A little support for Edgray

[Accountable]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

 

[edgray]

Very interesting and thoroughly entertaining video. Thanks!

I looked into this at an architecture company I used to work for: we were investigating different working methods, from a work environment standpoint. As part of the research I ended up looking at Google.

Google apparently encourage their employees to spend 20% of their work time, a full day, working on a project outside of their employment remit. Interestingly, this 20% of work time has so far equated to over 60% of the company's revenue and spawned things like their AdWords and AdSense products.

I do wonder if this is a generational thing. I'm a tail-end generation X chap, so generally work is, in my mind, to first and foremost put food on the table and a roof over my head. Whereas someone younger than me, in Generation Y, looks for more substance and meaning from a career...

 

[Dana]

Life's to short to work at a career you hate. although you may find a better one in your next life.

 

[edgray]

Life's to short to work at a career you hate. although you may find a better one in your next life.

very true.

I chose my career because it was the least offensive way I could think of to spend my working life.

It does make me wonder if I should've chosen something more rewarding.

Accountable, you're a teacher - do you benefit more from the financial rewards of your job, or the reward of enlightening future generations?

 

[hart]

Life's to short to work at a career you hate..

Oh Dana plenty of folks work at a career they hate, especially now a days, it's called surviving.

 

[Accountable]

Accountable, you're a teacher - do you benefit more from the financial rewards of your job, or the reward of enlightening future generations?

I grew up poor. When you grow up poor you can go one of two ways: either money means everything, and you will sacrifice much to grab and hold as much as you can (think of the stereotype of the Great Depression survivors) or you realize that life can be really good even without much cash. I'm from the latter school of thought.

Money's never meant much to me. I've always gotten satisfaction from the people I work with, rather than the paycheck. My beloved pays attention to the cash flow, which balances me perfectly. I can run around doing good without worrying so much about the bank accounts. Hell, I'd do a lot of the work I do now for free, if it meant I wouldn't have to do the paperwork & shit.

 

[edgray]

I grew up poor. When you grow up poor you can go one of two ways: either money means everything, and you will sacrifice much to grab and hold as much as you can (think of the stereotype of the Great Depression survivors) or you realize that life can be really good even without much cash. I'm from the latter school of thought.

Money's never meant much to me. I've always gotten satisfaction from the people I work with, rather than the paycheck. My beloved pays attention to the cash flow, which balances me perfectly. I can run around doing good without worrying so much about the bank accounts. Hell, I'd do a lot of the work I do now for free, if it meant I wouldn't have to do the paperwork & shit.

That's interesting, and I must say it's quite surprising: I didn't expect a defender of capitalism to be someone with such a relaxed outlook towards money. You're totally determined to not fit into any pre-conceived notions I have, aren't you?

For me, it was the opposite, but with a similar result. I came from a well off middle class family, plenty to go around and yet it was a house bursting with unhappiness and strife. The house we grew up in was large and modern, 2 cars in the driveway, lovely garden and on a pleasant housing development in a leafy suburb of London. I could see how hard my step-father worked for things he never had time to enjoy, how unhappy my mother was that it was never enough. By the time I moved out of home at 17 I really hated money and kind of spent the next few years in a self-imposed poverty.

Now for me the job is just for the money, though I want that to change. I like a lot of what I do career wise, but don't find it nearly as fulfilling as I'd like.

You know, you'd make a great anarchist. The creative work in life, not the paperwork, is where more of our focus should be, and that's a key anarchist belief

 

[Accountable]

That's interesting, and I must say it's quite surprising: I didn't expect a defender of capitalism to be someone with such a relaxed outlook towards money. You're totally determined to not fit into any pre-conceived notions I have, aren't you?

Thanks. I don't begrudge moneymakers their money. I truly don't get how capitalism itself gets the rap for crap capitalists pull. That's like blaming the gun for killing or the car for speeding.

This vid gives me some insight though. More money for more work works for mechanical tasks, meaning repetitive work. That fits rather well with the greedy stereotype of investors. Buy a stock; sell a stock; make profit. Buy more stock; sell more stock; make more profit. Lather, rinse, repeat. No deep thought process required. No fulfillment beyond the bank balance. Lots of people who "thoughtlessly" make big money like this find self-actualization in other ways - charities, volunteer work, etc. - that generally cost money rather than make money.

For me, it was the opposite, but with a similar result. I came from a well off middle class family, plenty to go around and yet it was a house bursting with unhappiness and strife. The house we grew up in was large and modern, 2 cars in the driveway, lovely garden and on a pleasant housing development in a leafy suburb of London. I could see how hard my step-father worked for things he never had time to enjoy, how unhappy my mother was that it was never enough. By the time I moved out of home at 17 I really hated money and kind of spent the next few years in a self-imposed poverty.

Now for me the job is just for the money, though I want that to change. I like a lot of what I do career wise, but don't find it nearly as fulfilling as I'd like.

Like the video says, make just enough to take concerns about money off the table. The problem most people today face is that the more they make, the more they spend. If we could just learn to live within our means, we could find truly rewarding work in our spare time - if we're not lucky enough to find it as a vocation. My most rewarding memories are of being unemployed and volunteering to work with the Red Cross Hurricane Katrina evacuation.

You know, you'd make a great anarchist. The creative work in life, not the paperwork, is where more of our focus should be, and that's a key anarchist belief

Anarchy, like communism, looks great on paper but requires too many independent variable to be dependably predictable. I'm certainly game to give it a try on a microscale, like a commune, but I'm not naive enough to believe it could ever work in a modern society of millions.

 

[Accountable]

That's interesting, and I must say it's quite surprising: I didn't expect a defender of capitalism to be someone with such a relaxed outlook towards money. You're totally determined to not fit into any pre-conceived notions I have, aren't you?

(after some thought) I see capitalism as an expression of individual freedom. You don't have to make the deal. No one will send you to jail for saying no. I'm firm in my belief that laws should limit government intrusion rather than citizens' liberty. I daresay I'd be against almost every law if I had a list to check "for" or "against".

If people knew that they can't depend on the government then they'd be more likely to be independent or, even better, interdependent with their neighbors. That interdependency is the real victim in this so-called "progressive" movement started by Woodrow Wilson, because liberty and responsibility go hand-in-hand.

When someone offers a service (say, housekeeping), they take on the responsibility for that service (it's their fault if the house is not adequately clean). The people being served no longer have to be responsible (such as picking up after themselves). Sure some might anyway, but many more will give in to the temptation. Before long that which had once been a "service" is considered a "need". The served has become dependent on the server, who can use this new power to raise rates, reduce frequency/quality of service, or both.

In a capitalist system, the customer (the served) can fire the server and either go with another server (the competition) or decide to reject the service altogether, reclaim responsibility, and take care of himself at his own self-defined level of quality.

When the gov't becomes the server, all bets are off. One can't easily fire the gov't and contract with a competitor, and certainly can't stop paying for the service and opt to take care of oneself. To do either risks actual bodily harm and/or imprisonment.

Remember: the one who makes the decisions is the real owner. Allowing gov't to take responsibility for our lives is to give them ownership. It is nothing less than slavery.

 

[Minor Axis]

This is an outstanding video and a strong argument for socialism. Remove people's need for money, the basic needs of subsistence, and allow them to pursue want they want and in many cases they will attack things that make a difference and actually help us, the human race move forward. It sounds very exciting, but I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime. We are too set in our ways.

Three comments-
4:51- You'll see my icon, Coyote on a rocket. But instead of an illustration of an economic principle, my usage is tongue-in-cheek.
6:59- People play music on the weekends to get better. That's me too.
9:20- Profit, profit, profit, "screw you buddy"- Greed, a very bad thing that arguably could be solved by removing people's need for money allowing them to focus on the 3 principles talked about in the video- purpose, mastery, and... something else...

I'm not really trying to say anything about myself. Just thought that was interesting.

I chose my career because it was the least offensive way I could think of to spend my working life.
It does make me wonder if I should've chosen something more rewarding.

I am not a genius, but I am very lucky in being exposed to what I wanted to do, fly airplanes, at about age 9. Mucho fun job, no sitting in an office, travel, well paid (although pay is on the big slide). How rewarding is the job? Hmm, well to get somewhere safely is sort of a reward, but it's not the kind of reward you'd get from a job creating something or solving problems. I also think having your efforts acknowledged is also a positive motivator. My belief that the primary motivator in the corporate boardroom these days is self enrichment and it is detached from the more important goals human leaders should aspire to.

Lets say you work for a shoe company like Nike. Would it be more motivational to design a shoe to make yourself rich or design a shoe that will help millions of people, just because it will make a difference? People like Steve Jobs have so much money, they can focus on trying to make a dent in the Universe, precisely because the money is no longer an issue for them. But a good question is, does it take mountains of money to reach this point? If we could all have a nice house, 2 cars, all the appliances we need, and can travel at will around the world, how would we spend our free time?

 

[Accountable]

This is an outstanding video and a strong argument for socialism. Remove people's need for money, the basic needs of subsistence, and allow them to pursue want they want and in many cases they will attack things that make a difference and actually help us, the human race move forward. It sounds very exciting, but I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime. We are too set in our ways.

I can't decide whether to write *sight* or AARrrgh!!
Why does everything have to have a government-force solution?? If a company pays enough to its skilled and highly skilled employees to remove money as a concern, then gets out of the way (stops micromanaging) they will likely perform at much higher levels simply because they want to. If the gov't gets out of the way & stops trying to micromanage society and the direction gov't leadership decides in their "wisdom" *snicker* society should go, then maybe the world will be a better place. Even if it's not, it won't be because some self-important politicians fucked it up.

Three comments-
4:51- You'll see my icon, Coyote on a rocket. But instead of an illustration of an economic principle, my usage is tongue-in-cheek.
6:59- People play music on the weekends to get better. That's me too.
9:20- Profit, profit, profit, "screw you buddy"- Greed, a very bad thing that arguably could be solved by removing people's need for money allowing them to focus on the 3 principles talked about in the video- purpose, mastery, and... something else...

You missed the point at 9:20. Profit motive unmoored from the purpose motive sometimes cause bad things to happen. That's got nothing to do with paying skilled workers, but with the leadership not losing their sense of purpose.

Gov't forcing a company to go through the motions of doing what's right under threat of punishment has exactly the same results of management forcing employees to go through specific motions under threat of being fired: the threatened party looks for loopholes. Innovative energies become redirected from elevating performance to finding ways around the rules. Any speeches about sense of purpose become empty words that only serve to remind the audience that the speaker's real purpose is to force them to follow the rules regardless of motivation. I see it daily at school.

I'm not really trying to say anything about myself. Just thought that was interesting.

I am not a genius, but I am very lucky in being exposed to what I wanted to do, fly airplanes, at about age 9. Mucho fun job, no sitting in an office, travel, well paid (although pay is on the big slide). How rewarding is the job? Hmm, well to get somewhere safely is sort of a reward, but it's not the kind of reward you'd get from a job creating something or solving problems. I also think having your efforts acknowledged is also a positive motivator. My belief that the primary motivator in the corporate boardroom these days is self enrichment and it is detached from the more important goals human leaders should aspire to.

Lets say you work for a shoe company like Nike. Would it be more motivational to design a shoe to make yourself rich or design a shoe that will help millions of people, just because it will make a difference? People like Steve Jobs have so much money, they can focus on trying to make a dent in the Universe, precisely because the money is no longer an issue for them. But a good question is, does it take mountains of money to reach this point? If we could all have a nice house, 2 cars, all the appliances we need, and can travel at will around the world, how would we spend our free time?

Your second paragraph is closer to the point of the vid than the beginning of your post, I think. I agree with you about the primary motivator in the corporate boardroom. That's driven by the stockholder, who goes through the mechanical processes of buy & sell, buy & sell, which the vid points out is driven by more and more money. I can't believe that a CEO does what he does just for money. I think money is the scorecard he uses to compare himself against his competing CEOs. I'd love to replace that scorecard with something more meaningful, but gov't force in the form of socialism is certainly not the answer.

 

[Minor Axis]

Accountable, we are all trapped in our current economic system. Basically the world is trapped. I say "socialism" and you immediate ping on government, but I am talking of the end result, a system where all of your subsistence needs are taken care allowing you to focus exclusively on bigger and better things for us as a species. Would there be slackers? I'm sure there would be and even in that system you could institute carrots for the grunt labor as described in the video. Carrots work for that if you believe the video.

Secondly, this is hard core fantasy, getting from where we are today, point A to point B. I realize I'm dreaming and I know you hate "big" government, but I don't see this system developing without a complete breakdown and rebuild, which I don't think anyone wants. Or it would require an overall management of the system that only a government can achieve. After all, government is just a projection of ourselves composed of people designated to handle the management of our society. Yes I realize government can take on a life of it's own, but any system is going to fail if you don't have responsible people running the show.

I know, I know, you basically want every man/women for themselves. This is lose lose IMHO and it will not get you to the situation as described in the video.

From a purely philosophical argument, if making money was no longer the primary motivator of human beings, and instead improving ourselves and our world, we would be in a much better place, but we are still kind of primitive for that don't you think?

 

[Kyle B]

Luckily, I currently have a job that I enjoy a lot. I work at my college with the locksmith and assist him with various tasks along with solving problems around campus that he just doesn't have time for The great thing is, I'm learning skills that 99% of people will never learn. Furthermore, I get to help people around campus and actually do meaningful work.

 

[Accountable]

Accountable, we are all trapped in our current economic system. Basically the world is trapped. I say "socialism" and you immediate ping on government, but I am talking of the end result, a system where all of your subsistence needs are taken care allowing you to focus exclusively on bigger and better things for us as a species. Would there be slackers? I'm sure there would be and even in that system you could institute carrots for the grunt labor as described in the video. Carrots work for that if you believe the video.

I really hate passive voice sentences. When you say "a system where all of your subsistence needs are taken care [of]", taken care of by whom?? If you place that responsibility in anyone's hands but the individual, you create a slave state at least to some degree. Yes of course I "ping" on government when you say socialism because socialism is a government system.

Secondly, this is hard core fantasy, getting from where we are today, point A to point B. I realize I'm dreaming and I know you hate "big" government, but I don't see this system developing without a complete breakdown and rebuild, which I don't think anyone wants. Or it would require an overall management of the system that only a government can achieve. After all, government is just a projection of ourselves composed of people designated to handle the management of our society. Yes I realize government can take on a life of it's own, but any system is going to fail if you don't have responsible people running the show.

It doesn't have to be fantasy. It is possible without government intervention, it will just happen more slowly. That's the way organics works. You can't force attitudes; you can't force values. You can only force behavior. That's what gov't does; it forces and enforces behavior in the not-completely baseless hope that the values will follow. Studies show that truly permanent change requires changing hearts and minds - convincing people to value the desired behavior and sacrifice - which will naturally result in them wanting to behave the "right" way. I think that's the real difference between you & me. You think we have to force change because that's the way change has always come about. I'm content with behaving the way I think I should, valuing the things I think are important, and doing my best to convince others - through word and example - to do the same. The result is far less dramatic, but far more satisfying.

I know, I know, you basically want every man/women for themselves. This is lose lose IMHO and it will not get you to the situation as described in the video.

You drop into that old rut over and over again, regardless of my responses. Interdependence is the goal, not independence, and certainly not a dependence on an elite - be it government or king. As I've said before, I'd love a better name for the system than "government" because my ideal is not for the system to govern (limit and control) but to shield and protect from those who want to govern us, rather than trying to protect us from ourselves like it is now.

From a purely philosophical argument, if making money was no longer the primary motivator of human beings, and instead improving ourselves and our world, we would be in a much better place, but we are still kind of primitive for that don't you think?

"A rose by any other name..."
Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows that the need for survival trumps all other needs, followed by safety. These have to be not only taken care of but trusted to be there in the foreseeable future, before we will drive to excellence.
The USSR showed us, but that closes minds so I won't address it.
Any organization (my experience is with government, but I'm sure it's the same all over) that provides supplies encourages waste. People see supplies and don't trust that they will be replenished, so they hoard. That empties the shelves before the bean counters predicted the supplies should run out. The hoarders see the empty shelves and feel justified that they accurately predicted that the supplies would run out, and grab all they can the next time supplies get delivered. It doesn't matter that the shelves eventually balance out and stay full, or that their personal stash also stays full. They remember that the shelves were once empty and could be again.

If an employee is expected to provide his own supplies (many construction contractors work this way) he buys only what he needs, usually the cheapest available at first, then buys better supplies as he increases his trust that his job is secure. His job is secure because of his skill level, which is also in his control.

So you see, money is not the primary motivator, but a lack of trust. The trust is not there because the control is not in their hands. The larger the company, the more responsibility is dispersed. The unfortunate result that goes with that is that without someone to blame (take responsibility) there is no one to trust (take responsibility). So people grab what they can while the supply is there, because you never know when it will all go away.

That's what we need to eradicate from our society, the aversion to take responsibility. Big government allows people to shuck responsibility just like big corporations do. That's why I hate big government as much as anything else. Do I think we are too primitive to take responsibility for ourselves, value helping our neighbors, provide positive role models, and reject dependence on a government elite? No, not at all.

 

[Minor Axis]

Accountable, I'll examine your post in more detail and think about your message once I get finished with my chores for the day. However I do have time to say the difference between me and you is that I'd like to see this change in my lifetime, and you are willing to allow generations upon generations to pass to see if this change might happen. I do agree that the people must be behind it.

 

[Accountable]

Accountable, I'll examine your post in more detail and think about your message once I get finished with my chores for the day. However I do have time to say the difference between me and you is that I'd like to see this change in my lifetime, and you are willing to allow generations upon generations to pass to see if this change might happen. I do agree that the people must be behind it.

Your change will peak, fade, and revert in your lifetime or the next. Mine will endure longer. Yours requires someone else exerting control over you and others in the name of freeing them. Mine is within my control and can be adjusted as necessary, and leaves others in control to adopt or reject it as they see fit.

 

[Minor Axis]

Your change will peak, fade, and revert in your lifetime or the next.

Opinion.

Mine will endure longer. Yours requires someone else exerting control over you and others in the name of freeing them.

That is if your vision ever happens. You are advocating lets wait and see if it just happens to evolve and you are assuming the end result will have no social oversight/enforcement at all.

Mine is within my control and can be adjusted as necessary, and leaves others in control to adopt or reject it as they see fit.

Hows that? Pushing the old every man/women for themselves? BTW, individuals can never exercise total control of the rules that effect them while living in a society. Those rules are established by the majority. You are farther into the dream state that I am.

 

[Accountable]

Opinion.

backed up by studies of change imposed from above vs persuaded from below.

That is if your vision ever happens. You are advocating lets wait and see if it just happens to evolve and you are assuming the end result will have no social oversight/enforcement at all.

I should have written "would" instead of "will". Mine would endure, you're would require. But then, my vision is already a reality. I behave the way I think I should, value the things I think are important, and do my best to convince others - through word and example - to do the same.

Why do you say I assume the end result will have no social oversight/enforcement?? That comes from the people, not the government. Are you under some illusion that government not only can create social enforcement, but that it is the only thing that can?? Only people can do that. Neighbors helping neighbors. Friends calling friends telling them they saw young Johnny skipping school. Parents raising their kids with a sense of loyalty and responsibility toward family, friends, and community. Gov't law can't do that, no matter how draconian.

Hows that? Pushing the old every man/women for themselves? BTW, individuals can never exercise total control of the rules that effect them while living in a society. Those rules are established by the majority. You are farther into the dream state that I am.

*sigh* You apparently didn't read my post .... again. I see I missed putting in a "]" thing, so I'll go back and fix it. Meanwhile, I'll copy & paste the statement. Interdependence is the goal, not independence, and certainly not a dependence on an elite - be it government or king.

Total control is not my goal, that's yours. Maximizing liberty is mine.

Now, since you didn't comment on my responses to you, can I assume that you agree with me? Also, my first question was not rhetorical; I'd really appreciate an answer.

 

[Minor Axis]

Now, since you didn't comment on my responses to you, can I assume that you agree with me? Also, my first question was not rhetorical; I'd really appreciate an answer.

Not being obtuse, but what question did you want answered? Hopefully I answered it in this response. It was difficult for me to address each point in response 14. I guess I need to ask you to clarify again what you consider to be the ideal government (sorry).

The video you linked intrigued me because of this notion: take away the need for money and allow people to pursue what inspires them. I mean the video does not say that exactly, but what it says is that if you are not existing on a subsistence level, you can put your energies towards bigger and better things. The other issue with money, the only efforts that will succeed are those where people can make a lot of money. In other words, "making money" is the measure of success, not how much it will help our society move forward. Hence my link to the Desperately Seeking Cures article that illustrates the shortcomings of a for-profit system, where cures that could benefit millions of people never make it due to lack of perceived profit.

I am not an economist so this all could be delusional babbling. I'm sure there are forum members who will agree with that characterization. In the realm of economic/government systems I see this spectrum:
1. Anarchy
2. Minimalist- is that you?
3. Progressive- U.S. today.
4. Socialist- caretaker

Anarchy as one end of the spectrum, no central authority, the local tribe is in charge. As I understand it, I'm not for it.

Minimalist- Next to that I see what I imagine is your ideal, a minimalist government, there to take care of some level of infrastructure, privacy and individual rights trump most everything including the right to discriminate, unless it is something sponsored by the government say education, then discrimination is out. I'm not sure is such a government would bother to regulate the market place. No government sponsored social programs so if you are down and out, you are on your own unless you can find a nice church or neighbor to take pity on you.

Progressive- Then there is a progressive democratic government with social programs like we currently have in the U.S. Our system could easily work as long as programs are designed not to self implode after a number of years.

Socialist Caretaker- On the other end of the spectrum is the socialistic caretaker government. That is what I was referring to, but an idealized state. However, I could easily see this becoming a nightmare.

To some degree you are taken care of by the state, but a fair and responsible state. It's like a colony in the new world where everyone works towards the common good. Shelters are built, food is grown, all efforts are directed towards some kind of an improvement of the society, when not accomplishing personal goals. The video seemed to say that once you take away the subsistence issues, people can focus on other hopefully more important tasks, then where their next pay check is going to come from. So instead of being motivated to make a lot of money for yourself, you are motivated to achieve and master your universe. But I believe it takes a mindset average people do not have because every economic system created by man so far, money and profit come first. Making money is linked to "what's important" but that is not necessarily so.

The Virginia Colony started out as a communal setup, with communal food stores, but in the end John Smith was reported to say "If ye will not work, ye will not eat!" and he disbanded that setup. Communism historically has had some major problems including high levels of corruption.

But ideally such a society would have the following characteristics: The need to earn money to survive is gone and basic needs are provided for by the system. 1) everyone is educated, 2) given adequate housing 3) You are provided with food, medical care, and an allotment of the latest gadgets 4) the opportunity to travel and stay where ever you want. 5) Perks are available in housing and gadgets based on how valuable you are. I did not say how productive you are, but in some jobs that is certainly a criteria. The idea being that when your basic subsistence needs are taken care of, you can choose a living based on what inspires you, and hopefully you are inspired to make that dent in the universe.

The real danger with a system like this is the immense authority the government holds, that corruption will most likely exist, but can't be tolerated, the needs of the hive totally trump the needs of the individual, you end up with a rigid slot system, and you may end up more or less being forced to some kind of drudgery for the good of the hive. The other problem regarding reward is deciding what is truly valuable. Where do liberal arts and entertainment fall in the value spectrum of such a society?

As I said, this just fantasy on my part, but the end goal is to take away having to expend a lot of effort on surviving and allow people to focus on the goals that motivate individuals and overall benefit the individual and society. I believe science fiction has hit on this with movies like I Robot, but imagine a future where most manual labor jobs along with many other types of jobs are performed by robots. What are all the people going to do? How will we function as a society? Are you going to have millions of people milling about? I see this as a real challenge for the future of the human race.

 

[Minor Axis]

I figured you head exploded with that last post.