From: Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Subject: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <REM-2009may01-001@Yahoo.Com>
Is there anyone besides myself who is unemployed and feels
unappreciated? Would you like to volunteer your labor to my
cooperative project and thereby gain my appreciation? I don't have
enough time/energy to do the whole project by myself without any
help, not that I couldn't eventually get it all done, but it'd take
too long and be moot by the time I got it done, so I'd like to have
others do some of the work, at my direction, to speed up the
project to completion within a reasonable time. I'm most interested
in brainstorming details of design, as well as cleaning up my
rough-draft descriptions of the designs, and then labor to
implement specific tasks in PHP and Common Lisp, but I'm open to
labor using any other language you feel appropriate for components
of this system, hence my cross-posting to comp.programming in
addition to the two language-specific newsgroups. The current state
of the portal to this system is reachable from
<tinyurl.com/Portl1>, formatted to work well on one-inch cell-phone
screens, where you can see I've finished the toplevel
Turing-protected menu but haven't finished programming the
create-new-account function and haven't even started the login or
documentation functions.
My project is basically an InterNet-based barter economy
<tinyurl.com/NewEco>, whereby it keeps track of your labor and
rewards you with an equal amount of services in return. But at the
very start there's no existing system to keep track of your labor,
so for the short term during system-building we'll have to do the
time-tracking manually, until we have finished implementing the
automatic time-tracking software. After that mininal operational
system is running, all subsequent labor will be by fixed-time
contracts: For some contracts, I'll simply post how long the task
should take, and the first person to offer to do it within that
time limit gets the contract. For other contracts, one person
(usually myself) will post a RFB (Request For Bids), then others
will post their bids, then the system will pick the lowest bid to
assign the task.
On 1 May, 10:45, ·············@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas,
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
> Is there anyone besides myself who is unemployed and feels
> unappreciated? Would you like to volunteer your labor to my
> cooperative project and thereby gain my appreciation? I don't have
> enough time/energy to do the whole project by myself without any
> help, not that I couldn't eventually get it all done, but it'd take
> too long and be moot by the time I got it done, so I'd like to have
> others do some of the work, at my direction, to speed up the
> project to completion within a reasonable time. I'm most interested
> in brainstorming details of design, as well as cleaning up my
> rough-draft descriptions of the designs, and then labor to
> implement specific tasks in PHP and Common Lisp, but I'm open to
> labor using any other language you feel appropriate for components
> of this system, hence my cross-posting to comp.programming in
> addition to the two language-specific newsgroups. The current state
> of the portal to this system is reachable from
> <tinyurl.com/Portl1>, formatted to work well on one-inch cell-phone
> screens, where you can see I've finished the toplevel
> Turing-protected menu but haven't finished programming the
> create-new-account function and haven't even started the login or
> documentation functions.
>
> My project is basically an InterNet-based barter economy
> <tinyurl.com/NewEco>, whereby it keeps track of your labor and
> rewards you with an equal amount of services in return. But at the
> very start there's no existing system to keep track of your labor,
> so for the short term during system-building we'll have to do the
> time-tracking manually, until we have finished implementing the
> automatic time-tracking software. After that mininal operational
> system is running, all subsequent labor will be by fixed-time
> contracts: For some contracts, I'll simply post how long the task
> should take, and the first person to offer to do it within that
> time limit gets the contract. For other contracts, one person
> (usually myself) will post a RFB (Request For Bids), then others
> will post their bids, then the system will pick the lowest bid to
> assign the task.
Don't feel unappreciated because you're unemployed. I knew several
people in academia who would have been more usefully unemployed but
unfortunately had jobs where they created havoc ;). In a couple of
casses I'd have paid their ticket to Alaska.
Generally this employed stuff is a bunch of nonsense. My govt. has
created 800,000 plastic jobs since 1997 just to keep unemployed off
the register and it costs a bloody fortune and these bureaucrats are a
pain. Really, given the scale of productivity, automation and
outsourcing, the number of 'real jobs' in Western economies does not
match our population at all. Govts have yet to confront the issue
squarely and certainly personal guilt should be avoided. Keep active
and be socially useful. It seems you have done both, so well done.
And I'll look at your site.
Mark
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <7613h1F1950rtU1@mid.individual.net>
On Fri, 01 May 2009 12:41:39 -0700, Mark Tarver wrote:
> Really, given the scale of productivity, automation and outsourcing,
> the number of 'real jobs' in Western economies does not match our
> population at all.
That statement is at odds with what we know from economics, so unless
you back it up with models/data, I am tempted to label it ridiculous.
The number of jobs is not something exogenously fixed, jobs are
created and destroyed based on considerations of profitability, which
has a lot to do with business cycles, taxes, and outside options
(especially unemployment benefits).
I am not saying that the unemployed should feel bad -- frictional
unemployment is a fact of modern labor markets, and is intensified in
recessions. But arguing that one could not get _some_ kind of a job
because of automation is silly.
Sorry for the off-topic post.
Tamas
On 1 May, 21:14, Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 May 2009 12:41:39 -0700, Mark Tarver wrote:
> > Really, given the scale of productivity, automation and outsourcing,
> > the number of 'real jobs' in Western economies does not match our
> > population at all.
>
> That statement is at odds with what we know from economics, so unless
> you back it up with models/data, I am tempted to label it ridiculous.
> The number of jobs is not something exogenously fixed, jobs are
> created and destroyed based on considerations of profitability, which
> has a lot to do with business cycles, taxes, and outside options
> (especially unemployment benefits).
A lot depends of what is meant by "real" jobs. It could be argued that
ultimately nature determines what is genuinely useful. So for
example engineers and doctors perform "real" jobs but bankers or
marketroids do not.
> Sorry for the off-topic post.
From the moment Mark Tarver decided to post a political reply
this was always going to become a political flamefest. Ever
since (at least) repeated trolls regarding free software,
comp.lang.lisp has a bit of a tradition with political flamefests
but I hope people who post political replies (which by the way
is not what the OP asks) will be considerate enough to erase
from the headers the other 2 groups where the original message
was posted.
On 1 May, 21:30, Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 May, 21:14, Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 01 May 2009 12:41:39 -0700, Mark Tarver wrote:
> > > Really, given the scale of productivity, automation and outsourcing,
> > > the number of 'real jobs' in Western economies does not match our
> > > population at all.
>
> > That statement is at odds with what we know from economics, so unless
> > you back it up with models/data, I am tempted to label it ridiculous.
> > The number of jobs is not something exogenously fixed, jobs are
> > created and destroyed based on considerations of profitability, which
> > has a lot to do with business cycles, taxes, and outside options
> > (especially unemployment benefits).
>
> A lot depends of what is meant by "real" jobs. It could be argued that
> ultimately nature determines what is genuinely useful. So for
> example engineers and doctors perform "real" jobs but bankers or
> marketroids do not.
>
> > Sorry for the off-topic post.
>
> From the moment Mark Tarver decided to post a political reply
> this was always going to become a political flamefest. Ever
> since (at least) repeated trolls regarding free software,
> comp.lang.lisp has a bit of a tradition with political flamefests
> but I hope people who post political replies (which by the way
> is not what the OP asks) will be considerate enough to erase
> from the headers the other 2 groups where the original message
> was posted.
