It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working.
[My response to Kimock’s critique – rather than the original post itself.]
There is some truth in your assertion, that an understanding of some of the fundamentals has not been clearly demonstrated, and your response suffers from a similar (though one step deeper) lack of understanding about fundamentals.
The fundamental that is most important at this time is that markets must value any universal abundance at zero.
That is, anything that everyone has all they need of, has no market value, irrespective of how important it is, like the air we breath.
In the case where things are naturally abundant (like air), you can say – yes, that’s entirely sensible. And that could be argued as a reasonable position when there was only a very tiny set of such universal abundance possible (air).
However, that has now changed.
Now technology allows us to produce a large and exponentially expanding set of goods and services in universal abundance. We have that technical capacity. Having owned and operated a software company for over 30 years I am far more aware than most of that fact.
The incentive under capitalism is to make profit.
To make profit, there must exist scarcity.
Most of the laws in any jurisdiction are about creating such scarcity.
Some do so explicitly, like Intellectual Property (IP) laws, copyright and patent etc.
Others are much more stealthy, and fall under the broadest possible heading of “health and safety” which includes most of the guild laws requiring qualification (be it medical qualifications or a trade certificate, or whatever).
In all cases, whatever their public rationale (whatever the sales pitch used to get them through the many levels of whatever legal process exists), the practical outcome is to prevent universal abundance by the imposition of artificial barriers to such abundance.
10 minutes on the job training can have someone being productive in a narrow field, in most cases. Sure, we all increase the scope and depth of our knowledge as we gain experience, and the evidence is clear, most people only need a couple of hundred hours of school room instruction to learn the basics of reading and mathematics, and then they learn best by engaging in something that actually interests them – only a very tiny minority find that in classrooms or any education system.
The real fundamental issue is that markets are internally incentivised to prevent the emergence of universal abundance, which is what most of those in really high paid jobs actually do (in one way or another – certainly lawyers).
The real fundamental issue is, that right now, we possess the tools and resources to meet the reasonable needs of every person on the planet for air, water, food, housing, transport, communication, energy, education, healthcare, sanitation, security, and freedom – but actually delivering such abundance would break the capitalist system (any system based on exchange or markets).
Capitalism is a very complex multi levelled system that in times of genuine scarcity one could make a reasonable argument was actually in the genuine interests of life and liberty for most people.
In an age of exponentially expanding automation, one can no longer make that argument with any level of integrity or coherence.
Our exponentially expanding productivity has outgrown the scarcity based value-set that gave it birth.
We need to transition.
It is in everyone’s interests to make that transition as peaceful as possible, and of benefit to everyone (right across the capital distribution spectrum).
I am confident that can be done.
I am without any shadow of reasonable doubt remaining that it cannot be done within a market based set of values.
We require something else.
I seems clear to me, that a universal respect for individual life, and individual liberty is such a viable set of replacement values.
That actually requires each and every one of us to think about how we can secure our own lives, and the lives of everyone else. Killing anyone is not an option – ever!
The military industrial complex must go – and we must do that in a way that is as stable and secure as possible (at all levels).
Liberty, freedom, can never be without constraints.
In complex systems, it is constraints that deliver form.
We only exist because of constraints – from the subatomic levels on up.
Meaningful freedom exists within constraints. And to be clear, I am not saying that our current sets of laws are appropriate constraints, and they are what they are, one level of constraints in a very complex set of levels of constraints.
So we live in interesting times, and we really do need to understand the fundamentals – without necessarily believing any of the dogma from our history or cultures associated with those fundamentals.