern neighbour Zimbabwe


  • #34
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,895 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Kaison Agreeable Sin wrote: »
    Eh, they are not fleeing overpopulation...

    Never said they were

    But the place is so big could they not find somewhere other than Europe to flee to


  • #35
    Subcomandante Marcos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,682 ✭✭✭Subcomandante Marcos


    nokia69 wrote: »
    Because up until 94 the people running the country were competent and for the most part free of corruption, its because of these people that the country is the best developed in Africa, however a poster above claims that Botswana has over taken South Africa, he might be right, I expect South Africa to slowly sink down to the general African average, just like their northern neighbour Zimbabwe

    Apartheid was great craic altogether, wasn't it, none of those spear chucking natives getting in the way and messing it up, those clever white men made sure of that.


  • #36
    Kev W
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    nokia69 wrote: »
    I expect South Africa to slowly sink down to the general African average, just like their northern neighbour Zimbabwe

    Why?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,115 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    nokia69 wrote: »
    Because up until 94 the people running the country were competent and for the most part free of corruption

    They were a pack of corrupt scumbags running a racist apartheid state and benefiting from SA's resources for themselves.


  • #38
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,529 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Ah yes, the impoverished and developing countries will be glad to know that a rich western venture capitalist wants the world to stop taking advantage of poor people after he's made his fortune.

    What happens when all the farmers want to do something else?? Where is the food going to come from in this utopia??


  • #39
    lawlolawl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,678 ✭✭✭lawlolawl


    Dempsey wrote: »
    What happens when all the farmers want to do something else?? Where is the food going to come from in this utopia??

    The internet?

    All of these TED talk "visionaries" are just spoofers predicting an idealized future even though they themselves don't even live in the real world presently.


  • #40
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,895 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Kev W wrote: »
    Why?

    Do you really think I'm wrong, because if you do, you can't know very much about African history since independence

    Was it all just bad luck that Zimbabwe under Mugabe has been a disaster, do you think of Jacob Zuma as a competent leader, what about Idi Amin in Uganda, the list of wonderful African leaders goes on and on and a pattern emerges, you can't spot it of course, or maybe you do but you can't admit it


  • #41
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,373 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    smash wrote: »
    Lets start by following the Swedish model of a 6-hour work day with an attitude that promotes working from home. Think of how much more productive you'd be without the hassle of a commute, and the benefit of a lye in.

    Working from home has been shown to be less productive, and is not possible for many jobs


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    lawlolawl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,678 ✭✭✭lawlolawl


    smash wrote: »
    Lets start by following the Swedish model of a 6-hour work day with an attitude that promotes working from home. Think of how much more productive you'd be without the hassle of a commute, and the benefit of a lye in.

    If you can work from home and/or only do a 6 hour work day then your job isn't all that essential or important to society as a whole.


  • #43
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Working from home has been shown to be less productive, and is not possible for many jobs

    Where exactly was that shown?

    Because....
    The findings of the 2014 Ctrip study suggest that people working full time from home are about 13% more efficient.
    lawlolawl wrote: »
    If you can work from home and/or only do a 6 hour work day then your job isn't all that essential or important to society as a whole.
    Well now, that's just bullshit of the highest order.


  • #44
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,895 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »
    Apartheid was great craic altogether, wasn't it, none of those spear chucking natives getting in the way and messing it up, those clever white men made sure of that.

    No I think it was a terrible idea, but I do find it interesting that during the apartheid years, so many Africans from countries along the boarder with South Africa tried to enter the country illegally to find work


  • #45
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,061 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    Mod:

    Everyone, get back on topic. Thread is about something something capitalism, not Africa.


  • #46
    Kev W
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    nokia69 wrote: »
    Do you really think I'm wrong, because if you do, you can't know very much about African history since independence

    Was it all just bad luck that Zimbabwe under Mugabe has been a disaster, do you think of Jacob Zuma as a competent leader, what about Idi Amin in Uganda, the list of wonderful African leaders goes on and on and a pattern emerges, you can't spot it of course, or maybe you do but you can't admit it

    I didn't say I disagreed, I just asked why you hold the opinion that you hold.


    Edit to add: just saw the Mod note, never mind.


  • #47
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,038 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    You got city hands, Mr.Jurvetson You've been counting money all your life.


  • #48
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    The reason you are seeing venture capitalists like the guy in the OP, promoting the idea of a Basic Income and a utopian society without the necessity for work, is because the Basic Income is one of the greatest trojan-horse policies out there for finance and the wealthy:

    They can transform the Basic Income into a business subsidy just by slashing wages, and can consolidate all welfare into the Basic Income, and can then destroy the Basic Income when a big enough economic crisis hits (it's much easier to attack politically, than current welfare, and will be the first to go when the purse-strings are pulled) - without returning the previous welfare system - i.e. the Basic Income is a tool to provide a massive business subsidy, slash wages, and destroy welfare altogether, all in one.

    It's even being used as an excuse for bringing in a system of flat taxes - i.e. to bring in a system of regressive taxation - more than a few Irish economists are promoting this combination of flat taxes and a Basic Income.

    It's one of the most dangerous policies out there to be honest - I used to support it, until I read about and began to appreciate how it can be quickly turned around, as a political tool to attack everything it's supposed to help with.


  • #49
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »
    Overpopulation in Africa is a myth. South and South East Asia is far more densely populated.

    I would say the ability to sustain the population size in an area is what would determine overpopulation. Not population size or density. England has a very high population and density yet we wouldnt say its overpopulated, because its population is supported. Most of africas environment is very inhospitable with little resources to support any population worth talking about. So really I would say africa is overpopulated, as in it can't support the population it has now.Despite its population density not being high generally


  • #50
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,305 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    The reason you are seeing venture capitalists like the guy in the OP, promoting the idea of a Basic Income and a utopian society without the necessity for work, is because the Basic Income is one of the greatest trojan-horse policies out there for finance and the wealthy:

    They can transform the Basic Income into a business subsidy just by slashing wages, and can consolidate all welfare into the Basic Income, and can then destroy the Basic Income when a big enough economic crisis hits (it's much easier to attack politically, than current welfare, and will be the first to go when the purse-strings are pulled) - without returning the previous welfare system - i.e. the Basic Income is a tool to provide a massive business subsidy, slash wages, and destroy welfare altogether, all in one.

    It's even being used as an excuse for bringing in a system of flat taxes - i.e. to bring in a system of regressive taxation - more than a few Irish economists are promoting this combination of flat taxes and a Basic Income.

    It's one of the most dangerous policies out there to be honest - I used to support it, until I read about and began to appreciate how it can be quickly turned around, as a political tool to attack everything it's supposed to help with.

    Otbers would say BI is to keep us all quiet and sheep like! Give us some crumbs to keep the peasants happy.

    I'd be dubious of it and flat rate taxes.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #51
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    We're going to give you great healthcare, but a few of you are going to die because we have to take some risks. There can't be zero risks. But it's going to be better than anything you've had before. In the United States this would be illegal, in much of the world this would be amazing.

    What the hell does he mean by this? Is he advocating healthcare/drug companies should be allowed to experiment on poor people outside of the United States even if some of those people will die from the experiments?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Freak Midget
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 61 ✭✭Freak Midget


    nokia69 wrote: »
    It does

    but none of that is my problem

    When European powers handed Africa to the Africans it was in a pretty good state, and most people were optimistic about many of the newly free countries, the decline in most African countries is their own fault

    South Africa is the best developed country in Africa and we all know why that is

    The whites should have stayed in charge for another 50 years.


  • #53
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »
    Overpopulation in Africa is a myth. South and South East Asia is far more densely populated.
    The birthrate of south and south east Asia tends to be lower than Africa.


  • #54
    hawkwind23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,189 ✭✭✭hawkwind23


    I like this sort of debate.
    My first thoughts are that automation and rising population have created a situation where new ideas need to be explored.

    My ideas of "work" should be something that contributes to the advancement and benefit of society and the environment that provides energy and resource.
    I'm sure a lot of us can agree that current "work" is based on the accumulation of wealth and power that benefits few and rapes resources and wastes energy.

    I think beyond all the doom and gloom the screen bombards us with that we are becoming more enlightened on a global scale and ideas such as this prove that.

    Like all areas of life and nature balance is essential , we are a long way from that as humans but my hope is that we are heading that direction.

    Maybe a new method of sharing resources (trade) is needed and a new ideology concerning status and reward.

    All very vague and dreamlike but good that debate is happening

    As for Maslow and the hierarchy of needs , as a society the basics should be a given being at the top of the food chain.
    I suspect that the lack or dependence on them is no accident and indeed used as one of many methods of control, indeed part of why it was invented in the 1st place.


  • #55
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,373 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    smash wrote: »
    Where exactly was that shown?

    I am referring to full-time teleworking. The company I work in, several thousand employees, adopted it a few years ago with great fanfare. Most of us love it, but it has generally decreased productivity.. they are slowly phasing it out and only using it for emergencies, travel strike days, and specific jobs (such as those on call)

    Not against it, but it's very job specific, and doesn't magically increase work productivity.. also from personal experience it's a hell of a lot harder to reach someone who is working at home when they are needed

    Part time teleworking (e.g. one day per week) seems to be much better


  • #56
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,373 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    hawkwind23 wrote: »

    My ideas of "work" should be something that contributes to the advancement and benefit of society and the environment that provides energy and resource.
    I'm sure a lot of us can agree that current "work" is based on the accumulation of wealth and power that benefits few and rapes resources and wastes energy.

    Anyone outside of a hunter-gatherer society or subsistence living needs some sort of profession to survive

    The fact that we've become relatively successful and efficient means we can support those in society who cannot work or are disable/infirm/old/sick

    It's a progression


  • #57
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,305 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    The only thing about robots is, the same thing was predicted in the 70's and 80's but economies and employment adjusted. Maybe it will be different this time, but just saying.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #58
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I am referring to full-time teleworking. The company I work in, several thousand employees, adopted it a few years ago with great fanfare. Most of us love it, but it has generally decreased productivity.. they are slowly phasing it out and only using it for emergencies, travel strike days, and specific jobs (such as those on call)

    Not against it, but it's very job specific, and doesn't magically increase work productivity.. also from personal experience it's a hell of a lot harder to reach someone who is working at home when they are needed

    Part time teleworking (e.g. one day per week) seems to be much better

    So what you're saying is that broadly it hasn't been shown to be less productive, except in your company's telesales department.


  • #59
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,373 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    smash wrote: »
    So what you're saying is that broadly it hasn't been shown to be less productive, except in your company's telesales department.

    Not telesales - teleworking, remote working, aka working from home, available to virtually all employees in the company. However it was causing issues (productivity, managers/directors needed on "shop-floor", during escalations people had to rush to office, etc) that they have decided to gradually phase it out except for contingency and on a case-by-case basis


  • #60
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    smash wrote: »
    Lets start by following the Swedish model of a 6-hour work day with an attitude that promotes working from home. Think of how much more productive you'd be without the hassle of a commute, and the benefit of a lye in.

    might come work in yours m8, pj party


  • Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement