The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Clint Planet]

As with most of these kind of things, having the ability to adapt is a distinct advantage.

Not a particularly inclusive viewpoint.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Not a particularly inclusive viewpoint.

It is what it is though. I mean I was speaking today to some guys from MuckRack, and it's hard to deny that the media, and journalism, has undergone some pretty major changes in recent years, whether it's people wanting news for free, many willing (and able) to write/photograph for free, the influence of social media and so on.

I'm sure we could debate the rights and wrongs of that until the cows came home, but that doesn't really help the journalist in the here and now.

Likewise with teaching. There's been a whole lot of talk about flipping the classroom, and if that was the case then you could imagine a scenario whereby the very best teachers earn star salaries as they could essentially scale up their lectures infinitely. You can see similar things happening in the Korean Hagwon system where the best are quasi celebrities.

That might happen, it might not, but how would you respond if it did? How will a cabbie respond to Uber, or ultimately to driverless cars?

Change is, and has always been, a constant, but now it seems to be happening faster than ever. I can't see that it will ever really be stopped, so adapting to the change as it arrives (or better still, driving the change yourself) seems the best way to get by.

 

[Clint Planet]

It is what it is though. I mean I was speaking today to some guys from MuckRack, and it's hard to deny that the media, and journalism, has undergone some pretty major changes in recent years, whether it's people wanting news for free, many willing (and able) to write/photograph for free, the influence of social media and so on.

I'm sure we could debate the rights and wrongs of that until the cows came home, but that doesn't really help the journalist in the here and now.

Likewise with teaching. There's been a whole lot of talk about flipping the classroom, and if that was the case then you could imagine a scenario whereby the very best teachers earn star salaries as they could essentially scale up their lectures infinitely. You can see similar things happening in the Korean Hagwon system where the best are quasi celebrities.

That might happen, it might not, but how would you respond if it did? How will a cabbie respond to Uber, or ultimately to driverless cars?

Change is, and has always been, a constant, but now it seems to be happening faster than ever. I can't see that it will ever really be stopped, so adapting to the change as it arrives (or better still, driving the change yourself) seems the best way to get by.

We have to do better than that.

If we don't, the very fabric of our society will crumble and the economy will collapse in on itself. We're being far too short-sighted.

 

[ilikecheese]

I'm not sure how being adaptable is viewed an not being inclusive @Clint Planet.

Seems that is the key for any economy to remain strong and relevant.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

We have to do better than that.

If we don't, the very fabric of our society will crumble and the economy will collapse in on itself. We're being far too short-sighted.

I don't know if it's short-sighted so much as some parts of society changing much faster than others. If, for instance, the workplace is seemingly going to be one whereby people may have several careers throughout their life, are our schools designed for such an environment?

With things like self-employment on the rise, is the legislature changing quickly enough to reflect the fact that large chunks of the workforce are operating without many of the social safety nets that we perceive as fundamental to our society (pensions, sick pay, maternity leave etc.)?

The state isn't really known for being particularly agile in how it operates, but such is modern life that I think it needs to be. There was a nice piece in the RSA magazine at the back end of 2014. It isn't online, but to paraphrase, it advocated a staunch move away from centralised policy making and saw devolving power as much as possible as the way to go. Or to use William Easterly's terminology, away from planners towards searchers.

They cite a superb paper in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact)

"Large-scale social change requires broad cross-sector coordination, yet the social sector remains focused on the isolated intervention of individual organizations."

Positively, there are a number of social innovation labs emerging that seek to offer that kind of cross-fertilisation, but whether they'll ever achieve the scale required I don't know.

 

[Clint Planet]

The state isn't really known for being particularly agile in how it operates, but such is modern life that I think it needs to be. There was a nice piece in the RSA magazine at the back end of 2014. It isn't online, but to paraphrase, it advocated a staunch move away from centralised policy making and saw devolving power as much as possible as the way to go.

As I keep saying, increasing inequality poses the biggest social, political and economic threat to our society today. It is simply unsustainable that it should continue to worsen. Sooner or later, economic collapse and/or enormous socio-political strife (think civil war / revolution in the worst case) is bound to happen.

I'm not quite sure how "devolved power" can combat the multinationals or the hyper-rich who continue to live above the law.

Or to use William Easterly's terminology, away from planners towards searchers.

Yes, because planning has never been a good idea, has it? As opposed to "searching."

*rolls eyes*

 

[Bruce Wayne]

As I keep saying, increasing inequality poses the biggest social, political and economic threat to our society today. It is simply unsustainable that it should continue to worsen. Sooner or later, economic collapse and/or enormous socio-political strife (think civil war / revolution in the worst case) is bound to happen.

I'm not quite sure how "devolved power" can combat the multinationals or the hyper-rich who continue to live above the law.



Yes, because planning has never been a good idea, has it? As opposed to "searching."

*rolls eyes*

Maybe have a read of what planners/searchers actually means before giving such a response.

