Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    Needs and desires like what? For instance, being recognised, praised, rewarded or given a pay rise for good work; being treated as an individual; competing.

    You brought it up (yes) as if it is some kind of principle set in stone (eh?). I gave you an alternative i.e. the rejection of competition between different nations' working classes. But different nations compete with one another, as do their workers. They have to to survive.

    Furthermore, you implied No, you inferred it. that it is desirable to have lower wages in order to become more competitive generally a lower price for a similar product will result in more orders at the expense of the dearer product because this will make everyone's lives better No I didn't; you make a lot of unjustified inferences though.
    Se above, in bold.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Socialism does require sacrifice though. It's entirely plausible for a small town to see socialism because people historically had strong links with the people in their communities. I'm talking about a national and international scale though and in that vein, I've been proven correct countless times.

    Humans have long been pack animals. To those we see as in our group, humans can be very selfless. To those we see as not one of us, we can be selfish if not violent.
    and a small town is massive civilisation compared to where we come from.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Regardless of technology people to chose to work a high number of hours rather than are forced to. Keynes back in the 30's thought that everybody would end up working part time however what he failed to account for was that while human needs are finite, human wants are endless and constantly expanded by the institution of marketing.
    Only if you're a materialistic Tory Human wants are endless in the sense that there will always be a market of some sort for luxury goods, especially for those easily led by marketing. But especially since the 1980s people in much of the Western world seem to have everything they need for comfort and any extras are just optional. That's why growth has been slowing so much. So what has had to be done is to switch from profiteering to rentiership. Inflate the price of things people need, usually by privatisation or inflation of asset bubbles.

    The fact that we have to have a huge marketing industry to sustain this surely shows it is just as artificial a state of affairs as socialism on a national scale is (since that also has to be supported by large institutions).

    It has only been since the war that trade unions have sought higher wages, because of the amount of new stuff around at that time that genuinely made people's lives better, people would rather have had more money to buy stuff with than less hours. I think it will now go back to less hours/more leisure.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    In many ways Keynes was right. Actual time spent doing productive work has declined. But while Keynes thought that spare time would be replaced by additional leisure time, the gap's really just been filled by work bureaucracy.

    As with most issues with Keynes, while he understood capitalism as an economic system well, he didn't have a great understanding of it as a political system. It has an interest in self-maintenance that outweighs short-term gains, and keeping people working long hours is a part of that.
    Any evidence that time spent doing productive work has declined on an aggregate scale as opposed to certain industries?

    Agreed.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Only if you're a materialistic Tory. Human wants are endless in the sense that there will always be a market of some sort for luxury goods, especially for those easily led by marketing. But especially since the 1980s people in much of the Western world seem to have everything they need for comfort and any extras are just optional. That's why growth has been slowing so much. So what has had to be done is to switch from profiteering to rentiership. Inflate the price of things people need, usually by privatisation or inflation of asset bubbles.

    The fact that we have to have a huge marketing industry to sustain this surely shows it is just as artificial a state of affairs as socialism on a national scale is (since that also has to be supported by large institutions).

    It has only been since the war that trade unions have sought higher wages, because of the amount of new stuff around at that time that genuinely made people's lives better, people would rather have had more money to buy stuff with than less hours. I think it will now go back to less hours/more leisure.
    I'd say that it applies to most people. When i calculate the cost of my 'needs' then even being a bit generous they come to ~£600 per month. I'm not aware of many people who go to their boss and say that i only want to work x hours because that's all i need.

    I do agree that marketing is extremely instrumental in maintaining the materialistic ethos and probably in strengthening capitalism. In that sense then yes, it is artificial.

    I don't really that satisfying needs is a particular reason as to why growth has declined, that seems more down to poor economic management, greater competition and a fixation on short term thinking. Your thought is rather cynical.

    Average working hours have declined since post-industrialism so in that sense you and Keynes may get a slow victory albeit there's no telling whether this is due to regulation, genuine desire, whether the trend will continue or whether there'll be a stall at some point.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    and a small town is massive civilisation compared to where we come from.
    I can see the logic there however if you were to plot the likely democratic success of socialism vs population size i suspect you hit a diminished return. It also makes the notion of international socialism somewhat problematic, even with modern global media most people don't care much more about the Africans than they did 30 years ago.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Speaking as one of those right-wingers, I'm all for it - but it must be economically credible. There's a huge value on leisure time and it is a solid metric against which to judge a society. I'm open to the point that while the economic recovery has been good on employment and growth, it's not been so good - until recently - at driving up wages (as opposed to earnings) and the UK has a long-term productivity challenge to address.*

    The problem here is that it - perhaps understandably for headline-grabbing purposes - puts the cart before the horse. Productivity must show a significant increase first and I've yet to hear Jeremy Corbyn or his shadow cabinet colleagues make any decent points about how to do that. But yes, in a longer-term, there is no reason not to aim towards this aspiration. I'm genuinely pleased that this is something that's being seriously discussed and I expect I'll go and look at the evidence in more detail.*
    I fear that you may be lending these Corbinysta politics far more than they deserve.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I can see the logic there however if you were to plot the likely democratic success of socialism vs population size i suspect you hit a diminished return. It also makes the notion of international socialism somewhat problematic, even with modern global media most people don't care much more about the Africans than they did 30 years ago.
    30 years is nothing. It basically tends to zero on the time scale I am talking about. The fact is humans already live in societies that contradict what you say about humans being able to cooperate on larger scales. Assuming you are right and humans are inherently selfish (I actually subscribe to this train of thought) that doesn't mean they are not malleable. The existence of civilisation depends on that. You can train them to behave in certain ways. Everything is about portraying things to your group mentality. That can manifest in stuff like the NHS (group instinct in upholding the well being of the entire group) and nationalism (putting the group before outsiders). Both of those things are collectivist mind sets and work on a scale that is mind boggling compared to what humans societies have spent most of their existence evolving in (small hunter gatherer groups).

    The fact you are capable of seeing a total stranger and not feel the need to fight them (or if you do you can suppress that need) mean society and resource abundance has got you to act a different way or humans are genetically made to be able to cooperate. I can;t ever imagine chimpanzees being able to do that. Bonobos on the other hand, yes.

    Anyway I would say the average person "knows" it is morally wrong with how many Africans exists and live. That is why almost everyone who tries to sell the current economic order always describes how it is good for poor Africans and developing their countries. You didn't used to have to do that. They just don't care enough or feel to powerless to do anything. Compare that to when people could morally justify not giving a **** due to racism etc that is a very big shift in such a tiny amount of time.

    Also rewind 1200 years and see how fragmented and tribal British Isles were. Yet now I can go to scotland on the train and it is no biggie.

    Finally a imagine a world where teleportation was a thing. You can teleport all over the globe via portals. That would make the world smaller in the same way Trains, Cars, Aeroplanes, makes Britain tiny compared to how it was for our ancestors in feudal times. That kind of thing can (doesn't have to) reinforce "they are one of us" instinct in a lot more people.

    I think the Marxist view of human nature is wrong. I think the capitalist hierarchy in society is a result of fundamental human behaviour. You can;t get rid of that behaviour by changing the economic system. But I think the same fundamental human behaviour is incredibly open to cooperation and a capitalist economic system isn't the only large scale society it can produce.

    TLDR ~ Collectivism can and does arise out of individuals expressing self interest.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Any evidence that time spent doing productive work has declined on an aggregate scale as opposed to certain industries?

    Agreed.



    I'd say that it applies to most people. When i calculate the cost of my 'needs' then even being a bit generous they come to ~£600 per month. I'm not aware of many people who go to their boss and say that i only want to work x hours because that's all i need.

    I do agree that marketing is extremely instrumental in maintaining the materialistic ethos and probably in strengthening capitalism. In that sense then yes, it is artificial.

    I don't really that satisfying needs is a particular reason as to why growth has declined, that seems more down to poor economic management, greater competition and a fixation on short term thinking. Your thought is rather cynical.

    Average working hours have declined since post-industrialism so in that sense you and Keynes may get a slow victory albeit there's no telling whether this is due to regulation, genuine desire, whether the trend will continue or whether there'll be a stall at some point.
    I don’t want to draw too strict a dichotony between wants and needs. After all, if we really had to we could probably survive sleeping on straw and foraging for mushrooms. Whereas £600 a month is as you say probably the minimum to survive given no financial dependents while still being able to engage with the economy. What we can say is people tend to start getting diminishing returns of happiness on extra income over £40,000, although I can't remember if this is household income, with or without children. And quite simply, what with technology having come on so much since the war and made us comfortable, I think materialism is waning. People see the folly of marketing when there is an economic shock and they stop buying luxuries, and they don't forget quickly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I don’t want to draw too strict a dichotony between wants and needs. After all, if we really had to we could probably survive sleeping on straw and foraging for mushrooms. Whereas £600 a month is as you say probably the minimum to survive given no financial dependents while still being able to engage with the economy. What we can say is people tend to start getting diminishing returns of happiness on extra income over £40,000, although I can't remember if this is household income, with or without children. And quite simply, what with technology having come on so much since the war and made us comfortable, I think materialism is waning. People see the folly of marketing when there is an economic shock and they stop buying luxuries, and they don't forget quickly.
    They have forgotten quickly every time it has happened before


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Humans have long been pack animals. To those we see as in our group, humans can be very selfless. To those we see as not one of us, we can be selfish if not violent.
    Perhaps we should discourage rather than encourage this trait. We a re hopefully gradually becoming civilised. Just got quite a long way to go, or do you think we should give up trying?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The origins of the traits are irrelevant. Communism does not recognise perfectly reasonable human needs for individuality, recognition, competition and so on, which are all valid and useful.
    The versions of Communism/Socialism that have occurred in the past may have not had sufficient balance on this, but maybe we could have a version which does. It seems that all old ways have had problems. Doesn't mean they are insurmountable. People seem to dismiss any possible real change, by putting a label on it and saying that doesn't work.
    What we have at the moment doesn't work very well as can be seen by lots of the symptoms, the worst of which are spiralling inequality, worldwide poverty and trashing the planet.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Perhaps we should discourage rather than encourage this trait. We a re hopefully gradually becoming civilised. Just got quite a long way to go, or do you think we should give up trying?
    I see little reason to desire democratic union with the likes of Africa and the Middle East, at least so long as people parrot the mantra that all cultures are equal and our own is not superior.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    The versions of Communism/Socialism that have occurred in the past may have not had sufficient balance on this, but maybe we could have a version which does. It seems that all old ways have had problems. Doesn't mean they are insurmountable. People seem to dismiss any possible real change, by putting a label on it and saying that doesn't work.
    What we have at the moment doesn't work very well as can be seen by lots of the symptoms, the worst of which are spiralling inequality, worldwide poverty and trashing the planet.
    Global inequality and poverty rates are generally falling.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Global inequality and poverty rates are generally falling.
    This is because things at the very bottom have improved due to direct intervention and birth control, not market forces. The trend in the developed world is escalating inequality.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I see little reason to desire democratic union with the likes of Africa and the Middle East, at least so long as people parrot the mantra that all cultures are equal and our own is not superior.
    I don't consider all cultures the same, though it is not necessarily a matter of superior or inferior. Each have their own problems which need to be addressed. What we need to do it try to take the best from each and work it into ours, in addition to our own improvements. We can also try to point out and assist others to deal with their problems too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Speaking as one of those right-wingers, I'm all for it - but it must be economically credible. There's a huge value on leisure time and it is a solid metric against which to judge a society. I'm open to the point that while the economic recovery has been good on employment and growth, it's not been so good - until recently - at driving up wages (as opposed to earnings) and the UK has a long-term productivity challenge to address.*

    The problem here is that it - perhaps understandably for headline-grabbing purposes - puts the cart before the horse. Productivity must show a significant increase first and I've yet to hear Jeremy Corbyn or his shadow cabinet colleagues make any decent points about how to do that. But yes, in a longer-term, there is no reason not to aim towards this aspiration. I'm genuinely pleased that this is something that's being seriously discussed and I expect I'll go and look at the evidence in more detail.*
    Why?

    The whole point of a 6-hour day is not that you are so amazingly more productive. It's that you can achieve the same in less (something I personally think is very accurate).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No, you are the one who didn't read it properly. The article says that productivity increased, but it didn't say it increased by 25% (never mind more than that as you claim) and no conclusion has yet been reached on whether the morale benefits are worth the increased costs. So it is clear that costs for employers are higher.

    A retirement home in Gothenburg made the six-hour switch earlier this year and is conducting an experiment, until the end of 2016, to determine whether the cost of hiring new staff members to cover the hours lost is worth the improvements to patient care and boosting of employees’ morale.
    Apologies for the slight. However I was going by this quote
    Toyota centres in Gothenburg, Sweden’s second largest city, made the switch 13 years ago, with the company reporting happier staff, a lower turnover rate, and an increase in profits in that time. Though it is unclear whether employees overall pay was maintained. I have read some other articles on this same subject, which have suggested that total productivity is actually improved even though hours are reduced. Through a combination of improved work rate and less sick leave.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Needs and desires like what? For instance, being recognised, praised, rewarded or given a pay rise for good work; being treated as an individual; competing.
    And Capitalism recognizes peoples contributions properly?

    Treated as an individual? What does that mean?

    Competing? Is obtaining necessary resources to live something that should be packaged into a competition. The losers live a life of suffering while the winners live a life of luxury and joy?

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You brought it up (yes) as if it is some kind of principle set in stone(eh?). I gave you an alternative i.e. the rejection of competition between different nations' working classes. But different nations compete with one another, as do their workers. They have to to survive.
    As I said...if you are not willing to challenge the fixed principles you explicitly or implicitly adhere to, there is no point of having a brain.

    Nations are a human construct. The battle between nations is man made. I am saying that I would like to see so called nations come together and treat everyone under the same umbrella. This way more people are included in the decisions we as a society make.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Furthermore, you implied No, you inferred it. that it is desirable to have lower wages in order to become more competitivegenerally a lower price for a similar product will result in more orders at the expense of the dearer product because this will make everyone's lives better No I didn't; you make a lot of unjustified inferences though.
    You brought up the effects of high wages and they will lead to whatever and it's bad. So the opposite is what you advocate. low wages are good. high wages are bad.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Silly suggestion by a silly man.

    Few jobs would become "more productive" under a 6 hour day. The productivity of jobs that really benefitted from cuts in the working day were the manual labour jobs in the coal mines, textiles, general manufacturing etc. That doesn't exist in the UK anymore. The only area I could possibly see an increase in productivity is perhaps in construction, and even this would be minor as I don't see anyone in that sector moaning about cutting hours. Our finance and retail sectors would not benefit at all, seeing as they run around the clock and are not as intense as other sectors.

    This isn't mentioning the cuts in FDI. If we want a more productive workforce we need to sort out our duff education system that is producing university drones studying degrees that are not beneficial enough for the economy and stop the demonising of those who would be best suited towards a technical/vocational course.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.