#Workforce Competence Management | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dailyanarchistposts · 11 months ago

Text

J.5.12 If self-management were more efficient then surely the market would force capitalists to introduce it?

Some supporters of capitalism argue that if self-management really were more efficient than hierarchy, then capitalists would be forced to introduce it by the market. As propertarian Robert Nozick argued, if workers’ control meant that “the productivity of the workers in a factory rises … then the individual owners pursuing profits will reorganise the productive process. If the productivity of workers remains the same … then in the process of competing for labourers firms will alter their internal work organisation.” This meant that “individual owners pursuing profits … will reorganise the productive process.” [Anarchy, State, and Utopia, p. 248] As this has not happened then self-management cannot be more efficient.

While such a notion seems plausible in theory, in practice it is flawed as “there is a vast quantity of empirical evidence demonstrating that participatory workplaces tend to be places of higher morale and greater productivity than authoritarian workplaces.” [David Schweickart , Against Capitalism, p. 228] So Nozick’s thought experiment is contradicted by reality. Capitalism places innumerable barriers to the spread of worker empowering structures within production, in spite (perhaps, as we will see, because) of their (well-documented) higher efficiency and productivity. This can be seen from the fact that while the increased efficiency associated with workers’ participation and self-management has attracted the attention of many capitalist firms, the few experiments conducted have failed to spread even though they were extremely successful. This is due to the nature of capitalist production and the social relationships it produces.

As we noted in section D.10, capitalist firms (particularly in the west) made a point of introducing technologies and management structures that aimed to deskill and disempower workers. In this way, it was hoped to make the worker increasingly subject to “market discipline” (i.e. easier to train, so increasing the pool of workers available to replace any specific worker and so reducing workers power by increasing management’s power to fire them). Of course, what actually happens is that after a short period of time while management gained the upper hand, the workforce found newer and more effective ways to fight back and assert their productive power again. While for a short time the technological change worked, over the longer period the balance of forces changed, so forcing management to continually try to empower themselves at the expense of the workforce.

It is unsurprising that such attempts to reduce workers to order-takers fail. Workers’ experiences and help are required to ensure production actually happens at all. When workers carry out their orders strictly and faithfully (i.e. when they “work to rule”) production stops. So most capitalists are aware of the need to get workers to “co-operate” within the workplace to some degree. A few capitalist companies have gone further. Seeing the advantages of fully exploiting (and we do mean exploiting) the experience, skills, abilities and thoughts of their employers which the traditional authoritarian capitalist workplace denies them, some have introduced various schemes to “enrich” and “enlarge” work, increase “co-operation” between workers and their bosses, to encourage workers to “participate” in their own exploitation by introducing “a modicum of influence, a strictly limited area of decision-making power, a voice — at best secondary — in the control of conditions of the workplace.” [Sam Dolgoff, The Anarchist Collectives, p. 81] The management and owners still have the power and still reap unpaid labour from the productive activity of the workforce.

David Noble provides a good summary of the problems associated with experiments in workers’ self-management within capitalist firms:

“Participation in such programs can indeed be a liberating and exhilarating experience, awakening people to their own untapped potential and also to the real possibilities of collective worker control of production. As one manager described the former pilots [workers in a General Electric program]: ‘These people will never be the same again. They have seen that things can be different.’ But the excitement and enthusiasm engendered by such programs, as well as the heightened sense of commitment to a common purpose, can easily be used against the interests of the work force. First, that purpose is not really ‘common’ but is still determined by management alone, which continues to decide what will be produced, when, and where. Participation in production does not include participation in decisions on investment, which remains the prerogative of ownership. Thus participation is, in reality, just a variation of business as usual — taking orders — but one which encourages obedience in the name of co-operation. “Second, participation programs can contribute to the creation of an elite, and reduced, work force, with special privileges and more ‘co-operative’ attitudes toward management — thus at once undermining the adversary stance of unions and reducing membership … “Third, such programs enable management to learn from workers — who are now encouraged by their co-operative spirit to share what they know — and, then, in Taylorist tradition, to use this knowledge against the workers. As one former pilot reflected, ‘They learned from the guys on the floor, got their knowledge about how to optimise the technology and then, once they had it, they eliminated the Pilot Program, put that knowledge into the machines, and got people without any knowledge to run them — on the Company’s terms and without adequate compensation. They kept all the gains for themselves.’ … “Fourth, such programs could provide management with a way to circumvent union rules and grievance procedures or eliminate unions altogether.” [Forces of Production, pp. 318–9]

Capitalist introduced and supported “workers’ control” is very like the situation when a worker receives stock in the company they work for. If it goes a little way toward redressing the gap between the value produced by that person’s labour and the wage they receive for it, that in itself cannot be a totally bad thing (although this does not address the issue of workplace hierarchy and its social relations). The real downside of this is the “carrot on a stick” enticement to work harder — if you work extra hard for the company, your stock will be worth more. Obviously, though, the bosses get rich off you, so the more you work, the richer they get, the more you are getting ripped off. It is a choice that anarchists feel many workers cannot afford to make — they need or at least want the money — but we believe that it does not work as workers simply end up working harder, for less. After all, stocks do not represent all profits (large amounts of which end up in the hands of top management) nor are they divided just among those who labour. Moreover, workers may be less inclined to take direct action, for fear that they will damage the value of “their” company’s stock, and so they may find themselves putting up with longer, more intense work in worse conditions.

Be that as it may, the results of such capitalist experiments in “workers’ control” are interesting and show why self-management will not spread by market forces. According to one expert: “There is scarcely a study in the entire literature which fails to demonstrate that satisfaction in work is enhanced or …productivity increases occur from a genuine increase in worker’s decision-making power. Findings of such consistency … are rare in social research.” [Paul B. Lumberg, quoted by Herbert Gintis, “The nature of Labour Exchange and the Theory of Capitalist Production”, Radical Political Economy, vol. 1, Samuel Bowles and Richard Edwards (eds.), p. 252] In spite of these findings, a “shift toward participatory relationships is scarcely apparent in capitalist production” and this is “not compatible with the neo-classical assertion as to the efficiency of the internal organisation of capitalist production.” [Gintz, Op. Cit., p. 252] Economist William Lazonick indicates the reason when he writes that ”[m]any attempts at job enrichment and job enlargement in the first half of the 1970s resulted in the supply of more and better effort by workers. Yet many ‘successful’ experiments were cut short when the workers whose work had been enriched and enlarged began questioning traditional management prerogatives inherent in the existing hierarchical structure of the enterprise.” [Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor, p. 282]

