Submitted by factotum on Thu, 11/21/2019 - 14:21
Localised tender or painful areas that when stimulated give rise to pain elsewhere and everywhere.
What about labour pricing ?
"QE funny munny is juiced out of thin air and inflates bubble after bubble in RE, stockmarkets, commodities, classic cars, art etc etc etc"
In my understanding all money comes pretty much out of thin air. Anyone want to explain where they think it comes from?
What happened to David Koch.
Whats the difference between anarchism and tribalism
Go deeper Taylor, go deeper!
Only in anarchism can you have an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
Chapter 3: Anarchistic Precedents in Africa
Thanks and what do you do with the antisocial types in an anarchistic society?
Strikes & gutters.
"There has been a wave of public concern in recent years about the future of
work, jobs, and employment. Much has been sparked by the advent of new
technologies (like AI, automation, self-driving cars, and others) which seem to
hold the potential to transform, and perhaps eliminate, many jobs. Public
concern also reflects worries about new business models, like digital platforms,
which are disrupting how work is organized (if not concretely changing how work and production actually occur): for example, with gigs replacing traditional jobs.
I also worry about the future of work: both whether there will be enough jobs, and also about the quality of future jobs. But I worry about the future for very different reasons than are typically emphasized in many current public discussions. I think that commonly stated concerns about technology and work misunderstand how labour markets function in our economy – and misdiagnose the challenges facing workers, their families, and our communities. In particular, I think there are more urgent and important things to worry about, than the fear that new technology will make workers generally redundant."
BANKING ON TROUBLE by Richard Ackland.
As if we haven’t had enough global upheaval to last us a lifetime, along comes the Bank of America’s outlook for what’s ahead.
The bank starts its forecast for the 2020s like this: “We enter the next decade with interest rates at 5,000-year lows, the largest asset bubble in history, a planet that is heating up, and a deflationary profile of debt, disruption and demographics.”
Added to the dire cocktail is that by the end of that decade there will be nearly a billion more people on the planet, a rapidly ageing population, up to 800 million jobs threatened by automation, and “the environment on the brink of catastrophic change”.
It’s such a relief to know that we’re in the hands of the finest and most perspicacious politicians to manage our way through this.
What we’re seeing is “peak globalisation” with a trend towards the reassertion of sovereignty over trade and investment.
The shift away from globalisation is already happening with a technological “arms race”, which the bank calls a “splinternet” – there will be Chinese technology, and technology for the rest of the world.
The decade will also see “peak inequality, peak oil, peak youth and peak stuff”. Yes, peak stuff is bad news for retailers as conspicuous consumption gives way to the “sharing and circular economies”.
But it is the environment that concerns the bank most deeply. The past four years have been the hottest recorded, and the warmest 20 years occurred over the past 22 years. If governments were smart enough, “bold climate action could yield a direct economic gain of $US26 trillion through to 2030 compared with business as usual”.
This article covers the same stuff that Richard Ackland is on about.
Yep, if Ackland thinks we've seen more than enough global upheaval, I'd wager that we haven't seen anything yet.
I'd disagree with the next decade seeing "peak inequality" - I figure if the economy dives due to consumers finding their morals, and there's another billion people, plus AI and automation put a shitload of people out of work, all the average Joes are going to go backwards in a big way - it's already starting.
At the same time, a big chunk of the rich will still maintain their wealth, meaning that the gap between the haves and the have-nots will continue to get bigger past the 2020s.
Peak inequality ?
You’re kidding, right ?
It’s not just the fact that labour will be outmoded by machines and thus incomes will disappear ,but who do you think is going to own all the machines which generate all the income ?
Hint....not you or me.
"What we’re seeing is “peak globalisation” with a trend towards the reassertion of sovereignty over trade and investment."
Even if we are seeing peak globalisation, I don't imagine any sovereignty over trade etc will benefit the average fella.
At the moment we're being robbed blind and I doubt it will stop.
"There are several obvious principles and priorities that would move us toward that more thoughtful, inclusive approach to managing technological change, and achieving a great future for work and workers:
• Strong rights for workers to have information, notice, and input around
technological change in their workplaces.
• Organized and accepted systems for workers to collectively negotiate
adjustment with their employers.
• Protections from the abuse of digital technology in workplace surveillance,
performance monitoring, and discipline.
• A strong commitment from employers to redeployment and upgrading
of workers affected by technology (facilitating internal mobility).
• Meaningful commitments by government to income protections,
genuine training (not band-aids announced at moments of crisis), and
adjustment assistance for workers (facilitating external mobility).