Fair enough. I thought the guy should free himself from guilt (given
his downbeat title) since over here at least we have a growing queue
of people out of work through no fault of their own.
> That statement is at odds with what we know from economics, so
> unless you back it up with models/data, I am tempted to label it > ridiculous.
I don't know where you learnt your economics. Regarding this business
of real jobs jobs and so forth; our NHS, education and police force
are absolutely strangled with red tape generated by thousands of
people employed to manage, design forms and assess performance. Our
MOD alone has about 1 civil servant for every soldier. If you get the
chance get hold of a book called 'Your Disobedient Servant' written
yonks ago. It hasn't got better.
Why do I say these jobs are not real? Because in many cases they
actually depreciate the performance of the institutions they are
supposed to serve.
Since this is a programming group I'll *try* not to go into any more
posts on this. There is loads of stuff to read on this if you want to
trawl through newspaper archives.
Mark
On 1 May, 22:19, Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> On 1 May, 21:30, Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. I thought the guy should free himself from guilt (given
> his downbeat title) <SNIP>
Oh absolutely, guilt or feeling sorry for one's self are no good for
anything.
> > That statement is at odds with what we know from economics, so
> > unless you back it up with models/data, I am tempted to label it > ridiculous.
You are missing one ">" here, it was Tamas K Papp who posted
"That statement...ridiculous", not me.
> Since this is a programming group I'll *try* not to go into any more
> posts on this.
That's the problem with political threads, even though people
know they're out of topic they find it hard to resist the
temptation.
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <76160fF1ahcprU1@mid.individual.net>
On Fri, 01 May 2009 13:30:25 -0700, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On 1 May, 21:14, Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 May 2009 12:41:39 -0700, Mark Tarver wrote:
>> > Really, given the scale of productivity, automation and outsourcing,
>> > the number of 'real jobs' in Western economies does not match our
>> > population at all.
>>
>> That statement is at odds with what we know from economics, so unless
>> you back it up with models/data, I am tempted to label it ridiculous.
>> The number of jobs is not something exogenously fixed, jobs are created
>> and destroyed based on considerations of profitability, which has a lot
>> to do with business cycles, taxes, and outside options (especially
>> unemployment benefits).
>
> A lot depends of what is meant by "real" jobs. It could be argued that
> ultimately nature determines what is genuinely useful. So for example
> engineers and doctors perform "real" jobs but bankers or marketroids do
> not.
I haven't seen a proper economic definition for the concept of "real"
jobs -- it is usually used by the speaker to denigrate jobs which he
considers "unreal", so that they can feel superior. The concept has
no value from a scientific perspective.
> replies (which by the way is not what the OP asks) will be considerate
> enough to erase from the headers the other 2 groups where the original
> message was posted.
Done. I also won't post more on this thread, sorry for these two
posts. The static/dynamic typing thread was enough :-)
Anyhow, I feel sorry for Robert Maas, but given the impression based
on his posts here, I don't think anyone in his right mind would hire
the guy, regardless of the state of the business cycle -- I don't think
he would fit into a workplace very well. His attempts to conduct
psychotherapy over Usenet ("is anyone else feeling sorry for
himself?") are not improving this image.
Tamas
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <87vdok7d18.fsf@galatea.local>
Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 01 May 2009 13:30:25 -0700, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
>> On 1 May, 21:14, Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 May 2009 12:41:39 -0700, Mark Tarver wrote:
>>> > Really, given the scale of productivity, automation and outsourcing,
>>> > the number of 'real jobs' in Western economies does not match our
>>> > population at all.
>>>
>>> That statement is at odds with what we know from economics, so unless
>>> you back it up with models/data, I am tempted to label it ridiculous.
>>> The number of jobs is not something exogenously fixed, jobs are created
>>> and destroyed based on considerations of profitability, which has a lot
>>> to do with business cycles, taxes, and outside options (especially
>>> unemployment benefits).
>>
>> A lot depends of what is meant by "real" jobs. It could be argued that
>> ultimately nature determines what is genuinely useful. So for example
>> engineers and doctors perform "real" jobs but bankers or marketroids do
>> not.
>
> I haven't seen a proper economic definition for the concept of "real"
> jobs -- it is usually used by the speaker to denigrate jobs which he
> considers "unreal", so that they can feel superior. The concept has
> no value from a scientific perspective.
I would like to see how you would define _scientifically_ the concept of
"job" real or unreal, given the mortality of the workers and of the
universe...
>> replies (which by the way is not what the OP asks) will be considerate
>> enough to erase from the headers the other 2 groups where the original
>> message was posted.
>
> Done. I also won't post more on this thread, sorry for these two
> posts. The static/dynamic typing thread was enough :-)
Oops. Well then forget about my wish.
> Anyhow, I feel sorry for Robert Maas, but given the impression based
> on his posts here, I don't think anyone in his right mind would hire
> the guy, regardless of the state of the business cycle -- I don't think
> he would fit into a workplace very well. His attempts to conduct
> psychotherapy over Usenet ("is anyone else feeling sorry for
> himself?") are not improving this image.
With the time, I even think any AI, strong or weak, as more powers
tham him. I mean, even the GPS could solve some problems.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Nils M Holm
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <gtgod5$m2s$1@online.de>
Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyhow, I feel sorry for Robert Maas, but given the impression based
> on his posts here, I don't think anyone in his right mind would hire
> the guy, [...]
I do not think that anybody in their right mind would work in our
economy. It is a bizarre system that forces people to work jobs
they do not want and at the same time leaves people unemployed
who really want those jobs.
There are highly interesting models that uncouple income from work
without damaging "the economy". It is really time for a humane form
of work. The only thing that stands in our way is our clinging to
known patterns.
*Sigh* Sorry for the OT post. F'up to poster.
--
Nils M Holm <n m h @ t 3 x . o r g> -- http://t3x.org/nmh/
From: George Peter Staplin
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <gtfqkr$u1c$1@news.xmission.com>
Tamas K Papp wrote:
> On Fri, 01 May 2009 12:41:39 -0700, Mark Tarver wrote:
>
>> Really, given the scale of productivity, automation and outsourcing,
>> the number of 'real jobs' in Western economies does not match our
>> population at all.
>
> That statement is at odds with what we know from economics, so unless
> you back it up with models/data, I am tempted to label it ridiculous.
> The number of jobs is not something exogenously fixed, jobs are
> created and destroyed based on considerations of profitability, which
> has a lot to do with business cycles, taxes, and outside options
> (especially unemployment benefits).
>
> I am not saying that the unemployed should feel bad -- frictional
> unemployment is a fact of modern labor markets, and is intensified in
> recessions. But arguing that one could not get _some_ kind of a job
> because of automation is silly.
>
> Sorry for the off-topic post.
>
> Tamas
Tamas, I think I agree.
This site lists layoffs for the last 3 months, and gives links to sources
about the public announcements:
http://www.portalseven.com/finance/Layoffs_Last_3_Months.jsp
The colors for the months I think indicate things are not getting better in
general. Unemployment I think is worse than most people imagine.
Note: I am not in any way affiliated with that site. I am also as of today
unemployed, but I knew it was coming to an end eventually...
-George
Tamas K Papp schrieb:
> On Fri, 01 May 2009 12:41:39 -0700, Mark Tarver wrote:
>
>> Really, given the scale of productivity, automation and outsourcing,
>> the number of 'real jobs' in Western economies does not match our
>> population at all.
>
> That statement is at odds with what we know from economics, so unless
> you back it up with models/data, I am tempted to label it ridiculous.
> The number of jobs is not something exogenously fixed, jobs are
> created and destroyed based on considerations of profitability, which
> has a lot to do with business cycles, taxes, and outside options
> (especially unemployment benefits).
>
> I am not saying that the unemployed should feel bad -- frictional
> unemployment is a fact of modern labor markets, and is intensified in
> recessions. But arguing that one could not get _some_ kind of a job
> because of automation is silly.
One question that I find interesting: is there a reason why the amount
of available work that needs to be done by humans should equal the
amount of work the current number of humans on this planet can do?
Since ten thousand years some people are working on tools. Tools help
to reduce time that people have to spend with work.
So under the premise that humans are busy to create tools that reduce
the need to do the work, why should there be enough work available that
anyone can do it?
I mean, the work is still there and needs to get done. But more and more
of it is done by machines, and I see it not stopping.
So although Mark can not give good definitions, I think his idea sounds
right.
I think that in this centrury we will reach a point at which *all* work
can be done by computers and robots.
André
--
Lisp is not dead. It’s just the URL that has changed:
http://clojure.org/
On 2 May, 12:46, André Thieme <address.good.until.
···········@justmail.de> wrote:
> Tamas K Papp schrieb:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 01 May 2009 12:41:39 -0700, Mark Tarver wrote:
>
> >> Really, given the scale of productivity, automation and outsourcing,
> >> the number of 'real jobs' in Western economies does not match our
> >> population at all.
>
> > That statement is at odds with what we know from economics, so unless
> > you back it up with models/data, I am tempted to label it ridiculous.
> > The number of jobs is not something exogenously fixed, jobs are
> > created and destroyed based on considerations of profitability, which
> > has a lot to do with business cycles, taxes, and outside options
> > (especially unemployment benefits).
>
> > I am not saying that the unemployed should feel bad -- frictional
> > unemployment is a fact of modern labor markets, and is intensified in
> > recessions. But arguing that one could not get _some_ kind of a job
> > because of automation is silly.
>
> One question that I find interesting: is there a reason why the amount
> of available work that needs to be done by humans should equal the
> amount of work the current number of humans on this planet can do?
> Since ten thousand years some people are working on tools. Tools help
> to reduce time that people have to spend with work.
> So under the premise that humans are busy to create tools that reduce
> the need to do the work, why should there be enough work available that
> anyone can do it?
> I mean, the work is still there and needs to get done. But more and more
> of it is done by machines, and I see it not stopping.
> So although Mark can not give good definitions, I think his idea sounds
> right.
> I think that in this centrury we will reach a point at which *all* work
> can be done by computers and robots.
>
> André
> --
> Lisp is not dead. It’s just the URL that has changed:http://clojure.org/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh well; if we're going to get into this .... I think the definition
of an unreal job I gave is fairly clear.
QUOTE
Why do I say these jobs are not real? Because in many cases they
actually depreciate the performance of the institutions they are
supposed to serve.
UNQUOTE
With respect I think Tamas is a bit out of touch - or maybe things are
different where he is. Here for example is a piece on our NHS, which
you could multiply umpteen times over for education, police etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1032073/On-Critical-List-How-NHS-killed-politics-bureaucracy.html
Now lets have look at the 'number of jobs is not exogenously fixed'
which he cites. Now in one sense thats true if we mean by jobs
'useful things that people can do'. Unfortunately thats not the same
as 'job' as most people mean it which means 'paid work' and that means
either private or public sector.
Right now in the UK the private sector is in freefall and we have in
one case 236 people applying for a job as a dustman. We have City
boys coming out of the square mile going for teaching kids. In short,
the brown stuff has truly hit the fan and its not going to get better
in the medium term. The public sector is still walking forward not
realising that its heart has stopped pumping, but when that
realisation catches up, it will contract too. It has to. We are
running an enormous deficit. So are the jobs exogenously fixed? Yes,
most definitely.
Somehow we need to change. We have to make 'useful things that people
can do'= 'paid work' but neither the public sector nor the private
sector has yet managed it. The private sector equates usefulness with
making money and sod the consequences. The public sector generates a
parasitic bureaucracy. When we achieve that equation we can talk
about jobs not being exogenously fixed.
And on Andre's point about machines and automation. Yes; its worth
considering that we *should* be taking it easier, but over here people
in work are working harder than when I was a kid.
Mark
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <763rm3F1ait2rU1@mid.individual.net>
On Sat, 02 May 2009 13:20:51 -0700, Mark Tarver wrote:
> Oh well; if we're going to get into this .... I think the definition of
> an unreal job I gave is fairly clear.
>
> QUOTE
> Why do I say these jobs are not real? Because in many cases they
> actually depreciate the performance of the institutions they are
> supposed to serve.
> UNQUOTE
>
> With respect I think Tamas is a bit out of touch - or maybe things are
> different where he is. Here for example is a piece on our NHS, which
> you could multiply umpteen times over for education, police etc.
I don't think I am out of touch, I am just not packing value
judgments into the concept of a job. Imagine a "company assassin",
who randomly selects and kills employees. Does his job decrease the
value of the company? Surely (at least for most companies :-P). Does
calling his job "unreal" serve any purpose? I am not sure.
Roughly, I think what you call "unreal" jobs are jobs which you think
we would be better off without. That may be true for some jobs, but
then the alternative is not clear (do we have no police? a better
police? a smaller police? not all of these yield the same
consequences. And what will former policemen do? etc). So I find it
difficult to assign this property to the job itself -- I would prefer
to do traditional general equilibrium welfare analysis to deal with
these questions.
> Right now in the UK the private sector is in freefall and we have in one
> case 236 people applying for a job as a dustman. We have City boys
> coming out of the square mile going for teaching kids. In short, the
> brown stuff has truly hit the fan and its not going to get better in the
> medium term. The public sector is still walking forward not realising
> that its heart has stopped pumping, but when that realisation catches
> up, it will contract too. It has to. We are running an enormous
> deficit. So are the jobs exogenously fixed? Yes, most definitely.
Your logic has a flaw in it: you think that just because you observe
that something is decreasing when we would prefer more of it (ceteris
paribus), its amount is exogenously fixed. The amount of ice cream
has been decreasing in my fridge for the last week, but that does not
mean that its supply is exogenously fixed - at some stage I will go to
the supermarket and get some more. Similarly, jobs will be created
once companies find it profitable to do so. The number of jobs is
usually exogenous to a worker looking for a job, but not endogenous
for the whole economy. A lot of things work like that (eg prices).
> Somehow we need to change. We have to make 'useful things that people
> can do'= 'paid work' but neither the public sector nor the private
> sector has yet managed it. The private sector equates usefulness with
> making money and sod the consequences. The public sector generates a
> parasitic bureaucracy. When we achieve that equation we can talk about
> jobs not being exogenously fixed.
The two things really have nothing to do with each other. The
phenomenon you mention in the private sector is called uninternalized
externalities, and it does make economic allocation suboptimal. The
second thing is the inefficiency of bureaucracy, which I tend to think
of as a technological constraint (in a broad sense, economists call
whatever enters into a production "technology").
Neither has much to do with the exogeneity if the number of jobs, as
the latter will still be endogenous. However, externalities of
course do influence the actual job creation process (a nice classic
paper is Hosios 1990, it shows a kind of externality that it related
to search frictions, worth reading if one is interested in economics
of labor markets). And so do taxes, as most taxes are distortionary,
but that is a general point, taxes usually distort allocations in all
markets.
Another thing: "useful things" is an extremely vague concept, and so
far no one has given a good general definition for determining if
something is useful, especially when we want to compare things in the
presence of trade-offs. So your definition is not really operative.
Modern economics has wrestled with a lot of these questions and came
up with concepts that better suited to economic analysis. When
formalized in the appropriate framework (market allocation and welfare
analysis), you intuition above makes sense, you just have to approach
things a bit differently.
Anyhow, I want to stop here. I see that you think about these issues
and you do have good intuition about some of these things, it is just
that you lack the training to think about them formally and make
obvious mistakes. No offense meant when I say this, I make a lot of
silly mistakes outside my field too (as you might have witnessed
looking at my CL code :-P).
BTW, I am with you in hating parasitic bureaucracies, I just don't
think it has anything to do with labor markets per se.
Sorry for the off-topic post, but at least this post did not have any
name-calling or static typing in it.
Tamas
On May 2, 5:18 pm, Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your logic has a flaw in it: you think that just because you observe
> that something is decreasing when we would prefer more of it (ceteris
> paribus), its amount is exogenously fixed. The amount of ice cream
> has been decreasing in my fridge for the last week, but that does not
> mean that its supply is exogenously fixed - at some stage I will go to
> the supermarket and get some more. Similarly, jobs will be created
> once companies find it profitable to do so.
Change "once" for "if" and I would agree. But I think that Mark's
point is that, due to changes in technology, that is a very big "if."
IOW, Mark is saying that, long term, the number of employees required
is shrinking because of changes in technology, necessitating the
creation of busy-work (i.e., "un-real") jobs by government in order to
have something approaching full employment.
I'm not saying that I think this will ultimately prove true, but your
response doesn't answer Mark's central assertion; you simply assume
that "jobs will be created once companies find it profitable to do
so," without addressing the question of whether, long term, it really
will be profitable to, on net, create more jobs, or, long term, will
be more profitable to, again, on net, increase non-labor technology
investments and decrease the number of jobs.
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <768gqiF1bp3e9U1@mid.individual.net>
On Mon, 04 May 2009 07:46:53 -0700, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On May 2, 5:18 pm, Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Your logic has a flaw in it: you think that just because you observe
>> that something is decreasing when we would prefer more of it (ceteris
>> paribus), its amount is exogenously fixed. The amount of ice cream has
>> been decreasing in my fridge for the last week, but that does not mean
>> that its supply is exogenously fixed - at some stage I will go to the
>> supermarket and get some more. Similarly, jobs will be created once
>> companies find it profitable to do so.
>
> Change "once" for "if" and I would agree. But I think that Mark's point
> is that, due to changes in technology, that is a very big "if." IOW,
> Mark is saying that, long term, the number of employees required is
> shrinking because of changes in technology, necessitating the creation
> of busy-work (i.e., "un-real") jobs by government in order to have
> something approaching full employment.
>
> I'm not saying that I think this will ultimately prove true, but your
> response doesn't answer Mark's central assertion; you simply assume that
> "jobs will be created once companies find it profitable to do so,"
> without addressing the question of whether, long term, it really will be
> profitable to, on net, create more jobs, or, long term, will be more
> profitable to, again, on net, increase non-labor technology investments
> and decrease the number of jobs.
If we are talking about long-term effects, it is best to dispense with
business-cycle frequency phenomena and use long-run real (as opposed
to monetary) models.
The possibility that you describe would require a production function
that, after a certain point, is not increasing (or could even be
decreasing) in labor inputs. So far, the data tells us that
technological growth increased the productivity of capital and labor
quite symmetrically -- they call this kind of growth total factor
productivity (TFP) growth. This is a very robust fact of economic
growth, and is reflected in the stability of the share of labor income
in total national product (has been about 2/3 for a long, long, time,
and fluctuates very little).
So technological growth, if it continues in the manner it has in the
past few thousand years, will not produce the kind of unemployment
people in this thread were talking about. Of course I can't guarantee
that it will continue, and if you like reading the Culture novels of
Iain M Banks (I do), you may believe that a huge structural change
will happen sometime in the future which will end scarcity and thus
employment generally. However, at that point, unemployment won't be
an unpleasant thing any more, so will be no reason to dislike it.
By the way, growth accounting is a fascinating field of economics
where exciting things are happening at the moment (eg models with
embodied technological growth, which are very promising).
Tamas
On May 4, 11:44 am, Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> The possibility that you describe would require a production function
> that, after a certain point, is not increasing (or could even be
> decreasing) in labor inputs. So far, the data tells us that
> technological growth increased the productivity of capital and labor
> quite symmetrically -- they call this kind of growth total factor
> productivity (TFP) growth. This is a very robust fact of economic
> growth, and is reflected in the stability of the share of labor income
> in total national product (has been about 2/3 for a long, long, time,
> and fluctuates very little).
Maybe I'm just being dense, but this doesn't appear to speak to total
employment, just the productivity and labor income share of gnp of
that portion of the population that is actually employed. It's
possible to have high unemployment and high labor productivity.
On 4 May, 15:46, Raffael Cavallaro <················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 5:18 pm, Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your logic has a flaw in it: you think that just because you observe
> > that something is decreasing when we would prefer more of it (ceteris
> > paribus), its amount is exogenously fixed. The amount of ice cream
> > has been decreasing in my fridge for the last week, but that does not
> > mean that its supply is exogenously fixed - at some stage I will go to
> > the supermarket and get some more. Similarly, jobs will be created
> > once companies find it profitable to do so.
>
> Change "once" for "if" and I would agree. But I think that Mark's
> point is that, due to changes in technology, that is a very big "if."
> IOW, Mark is saying that, long term, the number of employees required
> is shrinking because of changes in technology, necessitating the
> creation of busy-work (i.e., "un-real") jobs by government in order to
> have something approaching full employment.
>
> I'm not saying that I think this will ultimately prove true, but your
> response doesn't answer Mark's central assertion; you simply assume
> that "jobs will be created once companies find it profitable to do
> so," without addressing the question of whether, long term, it really
> will be profitable to, on net, create more jobs, or, long term, will
> be more profitable to, again, on net, increase non-labor technology
> investments and decrease the number of jobs.
Getting away from Mr Mass' personal problems. Interesting article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8037732.stm
suggesting that in the UK economy; the private economy can no longer
provide jobs for its skilled workers.
Mark
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <87hbztyqif.fsf@galatea.local>
Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> On 4 May, 15:46, Raffael Cavallaro <················@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 2, 5:18�pm, Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Your logic has a flaw in it: you think that just because you observe
>> > that something is decreasing when we would prefer more of it (ceteris
>> > paribus), its amount is exogenously fixed. �The amount of ice cream
>> > has been decreasing in my fridge for the last week, but that does not
>> > mean that its supply is exogenously fixed - at some stage I will go to
>> > the supermarket and get some more. �Similarly, jobs will be created
>> > once companies find it profitable to do so.
>>
>> Change "once" for "if" and I would agree. But I think that Mark's
>> point is that, due to changes in technology, that is a very big "if."
>> IOW, Mark is saying that, long term, the number of employees required
>> is shrinking because of changes in technology, necessitating the
>> creation of busy-work (i.e., "un-real") jobs by government in order to
>> have something approaching full employment.
>>
>> I'm not saying that I think this will ultimately prove true, but your
>> response doesn't answer Mark's central assertion; you simply assume
>> that "jobs will be created once companies find it profitable to do
>> so," without addressing the question of whether, long term, it really
>> will be profitable to, on net, create more jobs, or, long term, will
>> be more profitable to, again, on net, increase non-labor technology
>> investments and decrease the number of jobs.
>
> Getting away from Mr Mass' personal problems. Interesting article
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8037732.stm
>
> suggesting that in the UK economy; the private economy can no longer
> provide jobs for its skilled workers.
I'm not surprised.
We're late on nuclear power, flying cars, and space exploration industries.
I mean, not only UK, but worldwide.
Remember, we should have had flying cars in 2000, that's already -9 years...
http://paleo-future.blogspot.com/2007/07/gyroscopic-rocket-car-1945.html
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <REM-2009may09-004@Yahoo.Com>
> From: Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk>
> Don't feel unappreciated because you're unemployed.
** Don't tell me how I'm supposed to feel about not one person in
more than 16 years considering me of value sufficient to hire me,
and not one person in my whole life considering me of value
sufficient to become friends with me. **
> Generally this employed stuff is a bunch of nonsense.
But without income-money, I can't afford a decent lawyer to defend
my Constitutional rights, such as due process, and my rights have
gotten repeatedly trampled on, including taking both my children
from me and keeping them away for the past 11 years just because I
am not a practicing Christian.
> My govt. has created 800,000 plastic jobs since 1997 just to keep
> unemployed off the register and it costs a bloody fortune and these
> bureaucrats are a pain.
By "plastic jobs" do you mean these 800,000 people aren't actually
doing anything useful to anyone nor for the general good, just
following worthless orders to get them off their butt?
To my mind, the major things we need are:
- Providing all the essential needs of everyone, including
protection of our civil rights;
- Providing incentive to keep nearly everyone productively
employed, so our skills and talents and energy doesn't go wasted on
butt-sitting or plastic-jobs.
Clearly your UK there is failing in that second point.
Maybe you can convince somebody there to try joining my NewEco
after I get up up&running, whereby people are given incentive to
keep busy doing useful things, either to build the <tinyurl.com/NewEco>
system itself (sort of like a 'wiki' except that you get paid to
help with it) or to provide contract-services for other users. If
they like it (after it's working), maybe they'll volunteer some
euros into my system, which can be cashed out *only* by UK
citizens/residents who are qualified for goverment jobs, at just
slightly more net pay than the "plastic jobs" to encourage people
to switch across to NewWco. If it works, they can put more and more
euros into my system and thence back to their own citizens, making
it possible for all the current "plastic job" workers to convert to
NewEco, thereby totally eliminating the need for "plastic jobs".
Would you be willing to help me build NewEco up to the point where
it becomes self-bootstrapping (where members can get paid to
fullfill contracts providing code to incorporate into the system
itself).
> Really, given the scale of productivity, automation and
> outsourcing, the number of 'real jobs' in Western economies does
> not match our population at all.
I disagree. There is immense amount of work needed to build my
NewEco, and nobody (except myself, when I have time and energy)
offering to do the work. I'd like to see some of that surplus labor
capacity put to use building NewEco with me, instead of wasted with
the excuse "there's nothing useful to do, there's too much labor
and not enough work". There's **plenty** of work to do. We just
need to provide the system whereby everyone with a task they'd like
done can post a RFB (Request For Bid) on NewEco, and provide the
incentive for all those otherwise unemployed people to bid on those
contracts and lowest bidder going ahead to do the work needed to
satisfy the contract. I claim NewEco, when fully implemented, will
provide both means to post RFBs and incentive to bid and work those
contracts.
- Communism - All assets held in common, no private property.
Only the *government* can decide who gets jobs and assets.
- Capitalism - $money$ is the universal unit of valuation+exchange of assets.
Only people who already have money can decide who gets jobs and assets.
- Laboralism - labor-time is the universal unit of valuation+exchange of assets.
Everyone has the option to do some work for the system to earn
labor-credits, and then use those labor-credits to hire others to
do work for them, or use those labor credits to pay the 10% if-default
fee for bidding on a contract to earn more labor-credits.
NewEco will implement the latter type of economic system.
> Keep active and be socially useful.
I have no financial or social incentive to keep active,
and I don't have the option of being socially useful.
> It seems you have done both, so well done.
I'll take that as a compliment, but I really wish you'd go through
one of the several tinyurl.com portals (FilJob, LinkII, HotNot,
etc.) to send me e-mail to express a more serious interest in
helping me build one of those services or the overall NewEco
system.
> And I'll look at your site.
Which part(s) of it have you looked at so-far?
= NewEco = toplevel description of the overall laboralist "cooperative"?
= some of the specific interest-contact portals (FilJob, LinkII HotNot, etc.)?
= Portl1 = The actual functional portal for getting an account
(working as of a few days ago), and then logging in (not yet finished),
and then selecting a service to actually use (not yet started)?
On 9 May, 11:26, ·············@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas,
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
> > From: Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk>
> > Don't feel unappreciated because you're unemployed.
>
> ** Don't tell me how I'm supposed to feel about not one person in
> more than 16 years considering me of value sufficient to hire me,
> and not one person in my whole life considering me of value
> sufficient to become friends with me. **
>
> > Generally this employed stuff is a bunch of nonsense.
>
> But without income-money, I can't afford a decent lawyer to defend
> my Constitutional rights, such as due process, and my rights have
> gotten repeatedly trampled on, including taking both my children
> from me and keeping them away for the past 11 years just because I
> am not a practicing Christian.
>
> > My govt. has created 800,000 plastic jobs since 1997 just to keep
> > unemployed off the register and it costs a bloody fortune and these
> > bureaucrats are a pain.
>
> By "plastic jobs" do you mean these 800,000 people aren't actually
> doing anything useful to anyone nor for the general good, just
> following worthless orders to get them off their butt?
