Machka 

+1 kickstart.

I just have to shake my head.

It's as though tp really believes that someone in what he considers one service or 'low class' position could just up and move to another such position. Like it doesn't really matter. One position is as good (or bad?) as another.

So if one person is really good at, say, gardening at the local botanical gardens ... enjoys the job, does excellent work ... that person could and would be happy to pick up a mop and become the janitor at the local college. And that if one person is a great waitress and thoroughly enjoys the people and work ... that person would love to start laying bricks for the local construction company. And the janitor at the local college who is happy to be there doing his thing would be thrilled to become a waitress. And the bricklayer who takes great pride in his work ... more than happy to become a gardener at the local botanical gardens. Doesn't matter ... one 'low class' job is the same as the other.

And if a doctor wants to take on gardening and puts the gardener out of a job ... that's OK. The gardener can go on the dole or start serving drinks at the local pub or whatever.

kickstart

It's very telling that the privileged segment of society reaps all the benefits, and the "low level" segment of society makes all the sacrifices in his scheme.

Machka 

Yep.

Rowan

Let alone that the doctor is creating employment for other people if he does hire a house-cleaning service. In fact, most doctors I am aware of in a practice are responsible for employing a fair range of people either directly or indirectly -- reception staff, nursing staff directly, and likely a practice manager. Then there are the services that he refers patients to (radiography, pathology, hospitals are just a few), and because doctors are busy people, they also may employ babysitters, the aforementioned housekeeping services, car mechanics and detailers.

One of the more interesting things I have noted over a long period of time is that doctors generally aren't very good at doing manual labour stuff. It's actually in their interest (financially, timewise and for their own safety) to pay other people to do the work for them.

I really do think that anyone who floats the idea that doctors and other professionals must engage in other lower-level work-related activities is suffering from a severe case of jealousy and/or wants to bring what s/he regards as the elite in the community down their own level. There is, of course, a strong stench of communism in this sort of thinking.

Bandera

It was the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution”

"Two particularly effective methods by which the CCP controlled
the Chinese population were assigning class labels to each person,
and giving the boss of each work unit nearly unlimited control over
and knowledge of the lives of all the workers accountable to him or
her. As a result, freedom of expression was denied, people were
totally dependent on their bosses and were obliged to sacrifice and
remain completely obedient to the Chinese nation, and only Party
members exercised direct influence over their own lives."

https://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/115/CRintro.pdf

tandempower

Employers and managers are biased against it for various reasons. I think you are denying this because it bothers you on some level to think freedom is in any way limited except by the totally inherent will of individuals. We have a highly structured economy. A totally free economy would involve people voluntarily contributing labor to any process that was contributing in some way to the world they want to live in. That is far beyond the level of freedom we currently have. People seek employment based on norms and expectations of what will appease employers and managers. This is due to competitive job-seeking where employees can be let go and replaced with others who are preferred by employers. If there was no power struggle to control people in work place, we would indeed be free to mix and match jobs and still people might prefer to maximize their time in higher class jobs and avoid lower class ones, but that would be different than the situation currently insofar as popular employment culture is concerned.

We are forced to make money to pay for things we receive. Is that nightmarish? Plenty of people would like a world of free money and they find it nightmarish to have to work in whatever job they can get but no one sympathizes with their nightmare-aversions. What basis do you have for declaring your nightmares more worthy of avoidance than anyone else's?

To reduce motor traffic congestion. That was the whole reason I introduced this topic in the first place. This thread is about the world's worst traffic jam. The point is that people commute farther because they can't work near home or live near work, so I suggested reducing traffic by people taking on more of the work near their home and people who commute to those areas to work could do so less days per week as a result, during which time they could combine their work day with things like doctor visits so the doctor could live near her/his home.

I have done both and I have enjoyed doing both, sometimes, and other times I have disliked my job or aspects of it. As an educator, I value the idea of people who do "low level jobs" getting education to diversify their work responsibilities to include higher level responsibilities. I also think education should cost less so those who get professional degrees shouldn't have to do that work full time to pay off expensive student debt. None of this is based on arrogance but on a belief that more possibilities adds up to more happiness. More constraints mean people get cornered into specialized positions, certain commutes, etc. instead of being freeer to design their own schedule, routine, geographical area, etc.

tandempower

You're making assumptions about my thoughts and point of view. Don't bring equality/inequality into it. It's about people being freeer to work close to home and/or reduce the number of days per week they have to commute across town.

Someone might be really good at working at a botanical garden but there's none in the area they live in. Should they move to get that job or just get a job in the area they live in? There are no hard fast rules for these things. People already combine things they need to do with things they want to do in various ways. I'm just suggesting it could also be possible to do this at the level of paid employment and work location(s).

Any job you take effectively puts someone else out of a job. The whole logic of taking other people's jobs is based on the assumption that some people are more naturally entitled to certain jobs than others. So if you believe in world where people are free to do any job, you can't say that some people are taking other people's jobs by doing a job that's "out of their field."

Nonsense. Privileged people can benefit from taking on responsibilities typically relegated to underprivileged people and vice versa. It's all about give and take; i.e. cooperation and sharing. It's really helpful to go beyond pure self interest and consider the possibility of everyone's self-interest being better served if everyone puts in more effort to the greater good.

I might be rich enough to employ someone to bathe me so I don't have to do it myself, but that doesn't mean I'm doing someone a favor giving them a job bathing an adult who's perfectly capable of cleaning himself. This is a self-gratifying ideology that whenever you pay anyone else to do anything for any reason, you can pat yourself on the back for 'creating a job.'

Some work takes practice to get better at and get used to. Some people get spoiled by having only to do certain work and it takes more for them to bite the bullet and perform low level tasks like, say, sweeping floors or digging holes.

Defending class division by attacking 'the stench' of communism is an aggressive political tactic. I'm not talking about eliminating any property rights here. I'm talking about people being able to avoid and reduce congested traffic by shifting work responsibilities. You are tossing around inflammatory language to squash the very possibility of discussing the idea without drama. Troll much?

Here we go. Don't start burning The Communist Manifesto to obfuscate a discussion with the smoke until you've at least tried to have a reasonable discussion about it. You can't go around burning crosses anywhere you disagree with someone's thoughts by crying 'communism.'

Roody

What's the best example proving that, as usual, TP's "outlandish" idea already exists in some form?

I would say--the underlying topic of this LCF forum. Millions of people--many of them are highly paid professionals--get themselves to work and many other places under their own muscle power instead of using a machine that's operated by themselves or somebody else. They do this voluntarily, in many kinds of weather, even when it means getting sweaty or snowed on. They do it even when they could instead be engaged in some form of highly compensated employment that they love. How preposterous!

I guess Mao must be making them do bike-commute. Or else they're all damn pinkos. I think I detect the stench of their communism!

By the way, I wash my own dishes and clothes. Do some of you hire this done? Do you have a maid who drives a car to your house to perform these tasks? Or do you do them yourself, thereby cutting down slightly on traffic congestion?

I-Like-To-Bike

When providing speculative proposals and "thoughts" about an imaginary alternative universe to a discussion group (or a barroom or dorm room or shouted from a street corner), all the participants are entitled to rewrite and/or revise the proposal/screenplay, as well as give their opinion of its value, or even if such a proposal should be taken seriously or not.

If the would-be screenwriter cannot accept that not everyone will treat his proposals with the same reverence as himself and dismisses all criticism, disbelief and even accurate statements of fact as a lack of respect, insult or meanness, perhaps he should not put his fantasy/speculative proposals/screenplays up for discussion in a public forum.

Roody

Oh no! My doctor is a commie who rides a bike to work instead of being driven by a chauffeur! And she diapers her kids and puts the dishes in the dishwasher! She should hire a maid so she can spend more time taking care of me! The horror!!!

I-Like-To-Bike

I would add a revision/clarification to this weird speculative screenplay that the screenwriter or assorted assistants recognize the difference between household chores performed almost always at home for ones own benefit, and work performed for some one else outside of ones own household, usually for wages. Not making the distinction will only muddle the plot so far as to make it even more silly than the original.

tandempower

You're frothing again.

Lol.

I'm detecting a sincere point nestled within all the ad hom frothing. I think it has to do with differentiating between voluntary work and paid work but it's hard to tell since it's not explicated in a clear way.

fthomas

Rarely would I even venture a comment on such a complex subject and complex it is. As was mentioned earlier China's experiments into utopia in the past were miserable failures.

Imagine if you can it taking two and one half hours to go 6 miles (10km) in the teaming standstill of traffic in Manila. I returned to the States after experiencing Manila for the past three years and watched as the traffic problem progressed to the point it is now.

Imagine trying to walk down a side street in China and be hit by a bicyclist coming the other direction because there was just no room to maneuver or any way to make room.

Imagine major city streets in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) filled with bicycles, 110 cc motorscooters and a few cars. Crossing the street as a pedestrian is akin to dancing thre rhumba. A few steps forward and one step back three steps forward and two steps back.

Right now I am car free in Southern California and the bus system is exceedingly slow and unreliable.

I hope that people will continue to excel at what they are best at. I too do not want my Dr. focusing on anything but being the best Dr. available.

Machka 

+1

tandempower

Everything is an experiment into Utopia. The only time they're not is when people invest in businesses or activities for the sake of making money or other reasons while fully realizing that the consequences of what they're doing will be bad. You could call that 'intentional decentralized dystopia.' A decentralized utopia achieved by means of a republic of free consciences would be the ideal, I think, but somehow democratic republics get infected by this culture of anti-conscience, probably because it's better for business when people throw out moral restraint and continence and liberate all their consumption desires.

Where is everyone going that it's so busy? Is everyone commuting for work? What if they all worked closer to home and/or lived closer to work? Would it help?

Everyone should focus on learning more about how their body works so they can make more informed choices about how to manage their lifestyles and problems. The body's immune system is equipped to manage most illnesses without medical intervention and diet, exercise, hygiene, and healthy living go a long way.

Have you ever watched those episodes of Star Trek where kids living in the future learn calculus at age 10 or something unimaginable like that? This idea that kids will get smarter and smarter and general knowledge will become more and more robust as humanity progresses is something I miss. It seems like now people are getting worse and worse at general knowledge and competencies because of this widespread doctrine that people should focus all their effort on specialization. As a result, I think people know less about everything and understand their speciality less as well. They used to say that a jack-of-all-trades was a master of none, but I think it's actually the opposite, that without being a jack-of-all-trades, you can't really master any.

fthomas

There is much to be said for a "Liberal Arts Education". Finding a job and earning a living is not some of the positives. Most of the world and the masses are still stuck in a 3rd World life while we in the West (Civilized World???) deal with 1st World Problems. Most on this planet are struggling to find food and survive and learning more about how their body works is way down the list of priorities.

Your ideals are lofty, but I just do not find them grounded in the realities of how we as humans behave. Out of all the species on the planet "Humans" have the greatest potential to help our fellow man, but we are often confronted by the brutality and worst that human nature can produce.

Hasn't it been this way throughout history?

Machka 

After pages and pages, it comes down to this ...

Idea 1 ... OK. We like multi-use zoning, and it is being used fairly commonly.

Idea 2 ... OK. Hopefully this will become more common.
https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car...line-life.html

Idea 3 ... No thanks. Especially not if it becomes a requirement.

People are currently free to do that if they want. But most people don't because they don't want to. And any requirement to do that is, well, simply not desirable.


Got any other ideas?

Do you ride your bicycle or walk or take the bus to work? I do!

tandempower

You could start a whole thread on just this topic. It has very little to do with the kind of generalist approach to practical living I am talking about. Granted, general comprehension of basic sciences helps to understand how almost anything works, but 'liberal arts education' also encompasses esoteric studies of poetry, fine arts, etc. that are nice for hobby but have little if anything to do with learning how to understand one's own body processes and/or household mechanics, etc. For those, chemistry, biology, physics, and a host of practical mechanical engineering are necessary, along with the patience and devotion to build on these skills throughout a lifetime of trial and error. Many people do this through the school of DIY hardware stores, and through things like holistic health talks, public health information, etc. A lot of it is just paying attention and thinking critically to develop common sense that goes beyond dogmatic received knowledge.

This is completely abstract reasoning. What is there about finding food and surviving that precludes one from thinking critically about how the body and health work? Read the Hunger Games. That will give you a realistic example of how people can and must simultaneously focus on survival and learning how to survive. I will get flack for citing fiction but the writer did quite a good job of detailing survival thinking processes that anyone can follow, since these books are especially popular with young adults.

I'm sorry but I've heard people talk this way so many times and it just sounds like prelude to fascism to me. Using terms like "lofty ideals" against me is just an old tactic of fascist realism. You have to drop all these judgmental connotations and just realize that people have to develop in order to live. Stop trying to define people according to this or that mold and look at humans as fundamentally capable of developing if they allow themselves to instead of rebelling against all authority except money in an effort to attain maximum material gain with a minimum of effort. People just need to take a step back and grasp the big picture of economic existence. It's not about what people pay others to do but about what we are all doing and producing, what and how we're consuming it, and what the consequences are.

fthomas

fascist realism

Something that warranted a Google search. I leave you with the following definitions, which are not mine. Regardless it is interesting. I will leave this to digest. You are way over my pay grade.

How Facism and Realism Are Against the Reality?

[h=1][/h]

Machka 

I'm sorry but ......................

This made me



Yeah ... um ...

tandempower

I could probably read that if I thought it was worth the effort, but this quote from George Orwell's piece of fascism is better and simpler: "almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."https://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

By "realist fascism," I'm not really trying to use the term in the dramatic sense of genocidal Nazis. I'm just saying that you are bullying by asserting that people and/or ideas you disagree with are unrealistic instead of discussing them logically. Obviously everything is subject to having to be practical, logical, or reasonable, but these are objective criteria whereas 'realistic' is subjective, depending on an overarching worldview that decides what is and isn't realistic based on arbitrary criteria. I can't debate what is or isn't 'realistic' because that's subjective/aesthetic/culturally-relative. I can reason logically about what is practical or not and why, so let's keep the discussion at that level instead of bullying each other about being 'unrealistic,' deal?

Grumpy cat is cute, isn't he/she? Thank you for apologizing pre-emptively, though I'm not sure it wasn't meant as some kind of condescendingly subtle sarcasm.

As for the Hunger Games, have you read it? The overall story is fictional but the writer really captures the detailed survival logic that would apply in such situations where basic nutrition and survival in nature are everyday life. It's an easy read (I started reading it after my son was already far into the series) but it's not boring to a more sophisticated adult mind. I sincerely recommend it. It's written in the first person so the books are a little better than the movies with all the protagonists thoughts and feelings as well as the whole political concept behind the theme.

Dahon.Steve

LOL!

I do the commute each day including millions of others. I'm going to back track and state I respect everyone's decision on where they choose to live.

fthomas

@tandempower

I find your deep thoughts regarding the subject admirable though I do not share your enthusiasm. I have not intended anything as an insult or to be condescending.

I-Like-To-Bike

No, never watched Star Trek but I saw the Hunger Games movie. Good movie; reality? I don't think so, but then some have their own imaginative sources for and interpretation of reality.

I have read Alice in Wonderland, good alternative reality; you should read it, it might give you more for food for thought.

tandempower

I'm not saying the Hunger Games movie is realistic or not. Sci-fi is necessarily unrealistic in the sense of being fi and realistic in the sense of being based on sci. What's realistic about the Hunger Games book is the very detailed, rational thought processes the protagonist expresses in terms of survival choices and strategizing with regard to power struggles. It's interesting to follow the logical deductions and decision-making processes, how she deals with partial information and uncertainty in life-or-death situations. That's all. Can we stop with the hostile language now? It really gets tiresome. By the end of the last closed thread, you were mocking me with stuttering "b-b-but," in portraying me as a wimpering wimp who should be banned to P&R to fight with even tougher bullies. What gives? Why such aggression. Why such a destructive, mean spirit?