• More effective funding and planning of vocational training programs,
tightly linked to pathways in recognized, regulated trades and careers.
• A commitment to genuine full-employment in macroeconomic policy,
so displaced workers have abundant alternative opportunities.
• Ongoing investments in public human and caring services – which
both create many high-value jobs in their own right, and support the
ongoing individual and community capacity-building that will be
critical to well-functioning future labour markets."
Old mate tends to overlook a few things in his piece, most notably the fact that AI will utter revolutionise the impact of technology on our lives. He suggests that for new robots /machines to be created will require human inventors, engineers and maintenance.
The whole point of AI is that humans will not required. It’s designed to replace humans at every level of industry from genesis to completion. He is not discussing the expansion of existing technologies without making allowances for the fact that AI will be the next industrial revolution and it’s effects will be vastly more impactful than the creation of automated production lines for example. AI will assume responsibility for the entire chain of production, not just the execution of manual tasks.
He then goes on to say that technology is slowing due to the fact that companies are unwilling to invest the capital to create new technologies, whilst the reference to companies not willing to invest is barely true in itself, the major problem with his assumption is that the vast majority of technological advances stem from the peripheral discoveries arriving from the development of new military equipment.
And with China / US ramping up their Cold War it is guaranteed that technological advances will be realised sooner rather than later. Particularly AI and robotic technology.
The governments of the world will be increasing their military budgets which generate the world’s new technologies, not scaling back.
And his final prescription for a more accomodating working environment as described above is nothing more than the same utopian wish list that the working class have needed since time immemorial and that the world has steadily moved away from with the onset of globalisation and the continuous supply shock to labour markets through offshoring of work and mass immigration programs.
Zero chance that this situation will improve with the onset of mass utilised robotics and an ever greater supply of surplus labour globally.
"The future of work can be amazing … but only if we make it so.
I am deeply concerned about the many negative and exploitative challenges already
facing work and workers – including pervasive precarity, stagnant and increasingly
unequal incomes, and lack of avenues for workers to exert a collective and constructive voice in their work lives. However, perhaps surprisingly, I remain fundamentally optimistic about the prospects for building a much better world of work in the future. Technology will not drive this change, and I forcefully reject predictions of a world shaped by robots and apps – whether in dystopian or utopian versions.
Rather, it is the conscious and collective decisions we make as a society that will determine whether the future of work is amazing, or grim. Technology can be an asset in creating great work: used properly, it could let us work less (having more time over our lives to enjoy the fruits of our labour), it could eliminate much tedious or dangerous work, it could help balance of our work and production with the overarching need for environmental sustainability."
"But all the choices about how technology will be wielded – both in the realm of direct production, and in the employment relationships that shape how we work – are contested and open for debate and struggle.
At present, those decisions are being overwhelmingly made in an unplanned, fragmented, and chaotic way, dominated by the private vested interests of individual firms and investors.
We must build a more collective and democratic capacity to analyze and understand what is happening in the world of work, negotiate competing interests and priorities, and then wield policies and institutions that allow us to make the most of the positive potential of technology, while minimizing its downsides and prohibiting its abuses."
"And his final prescription for a more accomodating working environment as described above is nothing more than the same utopian wish list that the working class have needed since time immemorial and that the world has steadily moved away from with the onset of globalisation and the continuous supply shock to labour markets through offshoring of work and mass immigration programs."
DR. JIM STANFORD ( Ph.D. in Economics from the New School for Social Research in New York; M.Phil. from Cambridge University; B.A. (Hons.) from the University of Calgary):
"These core features of modern gig work are not new. Every one of them is visible in long-standing (and usually highly exploitive) employment practices that are as old as capitalism: from the brutality of agricultural gangmasters, to the women who did small scale home-based manufacturing under the “putting out system” of the 19th Century, to the desperation of day-labouring miners, dockworkers, and drivers who toiled in on-demand day labour. There is nothing new about precarity – and precarious work is much broader than just digitally mediated gigs, with around half of workers now experiencing at least one dimension of precarity in their work. There is nothing novel about employers seeking ways to shift the risks and costs associated with work (including the cost of capital equipment, and the risks of fluctuations in demand) to those who do the work. And it is not new or surprising that desperate workers, when they have few other options, would accept those jobs. It doesn’t mean they like this arrangement, or that they’ve rejected the idea of a regular salary, paid holidays, and a pension. Rather it means they’ve been deprived of access to jobs where they could enjoy those benefits."