This is an important result, as it indicates that the ruling sections within capitalist firms have a vested interest in not introducing such schemes, even though they are more efficient methods of production. As can easily be imagined, managers have a clear incentive to resist participatory schemes (as David Schweickart notes, such resistance, “often bordering on sabotage, is well known and widely documented” [Op. Cit., p. 229]). As an example of this David Noble discusses a scheme ran by General Electric in the late 1960s:

“After considerable conflict, GE introduced a quality of work life program … which gave workers much more control over the machines and the production process and eliminated foremen. Before long, by all indicators, the program was succeeding — machine use, output and product quality went up; scrap rate, machine downtime, worker absenteeism and turnover when down, and conflict on the floor dropped off considerably. Yet, little more than a year into the program — following a union demand that it be extended throughout the shop and into other GE locations — top management abolished the program out of fear of losing control over the workforce. Clearly, the company was willing to sacrifice gains in technical and economic efficiency in order to regain and insure management control.” [Progress Without People, p. 65f]

Simply put, managers and capitalists can see that workers’ control experiments expose the awkward fact that they are not needed, that their role is not related to organising production but exploiting workers. They have no urge to introduce reforms which will ultimately make themselves redundant. Moreover, most enjoy the power that comes with their position and have no desire to see it ended. This also places a large barrier in the way of workers’ control. Interestingly, this same mentality explains why capitalists often support fascist regimes: “The anarchist Luigi Fabbri termed fascism a preventative counter-revolution; but in his essay he makes the important point that the employers, particularly in agriculture, were not so much moved by fear of a general revolution as by the erosion of their own authority and property rights which had already taken place locally: ‘The bosses felt they were no longer bosses.’” [Adrian Lyttelton, “Italian Fascism”, pp. 81–114, Fascism: a Reader’s Guide, p. 91]

However, it could be claimed that owners of stock, being concerned by the bottom-line of profits, could force management to introduce participation. By this method, competitive market forces would ultimately prevail as individual owners, pursuing profits, reorganise production and participation spreads across the economy. Indeed, there are a few firms that have introduced such schemes but there has been no tendency for them to spread. This contradicts “free market” capitalist economic theory which states that those firms which introduce more efficient techniques will prosper and competitive market forces will ensure that other firms will introduce the technique.

This has not happened for three reasons.

Firstly, the fact is that within “free market” capitalism keeping (indeed strengthening) skills and power in the hands of the workers makes it harder for a capitalist firm to maximise profits (i.e. unpaid labour). It strengthens the power of workers, who can use that power to gain increased wages (i.e. reduce the amount of surplus value they produce for their bosses). Workers’ control also leads to a usurpation of capitalist prerogatives — including their share of revenues and their ability to extract more unpaid labour during the working day. While in the short run workers’ control may lead to higher productivity (and so may be toyed with), in the long run, it leads to difficulties for capitalists to maximise their profits:

“given that profits depend on the integrity of the labour exchange, a strongly centralised structure of control not only serves the interests of the employer, but dictates a minute division of labour irrespective of considerations of productivity. For this reason, the evidence for the superior productivity of ‘workers control’ represents the most dramatic of anomalies to the neo-classical theory of the firm: worker control increases the effective amount of work elicited from each worker and improves the co-ordination of work activities, while increasing the solidarity and delegitimising the hierarchical structure of ultimate authority at its root; hence it threatens to increase the power of workers in the struggle over the share of total value.” [Gintz, Op. Cit., p. 264]

A workplace which had extensive workers participation would hardly see the workers agreeing to reduce their skill levels, take a pay cut or increase their pace of work simply to enhance the profits of capitalists. Simply put, profit maximisation is not equivalent to efficiency. Getting workers to work longer, more intensely or in more unpleasant conditions can increase profits but it does not yield more output for the same inputs. Workers’ control would curtail capitalist means of enhancing profits by changing the quality and quantity of work. It is this requirement which also aids in understanding why capitalists will not support workers’ control — even though it is more efficient, it reduces capitalist power in production. Moreover, demands to change the nature of workers’ inputs into the production process in order to maximise profits for capitalists would provoke a struggle over the intensity of work, working hours, and over the share of value added going to workers, management and owners and so destroy the benefits of participation.

Thus power within the workplace plays a key role in explaining why workers’ control does not spread — it reduces the ability of bosses to extract more unpaid labour from workers.

The second reason is related to the first. It too is based on the power structure within the company but the power is related to control over the surplus produced by the workers rather than the ability to control how much surplus is produced in the first place (i.e. power over workers). Hierarchical management is the way to ensure that profits are channelled into the hands of a few. By centralising power, the surplus value produced by workers can be distributed in a way which benefits those at the top (i.e. management and capitalists). This explains the strange paradox of workers’ control experiments being successful but being cancelled by management. This is easily explained once the hierarchical nature of capitalist production (i.e. of wage labour) is acknowledged. Workers’ control, by placing (some) power in the hands of workers, undermines the authority of management and, ultimately, their power to control the surplus produced by workers and allocate it as they see fit. Thus, while workers’ control does reduce costs, increase efficiency and productivity (i.e. maximise the difference between prices and costs) it (potentially) reduces the power of management and owners to allocate that surplus as they see fit. Indeed, it can be argued that hierarchical control of production exists solely to provide for the accumulation of capital in a few hands, not for efficiency or productivity (see Stephan A. Margin, “What do Bosses do? The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production”, Op. Cit., pp. 178–248).

As David Noble argues, power is the key to understanding capitalism, not the drive for profits as such:

“In opting for control [over the increased efficiency of workers’ control] … management … knowingly and, it must be assumed, willingly, sacrificed profitable production… . [This] illustrates not only the ultimate management priority of power over both production and profit within the firm, but also the larger contradiction between the preservation of private power and prerogatives, on the one hand, and the social goals of efficient, quality, and useful production, on the other … “It is a common confusion, especially on the part of those trained in or unduly influenced by formal economics (liberal and Marxist alike), that capitalism is a system of profit-motivated, efficient production. This is not true, nor has it ever been. If the drive to maximise profits, through private ownership and control over the process of production, has served historically as the primary means of capitalist development, it has never been the end of that development. The goal has always been domination (and the power and privileges that go with it) and the preservation of domination. There is little historical evidence to support the view that, in the final analysis, capitalists play by the rules of the economic game imagined by theorists. There is ample evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that when the goals of profit-making and efficient production fail to coincide with the requirements of continued dominance, capital will resort to more ancient means: legal, political, and, if need be, military. Always, behind all the careful accounting, lies the threat of force. This system of domination has been legitimated in the past by the ideological invention that private ownership of the means of production and the pursuit of profit via production are always ultimately beneficial to society. Capitalism delivers the goods, it is argued, better, more cheaply, and in larger quantity, and in so doing, fosters economic growth … The story of the Pilot Program — and it is but one among thousands like it in U.S. industry — raises troublesome questions about the adequacy of this mythology as a description of reality.” [Forces of Production, pp. 321–2]

Hierarchical organisation (domination) is essential to ensure that profits are controlled by a few and can, therefore, be allocated by them in such a way to ensure their power and privileges. By undermining such authority, workers’ control also undermines that power to maximise profits in a certain direction even though it increases “profits” (the difference between prices and costs) in the abstract. As workers’ control starts to extend (or management sees its potential to spread) into wider areas such as investment decisions, how to allocate the surplus (i.e. profits) between wages, investment, dividends, management pay and so on, then they will seek to end the project in order to ensure their power over both the workers and the surplus they, the workers, produce (this is, of course, related to the issue of lack of control by investors in co-operatives raised in the last section).

As such, the opposition by managers to workers’ control will be reflected by those who actually own the company who obviously would not support a regime which will not ensure the maximum return on their investment. This would be endangered by workers’ control, even though it is more efficient and productive, as control over the surplus rests with the workers and not a management elite with similar interests and aims as the owners — an egalitarian workplace would produce an egalitarian distribution of surplus, in other words (as proven by the experience of workers’ co-operatives). In the words of one participant of the GE workers’ control project: “If we’re all one, for manufacturing reasons, we must share in the fruits equitably, just like a co-op business.” [quoted by Noble, Op. Cit., p. 295] Such a possibility is one few owners would agree to.

Thirdly, to survive within the “free” market means to concentrate on the short term. Long terms benefits, although greater, are irrelevant. A free market requires profits now and so a firm is under considerable pressure to maximise short-term profits by market forces. Participation requires trust, investment in people and technology and a willingness to share the increased value added that result from workers’ participation with the workers who made it possible. All these factors would eat into short term profits in order to return richer rewards in the future. Encouraging participation thus tends to increase long term gains at the expense of short-term ones (to ensure that workers do not consider participation as a con, they must experience real benefits in terms of power, conditions and wage rises). For firms within a free market environment, they are under pressure from share-holders and their financiers for high returns as soon as possible. If a company does not produce high dividends then it will see its stock fall as shareholders move to those companies that do. Thus the market forces companies to act in such ways as to maximise short term profits.

If faced with a competitor which is not making such investments (and which is investing directly into deskilling technology or intensifying work loads which lowers their costs) and so wins them market share, or a downturn in the business cycle which shrinks their profit margins and makes it difficult for the firm to meet its commitments to its financiers and workers, a company that intends to invest in people and trust will usually be rendered unable to do so. Faced with the option of empowering people in work or deskilling them and/or using the fear of unemployment to get workers to work harder and follow orders, capitalist firms have consistently chosen (and probably preferred) the latter option (as occurred in the 1970s).

Thus, workers’ control is unlikely to spread through capitalism because it entails a level of working class consciousness and power that is incompatible with capitalist control: “If the hierarchical division of labour is necessary for the extraction of surplus value, then worker preferences for jobs threatening capitalist control will not be implemented.” [Gintis, Op. Cit., p. 253] The reason why it is more efficient, ironically, ensures that a capitalist economy will not select it. The “free market” will discourage empowerment and democratic workplaces, at best reducing “co-operation” and “participation” to marginal issues (and management will still have the power of veto).

The failure of moves towards democratic workplaces within capitalism are an example of that system in conflict with itself — pursuing its objectives by methods which constantly defeat those same objectives. As Paul Carden argued, the “capitalist system can only maintain itself by trying to reduce workers into mere order-takers … At the same time the system can only function as long as this reduction is never achieved … [for] the system would soon grind to a halt … [However] capitalism constantly has to limit this participation (if it didn’t the workers would soon start deciding themselves and would show in practice now superfluous the ruling class really is).” [Modern Capitalism and Revolution, pp. 45–46] Thus “workers’ control” within a capitalist firm is a contradictory thing — too little power and it is meaningless, too much and workplace authority structures and capitalist share of, and control over, value added can be harmed. Attempts to make oppressed, exploited and alienated workers work if they were neither oppressed, exploited nor alienated will always fail.

For a firm to establish committed and participatory relations internally, it must have external supports — particularly with providers of finance (which is why co-operatives benefit from credit unions and co-operating together). The price mechanism proves self-defeating to create such supports and that is why we see “participation” more fully developed within Japanese and German firms (although it is still along way from fully democratic workplaces), who have strong, long term relationships with local banks and the state which provides them with the support required for such activities. As William Lazonick notes, Japanese industry had benefited from the state ensuring “access to inexpensive long-term finance, the sine qua non of innovating investment strategies” along with a host of other supports, such as protecting Japanese industry within their home markets so they could “develop and utilise their productive resources to the point where they could attain competitive advantage in international competition.” [Op. Cit., p. 305] The German state provides its industry with much of the same support.

Therefore, “participation” within capitalist firms will have little or no tendency to spread due to the actions of market forces. In spite of such schemes almost always being more efficient, capitalism will not select them because they empower workers and make it hard for capitalists to generate and control their profits. Hence capitalism, by itself, will have no tendency to produce more libertarian organisational forms within industry. Those firms that do introduce such schemes will be the exception rather than the rule (and the schemes themselves will be marginal in most respects and subject to veto from above). For such schemes to spread, collective action is required (such as state intervention to create the right environment and support network or — from an anarchist point of view — union and community direct action).

