Lydz, expecting others to share your situation and the sheer luck you’ve experienced is unrealistic and more than a tad arrogant.

If you’re so full of your self-worth, then obviously that “self-worth” is missing a few important factors. Like, for example, understanding that we are not all the same as you, and have differing strengths and weaknesses.

The fact you got a good case worker is not because of your “sheer worth” (good lord, up yourself much?!) – but sheer luck.

I have advocated for some folk and been unemployed myself on two occassions when I drew the redundancy card.

On one occassion my case worker was a thororoughly unpleasant person who, eventually was moved elsewhere. Working with the public was not her forte.

On another occassion, I struck it lucky with one who bent over backwards to assist me – including offering grants I didn’t need (and didn’t accept), and I thanked her for her diligence.

Your comment about “being good enough” speaks volumes about your own over-inflated ego and I suggest a big helping of humility might be in order.

The old maxim – “There but for the grace of god, go I” – is worth remembering.

Thanks for taking the time to give me the hard sell of the wonders of technology and globalisation. Many of the points you make I would agree with, generally speaking technology has made most of our lives richer, however, I would argue that it could have been even richer if those technological benefits had been shared more equally. In other words, yes I do mean… “You mean that society doesn’t share equally?”
(I could argue that these days we are too dependant of electricity and fossil fuels but can save that for a climate change/doomsday debate).
You said I appear to think “‘Cotton Barrons {sic}are evil regardless of technology’?” Evil may be too strong a word, but I do suspect most of them were greedy and shared little with their workers. This fact remains the main thrust of my argument; those “evil” barons could have afforded to supply their workers with better working conditions, more time off, and/or better wages.
You continue ” (since they were fabulously weathly {sic} before technology advancements?” {sic}
I don’t know if there’s any proof to your allegation- although obviously they would have had to raise the money to start the enterprise- but most of them most certainly became wealthy after the factories were up and running.
I don’t feel as if “I’m having my cake and eating it to” (although I have to ask what’s the point of having a cake if one can’t eat it?) because I’m not blaming technology, I’m blaming those barons for using it for their own ends without sharing its many benefits.
You say “Your argument doesn’t hold water. Wind the clock back to the 1800’s and we don’t have the spare money for Chloe to be manning the phones at a domestic violence call center, because she is probably in the field {sic} (or at some rasing {sic} the next generation of field {sic} workers.”
Once I stopped laughing at the thought of Chloe using a telephone system with a device that wasn’t invented till the late 1870’s, I remembered that the welfare state in a modern idea so of course state money has only recently been available.
You ask…”Did they stay unemployed or did they move into other areas.”{sic} A look at unemployment figures around the world will probably answer that question better than I can.
You also ask me “to name a third world country that is not benefitting from technology, as you say all aren’t (your assertion).”
What I actually said was, “apart from poor unfortunates in the third world”, and, on another comment “Third World people” . I never mentioned a particular country, I was thinking of individuals. Actually I was thinking of cobalt from the Congo and blood diamonds when I made that comment, but I suspect that wouldn’t met your strict criterion due to civil wars in Africa.
In summary (’cause me brain ‘urts) I do not make the ridiculous statement… “To claim that the non worker receives no benefit from technology and automation is to ignore history and to ignore reality.” …but it would be nice if we could all find some empathy and learn to share our wonderful toys.

Yes, thankyou Yogibare, I have an appointment. I have an appointment to beg for a hand-out so he can get to work whilst “Training”, and I’ll be sure to kiss their feet in gratitude, since had they just done the introduction and butted out like they are supposed to, we wouldn’t be on a benefit now.

As a matter of fact my husband did a similar job before this, was there 7 years, had an excellent attitude because he was made a supervisor. Would have been there until retirement except he lost his job along with everyone else when it closed down regardless of record profit. Their PTB thought it would be even more profitable in a cheaper location. He was as gutted as I was about what happened because he is normal. He can’t complain because he needs the job, and that’s what they bank on. People like you Dean, who speak as if you believe you are superior, in judgement of people you know nothing about, who troll to alleviate boredom, or just to get your kicks, are the ones in need of a attitude adjustment.

I’m asking you to name a third world country that is not benefitting from technology, as you say all aren’t (your assertion).

