Uber app
- Začetnik teme kovacm
- Datum pokretanja
mitar1982
Uticajan
- Učlanjen(a)
- 29.03.2004
- Poruke
- 7,912
- Poena
- 1,715
Kao što sam već pisao, ispravljanje krivih Drina mi nije posao, a Norvežanima ne obaram cenu rada. Imaju oni neke propise i tako, potpuno nebitno. Bolje se vratite diskusiji kako da naterate krvoločne beogradske taksiste da rade za šaku riže, ili manje ako je ikako moguće...
- Učlanjen(a)
- 16.06.2003
- Poruke
- 4,414
- Poena
- 440
ma ti si se istrpiovao da možeš da budeš sa mnom na "ti". kao što sam rekao: to mora da se zasluži.
ne mogu ja da gubim vreme svoje i živce sa balavcima i laprdalima koji ne znaju ili ne razumeju elementarne stvari. to što sada marva umislila da došlo njeno demokratsko vreme u kojem je svako slobodan i pozvan da svojim neznanjem, glupostima, komentarima na blicu i nekakvim plusićima, terciranjem po forumima i slikicama razvodnjava diskusije, jer je u biti nesposobno i nema kapaciteta da razdvoji bitnog od nebitnoga...pa to nije moj problem!
naprotiv, ja ću uvek ukazati rado na nečiju glupost!
ne mogu ja da gubim vreme svoje i živce sa balavcima i laprdalima koji ne znaju ili ne razumeju elementarne stvari. to što sada marva umislila da došlo njeno demokratsko vreme u kojem je svako slobodan i pozvan da svojim neznanjem, glupostima, komentarima na blicu i nekakvim plusićima, terciranjem po forumima i slikicama razvodnjava diskusije, jer je u biti nesposobno i nema kapaciteta da razdvoji bitnog od nebitnoga...pa to nije moj problem!
naprotiv, ja ću uvek ukazati rado na nečiju glupost!
Poslednja izmena:
Nema potrebe da se bori za moje slobode, pogotovo na ovaj način. Kao što mnogi ovde više ne zavise od tih 300e koje pominješ, tako će se izboriti za svoje slobode.
Prozivanje sa 'balavci, laprdala, marva' je više lečenje frustracija nego ukazivanje na nečiju glupost.
Poslednja izmena:
- Učlanjen(a)
- 16.06.2003
- Poruke
- 4,414
- Poena
- 440
pa šta hoćeš onda od njega? koji si ti mandrak da ti njega propituješ ko je on, gde i šta uradio?
svaka čast ako radiš za više od 300 eur, al valjalo bi da se malo osvrneš oko sebe i pogledaš kako drugi žive. ti mnogi koje spominješ i na koje se pozivaš...je l su to tvoji drugari? ko su ti ljudi?
jer, ja vidim mnogo bede i sirotinje i mnogo ljudi koji su ostali bez posla u svojim 50-im i 60-im, a o mladima bolje da ne govorim!
zechs
Čuven
- Učlanjen(a)
- 20.12.2008
- Poruke
- 8,799
- Poena
- 645
Ju ju ju...jesi li se pogledao u ogledalo skoro?
Sa amebom ne mogu da budem na "ti" u pravu si...
Poslednja izmena:
- Učlanjen(a)
- 16.06.2003
- Poruke
- 4,414
- Poena
- 440
jauči ti koliko hoćeš! ali ja kad čitam ovde vas nekolicinu kao da gledam neki prenos skupštinski gde se satima drvi o nečemu, a da niko nema pojma o čemu! važno da se priča bez početka i bez kraja.
i onda se čudite kako je stanje u društvu takvo kakvo jeste. kriv je mentalitet, ili što kaže onaj, "mi srbi smo takvi", amerika, rusija...ko će ga više pohvatati!
ne, pa ta vlast, ta skupštinska zasedanja, forumi, blic & kurir, to su zapravo odlični preseci današnjeg stanja u društvu i državi i samo govori na šta je to sve spalo.
i sad je vama neko ko je otišao u daleku norvešku dužan da objašnjava i pojašnjava nešto?
Poslednja izmena:
- Učlanjen(a)
- 16.06.2003
- Poruke
- 4,414
- Poena
- 440
nadam se da će te poslati da se malo ohladiš! prijavio sam te zbog vređanja kod vlasti.
onako oznaški.
