![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
low-end jobs
More recently, I've interacted with automation that is designed to specifically replace humans rather than broadening service. The automated check-out at grocery stores is the big example here. Instead of one cashier per line, stores now need one employee per 4 or so lines. This isn't making things more convenient for customers; unlike ATMs, the scanners are only available when the store is open anyway.
There are practical reasons I tend to avoid the automated checkouts, mostly related to speed. The line for the human has to be about three times as long as the line for the machine before the machine looks like a time-saver. People may get more proficient at scanning and packing over time, of course.
But I find that even absent that consideration, I'm reluctant to use the machine. Doing so helps to eliminate a low-end job that might be the only job the job-holder is capable of doing. Most of the cashiers I see at the grocery store aren't college-age kids looking for spending money; they're middle-aged and sometimes visibly handicapped.
This is not wholly a compassion-based argument; it's also one of expedience. I think we as a society are better off if almost everyone has a productive job. And some people are only capable of the lower-end jobs that are most in danger of being automated away. (Aside: for this reason, requirements for high minimum wages are also a bad idea -- don't make it cost-ineffective to hire people at prices they're willing to work for!)
We cannot avoid automation, of course, and in many cases it's a good thing. I'm no Luddite (she says, typing on her computer :-) ). But I kind of wish that we could focus it a little differently sometimes.
And yes, sometimes the humans are annoying to deal with. Last night I lost close to ten minutes to an inept cashier, and there is one (mentally challenged) bagger who I will never again allow to touch my groceries because he seems utterly bewildered by ideas like "the bread goes on top" (multiple failures). People who aren't capable of doing the job shouldn't hold the job anyway just out of pity. (Giant Eagle was right to fire the guy who was partially eating food and then putting the package back on the shelf, and I don't care that he didn't understand that this was wrong.) But y'know, the machines aren't painless either -- just try to get a scanning error fixed. And for the most part, the people holding these jobs are quite capable and willing to work, and I find I'm rooting for the people over the machines.
theft
The same way you do. The libertarian philosophy is fundamentally about the individual's right to be left alone. Theft is a crime against the individual, and its consequences are invalid. (That is, third-party buyers don't get to say "not my problem"; they get to seek damages from the thief who sold them the stolen goods.)
I hadn't considered the health-care situation as theft. If one agrees that buying better health care takes any care at all from the poor, then that's something that has to be dealt with. I'm not sure about that premise, though (see my reply above).
Personally, I think the fundamental problem with Communism is the same as the fundamental problem with Libertarianism: pie-in-the-sky ideal systems which intersect with human reality really poorly. They assume spherical chickens.
Well, that's true of any system, including Capitalism. There has never been a perfect implementation of any of them.
As for communism, the specific point I was wondering about was the slacker factor -- why should I do more than I need to when it makes no difference to my level of comfort? Is the Russian you spoke with saying that that's not how it plays out? I understand that it doesn't play out that way on kibbutzim (at least sometimes), but those are smaller self-selected communities where everyone knows everyone else. It's much easier to slack off on the guy a few blocks over who you don't like much anyway and who'll never notice you doing it.
Re: theft
There is the "no perfect implementation" problem, and then there's the "if you had a 'perfect implementation' and populated it with real people" problem.
Anarcho-libertarianism probably works beautifully populated by Heinleinian rationalists. Heck, the early internet was basically anarcho-libertarian, and it was great. It got colonized and its culture eradicated by capitalists non-rationalists because it had absolutely no defense, but next time we'll build walls.
And then there's the "if you have a 'perfect implementation' populated with real people and it working perfectly.... but sucking mightily."
Totalitarian authoritarianism can "work" "splendidly" (I'm told). It accomodates real people really well. I doubt I would be happy in such a society, no matter how "perfectly" realized the vision was.
As for communism, the specific point I was wondering about was the slacker factor -- why should I do more than I need to when it makes no difference to my level of comfort? Is the Russian you spoke with saying that that's not how it plays out?
The Russian I spoke to is on LJ, should I invite her over?
As to myself, it seems to me there are two kinds of work: the work people would do anyway, and the work you have to pay people to do. Work in the first class is not necessarily any less valuable to society: it includes doctors, scientists, engineers, programmers, artists, librarians, etc. Those people aren't going to slack off simply because they're not necessarily working for money.
People who do work they don't like -- I don't expect many factory workers would do it without pay -- may slack off if compensation isn't contingent.
Then again, it's possible to have a system whereby if you fail to meet the grade, you're not docked pay, you're moved to a less desirable job; and contrariwise, mastery is rewarded with promotion. There are obvious problems with this, clearly.
Perhaps the solution is that "would-anyway" workers should be communistically organized, and everyone else capitalistically.... or is that just what socialism is?
Re: theft
Sure!
Work in the first class is not necessarily any less valuable to society: it includes doctors, scientists, engineers, programmers, artists, librarians, etc. Those people aren't going to slack off simply because they're not necessarily working for money.
On the other hand, they might cherry-pick the work. Programmers would rather develop grand new programs than maintain old cruft. Doctors would rather not deal with problem patients. Scientists would rather work on the shiny new research problems, not do grunt chores usually given to grad student. Within any field, it's worth looking at which sub-fields seem to have either shortages or higher compensation; that might signal work that won't get done without personal motivation even by people who have a stronger inclination to work. The answer to "will you work?" is rarely "yes" or "no"; it's usually "it depends on what the work is".
People who do work they don't like [...] may slack off if compensation isn't contingent.
I would certainly expect people who don't like their work to do the minimum acceptable job, yes. We've all dealt with such people, and not just in the crappy service jobs. Surely you've been stuck working with disgruntled programmers?
You're right that there are considerations other than money, such as what your next assignment will be. As you say, there are problems with that approach too.
Perhaps the solution is that "would-anyway" workers should be communistically organized, and everyone else capitalistically....
Except that if the "would-anyway" workers would be able to live better under capitalism (probably true for most doctors and programmers; probably not true for most artists and librarians), wouldn't they just lie about their intentions in order to get into the capitalist pool?