![]() ![]() Release - New packs with equipment such as weapons, bags and tools: Equipment 01, Equipment 02 and Equipment 03.Release - New thematic suit packs: Suits 02, Suits 03.Release - New CC0 skins packs with natural female, natural male and non-natural skins. ![]() #MAKEHUMAN PROXIES UPDATE#Release - Update MakeHuman system assets to include missing eye textures.These are release notes for major updates to asset packs: ![]() See the asset packs FAQ for more information on asset packs. MPFB2 users will want at least the “Makehuman system assets”. #MAKEHUMAN PROXIES DOWNLOAD#You can download these to quickly get up and running with a basic set of assets. #MAKEHUMAN PROXIES ZIP#Whether intentionally or not, that's the world Arthur Brooks is helping create, one in which "noncapital humans" reap all the benefits of this "human capital.Asset packs are zip files with checked assets from MakeHuman and the asset repositories. That's who "owns" everyone's skills, and who is getting all the revenue from all this "human capital" - businesses owners, shareholders, CEOs, top-rung professionals, and the rest of the elite. economy, a bigger and bigger share of which is going to the tippy-top. Who does? Probably the people actually getting the money produced by all the work going on in the U.S. Unless, of course, they're not the ones who actually "own" their skills. Which is why Branko Milanovic argued "human capital" doesn't make any sense: Workers still have to work to get an income from their skills and so forth. Well that's the final irony: The traditional definition of capital is that owning it allowed you to earn an income without working. If our economy cannot deliver some modicum of comfort and leisure to people in the last decade or two of their lives if it cannot ensure a decent livelihood to a child and the mother tasked with the full-time job of raising her if it cannot provide for the disabled well then what the hell is the bloody thing for? It is the opposite of what Brooks recommended when he said, "The safety net should be limited to people who are truly indigent." By definition, this will require redistributing incomes in a generous way that goes well above the poverty threshold. have, in fact, lowered the average annual hours their workers take on - by mandating generous national paid leave and paid vacation programs, and with large and relatively universal safety nets.īut leisure time is only possible if you're getting enough income to meet your needs while you're engaged in that leisure time. That would be putting human needs ahead of abstract economic goals, and most Western countries outside of the U.S. But doesn't it make sense that more leisure time - to travel, to learn a craft, to help out your church, to spend time with friends and family - is something our economy should give us as it becomes more advanced? The second option doesn't show up as GDP growth. To go to an even bigger point, whenever societies become richer and more productive they face a choice: They can work the same amount and enjoy a higher collective income, or they can work less and enjoy the same level of income. In short, this is a plan to ensure that people work to a far older age than they do now, and that people in the middle and lower classes literally work until they die. And private savings tend to work out poorly as a retirement vehicle for everyone except the upper class and the flat-out rich - which is also the population that has enjoyed almost all the growth in lifetime expectancies. Most people do not want to spend their retirements eking by just above the poverty threshold. So how the economy is designed should be subservient to human needs. The economy is the means, and human beings are the end. Whatever its distributive injustices, of all the systems we've tried so far, capitalism does a much better job producing the collective piles of wealth that make human lives better. This is also the big defense of capitalism over socialism that really does make sense. Presumably this is why we concern ourselves with job creation numbers and GDP growth and productivity and inequality: because we see them as proxies, however incomplete, for human well-being writ large. To provide greater freedom from fear, deprivation, toil, suffering, sickness and all the rest. The whole purpose of the economy is to make human life better. And that's where we get to the problem with all this "human capital" talk: At a basic conceptual level, it mucks up the proper relationship between human beings and the economy. ![]() But human beings are supposed to be ends in and of themselves. They can be factory machines, cars, desks, bulldozers, computers, even a humble tool box. In economics, assets and capital are things you put to work to create wealth. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |