Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there
is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.
yeah my paperwork for my employer sez that anything i produce
belongs to the company. ---
Maybe just reply to my other reply instead of this one as well, as the same point is being repeated in two threads. (ie, my other statement also covers this (I think, assuming you do "Write for Hire"))
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm
It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There nev
was.
Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..
There is a lot of confusion about these issues because of sloppy use of terms such as "hired" and "employed" and "contracted
leading people to believe that two different things are the same. When you "hire" a plumber, it is a very different economi
arrangement than when you are a manager at Walmart and you hire a cashier.
I don't know much about write for hire, and can't find much about it, but it seems to me that you are self-employed, and you
agree to a contract to produce a piece of work. From what I can tell, you don't actually get a job WITH the publisher, you
a job to do work FOR the publisher.
Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no conflict if you are contracting with someone to produce a piece of work. This is stil
very atypical and not representative of an employment contract.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Honestly, I see very little in your numerous posts that has
anything to do with "positive".
I think you can calm down a little. Capitalism isn't going
anywhere, and the robots taking over is still a century or two
away.
Really. It's true.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.
Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-pa
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Mon Aug 10 2020 09:22 am
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm
It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for,
ys the labour hire company by the hour.tra
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a
ns of property rights. There isn't. There nevterms
was.
Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..
There is a lot of confusion about these issues because of sloppy use of
such as "hired" and "employed" and "contracted"
leading people to believe that two different things are the same. When you
hire" a plumber, it is a very different economido
arrangement than when you are a manager at Walmart and you hire a cashier.
I don't know much about write for hire, and can't find much about it, but it
seems to me that you are self-employed, and you
agree to a contract to produce a piece of work. From what I can tell, you
n't actually get a job WITH the publisher, youso
a job to do work FOR the publisher.
Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no conflict if you are contracting with
meone to produce a piece of work. This is stil
very atypical and not representative of an employment contract.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to
the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that
you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.
Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Sun Aug 09 2020 05:54 pm
Honestly, I see very little in your numerous posts that has
anything to do with "positive".
I think you can calm down a little. Capitalism isn't going
anywhere, and the robots taking over is still a century or two
away.
Really. It's true.
While it's impossible to predict the future with 100% accuracy, I
believe we are at the end of our current economic system. Wishful
thinking is all most people have left in relation to the continuation
of consumerism. Most reliable analysts are in agreement that we are
about to face an economic collapse which will dwarf the likes of the
'29 Wall Street Crash. Millions of people died in the USA as a result
of that crash from famine, disease and abject poverty -- imagine how
bad things could get for us as everything's inflated to a ridiculous
level & the currency is teetering off a cliff. I hope I am waaay off,
but I just can't see it.
Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-
While it's impossible to predict the future with 100% accuracy, I
believe we are at the end of our current economic system. Wishful
thinking is all most people have left in relation to the
continuation of consumerism. Most reliable analysts are in
agreement that we are about to face an economic collapse which
will dwarf the likes of the '29 Wall Street Crash. Millions of
people died in the USA as a result of that crash from famine,
disease and abject poverty -- imagine how bad things could get
for us as everything's inflated to a ridiculous level & the
currency is teetering off a cliff. I hope I am waaay off, but I
just can't see it.
Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.
OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.
But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.
I've heard about the impending crash since I was little. I think more likely, is that instead of a crash, we will have a series of crisis, and our standard of living will just erode and erode and erode.
See, the economy is just trying to finds it natural level, and it may do so with most of us just impoverished. That future generation which will not own a house, live in a small apartement, have no job security, be controlled, never have good savings for old age, THAT is how the economy will compensate.
"Most reliable analysts" think we are about to crash, and worse
than '29???
Funny how there isn't any news coverage of that, eh?
Where are these reliable analysts located, and what are their
credentials? Where can one read their predictions?
Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Mon Aug 10 2020 08:20 pm
"Most reliable analysts" think we are about to crash, and worse
than '29???
Funny how there isn't any news coverage of that, eh?
Where are these reliable analysts located, and what are their
credentials? Where can one read their predictions?
Strange that there wasn't any news coverage either of the '08
credit crunch up until the time it happened. I don't consider
mainstream financials to be particularly trustworthy... we even
had Jim Cramer on Mad Money talking about "The DOW's best week
since 1938" with the headline below clearly stating "More than
16M Americans have lost jobs in 3 weeks"... I think there's a
clear disconnect there with these analysts invariably attempting
to inject calm into the market.
I particularly like Peter Schiff, the CEO of Euro Pacific Capital
and ex-Lehman Brothers investment banker. He was laughed at back
in 2007 while on CNN for warning of an impending crash... wel,
the other analysts didn't get the chance to laugh for long.
I guess my philosophy is to expect the worst, but hope for the
best.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Tue Aug 11 2020 09:47 am
Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.
OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.
But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.
Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in
a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output
over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's
there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign
the contract.
No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by
the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's
never been any pretense otherwise.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Tue Aug 11 2020 09:58 am
I've heard about the impending crash since I was little. I think more likely, is that instead of a crash, we will have a series of crisis, and our standard of living will just erode and erode and erode.
See, the economy is just trying to finds it natural level, and it may do so with most of us just impoverished. That future generation which will not own a house, live in a small apartement, have no job security, be controlled, never have good savings for old age, THAT is how the economy will compensate.
So far that's what's happened. We have had a series of smaller crashes over a period of a half-century. I don't disagree that we in the West
are living far in excess of our means, so your overall assessment is something I can agree with. I believe the next crash will be a much
sorer one than anything we've experienced previously after which there will be a noticible difference in life before/after the crash.
I guess it depends on how you view it... I don't think it'll be a civilisaiton ending crash, but it will result in serious impoverishment for large swathes of the population. Adding in other factors such a
large spike in crime, the defunding of the police, etc... we could be
in for some ride.
Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.
No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's never been any pretense otherwise.
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company wo claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.
You're not really answering the questions that are asked...
Naming a couple of obscure "investment bankers" does not
constitute the opinions of "most analysts". The truth is that
most analysts are not saying anything remotely close to what you
are claiming.
Sorry, but my philosophy is that facts speak more loudly than
conspiracy theories and hand-wringing claims with no basis.
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.
I think we are staring a new "dark age" in the face here. And most of it is because our "managerial class", that is, the people who get into management positions and positions of power, are intellctually, morally and behaviourally not up to the task of preserving or creating civilisation.
Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's never been any pretense otherwise.
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company wo claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.
Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are
stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.
You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over it? I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "work hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the monetary proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the story is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:17 pm
I think we are staring a new "dark age" in the face here. And most of it is because our "managerial class", that is, the people who get into management positions and positions of power, are intellctually, morally and behaviourally not up to the task of preserving or creating civilisation.
In normal times, I'd agree. I just think there's something more now
that we have advanced technology... there must be a way to alleviate
the crushing poverty of the lowest rungs of society. We haven't seen
that as yet so I guess you're merely being a realist about a new "Dark Age" however if we just kick the can down the road a little longer &
build some kind of solid automated or even non-automated manufacturing infastructre, perhaps the next crash won't be as bad as a lot of people are saying it will be. Either way, it's not looking good and we have
some tough times ahead. I would welcome a slower decline, as you said, much like the Fall of Rome, rather than a crescendo moment swallowing
us all up whole.
I don't think anyone is really trying to preserve society, everyone appears to be rushing, single-mindedly, trying to "fill their boots"
that they've forgotten that civilisations need to be maintained,
otherwise they become divided, decline and eventaully, they fall.
Nightfox wrote to Andeddu <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Tue Aug 11 2020 04:38 pm
Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.
I think there have been some companies that have specified that even employees' creations in their off hours could be considered company property. There was a movie that came out in 1999 called Pirates of Silicon valley, which was about Bill Gates & Steve Jobs and the
beginnings of Microsoft & Apple. Steve Wozniak worked with Steve Jobs
in the early days of Apple, and there was a scene in the movie where
Steve Wozniak had to go to his then-current employer (Hewlett-Packard)
to tell his manager about the computer he was designing, but his
manager didn't understand why people would want a computer at home,
which allowed him and Steve Jobs to sell the computer themselves. I'm
not sure how accurate that part was though, as I'm sure they made some mistakes in that movie.
Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Tue Aug 11 2020 07:57 pm
You're not really answering the questions that are asked...
Naming a couple of obscure "investment bankers" does not
constitute the opinions of "most analysts". The truth is that
most analysts are not saying anything remotely close to what you
are claiming.
Sorry, but my philosophy is that facts speak more loudly than
conspiracy theories and hand-wringing claims with no basis.
I'll link a video which quickly encapsulates my beliefs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBUv_-OqiE
"The Global Monetary Crisis Will be a Dollar Crisis, says Peter
Schiff"
You can also access it by typing "maneco64 peter schiff" into
YouTube.
I recently read a mainstream article on The New York Times by the legendary Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman. He boils
it down in simple terms to: We need to print more money to
stimulate the economy.
We're pretty much in a recession therefore it's nigh on
impossible to stimulate the economy. We'll also have the worst unemployment figures for decades and, in addition, non-stop
lockdowns to contend with. There's no stimulating the economy,
especially given that the US economy is service based, not
manufacturing based.
Even quantitative easing with the intent of helicopter drops to
the public won't stimulate the economy as people are too
uncertain about their jobs/futures to make large purchases,
they'll save whatever money they get. Printing cash and
purchasing government and corporate debt seems to work, but like
Schiff said, that'll just inflate ALL the debt bubbles and cause
an even bigger crash down the road. Also the US national debt is
so large that interest rates can NEVER normalise... for instance, increasing the interest rate to 5% would result in the US having
to spend 50% of ALL tax revenue on servicing the national debt.
The US goverment borrow trillions of dollars each year and this
year are well over five trillion dollars in the red. Totally unsustainable.
Once the USD crashes, it'll be a global problem. China can see
the writing on the wall which is why it's using its trade USDs on
US company stock, property and foreign assets, offloading it as
quickly as possible whilst expanding their influence across the
world.
Watch the video, and tell me why we shouldn't be worried. And
also let me know how we can prevent another depression.
I keep hearing that corporations are treated like people, but last time I checked, they don't have the same fundamental constitutional rights either in my country or the
US. At all.
The clinic I work with had a BIG problem with an ISP that managed to screw the access to some service. In Spain, phisical people has the right to fill a claim to the
Defender of the Consumer. If you are a firm you will need to fill a claim in court with your own layers since the Defender of the Consumer won't do it for you.
In the US, 4th and 5th ammendments don't apply to juridical people,
which basically means a corporation does not have a constitutional
right to privacy. If the cops walk into Necrocomp's headquarters and
demand any explanation about any given incident, Necrocomp's
employees can't call the 5th, unless they admit to be involved. But
that is troublesome for them.
Besides, any firm that grows big enough mutates into a branch of the government, specially in socialist states. Working for the government
is usually just more profitable since you can funnel lots of tax
dollar into your pockets.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that
you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company
buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep
changing what employment actually buys.
You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over i
I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "w
hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the moneta
proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the st
is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.
Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal
software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I
worked during work hours, the company could claim it.
This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually
their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the
principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For
example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could as
you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from
and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not
recognise the contractual agreement as valid.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-c
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the companywould claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the
ompany claim that during "work hours', all thatwh
you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows
at "employment" actually is. Is the companyspecif
buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What
ically is the transaction here? You can't keepproj
changing what employment actually buys.
You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said
ect, so why wouldn't they have ownership over ipr
I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone
oduced a multi-million dollar product during "wthe
hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of
company who thereafter retained all the monetaw
proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people
ould still sign it. I guess the moral of the stha
is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not
ve a claim to the fruits of your own labour.warn
Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was
ed about this when I was working on a personalit
software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do
during work hours). I was warned that if Icontract
worked during work hours, the company could claim it.
This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the
is written such that your labour is actuallyimp
their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically
ossible, and is contradictory to even thenot
principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is
automatically valid and enforceable. Forequ
example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my
ipment being my responsibility , and I could asc
you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which
learly stipulated I was purchasing labour fromN
and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law?
o. And the reason is because they would not
recognise the contractual agreement as valid.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Obviously, if they are paying you to accomplish task X during a certain time frame and you use that time for hobbies, things are going to get ugly.
Your labor becomes "theirs" because they purchased it.
Your employer can't hire you to shoot somebody dead for no reason
because the firm has not moral or legal grounds to do it itself as a juridic person.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.
Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.
IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.
You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow, SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).
You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no
Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I worked during work hours, the company could claim it.
This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could ask you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from you and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not recognise the contractual agreement as valid.
I don't think technology will save us. Technology alone doesn't create prosperity, it needs the right social conditions as well. This discussion is about how technology will free us from labout, yet look, so, so many people are working full time jobs, two jobs, and still struggling. We are not gaining from productivity improments due to a poor economic/political system.
The Dark Ages were called that due to a lack of historical records (comparitively so) and historical significant. The Eastern Roman empire continued on though, and what we now know as Byzantium was probably the
I watched all I could of it (about 10 minutes). This Schiff guy
is a nobody, completely unknown at the national level, and quite
frankly, appears to be a fringe/niche whacko. I wonder why he now
lives in Puerto Rico... No offense to you, but I put zero stock
in people such as this. It's easy (and common) to be a doom-sayer
and make bold predictions about how the world is crashing down.
This guy has apparently been doing it for 20 years. Funny thing
is, the world is still going strong, and will be for a long time
to come. That includes the USA and it's system, which although
not perfect, is still the best in the world.
Maybe you should try to be a little more "glass-half-full"...?
;-)
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.
Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.
IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.
Any big company nowadays goes around espousing that they value this or they value that and that they stand for this or they stand for that. I think they are already the church for most people especially with how prevalent they are in places where people usually access information. Sadly, they are a church whose words, and oftentimes only words, are motivated by how much profit they are projected to get from their "userbase" in the next quarter.
I don't know if this was real or just an edited picture but I saw once
a picture of someone on stage of what I assume to be a facebook conference, mostly due to the font choice in the slide shown. Either
way, it stated:
"Turn customers into fanatics
Products into obsessions
Employees to ambassadors
and brands into religions."
And so they did.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm
You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow, SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).
You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no
There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other types of responsibility, at least in the Western culture and Western jurisdictions.
If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds. Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good reason. This applies whether you
are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.
Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a
product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp lots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but then Necrocomp can
sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his negligence).
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am
Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I worked during work hours, the company could claim it.
This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could ask you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from you and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not recognise the contractual agreement as valid.
Surely there's a lawful precedent for this? Creatives have all kinds of projects going on at once and someone must have created something of
value during work hours, but not on work equipment. I don't really have
a dog in the fight, I do not have a creative bone in my body & have
never attempted to produce anything off the books at work, so it's not something I've ever considered. It's interesting, but it seems like
some kind of contractual loop-hole that needs to be tested in a court
of law.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:35 am
I don't think technology will save us. Technology alone doesn't create prosperity, it needs the right social conditions as well. This discussion is about how technology will free us from labout, yet look, so, so many people are working full time jobs, two jobs, and still struggling. We are not gaining from productivity improments due to a poor economic/political system.
The Dark Ages were called that due to a lack of historical records (comparitively so) and historical significant. The Eastern Roman empire continued on though, and what we now know as Byzantium was probably the
It's quite staggering that despite all the technology we have, we are
all still bashing out 40-50 hour weeks cooped up in an office doing
jobs that, for the most part, don't really matter. Something's got to give, a country cannot rely on a service based economy forever... it's just not sustainable in any way, shape or form. The markets are going
to correct sooner or later and things are not going to be pretty. My
hope is that we will come to realise we cannot rely on other countries
to produce the goods we want with cheap labour and that we have to
produce these goods ourselves. Purchasing cheap goods with cheap money cannot lead to long-term economic prosperity.
I agree, we've long since past the Age of Enlightenment; there are no genuine thinkers anymore.
Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.
Lets say you worked on your own equipment, a battery powered laptop of yours they would still make that claim.
