| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Help keep poeTV running

And please consider not blocking ads here. They help pay for the server. Pennies at a time. Literally.

Comment count is 17
Scrotum H. Vainglorious - 2013-02-02

Hard to imagine a Steam without Valve

Juice Eggs McKenna - 2013-02-02

I like the cut of his gibberish

Scurrie - 2013-02-02

Quit playing with your nose, Gabe! You're on camera!

Void 71 - 2013-02-02

I hate what they did to TF2, but they seem to be going in the right direction with Dota 2. I just hope they never lock gameplay-altering items (weapons in TF2's case) behind a drop/crafting/achievement system ever again. Keep that shit cosmetic, please.

FABIO - 2013-02-02

I don't understand their business strategy behind DotA2.

League of Legends makes buckets of money selling early access to new heroes (doesn't DotA 2 just make them available for free?) and complete themed costume changes. DotA 2 sells small individual clothing accessories that you can hardly see in-game. You also unlock them for free gradually by playing.

fatatty - 2013-02-02

Most of those weapons aren't gameplay altering, all their pros are offset by well balanced cons and anyone with stock weapons can kill anyone with any loadout.

It's the perfect game and you shut your dirty whore mouth.

memedumpster - 2013-02-02

I want to watch this because it interests me, though I figure it will just anger me because Steam and other systems that Internet enslave games is horseshit and should cost the developers money, so I don't want to sit and watch this man fellate the system.

Five for evil unseen.

paranex - 2013-02-02

This video makes me regret that I never did post-grad at UT. The poli-sci department is pretty good for nerd shit like this.

Have to take a star off though...I was really hoping Newell would talk about Valve and the "boss-free" corporation as a valid economic model for the rest of the economy.

Burnov - 2013-02-02

Because it isn't.

These people can get away with it because they enjoy what they do.

wackyakmed - 2013-02-03

@paranex Here's some in-depth thoughts by an economist who worked for Valve (maybe still does? His blog posts peter out around mid-2012) on what makes their non-hierarchical, boss free model work.

Burnov is right, though. As long is capital is allocated in a way that allows a few people people to compel all the others to do work they don't want to, it's only small segments of the workforce that will benefit from this. I really believe that's a social problem at this point though, not a technical one. How much of the work that people detest is actually necessary? Also, the small amount of unenjoyable work that is necessary is mostly of the unskilled variety (garbage man, janitor) that could easily be spread out among the whole of society equally instead of forced on the poor under threat of starvation.

wackyakmed - 2013-02-03

link here: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-do-we-n eed-corporations-for-and-how-does-valves-management-structure-fit- into-todays-corporate-world/

Burnov - 2013-02-03

That's just kind of ridiculous wackyakmed.

What planet are you from?

These jobs emerge because people don't want to do them, I work 60-80 hours a week, there's no fucking way I want to haul my own garbage.

I make enough money that I can pay somebody to do that.

That's life, people have varying degrees and levels of skills, time and assets that they must allocate and apply to better suit themselves.

That's how human beings work, they're incentive driven.

Wasting time on menial tasks detracts from both my personal time and career. To me, its an acceptable cost to have some of my money spent on waste disposal.

How that other individual's live choices, or the life choices of his or her parents landed them hauling garbage for a living is not my problem.

Even when it comes to what I do for a living, there must be a chain of command, newer less experienced workers actually benefit from an authority structure in which more experienced, more competent individuals are not distracted with tasks that a less experienced person can accomplish.

There's no point in engaging in pathological wealth and status envy, especially when individuals have demonstrated their skills and talents merit their acquired status.

Its human nature, get used to it.

wackyakmed - 2013-02-03

These jobs emerge because people don't want to do them, AND we live in an oppressive, highly unequal society that allows us to force certain people to perform those tasks.

I am a programmer. I program because I love to do it. If I couldn't make a living doing it, I'd still do it with what spare time I could set aside.

To be honest, there's perhaps a year's worth of programming in my 10 year career that I'd say has actually contributed more to society than a manual laborer in a field that society relies on. From talking with other programmers, I don't think that's uncommon. I think if you're honest with examining your own career, you'll find something similar.

So the question becomes, why do we receive more material compensation than a garbage man? After all, shouldn't the people who do jobs that nobody else wants be the most compensated for their duress? We already receive far more social and psychological compensation from doing something we presumably enjoy, after all.

What we're talking about is blatant oppression, not wealth and status envy.

And frankly, I've read enough anthropology to know that rigidly enforced, violent hierarchies aren't human nature. It's a choice.

wackyakmed - 2013-02-03

That was a reply to Burnov.

Burnov - 2013-02-03

Nobody is forced to do anything.

You equate oppression with inequality of outcome.

Welcome to the real world son.

Human diversity abounds and some traits and behaviors are selected against, and it is NOT the responsibility of those who succeed to relinquish the fruits of their accomplishments based on the whims of others.

Irresponsibility is often a determining factor wherever you find scores disadvantaged people. Their simply existing does not justify them what others have lest they deem it "oppressive".

People are rewarded based on the necessary skill required to perform a task, and the inherent demand for it.

Any moron can dispose of trash, and people like myself, who worked hard to develop marketable job skills make enough money that I can pay for people to do things that neither my schedule nor my personal preferences lend themselves to.

Duress doesn't mean shit if the skills required are marginal.

I've worked a lot of garbage jobs, and never once was I immature or short-sighted enough to say: "I deserve more because I hate this work".

That's not how the world works.

I get paid very well now, because I weld pressure pipe for the oil and gas industry, its a skill set that is difficult to acquire and places me in often hostile environments and working long hours.

Even if they didn't want to pay me what I make, they still would because they simply can't find enough people to do what I can do in a highly profitable and deadline conscious industry.

That's how the world works.

Nobody gives a fuck if the only thing you're qualified to do is wash dishes or take out the garbage.

Blame your parents for being unprepared in bringing a child into this world with all the advantages they can muster.

I do believe in helping people who are handicapped, infirm, I believe in access to basic healthcare, however If you asked the majority of people who do what I do if they would be willing to do it if people at McDonalds made the same wage?

They'd walk away in a heartbeat.

Nobody is holding a gun to the head of somebody who voluntarily seeks employment at a shitty job.

It is not society's fault that people end up in a position where they have no marketable traits and no means by which to improve their standard of living.

That's entirely a result of being on the low end of the breeding bell curve.

Irresponsible people, make bad choices, and when those choices involve reproduction.

Coax_Current - 2013-02-04

Burnov's not a very interesting troll but he sure does type a lot. Work smarter, not harder Burnov.

wackyakmed, are you sure you've read enough anthropology? Humans bein intrinsically cooperative doesn't meant they won't tend toward (violent) hierarchies in many situations. And if they tend that way, isn't that "human nature?" Descriptively speaking, not normatively.

wackyakmed - 2013-02-04

@Coax_Current I suppose the question for me is whether alternatives are possible and whether we can encourage them, not their statistical likelihood to appear throughout history. I do activism when I have time, and from my experience with those groups as well as in the current small business (8-20 people range) I'm working on, I'd say the answer is yes.

The biggest hurdle seems to be that's it's completely alien to our mainstream culture; people just aren't used to it. Once they learn to function in a social setting where everyone is intrinsically valued, they seem to uniformly appreciate it more than the old way. Interestingly, even the person in our start-up who functioned as a traditional business leader before we switched over to more consensus decision making has benefited enormously from the change. It's like a weight has been lifted off of his shoulders. Beyond the psychological benefits, we're producing creatively at a much higher clip.

And no, I haven't read a ton of anthropology, mostly Mauss and Graeber.

Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement