Are you following here?Who cares what t shirts he wears, are you that desperate?
Very subtle.
Speaking of aesthetics. All the money in the world and still buys his T-shirts off a Facebook ad
Swasticars
Speaking of aesthetics. All the money in the world and still buys his T-shirts off a Facebook ad
View attachment 41593
I'm aSpeaking of aesthetics. All the money in the world and still buys his T-shirts off a Facebook ad
View attachment 41593
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.
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.
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.I hope no one asks the same question at my place, did a total of about 3 hours work last week.
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.We live in a Bullshit Jobs era.
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."
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.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
Thanks to Apple Podcasts transcription I found it without having to trawl back listening to old episodeswill 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.
“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.”
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.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."
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.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.
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.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."
Literally this, it's 2025 why should it always be the women?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.
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?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.
‘Imagine what we could do for suffering Americans’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.
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.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?
Isn't that like saying in court, "I didn't kill the murder victim, your honour, it was the gun that did it."
Just typical Elon musk behaviour.Making America Great Again now extending to stealing money from disabled children with the closure of their Education Department.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?