I agree, we've long since past the Age of Enlightenment; there are no
genuine thinkers anymore.
Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist
politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really,
many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have
this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and
more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm
You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint
and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds
responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow,
SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person
(criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).
You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job
requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL
your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no
There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other types of responsibility, at least in the Western
culture and Western jurisdictions.
If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds.
Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good reason. This applies whether you
are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.
Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp lots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held
responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but then Necrocomp can
sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his negligence).
The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour" (Whatever paradigm you choose to try and explain what i
is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did this".
Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck rental can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truck
temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour can't. You cannot separate yourself from the labo
you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your action. Having a contract which claims that happen
doesn't mean it did.
This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a statement of fact, or must be enforced. The
contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then legally, the economic and political system must
consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened. If I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signed
contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange happened. It is not possible for me to transfer
to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine though, a legal system which claims that London
Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally claim tolls from people who crossed it!
Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that labour was transferred. It is not valid because it i
cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can actually transfer labour or time to someone else, only
the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.
There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being responsible for what they perform. Nor can an employment
contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can be responsible for creating new property, and we
accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are assigned to the human (or humans) which created the
property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food is still yours. The property right is attached t
the human, not to the equipment.
Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves a particular organisation of society, which is
culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly only apply to labour!), but they are nevertheless
covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to change our legal/economic system to correctly
initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with the persons which, through their agency/labour,
created the property.
... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Moondog on Thu Aug 13 2020 08:52 am
Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.
Lets say you worked on your own equipment, a battery powered laptop of yours they would still make that claim.
My guess is that will depend on if it's a conflict of interest with
your employer. If your personal work appears as if it is derived from
IP your employer deals with, it would be hard to prove you weren't
working alone, in parallel to your employer's interests. If your
company employer makes household appliances such as mixer and toasters, and you're producing a method to integrate a heads up display into a
scuba diver's mask, it would be hard for them to claim your work if you own a personal computer with your own licensed copies of Solidworks or other design software, and your own 3d printer, laser cutter or cnc
mill.
Collaboration with co-workers outside the workplace may complicate
this, as would even discussing your sideline work with others in a way that may appear you are consulting company resources without proper authorization or compensation.
Documentation will also help. While times and dates can be altered or fraudul ently created, the chances are slim anyone would go through
such a conspiracy unless there is existing suspicion IP or company resources are being stolen or exploited.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-theirs
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:24 am
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm
You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is
, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaintthe
and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence,
person selling the labour sti holdsonl
responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a
y you, can exercise your labour. Somehow,wh
SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed(a rented source of labour) and a person
(criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).
You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour
ic is related to filfilling the stated jobt
requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts yourearlier statement about the employer buying ALL
your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no
There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other
ypes of responsibility, at least in the Westernreason.
culture and Western jurisdictions.
If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both youand Necrocomp will be a target for the feds.
Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good
This applies whether youl
are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.
Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp
ots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held(Whateve
responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (butthen Necrocomp can
sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with hisnegligence).
The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour"
r paradigm you choose to try and explain what it
is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did
his".rental
Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck
can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truckcan
temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour
't. You cannot separate yourself from the laboacti
you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your
on. Having a contract which claims that happens
doesn't mean it did.
This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a
tatement of fact, or must be enforced. Thele
contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then
gally, the economic and political system mustIf
consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened.
I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signedha
contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange
ppened. It is not possible for me to transferlabour
to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine
though, a legal system which claims that London
Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally
claim tolls from people who crossed it!
Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that
was transferred. It is not valid because it iactuall
cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can
y transfer labour or time to someone else, onlyresponsible
the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those
terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.
There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being
for what they perform. Nor can an employmentbe
contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can
responsible for creating new property, and weassig
accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are
ned to the human (or humans) which created theis
property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food
still yours. The property right is attached tonl
the human, not to the equipment.
Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves
a particular organisation of society, which is
culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly
y apply to labour!), but they are neverthelessc
covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to
hange our legal/economic system to correctly
initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with
the persons which, through their agency/labour,
created the property.
... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
You are running in circles repeating the same argument. This
conversation is going nowhere so I am dropping it.
--
gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es
Companies will make the claim if there is no conflict of interest. This is the basis of them claiming they paid for it. But we have to establish, what it EXACTLY, they are buying?
Note, this doesn't happen elsewhere. If you are paying a plumber to fix you toilet, and they take a call while working to help someone else, you cannot claim what he did as part of YOUR property, because he was on 'your time'. doesn't work that way. Yet at work, we just accept it.
Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really, many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:51 am
Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really, many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!
No, I've never come across Graeber. I've taken a look at his Wikipedia
bio and see he's written a book called Bullshit Jobs: A Theory... seems like an interesting read! I see YouGov undertook a poll in the UK of
which 37% of Britons surveyed thought that their jobs did not
contribute meaningfully to the world. We have a problem in the UK,
notably in the public sector, with "quangos"... highly paid
administrators in management positions who seem to do nothing but push more and more policy which does nothing but obstruct the actual workers from doing their jobs effectively & efficiently.
The public sector now seems incredibly bloated, and that's not
including all the people who are employed privately but contracted by
the government.
may not even really care about. IT's already with us if you ask me. Intellectual, political and economic achievements of the 21st century pale in comparison to the
19th. Our art is stagnating, as well as technological development. Our movies are mostly rehashes, remakes, or very derivative. Even our "pop culture" heavily
reference the past. I see kids movies which still reference movies form the 60s. Although our technology is improving in some ways, the breakthroughs aren't like wha
That happens in the private sector too. Managers want larger budgets, and want to have more people working for them. Inefficiencies are overlooked because to someone outside of the department, it can be hard to tell where the inefficiences are.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-Intelle
Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:35 am
may not even really care about. IT's already with us if you ask me.
ctual, political and economic achievements of the 21st century pale in comparison to themovi
19th. Our art is stagnating, as well as technological development. Our
es are mostly rehashes, remakes, or very derivative. Even our "pop culture" heavily6
reference the past. I see kids movies which still reference movies form the
0s. Although our technology is improving in some ways, the
breakthroughs aren't like wha
Part of the cause of cultural stagnation is that you have to go through
a gatekeper to get creative works published. Publishers and movie
makers happen to like formulas that work. If you send them something groundbreaking, or something they love but they can't classify, they
are more likely to dump it than not. It was probably easier to get published by a magazine when half the population couldn't write and
there were not many writer wannabes trying to get published. Nowadays
an editor will run through close to a thousand submissions a month and only gets to publish 10.
Not everything is bad though. There re lots of niche publications fot "less popular" things, but the way things are, they are not very profitable. You can make 12 cents per word writing Urban Fantasy that
has been done to the death, or you can make half a cent per word soing something else.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.
Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.
IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.
Any big company nowadays goes around espousing that they value this or they value that and that they stand for this or they stand for that. I think they are already the church for most people especially with how prevalent they are in places where people usually access information. Sadly, they are a church whose words, and oftentimes only words, are motivated by how much profit they are projected to get from their "userbase" in the next quarter.
I don't know if this was real or just an edited picture but I saw once
a picture of someone on stage of what I assume to be a facebook conference, mostly due to the font choice in the slide shown. Either
way, it stated:
"Turn customers into fanatics
Products into obsessions
Employees to ambassadors
and brands into religions."
And so they did.
I would have no trouble at all believing that slide was real. I've personally heard similar things myself, and many companies want to
emulate Silicon Valley.
That kind of thinking is very much in line with how people who manage companies think.
You are spot on with stating that companies are like a church, and they are taking advantage of this. I'm not even sure that company profit is even the core goal, I think it may more be self-aggrandisement and more individal, self-serving goals.
The discussion of values should be left to the philosophers in society.
IT doesn't bode well at all for us that it is now formulated by execs.
| Sysop: | KrAAB |
|---|---|
| Location: | Donna, TX |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 31:01:12 |
| Calls: | 469 |
| Files: | 1,894 |
| D/L today: |
14 files (60,660K bytes) |
| Messages: | 40,621 |