Print

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

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I think a basic income guarantee is the very least that needs to happen.  Enough to live on non-miserably.  It's a hell of a hard sell to most and a difficult transition, but it's also the only step I can imagine that the majority of people within our culture as it stands could actually comprehend in a unified enough matter to work around.

The problem with that is that a lot of people would simply not work though, if the government payed them enough to live 'not-miserably'.

@Descan: agreed, but only if there is something to figure out, at some point there isn't going to be anything to work towards. It's the science that happens out of necessity that brings about the greatest advancement.

EDIT: also may I state: Modern day 'Capitalism' is really Socialism with Capitalist tendencies.

[Thecard]

I think a basic income guarantee is the very least that needs to happen.  Enough to live on non-miserably.  It's a hell of a hard sell to most and a difficult transition, but it's also the only step I can imagine that the majority of people within our culture as it stands could actually comprehend in a unified enough matter to work around.

The problem with that is that a lot of people would simply not work though, if the government payed them enough to live 'not-miserably' regardless.

@Descan: agreed but only if there is something to figure out, at some point there isn't going to be anything to work towards. Its the science that happens out of necessity that brings about the greatest advancement.

This. If everything is all peachy for you, there's no need to advance.

[Eagle_eye]

I don't know about you, but I can think of a lot of things I want and would be willing to work for that I don't need to not be miserable. A computer, for instance.

[LordBucket]

eliminating jobs only increases unemployment and poverty.

No. Poverty is not the lack of money. Poverty is not the lack of employment. Poverty is the lack of goods and/or services.

Creating jobs requires increasing work. Increasing work is accomplished by making it more difficult to provide goods and services[1]. Why? Because the more difficult it is to provide goods and services, the more people are required to do the work to provide those goods and services. Creating jobs is fairly close to being the opposite of eliminating poverty.

To eliminate poverty, decrease the work requirements for providing goods and services so that it's easier to provide those goods and services, so that there are more goods and services available for less effort.


Who is rich, and who is poor:

A) The person with a whole lot of money, but no job and no goods, and nobody providing service. For example: a guy alone on a desert island with a billion dollars in cash.

B) The person with a lot of work, but no money, no goods, and nobody providing service. For example, a guy alone on a desert island who spends 8 hours a day pushing a rock in in circles.

C) The guy with no money, no job...but sitting on that same desert island with all the food, clothes and toys he wants and with a bunch of people serving him?

Obviously, C is the "rich" one. Money and jobs don't make you rich. Giving somebody work does not help them. Giving them money does not help them. Giving them goods and services helps them. Yes, we happen to live in a society where people choose to give you goods and services in exchange for money....but that's a completely cultural phenomenon, and really has nothing to do with actual wealth.

Which of those guys do you want to be? A, B or C? I'll take C, please.

If C is the best scenario, how do we accomplish it? Do we accomplish it by "creating jobs?" No, of course not. Job creation is the result of having more work to be done, which is the result of goods and services being more difficult to provide, which is the opposite of what we want to accomplish. Do we accomplish it by printing more money? No, of course not. That simply devalues the currency and accomplishes nothing.

If we want people to have more goods and services...we accomplish that by making it easier to provide those goods and services, which is essentially the same thing as reducing work, which has the consequence of destroying jobs.

Creating jobs is not the solution. If you want people to have more goods and services, then make it easier to provide goods and services.


[1] Or by increasing desire or goods and services. This happens a lot in our society too.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

To make it easier to provide goods an services would require a toning down of competition and to do that would be to enter into communism, because you can't regulate competition: it's all or nothing.

Of course Communism doesn't work either, so we are at in impasse.

EDIT: also, you can't reduce work. it HAS to be done by someone. someone HAS to plant. someone HAS to harvest. etc. You see? and by then, why share this? Especially if it's only you working?

[Eagle_eye]

To make it easier to provide goods an services would require a toning down of competition

Yes, and that's a good thing. Competition means waste.

to do that would be to enter into communism, because you can't regulate competition: it's all or nothing.

Well, a: that's not right. You absolutely can regulate competition. Most countries do it, although not as much as they should. And b: If we get to the point where we can produce enough stuff easily enough that communism is viable, fantastic.

Of course Communism doesn't work either, so we are at in impasse.

Doesn't work now. There's no reason that, with increasing automation, it won't eventually be a possibility.

also, you can't reduce work. it HAS to be done by someone. someone HAS to plant. someone HAS to harvest. etc.

So farming was just as hard in 600 AD as it is now? Nonsense. You can reduce work, quite easily. Technology has massively, massively reduced the necessary amount of work, and it shows no signs of stopping.

[Thecard]

C) The guy with no money, no job...but sitting on that same desert island with all the food, clothes and toys he wants and with a bunch of people serving him?

Who is serving him? Doesn't everyone have their own little island, or are you the only one who gets to live the dream, without having to work?

[LordBucket]

To make it easier to provide goods an services would require a toning down of competition and to do that would be to enter into communism, because you can't regulate competition: it's all or nothing.

Of course Communism doesn't work either, so we are at in impasse.

EDIT: also, you can't reduce work. it HAS to be done by someone. someone HAS to plant. someone HAS to harvest. etc. You see? and by then, why share this? Especially if it's only you working?

Do you have a washing machine in your house? A dishwasher? I bet you do. Those are labor saving devices. The service of "your clothes and dishes being washed" has been made to require less work. How many tens of thousands of people across the country could be employed by these tasks?

But I don't see you suggesting we destroy these machines to create jobs. Destroying these machines would create jobs, but it's obviously a silly thing to do.

Creating work and creating jobs, simply for the sake of creating them, is a silly thing to do regardless of whether you're doing it by destroying labor saving devices. It only makes sense to "create work" if it is a consequence of increasing production/availability of goods and services. But even so, the creation of work is an unfortunate side effect, not a desirable goal.

[LordBucket]

C) The guy with no money, no job...but sitting on that same desert island with all the food, clothes and toys he wants and with a bunch of people serving him?

Who is serving him? Doesn't everyone have their own little island, or are you the only one who gets to live the dream, without having to work?

Don't get so distracted by the example that you completely miss the point of it.

[Thecard]

Not using washing machines would actually solve quite a few problems, but it would inconvenience me. So, obviously, I won't do it.

It's in my best interest to not have to hire a dishwasher, if I was a restaurant owner, so I'll use a machine. That's self-interest right there. Benefiting me, and not some poor guy who could'a made minimum wage working for me.

C) The guy with no money, no job...but sitting on that same desert island with all the food, clothes and toys he wants and with a bunch of people serving him?

Who is serving him? Doesn't everyone have their own little island, or are you the only one who gets to live the dream, without having to work?

Don't get so distracted by the example that you completely miss the point of it.

But that is the point. Someone's gotta do work. Magic is the only way you're going to have free things.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

To make it easier to provide goods an services would require a toning down of competition

Yes, and that's a good thing. Competition means waste.

to do that would be to enter into communism, because you can't regulate competition: it's all or nothing.

Well, a: that's not right. You absolutely can regulate competition. Most countries do it, although not as much as they should. And b: If we get to the point where we can produce enough stuff easily enough that communism is viable, fantastic.

Of course Communism doesn't work either, so we are at in impasse.

Doesn't work now. There's no reason that, with increasing automation, it won't eventually be a possibility.

also, you can't reduce work. it HAS to be done by someone. someone HAS to plant. someone HAS to harvest. etc.

So farming was just as hard in 600 AD as it is now? Nonsense. You can reduce work, quite easily. Technology has massively, massively reduced the necessary amount of work, and it shows no signs of stopping.

1. Competition means innovation and efficiency. Waste? The fact you want to be BETTER than someone makes your product better.

2. Anyways, to regulate competition beyond preventing someone from going out and ruining your opponents life is just wrong in my opinion, it's your right to try and succeed.

3. My problems with communism have nothing to do with labour or automation, it's social. A lack of incentive again. Why would we ever strive for anything better? Then past that, how would the economy work? The bare minimum would be produced, if there are no gains, why would anyone overproduce?

4. Again you lapse back into a lack of movement, economic and social stagnation? Where would our advancement come from? We had might as well regress to the dark ages. If everything is done for us then we'll be little more than couch potatoes.

[LordBucket]

But that is the point. Someone's gotta do work.

Automated Teller Machines replace bank tellers. Self checkout machines replace grocery store cashiers. Industrial robots replace human assembly lines.

Need I go on?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Most good science is done without financial incentive in the first place. In fact, the peer-review system is a fairly good example of a system distanced from capitalism. You publish papers for notoriety and citations, not money. Science is done for many reasons, and while there may be some people in it purely for the money, you have just as many if not more glory hounds and humanitarians.

The point I am getting at is that money is not the sole motivator of human progress, and it is a fairly bad one even when it is a factor. People would strive for something better because it would be....better. It's fairly clear.

[Thecard]

Automated Teller Machines replace bank tellers. Self checkout machines replace grocery store cashiers. Industrial robots replace human assembly lines.
Need I go on?

Who makes those machines? Who makes sure they're working? Who goes out and fixes them when they don't?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Automated Teller Machines replace bank tellers. Self checkout machines replace grocery store cashiers. Industrial robots replace human assembly lines.
Need I go on?

Who makes those machines? Who makes sure they're working? Who goes out and fixes them when they don't?

Repairmen and engineers do not an economy make.