Greed And Dissonance

I'll start with a conundrum:

What connects these dots? 

⦿ https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2023/08/22/grocery-items-expensive-inflation

⦿ https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2023/08/23/woolworths-swage-theft-profit

Hmmmm... I wonder...

The Dissonance

Listening to the news the other day, discussing how the price of groceries has been affecting Australians. There was some financial commentator speaking to the journalist about the prices of food. 

This is our Labor government. A government that supposedly stands for the working person, for living standards, against corporate exploitation. 

The cognitive dissonance in the radio interview was almost tangible. What was the reason people couldn't afford food? The economy seems to be doing well - supermarkets are showing strong profits, banks are showing good profits. Surely in such a strong economy, people should be able to afford food?

And why were the prices of food so high? The supermarkets, as noted, were making profits so why was food still so expensive? You know when people are looking right at an elephant and pretending that it's just an elephant-shaped hole in the space-time continuum? 

Unsurprisingly, shoplifting is on the rise. But what do they say? "...total stock loss was up 20 per cent compared to last year due to a rise in “organised retail theft” and crime driven by cost-of-living pressures..." Where the merry effing hell do they think those "cost-of-living pressures" come from? When a half kilo block of cheese costs $10? Not from the dairy farmers - Coles is still bending them over and giving them a good shafting, adding to the farmers' "cost-of-living pressures." Not from the factories like Bega. They too are getting a big dairy milking from Coles. 

Seems the "cost-of-living pressures" are all stemming from - Coles. And they have the chutzpah to blame "organised retail theft." Oh wait - that phrase can be read in two different ways... I get it now...

There was some discussion about what government body was in charge of fixing the prices of food to be affordable. Turns out there isn't one, the government believes that "the market will fix itself." Now where have I heard that particular bullshit before? 

But I realised that the government is also staring hard at an elephant-shaped void. 

I heard a similar thing about the housing cost crisis, too. How could prices have skyrocketed like that? Why were rents so high? Were there market forces at work here that couldn't be identified? 

And the price of energy was going up, too. Here, I commented on it in this article a few months back. I posted a while back that the same story was covered by two different newspapers thus: "Billion dollar shock for the electric grid" and "Energy providers enjoy a billion dollar windfall from renewables." Yep, the same event, in one case made to look terrifying and a justification for shocking price hikes. The other, a regrettable glitch in the media that gave away information that might erode profits. 

Honestly - people will literally turn themselves inside-out before they say that corporate heads and landlords are base greedy pigs and they don't give a flying f*** at the moon for anyone else. 

And Actually

This is a state of affairs that can't continue, and I think the government is aware of that. Regarding the energy prices skyrocketing, they pulled the rather limp move of fixing gas prices for a few months, as if that was going to stop any of the price gouging that's still ongoing to this moment. At this moment, renewables and batteries are coming online at a tremedous pace. Each battery, each wind turbine, each solar plant, is reducing the fuel costs of generating energy. And yet the price keeps going up. It's not to cover capital costs, because while solar panel and turbine manufacturers are also capitalists, they still haven't quite developed the brass bollocks that the energy companies have. 

So it's all just totally greed, so that when - inevitably - the energy companies have to concede that they can't justify those rates any more, they can drop them back a little, amid much fanfare, and most people won't remember that this "new low price" is higher than it was while fossil fuels still had to be paid for on top of maintenance.

Landlords wasted no time raising rates, banks kept their rates high on the basis of the Reserve. The Reserve kept doing the same thing over and over because their boss liked his cosy lunches with his bank chief mates and the government wasn't having a quiet nice word in his ear to back the eff down because he was killing the less wealthy of the Australian population. 

And the government knows that we now know that they're quite okay with everyday Australian people dying for the sake of corporate wellbeing. If this was a war, there'd be outrage and activism. Because it's being so soft-pedalled in the media and they are - as observed - spinning the news so much that bits are flying off, we need to change the public's focus so they can see those bits sticking to the news screen.

Capitalism is dying. The concept of 'post-capitalism' is no longer an abstract concept. What kind of a post-capitalist world we get, we need to start agitating for now. We need to make better decisions than the handfull of CEOs and shadow chiefs have done, because look where that's led us to - a world where governments can decide on an 'acceptable' number of their constituents who'll be killed by the decisions made. 

Capitalism has been ruled by numbers. Numbers of people the product will kill either in the acquiring of the raw materials, or in the process of making he product in the factory, or in the number of people who are killed by the waste products directly or later, indirectly, by the damage to the planet, or finally, the number os people the product will directly kill by misadventure, poisoning, unsafe application. 

Numbers are great at understanding the planet and the Universe but they're pretty shyte when you start using them to define how many people you knowingly plan to kill so you can make another number in a thing called a 'bank account' increase. 

What we want for post-capitalism isn't that. 

Stewardship, Morals

That's the thing we want. I don't want to make another single dollar out of paper or polymer, nor strike another coin out of metal, in order for people to compare the hypothetical size of their external genitalia in terms of dollars and cents. 

I'd much rather settle for a change to how we learn to know our own value in terms of how we can live a lifestyle we feel comfortable with while simultaneously making sure that lifestyle doesn't cause more irreparable harm to the one and only planet we're able to live on, as it turns out. 

Do I bang on about killing capitalism too much? I rather think not. I wish you'd help me get the message our farther and wider. I definitely know I bang on about that too much, but - come to think of it - no. No I bloody well don't. Your support means the difference to me of being able to keep blog stuff paid. To pay for the odd advertisement to get wider exposure and wider dissemination. 

To you, it can mean as little as the cost of a cup of coffee a month. I know cost of living bites, but I'm on a pension and paying all the bills for domain names and server fees (because Internet providers also need to pay their employees) and I put every scrap of donations towards that. I've never even bought myself a cup of coffee out of it. Ironic hey?

So please - at the very least, share this post and my others with your friends and social network. Use the graphic I made and use the newspaper to check out all my most recent posts and my News Stand. You can sign up for a once-a-week newsletter there, hint hint. Or go to Ko-Fi and make a donation, or to Paypal if you prefer that. Thank you.

Indonesia/Australia Lithium Battery Project

Spodumene. "Spod, you mean? Hahaha hehehe *snort* spod's a funny name for a mineral."

Yeah, I thought it was funny. I even thought it was schist. (Geologist jokes alert.) I also thought all those little mines scattered around Australia that were mining Rare Earth Element mineral sands and ores like spodumene were "toy mines." I'd seen a few "proper" mines - you know, the kind that leave scars on the Earth that you can see from the ISS, and they seemed to me to embody mining, not like those smaller ones. But that was forty years ago and most of those niche metals were still pretty niche. 

Nowadays, I'm kicking myself that I didn't invest some money into them back then in the early 1980s... I predicted heaps of things in my life, but spodumene (lithium) wasn't one of them. (Nor most of the other.)

Australia is ranked sixth in terms of REE mineral resources, with 3,660,000 tonnes which is about 3% of REE resources. China 44m tonnes and Russia 12m tonnes  between them have 48%. Brazil, Vietnam, and India command 24% or 30.9m tonnes. Pulling up in the rear are the USA at 1% or 1.44m tonnes, Malaysia with less than 1% and 30,000 tonnes, other smaller producers between them 4.4m tonnes or about 4%.  -- Geoscience Australia (Last updated:7 June 2023)

This illustrates how quickly things change given the rate of change of technology. Forty years ago these REEs were a novelty, a niche resource. Now they're worth forging alliances over. Indonesia wants access to spodumene to refine into lithium to manufacture EV batteries. It's sad that we just dig Australia up and send it overseas anyway, seems we have a history of sending our best stuff overseas for others to profit from. Are we really so colonially whipped that we feel that that's all we deserve? 

But it's even much more sadderererer when you think that we had a company willing to make batteries here, we have another one recycling (mainly lead-acid but who knows, one day perhaps lithium-ion style as well?) batteries. We had several plans to produce EVs locally. We had the plant sitting around. We had (and still have) people who'd jump at a chance to work in such places manufacturing the future. 

Do you get a glimpse, however tiny, of how frustrated I am that we throw away so much value? Our Universities and research organisations totally pwned the solar cell race for years. The support from the government was so rewarding and sustaining that the people that pioneered that early research went to China and formed one of the biggest solar PV companies there instead. In fact, I asked ChatGPT to compile me a list of Aussie innovations and inventions that we couldn't seem to follow up on. 

Me: Could you please compile a list of Australian inventions and innovations that had to be produced overseas? (such as our advances in solar panel technology, wi-fi, etc?) ChatGPT: Certainly! Australia has contributed to several significant inventions and innovations that have had a global impact. While some of these advancements were produced and commercialized overseas, their Australian origins remain noteworthy. Here's a list of Australian inventions and innovations that had to be produced overseas:

Wi-Fi: Wi-Fi technology, also known as IEEE 802.11, was developed by a team of researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia during the late 1990s. While the core technology was developed in Australia, it was later commercialized and produced by various companies worldwide. Cochlear Implants: The cochlear implant, a revolutionary hearing device that helps people with severe hearing loss or deafness, was invented in the 1970s by Dr. Graeme Clark at the University of Melbourne. Cochlear Limited, an Australian company, was established to develop and produce these implants, which have since been utilized globally. Polymer Banknotes: Australia was one of the early adopters of polymer banknote technology, which replaced traditional paper-based currency with more durable and secure plastic notes. The concept was developed by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in collaboration with the CSIRO during the 1980s. Many other countries have since adopted polymer banknotes. Black Box Flight Recorder: The flight data recorder, commonly known as the black box, was invented by Australian engineer David Warren in the 1950s. Although initially met with skepticism, it became an essential aviation safety device used worldwide. Ultrasound Scanner: The world's first ultrasound scanner was developed in the late 1950s by Australian researchers David Robinson and George Kossoff. The technology has become a critical diagnostic tool in the medical field, used globally. Winged Keel: The winged keel, an innovative design used in the America's Cup yacht race in 1983, was created by Australian yachtsman Ben Lexcen. The technology improved yacht stability and performance and was produced overseas for racing. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Technology: Australia has made significant advancements in solar panel technology, with research conducted by organizations like the University of New South Wales leading to improved efficiency and cost reduction. While solar panels are now manufactured worldwide, Australia's research contributions have been influential. Dual-Flushing Toilet: The dual-flush toilet system, designed to conserve water by offering different flushing options, was patented by Australian inventor Bruce Thompson in the 1980s. It has been widely adopted internationally to promote water conservation. Spray-on Skin: Developed by Dr. Fiona Wood and her team, spray-on skin technology is used to treat severe burns by promoting skin regeneration. While initially developed in Australia, it has been used in other countries to aid burn victims. Medical Pen Needle: Invented by Australian Arthur Smith in the 1980s, the medical pen needle revolutionized insulin delivery for diabetics. It allowed for more convenient and less painful self-administration of insulin, a vital hormone for managing diabetes. Inflatable Aircraft Escape Slide: The inflatable aircraft escape slide was invented by Australian engineer Jack Grant in the 1950s. This innovation significantly improved aircraft safety by providing passengers with a rapid evacuation option in case of emergency landings or accidents. Gardasil (HPV Vaccine): Developed by Australian immunologist Ian Frazer and his team, Gardasil is a vaccine that protects against certain strains of human papillomavirus (HPV), which can lead to cervical cancer. It has been used worldwide to prevent HPV-related diseases. Res-Q-Link (Personal Locator Beacon): The Res-Q-Link is a personal locator beacon designed for maritime and aviation safety. It was invented by Australian aviator Dick Smith, who established the Australian Geographic magazine, and it has been widely used for emergency distress signaling globally. Electronic Pacemaker: In the 1920s, Australian anesthetist Dr. Mark Lidwill and physicist Edgar Booth developed one of the world's first electronic pacemakers, which aided in regulating heart rhythms. The pacemaker technology has since saved countless lives worldwide. Speedo Swimwear: The iconic Speedo swimwear brand originated in Australia in the early 20th century. Its innovative designs and use of advanced materials have made it a globally recognized name in swimwear and aquatic sports. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR): Developed by Australian biochemist Kary Mullis in the 1980s, PCR is a groundbreaking technique used to amplify DNA sequences. PCR has become an essential tool in molecular biology and various scientific fields globally. Quantum Bit (Qubit) Research: Australia has been a pioneer in quantum computing research, with significant contributions from researchers at the University of New South Wales and other institutions. Quantum computing has the potential to revolutionize information processing. In-vitro Fertilization (IVF): While the concept of IVF was developed independently by researchers worldwide, Australians such as Carl Wood and Alan Trounson played a crucial role in refining and advancing the technology. IVF has since helped millions of couples worldwide overcome infertility. Bionic Eye: The development of the bionic eye, a retinal implant designed to restore vision to people with certain types of blindness, involved Australian researchers from the Bionics Institute and the University of Melbourne. Electronic Sphygmomanometer (Digital Blood Pressure Monitor): The electronic sphygmomanometer, an automated blood pressure monitoring device, was invented by Australian engineer David O. Murphy in the late 1970s. It became a standard medical tool worldwide.

See? That list may or may not be 100% accurate (given ChatZGPT's spotty track record) but as far as I can see those are all legitimate, and they point out how little benefit remains in Australia from all our innovation. 

See? I may be a thought innovator. Please let me know by signing for a newsletter, contacting me, or supporting my writing. 

And we need - now more than ever - to have some of these industries on our own shores. Here goes.

The World's Becoming Really Bad.

I don't mean just a little bit bad, like climate scientists have not been saying for decades but coporations have. I mean we-might-die-oh-fuck bad. Theoretically the planet can only heat up so much, but then other theories say "just hold my beer" and it could get very VERY bad. 

And one of the upsides/downsides (depending which side of the globe you're on, see what I did there?) is that some places are already close to uninhabitable while others are already uninhabitable to their local ecosystems. 

But of a more direct concern to us is that people are already dying as their ecosystems heat up. LOTS of people. It's not going to get better next year or the year after, but it might be possible to slow the rate down, make the worst effects a bit milder. 

The only thing is that we need to do that NOW. Not by the end of the year, NOW. If we could stop all vehicles in their tracks right now, we might be able to do it. If we could stop shipping and air transport, that might help too. And if we could do that without a variety of corporations getting on their high horses about how they'll be "negatively affected" by this, we need to start shooting. 

Because what those poor corporations will experience will pale beside what their customers and staff will experience. We will die. Not pleasantly slipping off in our sleep but quite horribly drowning in our own sweat and internal condensation. There are already that are killing like that. Places with high temperatures and high humidities where people's insides are cooler than the surrounding air and so the water condenses inside their lungs. You won't see much of that in the news I'll wager, but there are already places where those conditions have existed this year, and really only pure luck has dictated that it hasn't been a major city. Yet. 

And as I'm lately observing, governments are not going to be happy when they no longer have anyone to govern, so many of them are even now making plans to stand up to corporations, negotiate them down to the facts or else making them illegal or whatever it is that governments do when they want to make something stop.

Meanwhile, consider the Catch-22 of it all. The northern hemisphere is slightly warmer than the southern. That may be because the majority of the landmass of the Earth is in the northern hemi and the majority of the oceans is in the southern. 

Take a look:

That says it all. The oceans exchange heat from the northern to the southern half, but slowly. The north has very little water mass to soak up excess heat, whereas the south has a lot. The north has huge landmasses, and landmasses drive initial warming. The south has quite a small total landmass to heat up. 

So what's the problem?

We down in the antipodes may be desperate to ditch fossil fuels but we won't be able to do so without batteries and EVs and wind turbines. We won't even be able to run air conditioners as much as we'll need to. And we're already woefully under-performing in manufacturing. How we'd bootstrap up a renewables industry let alone start manufacturing air conditioners or even electric scooters is beyond me right now. 

The problem is

Most of the manufacturing is in the northern half. There are few manufacturing powerhouses this side of the Big Divider. If we want to have electricity and manufactured goods after the Big Burn, we should be securing that capability RIGHT NOW. And I just realised that I've actually said it, there's a much bigger problem. 

The Big Burn Is Coming

The northern hemisphere is probably going to feel the worst of the climate crisis' effects. There's also pretty good evidence that the northern hemisphere created most of the climate crisis but let's be honest that's a matter of opportunity not motivation. If civilisations down under had won the race to the Industrial Revolution the world would be in just as bad a shape. 

But as the north's disastrous and catastrophe-fraught summer has shown, the genie's well out of the lamp and granting wishes. 

Back to the article

There are few large manufacturing industrial ventures this side. A lot of resource gathering (aka mining and polluting and exploiting) has happened here though. But even if the resource reserve of the planet was to keep digging crap out of the ground after the BB, there'd be nothing much by way of processing it. Maybe Indonesia, Malaysia. Some of South America and South Africa might have a few processing smelters etc, a few factories. But the majority of that kind of industry lies well above the equator. 

And at the kind of effects we've seen this year, much of it will be able to keep on going. Roads between centres may melt but train tracks can be built. But we're totally 100% NOT guaranteed that this year has been the turning point. 

So - making batteries in Indonesia will give us energy storage, storage that (grimly, I have to add here "for as long as it is able to") will allow us to eke out the renewable energy we have. As I said, the northern hemi will also create demand for those batteries. And win most of the production, too. But there's a - small - chance that some of the battery production will be able to be done onshore in Australia (remember Australia? I started off with Indonesia and Australia collaborating on battery technology and while it's taken a bit to get back to the point where this is going to start to make sense) because to NOT do that would be foolish. 

I'm looking directly at Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen as I write this. Get some production happening right here in this country where we seem to manage crises much better than the average, where we have unemployed people who are quite capable of operating such plant. There is going to be demand for it quite soon. I'm willing to bet on that. 

Of course, there's another thing: Indonesia is in the equatorial zone so they may be protected from the extremes of the northern hemisphere for now. But that belt also gets the most consistent heating effect. And it's important to note that a mere ten years ago the Indonesian president at that time, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, said that he wanted his military to be capable of "wiping out" Australia. It's no longer in the online record but I remember that at the time this generated a bit of buzz. So I suspect those reports have been removed by now. I did find this - the watered-down version. It does point to what Indonesia will want to do once the equatorial zone becomes less habitable... Maybe having factories here will provide them a way to bring some people to safety. A LOT of people are going to be seeking safety down under.

But as we know, we have had manufacturing capacity, we do have military and defence agreements, and we've got a perfectly terrible record on refuge seekers. We've also - and largely thanks to a negative, authoritarian, and regressive right wing dinosaur government - lost manufacturing industries and capabilities, innovations we developed, and a lot of our national pride and reputation as the "Lucky Country." There's no doubt in my mind that our two-party system and especially the Liberal/National Party Coalition within it has put us in a situation where we'll need to make a concerted effort to recover. But recover that spirit we will have to as the climate disaster progresses, and that of course under that very disastrous planetary situation. 

I really hope our national identity as the Aussie Battler survives the next decade... 

Please share and discuss this with your friends, sign up for my once-a-week newsletter, or support my blogs and recycling projects with a monthly or one-off payment. 

Return To Offices. But Why?

There are often gloved-hand moves being made by corporations, "adjustments" to their operating practices, that turn out to have other, sometimes unintended, most times carefully planned, outcomes. 

Here's one such set of moves. TL;DR: Move back into the office or (unspecified) action will be taken. It presents a number of questions for me and I'm going to try and unravel them here.

COVID

COVID is a long way from being an "insignificant thing like flu" as we all seem to want to pretend. It's still churning along at rates worse than when we were in the lockdowns that prompted the WFH practices that companies now seem determined to destroy. 

COVID itself

It's still just as infectious, just as damaging, as it was. And in fact with some of the new variants we're already skating balls to the wall close to losing the war against a virus. Putting people back in close proximity seems a move designed to kill off and incapacitate staff. You have to wonder how that mindset could have taken hold, no matter how much or little based on fake Kool-Aid it is.

Long COVID

The other reason COVID's not finished with us. LC is to have health ill effects from the ravages of COVID after the actual virus first stages have passed. A person may not be shedding virions any more but they also have little capacity to deal with daily commutes and dealing with in-person interactions. Again, it's got me speculating why a company would want to do this. 

Work performance

It seems apparent that the world didn't disintegrate during the lockdowns, nor did workers forget their duty to their employers, because the work got done, often better than they had in offices. A few slackers perhaps, but they could be weeded out and in fact I seem to recall one of these cases being online along with the solution which was to terminate that person's employment and replace them. 

So. Why?

Given the company's insistence on RTO (Return To Office) you have to agree that the company sees some advantages, some improvement to their bottom line. Corporations don't operate on a social, familial basis. They work towards financial goals, and those goals always include some increase in profit margins. 

Forget the team-building "we work better as a face to face team" kumbaya bullshit. That's nothing they're concerned with. Employees have proven able to complete their tasks from home just as efficiently, so that's not the stated reason they can give, either. 

Worker efficiencies

Having proven able to do their jobs under what the management might consider challenging conditions, they may be of the opinion that returning these "new improved" workers back under the corporate whip.  

Worker actual work hours

Shorter work weeks / hours have not been proven to negatively affect actual work output. This has been shown in study after study now, and not just by paid-for research either. So if workers got their work done in fewer hours at home, then that means that the company may think that the employee will perform more tasks when placed in the office environment again, considering how they may have appeared to have a few spare "slack" hours during their WFH work time. 

Real Estate Issues

Also, it might irk many corporations that they're paying rent on properties that aren't being utilised. And the part where Amazon is considering moving back to main hubs and ditching smaller offices seems to indicate that. But is it really? 

Asking remote employees to face increased commute times over their original RTO commutes seems like a fairly bad idea and might result in employee attrition due to the ever-present "screw you!" response some workers will inevitably have at this. It will also result in further attrition as employees develop health conditions, and also as stated before, employees with LC suffer health declines or even fatalities. 

Culture

The stated culture reasons ("It's easier to learn . . . our culture . . . in the office . . .  true for people of all tenures at Amazon . . .") don't ever forget that your company is NOT your family. That idea of "culture" is "value extraction at any cost to the employee" not "fine fuzzy warm relationships between employees." I mean - there may be some slight benefits to the social cultural aspects of all clustering in soulless spaces but I really can't see that as a primary reason. And yet Jassey led with it...

Analysis Mr Spock

I'll start off: There's an elephant in the room. See if you can spot it. Meanwhile, the analysis:

We can say that "culture" is only desirable to the company insofar as it helps with onboarding. Jassey says onboarding is a culture goal. I say that it's the only reasonable goal to surmise. Maybe some employees get all warm and fuzzy at having colleagues around them to bother and distract, or maybe a very select few miss the distraction and bother. But these aren't productive. Also - going by their stated attitudes to RTO - most employees are signalling quite emphatically that they don't want or need "in-person social culture."

It almost looks like management are wanting to piss a few employees off enough that they'll quit. 

Then there's the dubious benefits of commuting to work and back daily. For a start, we know that the daily commute spikes pollutant levels wherever there are commuters. We know how for a few glorious weeks, clean air and a reduction in greenhouse gases accompanied lockdowns. So forcing commuting makes little sense in this context.

There's the daily frustration of sitting in traffic / sitting on public transport for several hours every day. It removes those hours from your leisure and social life. (The most savvy will also see how when the Eight Hour Day was apportioned, it seems that only the Work Eight Hours has been preserved as unalterable and inviolate. Companies are quite happy for the employees to take the daily commute times out of their own leisure times, and don't give back half the daily travel time by way of shortening the work day...)

And then on top of that is the health effect - commutes generally happen from places with little pollution to an area with heavy pollution due to all the commutes converging there. In your own car you can shut out the pollution - but generate more for fellow commuters to have to shut out... As it's often a frustrating process, there are also health effects caused by increased stress levels. 

I'm betting unhealthier employees aren't more productive than employees sitting at home where they're in effect cutting their commute to the three minutes it takes to close the laptop and step out of the home office. 

Then there's that whole COVID angle. Are management really that hoodwinked because the figures aren't quite so loudly announced now? I don't think so, but I'd actually rather be wrong than to believe that COVID could be being used as a tool of attrition to reduce staff numbers. I just can't discount the possibility...

So - RTO will involve staff attrition, pretty certainly. And staff going back to their work practices from before WFH of using the water cooler and break room, informal cubicle meetings, and other counterproductive practices. It could involve some resignations due to stress, health, or anger at being forced. 

Listen. When I was last in employment, if I'd brought a chair shiatsu massage insert to work for my current state of health, I'd have found myself fired pretty smartly. If I was in the state of physical health I'm currently in and had been asked to not bring the massager because of "morale" (which was the dark side of "culture back then) I think I'd have had no option but to resign. 

As it is right now, I'm sitting writing this while my lower back's getting rendered a bit more pain-free. Can you spot the difference in my writing because of it? And I can tell you that if anything, I'm able to work faster because I can stretch sitting to 30 minutes at a time rather than 10-15. 

As I developed COPD / emphysema back then too, commuting became extremely damaging to me back then and was one reason I asked to be on disability pension. And because I've since developed some of the long-term LC issues as well, any office space that involves stairs, high CO2 levels, or contact with people who have flus or colds is also out for me unless I want to die years earlier than I should.

I don't owe any company that much of my life additional to work time.

elephant!

The one thing that isn't in that article is AI. Need I paint the bigger picture NOW ?

But of course I will. Watch Amazon as they lay off those injurious to cultural morale, accept the reignations of the "eff you!" and "not on my watch" mob - and then don't replace any but the few that do jobs that can't be done by AI.  

(Okay, okay. I *may* just have closed my eyes to take a power nap after the shiatsu back cushion finished. But in my defense, I'm also retired with disability and doing this for the enjoyment and the very small donations pool this brings in.) 

Oh look! Another elephant!

But I am betting that this is a great motivator behind many RTO campaigns by many companies. The people who are sitting in their office complexes are the ones that drink the Kool-aid, keep their heads down, and are at their most productive in a mob situation. The rest will have been outsourced to one or other AI software. 

These companies will gain because they can close satellite offices and stop paying rent, they may even be able to relinquish one floor of their core office buildings, pay fewer employess, and slip a shafting in under the radar. Where you going to go to now, Central Office Slave? Don't forget that in a few more weeks we'll have a smarter AI that we could then use to replace you. (And don't let's bullshit about it. As soon as we have an AI that can replace you, we'll find a reason to let you go. But at least this way you'll stay on our terms until then.)

And that's my entire analysis. Prepare for it now. Since we can't really force a company to keep us on the payroll while an AI is doing our job (although by rights they should) we can do the next best thing. Lobby your government to tax the companies the full nine yards, and use the windfall to pay you a small (but adequate to survive on) Universal Basic Income. With a UBI under your belt you may not be able to afford the latest EV but you'll be able to pick and choose between jobs you actually like and want to do rather than be getting shunted from pillar to post by that company. 

---

Activate! Do things! Right now! Write to your local members of government, write to the relevant ministers of tax and human support and legal rights and remind them that unless they plan to round us all up with our own military and shoot us, we're the people that will get them re-elected next year. Write letters to the Editor and the local papers. Share the futter uck out of this article and articles like it. 

Keep The Bastards Honest! And - git offa ma lawn!