Poslednja izmena:
- Učlanjen(a)
- 16.06.2003
- Poruke
- 4,414
- Poena
- 440
jedan može da se nada il' što kaže ovaj...da veruje u bajke.
encarta
Slavan
- Učlanjen(a)
- 14.09.2007
- Poruke
- 1,859
- Poena
- 455
Kako vas je jedna aplikacija posvađala!
SRAMOTA
Onaj koji bi trebalo da učestvuje u ovoj temi je oteran jer je izrazio svoj stav, verovatno i stav većine taksita u srbiji.Umesto da cenite tuđe mišljenje i imate materijal za dalju polemiku vi sedite dokoni na grani kao kobci, seruckate po prolaznicima i čekate žrtvu.
SRAMOTA
Onaj koji bi trebalo da učestvuje u ovoj temi je oteran jer je izrazio svoj stav, verovatno i stav većine taksita u srbiji.Umesto da cenite tuđe mišljenje i imate materijal za dalju polemiku vi sedite dokoni na grani kao kobci, seruckate po prolaznicima i čekate žrtvu.
- Učlanjen(a)
- 18.08.2004
- Poruke
- 12,280
- Poena
- 1,285
Dobio je i on isto,
I dal si ozbiljan da je sakom i kapom ?
20 puta molim i upozorava i brisem na stotine postova i cistim temu.
Jedini stvar koji sam pisao je bez vredjanja.
I vas dvojica bas to.
Jos ne dobijete 5 poena kolko treba za vrejdanje nego samo 2 i na sve to kazes da je sakom i kapom ?
- Učlanjen(a)
- 16.06.2003
- Poruke
- 4,414
- Poena
- 440
pa upravo. to sve ekspert do eksperta i to opšte prakse!
a svi do jednoga došli ovde sa najgorim stereotipima o taksistima da pričaju o zakonitostima tržišnim. možeš misliti dokoličara! pa im još kriv tito, komunizam, drugi srbi i ko zna ko još!
zechs
Čuven
- Učlanjen(a)
- 20.12.2008
- Poruke
- 8,799
- Poena
- 645
Kako ne, pa sve opomene si mi ti udelio kad pogledam istorijat opomena....
EDIT: Ovaj nastavlja sa offtopicom...
- Učlanjen(a)
- 16.06.2003
- Poruke
- 4,414
- Poena
- 440
ja nisam nikoga vređao ako kažem da se laprda ovde!
nemoj da mi izmišljaš kazne i glumiš nekog srednjeputaša. on se meni obratio sa amebom! molim da se meni moja kazna za offtopic izbriše, a njemu propisna prepiše.
Poslednja izmena:
- Učlanjen(a)
- 26.05.2006
- Poruke
- 6,153
- Poena
- 510
Doci ce trenutak u buducnosti kada ce tehnologija potpuno zameniti coveka...otvorio sam ja takvu temu gde se pisalo o tome...kakav ce ekonomski model tada biti na snazi ostaje da docekamo
Na tu temu:
The Share-the-Scraps Economy
How Technology Wrecks the Middle Class
In the four years since the Great Recession officially ended, the productivity of American workers — those lucky enough to have jobs — has risen smartly. But the United States still has two million fewer jobs than before the downturn, the unemployment rate is stuck at levels not seen since the early 1990s and the proportion of adults who are working is four percentage points off its peak in 2000. This job drought has spurred pundits to wonder whether a profound employment sickness has overtaken us. And from there, it’s only a short leap to ask whether that illness isn’t productivity itself. Have we mechanized and computerized ourselves into obsolescence?
Are we in danger of losing the “race against the machine,” as the M.I.T. scholars Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue in a recent book? Are we becoming enslaved to our “robot overlords,” as the journalist Kevin Drum warned in Mother Jones? Do “smart machines” threaten us with “long-term misery,” as the economists Jeffrey D. Sachs and Laurence J. Kotlikoff prophesied earlier this year? Have we reached “the end of labor,” as Noah Smith laments in The Atlantic?
Of course, anxiety, and even hysteria, about the adverse effects of technological change on employment have a venerable history. In the early 19th century a group of English textile artisans calling themselves the Luddites staged a machine-trashing rebellion. Their brashness earned them a place (rarely positive) in the lexicon, but they had legitimate reasons for concern.
Economists have historically rejected what we call the “lump of labor” fallacy: the supposition that an increase in labor productivity inevitably reduces employment because there is only a finite amount of work to do. While intuitively appealing, this idea is demonstrably false. In 1900, for example, 41 percent of the United States work force was in agriculture. By 2000, that share had fallen to 2 percent, after the Green Revolution transformed crop yields. But the employment-to-population ratio rose over the 20th century as women moved from home to market, and the unemployment rate fluctuated cyclically, with no long-term increase.
Labor-saving technological change necessarily displaces workers performing certain tasks — that’s where the gains in productivity come from — but over the long run, it generates new products and services that raise national income and increase the overall demand for labor. In 1900, no one could foresee that a century later, health care, finance, information technology, consumer electronics, hospitality, leisure and entertainment would employ far more workers than agriculture. Of course, as societies grow more prosperous, citizens often choose to work shorter days, take longer vacations and retire earlier — but that too is progress.
So if technological advances don’t threaten employment, does that mean workers have nothing to fear from “smart machines”? Actually, no — and here’s where the Luddites had a point. Although many 19th-century Britons benefited from the introduction of newer and better automated looms — unskilled laborers were hired as loom operators, and a growing middle class could now afford mass-produced fabrics — it’s unlikely that skilled textile workers benefited on the whole.
Fast-forward to the present. The multi-trillionfold decline in the cost of computing since the 1970s has created enormous incentives for employers to substitute increasingly cheap and capable computers for expensive labor. These rapid advances — which confront us daily as we check in at airports, order books online, pay bills on our banks’ Web sites or consult our smartphones for driving directions — have reawakened fears that workers will be displaced by machinery. Will this time be different?
A starting point for discussion is the observation that although computers are ubiquitous, they cannot do everything. A computer’s ability to accomplish a task quickly and cheaply depends upon a human programmer’s ability to write procedures or rules that direct the machine to take the correct steps at each contingency. Computers excel at “routine” tasks: organizing, storing, retrieving and manipulating information, or executing exactly defined physical movements in production processes. These tasks are most pervasive in middle-skill jobs like bookkeeping, clerical work and repetitive production and quality-assurance jobs.
Logically, computerization has reduced the demand for these jobs, but it has boosted demand for workers who perform “nonroutine” tasks that complement the automated activities. Those tasks happen to lie on opposite ends of the occupational skill distribution.
At one end are so-called abstract tasks that require problem-solving, intuition, persuasion and creativity. These tasks are characteristic of professional, managerial, technical and creative occupations, like law, medicine, science, engineering, advertising and design. People in these jobs typically have high levels of education and analytical capability, and they benefit from computers that facilitate the transmission, organization and processing of information.
On the other end are so-called manual tasks, which require situational adaptability, visual and language recognition, and in-person interaction. Preparing a meal, driving a truck through city traffic or cleaning a hotel room present mind-bogglingly complex challenges for computers. But they are straightforward for humans, requiring primarily innate abilities like dexterity, sightedness and language recognition, as well as modest training. These workers can’t be replaced by robots, but their skills are not scarce, so they usually make low wages.
Computerization has therefore fostered a polarization of employment, with job growth concentrated in both the highest- and lowest-paid occupations, while jobs in the middle have declined. Surprisingly, overall employment rates have largely been unaffected in states and cities undergoing this rapid polarization. Rather, as employment in routine jobs has ebbed, employment has risen both in high-wage managerial, professional and technical occupations and in low-wage, in-person service occupations.
So computerization is not reducing the quantity of jobs, but rather degrading the quality of jobs for a significant subset of workers. Demand for highly educated workers who excel in abstract tasks is robust, but the middle of the labor market, where the routine task-intensive jobs lie, is sagging. Workers without college education therefore concentrate in manual task-intensive jobs — like food services, cleaning and security — which are numerous but offer low wages, precarious job security and few prospects for upward mobility. This bifurcation of job opportunities has contributed to the historic rise in income inequality.
HOW can we help workers ride the wave of technological change rather than be swamped by it? One common recommendation is that citizens should invest more in their education. Spurred by growing demand for workers performing abstract job tasks, the payoff for college and professional degrees has soared; despite its formidable price tag, higher education has perhaps never been a better investment. But it is far from a comprehensive solution to our labor market problems. Not all high school graduates — let alone displaced mid- and late-career workers — are academically or temperamentally prepared to pursue a four-year college degree. Only 40 percent of Americans enroll in a four-year college after graduating from high school, and more than 30 percent of those who enroll do not complete the degree within eight years.
The good news, however, is that middle-education, middle-wage jobs are not slated to disappear completely. While many middle-skill jobs are susceptible to automation, others demand a mixture of tasks that take advantage of human flexibility. To take one prominent example, medical paraprofessional jobs — radiology technician, phlebotomist, nurse technician — are a rapidly growing category of relatively well-paid, middle-skill occupations. While these paraprofessions do not typically require a four-year college degree, they do demand some postsecondary vocational training.
