I don't want to rehash what we discussed yesterday, but I think it is interesting that Kunstler repeats the phrase "industrial society" and ties that to "growth."

Yesterday we spent too much time on the degree to which soicety is now, and in future needs be, "industrial."

Today I'll only note the passing irony that wordsmiths like Kunstler are not "industrial" and don't count, by his own measure, toward "growth."

(I don't actually know if programmers like me are "industrial" by modern measure, or if our bit patterns are "industrial output."  I'd guess we are service, like the graphic artist who sits next to me.)

Best Wishes.

Call it the "Virtual Industry".  
We live in a world where people can sell their virtual world (game) stuff, and buy food, or ...

Teen pays siblings' college fees by selling virtual weapons

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ...

Yep...the 21st century sweat shop...
Hardly a sweatshop.  I believe he stated that he plays (note not works) an average of 3 hours a day.  He's made 36K for a 3 hour a day "job" which he happens to enjoy.

Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

Are you trolling me?

The activity never determined whether there was a sweatshop.  It was the oversight and the framework.  Sewing is the classic example: sometimes hobby, sometimes career, sometimes example of sweatshop victimization.

Pushing bits is similar ... as seen when people here push bits onto TOD comment threads.  Maybe there is a sweatshop somewhere were kids are made to pump up comment volume (or tediously create hand-made spam).

There are places which hire people for dirt cheap (India, china, etc) to play videogames and build character levels to sell them.  They play the characters 24 hours a day, handing them off between shifts before selling them.   Do a search on Ebay for World of Warcraft "WoW" and you'll find players there for sale as well as items and such.  It's weird shite.
Like the ad-based businesses: this is just a spreading-around of "discretionary" income that originates from other sources.  When the real economy crashes, there will not be many people paying for "virtual" stuff.
What kind of clue should it be to us when you simply state "when the real economy crashes?"
One of the consequences of PO will be that people in the formerly affluent societies will be forced to re-learn the difference between "needs" and "wants".  Real wealth grows in Kansas, not Wall Street.
Gotta run, but before I do I'll say how it strike me ... not so much that it is out of the question, but simply that it plays in certain forums better than others.

TOD is a place where commens like that are not uncommon ... noble forum or buglight, only our grandchildren will know for sure.

There's also ports for sale for HSX.  I played this for months. I was hooked hardcore and the only thing that broke it was PO.  They sell Hollywood Stock Exchange portfolios and they've got for as much as a hundred bucks for fake money to play with in a fake stock market game.  The fund is how fast you can grow it and once you're doubling your port within a month, it gets zany.  Lot of fun to waste some time.
I have a bit of experience with the actual commercial operations, rather than the college kids paying tuition.  That's where the real story, the bulk of virtual currency transfer is.

Lineage II was a Korean MMORPG that had a decently sized US market.  They already had segregated Korean servers {which blanket-blocked Chinese IPs).  Over the first year, the adena farmers (common label: $currency farmers) went from highly visible annoyance to a powerful force on the server, with probably around 20-30% of of player hours.  Getting money in the game was an unusually tedious exercise, so there was a major market.

It destroyed the game for a lot of people - I've always wondered what it would have been like without them.  They generally didn't speak english, didn't participate in the social aspects of the game (in a game about blood oaths, not good), and stayed at a low level to farm easy spawns, killing anyone that got in their way.  Then, when the game mechanics changed and higher level players became more valued, the 24-7 farmer contingent became the vast majority of the high level players overnight.  When inflation(always present in fake game economies) killed some of their income, they became contract mercenaries, a major token in the political struggles ingame.

It's not really a sweatshop.  South Korean or Hong Kong pit bosses market and sell the work of numerous Chinese people working out of internet cafes.  I've met people working 3 ppl to an 8 hour shift and 2 ppl to 12 hour shifts, for around $5/day.  In games that are well-suited to scripting, they'll likely hire locally and equip them with the gear, botting programs, etc, but for most games, it's a completely virtual relationship that's performance based (I'll order 100k adena from you a day for $7).  The pit bosses handle the web orders, the delivery, the ads (of which gaming sites that use google ads are frustrated at), and the  pay.  I knew one pit boss that was pulling in $20k/month, I knew farmers who had to camp that spawn in order to feed their family, I knew teen farmers that basically lived in internet cafes, living comfortably, playing socially as well as professionally, and not taking significant income out (one aspect of sweatshop / company town work).

But physically, most of the workers were never under any more compulsion than you can be sitting in an internet cafe, working on a cash-up-front basis for someone in another country to export to still another country.

Watch the video and see the future.

The guy that represents WindArt the people that made Entorpia Universe, are making a virtual world that can be related to the real one with money.   Seems they can buy in game things with real world funds, and then grow the money and push it back out into the real world.   I'll have to look it up later, but seems to me the "World Tax Police" are going to be hunting some heads soon.  The kid made 36k  and spent 12k to send his siblings off to school.  The IRS will be thinking about how they can get ahold of the taxes off that money I am sure.

I have played several Online Games that if you had Characters that you wanted to sell for real world doallars you could.  Though the one I play the most now,  Runescape, Has put it into their rules that you CAN NOT sell items or characters for real world cash, if you are caught they can wipe your account.  But I do know of people that trade in game gold for out of game cash, its a bit out of the way, and not on e.bay because of the data miners getting ahold of the information and Jagex the owner of Runescape deleting you.  

 Seems that WindArt is fostering real world cash for in game items and economies.  They have taken the gaming world one step further.  They hope to get bigger and bigger.  

In the Peak Oil future, I could see people using this as a method of not having to leave their homes.  Virtual world commerse on a real world scale.

I don't want to rehash what we discussed yesterday, but I think it is interesting that Kunstler repeats the phrase "industrial society" and ties that to "growth."

By the way, just in case some of you didn't notice, Jim Kunstler did drop by and leave a comment in the Brazilian ethanol thread yesterday. He posts here every great once in a while.

Regarding the news above that China wants to be like the U.S., I think the comments Jim made about China in The Long Emergency are spot on. China will never rise to our standard of energy consumption, because the energy just isn't there.

That is what led Matthew Simmons to peak oil.  He started wondering if there was enough oil to allow China to achieve a U.S. lifestyle.

The prime conclusion I reached after doing this China research which entailed an extensive analysis of what happens to energy use when a poor country begins to prosper, is that energy growth always goes hand in hand with countries switching from being poor to becoming even slightly affluent.

As I finished this China study, it left me wondering whether the world really had the sufficient resource base to allow China to achieve its dream of economic success. From the work I did on per capita energy use, if China ever becomes the equivalent of Japan in 1960, let alone finally convert its vast body of people to the prosperity of the United States today, this transition would consume so much energy that it raises the question of whether such added energy really exists. At the least, it would strain the world's energy resources to its limits.

If trade barriers remain low, I think the natural outcome is going to be a world-wide leveling of wages within each specialty.

That's sad from our (rich nation) perspective, but it leads to hard questions.  We may like to pay our mailmen good money, and good retirement, to walk with a sack over their shoulder ... but what is really fair when there are 5 billion people who would risk their lives to reach that job, and do it for half the price?

I think it's apparent that past legal/trade frameworks essentially enforced a labor shortage in the US.  When you remove the barrier, a US worker becomes a world worker.

I don't think trade barriers will remain low.  Politics and economics are going to kill globalization.
I don't think Americans are really ready for a world-wide leveling of wages ... so I think you might be right.

I've sort of felt that certain if/when conditions might hold.  If the lax energy response becomes painful, the US population will demand greater national action.  If the continued decline in realy wages become sufficiently painful ...

It is kind of amazing though that the "lower taxes" meme has worked the way it has, for the rich.  I think we agree (IIRC) that the middle classes see themselves as rich and don't fight these things.  So far the slow squeeze in middle class income hasn't changed that outlook.  Or housing prices provided an offset, or whatever ...

The middle classes (and even the lower classes) don't see themselves as rich.  They seem themselves as the "future rich."  Potentially rich.  We're all just one lottery ticket away from being millionaires.  

If that ever changes, the spit is really going to  hit the fan.      

I recall an episode of the Simpsons where a new employee tells Homer he'd starve to death in any other country. I try to keep loose track of people who have been laid off from their once comfortable working environment; the peacetime military for example. Some cope, some vegetate and some die young.
While I think this is absolutely true as a theoretical exercise, an incidental thing to bear in mind is that we can't talk about some unitary 'China' working its merry way to a US standard of living. That is not what is happening, and not even what is intended. The idea is for those Chinese with the right connections to make fortunes out of foreign exploitation of cheap Chinese labour. Then, one scale down, for those that have the necessary skills, they can take a compartively well-off position (i.e. relative to workers and peasants) as e.g. accountant, engineer, etc. Everybody else supplies the cheap labour. That is why (in rough terms) China's 'success story' is about one-third of the population being better off, and the other two-thirds being even worse off than before.

Still, another four hundred million relatively affluent people will really make an impact on energy use.

And how would they make the other 2/3 worse off?  I'm curious.
Thats the basic function of capitalism.
If JHK reads this, he may set me straight but here is what I think.  

When JHK talks about the 'industrial city' with 'industrial processes' that people fled from, I think he refers to the large, manufacturing and processing plants that sprung up in the late 19th century as part of the industrial revolution.  However, I think his message goes deeper when he talks about 'industrial society'.  I have always interpreted this to mean the general trend toward mega-sizing, consolidation, and de-localization (if you will).

Being industrious is generally a good thing, meaning you get a lot done, you keep busy.  This became more exclusively associated with making a lot of things.  Same way being productive went from doing useful things to almost exclusively making a lot of things efficiently (with he least amount of labor generally since this has been the most expensive input).  But it is really the super-sizing and single minded purposefulness (production uber alles) of the institutions that have evolved that are the problem.  

When you are local, and do and produce things for your local community, you inevitably care more about how you do things, how you treat your customers (now we have consumers),  and also generally what your relationships are with your fellow doers and producers.   When I hear JHK talk about the destruction of these local interrelationships, I also think of the many other systems he talks about.  So in addition to the mega-sizing of manufacturing, we have the mega-sizing of agriculture, retailing, entertainment, all the way down to the physical realization of communities and mega-sizing of blocks, and buildings.  

I'm not sure where software development and the movement of bits around the internet fits into this exactly.  But as far as information, such as news, I would say it applies as well.  Industrial news is mass-produced, non-local, and is made with a single-minded purpose etc.  

odo wrote:
   "The passing irony that wordsmiths like
Kunstler."
  This is the pot calling the kettle black.
 See Wikipedia-Disinformation
I've never pretended to be anything but a bit-pusher.  Or maybe I'm missing the point ...
interesting that Kunstler repeats the phrase "industrial society" and ties that to "growth."

- he didn't say that.  He said "industrial expansion".   That's "growth" by definition.  And I think he really "gets" the link between the endless paper deals and the expectation of growth in real industry.  Once this expectation fades, all hell breaks loose.  When the "playas" take their toys and go home, as they did in 1929, we'll find out again that the economic system we've set up is not working in "our" (the average person's) favor.

actually yesterday's discussion (which dragged on this morning, to virtual markets etc.), was equally about whether "industrial expansion" constitutes all "growth."

To say "industrial expansion" is growth "by definition" goes at odds with some of that.

Shorter: I hope you never bought an iTune.