Elon Musk (2 Viewers)

Forums New posts
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Speaking of aesthetics. All the money in the world and still buys his T-shirts off a Facebook ad

5ec74fe9-d5e3-4578-b4c2-31ef06f121ef.jpg
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
SBAndy said:
View attachment 41664

Let’s send an email to all the Reform MPs asking how much of Elon Musk’s fecal matter they’ve gargled in the last 24 hours.
Click to expand...

Lets send a message to Reform MPs - and their leader - and ask them how many days since the election have they spent in their constituency.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Marty said:
I hope no one asks the same question at my place, did a total of about 3 hours work last week.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I work for a private sector company and plenty of people do very little. We live in a Bullshit Jobs era. People like Rupert decided to outsource productive jobs to low cost countries years ago.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
We live in a Bullshit Jobs era.
Click to expand...
This really should be a bigger issue. We're at a point with automation where a lot of people don't really need to do their jobs but nobody seems to want to have that discussion about what comes next.

Remember pre-covid listening to an economics podcast. One of the economists was discussing the idea of non-jobs.

He said that in economic terms in a relatively short period of time we'd decided to add a huge number of people to the workforce (in the 70s & 80s when more women were rightly expecting equal opportunities) but that came at a time where we didn't have a workforce shortage and in fact were in the process of moving away from being a country that needed large amounts of labour to make things.

Mentioned the idea that we've created whole sectors, such as university education, just to soak up some of the numbers. The number of people either in education, or in a job providing that education, studying for degrees that the economy does not have roles for is significant.

His theory was this had created lots of non-jobs, insignificant jobs that led to demotivated employees because they didn't fill people with any sense of worth. Went on to theorise that a large percentage of the workforce could just decide to stop going to work and very little would change. Of course this was proved true with furlough.

Reminds me of a quote from Stephen Hawking, "If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
This really should be a bigger issue. We're at a point with automation where a lot of people don't really need to do their jobs but nobody seems to want to have that discussion about what comes next.

Remember pre-covid listening to an economics podcast. One of the economists was discussing the idea of non-jobs.

He said that in economic terms in a relatively short period of time we'd decided to add a huge number of people to the workforce (in the 70s & 80s when more women were rightly expecting equal opportunities) but that came at a time where we didn't have a workforce shortage and in fact were in the process of moving away from being a country that needed large amounts of labour to make things.

Mentioned the idea that we've created whole sectors, such as university education, just to soak up some of the numbers. The number of people either in education, or in a job providing that education, studying for degrees that the economy does not have roles for is significant.

His theory was this had created lots of non-jobs, insignificant jobs that led to demotivated employees because they didn't fill people with any sense of worth. Went on to theorise that a large percentage of the workforce could just decide to stop going to work and very little would change. Of course this was proved true with furlough.

Reminds me of a quote from Stephen Hawking, "If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."
Click to expand...

www.worldofbooks.com

Bullshit Jobs

'Spectacular and terrifyingly true' Owen Jones 'Explosive' John McDonnell, New Statesman, Books of the Year 'Thought-provoking and funny' The Times FT BUSINESS BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018, THE TIMES BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018, NEW STATESMAN BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018 and CITY AM BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018 Be honest...
www.worldofbooks.com www.worldofbooks.com
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
www.worldofbooks.com

Bullshit Jobs

'Spectacular and terrifyingly true' Owen Jones 'Explosive' John McDonnell, New Statesman, Books of the Year 'Thought-provoking and funny' The Times FT BUSINESS BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018, THE TIMES BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018, NEW STATESMAN BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018 and CITY AM BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018 Be honest...
www.worldofbooks.com www.worldofbooks.com
Click to expand...
will give it a read. the 'Up to 40% of us secretly believe our jobs probably aren't necessary' line reminds me of something on the Futurenauts podcast, they had a stat about the number of people that dislike their job so much they are actively trying to damage the company they work for. Can't remember the exact figure but I remember it being high enough that it was a wtf moment.
 
H

HungarySkyBlue

Active Member
He's a knob, has about a 90 IQ, has crazy ideas and pays people to achieve it, his wealth has not come through brains or strategy just luck and a rich family to help him get started.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
will give it a read. the 'Up to 40% of us secretly believe our jobs probably aren't necessary' line reminds me of something on the Futurenauts podcast, they had a stat about the number of people that dislike their job so much they are actively trying to damage the company they work for. Can't remember the exact figure but I remember it being high enough that it was a wtf moment.
Click to expand...
Thanks to Apple Podcasts transcription I found it without having to trawl back listening to old episodes
“Yeah, I mean, in the first episode, I mentioned that statistics over 85% of people are disengaged from their work. And that comes from a report that Gallup do every couple of years called The State of the Global Workplace. And what they say is that only 15% of people are actually enthusiastic about the work they do, two-thirds are just not engaged and 18% are actively disengaged.

And that means that 18% of employees in most organizations literally are trying to sabotage that organization. And you think about what that says about how broken things are, where the job you provide is such that 20% of people actually want to kill you and another two-thirds just don't give a shit. There's something very fundamentally wrong with that contract going forward.”
Click to expand...
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
This really should be a bigger issue. We're at a point with automation where a lot of people don't really need to do their jobs but nobody seems to want to have that discussion about what comes next.

Remember pre-covid listening to an economics podcast. One of the economists was discussing the idea of non-jobs.

He said that in economic terms in a relatively short period of time we'd decided to add a huge number of people to the workforce (in the 70s & 80s when more women were rightly expecting equal opportunities) but that came at a time where we didn't have a workforce shortage and in fact were in the process of moving away from being a country that needed large amounts of labour to make things.

Mentioned the idea that we've created whole sectors, such as university education, just to soak up some of the numbers. The number of people either in education, or in a job providing that education, studying for degrees that the economy does not have roles for is significant.

His theory was this had created lots of non-jobs, insignificant jobs that led to demotivated employees because they didn't fill people with any sense of worth. Went on to theorise that a large percentage of the workforce could just decide to stop going to work and very little would change. Of course this was proved true with furlough.

Reminds me of a quote from Stephen Hawking, "If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."
Click to expand...
Controversial but maybe we need to move away from most women working back to them looking after their families or at least doing something or other from home rather than dumping the kids in a nursery. 😁 I have no solutions but isn't it time to stargt thinking out of the box?

Meanwhile in the world of your 2nd favourite hate figure


Right then, I'm going to listen to his Rogan interview now. 😁 See if I care.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Captain Dart said:
Controversial but maybe we need to move away from most women working back to them looking after their families or at least doing something or other from home rather than dumping the kids in a nursery. 😁 I have no solutions but isn't it time to stargt thinking out of the box?

Meanwhile in the world of your 2nd favourite hate figure


Right then, I'm going to listen to his Rogan interview now. 😁 See if I care.
Click to expand...

Why should it be women back looking after families? Why not some of the men and let the women earn the wage? Plenty of them that are the smart one in their relationship.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
This really should be a bigger issue. We're at a point with automation where a lot of people don't really need to do their jobs but nobody seems to want to have that discussion about what comes next.

Remember pre-covid listening to an economics podcast. One of the economists was discussing the idea of non-jobs.

He said that in economic terms in a relatively short period of time we'd decided to add a huge number of people to the workforce (in the 70s & 80s when more women were rightly expecting equal opportunities) but that came at a time where we didn't have a workforce shortage and in fact were in the process of moving away from being a country that needed large amounts of labour to make things.

Mentioned the idea that we've created whole sectors, such as university education, just to soak up some of the numbers. The number of people either in education, or in a job providing that education, studying for degrees that the economy does not have roles for is significant.

His theory was this had created lots of non-jobs, insignificant jobs that led to demotivated employees because they didn't fill people with any sense of worth. Went on to theorise that a large percentage of the workforce could just decide to stop going to work and very little would change. Of course this was proved true with furlough.

Reminds me of a quote from Stephen Hawking, "If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."
Click to expand...
And yet we still have people saying we need to increase the population and birth rate (including one E.Musk) yet the only reason for this is to cover the ever increasing costs of providing for people in old age. But creating more people is just creating even more old people in the future, who then need to be provided for.

If you look at most of the problems facing humanity and this planet, pretty much all of them can be boiled down to "there's too many of us". We need to find a smarter way of dealing with that in the future.
 
H

HungarySkyBlue

Active Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Why should it be women back looking after families? Why not some of the men and let the women earn the wage? Plenty of them that are the smart one in their relationship.
Click to expand...
Literally this, it's 2025 why should it always be the women?

I'm lucky I work from home but I'm tasked with looking after the little one from 6 months till a year old and then she will decide if she wants to have another 6 months of or not.
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Why should it be women back looking after families? Why not some of the men and let the women earn the wage? Plenty of them that are the smart one in their relationship.
Click to expand...
You've got the wrong end of the stick there, at the moment more often than not both parents work so I question why both parents I never said there is only one family model. I know a chap from Uni days that raised 4 girls while his wife worked but it's far far more likely the woman will spend most time on family matters, do you disagree with that?
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Captain Dart said:
Controversial but maybe we need to move away from most women working back to them looking after their families or at least doing something or other from home rather than dumping the kids in a nursery. 😁 I have no solutions but isn't it time to stargt thinking out of the box?

Meanwhile in the world of your 2nd favourite hate figure


Right then, I'm going to listen to his Rogan interview now. 😁 See if I care.
Click to expand...

‘Imagine what we could do for suffering Americans’

Where does eliminating Medicaid and the food stamp program while denying a minimum wage increase fit into that dart boy?
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Captain Dart said:
You've got the wrong end of the stick there, at the moment more often than not both parents work so I question why both parents I never said there is only one family model. I know a chap from Uni days that raised 4 girls while his wife worked but it's far far more likely the woman will spend most time on family matters, do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...
I know that we are in a society that expects both parents to work full-time just in order to be able to afford to keep the bills paid. I think that's wrong. We're basing a whole society on the few at the top who's only desire is to be wealthy and focus all their energy on that. Anyone that doesn't is just deemed 'too lazy to want it'. If people want to base their entire lives around working and money then fine, knock yourself out. Just don't make it so that everyone else has to live based on that idea.

I accept that it is more likely that women will look after children, and in many cases want to because they feel an even greater bond with a child having nurtured it for nine months. Maybe you didn't mean it the way it sounded but it came across very much as "women should be expected to it."
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top