These middle-skill jobs will persist, and potentially grow, because they involve tasks that cannot readily be unbundled without a substantial drop in quality. Consider, for example, the frustration of calling a software firm for technical support, only to discover that the technician knows nothing more than the standard answers shown on his or her computer screen — that is, the technician is a mouthpiece reading from a script, not a problem-solver. This is not generally a productive form of work organization because it fails to harness the complementarities between technical and interpersonal skills. Simply put, the quality of a service within any occupation will improve when a worker combines routine (technical) and nonroutine (flexible) tasks.
Following this logic, we predict that the middle-skill jobs that survive will combine routine technical tasks with abstract and manual tasks in which workers have a comparative advantage — interpersonal interaction, adaptability and problem-solving. Along with medical paraprofessionals, this category includes numerous jobs for people in the skilled trades and repair: plumbers; builders; electricians; heating, ventilation and air-conditioning installers; automotive technicians; customer-service representatives; and even clerical workers who are required to do more than type and file. Indeed, even as formerly middle-skill occupations are being “deskilled,” or stripped of their routine technical tasks (brokering stocks, for example), other formerly high-end occupations are becoming accessible to workers with less esoteric technical mastery (for example, the work of the nurse practitioner, who increasingly diagnoses illness and prescribes drugs in lieu of a physician). Lawrence F. Katz, a labor economist at Harvard, memorably called those who fruitfully combine the foundational skills of a high school education with specific vocational skills the “new artisans.”
The outlook for workers who haven’t finished college is uncertain, but not devoid of hope. There will be job opportunities in middle-skill jobs, but not in the traditional blue-collar production and white-collar office jobs of the past. Rather, we expect to see growing employment among the ranks of the “new artisans”: licensed practical nurses and medical assistants; teachers, tutors and learning guides at all educational levels; kitchen designers, construction supervisors and skilled tradespeople of every variety; expert repair and support technicians; and the many people who offer personal training and assistance, like physical therapists, personal trainers, coaches and guides. These workers will adeptly combine technical skills with interpersonal interaction, flexibility and adaptability to offer services that are uniquely human.
Are we in danger of losing the “race against the machine,” as the M.I.T. scholars Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue in a recent book? Are we becoming enslaved to our “robot overlords,” as the journalist Kevin Drum warned in Mother Jones? Do “smart machines” threaten us with “long-term misery,” as the economists Jeffrey D. Sachs and Laurence J. Kotlikoff prophesied earlier this year? Have we reached “the end of labor,” as Noah Smith laments in The Atlantic?
Of course, anxiety, and even hysteria, about the adverse effects of technological change on employment have a venerable history. In the early 19th century a group of English textile artisans calling themselves the Luddites staged a machine-trashing rebellion. Their brashness earned them a place (rarely positive) in the lexicon, but they had legitimate reasons for concern.
Economists have historically rejected what we call the “lump of labor” fallacy: the supposition that an increase in labor productivity inevitably reduces employment because there is only a finite amount of work to do. While intuitively appealing, this idea is demonstrably false. In 1900, for example, 41 percent of the United States work force was in agriculture. By 2000, that share had fallen to 2 percent, after the Green Revolution transformed crop yields. But the employment-to-population ratio rose over the 20th century as women moved from home to market, and the unemployment rate fluctuated cyclically, with no long-term increase.
Labor-saving technological change necessarily displaces workers performing certain tasks — that’s where the gains in productivity come from — but over the long run, it generates new products and services that raise national income and increase the overall demand for labor. In 1900, no one could foresee that a century later, health care, finance, information technology, consumer electronics, hospitality, leisure and entertainment would employ far more workers than agriculture. Of course, as societies grow more prosperous, citizens often choose to work shorter days, take longer vacations and retire earlier — but that too is progress.
So if technological advances don’t threaten employment, does that mean workers have nothing to fear from “smart machines”? Actually, no — and here’s where the Luddites had a point. Although many 19th-century Britons benefited from the introduction of newer and better automated looms — unskilled laborers were hired as loom operators, and a growing middle class could now afford mass-produced fabrics — it’s unlikely that skilled textile workers benefited on the whole.
Fast-forward to the present. The multi-trillionfold decline in the cost of computing since the 1970s has created enormous incentives for employers to substitute increasingly cheap and capable computers for expensive labor. These rapid advances — which confront us daily as we check in at airports, order books online, pay bills on our banks’ Web sites or consult our smartphones for driving directions — have reawakened fears that workers will be displaced by machinery. Will this time be different?
A starting point for discussion is the observation that although computers are ubiquitous, they cannot do everything. A computer’s ability to accomplish a task quickly and cheaply depends upon a human programmer’s ability to write procedures or rules that direct the machine to take the correct steps at each contingency. Computers excel at “routine” tasks: organizing, storing, retrieving and manipulating information, or executing exactly defined physical movements in production processes. These tasks are most pervasive in middle-skill jobs like bookkeeping, clerical work and repetitive production and quality-assurance jobs.
Logically, computerization has reduced the demand for these jobs, but it has boosted demand for workers who perform “nonroutine” tasks that complement the automated activities. Those tasks happen to lie on opposite ends of the occupational skill distribution.
At one end are so-called abstract tasks that require problem-solving, intuition, persuasion and creativity. These tasks are characteristic of professional, managerial, technical and creative occupations, like law, medicine, science, engineering, advertising and design. People in these jobs typically have high levels of education and analytical capability, and they benefit from computers that facilitate the transmission, organization and processing of information.
On the other end are so-called manual tasks, which require situational adaptability, visual and language recognition, and in-person interaction. Preparing a meal, driving a truck through city traffic or cleaning a hotel room present mind-bogglingly complex challenges for computers. But they are straightforward for humans, requiring primarily innate abilities like dexterity, sightedness and language recognition, as well as modest training. These workers can’t be replaced by robots, but their skills are not scarce, so they usually make low wages.
Computerization has therefore fostered a polarization of employment, with job growth concentrated in both the highest- and lowest-paid occupations, while jobs in the middle have declined. Surprisingly, overall employment rates have largely been unaffected in states and cities undergoing this rapid polarization. Rather, as employment in routine jobs has ebbed, employment has risen both in high-wage managerial, professional and technical occupations and in low-wage, in-person service occupations.
So computerization is not reducing the quantity of jobs, but rather degrading the quality of jobs for a significant subset of workers. Demand for highly educated workers who excel in abstract tasks is robust, but the middle of the labor market, where the routine task-intensive jobs lie, is sagging. Workers without college education therefore concentrate in manual task-intensive jobs — like food services, cleaning and security — which are numerous but offer low wages, precarious job security and few prospects for upward mobility. This bifurcation of job opportunities has contributed to the historic rise in income inequality.
HOW can we help workers ride the wave of technological change rather than be swamped by it? One common recommendation is that citizens should invest more in their education. Spurred by growing demand for workers performing abstract job tasks, the payoff for college and professional degrees has soared; despite its formidable price tag, higher education has perhaps never been a better investment. But it is far from a comprehensive solution to our labor market problems. Not all high school graduates — let alone displaced mid- and late-career workers — are academically or temperamentally prepared to pursue a four-year college degree. Only 40 percent of Americans enroll in a four-year college after graduating from high school, and more than 30 percent of those who enroll do not complete the degree within eight years.
The good news, however, is that middle-education, middle-wage jobs are not slated to disappear completely. While many middle-skill jobs are susceptible to automation, others demand a mixture of tasks that take advantage of human flexibility. To take one prominent example, medical paraprofessional jobs — radiology technician, phlebotomist, nurse technician — are a rapidly growing category of relatively well-paid, middle-skill occupations. While these paraprofessions do not typically require a four-year college degree, they do demand some postsecondary vocational training.
These middle-skill jobs will persist, and potentially grow, because they involve tasks that cannot readily be unbundled without a substantial drop in quality. Consider, for example, the frustration of calling a software firm for technical support, only to discover that the technician knows nothing more than the standard answers shown on his or her computer screen — that is, the technician is a mouthpiece reading from a script, not a problem-solver. This is not generally a productive form of work organization because it fails to harness the complementarities between technical and interpersonal skills. Simply put, the quality of a service within any occupation will improve when a worker combines routine (technical) and nonroutine (flexible) tasks.
Following this logic, we predict that the middle-skill jobs that survive will combine routine technical tasks with abstract and manual tasks in which workers have a comparative advantage — interpersonal interaction, adaptability and problem-solving. Along with medical paraprofessionals, this category includes numerous jobs for people in the skilled trades and repair: plumbers; builders; electricians; heating, ventilation and air-conditioning installers; automotive technicians; customer-service representatives; and even clerical workers who are required to do more than type and file. Indeed, even as formerly middle-skill occupations are being “deskilled,” or stripped of their routine technical tasks (brokering stocks, for example), other formerly high-end occupations are becoming accessible to workers with less esoteric technical mastery (for example, the work of the nurse practitioner, who increasingly diagnoses illness and prescribes drugs in lieu of a physician). Lawrence F. Katz, a labor economist at Harvard, memorably called those who fruitfully combine the foundational skills of a high school education with specific vocational skills the “new artisans.”