> To my mind, the major things we need are:
> - Providing all the essential needs of everyone, including
> protection of our civil rights;
> - Providing incentive to keep nearly everyone productively
> employed, so our skills and talents and energy doesn't go wasted on
> butt-sitting or plastic-jobs.
> Clearly your UK there is failing in that second point.
> Maybe you can convince somebody there to try joining my NewEco
> after I get up up&running, whereby people are given incentive to
> keep busy doing useful things, either to build the <tinyurl.com/NewEco>
> system itself (sort of like a 'wiki' except that you get paid to
> help with it) or to provide contract-services for other users. If
> they like it (after it's working), maybe they'll volunteer some
> euros into my system, which can be cashed out *only* by UK
> citizens/residents who are qualified for goverment jobs, at just
> slightly more net pay than the "plastic jobs" to encourage people
> to switch across to NewWco. If it works, they can put more and more
> euros into my system and thence back to their own citizens, making
> it possible for all the current "plastic job" workers to convert to
> NewEco, thereby totally eliminating the need for "plastic jobs".
>
> Would you be willing to help me build NewEco up to the point where
> it becomes self-bootstrapping (where members can get paid to
> fullfill contracts providing code to incorporate into the system
> itself).
>
> > Really, given the scale of productivity, automation and
> > outsourcing, the number of 'real jobs' in Western economies does
> > not match our population at all.
>
> I disagree. There is immense amount of work needed to build my
> NewEco, and nobody (except myself, when I have time and energy)
> offering to do the work. I'd like to see some of that surplus labor
> capacity put to use building NewEco with me, instead of wasted with
> the excuse "there's nothing useful to do, there's too much labor
> and not enough work". There's **plenty** of work to do. We just
> need to provide the system whereby everyone with a task they'd like
> done can post a RFB (Request For Bid) on NewEco, and provide the
> incentive for all those otherwise unemployed people to bid on those
> contracts and lowest bidder going ahead to do the work needed to
> satisfy the contract. I claim NewEco, when fully implemented, will
> provide both means to post RFBs and incentive to bid and work those
> contracts.
>
> - Communism - All assets held in common, no private property.
> Only the *government* can decide who gets jobs and assets.
> - Capitalism - $money$ is the universal unit of valuation+exchange of assets.
> Only people who already have money can decide who gets jobs and assets.
> - Laboralism - labor-time is the universal unit of valuation+exchange of assets.
> Everyone has the option to do some work for the system to earn
> labor-credits, and then use those labor-credits to hire others to
> do work for them, or use those labor credits to pay the 10% if-default
> fee for bidding on a contract to earn more labor-credits.
> NewEco will implement the latter type of economic system.
>
> > Keep active and be socially useful.
>
> I have no financial or social incentive to keep active,
> and I don't have the option of being socially useful.
>
> > It seems you have done both, so well done.
>
> I'll take that as a compliment, but I really wish you'd go through
> one of the several tinyurl.com portals (FilJob, LinkII, HotNot,
> etc.) to send me e-mail to express a more serious interest in
> helping me build one of those services or the overall NewEco
> system.
>
> > And I'll look at your site.
>
> Which part(s) of it have you looked at so-far?
> = NewEco = toplevel description of the overall laboralist "cooperative"?
> = some of the specific interest-contact portals (FilJob, LinkII HotNot, etc.)?
> = Portl1 = The actual functional portal for getting an account
> (working as of a few days ago), and then logging in (not yet finished),
> and then selecting a service to actually use (not yet started)?
I think you have to start by seperating out your personal stuff from
what you wish to project. I mean your OP title is not going to
inspire anybody is it?
Second, you need to do more work on it yourself. Get the site
*looking good* - not loads of bald whitespace. Go to Joomla and pick
out a sharp suit for yourself - they have lots of site templates.
They're free. Put in some explanatory text. Make it compelling and
sexy. Showcase what you can do. Then come back and ask for help. You
have a good idea, but presentation sucks.
As for me I'm fully engaged. If you follow me, I've got several sites
and News group to support. Follow my suggestions and see what
happens.
Mark
On May 9, 8:36 am, Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Second, you need to do more work on it yourself. Get the site
> *looking good* - not loads of bald whitespace. Go to Joomla and pick
> out a sharp suit for yourself - they have lots of site templates.
> They're free. Put in some explanatory text. Make it compelling and
> sexy. Showcase what you can do. Then come back and ask for help. You
> have a good idea, but presentation sucks.
How about a Google site? They're fairly easy to build, and come with
attractive, customizable templates.
Your url would change, though.
agt
--
Freedom - no pane, all gaiGN!
Code Art Now
http://codeartnow.com
Email: ···@codeartnow.com
From: The Natural Philosopher
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <gu3pia$cdo$1@news.albasani.net>
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>> From: Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk>
>
>> My govt. has created 800,000 plastic jobs since 1997 just to keep
>> unemployed off the register and it costs a bloody fortune and these
>> bureaucrats are a pain.
>
> By "plastic jobs" do you mean these 800,000 people aren't actually
> doing anything useful to anyone nor for the general good, just
> following worthless orders to get them off their butt?
Yes.
Typical example Govm't gives £5M to 'promote broadband' to a regional
authority.
They hold a competion to determine where it shall go.
Cost of setting up the competition, overseeing it and analysing the
entries, costs £3M5, leaving £1.5M to go to the winners..
This £,5m goes to consultants, most of whom work for BT, who are the
owners of all the copper cables to homes in the country.
The actual result is that using figures gained from the competition, BT
has free market research to roll out DSL where it will be most profitable.
It's endemic. The govt talks about 'creating jobs' as if this was
synonymous with creating wealth or GDP.
On May 9, 3:26 am, ·············@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas,
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
> > Generally this employed stuff is a bunch of nonsense.
>
> But without income-money, I can't afford a decent lawyer to defend
> my Constitutional rights, such as due process, and my rights have
> gotten repeatedly trampled on, including taking both my children
> from me and keeping them away for the past 11 years just because I
> am not a practicing Christian.
Are you some kind of devil worshiper? Is this why you can't get a job?
From: Jerry Stuckle
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <gu74qt$rl3$1@news.motzarella.org>
fft1976 wrote:
> On May 9, 3:26 am, ·············@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas,
> http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
>
>>> Generally this employed stuff is a bunch of nonsense.
>> But without income-money, I can't afford a decent lawyer to defend
>> my Constitutional rights, such as due process, and my rights have
>> gotten repeatedly trampled on, including taking both my children
>> from me and keeping them away fo wheher he was a r the past 11 years just because I
>> am not a practicing Christian.
>
> Are you some kind of devil worshiper? Is this why you can't get a job?
>
No, and the reason his kids were taken from him has nothing to do with
him being a practicing Christian or not, either.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
·········@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> But without income-money, I can't afford a decent lawyer to defend
>>> my Constitutional rights, such as due process, and my rights have
>>> gotten repeatedly trampled on, including taking both my children
>>> from me and keeping them away fo wheher he was a r the past 11 years
>>> just because I
>>> am not a practicing Christian.
>> Are you some kind of devil worshiper? Is this why you can't get a job?
> No, and the reason his kids were taken from him has nothing to do with
> him being a practicing Christian or not, either.
The law is sold to the highest bidder. Even if he were a devil worshiper, if he
could afford a good lawyer his kids would still be with him...
From: Jerry Stuckle
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <gu77tv$lvn$1@news.motzarella.org>
Phlip wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>>> But without income-money, I can't afford a decent lawyer to defend
>>>> my Constitutional rights, such as due process, and my rights have
>>>> gotten repeatedly trampled on, including taking both my children
>>>> from me and keeping them away fo wheher he was a r the past 11 years
>>>> just because I
>>>> am not a practicing Christian.
>
>>> Are you some kind of devil worshiper? Is this why you can't get a job?
>
>> No, and the reason his kids were taken from him has nothing to do with
>> him being a practicing Christian or not, either.
>
> The law is sold to the highest bidder. Even if he were a devil
> worshiper, if he could afford a good lawyer his kids would still be with
> him...
Your proof?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
·········@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> The law is sold to the highest bidder. Even if he were a devil
>> worshiper, if he could afford a good lawyer his kids would still be
>> with him...
>
> Your proof?
Who got custody of OJ Simpson's kids after he killed one of their mothers?
(BTW Happy Mothers Day everyone!..) sheesh what more "proof" do you need the
System is completely corrupt?
From: Jerry Stuckle
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <gu7d31$3dr$1@news.motzarella.org>
Phlip wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>> The law is sold to the highest bidder. Even if he were a devil
>>> worshiper, if he could afford a good lawyer his kids would still be
>>> with him...
>>
>> Your proof?
>
> Who got custody of OJ Simpson's kids after he killed one of their mothers?
>
> (BTW Happy Mothers Day everyone!..) sheesh what more "proof" do you need
> the System is completely corrupt?
I say again. Your proof? That's not proof the system is corrupt.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
·········@attglobal.net
==================
"Jerry Stuckle" <·········@attglobal.net> wrote in message
·················@news.motzarella.org...
>
> I say again. Your proof? That's not proof the system is corrupt.
What does this have to do with PHP?
On 1 May, 10:45, ·············@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas,
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
> Is there anyone besides myself who is unemployed and feels
> unappreciated? Would you like to volunteer your labor to my
> cooperative project and thereby gain my appreciation?
Sorry - like probably many others who read the newsgroups I have my
own projects which also need resource.
Perhaps there's something about programming in that we have many
ideas. The work to realise them often needs a team rather than just
one person. That raises a question:
How to get others involved?
Unless you are fortunate enough to meet like-minded folks while a
student collaborators can be hard to find. How about these options:
1. Post ideas to Usenet
2. Contact a local computer engineering class. Students sometimes look
for projects and this may result in good contacts for the longer term.
3. Pay programmers and designers - only if one already has plenty of
money as they can be expensive.
4. Set up a wiki with the basic idea and encourage online
collaboration.
5. Apply for funding. Not sure who from. One may need to be part of a
non-commercial operation to be eligible.
> I don't have
> enough time/energy to do the whole project by myself without any
> help
The only two options seem to be to pay people or to motivate them to
get involved without payment. If the latter one needs to have a great
idea that others would like to join for fun or some way for them to
make money from their work.
Followups set to comp.programming only.
James
James Harris <··············@googlemail.com> writes:
> On 1 May, 10:45, ·············@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas,
> http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
>
>> Is there anyone besides myself who is unemployed and feels
>> unappreciated? Would you like to volunteer your labor to my
>> cooperative project and thereby gain my appreciation?
>
> Sorry - like probably many others who read the newsgroups I have my
> own projects which also need resource.
>
> Perhaps there's something about programming in that we have many
> ideas. The work to realise them often needs a team rather than just
> one person. That raises a question:
>
> How to get others involved?
No. This raise the question:
How do you get your computers to program themselves?
Use a meta-programming language such as Lisp, and implement an AI to
do the programming!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
What languages do you know now? When was the last time you wrote
anything useful to someone else in each of those? If you still can
code, why didn't you freelance in the last 16 years, or did you?
fft1976 wrote:
> What languages do you know now? When was the last time you wrote
> anything useful to someone else in each of those? If you still can
> code, why didn't you freelance in the last 16 years, or did you?
I repeat: The case study is not about technology but mental health. If you treat
the question as a technology question, you will get a very predictable
runaround. Some people have a special need for self-pity!
--
Phlip
On May 9, 2:24 pm, Phlip <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> fft1976 wrote:
> > What languages do you know now? When was the last time you wrote
> > anything useful to someone else in each of those? If you still can
> > code, why didn't you freelance in the last 16 years, or did you?
>
> I repeat: The case study is not about technology but mental health. If you treat
> the question as a technology question, you will get a very predictable
> runaround. Some people have a special need for self-pity!
Some employers might be OK with autism, etc. if the upsides are worth
it. Mental health problems can often be untreatable. You try to do
your best with what you got.
fft1976 wrote:
> Some employers might be OK with autism, etc. if the upsides are worth
> it. Mental health problems can often be untreatable. You try to do
> your best with what you got.
A combination of laws and good social vibes currently motivate employers to do
the right thing. That's not what I mean.
I mean a special kind of trolling cause these threads. Even if the OP thinks he
is sincere, he is needy in a very manipulative way - trying to make us bend over
backwards to prove we feel sorry for him. We do. And he's obviously clever
enough to get hired tomorrow if that were his actual objection!
--
Phlip
On May 9, 2:41 pm, Phlip <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> And he's obviously clever
> enough to get hired tomorrow if that were his actual objection!
You think he doesn't want to be employed, like The Dude?
fft1976 wrote:
>> And he's obviously clever
>> enough to get hired tomorrow if that were his actual objection!
> You think he doesn't want to be employed, like The Dude?
I have learned, essentially thru USENET, that some people (possibly unfamiliar
with American English) have cottoned on to the movie "The Big Lebowski", and use
it to define "Dude". The word doesn't mean a "slacker" so much as a "respectable
urbane gentleman". The movie uses it simultaneously both ways.
And the answer is No. I have never seen the movie, but I suspect its main
character is a successful and well-adjusted slacker. Slacking takes skill and
effort.
Here on USENET, you will find many trolls. They all have one thing in common -
they seek negative attention. They want to be targets of opprobrium. On
news:comp.object , you will find a character who lectures on OO, in detail,
while attempting to prove OO is inferior to "table oriented programming" -
something he made up, roughly analogous to heterogeneous arrays with virtual
methods. Basic OO.
RM, on this newsgroup, is different, but fits the same pattern. He is depressed,
and too busy reinforcing his precious victimhood to break the cycle and get a
job. Direct advise will not help, and part of this troll's attack is to make you
feel sorry for him, to make you feel you can help him.
True to the troll pattern, he will wait for new members, and then repeat his
cycle with them. The economic downturn - with millions of people laid off just
so their boss's personal fortunes could recover - has brought him fresh meat.
--
Phlip
On 10 Mai, 06:31, Phlip <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> fft1976 wrote:
> >> And he's obviously clever
> >> enough to get hired tomorrow if that were his actual objection!
> > You think he doesn't want to be employed, like The Dude?
>
> I have learned, essentially thru USENET, that some people (possibly unfamiliar
> with American English) have cottoned on to the movie "The Big Lebowski", and use
> it to define "Dude". The word doesn't mean a "slacker" so much as a "respectable
> urbane gentleman". The movie uses it simultaneously both ways.
>
> And the answer is No. I have never seen the movie, but I suspect its main
> character is a successful and well-adjusted slacker. Slacking takes skill and
> effort.
>
> Here on USENET, you will find many trolls. They all have one thing in common -
> they seek negative attention. They want to be targets of opprobrium. On
> news:comp.object , you will find a character who lectures on OO, in detail,
> while attempting to prove OO is inferior to "table oriented programming" -
> something he made up, roughly analogous to heterogeneous arrays with virtual
> methods. Basic OO.
RM attract my attention when he claimed that all of Seed7's
features were either already present in Lisp or completely stupid.
He was very agressive hence I can belive that he has missing
people skills. I reacted as if he is a customer and not a troll.
His answers always tried to misunderstand everything that can
be misunderstood. E.g.: Although we talked about the pros and
cons of static/dynamic type systems he reacted as if I would
claim to find typos or ALL possible errors with a static type system.
The discussions were nerve-wracking but I was able to improve
some answers in my FAQ. Especially my reasons to use a
static type system are sophisticated now. See:
http://seed7.sourceforge.net/faq.htm#static_type_checking
In total he was helpful, but I had to use a lot of effort to get
something positive from his critisisms. He even offered to
proofread the Seed7 documentation (manual and other stuff),
but he wanted to be payed. As much as I need people to
proofread my stuff (I am not a native speaker) I am not able
to pay for this work (Hint: Criticism and suggestions regarding
Seed7, the Seed7 manual, the Seed7 homepage, etc. is
always welcome).
Greetings Thomas Mertes
Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net
Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements
and operators, abstract data types, templates without special
syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed,
interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.
·············@gmx.at wrote:
> http://seed7.sourceforge.net/faq.htm#static_type_checking
>
> In total he was helpful, but I had to use a lot of effort to get
> something positive from his critisisms. He even offered to
> proofread the Seed7 documentation (manual and other stuff),
> but he wanted to be payed.
Exactly. He only asked after assuring he'd get a no. This reinforces his
victimhood...
Phlip <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| I have never seen the movie, but I suspect its main character is a
| successful and well-adjusted slacker. Slacking takes skill and effort.
+---------------
As Robert Heinlein pointed out in "The Tale of the Man Who
Was Too Lazy to Fail" (a chapter in "Time Enough For Love")...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
> As Robert Heinlein pointed out in "The Tale of the Man Who Was Too
> Lazy to Fail" (a chapter in "Time Enough For Love")...
I think it was "The TAIL of the man ..." :-)
--
European Lisp Symposium, May 2009: http://www.european-lisp-symposium.org
European Lisp Workshop, July 2009: http://elw.bknr.net/2009
Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
From: The Natural Philosopher
Subject: Re: Anyone else unemployed, and consequently feel unappreciated?
Date:
Message-ID: <gu5aou$gci$1@news.albasani.net>
fft1976 wrote:
> On May 9, 2:41 pm, Phlip <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And he's obviously clever
>> enough to get hired tomorrow if that were his actual objection!
>
> You think he doesn't want to be employed, like The Dude?
I have had loads of CV's land on my desk that were patently from people
who didn't want to be employed.
I understand its part of getting a jobseekers allowance. You have to
apply for jobs. So pick the ones you simply will never get.
Not much call for specialists in tropical diseases in Alaska, for example.
Or moose hunters in Alice Springs.
But burger flipping is pretty much a skill that can take you round the
world..
On May 9, 6:30 pm, The Natural Philosopher <····@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> fft1976 wrote:
> > On May 9, 2:41 pm, Phlip <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> And he's obviously clever
> >> enough to get hired tomorrow if that were his actual objection!
>
> > You think he doesn't want to be employed, like The Dude?
>
> I have had loads of CV's land on my desk that were patently from people
> who didn't want to be employed.
>
> I understand its part of getting a jobseekers allowance. You have to
> apply for jobs. So pick the ones you simply will never get.
>
> Not much call for specialists in tropical diseases in Alaska, for example.
>
> Or moose hunters in Alice Springs.
>
> But burger flipping is pretty much a skill that can take you round the
> world..
Bob, are you willing to flip burgers? As an outside contractor?
Thing is, as an employer, I would be reluctant to hire someone who
might be insane, unless I knew EXACTLY what their particular type of
insanity entailed.
Danger 1: rampage possibility (I'm not talking about Bob specifically,
but in general)
Danger 2: health care costs. Pre-existing conditions can only be
excluded for 3 months in CA. You have to pay for shrinks afterwards
Danger 3: stupid shit you might not expect, like leaking company
secrets, setting fires to the building because it's cold, etc.
Danger 4: [sexual] harassment of other employees and the ensuing
lawsuits (Again, I'm not talking about Bob, but in general)
So, if you are crazy, you either have to hide it until you are hired,
or look for a line of work where you don't need an employer (that too
might be hard if you are insane, but the Apple Store marked is
unpredictable, they might go for something crazy, steampunk and
unusual, you never know)
On Sat, 9 May 2009 19:23:48 -0700 (PDT), fft1976 <·······@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Danger 2: health care costs. Pre-existing conditions can only be
>excluded for 3 months in CA. You have to pay for [doctors] afterwards
Even with previous insurance? In MA you can change insurers at will
and new coverage can't exclude a pre-existing condition so long as
there are no gaps in coverage. I know MA is generally far more
socialist than CA, but I didn't think they were much different on this
point.
George
Message-ID: <············@news.albasani.net> from The Natural
Philosopher contained the following:
>I have had loads of CV's land on my desk that were patently from people
>who didn't want to be employed.
>
>I understand its part of getting a jobseekers allowance. You have to
>apply for jobs. So pick the ones you simply will never get.
<rant>
I don't blame them. It's a stupid system so the more people who exploit
it the better.
What's needed is a rapid response system to cater for modern employment
patterns.
Let's say I am on benefit, which has taken me three weeks to set up. I'm
not likely to want to go through all that again just because I get
offered a couple of days work. So the unemployed person commits benefit
fraud or passes on the job (which may well have led to something
permanent)
In addition benefit should not be given without something in return even
if that something is time spent in a jobcentre. Some people with
families will never have the ability to earn as much as they can claim.
there is no incentive for them to do so, unless they have to give up
their time.
</rant>
--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
http://slipperyhill.co.uk - http://4theweb.co.uk
fft1976 wrote:
) Some employers might be OK with autism, etc. if the upsides are worth
) it. Mental health problems can often be untreatable. You try to do
) your best with what you got.
Irrelevant.
The issue is that these mental health problems mean that you shouldn't be
looking for a job as such, you should be looking for som kind of guidance
from the mental h ealth perspective. That help, in turn, may involve the
look for a job. The people that are helping you with your mental problem
might even know which employers are OK with autism etc.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT