/WRK/ - Wagie and Work

>absurd rules from teachers
what about when your boss suddenly announce a rule on afro hairstyles and you're the only one with an afro hairstyle

>>621
Yeah we probably did education wrong, we should've categorized learning as a type of labor and pay students a wage.

If you have to pay students a wage there is an incentive to make sure that edu-methods are effective and that what you teach is actually worth the effort.

toxic workplaces are just as bad as toxic schools or even worse.
however your average shitty/boring job is better than shitty/boring school because you don't have homework and don't have to socialize

>>624
You can leave your job you can't leave your government mandated school.

>>625
This.
Most people stuck in toxic workplaces are often those whom ended up married with kids or suffered from a severe accident .
But even so, there's always a way out.

Shitty schools? There's no way out.
You stay stuck until you end up killed or maimed/raped.

>>625
until they went psycho with truancy enforcement you could just drop out, go homeschooled, or whatever

>>623
What we shouldve done is keep and expand on blue collar skill training..We should also have spring sememsters be dedicated to community service. The amount of hours you do will be converted into tax credits for the parents.

>>624
Actually schools try to curb socialisation amongst students.
Workplaces are more free with allowance for socializing.

>>629
>What we shouldve done is keep and expand on blue collar skill training.
Sure as long as people are getting payed to up-skill.

The neo-libs tried the scheme where the direction of the money flow was the apprentice/students payed for learning/training. And the result was really terrible. Know-how and aptitude went down by every metric. We're going to learn from their mistakes and invert the money-flow and then we're going to get good results.

>We should also have spring sememsters be dedicated to community service.
Seems like an idea worth investigating
>The amount of hours you do will be converted into tax credits for the parents.
No definitely not. If the parent's income falls below the tax threshold and thus can't use tax credits, their children would basically be doing free labor, while the others with richer parents get indirectly remunerated.
Basically if you get something in return for community service it's got to be payed directly.

>>631
>Seems like an idea worth investigating

March thru early June, schooltime will be spent outside of the classroom doing various activities such as basic landscaping, cleanup, machine repair, etc.

It will be Monday thru Thursday 8am to 3pm. Fridays off.

>No definitely not. If the parent's income falls below the tax threshold and thus can't use tax credits, their children would basically be doing free labor, while the others with richer parents get indirectly remunerated.
Basically if you get something in return for community service it's got to be payed directly.

Isn't socialism all about wealth redistribution?
You can take from the more wealthy parents to give to the broke ones.

>>632
I'm replying out of order, bear with me.
>Isn't socialism all about wealth redistribution?
>You can take from the more wealthy parents to give to the broke ones.
We're not taking anything for granted when designing a system. Each part of the system has to work as intended even if other parts change or fail.

If you indirectly pay for community service work via tax-credits, that would created a dependency on a fair wealth distribution in order to operate as intended. If something bad happens and wealth distribution goes out of whack again, then we get knock-on damage because all of a sudden poor children work community service for free while rich children get payed. And then people just nope out of your community service program.

That's fragile design. If you simply directly pay a wage for community service work, this failure mode can't happen and you got a more robust design.

>March thru early June, schooltime will be spent outside of the classroom doing various activities such as basic landscaping, cleanup, machine repair, etc.
>It will be Monday thru Thursday 8am to 3pm. Fridays off.
Ok the point of doing this is for children to learn how to do these tasks, to get the skills. What this can't become is an excuse for exploiting child-labor, or increasing the labor-supply. It has to be impossible to use this in a way to use children to increase competition in a labor market. Assuming that socialism can revert back to capitalism, it has to be designed in such a way that no capitalist would be able to extract surplus from children.

The principles apply as before, we have to assume nothing is for granted and then build in mechanisms that prevent this from being turned into child-labor even if other parts of society go to shit.
The first thing is children who perform this have to be payed a regular wage. And each activity has to be limited to the time-span it takes for learning a skill. And we're giving children the power to declare the work as exploitative and quit without consequences.

If you think i'm being unreasonable, consider that the type of nasty people who are currently ruining the world, would probably remain that way in a socialist system. They would not give up and let us just have a nice world, they will relentlessly claw at the system. So we have to harden every bit of the system.

Think about institutional design as if you are building a space-station in the Aliens scifi-universe and you have to design it in such a way that it will not go down even if it gets breached by the monster-creatures.

>>631
>We're going to learn from their mistakes and invert the money-flow and then we're going to get good results.
And then you'll cry about muh elitism because private companies will only pay the smartest and hardworking kids to learn a trade (i.e. the ones most likely to get a return on investment).
>inb4 add diversity quotas
Now you ruined productivity again.

>>633
>The principles apply as before, we have to assume nothing is for granted and then build in mechanisms that prevent this from being turned into child-labor even if other parts of society go to shit.
The first thing is children who perform this have to be payed a regular wage. And each activity has to be limited to the time-span it takes for learning a skill. And we're giving children the power to declare the work as exploitative and quit without consequences.


Thepoint of community service is both learning and child labor.
And yes, kids will be paid a reasonable wage and nothing beyond their means.
Again, It will only be for twelve to fourteen weeks (first week of March thru the second week of June) with Friday off.

Child labor within itself isnt bad.
Ironically, the view of children as invakids that need protection and representation from parents is what makes them vulnerable.

Most child abuse is due to family dysfunction.
The way society views kids as biological property of parents and criminlise childrens social autonomy is why we have delayed maturity.


>If you indirectly pay for community service work via tax-credits, that would created a dependency on a fair wealth distribution in order to operate as intended. If something bad happens and wealth distribution goes out of whack again, then we get knock-on damage because all of a sudden poor children work community service for free while rich children get payed. And then people just nope out of your community service program.
>That's fragile design. If you simply directly pay a wage for community service work, this failure mode can't happen and you got a more robust design.

Actually thats fair argument.
Yea, pay kids with striaght up cash or check.
Adults complain aout kids mooching off parents but are indignant about kis doing any form of labor for their own finances.

Like, make uo your mind.

Do you want kids to be safe, docile pets or autonomous members of society?
You cannot have it both ways.

>>634
>private companies will only pay the smartest and hardworking
>the ones most likely to get a return on investment
The premise in this argument is that returns on investment depend on how "smart and hardworking" the workers are.
That conveniently leaves out the capitalist or the managerial cast as a factor in failure or success.

The thing is if you are skilled at organizing a work-place, you'll be able to get good results with actually existing people. Not some kind of hypothetical ideal unicorn worker. This is like an architect that complains that steel and cement are not infinitely strong building materials. Or a farmer that says he needs magic multiplication beans to get a good harvest.

Companies that complain about their workers, suck at business and they are deflecting blame.

>>inb4 add diversity quotas
Socialists only ever used proletarian-quotas to make sure most political positions got staffed by actual workers.

>>635
If your argument is that making children partake in regular work activities because you think that is a learning experience that modern schools lack, i can see your point. Keep in mind that i want to pay children for learning stuff or gaining skills, not for doing labor.

However if your argument is that people have to give more time to the economy, by making them work during childhood. You loose me completely.

The only way an economy grows is because better technology enables better tools that allows people to do more in less time.

Making people work longer is not a valid strategy. Human labor has to be a scarce resource in order to make the system adopt new tools. If people work longer that means human labor becomes less scarce, and the pressure to get better tools goes down. That's how you get a shitty stagnating economy.

We have seen this happening, the neo-liberals drove down wages, labor power got a lot cheaper, and investment into productivity enhancing tools went down, it became possible to just hire more people instead of figuring out new and better tools to get more work done within less time.

>>637
Why not both?
Children will be paid for learning on the job while also contributing to the economy.

Also, neoliberalism works by overselling loans.
People are entering the workforce at a much later age than historically possible, and we have more advanced tech compared to a few centuries ago amd wages are still nil relative to quality to life. And people are expected to do more stuff in a smaller unit of time thanks to he hype about automation.

Irony is, the onl way for one to survive their twenties economically is to start work at age thirteen.

But thats not what Im really aiming for.

>>638
It doesn't make economic sense to make children work, capitalists only want that because they think it will increase labor competition and lower wages.

It's likely that birth-rates would go down even more if parents see that the economy tries to eat their children. So it's also demographically risky.

Lastly the experience of child-labor in the past was really bad, like absolutely atrocious. That alone is reason enough to never try that again. We got burned too bad.

IMHO currently automation is done wrong. The goal usually is to use technology to replace workers. Economically it would work out a lot better if we tried to use technology to augment workers. The latter is easier from a technical perspective, because it's easier to make a tool to be wielded by a person than make a machine that does everything the person previously did.

Basically automation by augmentation represent smaller technological steps and you reach productivity benefits sooner. It has the same destination so that eventually most or all work is done by machines, but the path for getting there is less steep.

The capitalists buy automation because they want to save on labor costs. That's why they want replacement-automation. The augmenting-automation has as goal to make the workers you have more productive. Capitalists could also benefit from that, but i don't know if you can convince them to change their perspective.

So automation has the potential to be great.

>>639
>It doesn't make economic sense to make children work, capitalists only want that because they think it will increase labor competition and lower wages.

By that logic, elderly nor disabled should work either.

>Lastly the experience of child-labor in the past was really bad, like absolutely atrocious. That alone is reason enough to never try that again. We got burned too bad.

Only because of the Industrial Revolution forcing them into factories. Doesn't mean child labor is inherently bad.

By that logic , public schooling should be banned too with all the mass shootings, teen pregnancy, suicides, and failed students.

>It's likely that birth-rates would go down even more if parents see that the economy tries to eat their children. So it's also demographically risky.

I wish that was true.
More people just think that having kids is a mandatory luxury of adulthood.
Most adults don't think about whether they are fit for childrearing. They feel like they should just go ahead and do so.
Too many kids born with developmental disorders, or come of age and have to slave away in dead end jobs because Mom and Dad don't have any trades or businesses to offer them.

>>639
>Basically automation by augmentation represent smaller technological steps and you reach productivity benefits sooner. It has the same destination so that eventually most or all work is done by machines, but the path for getting there is less steep.

>The capitalists buy automation because they want to save on labor costs. That's why they want replacement-automation. The augmenting-automation has as goal to make the workers you have more productive. Capitalists could also benefit from that, but i don't know if you can convince them to change their perspective.
So automation has the potential to be great.

Automation isn't gonna make life like the Jetsons
You will still be required to work.
What will happen is that more people will be needed for maintenance and programming.

Unskilled labor will be taken away from humans.

>>640
>By that logic, elderly nor disabled should work either.
With some exceptions this sounds reasonable.

>Only because of the Industrial Revolution forcing them into factories. Doesn't mean child labor is inherently bad.
That's not a valid excuse, they lacked the sense to figure out that was a bad idea. And they stubbornly fought against halting the destructive practice.

>Automation isn't gonna make life like the Jetsons
>more people will be needed for maintenance and programming.
>Unskilled labor will be taken away from humans.
I doubt your predictions. Consider that we got AI that can make art like music and paintings, but we still don't have a robot butler. Everybody figured creative artistic stuff would be the last thing that could get automated.

>>642
>I doubt your predictions. Consider that we got AI that can make art like music and paintings, but we still don't have a robot butler. Everybody figured creative artistic stuff would be the last thing that could get automated.

mass producing fully competent humanoid robots is harder than you tĥink.
Most robots are just vehicular machines so far.

>>642
>That's not a valid excuse, they lacked the sense to figure out that was a bad idea. And they stubbornly fought against halting the destructive practice.

Thats exactly how I feel about public schooling yet people just rationalise the flaws of public schooling.

>>644
>mass producing fully competent humanoid robots is harder than you tĥink.
That was the point.

For over a century pretty much all predictions thought that it would be easier to make a menial-labor robot than making a software program that makes art. This was true until very recently

I think making robot-bodies for a reasonable price is slowly approaching practicle reality.

But at the moment it looks like making AI for manual labor is stuck, because there is no easy way to get that kind of data. You'd need billions of humans to wear some kind of artificial proprioception limb-position recorder and get people to methodically describe what it is that they are doing.

You can't use holywood style motion-capture tech because the most important data-points is how much pressure fingers and hands apply to certain objects while doing certain tasks. That means you're not getting past sensor-harnesses.

You could of course hire people to do this, but i doubt you'll find capitalists willing to spend their gazillions to build the harnesses and hire masses of people who wear it to produce the proprioception data.

>>646
Maybe that's what schools should be doing. Having school kids learn about haptics and test out sensory harnesses and test them out using various objects with differing textures.

Again, education should be practical/industrial-oriented.

>>646
Also, if I could be honest, we could have robotic butlers but we wasted out research, development, and manufacturing on smart devices and surveillance software

>>647
Yeah it don't know if you really want to use Children to train robots. Child-labor is iffy and your robots would obviously inherit all the behavioral quirks of children. Like extracting buggers from noses an flinging them across the room, fidgeting and so on. Children can also be diabolical and understand that they could insert behaviors into the bot training data, which to be honest might have amusing results.

>>648
>we could have robotic butlers but we wasted out research, development, and manufacturing on smart devices and surveillance software.
We could have had "botlers" and privacy ? damn this timeline sucks.

>>632
Socialism isn't about wealth redistribution. Socialism is an alternate mode of production without class distinctions.

>>649
Ok and? You think adults dont have problems either?

Again this is about learning about haptics and testing them out.

Also again children have done more serious work in the past without imparting any "childish" nuances.Society has comicalised childhood far too much that adults cannot even engage kids seriously on basic things.

And you seem to havecproblens with kids even doing low-stress work.

Also, alot of fidhetibg kids do is due to not tetting enough free time to play outsise.
Remember the constant psychvmeds and harbess belts adults put on kids and how simple horse play is criminalised now?

Society doesnt want kids to be kids but they dont want kids to grow up either.

Adults smother kids and then ggets surprised why theyre unpredictable.

>We could have had "botlers" and privacy ? damn this timeline sucks.

This timeline sucks for far more than this.

>>649
>Children can also be diabolical and understand that they could insert behaviors into the bot training data, which to be honest might have amusing results.

And adults totally dont do that?
With all the politicising and generational cultural slop and other vices ?