Such schemes, as noted above, are just forms of self-exploitation, getting workers to help their robbers and so not a development anarchists seek to encourage. We have discussed this here just to be clear that, firstly, such forms of structural reforms are not self-management, as managers and owners still have the real power, and, secondly, even if such forms are somewhat liberatory and more efficient, market forces will not select them precisely because the latter is dependent on the former. Thirdly, they would still be organised for exploitation as workers would not be controlling all the goods they produced. As with an existing capitalist firm, part of their product would be used to pay interest, rent and profit. For anarchists “self-management is not a new form of mediation between workers and their bosses … [it] refers to the very process by which the workers themselves overthrow their managers and take on their own management and the management of production in their own workplace.” [Dolgoff, Op. Cit., p. 81] Hence our support for co-operatives, unions and other self-managed structures created and organised from below by and for working class people by their own collective action.

17 notes · View notes

gappeo · 2 months ago

Text

Integrating Skill Assessments into Your Existing HR Systems

Introduction

As organizations strive to build a skilled and efficient workforce, integrating skill assessments into existing HR systems has become a crucial strategy. By embedding skill evaluations within HR workflows, companies can enhance hiring accuracy, streamline employee development, and make data-driven workforce decisions. This blog explores the benefits, challenges, and best practices of integrating skill assessments into HR systems, with insights on how platforms like Gappeo can facilitate the process.

Why Integrate Skill Assessments into HR Systems?

Integrating skill assessments within HR platforms offers numerous advantages, including:

Improved Hiring Accuracy: Objective skill evaluations help recruiters identify the most suitable candidates, reducing reliance on resumes alone.

Efficient Onboarding: Pre-assessed skills enable HR teams to tailor onboarding programs, ensuring new hires receive targeted training.

Employee Development & Training: Ongoing skill assessments allow HR teams to track employee growth and implement personalized training programs.

Workforce Planning: Insights from assessments help HR leaders identify skill gaps and plan for future workforce needs.

Key Considerations for Integration

Before incorporating skill assessments into your HR system, consider the following:

Compatibility: Ensure the assessment platform integrates seamlessly with your existing HR software (e.g., ATS, LMS, or HRIS).

Customization: Choose a system that allows tailored assessments aligned with job roles and industry needs.

Scalability: The platform should support growing workforce demands and adapt to evolving skill requirements.

User Experience: Both recruiters and candidates should find the system easy to navigate and engage with.

How Gappeo Simplifies Skill Assessment Integration

Gappeo, a leading talent and skill assessment platform, offers seamless integration with various HR systems. Key features include:

Pre-Built API Integrations: Easily connect with popular HR platforms.

Customizable Assessment Modules: Design skill tests specific to job roles.

Audio and Video Assessments: Enhance evaluation accuracy by analyzing verbal and non-verbal cues.

Comprehensive Reporting: Generate insights to support hiring and workforce development decisions.

Steps to Successfully Integrate Skill Assessments

Evaluate Your HR System: Assess your current HR software capabilities and identify integration points.

Select the Right Assessment Platform: Choose a solution like Gappeo that aligns with your HR objectives.

Customize Assessments: Develop skill tests that reflect the competencies required for different roles.

Pilot Test the Integration: Run a small-scale implementation to ensure seamless functionality.

Train HR Teams: Educate HR personnel on using the integrated system effectively.

Monitor and Optimize: Continuously track performance metrics and refine assessment processes.

Conclusion

Integrating skill assessments into HR systems is a game-changer for talent management, enabling data-backed hiring, employee development, and strategic workforce planning. With solutions like Gappeo, organizations can streamline skill evaluations while ensuring a seamless experience for both HR professionals and candidates.

Ready to enhance your HR processes? Discover how Gappeo can help you integrate skill assessments effortlessly!

#assessment #hiring #recruitment #saas development company #saas platform #hr #hrsystems #hrprocesses #evaluation

3 notes · View notes

hecsoachingblog · 2 months ago

Text

Exploring Career Advancement Strategies for Young Professionals in Today's Competitive Job Market

Navigating the modern job market can be challenging, especially for young professionals, career changers, and those seeking new career opportunities. With increasing competition, evolving job roles, and the demand for specialized skills, advancing in one’s career requires a strategic approach. Below are essential career advancement strategies to help professionals stand out and achieve their goals.

1. Continuous Skill Development

The job market is constantly evolving, and professionals must keep pace with emerging trends and technologies. Investing in continuous education, certifications, and skill-building programs can significantly enhance employability. Online learning platforms, workshops, and industry conferences offer valuable opportunities to gain expertise and stay competitive.

2. Networking and Relationship Building

Building strong professional relationships is key to career advancement. Attending industry events, joining professional associations, and engaging on LinkedIn can help expand your network. Establishing connections with mentors, industry leaders, and peers can lead to valuable opportunities, job referrals, and career advice.

3. Personal Branding and Online Presence

A strong personal brand helps professionals differentiate themselves. Maintaining an updated LinkedIn profile, sharing industry insights, and showcasing achievements can improve visibility to recruiters and hiring managers. A professional website or portfolio can also enhance credibility, especially for those in creative or technical fields.

4. Seeking Mentorship and Guidance

Mentorship is a powerful tool for career growth. Experienced mentors can provide insights, guidance, and support in navigating career challenges. Engaging with a mentor through workplace programs, alumni networks, or professional organizations can accelerate career progress and offer valuable learning experiences.

5. Gaining Relevant Experience and Leadership Skills

For young professionals and career changers, gaining hands-on experience is crucial. Volunteering for projects, taking on leadership roles in professional organizations, and pursuing internships or freelance work can help build credibility and practical knowledge. Demonstrating initiative and leadership potential increases the likelihood of career advancement.

6. Adapting to Industry Trends and Market Demands

Understanding industry trends and aligning career goals with market demands can provide a competitive edge. Researching job market reports, analyzing in-demand skills, and being adaptable to change can help professionals position themselves for success. Flexibility and a willingness to learn new competencies are essential traits in today’s workforce.

7. Effective Job Search and Career Transition Strategies

For career changers, transitioning into a new industry requires strategic planning. Tailoring resumes to highlight transferable skills, leveraging networking connections, and seeking industry-specific training can ease the transition. Job seekers should also explore alternative career pathways such as remote work, contract roles, and gig economy opportunities.

8. Maintaining a Growth Mindset and Resilience

Career advancement often involves overcoming setbacks and challenges. Cultivating a growth mindset, embracing learning experiences, and remaining resilient can help professionals navigate obstacles. Staying motivated and adaptable fosters long-term career success and professional fulfillment.