The outlook for workers who haven’t finished college is uncertain, but not devoid of hope. There will be job opportunities in middle-skill jobs, but not in the traditional blue-collar production and white-collar office jobs of the past. Rather, we expect to see growing employment among the ranks of the “new artisans”: licensed practical nurses and medical assistants; teachers, tutors and learning guides at all educational levels; kitchen designers, construction supervisors and skilled tradespeople of every variety; expert repair and support technicians; and the many people who offer personal training and assistance, like physical therapists, personal trainers, coaches and guides. These workers will adeptly combine technical skills with interpersonal interaction, flexibility and adaptability to offer services that are uniquely human.
On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber
- Učlanjen(a)
- 16.06.2003
- Poruke
- 4,414
- Poena
- 440
pa šta ako sam rekao? je l su te reči zabranjene? jesi ti funkcionalno nepismen?
to što se neko u tome pronalazi...to nije moj problem! al kad mi neko kaže da sam ameba...očekujem sankcije!
Poslednja izmena:
- Učlanjen(a)
- 16.06.2003
- Poruke
- 4,414
- Poena
- 440
znači ipak si nepismen, al držiš da možeš mene da moderišeš?
to nije vređanje nego faktualno stanje! ja se nisam obratio njemu, uostalom.
Poslednja izmena:
- Učlanjen(a)
- 18.08.2004
- Poruke
- 12,280
- Poena
- 1,285
Ne odlucujes ti sta je vredjanje. Takve stvari se nece pisati na ovom forumu ! U to budi uveren.
rAMA
Čuven
- Učlanjen(a)
- 11.02.2007
- Poruke
- 10,517
- Poena
- 825
Zašto ne bi bežeo u Norvešku? To je jedna od retkih preostalih država koja funkcioniše na socijalističkim principima, principa od kojih se većina u ovoj temi gadi, država gde su socijalna prava iznad kapitala, država sa besplatnim i univerzalnim javnim zdravstvom, država sa besplatnim školstvom, porodiljsko od 12 meseci, nezaposleni imaju socijalnu pomoć koja je već od prosečne plate u većini EU zemalja, a razlika u plati između najniže plaćenih radnika i rukovodećih pozicija je najmanja u zapadnom svetu i tačno zakonski propisana, te je razlika u klasama gotovo neprimetna. Prosečno radno vreme od 37,5h nedeljno, maksimalno od 40h, itd...
Poslednja izmena:
- Učlanjen(a)
- 16.12.2001
- Poruke
- 11,720
- Poena
- 1,020
Mentalitet si zaboravio, mentalitet. :d
Elem, to o čemu mi ovde pričamo je džaba dok ne osete na sopstvenom džepu/profesiji. Tek tada će razumeti da je sharing economy ekonomija mrvica, trka do dna, sa svakog razumnog makroekonomskog stanovišta. Ali džaba dok ne osete na svojoj koži. Da se ostavimo taksista; eto npr. turističkih vodiča. Oni su ljudi završili neke škole, polagali neke ispite, dobijali licence. Moraju da nose bedževe, plaćaju kazne kad/ako vode grupu bez tog bedža i akreditiva. I sada, što da im ja ne uzmem posao, jer dobro znam Beograd pa mogu da izigravam turističkog vodiča, pa još uz pomoć neke moderne aplikacije, za 100 evra manje. Pa sutra da gomila nas može da bude profesor matematike makar osnovcima jer imamo diplomu sa nekog prirodnjačkog univerziteta. Ili možda nemamo, svejedno je, imamo aplikaciju koja će nam reći šta da predajemo. I tako od profesije do profesije, svako da doprinese za po 100 evra manje.
Umesto da racionalno razgovaramo zašto se bune ljudi po Francuskoj, Britaniji, Norveškoj, Italiji, dakle visokorazvijenim zemljama protiv jednog od rešenja digitalnog doba, odmah se tu ubacuje tona stereotipa, projekcije na srpske prilike i po svaku cenu ispoljava sopstveni stav o tome da je bolje ceo život biti bogatun nego 7 dana živeti u bedi, i to naziva modernim shvatanjem života. :smoke:
