Related Posts
How do you explain a small resume gap?
From where do the EY HRs procure the resumes?
Clients are pain in the ass out here
Additional Posts in Socialism
Bowl Leader
Bowl Leader
Thought you’d all find this funny.
Bowl Leader
Bowl Leader
Bowl Leader
Bowl Leader
Before there was Silicon Valley 📺, before there was Bullshit Jobs 📖, before there was Office Space🎞️...
There was Processed World - a terrific little anticapitalist magazine skewering the terrible bosses and petty oppressive workplaces with humor and a clear heart. La plus ca change... today's computers are better, the bosses, however...
http://www.processedworld.com/History/history.html
Do socialists actually think talk like this from Kamala Harris is actually helpful? That you need an 'equity' approach whereby people with low income or of color are helped first post catastrophe.
It's funny because I sort of agree implicitly, but Harris's phrasing makes me less supportive of it.
If I were in her shoes and I were asked, I'd say, we will help people in need, and those whose need is most dire will be a priority. In practice, that means the poor are higher priority, of course.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1575955899012694016
Bowl Leader
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Bowl Leader
Yes, absolutely. Just don't attack the validity of socialism as a whole here, e.g. argue that capitalism is a better economic model. That would belong in a pro-capitalism group.
Bowl Leader
So you can come at the answer from a few angles.
In its purest sense, the incentive is that you'll benefit from it. Not the most satisfying answer, obviously, but that truly is the core of it. If you're the guy who makes chairs, you also need to sit down. You'll want to put in more effort to make better chairs so you can be comfortable when you sit. If you're a farmer, you'll want to invest time and research into methods of farmers that will allow you to eat better and allow you to work less for the food.
Another angle is admitting that sure, a lot of individuals will not want to put in the extra effort, especially if it's a benefit that they don't see, or if the job is particularly unpleasant. A socialist economy will recognize that, and that's why it needs to be done with some form of direct democracy. That means that trade unions will vote on working conditions, and product consumers will vote on product standards that trade unions must adhere to. The incentive to maintain good working standards and product quality will fall on the workers: you can get fired and replaced if you don't meet those standards, and you'll have to find something else to do.
Another angle is to reframe the idea of innovation altogether. 9 times out of 10, innovation is in service of capital. Are people going to innovate on data collection for targeted marketing if there's no capital incentive? Sure, but a cashless society doesn't really need that. You wouldn't need to innovate on tiered pricing models. Or better ways to trade stocks. Or banking and budgeting apps. More generally, the economy doesn't need to grow and is allowed to stagnate, so there's no need to innovate on growth for growth's sake. It wouldn't make sense without capitalism.
But if people vote for tastier apples after a botanist (who genuinely loves being a botanist) finds a way to do it in a way that doesn't violate the standards of the apple growers' union? That innovation is going to happen.