10 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgePart of the reason children are in school instead of working the fields is because their parents don't own any land to work. They have nothing else they're allowed to do except be in school.
I did wonder if this was the direction he was going in but the argument is fallacious.
Technological development does remove jobs, but creates or allows for new ones.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of the population is no longer needed to work
the feilds to produce food means that people can do other things that couldn't otherwise
be ...[text shortened]... troubles.
Indeed the science and technology sector is creating jobs not destroying them.
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoung😲
Part of the reason children are in school instead of working the fields is because their parents don't own any land to work. They have nothing else they're allowed to do except be in school.
Wow. Please tell me you aren't a parent. I couldn't even imagine sending my kid to go work fields rather than going to school. It's a pretty laughable concept for me actually.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by WoodPushAlot can be learned working in the fields, just because you don't read it out of some book that someone else wrote doesn't mean that the lessons learned from it arent every bit as valuable. Personally, I think the time spent in the solitary labor of the fields is a great time to create, examine, and develop original ideas, have you ever had one of those?
😲
Wow. Please tell me you aren't a parent. I couldn't even imagine sending my kid to go work fields rather than going to school. It's a pretty laughable concept for me actually.
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by joe shmoWe were talking about children. No, I don't think my 6 year will learn more working in fields than he does in a classroom. I guess we just will have to differ on the value of a formal education for children as opposed to the value of having them teach themselves while doing hard labor.
Alot can be learned working in the fields, just because you don't read it out of some book that someone else wrote doesn't mean that the lessons learned from it arent every bit as valuable. Personally, I think the time spent in the solitary labor of the fields is a great time to create, examine, and develop original ideas, have you ever had one of those?
Is this the sort of "original idea" you generated when working in the fields, yourself? If I've had that sort of original idea when laboring, I'll count myself lucky to have rejected it.
AThousandYoung - your point is well taken, I clearly misunderstood your intent. Kids do need more time (and place) for play - something I have to remind myself often taking my kid from activity to activity in the rat race.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
10 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by WoodPushYes, physically working hard for family, friends, and aquaintences that stressed the importance of education, as well as the value of an honest days work is what inevitably pushed me toward it.
We were talking about children. No, I don't think my 6 year will learn more working in fields than he does in a classroom. I guess we just will have to differ on the value of a formal education for children as opposed to the value of having them teach themselves while doing hard labor.
Is this the sort of "original idea" you generated when working in hing I have to remind myself often taking my kid from activity to activity in the rat race.
Also, I can honestly say that my education experience in Elementary through Highschool was rarely a positive experience. I was never interested, and a constant dissapointment to my teachers. I can't say that I took nothing away from it, but I can say that what I took away was a minimum (by my own choice).
Do I think you should take your child out of grade school and throw him/her in the fields...No. However, as a parent be sure to give them something the education system can't, ... purpose.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo that is not what I am just saying which I think is clear from the context.
But that seems rather ridiculous in context. You are just saying that unemployed people are available to work.
If [almost] the entire potential workforce is required to till the fields then they are not available
to do anything else.
The freeing up of people from doing manual labour by mechanisation allows people to do something
other than till the fields.
The industrial revolution couldn't have happened if people hadn't worked out how to mechanise farming
and free up vast numbers of people to work in the cities.
THAT is what I was saying.
The promise of technology is that maybe someday all the boring labours that are required for us to survive
and function as a civilisation will be automated or able to be automated as desired so that we can do what
we want to do not just what we have to do.
Technology and mechanisation has made people much freer to do what they want than in the past and
promises to make us freer still in the future.
It has also made possible things that could only be dreamed of in the past.
Thus I think what I said is far from ridiculous or trivial.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThen with due respect you made your point badly.
My point is more that the kids have nowhere to play, nowhere to hang out, nowhere they're allowed to be except inside their apartment or in school.
There is an immense and relevant difference between people not having to WORK the fields (or more to
the point children working the fields) rather than doing something else (like get an education) and the
lack of adequate recreational facilities and contact with nature.
I heartily agree that play outside in the wide (and natural) world is important and often unavailable.
However that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and the undeniable benefits of children getting
a decent education which was made possible by mechanisation and industrialisation.
Also I might add that the increased industrialisation not only created the free time needed for every child to
go to school but also eventually created the social pressures that drove people to make education available
and mandatory as well as seeing that it was desirable and necessary to have an educated workforce.
You didn't need much (if any) formal education to be a manual farm labourer.
You did need one to get by in an industrialised society.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was making a declarative statement I think you are trying to find a formal logical argument where
On balance they create jobs.
That doesn't follow from what you have said. You have simply said that unemployed people are now free to look for other work. This is not 'creating jobs' and most certainly not the thing that cause their unemployment creating jobs.
