[ExI] retrainability of plebeians

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

### I didn't understand the above.
>
> 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)?

### 85% outright waste (boozing, scheming, etc.), 10% good-intentioned
waste (missionary work, all kinds of stupid activism) , 5% sexy useful
stuff, like proving Fermat's theorem.

Nobody would ever clean the sewers.

-----------------------------
>
> 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?

### Yes. Almost all that we enjoy is the result of paid work.

Rafal