Conclusion

In today’s competitive job market, young professionals and career changers must proactively seek opportunities for growth and development. By continuously learning, networking, building a strong personal brand, and staying adaptable to industry changes, professionals can enhance their career prospects and achieve their goals. Success in any career path is a result of persistence, strategic planning, and the willingness to evolve with the changing job landscape.

#academia #black entrepreneurship #black tumblr #college #life quotes #entrepreneur #startup #success

2 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 months ago

Text

Mass layoffs and weak leadership are taking a severe toll on the US government’s cyber defense agency, undermining its ability to protect America from foreign adversaries bent on crippling infrastructure and ransomware gangs that are bleeding small businesses dry.

Inside the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, vital support staff are gone, international partnerships have been strained, and workers are afraid to discuss threats to democracy that they’re now prohibited from countering. Employees are even more overworked than usual, and new assignments from the administration are interfering with important tasks. Meanwhile, CISA’s temporary leader is doing everything she can to appease President Donald Trump, infuriating employees who say she’s out of touch and refusing to protect them.

“You've got a lot of people who … are looking over their shoulder as opposed to looking at the enemy right now,” says one CISA employee.

As the Trump administration’s war on the federal bureaucracy throws key agencies into chaos, CISA’s turmoil could have underappreciated consequences for national security and economic prospects. The agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, has steadily built a reputation as a nonpartisan source of funding, guidance, and even direct defensive support for cities, businesses, and nonprofits reeling from cyberattacks. That mission is now under threat, according to interviews with seven CISA employees and another person familiar with the matter, all of whom requested anonymity to avoid reprisals.

“Our enemies are not slowing their continuous assaults on our systems,” says Suzanne Spaulding, who led CISA’s predecessor during the Obama administration. “We need all hands on deck and focused, not traumatized and distracted.”

Talent Exodus

CISA’s mission has grown significantly since its creation in 2018. Established mainly to defend government networks, the agency increasingly embraced new roles supporting private companies and state governments, advocating for secure software, and cooperating with foreign partners. This helped CISA raise its profile and gain credibility. But now, following several rounds of layoffs and new restrictions from the Trump administration, the agency is struggling to sustain its momentum.

The extent of the cuts at CISA is still unclear—employees are only learning about the loss of colleagues through word of mouth—but multiple employees estimate that, between the layoffs and the Office of Personnel Management’s deferred-resignation program, CISA has lost between 300 and 400 staffers—roughly 10 percent of its 3,200-person workforce. Many of those people were hired through DHS’s Cybersecurity Talent Management System (CTMS), a program designed to recruit experts by competing with private-sector salaries. As a result, they were classified as probationary employees for three years, making them vulnerable to layoffs. These layoffs at CISA also hit longtime government workers who had become probationary by transferring into CTMS roles.

Key employees who have left include Kelly Shaw, who oversaw one of CISA’s marquee programs, a voluntary threat-detection service for critical infrastructure operators; David Carroll, who led the Mission Engineering Division, the agency’s technological backbone; and Carroll’s technical director, Duncan McCaskill. “We've had a very large brain drain,” an employee says.

The departures have strained a workforce that was already stretched thin. “We were running into [a] critical skills shortage previously,” says a second employee. “Most people are and have been doing the work of two or more full-time [staffers].”

The CISA team that helps critical infrastructure operators respond to hacks has been understaffed for years. The agency added support positions for that team after a Government Accountability Office audit, but “most of those people got terminated,” a third employee says.

CISA’s flagship programs have been mostly unscathed so far. That includes the threat-hunting branch, which analyzes threats, searches government networks for intruders, and responds to breaches. But some of the laid-off staffers provided crucial “backend” support for threat hunters and other analysts. “There's enhancements that could be made to the tools that they're using,” the first employee says. But with fewer people developing those improvements, “we're going to start having antiquated systems.”

In a statement, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin says CISA remains “committed to the safety and security of the nation’s critical infrastructure” and touted “the critical skills that CISA experts bring to the fight every day.”

National Security Council spokesperson James Hewitt says the reporting in this story is “nonsense,” adding that “there have been no widespread layoffs at CISA and its mission remains fully intact.”

“We continue to strengthen cybersecurity partnerships, advance AI and open-source security, and protect election integrity,” Hewitt says. “Under President Trump’s leadership, our administration will make significant strides in enhancing national cybersecurity.”

Partnership Problems

CISA’s external partnerships—the cornerstone of its effort to understand and counter evolving threats—have been especially hard-hit.

International travel has been frozen, two employees say, with trips—and even online communications with foreign partners—requiring high-level approvals. That has hampered CISA’s collaboration with other cyber agencies, including those of “Five Eyes” allies Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, staffers say.

CISA employees can’t even communicate with people at other federal agencies the way they used to. Previously routine conversations between CISA staffers and high-level officials elsewhere now need special permissions, slowing down important work. “I can’t reach out to a CISO about an emergency situation without approval,” a fourth employee says.

Meanwhile, companies have expressed fears about sharing information with CISA and even using the agency’s free attack-monitoring services due to DOGE’s ransacking of agency computers, according to two employees. “There is advanced concern about all of our services that collect sensitive data,” the third employee says. “Partners [are] asking questions about what DOGE can get access to and expressing concern that their sensitive information is in their hands.”

“The wrecking of preestablished relationships will be something that will have long-lasting effects,” the fourth employee says.

CISA’s Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative, a high-profile hub of government-industry cooperation, is also struggling. The JCDC currently works with more than 300 private companies to exchange threat information, draft defensive playbooks, discuss geopolitical challenges, and publish advisories. The unit wants to add hundreds more partners, but it has “had difficulty scaling this,” the first employee says, and recent layoffs have only made things worse. Contractors might be able to help, but the JCDC’s “vendor support contracts run out in less than a year,” the employee says, and as processes across the government have been frozen or paused in recent weeks, CISA doesn’t know if it can pursue new agreements. The JCDC doesn't have enough federal workers to pick up the slack, the fourth CISA employee says.

With fewer staffers to manage its relationships, the JCDC confronts a perilous question: How should it focus its resources without jeopardizing important visibility into the threat landscape? Emphasizing ties with major companies might be more economical, but that would risk overlooking mid-sized firms whose technology is quietly essential to vital US industries.

“CISA continuously evaluates how it works with partners,” McLaughlin says, “and has taken decisive action to maximize impact while being good stewards of taxpayer dollars and aligning with Administration priorities and our authorities.”

Gutting Security Advocacy

Other parts of CISA’s mission have also begun to atrophy.

During the Biden administration, CISA vowed to help the tech industry understand and mitigate the risks of open-source software, which is often poorly maintained and has repeatedly been exploited by hackers. But since Trump took office, CISA has lost the three technical luminaries who oversaw that work: Jack Cable, Aeva Black, and Tim Pepper. Open-source security remains a major challenge, but CISA’s efforts to address that challenge are now rudderless.

The new administration has also frozen CISA’s work on artificial intelligence. The agency had been researching ways to use AI for vulnerability detection and networking monitoring, as well as partnering with the private sector to study AI risks. “About 50 percent of [CISA’s] AI expert headcount has been let go,” says a person familiar with the matter, which is “severely limiting” CISA’s ability to help the US Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute test AI models before deployment.

The administration also pushed out CISA’s chief AI officer, Lisa Einstein, and closed down her office, the person familiar with the matter says. Einstein’s team oversaw CISA’s use of AI and worked with private companies and foreign governments on AI security.

A large team of DHS and CISA AI staffers was set to accompany Vice President JD Vance to Paris in February for an AI summit, but those experts “were all pulled back” from attending, according to a person familiar with the matter.

‘Nefarious’ Retribution

CISA staffers are still reeling from the agency’s suspension of its election security program and the layoffs of most people who worked on that mission. The election security initiative, through which CISA provided free services and guidance to state and local officials and worked with tech companies to track online misinformation, became a target of right-wing conspiracy theories in 2020, which marked it for death after Trump’s return to the White House.

The program—on hold pending CISA’s review of a recently completed internal assessment—was a tiny part of CISA’s budget and operations, but the campaign against it has alarmed agency employees. “This is definitely in the freak-out zone,” says the first employee, who adds that CISA staffers across the political spectrum support the agency’s efforts to track online misinformation campaigns. “All of us recognize that this is a common deception tactic of the enemy.”

The election security purge rippled across the agency, because some of the laid-off staffers had moved from elections to other assignments or were simultaneously working on both missions. Geoff Hale, who led the elections team between 2018 and 2024, was serving as the chief of partnerships at the JCDC when he was placed on administrative leave, setting off a scramble to replace him.

The removal of Hale and his colleagues “was the start to a decline in morale” at CISA, according to the second employee. Now, staffers are afraid to discuss certain topics in public forums: “No one's going to talk about election security right now,” the first employee says.

“The fact that there’s retribution from the president … is kind of frightening,” this employee adds. “A very nefarious place to be.”

Abandoned and Demoralized

The layoffs, operational changes, and other disruptions at CISA have severely depleted morale and undermined the agency’s effectiveness. “Even simple tasks feel hard to accomplish because you don't know if your teammates won't be here tomorrow,” says the fourth employee.

The biggest source of stress and frustration is acting CISA director Bridget Bean, a former Trump appointee who, employees say, appears eager to please the president even if it means not defending her agency. Bean “just takes whatever comes down and implements [it] without thought of how it will affect [CISA’s] mission,” the fifth employee says. Employees describe her as a poor leader and ineffective communicator who has zealously enacted Trump’s agenda. In town-hall meetings with employees, Bean has said CISA must carefully review its its authorities and urged staffers to “assume noble intent” when dealing with Trump officials. While discussing Elon Musk’s mass-buyout program, she allegedly said, “I like to say ‘Fork in the Road’ because it's kind of fun,.” according to the fourth employee. She was so eager to comply with Musk’s “What did you do last week?” email that she instructed staffers to respond to it before DHS had finalized its department-wide approach. DHS later told staff not to respond, and Bean had to walk back her directive.

“Bean feels like she's against the workforce just to please the current administration,” the second employee says. The fourth employee describes her as “not authentic, tone-deaf, spineless, [and] devoid of leadership.”

McLaughlin, the DHS spokesperson, says CISA “is not interested in ad hominem attacks against its leadership,” which she says “has doubled down on openness and transparency with the workforce.”

The return-to-office mandate has also caused problems. With all employees on-site, there isn’t enough room in CISA’s offices for the contractors who support the agency’s staff. That has made it “very difficult” to collaborate on projects and hold technical discussions, according to the first employee. “There wasn’t much thought about [RTO’s] impact to operations,” says the fourth employee. According to a fifth employee, “executing some of our sensitive operations is now harder.” (“CISA has worked tirelessly to make the return to office as smooth as possible from space to technology,” McLaughlin says.)

Employees are dealing with other stressors, too. They have no idea who’s reading their Musk-mandated performance reports, how they’re being evaluated, or whether AI is analyzing them for future layoffs. And there’s a lot of new paperwork. “The amount of extra shit we have to do to comply with the ‘efficiency measures’ … [takes] a lot of time away from doing our job,” says the fifth employee.

Bracing for More

When Trump signed the bill creating CISA in November 2018, he said the agency’s workforce would be “on the front lines of our cyber defense” and “make us, I think, much more effective.” Six and a half years later, many CISA employees see Trump as the biggest thing holding them back.

“This administration has declared psychological warfare on this workforce,” the fourth employee says.

With CISA drawing up plans for even larger cuts, staffers know the chaos is far from over.

“A lot of people are scared,” says the first employee. “We’re waiting for that other shoe to drop. We don't know what's coming.”

Entire wings of CISA—like National Risk Management Center and the Stakeholder Engagement Division—could be on the chopping block. Even in offices that survive, some of the government’s most talented cyber experts—people who chose public service over huge sums of money and craved the lifestyle of CISA’s now-eliminated remote-work environment—are starting to see their employment calculus differently. Some of them will likely leave for stabler jobs, further jeopardizing CISA’s mission. “What is the organization going to be capable of doing in the future?” the first employee asks.

If Trump’s confrontational foreign-policy strategy escalates tensions with Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea, it’s likely those nations could step up their use of cyberattacks to exact revenge. In that environment, warns Nitin Natarajan, CISA’s deputy director during the Biden administration, weakening the agency could prove very dangerous.

“Cuts to CISA’s cyber mission,�� Natarajan says, “will only negatively impact our ability to not only protect federal government networks, but those around the nation that Americans depend on every day.”