By ‘average’ I simply mean a third world country that is quite obviously not third world because of another obvious factor (useless and oppressive dictator/horrific cival wars/religious barbarism)

You keep stating that society doesn’t “share” in the benefits of technology. This is patently untrue. You might need to be more specific. You mean that society doesn’t share equally?

When you say that the cotton barrons “using technology to exploit his workers or dispense with their labour” you are having your cake and eating it too. You can’t both blame the employment pre technology and after technology, and say that it is the fault of technology. Isn’t your argument ‘Cotton Barrons are evil regardless of technology’? (since they were fabulously weathly before technology advancements?

Regardless, lets look at the working conditions of the cotton worker from 1750 to 2014, and tell me whether the lives of the cotton worker have improved.

Then look at whether the price of cotton shirts, and access to them has improved.

Then look at what happened to people who were unemployed by technology. What happened to them. Did they stay unemployed or did they move into other areas.

And before you start on the ‘sweatshop labour’ apply the same logic to sweatshops.

No, sweatshops are not nice places. But they are a massive improvement over what was there and available to people before. In exactly the same way as the working conditions in cotton mills in 1850 vs 1900.

If you are going to think about these issues, you need to think about them in a deeper or broader sense. You can’t just think “This guy lost his job to a machine, that’s terrible!” Because while it is sad for the individual involved, it is much much much better for society that we no longer (by-in lagrge) hand pick cotton, hand separate, hand sew and hand deliver cotton items). And apply this logic across every imaginable sector – Potatoes, corn, buckets, wood etc etc etc.

We are a far richer society because of this. We have far better working conditions and far more free time.

Your argument doesn’t hold water. Wind the clock back to the 1800’s and we don’t have the spare money for Chloe to be manning the phones at a domestic violence call center, because she is probably in the feild (or at some rasing the next generation of feild workers. The only people who were really able to engage in ‘charity work’ were the Church (rich) and the wives of the wealthy. There is almost no chance of a paid position in that area at that time. There is now (precisely because of the massive increase in relative wealth brought on by……..?

We HAVE the time to argue on blogs via our computers and we HAVE the standard of living we have to day (all of us – even the poorest) because of technology and the very same machines that replaced the majority of the feild workers.

Either you’re being deliberately obtuse or I’m not explaining my point with any clarity, apologies if it’s my fault.
I thought it was quite a simple point I was making, obviously not. I think technological advances are marvellous as long as all society shares in their benefits and, in my opinion, this isn’t the case now or at any time through Western history- U.S. railway barons, Carnegie steel, U.K. cotton mills for example. Too often an individual becomes fabulously wealthy by using technology to exploit his workers or dispense with their labour; perhaps it’s their guilt that makes many of them philanthropists in later life! Labour saving in it self in a wonderful idea, but I feel the benefit should be shared with the now unemployed, not just to return more profits to owners, or to pay inflated CEO salaries and shareholders. If this was the case people like Chloe may be able to be paid for the volunteer work they now do. Naturally some people can be retrained for new jobs but there always seems to be more people than jobs (some would claim that this was deliberate, so production can continue to rise while wages remain stagnant).
I have no idea what you mean by an “average” third world country, but surely you don’t condone the exploitation of workers in any of them.

So just to clarify – Under your tax system. Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple (manufacturing overseas) can move to NZ and pay no tax (other than a small footprint tax – and assuming they aren’t involved in financial services)?

Seems like your idea might have a few holes there.

“…also try telling someone in this country who has lost their job because of automation or off-shoring that they are still benefiting because technology allows them to fill their time on their PlayStation”

Just to clarify. You don’t believe that off-shoring (specialisation of Labour by countries) is a good idea (even though I presume you believe that specialisation of individuals is a good idea).

And you do not believe that technological advancement (and automation) is a good idea.

If it is a bad idea – when did it become a bad idea (i.e. what date. 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000)?

Also, If you want to talk about the ‘third world’, I will need to talk in more specifics. Let’s use one country to exrapoltae for the others. Which one do you choose? (try and pick an ‘average’ third world country)

…also try telling someone in this country who has lost their job because of automation or off-shoring that they are still benefiting because technology allows them to fill their time on their PlayStation.