This latest j.... SNIP...lem is most people don't want to accept that they are not wo ...[text shortened]... they thought they were and thus refuse to work for less and would rather remain unemployed.
I wasn't making one.
I was simply stating the view I hold (one which obviously I believe stands up to scrutiny) that on net
science and technology create jobs.
If you contend that then we can discuss it further but complaining that my declarative statement (and
opinion) doesn't logically follow from what was written before it shows that you have misapprehended
my post. I think you are trying too hard to see water tight logical arguments in a post that is evidently
not written in that style.
As for the rest...
I don't agree, what you are saying doesn't tally with my experience or that of any person I have discussed
it with or other outside analysis I have seen.
I suggest that your opinion on this is wrong and unfounded and would like to see the data to back it up if
you contest this.
Because what you have written sounds like you are blaming the unemployed for being unemployed because
they are not prepared to work for less money or search around for different career options.
This couldn't be farther from the truth as I observe it.
People are desperate for work and every job has hundreds of applicants, temporary jobs at a local book-store
over Christmas go to university graduates.
And starting up a new business requires money, a loan, from the banks, who aren't lending money...
So I suggest that your opinion on the topic is total bull s***.
11 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI don't disagree with most of what you said, not do I find it ridiculous or trivial. I do think that in context, it doesn't make sense. You seemed to be saying that the freeing up of labour creates jobs. It does not. It only enables jobs once created. But since most countries have a certain level of unemployment, the availability of labour is not a current problem and therefore is irrelevant.
Thus I think what I said is far from ridiculous or trivial.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell there you are, some people are willing to take a pay cut. The rest, are unemployed. The fact is that most people in first world nations are over paid (considering the available labour market) and until the third world gets richer, they will have to learn to live with a pay cut or unemployment as jobs migrate to poorer nations.
People are desperate for work and every job has hundreds of applicants, temporary jobs at a local book-store
over Christmas go to university graduates.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
11 Apr 12
Certianly the rate of techological change in this day and age, is much greater than the rate at which people can be fumdametally educated to understand that technology. For instance, we are currently educated from the dark ages, to the computer age in the same amount of time as our peers, which before the computer revolution could largely focus on the fundamentals. So what seems to become common practice under the ever increasing education demand is to take a more shallow approach, which means that people in the education system dont have a rock solid foundation for that education, IMO.
11 Apr 12
6 edits
Originally posted by joe shmoSpecialization. I don't need to understand how a computer is built in order to know how to use one. If I want to learn how to build one, I focus on what I need to learn to make a contribution in that area. What's wrong with that? It's been going on for centuries.
Certianly the rate of techological change in this day and age, is much greater than the rate at which people can be fumdametally educated to understand that technology. For instance, we are currently educated from the dark ages, to the computer age in the same amount of time as our peers, which before the computer revolution could largely focus on the funda ...[text shortened]... s that people in the education system dont have a rock solid foundation for that education, IMO.
Things just don't look that much different to me than, say 40 years ago. If you want to learn how to be self-sufficient in the world, you get a high school education. If you want to learn how to participate in its evolution, you get a bachelors or training in your trade. If you want to learn to innovate, you get a masters or PhD. If you want to re-specialize, you take a year or two to switch skills. Self driven people can skip the formalities.
I don't see the increasing educational demand. You imply that people aren't getting deep enough education - but that seems to confuse the inability to understand everything in the world, with the ability to understand enough to live in it or contribute to it.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
11 Apr 12
1 edit
As good example, my professor was displaying one of his patents on a milano cookie sandwhiching machine...he casually mentioned in passing that it replaced 100's of older women filling and sandwhiching the cookies by hand. 1 new machine, 100's of lost jobs at a crucial age, 1 engineer. The reason was because its cheaper, but when this older population can't find or is to old to retrain for other jobs, what do they do...Thats just one small piece of technology implemented that was benificial to the company, but not to the previous employee's. Did that company with the extra funds create 100's of new jobs, doubtful. It went into the pockets of management, while the burden of the unemployed is shared amongst the entire population.
Capitalism is only good if it provides work, down the road the need for a paid workforce will be minimal, so what will the relationship be between producer and consumer?
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by joe shmoMillions of people just got their cookies at a lower price, allowing them to use their new-found savings to buy luxury homemade quilts from a start-up company of retired grandmothers.
As good example, my professor was displaying one of his patents on a milano cookie sandwhiching machine...he casually mentioned in passing that it replaced 100's of older women filling and sandwhiching the cookies by hand. 1 new machine, 100's of lost jobs at a crucial age, 1 engineer. The reason was because its cheaper, but when this older population can' ...[text shortened]... workforce will be minimal, so what will the relationship be between producer and consumer?
Productivity improvements present opportunities to spend time elsewhere. Yes, there's short term structural unemployment, but a long term gain. As you say, society must be (and is) structured to support the unemployed and elderly.