Post: #26

(06-06-2013 03:18 AM)The Patriarch Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 07:30 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I think the widespread availability of pornography is a game changer as well.

Apparently 30% of internet traffic is porn.

So for the first time in history there is a better alternative for the average guy than to wife up some chick a couple of years before she hits the wall.

I'm not sure I follow this? Are you saying that some men would rather masturbate on above average online hotties than marry an average woman?

I think things are heading in that direction. Hell - I bet married men use internet porn as much as any other group of men.

Internet porn has certainly spoiled me. I can only imagine sleeping woth 1 in a hundred women. The rest have literally zero appeal to me.

Post: #27

(06-05-2013 08:42 PM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  The thing is, a worker with a 130 IQ or above who has their psychological shit together is thousands of times more productive than an IQ 100 worker. They've got it all over the IQ 120 worker but not a thousand fold. There's no way that the world can allow the top 2-10% to do all the work and have all the money even though tech allows this.

We simply don't need the low IQ worker anymore. They're worthless. McDonald's has studied getting rid of their workers at least once. They could automate the entire restaurant. They don't because HALF of American workers get their first job at McDonald's. They fear public backlash. If Burger King and the others went along, you'd be looking at mass unemployment and riots. So, you go into a burger joint and deal with shithead. Shithead is already on welfare. You are paying more for a burger because McDonald's fears the public boycotting them even though automated burger joints would be cheaper. That is politically motivated transfer payments. Face it, shithead low wage worker is already on welfare for their so called salary.

I say we take the Red Pill and pay shithead to stay at home. I'd rather order at a kiosk and have robots make the burger. I go into a Jack in the Box sometimes and now all the workers say hello. Fuck them. They lollygag on my order and it takes too long. The management has told them to say hello because the company is obviously trying to fill the social gap and build a brand. I order at the kiosk but people still make the burger. I say fire all of them, build robots and pay the ex workers to stay home and do nothing.

Hey JimNortonFan,

Do you have a source for this?

I am really interested in reading about business and strategic management discussions like this one. So - if you have a source please let me know and I will check it out.

Thanks!

Post: #28

(06-06-2013 03:18 AM)The Patriarch Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 07:30 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I think the widespread availability of pornography is a game changer as well.

Apparently 30% of internet traffic is porn.

So for the first time in history there is a better alternative for the average guy than to wife up some chick a couple of years before she hits the wall.

I'm not sure I follow this? Are you saying that some men would rather masturbate on above average online hotties than marry an average woman?

And to make another point. The average chick of today is alot fatter and alot more hassle than the average chick of 40 years ago.

So there is that to consider as well.

Post: #29

cardguy Wrote:I think things are heading in that direction. Hell - I bet married men use internet porn as much as any other group of men.

After the 1960s sexual revolution most men are not getting married to get easy poon, but to raise their offspring within morally approved and legally beneficial social system.

With internet porn you are confusing the form with the need. True, men are getting off internet porn, but they re doing it while craving a real flesh that they are not able or willing to get THAT easily. Internet is therefore only easy and safe substitute for the trouble they would otherwise run into should they choose to freely exercise those needs in the society at large. That single men get off on internet porn is illustrious of the natural urges that men are subjected to. That married men get off on internet porn is illustrious of the lunacy of institutional mogonamy that these married men are shamed into.

(06-06-2013 05:45 AM)cardguy Wrote:  Internet porn has certainly spoiled me. I can only imagine sleeping woth 1 in a hundred women. The rest have literally zero appeal to me.

The biggest problem with internet porn is in its profound metaphysical detachment from reality. Internet porn is the biggest simulacra in existence because it's nothing but virtual images detached from their (original) physical referents floating in the electronic space. You're getting off on "women", or rather their electronic representations. In essence you are getting off on ones and zeroes which is philosophically mind-boggling. This is especially sad because with the advancement of technology and availability of the latest, crisp, "real-like" imagery men are flocking to porn providers with the most sharp, clear images. Even the biggest adult companies are naming themselves aspirationally ("Vivid Entertainment"). That is especially ironic because the closest men get to having the most vivid image representation of "woman" on their media machine, the farthest we are from that same woman in physical reality.

