Comment by grasshopperpurp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by grasshopperpurp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

grasshopperpurp

Imo flip these "punishment" jobs into "reward" jobs. As it is, we give the jobs no one wants to people who don't have any other options - or are struggling to exercise their options. We use them as boogeyman for kids when we remind them how important school is.

If everyone is taken care of, these jobs should come with some extra benefits - both socially and financially. Remember all those bs commercials thanking essential workers toward the beginning of Covid? What if society really appreciated its essential workers and compensated them like it did?

Cleaning toilets is somewhat unpleasant, but there's immediate feedback on your performance (the before and after is clear), and people should appreciate the people that keep them clean. There should be an understood, and spoken, sense of "Thank you" for the people keeping them clean.

Perspective -> feeling - > actions. I don't think this is a particularly difficult issue to navigate, but it would require a shift in perspective.

> What if society really appreciated its essential workers and compensated them like it did?

The person I was responding to was arguing against compensation as a concept in general.

Very fair. I don't think you can remove compensation. But, I think the post still had some good thoughts and good aims. They need some tweaking. Your post highlighted an area that needs tweaking, and mine tried to build on both posts.

That tweak is a universal basic income (or other broad based benefits that establish a floor for quality of life) which would attempt to reduce the impact of one's lineage on one's options.

What if monetary or material compensation was replaced with simple respect and appreciation though? As it is, the people who do the dirty jobs of society are often treated like they themselves are filth.

Then we would not be living in the same world with the same parameters as we are now.

And yet there are functional societies out there today, much as there were in the past, that are not capitalistic societies. Treating people like shit and forcing them to do dirty jobs you don't want to do under threat of starvation is not an inherent property of the human condition.

Which societies operated like that? I am not aware of any, that could operate as a country of decent size today. Note that this supposed country would also need to be able to defend itself, if it has possession of anything valuable (such as water, arable land, weather, etc). And also be able to deal with immigration and outsiders coming in, and kicking out people who would mess up the system.

What kind of idealistic misunderstanding of history do you have that non-capitalist societies were some kumbaya utopia? Korea historically had slavery and extreme class differences. Europe had nobility and serfs who were not far off from slaves (and could be tortured or executed). Ancient Sparta and Persia had slaves and going way back into biblical times (though this still happens today in some places), people could be stoned just for not believing the right things. People today make the mistake of assuming things were altogether better in the past just because one particular aspect they dislike today was better before. Hierarchy and treating each other terribly are an inherent part of being human, and it's taken centuries of work to get to a point that we can even pretend otherwise.

He said some non-capitalist societies, not all non-capitalist societies that have ever existed.

Which makes it a moot point. The common thread across capitalist, socialist, monarchist, whatever-ist societies with suffering is that humans are involved. Neither capitalism nor socialism is inherently bad; some humans are, especially in aggregate, hence we always need ways to enforce order. The fatal flaw to any utopian society is that the more it depends on trust, the more some people will abuse it and coordinate with others to abuse it. The less trust you have, the more force you need to enforce your worldview on others (which radical liberals and conservatives essentially push for). There is no magical world where we all live in harmony

I don't understand your point. The corollary to "there is no perfect society, suffering always exist" is not "therefore all societies are equally bad". No, liberalism is an improvement on feudalism. Capitalist “liberal democracies” are an improvement on capitalist absolute monarchies.

All I'm saying is we can do much better than this.

You can't go back and forth between theoretical and real-life. I don't accept the claim that democracies are always better than monarchies. Monarchies and authoritarian states are great in theory, if they enforce the worldview you want. Look at how America's republicanism has allowed its own self-degradation through lobbying and regulatory capture. My first point is that everything in the real world is case by case and it's intellectually dishonest to go for such grade-school arguments as saying that democracy = good, monarch = bad. Capitalism can be good or bad. Monarchies can be good or bad, etc. My second point is that the only common theme is that some humans are bad actors, therefore it doesn't matter how your society functions, there will always be people who exploit the system. The only reason you think monarchies is bad is because historical monarchs have been abusive. But there have also been abusive democratic leaders. Humans are the problem, not the systems we create.

Disagree entirely. Ironically it's your "systems don't matter, it just depends on whether the people in charge are good or not" that is grade-school level. x)

First, I didn't say democracy good, monarchy bad... My point is precisely that western bourgeois democracy is pretty flawed. It is however better than the absolutist monarchies of the 1700s and 1800s.

>some humans are bad actors, therefore it doesn't matter how your society functions, there will always be people who exploit the system. The only reason you think monarchies is bad is because historical monarchs have been abusive. But there have also been abusive democratic leaders. Humans are the problem, not the systems we create.

That's just silly. A well designed system has institutions, checks and balances that prevent bad actors from wrecking the system. An absolutist monarchy has none. Can't you see how that matters? Taking your argument to its conclusion, then absolute monarchies, bourgeois democracies, direct democracies, soviet-style totalitarianism... it's all the same! All it matters is if you're lucky that the people in charge are good.

Have you read Another Tomorrow by Yanis Varafoufakis?

No.

The title is Another Now, thanks for the rec!

As long as there is money and private property, i agree with your point. Jobs that nobody wants to do by pleasure should be the highest paid and most respected. However that's not how capitalism works (quite the opposite). Like another commentator pointed out, i'm opposed to financial compensation (and all forms of money) as an organizing principle of society. However as long as money hasn't been abolished your point makes perfect sense.

Specifically about COVID though, I don't know about where you are, but here in France "thank you" for health workers was perceived to be very insulting. Because when the government continues to dismantle all forms of public services and keeps on overworking hospital workers (most of whom have months or even years of paid vacations they could never take because of understaffing) and destroying all their social benefits, it's hard not to take this as "fuck you".

> i'm opposed to financial compensation (and all forms of money) as an organizing principle of society.

What does this mean? It is the nature of animals to evaluate and rank each other, least of all for mating purposes. Not using money will not change that, and another proxy will be used.

> Specifically about COVID though, I don't know about where you are, but here in France "thank you" for health workers was perceived to be very insulting.

It was the same in the US. The thank you and hero nonsense was seen through by all, but I guess plausible deniability is worth it amongst the managing class.

> It is the nature of animals to evaluate and rank each other

Not at all. Competition is not the norm in the natural world. There's the entire field of ethology to study if you'd like to know more.

If you need a quick intro, "Mutual Aid" by Peter Kropotkin is really dated science-wise (it's almost 120 years old) but is still a pretty good read. If you're into TV stuff, i'd recommend Adam Curtis' series "The trap" and "The century of the self" which explore the topics of how competition and self-interest have increasingly been guiding principles of (at the time) western societies and how we've tried to apply such principles (eg. game theory) to other fields where they in fact do not apply.

Primates and other mammals do it. Birds do it. Unless all those David Attenborough narrated shows I’ve watched are wrong or misinterpreted by me, there seems to be extensive use of competition in many species.

Or one can look at data from myriad of dating apps and websites. I would not believe anyone if they told me they did not rank possible partners in life on a variety of metrics such as health, wealth, tribal affiliations (family/other network), intelligence, humor, etc.

Do some reading on the question and make an opinion for yourself. There is some competition throughout nature but it's really far from an organizing principle as it has become with the capitalist system.

> I would not believe anyone if they told me they did not rank possible partners in life on a variety of metrics

That sounds really close to the definition of a psychopath, and is definitely not how most people live their lives/relationships. Adam Curtis in "The trap" touches on this topic and how only psychopaths and economists used to behave like according to "measurable rational self-interest". With the commodification of everything (including oneself through social media) it's fair to bet more people behave like that nowadays than previously, but it's still really far from everyone.

Why would you not believe me if i told you i have feelings and affinities that cannot be measured or ranked and do not reflect a material interest? Why is it so hard to accept that not everybody lives through live the same way that soulless suit-heads do?

You sound like you're arguing from a point of insecurity or emotion rather than making a rational argument.

> Why would you not believe me if i told you i have feelings and affinities that cannot be measured or ranked and do not reflect a material interest? Why is it so hard to accept that not everybody lives through live the same way that soulless suit-heads do?

Why would you not believe that I have a long, committed, happy relationship today that I arrived at through consciously ranking and evaluating qualities of my current partner and other people that I met? Why is it so hard for you to accept that humans are inherently judging and comparing creatures? Why do you think that to just think about important life choices like a partner doesn't make you a "soulless suit-head"? If you want to live your life that way, go ahead.

The fact that you and even most people seem to let your subconscious steer you with important life decisions doesn't affect me. But I don't see why you have to indirectly call the other user names (psychopath, soulless suit-head) just because they do things differently than you. Are Indian and Chinese parents who perform arranged marriages also psychopaths or soulless suit-heads just because they choose matches for their children based on a variety of metrics? Does it make Chinese or Indian culture soulless or psychopathic since they've been doing this way before the "commodification of everything"?

> There is some competition throughout nature

Competition for mates literally forms and morphs most animal species.

I think this thread is a perfect demonstration of idealism vs realism. Some people are idealistic and believe what they wish were true, even with little to no supporting evidence and mountains of evidence to the contrary. Other people look at reality first and base their beliefs on that.

> I would not believe anyone if they told me they did not rank possible partners in life on a variety of metrics such as health, wealth, tribal affiliations (family/other network), intelligence, humor, etc.

I certainly do, and this is commonplace to the point of cliche. Think of Indian or Chinese arranged marriages where the parents openly and blatantly choose and approve of partners based on what you said: health, wealth, family, etc. It's a documented fact and I've seen it personally that some Chinese parents even disqualify women over 30 or so as partners for their children (to the point there's a word for it: "leftover women"). In the West some people are squeamish about consciously evaluating and ranking people, but everyone still does it, even if it's subconscious, unless you literally throw a dart at at list and pair with whoever you hit. We just talk about it indirectly: having a "type", being "compatible", having similar interests, getting along, having things in common, avoiding "red flags".

I at least certainly have based my relationship evaluations based on conscious ranking and metrics, and it's led to the incredibly happy, successful relationship I'm in now.

What ethology tells us is that, yes, but a little more.

Competition IS relevant, but it's in the context of other drives like group-oriented behavior, and it is cooperation that some people seem to have a hard time understanding. Cooperation and group behavior is every bit as powerful and rewarding as competition is, and every bit as natural.

I feel like we get into trouble when we try to isolate one side of things and dismiss the other. You're correct that western societies (probably not exclusively western societies) have erred, in leaning way over to the 'competition' side.

You could say law of the jungle except for jungles don't operate in this simplistic way. More like law of the capitalism, which tries to deify one behavior and demonize the other.

I'm not convinced Kropotkin is the final answer here, but he sure serves as a good window into the 'cooperate' side which is unreasonably suppressed in western society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com