"It was only in the 20th Century that what we now call the “standard employment relationship” became a widespread norm, replacing previous incarnations of hyper-precarious gig-type work (from gang-masters to putting-out to day labour). For a while, work was most commonly organized through waged, permanent, full-time jobs with indefinite tenure. They were rarely “jobs for life,” but they were normally expected to continue unless something happened (recession, bankruptcy, personal incompetence) to prevent it. Technology was one factor behind the rise of that standard employment relationship, but not the only one: macroeconomic conditions, the stance of labour regulation, and the power and expectations of workers’ and social justice movements also played critical roles. Of course, that standard employment relationship was never universal: it always embodied unequal gender and racial features. But for a while, it underpinned important improvements in job quality and compensation, and widespread (if not fully inclusive) prosperity for workers. Its erosion under the tough-love economic and social policies that have dominated many industrial economies since the 1980s reflects the evolution of political-economy, much more than the march of technology. So the more recent resurgence of gig work is neither novel nor inevitable."
This link is flat out lies https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/work/2019/11/13/australia-apprentices... . There is no skills shortage . Never was a skills shortage. It is a ruse to flood Australia’s labour market with cheap , compliant and corrupting immigrant labour . If you don’t care to acknowledge this then it’s obvious you have either no real insight or a desire to improve the conditions for Australian workers. Repairing TAFE as a means to maintain Australian skills is an exercise in futility as long as employers are able to source labour from overseas as opposed to training Australians.
From the link ( outrageous lies )“At the same time Australia is experiencing a skills shortage, and critics are warning of serious repercussions for the country.
“If the Liberals don’t do something serious to fix the skills crisis they have created, we could be looking at the extinction of the Australian tradie,” Labor’s education and training spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek said.
“Businesses are crying out for more trained staff. The Australian Industry Group says 75 per cent of businesses surveyed are struggling to find the qualified workers they need.”
At the time of its 2018 survey, Ai Group called for new approaches to education, training and re-skilling to maximise the benefits of the digital economy.
“Our survey has found major skills demand issues facing employers,” chief executive Innes Willox said.“
Innes Wilcox is the chair of the Migrant council of Australia
The CEO of the Industry Group of Australia.
He is talking his own book more so than any single person in Australia.
Only the Neoliberal Left fail to realise this conflict of interest and still refuse to grasp the nexus between the skills shortage ruse , mass immigration and declining living standards for Australian workers. Their excuse is ......because racism. But in reality it’s just an extension of their dislike of the working class aka deplorables aka bogans.
Sorry Factotum, let me first clarify that one proposal you have for the future is to organise into Anarchic Syndicates (if you agree with Chomsky). Is that correct?
Second, if that was the case, and the 'government' was dissolved, what role would the antisocial people who are malicious and malevolent play in such a scenario? The ones that were most likely to be cast out of a cooperative syndicate?
The peril of being orange.
well that was disappointing facto, literally absolutely nothing new in that article. not even a whimsical third person account of an apparently abhorent incident that may have happened somewhere... possibly... maybe...
your errr 'material' seems to be on the slide
maybe it is the writer, and his 'do nothing democrats' mates that need to spend some time looking in the mirror, and realise why their 'ideas' aren't resonating with the people, rather than, yet another, opinionated analysis of trump.
probably can't do that though, that would require the capability of self reflection, and the ability to actually make some policy that's not ridiculous
he did give a good run down on the trumpster though, his character, his flaws, his obvious deficiencies. what a fucking abhorent dispicable man trump is. definitely not presidential material
yet he is president, and is looking about 80% likely to be president again, gauging by his patchy, but mainly woeful competition
forget about the base facto, they're a bit broken, it's the swingers you need. and despite the putrid but fair picture your little writer mate paints of trump, he's still looking like winning
now why is that?
"now why is that?"
do you ever wonder about that?
seriously, do you ever give it a serious thought at all?
it seems no, it seems you're so caught up on the personality politics nothing else matters
hilary clinton could shoot someone on fifth avenue and you'd still vote for her over trump
you're not alone, sadly
I'm still trying to get my head around the root causes of partisan politics.
Is it innate tribalism, is it the media or maybe or combination of a few things?
What about the idea that, increasingly, the media aren't looking to accurately cover and report on an event or issue, but are instead focussing on the most sensationalist, the most lurid moments, not even aspects but moments.
Nothing really new there but again, social media has supercharged things.
Not only is this producing in the consumers of such 'clips' a kind of dissatisfaction with reality itself — which is to say, anything that takes a while to understand, that requires a degree of nuance, or even just patience — but the producers of the original 'content', whether in politics or in entertainment, are themselves now factoring in the eventual 'clipification' of their words or actions.
So not only is political speech becoming ever-more sensationalist and unresponsive to the particular context, but the isolated clips themselves create different realities — different accounts of the same events.
Or maybe some value in this.
It's all of the above andym
snippets and 24 hour news cycles. as you say, supercharged by social media...
the snippets dont even focus on policy, it's just a daily montage of gotcha moments. the daily bumbling conversation under a forensic microsope, to be gratuitously exposed minute by minute, according to one's alignment
all personality picking, but not much policy picking. persomality politics
the ugly partisan thing is definitely growing, but so is belief in non major parties across the world. the internet has bubbled everyone up, but it has also exposed a lot of hard truths, and from that exposure the general consesus is... both sides are full of shit. so so so much shit
people are getting smarter as the two wings just become more insular and radical within their own little outrage bubbles
I reckon we're just in a teething stage as politics adjusts to the internet and social media, as does society. its looking like a rocky transition
parties (and moron advocates) need to stop playing their entrenched dumb game, and realise people are a bit wiser now. the partisan bullshit is everywhere, but it's also exposed in a jiffy, so just attacking the other guy doesn't cut it any more. it's a slow learning curve...
things dont look good, shit going down everywhere, but both extremes of politics are just becoming a bit embarrassing now, so hopefully people will leave the nutters to the margins, choose wisely, and common sense will pervail - ha!
Yeah I figured that we'd been going through a teething stage too, and last federal election we were going to turn a corner, but I was so, so wrong!
Seems like we've gone further down some dodgy road - wonder if the $500 million Great Barrier Reef Foundation theft and Angus Taylor's involvement in structuring the company which received an $80m government buyback of its water rights through the tax haven of the Cayman Islands will make any impression on voters?
Some great thoughts and questions there Gents.
From Andy's excellent link the Top 14 Causes of Polarization,
"One final consideration. It would be nice to make a straightforward “us versus them” enemies list when it comes to who’s to blame for polarization. But the fact is, none of us is pure—besides which the impulse to create an enemies list is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Some of us are more inclined to polarizing habits than others; some of us when we foster polarization are more aware of what we’re doing than others; and some of us (more and more of us, it seems) make a pretty good living these days out of encouraging and participating in polarization. But the habits and temptations of polarization are always with all of us. That includes you and me, by the way."
Us vs Them, divide and conquer is the modus operandi of the day. Nothing new there. The 'clipification' of the internet however has allowed truth to be seconded to likes and shares. The fact that political advertising is completely free to spin shit into sugar and spread it freely as gospel indicates (to me anyway), that right there is a good place to start reforms to reduce polarization.
And syppo, spot on.
"the ugly partisan thing is definitely growing, but so is belief in non major parties across the world. the internet has bubbled everyone up, but it has also exposed a lot of hard truths, and from that exposure the general consesus is... both sides are full of shit. so so so much shit"
From recent personal experience it was obvious that Clive Palmer used bullshit to help the Coalition win power. I will never forget the amount and diversity of tv ads that Palmer pushed. The 2 and half minute WA China air strip invasion/ it's all labors fault tv ads were gobsmackingly sensationalist. I thought "Clive you fat fuck, you're more ensconced with China than the rest of us combined. Build ya Titanic 2 in China and fuck off!"
Time will tell.
Here in the Hunter it made an impact for sure. The One Nation candidate almost toppled the Labor candidate because, well, Labor in cahoots with the Greenies will kill the coal mines overnight. The local Labor candidate Joel Fitzgibbon to this day has his head nodding that climate change is real whilst keeping his hand pressed against the firm grip of the fossil fuel lobby.
Maybe I am getting old and more aware, or it is simply the result of the growrh of the internet but it seems that polarization has never been more apparent.
Trump got elected by being divisive. Blind Freddy could see that. In terms of using social media to divide and conquer he must surely be the Commander in Fake. In terms of social media ads through the 2016 election Clinton posted 66 thousand. Trump ran 5.9 million ad variations, rapidly testing, tweaking, and killing non-performers — while increasing spend amounts on those that led to the desired outcome.
Facebook would be out of business if fact checking was law. Heck, a large section of the media would be made redundant, and that would be 'bad for the economy'. Besides, according to facebook we all should be able to discern fact from fiction and they are just the messenger. But don't you dare post a pic of a mother breast feeding!
As for your last question andy re the voters and their ability to be swayed by past 'dodgy' activities of certain politicians and party activities, I'm going to have to sadly say in my best Yoda voice "Doubt it, I do"
Nice one Westie.
I reckon that not only will people quickly forget about the outrageous thefts and political chicanery that's been going on (if they were even aware in the first place), I'm pretty confident that people won't be too interested in sorting some kind of fact from fiction for quite a while yet, and I have no idea what might encourage them to do so.
"You won’t be surprised to learn that I won’t be voting Tory on Thursday, for much the same reasons that I won’t be spending the day kicking children and pensioners into traffic. It’s depressing to think how many polling stations are in schools, and how many people will vote Conservative after walking past a motivational rainbow. As we saw in Stanley Johnson’s Pinocchio gaffe, there is a problem with our elites programming their traumatised children with the idea that they are born to rule. It becomes almost impossible, as a class, to hide your contempt.
It’s difficult to keep lying convincingly about things you’ve convinced yourself your audience are too stupid to notice.
This current iteration of Conservatism, a kind of mutant nationalism that insists all our infrastructure has to be owned by other countries, has nowhere to go but into an asset-stripped, deregulated wasteland. I don’t know how anyone votes for that, or what happens after they do. British people don’t get on well enough to form militia."
"It’s difficult to keep lying convincingly about things you’ve convinced yourself your audience are too stupid to notice."
That's what I said!
the difficulty isn't a moral one unfortunately, it's a strategic inconvenience
which is really depressing
its a cycle of cynicism system that has developed
How do blokes like Angus Taylor keep their jobs?
Asking for a friend.
Ben...It’s the new political culture of “ Fuck ‘em “.
Our politicians don’t think they’re accountable to the public anymore and with good reason.....they’re not accountable.
These days it’s just a matter of ignoring issues and distracting away from them till the media enforced short attention span of the public narrative moves on. The people still care , they know Michaella Cash shouldn’t still have a job. Or Gladys Liu or Peter Dutton and the same goes for all their ALP equivalents.
They’re all disgraced , but they just ride out the storm cause they know the media constantly needs fresh stories to sell the news and so the only pressures which were previously brought to bear outside of the election cycle- that of the media- are no longer powerful enough to see them down the road. Media devotes about a week to anything before it disappears these days. A politician just lays low or changes tact till then and they’re laughing.
Sam Dastayari wouldn’t leave of his own accord if he was in the same position these days , in fact Gladys Liu is in the same position and she hasn’t gone anywhere *.
Angus Taylor is trying to wait out the media by drawing attention to a less serious issue ( The Christmas bullshit ) in order to distract from his obviously sackable issues till the pressure is gone.
I wrote something about this new dictatorial political culture somewhere here the other day. I honestly think it stems from seeing how the CCP operates at close quarters and the effectiveness of their strategy ie Tyranny. All those “ study tours “ they embark on to China where they witness the utter domestic domination of the CCP , all the cash floating around and the way they’re altering the paradigm of the globe and they’re more than impressed. Particularly with the Chinese saying “ look , this is how we operate , it works and it’s coming to Australia because we are going to rule the world “ and the Aussie pollies go home with a little bit of that in their blood. More than a little bit !
People would have you believe it’s trickle down from Trump but it’s not , it’s the result of pollination from China.
*Yet ! Although I imagine she will be gone sooner rather than later if she’s seeking her “ donation “ money back
I'm pretty sure Angus is just misunderstood...
- In April it was revealed that two years ago, the government had made a $79 million water buyback from a subsidiary of a company of that Taylor directed and co-founded. Taylor said he had resigned from any roles in the company at the time of the buyback.
- In June, it was revealed that Taylor met with officials from the environment department and then-minister Josh Frydenberg’s office at the same time that the department was investigating a company co-owned by Taylor’s brother Richard.
- Taylor also had an interest in the company, through his family’s investment company.
Labor is now threatening to go to the police over the allegedly forged document Taylor’s office provided The Daily Telegraph to back up his attack on Moore. Taylor has denied the documents were the work of anyone in his office.
Nailed it Blowin, the media will just drift away in a few weeks or months and so things continue.
It's unbelievable, how can these fuckers get away with it?
The answer is because they know we won’t riot in the street .
"Black man got a lot of problem,
but they don't mind throwing a brick..."
"...white man swallows lotta Murdoch
And he teaches 'em to be thick"?