[ExI] retrainability of plebeians

[Emlyn]

2009/4/30 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ### "chore", "job", "task", "labor" vs. "play", "entertainment",
>>> "amusement", "hobby"? Note the connotations of seriousness and
>>> possibly usefulness with the former and the association of the latter
>>> with frivolity. There are occasional diversions that are useful and
>>> lots of jobs that can be useless but overall if you want usefulness
>>> and productivity you are talking about jobs, not fun and games.
>>>
>>> Rafal
>>
>> Well there's the problem. When people aren't doing paid labour, it
>> doesn't mean they are just engaged in "fun and games", demonstrably
>> so. So, that kind of language doesn't fit.
>
> ### So what do 95% humans do when not paid? You would be hard-pressed
> to find them engaged in many activities of use to strangers.
>
> Rafal

Sounds like when they are paid (95% might be high).

Also, this is not a fair comparison. People who are in paid work
already feel they are doing their fair share.

If people didn't need to be paid and so all their time could happily
be unpaid time, how many people would do something useful with their
time, vs how many would waste their time (watching tv / playing WoW)?

Also, if the percentage of "usefuls" in the latter scenario is lower
than in the former, is the work of the people who comprise the margin
a significant loss?

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site