Post: #30

(06-05-2013 08:42 PM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  We simply don't need the low IQ worker anymore. They're worthless. McDonald's has studied getting rid of their workers at least once. They could automate the entire restaurant. They don't because HALF of American workers get their first job at McDonald's. They fear public backlash. If Burger King and the others went along, you'd be looking at mass unemployment and riots. So, you go into a burger joint and deal with shithead. Shithead is already on welfare. You are paying more for a burger because McDonald's fears the public boycotting them even though automated burger joints would be cheaper. That is politically motivated transfer payments. Face it, shithead low wage worker is already on welfare for their so called salary.

If that’s true, then wouldn’t a start up burger joint come in, one who doesn’t have to worry about being boycotted but can make an equal product to McDonalds, and implement the automated restaurant system, thus saving costs and undercutting McDonalds?

Sure, McDonald’s has vast brand equity, experience, supplier relationships, etc but over time, wouldn’t the new joint be able to take significant market share by charging less?

Post: #31

Can't find the original source. It was a blog I read in the last 6 months, which narrows it down to several hundred blogs.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030801/1345236.shtml

http://jacobinmag.com/2013/04/the-rise-of-the-machines/


Best I could find but no source on McD's not going with automation for brand/political reasons.

If I remember the blog I'll post it.

Post: #32

Nice links.

Cheers!

Post: #33

Awhile ago slate.com did an interesting series of articles disccusing the future of jobs as regards the threat from automation:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology...r_job.html

Post: #34

I'm not really following the message the author was going for here...
Technology is bad because companies no longer have to hire as many people as they used to, to shuffle around papers and crunch numbers on slide rules?
"Technology kills jobs" would more aptly be rephrased as "technology kills jobs that idiots are qualified for".
If your skills and abilities are so disposable that a robot or computer can perform them, then it's time to learn some new ones that actually makes you useful to the world.
Being a blacksmith was perfectly respectable and brought a lot of utility into the world, once upon a time... Not the case any more. Too bad so sad.

This all seems very one-sided and Luddite, to me. Yes; the Internet has made some business models and industries obsolete, but it has also opened up a historically unparallelled avenue of possibilities for entrepreneurs. I happen to have several friends that own or work at successful internet startups. How easily would people like Roosh have been able to publish and profit from their work in the pre-Internet era?

I don't get the author's monomaniacal suggestion that there is something profound in his comparison of Instagram to Kodak. If anything, I think the reverse of what he was trying to imply there is true; in the past, how many companies were there that were major players in photography? How many major competitors did Kodak have in bygone decades? Not many, because the barrier to entry was huge. It took a lot of capital to just start up a camera company out of the blue.
On the other hand, how many sites similar to instagram are there? Tons.
http://www.siteslike.com/similar/instagram.com
There's 50 right there... Even if they all collectively count as a small percentage of the market share, every one of those companies makes at least enough money to be antonymous and profitable. What does that tell you?

If anything, I think that the internet has had the effect of spreading wealth from a small number of companies with larger numbers of employees to a larger number of companies with fewer employees, when you exclude a couple of weird outliers like instragram... This is an immensely positive step for innovation and competitiveness.

Post: #35

Technology used to replace dumb people doing dumb jobs.

But now the internet is destroying the economic industries that support music and journalism.

The interview mentions that these professions are like the canary in the mine. And soon technology will find ways to replace other professions as well. University teaching and legal services is one that I see comiing under pressure in the future.

So - the old arguments that technology is just replacing crappy jobs needs to be changed slightly.

Also - alot of the work that used to be done as paid labour. Is now being outsourced to ordinary people who are doing it for free. And that is bubble type thinking which is unsustainable. And at the same time - the economic value generated is being siphoned off by the owners. As opposed to being spread amongst paid employees.

This is all taken from the interview I originally linked to. But I find it interesting since it fits well with alot of the thinking about capitalism I have come across through the work of Karl Marx.