3 notes · View notes

sheaymin · 3 months ago

Text

apparently i hit my official 30 days at work last week & i had a moment of reflection of whats happened in this short amount of time considering my life is very strange rn:

gained new close pal of which hangs out with me purposefully both at and outside of work and is auhd so understands when im too overwhelmed so i never have to explain shit Its Just UnderstoodTM and also feeds me, a lot

gained a 2nd pal, having new friends so suddenly is weird

contracted the flu twice, because of this coworkers finally calmed down about my constant mask wearing and believe me about my lower immune system

was on register for a week before scooped up for customer service rep which lead to a insane drama explosion as every older lady cashier has now decided to make my life hell including a boss who is using me as her punching bag to scapegoat all her feelings on and i constantly have to report every incident she causes me which is every. single. shift. together. but management hates her because of the problems she causes so i was instantly seen as the victim rather than a new person "stirring the pot" which is great that everyones on my side and all but can she be fired please

due to above bullet point i was scooped up and trained on online orders so now im two departments every week. its better for my mental health and the drama

i wake up at 4am because of this. evil.

sadly solution of two departments was instantly put in jeopardy bc of upset supervisor who understandably would rather have me than drama worker and is plotting to steal me back

the head leadership love me because im apparently, at my laziest bc i dont care about this job, more competent than most of the workforce. im scared.

i bought a 5ft and nearly 20lb slowpoke plush

im an adult who understands when things arent my fault thus like jesus i turn the other cheek at drama worker but i do not turn the other cheek at old lady cashier named kitty who keeps throwing a big baby fit that she doesnt have my job despite being one of the worst on register bc she acts as if this is beneath her. also if someone doesnt bag for her for every moment of her shift she throws a fit and blames me. beefing with a 70yo is stupid but im dumb as hell so (ง •̀_•́)ง

did i mention i got the flu, TWICE.

#my disabled autistic ass cant handle this but hey every day we're shufflin'

2 notes · View notes

trump-executive-orders · 4 months ago

Text

Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service

Issued January 20, 2025.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 3301, 3302, and 7511 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Policy. American citizens deserve an excellent and efficient Federal workforce that attracts the highest caliber of civil servants committed to achieving the freedom, prosperity, and democratic rule that our Constitution promotes. But current Federal hiring practices are broken, insular, and outdated. They no longer focus on merit, practical skill, and dedication to our Constitution. Federal hiring should not be based on impermissible factors, such as one's commitment to illegal racial discrimination under the guise of "equity," or one's commitment to the invented concept of "gender identity" over sex. Inserting such factors into the hiring process subverts the will of the People, puts critical government functions at risk, and risks losing the best-qualified candidates.

By making our recruitment and hiring processes more efficient and focused on serving the Nation, we will ensure that the Federal workforce is prepared to help achieve American greatness, and attracts the talent necessary to serve our citizens effectively. By significantly improving hiring principles and practices, Americans will receive the Federal resources and services they deserve from the highest-skilled Federal workforce in the world.

Sec. 2. Federal Hiring Plan. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), shall develop and send to agency heads a Federal Hiring Plan that brings to the Federal workforce only highly skilled Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests.

(b) This Federal Hiring Plan shall:

(i) prioritize recruitment of individuals committed to improving the efficiency of the Federal government, passionate about the ideals of our American republic, and committed to upholding the rule of law and the United States Constitution;

(ii) prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion, and prevent the hiring of individuals who are unwilling to defend the Constitution or to faithfully serve the Executive Branch;

(iii) implement, to the greatest extent possible, technical and alternative assessments as required by the Chance to Compete Act of 2024;

(iv) decrease government-wide time-to-hire to under 80 days;

(v) improve communication with candidates to provide greater clarity regarding application status, timelines, and feedback, including regular updates on the progress of applications and explanations of hiring decisions where appropriate;

(vi) integrate modern technology to support the recruitment and selection process, including the use of data analytics to identify trends, gaps, and opportunities in hiring, as well as leveraging digital platforms to improve candidate engagement; and

(vii) ensure Department and Agency leadership, or their designees, are active participants in implementing the new processes and throughout the full hiring process.

(c) This Federal Hiring Plan shall include specific agency plans to improve the allocation of Senior Executive Service positions in the Cabinet agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Management and Budget, the Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Personnel Management, and the General Services Administration, to best facilitate democratic leadership, as required by law, within each agency.

(d) The Federal Hiring Plan shall provide specific best practices for the human resources function in each agency, which each agency head shall implement, with advice and recommendations as appropriate from DOGE.

Sec. 3. Accountability and Reporting. (a) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall establish clear performance metrics to evaluate the success of these reforms, and request agency analysis on a regular basis.

(b) The Office of Personnel Management shall consult with Federal agencies, labor organizations, and other stakeholders to monitor progress and ensure that the reforms are meeting the needs of both candidates and agencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

#us government #us politics #executive orders

2 notes · View notes

sunshinesmebdy · 1 year ago

Text

February 6 Astro Vibe

Prepare for a focused and ambitious phase as the Moon enters grounded Capricorn. Embrace practicality, discipline, and long-term planning. The Moon's trine to abundant Jupiter in Taurus fuels optimism and encourages responsible financial decisions. Seize opportunities for sustainable growth. Finally, the Moon's sextile to wise Saturn in Pisces adds a touch of realism and strategic thinking. Use this cosmic support to turn your ambitious dreams into achievable goals with a healthy dose of self-discipline and compassion. ✨

Moon enters Capricorn: This lunar transit signifies a shift towards a more disciplined, practical, and goal-oriented emotional energy. This is a favorable time for focused, organized efforts that contribute to long-term success. Encourage accountability, punctuality, and a commitment to high standards in all business dealings. Review your budget, assess financial goals, and make strategic decisions to ensure the fiscal health of your business. Encourage your team to prioritize self-care and maintain a healthy work-life balance to prevent burnout. Focus on achieving measurable outcomes and celebrate successes, reinforcing the connection between hard work and positive results.

Tips for this Transit:

Embrace a disciplined work ethic

Set realistic and achievable goals

Focus on professionalism

Access long-term strategies

Dedicate time to financial planning and stability

Moon in Capricorn trine Jupiter in Taurus: This transit suggests a positive alignment of emotions, growth, and practicality, offering opportunities for success and prosperity in the business realm. Assess expansion opportunities, consider long-term investments, and develop plans that align with the stability and prosperity associated with Jupiter in Taurus. Investing in the skills and knowledge of your workforce can lead to increased competence and effectiveness. Consider new approaches to financial management, investments, and revenue generation that align with the enduring and prosperous energy of Jupiter in Taurus.

Tips for this Transit:

Engage in strategic planning for growth

Cultivate a culture for gratitude

Expand your professional network

Invest in education and training

Celebrate milestones and achievements

Moon in Capricorn sextile Saturn in Pisces: This transit suggests a favorable alignment of emotions, responsibility, and a compassionate approach, offering opportunities for effective and meaningful business strategies. Establish clear goals and routines to enhance productivity and efficiency. Consider the long-term impact of choices and strive for win-win solutions that balance practicality and empathy. Encourage teamwork and mutual support within your business, creating a positive and cohesive work environment. Invest in employee training programs that not only enhance professional skills but also address the holistic growth and well-being of your team members.

Tips for this Transit:

Practice practical and compassionate decision-making

Strengthen your professional relationships

Encourage mentorship and guidance

Implement sustainable practices

#astro posts #astrology community #astrology #astrology facts #astrology observations #astropost #astro girlies #astro observations #astrology notes #astro community #astro notes #business astrology

8 notes · View notes

rametarin · 9 months ago

Text

I wonder what the minimum number of people would be to have a modern standard of living.

Just a thinky diatribe. Keep scrolling, it's fine.

We have technology, tools and automation that are labor saving devices and methods to do more, faster, with less, for cheaper. Things that would've taken centuries to do by hand without extra people to help, now able to be done by one person with a machine, be it stationary at a factory or a vehicle one rides.

No matter what, one could always use more manpower for any given situation, but manpower brings with it an inherent humanity, which means they are not disposable, they have their own needs and life and ambitions and life. That is the double edged sword of having a population that needs more of itself to function. That contributes to overpopulation and widespread distribution of that population, which leads to desperate competition for scarce resources.

Making it possible and even preferable for someone to have fewer children to see them as resources for retirement or luxurious life means that those that actually want to raise children for the sake of raising children, produce and raise more children, actually giving a shit to give them a loving and nurturing home. Fewer desperate, possibly psychotic people running around threatening to extort random passerbys in the street.

But suppose you could accomplish with a small, very micronized version of what used to require a manufacturing plant with ancient assed technology requiring thousands or even just hundreds of people, it could be done by a few dozen, regionally.

Previously, a large workforce was a necessity in order to be able to produce more objects to sell to other people. Objects which required time and resources and professional skill for quality and performance, based on industry standards and needs. That meant skilled labor in large quantitites was a necessity, that meant the value was high. That meant a large population for it was attractive, which could provide cheaper things for a population, which meant for the people currently alive, it was cheaper to acquire and possess with less scarcity for a comfortable and secure life.

But what if you needed progressively fewer and fewer people to do the same tasks? That'd mean more of those same people could also do more things, even different things, throughout the day. Not to the point where one dude is operating 20 different consoles to be a chef, a miner, a construction worker and maintain security at a nuclear power plant, but 1-2 different tasks, perhaps. This would mean higher profits for people to pay fewer workers, but it would also mean the workers they keep on board would be higher paid, and there'd be more opportunity for business. Even business of the same kinds, competing. Even if the quality of, say, specific steel lugnuts varied a micron's worth; some preferring the brand name, some preferring the miniscule difference in quality, some preferring the cent difference cheaper, despite performance standards and guarantees making them practically the same.

But suppose you possessed a healthy workforce to be able to handle even the estimated needs of a sudden influx of population in the event of a shitstorm; 3-4 people to account for shift differences, waves of illness incapacitating large numbers at a time. Some good faith automation to handle phone lines and similar services.

We're going to assume that this supposed era, machines are cheaper, and comprised of materials that are easier to recycle or maintain and do not pollute at end of cycle, enabling one person to do more tasks, with less effort. Mowing lawns, paving roads, working on telecom lines and utility poles.

All the things we need other people to manage or labor for, a fraction would be necessary. Even for maintaining and fixing those machines. And in turn, those machines and systems would be better in all respects than the methods we use now to acquire those resources or produces those necessary products. And yet, acquiring a job would be easy, because even essential people whom are very valuable could always use some security in the event they're incapacitated and can't serve as the primary provider. Meet the performance standards and be able to operate, you're worth that security stippend. The meaning of skeleton crews kind of changing, given the different needs of a business that truncates what used to be a hundred people, to about ten.

The ultimate objective, of course, being to have an economic system where the government does not subsidize any form of business. Specifically so said business has to sink or swim on its own merits, not by simply performing the sole, monopolizing essential service because they're the only ones with the finances to create or maintain the machines or refine or create the resources. If anyone can do it, for cheap, then the value of that essential produce, good or service, drops to a reasonable sum, and it becomes just another unique necessity we can't live without, but doesn't deserve to be worth more than gold per ounce.

Where a business, even working within the minimum standards and benchmarks for environmental safety and from-pallet-to-waste-bin cycle management of good to waste, turns a very high ratio of profit, based purely on the value of the good, service or product, not based on how much the government will pay you to subsidize the thing at the cost to taxpayers to ensure the thing continues to exist. Thereby resulting in greater trade and business in the economy as different companies exchange services and trade goods and servies to make those products accessible and affordable. All of it based on the ease of exploitation of natural resources, all of that based on the efficiency of the processes we use where science and technology meet.

So ultimately we could have internet (phone, radio etc), cars, medicine, medical devices, digital media, manufacturing of textiles, agriculture, roads, construction, power, quality inspection, safety, waste management and disposal, you name it. Just, assisted by automation. The ultimate size of the population in order to meet every individual's needs, on the personal or larger scale, becomes a fraction. Any pressure to have children in order to sustain this system becomes minimal.

That means no shortages of things because people weren't there in order to fill the niches, and it also means those people that were deliberately born have a lucrative opportunity that would net them enough income, even for a lower end job, that'd allow them to afford just by virtue of the markets, essential medicine, medical services, internet, resources like water and food.

Or, if in this on paper thought experiment, it doesn't, we'd see where reality or our systems and methods still fall short and thought and engineering needs to be put into practice to make acquiring those resources or substitutes for them, cheaper and more effective.

I lack the macroscale knowledge or know-how to actually do anything with this thought experiment, but it's interesting to think about. The minimum size we'd need as a population to cover all standards of living we have now, IF we better utilized machines and internet to fulfill them.

2 notes · View notes