Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fenrif]

Firs things first. Why is it always "Faux News" that gets singled out if all the major networks are just as much bullshit? Hmm...

I live in the UK. AFAIK we don't get Fox news here... Everyone still knows how biased and untrustworthey they are. They're world famous for being terrible at what they do, and worse they wear it like a badge of honour.

Legislating maximum hours per week. Pros: Very direct solution, deals with the problem at it's heart. Cons: Massive opposition from large sectors of society including virtually all businesses and a large proportion of workers, especially those with families.

Universal wage (pay everyone tax free minimum wage regardless of whether they work or what their financial status): Pros: No one would ever go hungry,  rich could not complain about high taxes because even if the tax rate was 9999999999999999999999999% they would still have enough money to buy food and housing etc. (Of course they would still complain, I just mean it would be easier to ignore). Cons: Expensive, opposition from powerful minorities and many workers.

Standard welfare system (I mean a working one not the sorry excuse we have now): Pros: Could easily be paid for by a minor financial transaction tax and a small bump in the corporate and top bracket income taxes. Cons: Seems to have a bad rep at the moment, mostly due to faux news propaganda in the USA.

Anyone got further suggestions? They don't have to be cure-all ideas, small cumulative steps are actually better.

Sorry about the wall of text. Just noticed in the preview that I might have gotten a bit carried away.

tl;dr=money is imaginary, almost everyone wants to be productive and successful, lets think of positive changes we could make to the system.

Out of curiosity, how exactly does welfare work in the US? (I assume you're talking about the US?). I've heard it's a time-limit thing, where you can claim up to a certain point and then it cuts off. Is that amount of time expected to be spread out over a life time? Or is that something else entirely and I'm getting it confused?

[SalmonGod]

The way I see it, traditional concepts of government and economy were developed as ways of dealing with limitations in our ability to communicate effecting our ability to problem solve on a societal scale.  Both are means of assigning authoritative ability to individuals/groups of individuals to allocate resources/assign labor.  Economic models are an indirect, heavily abstracted means of doing this via the accumulation of measures of "value" into entities that presumably behave in some way that represents good of society.  Your typical capitalist example is someone who recognizes a problem, invents a product that solves the problem, makes a bunch of money selling that product, and then has greater resources at his disposal to solve even more problems.  Governments are a direct means via mostly cultural agreement.

We needed these things because information dispersed slowly amongst a population.  The only way a community could effectively make decisions and organize subsequent action was to give power to authority figures who could act as central nodes for the dispersal of information.

We are no longer operating under these limitations.  Information can be instantly dispersed to tremendous swaths of the global population, and feedback can be gathered nearly as quickly.  All we are lacking is the proper utilization of these tools to directly facilitate this kind of organization.  In other words, we need social media specifically developed for this purpose, where a person can post "Hey I recognize a problem/opportunity.  Who else would like to/is capable of collaborating with me on this thing, and does anybody object" and that post will be brought to the attention of all relevant individuals.  That's it.  No money.  No threats.  Just direct interaction of interested parties.

I honestly think this is where civilization is already heading.  Currently it's only happening in many small ways, but the way people think about organization is beginning to change as a result.  More and more powerful things are happening more and more spontaneously without the need for exchange of anything like a currency or the command (i.e. implied threats) of an authority figure.  We just need to embrace this change, and the traditional powers need to stand aside and let it happen.  Desperately.  I mean it. 

It's not happening fast enough.  The world's kind of turning into a cyberpunk dystopia right now, and there are many points of no return appearing on the horizon.  Maybe this is just egoistic thinking, but it seems to me like the next couple decades are going to be critical to the ultimate fate of humanity.  On the political side, if our new-found communications abilities fall completely under strict authoritative control, that will be very difficult to ever reverse and untold potential will be lost.  On the ecological side, there are many indicators of imminent collapse if we don't undergo dramatic changes to the way we fundamentally operate.  Every major oil spill threatens ocean species with extinction while plastic particles continue to accumulate and literally clog the entire ecosystem.  Amphibians, an entire class of species, are going extinct.  Bees as well.  Every aspect of these ongoing ecological disasters is easily traceable to our reliance on obsolete organizational structures.

[Lagslayer]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The way I see it, traditional concepts of government and economy were developed as ways of dealing with limitations in our ability to communicate effecting our ability to problem solve on a societal scale.  Both are means of assigning authoritative ability to individuals/groups of individuals to allocate resources/assign labor.  Economic models are an indirect, heavily abstracted means of doing this via the accumulation of measures of "value" into entities that presumably behave in some way that represents good of society.  Your typical capitalist example is someone who recognizes a problem, invents a product that solves the problem, makes a bunch of money selling that product, and then has greater resources at his disposal to solve even more problems.  Governments are a direct means via mostly cultural agreement.

We needed these things because information dispersed slowly amongst a population.  The only way a community could effectively make decisions and organize subsequent action was to give power to authority figures who could act as central nodes for the dispersal of information.

We are no longer operating under these limitations.  Information can be instantly dispersed to tremendous swaths of the global population, and feedback can be gathered nearly as quickly.  All we are lacking is the proper utilization of these tools to directly facilitate this kind of organization.  In other words, we need social media specifically developed for this purpose, where a person can post "Hey I recognize a problem/opportunity.  Who else would like to/is capable of collaborating with me on this thing, and does anybody object" and that post will be brought to the attention of all relevant individuals.  That's it.  No money.  No threats.  Just direct interaction of interested parties.

I honestly think this is where civilization is already heading.  Currently it's only happening in many small ways, but the way people think about organization is beginning to change as a result.  More and more powerful things are happening more and more spontaneously without the need for exchange of anything like a currency or the command (i.e. implied threats) of an authority figure.  We just need to embrace this change, and the traditional powers need to stand aside and let it happen.  Desperately.  I mean it. 

It's not happening fast enough.  The world's kind of turning into a cyberpunk dystopia right now, and there are many points of no return appearing on the horizon.  Maybe this is just egoistic thinking, but it seems to me like the next couple decades are going to be critical to the ultimate fate of humanity.  On the political side, if our new-found communications abilities fall completely under strict authoritative control, that will be very difficult to ever reverse and untold potential will be lost.  On the ecological side, there are many indicators of imminent collapse if we don't undergo dramatic changes to the way we fundamentally operate.  Every major oil spill threatens ocean species with extinction while plastic particles continue to accumulate and literally clog the entire ecosystem.  Amphibians, an entire class of species, are going extinct.  Bees as well.  Every aspect of these ongoing ecological disasters is easily traceable to our reliance on obsolete organizational structures.

If it's ever going to happen, this is how it will be done. However, I fear that the opposite might happen instead. Let's say that instead of everyone collaborating together without the governments to divide them, they instead isolate themselves into small groups or "tribes" because they have nothing to bind them together. Instead of creating a utopia, it could create a new dark ages, where small groups are always at war with each other. There are examples from both extremes and everything in between all over the net (and history, at that), but I think it would eventually go to one extreme or the other, with everything else being snuffed out.

[Gantolandon]

As for the unemployment, one thing should be pointed out: it is not true that it is bad for everyone. Every employer benefits from a surplus of potential workers. If there is not enough of them, they can demand more money, driving the labor costs up. On the other hand, if there is too much of them, they risk being sacked if they are not efficient enough. Not only they will demand lesser prices when being hired, but also it is more likely they will accept a pay cut or just work more for the same price.

Of course, this creates a conflict of interests - for the rest of the society, the unemployment is an absolute nightmare but (as you will know from every newspaper) high labor costs are also very bad. Usually when the unemployment drops too much, the employer organizations alarm the government that there is not enough workers and it usually tries to get some more immigrants from poorer countries to restore the balance. If it doesn't, some companies will just move abroad, which will also remove some workplaces and raise the unemployment rate.

The country itself doesn't really want to have too much unemployed, because - as someone pointed out here - it is a good way to create a resentful criminal class. That's why most of the nations have some sort of unemployment benefits. If they can afford them, they rarely seem to do much to reduce the unemployment. It doesn't mean they don't try, but every time they succeed too much, labor costs raise and some ministry (or the capitalists) will inevitably do something that will raise the unemployment again. Negative feedback in its finest.

So. Is the unemployment a good thing? For the capitalist economy, yes, it is.

[Siquo]

Relevant reading material, even though it's fiction.

[Leafsnail]

I didn't continue with you for a reason. Obviously I do know that heavily disabled people exist. I also said "its not their choice", hence those who fall victim to random odds should not be treated that way.

No.  That is not what you said.  You said

Leafsnail - The disabled are more then capable. If we are talking physically I think a person in a wheelchair could easily prove you wrong. As for mentally disabled, its not their choice.. but they do have some capability to do some work. May work simple jobs, serving and such. They are happy and cared for.

You were clearly arguing that I was wrong because all disabled people are capable of working.  You seem to have retroactively changed your argument and are now accusing me of misrepresenting you for arguing against what you said rather than what you have now chosen to mean.  You did say "its not their choice", but you also said that they always have the capacity to work (and since they do that makes them fine).  Which is, quite simply, wrong.

Although with that out of the way, and you agreeing that actually you can have worth without necessarily being able to contribute... what about people who can't find jobs?  Let's imagine that the country is in recession and there is simply an excess of workers (kindof like the current global situation).  What now?

As for why Fox gets most the ire and not any of the other conservative leaning media outlets, it's because Fox is not exactly subtle about their bias. In fact, they use it to appeal to their viewers. My mother once said, word for word, "we watch Fox because it agrees with us."

It also blatantly makes shit up in a way that few other news outlets manage.

[Brotato]

For everybody speaking doom-and-gloom about our economic future: That's cool with me.  I hope we fall into some kind of total anarchic system.  I think I'll go polish off my AR-15 carbine now.

[Truean]

Truean, I'm nominating you for president. Get your ass on the campaign trail.

Transgender president.... Even if it were possible, I think I'd get shot. No thank you.

I dunno. Should we really put the big red "nuke the world" button within Truean's reach?

Yes you should. Er, you see nothing. There is no reason to question.... Fallout was an excellent game....

As for unemployment, nobody who has experienced it personally recommends it....

[Drunken]

Firs things first. Why is it always "Faux News" that gets singled out if all the major networks are just as much bullshit? Hmm...

Second. A new system won't last or work properly unless the people change first. It will all just become corrupt again if the people in charge are not kept in line by the masses. This absolutely must be addressed first, or any changes would only be fleeting!

First: You are right, all newsmedia organisations have some level of bias. I singled out fox because they are the worst I have ever seen, but all US networks are biased. More than that, the problem is not restricted to the US, virtually the entire world has a majority of corrupt and biased newsmedia.

Second: Not necessarily. One could argue that people already have changed. We are not the same as we were when these institutions were first founded. Each new generation of humans is vastly different from the last. This is why there is pressure for change. Yes a new system will eventually become obsolete as well, but it is like upgrading your computer for games: the argument that it will be obsolete again the moment you open the packaging is not going to stop anyone from doing it. Nor does it defeat the purpose of doing it.

1) Certainly you've heard the term "liberal media"? Everyone accuses various news sources as being biased.

I have heard the term. At first it made me laugh, now it just depresses me. The most liberal media organisations in the US are all centrist, and the average is well into the right wing. There is no liberal media, sorry.

[penguinofhonor]

I think if your mascot was a lawyer cat we could get somewhere.

[Truean]

Truean, I'm nominating you for president. Get your ass on the campaign trail.

Transgender president.... Even if it were possible, I think I'd get shot. No thank you.

well, that is certainly true, if someone doesn't conform to a lot of other people's views, at least one person will take it as a personal/divine/something else insult, then decide that lopping off their head (literally or metaphorically) is the only option.

I wish humans weren't idiots. *sigh* wishful thinking...

People who assume leadership positions to legitimately help people "tend" to get killed and their message tends to get twisted after death.
Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, John Fredrick Kennedy (and his brother RFK), the list goes on.

[SalmonGod]

If the world made sense it would be a good thing.

It's actually really horrible at this point in our history that we've made it a survival imperative for people to work.  Our public concern is entirely focused on "creating jobs" because it's such a horrible thing to not have one.  So we are striving to find ways for almost everyone to always be producing some good or service, even if it isn't needed.  What this ends up creating is massive amounts of waste.  We have people wasting their lives away doing stuff they derive no true sense of purpose or joy from doing just to turn material resources into pollution for no reason.

Also on the subject of laziness... before I made my last post in this thread, I had just finished playing a grindy online rpg (Path of Exile).  I was home after a 10 hour work day and wanted to do something relaxing to de-stress.  You would think that the best thing would be to stare at a wall and do absolutely nothing for a while.  Yet complete inactivity is actually really hard for people to achieve.  It's so hard that we have billion dollar industries focused on inventing activities for people that allow them to feel like they're doing something while actually doing as little as possible.  RPGs are actually a way for people to trick their own biological drive to be productive, by abusing a natural trigger mechanism that releases a small amount of dopamine every time we "accomplish" something.  ARPGs and MMOs are designed to constantly reward you for doing little more than clicking on monsters and watching your character run up and hit them.  It's an incredibly minimal amount of activity, but we tie dozens of numbers and achievements into that activity that are designed to look like some sort of personal progress, and this triggers our biological mechanism that was evolved to reward us for being productive.  It takes that much effort for us to actually come even close to being truly lazy.

Boredom is actually so dangerous for us that most people can be driven to self-destructive behavior by a lack of things to do.  Isolation and sensory deprivation, depriving the mind of information to process, is the most common form of torture in the world, and survivors testify that it's the worst.

I have known a couple very manipulative people who manage to get away with doing very little by depending on everyone around them.  This type of person exists and is often very abusive.  The thing is, all of the examples of people like this that I've known aren't actually lazy.  They don't do it for the sake of avoiding work.  They do it because they are addicted to attention and control, and that's how they get their fix.  They also put incredible amounts of effort into their manipulations and endure grueling personal conflict in order to maintain that way of life.  This type of person is not lazy, they are broken.  They have serious emotional issues.

The other thing about the lazy people myth is a large part of it is a natural backlash against societal pressures.  People have been forcibly removed from a sense of connection with their labor.  People realize that they need to work, but most deeply resent it because they don't get to work for themselves.  Most people are stuck working to enrich someone who is already richer than they are.  They get paid only a small fraction of the value that they produce, and what they produce doesn't directly benefit themselves or their communities.  When given opportunities to work directly on improving themselves or their immediate communities, most people are actually quite motivated.

If there were any natural tendency for human beings to be as lazy as people describe, I don't think anyone would advance beyond the toddler stage.  At a point when adults are still spoonfeeding them and changing their diapers, there would be no incentive for a child to learn to walk.  However, I have never seen a toddler with no interest in exploring the world, learning new things, and trying desperately to "help" the adults around them.

[Truean]

It's also a "means of production" thing. You need certain things to be productive, and different inputs to be productive in a different way.

I need an office, some access to a conference room, probably a fairly high capacity copier/scanner/printer, computer, either a secretary or an answering service (which people hate), malpractice insurance, schooling (people forget about this one but it doesn't forget about them), and various licensing fees to the state to do my job. If I don't have any of those things, then I can't do crap.

Making it simpler, somebody with a manual job needs the tools, location, raw inputs, and output shipping/marketing to do stuff.

Entrepreneurship is a legit talent (management) that is often not really held by people. It's logistics, record keeping, organization, marketing and sales, etc. Unfortunately, this much needed talent is watered down by a hundred thousand worthless corporate slogans that fit nicely on a bumper sticker but otherwise do nothing.

This is the problem. It's a bitch to open up your own business. At work, you take for granted that you have a desk, because you didn't have to go out and buy it. Same thing with the phone and the bill for it. Never mind the rent on commercial property, which is often several times the rent for a comparable residential space. Self employment is both more expensive expensewise and taxwise (you are your own employer so you pay the employer matching stuff, have to deal with W-9s and self reported income etc). Then you've gotta worry about people actually freaking paying you, or rather NOT paying you....

It is insane.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

ptw

[bombzero]

-snip-

hmm a lot of this hits the nail on the head for me at least, I feel like I have to get a job, as I cannot do anything without money, most of which I can do with said money is arbitrary but nearly required by societal forces. However I have no compulsion to actually get a job working for some corporation or fast food chain, and at the same time im dumping hours of personal time into learning to program, which may never actually make me much money but dammit its something that I want to do you know?

so humans are probably not lazy, just that only some people actually get personal satisfaction contributing to a large company, or working in an office in general. My guess is that money is a larger driving force for these people then personal satisfaction. I actually have little interest in becoming a millionaire or something like that, as I don't really get any sense of achievement from having more money.

EDIT: similarly, achievements in video games, and the basic reward concepts behind many modern day games don't encourage me much. Im just like "yay, I have 10 more gamerscore/achievement points/(in-game score system)/etc... who gives a shit"(see, most shooters and a few RPGs), or similarly with simplistic in-game rewards, "I walked for 2 hours, killed 500 enemies, and retrieved some 'sacred artifact that all of life depends on', so you give me a cool sword and everyone mentions it off-handedly whenever I walk by.... fuck you."(see, most games that claim to be 'open world' and some that don't.)

I MUCH prefer games where you get an actual sense of having created something amazing, of conquering real challenges, and standing on top of the world as a result of hard work and dedication, not simply for doing something I had little chance of not accomplishing.

honestly it sucks, as most games do not interest me.