 

[Clint Planet]

I can imagine.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I can imagine one of your pupils saying that to you. "yeah, sorry sir, I don't need to come into class, I can imagine what you're going to say so shan't bother, but thanks all the same"

 

[Seanjd]

The state isn't really known for being particularly agile in how it operates, but such is modern life that I think it needs to be. There was a nice piece in the RSA magazine at the back end of 2014. It isn't online, but to paraphrase, it advocated a staunch move away from centralised policy making and saw devolving power as much as possible as the way to go. Or to use William Easterly's terminology, away from planners towards searchers.

In the eyes of the more powerful in this country, devolve as much power as possible. It will not weaken the rich, and will give them a better excuse to blame the poor for their own downfall.

 

[Clint Planet]

I can imagine one of your pupils saying that to you. "yeah, sorry sir, I don't need to come into class, I can imagine what you're going to say so shan't bother, but thanks all the same"

You don't care a jot about my pupils. They live in a different Britain to the one you inhabit, the one you speak of - They are real people with real lives; real hopes and aspirations. Theirs isn't a world of seminars, studies and reports but of scandalous poverty, abject lack of opportunity and systemic neglect. None of them has ever benefitted from your "innovation" or treating humans as a commodity. Their right to an equal chance in life has been regularly and consistently ignored by you.

You have never once come even close to standing up for them - please don't presume to do so now in a misguided attempt to score a cheap point.

But thanks all the same.

 

[Clint Planet]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/19/telegraph-250m-loan-hsbc-editorial-changes-yodel

This is the sort of shiz we're all up against. Massive high-level anti-democratic subterfuge. And yet some of us are more bothered by Eastern Europeans doing what we were doing in Saudi - trying to earn a crust for our loved ones.

 

[Seanjd]

It is what it is though. I mean I was speaking today to some guys from MuckRack, and it's hard to deny that the media, and journalism, has undergone some pretty major changes in recent years, whether it's people wanting news for free, many willing (and able) to write/photograph for free, the influence of social media and so on.

I'm sure we could debate the rights and wrongs of that until the cows came home, but that doesn't really help the journalist in the here and now.

Likewise with teaching. There's been a whole lot of talk about flipping the classroom, and if that was the case then you could imagine a scenario whereby the very best teachers earn star salaries as they could essentially scale up their lectures infinitely. You can see similar things happening in the Korean Hagwon system where the best are quasi celebrities.

That might happen, it might not, but how would you respond if it did? How will a cabbie respond to Uber, or ultimately to driverless cars?

Change is, and has always been, a constant, but now it seems to be happening faster than ever. I can't see that it will ever really be stopped, so adapting to the change as it arrives (or better still, driving the change yourself) seems the best way to get by.

It's very interesting indeed. By creating self serving products, such as driverless cars or even self service checkouts, people are fast moving from suppliers and consumers, to consumers only. These things are invented to make our modern lives easier, when in fact, they are making our lives much more difficult. The only lives they are making easier are the few who own them.

Like Clint said, the economy will just collapse in on itself if this continues to a grande scale.

The onus on society needs to be to support its people. That's the problem with current mega companies, their onus is ultimately on making as much money for its owners as possible. This is the point I was making in previous posts regarding large companies. If we take large supermarkets and their use if self service as an example; their purpose is to replace humans in order to maximise profits. Tesco was t operating a loss before self service came into play. You can only see it going one way, and that is purely self service supermarkets manned by a couple of staff. Nobody on checkouts. This is one example which isn't good for society. It isn't providing jobs. It's turning the suppliers into the consumers. It's making the man at the top more money.

This, however, is totally unsustainable which is where @Clint Planet revolution comments come into play.

 

[Clint Planet]

It's very interesting indeed. By creating self serving products, such as driverless cars or even self service checkouts, people are fast moving from suppliers and consumers, to consumers only. These things are invented to make our modern lives easier, when in fact, they are making our lives much more difficult. The only lives they are making easier are the few who own them.

Like Clint said, the economy will just collapse in on itself if this continues to a grande scale.

The onus on society needs to be to support its people. That's the problem with current mega companies, their onus is ultimately on making as much money for its owners as possible. This is the point I was making in previous posts regarding large companies. If we take large supermarkets and their use if self service as an example; their purpose is to replace humans in order to maximise profits. Tesco was t operating a loss before self service came into play. You can only see it going one way, and that is purely self service supermarkets manned by a couple of staff. Nobody on checkouts. This is one example which isn't good for society. It isn't providing jobs. It's turning the suppliers into the consumers. It's making the man at the top more money.

This, however, is totally unsustainable which is where @Clint Planet revolution comments come into play.

Unless you think, like Bruce, that the people should serve the system instead of the other way around.

 

[Elong]

Unless you think, like Bruce, that the people should serve the system instead of the other way around.

Despite being a good poster on here Clint, you don't half attack the poster instead of the argument.