In nomination of the word "Jobs" for the Newspeak Dictionary.
I've been thinking about 'Jobs' and how this word has developed the political gravity of a black hole and at the same time has entirely lost its capability for describing the general well-being of our citizens or even their condition of employment. The mantra of 'Jobs' has been repeated so often that is has been reduced to a sort of a code word that the brain stem interprets as 'security'. Orwell would call that repetition 'Duckspeak'. The repetition of a meaningless term to induce an emotional response is Newspeak at it's best.
- First of all: 'Jobs' is not an issue. The issue is prosperity. Jobs are a means, not and end. "Jobs" is a red herring.
- Co-first of all: 'Jobs' is a term that is so broad that it defies description but I can't think of one example that does not rest on a
state of dependency. The dependency of 'workers' on 'job creators'.
- Almost first of all: accepting 'Jobs' as an issue is like defending the USA from invasion by building trenches in Kansas. It
surrenders to a class system, an oligarchy. Since this oligarchy is not a government body, it can ignore the Bill of Rights, and
does. Government, 'We the People', is only bunch of unruly employees.
- Runner-up for first of all: why doesn't increased productivity pass directly to the workers who do the producing and to their
families? Increasingly, a 'job' can support only the job-holder. In an era of huge advances in automation and productivity, more
people need jobs than ever. Everybody must work. No matter how much we produce, no matter how much we waste.
Framing the issue in the cubicle of 'Jobs' puts us all in a box. Let's think outside the box for a change. It isn't jobs that defines us as a people unless you think that corporations are people. "Jobs" is less a metric for prosperity than it is a measure of our loss of everything but a paycheck.
= new reply since forum marked as read
