Print

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

[mainiac]

Do you think that there will be sufficient numbers of people who share an active interest all the categories of  labour to provide in an emergency?  Or that many people's interests would convert to practical application so easily?  Look at what people pay to learn and pursue now. Going to college for philosophy or even history is considered a waste by many, and it can really translate poorly into earning potential.

Philosophy majors median income at career start: $39,900.00 ; mid career: 81,200.00
History majors median income at career start: $39,200.00 ; mid career 71,000.00

US median income for a single earner: $45,000

I think most economic understanding can be explained by the overconfidence effect, everyone is pretty sure that they know more then all the naive idiots in the world without bothering to, y'know, actually learn.  But I observe this effect even in the economist profession; with everyone from professors at community colleges to world renown public policy makers falling victim to simple mistakes with distressing frequency.  I have little doubt I myself have huge blindspots.

[pisskop]

So, do these degrees grant new avenues or simply enhance the ones already available?

[mainiac]

A mixture?  Sometimes both sometimes neither?  You are talking about hundreds of thousands of people.

[Aseaheru]

Ah, as a point to an earlier thing (the one saying that socialist nations are not democracies), that is false. Germany, France and Japan (just to name a few) are all socialist democracies.

On my part, I think Socialism is a good thing, and will be the only thing that makes sense, besides outright communism that is.
Indeed, most things governments have done for hundreds of years could be seen as socialism, like public education, fire departments, police, armed forces...

[pisskop]

A mixture?  Sometimes both sometimes neither?  You are talking about hundreds of thousands of people.

Aye.  My point was that our interests and hobbies don't always take use directly into contact with a jobskill.

[mainiac]

That was your point?  Because it sure read like you were saying there were more philosophy and history majors then the market would justify.

[pisskop]

Or this is a socialism thread and I was discussing how not working leads to a lack of practical mainstream jobskills.

[mainiac]

Or this is a socialism thread and I was discussing how not working leads to a lack of practical mainstream jobskills.

Well gee maybe you should provide an example because philosophy and history majors aren't an example of that.

[pisskop]

They aren't an example of how pursuits of interest don't provide practical jobskills for the average citizen? :|

4 years is a long time to spend on philosophy if you are an auto-mech or an electrician.

[mainiac]

They aren't an example of how pursuits of interest don't provide practical jobskills for the average citizen? :|

4 years is a long time to spend on philosophy if you are an auto-mech or an electrician.

Hey that would be nice except the evidence is that it's not true.  Y'know, that evidence you could find with two minutes of googling but replaced with assumption instead?

[pisskop]

Sure.  I agree it is nice to have a well-rounded education.  As a philosophy minor I'd be silly to discredit the usefulness of it.  I just don't agree that teaching 4 years of it to most blue collar workers would do much.   *Ill agree not to agree, and you can shot me some links if you feel so inclined.  Id love to see the practical applications gleaned.*

So socialism.

[alexandertnt]

Also why exactly to non-working people not have skill? Haven't you ever wanted to pursue something because its of interest to you, not because you have to in order to not starve to death?

Do you think that there will be sufficient numbers of people who share an active interest all the categories of  labour to provide in an emergency?

Considering most peoeple would be unable to provide without the infrastructure we have now, we are already in this situation, so I don't see the difference.

[Tack]

Also it results in much less backlash when our advances in robotics and programming causes their jobs to inevitably be cut.

[pisskop]

We could have everybody work 10 hour weeks to get a minimum income, instead of some 50 hours and some none. As automation increases, keeping 9-to-5 workdays seems counterproductive.

hmmm.  Mandated work hours?  what would in theory happen  to those who do not meet that requirement?  Or will the government assign and/or monitor jobs and work?

So do charities, many of which are religious and are much less willing to help those who are not of their faith or willing to convert (for example, me). I'm not sure what this governmnet self-interest is exactly. Down here in Australia, you get unemployment benefits if you are unemployed and looking for employment, and thats about the only condition.

Charities don't have to be religious.  Actually, given the amount of skepticism in America, and presumably the world, why should they be?  I volunteer for three of them regularly.  One is actually a Non-Profit, non-religious one for Autism, one operates out of a church as a third party, and one is the remnant of a mission.

Churches will likely be attractive spots to conduct from, but what stops communities from forming their own charities?  Or town or regional charities?  You don't have to belief in any god to donate time/money/supplies.  I  think its our culture, its very focused on the individual.  And I've heard its even worse up here in New England where I currently live.  At least down South I hear they are polite enough to say high to relative strangers . . .

Socialism is supposed to be about care for your fellow countryman, right?  Why do we need the government to force us into it?

Do you think that there will be sufficient numbers of people who share an active interest all the categories of  labour to provide in an emergency?

Considering most peoeple would be unable to provide without the infrastructure we have now, we are already in this situation, so I don't see the difference.

:/  Yes there is already a dependence on the system.  Those who genuinely need it.  And there are those who flagrantly seek to exploit the system.  There is no solution to it other than weaning them off or continuing to pay, although how we 'wean' them is open to debate.

[alexandertnt]

We could have everybody work 10 hour weeks to get a minimum income, instead of some 50 hours and some none. As automation increases, keeping 9-to-5 workdays seems counterproductive.

hmmm.  Mandated work hours?  what would in theory happen  to those who do not meet that requirement?  Or will the government assign and/or monitor jobs and work?

We already have regulated working hours, at least here in Australia and in Europe (Don't know about America). I am not saying the regulations have to be particularly strict or "mandated", but I don't really see the big difference between what we have now and something like that.

It wasnt that long ago the working week was 6 days.

So do charities, many of which are religious and are much less willing to help those who are not of their faith or willing to convert (for example, me). I'm not sure what this governmnet self-interest is exactly. Down here in Australia, you get unemployment benefits if you are unemployed and looking for employment, and thats about the only condition.

Charities don't have to be religious.  Actually, given the amount of skepticism in America, and presumably the world, why should they be?  I volunteer for three of them regularly.  One is actually a Non-Profit, non-religious one for Autism, one operates out of a church as a third party, and one is the remnant of a mission.

Churches will likely be attractive spots to conduct from, but what stops communities from forming their own charities?  Or town or regional charities?  You don't have to belief in any god to donate time/money/supplies.  I  think its our culture, its very focused on the individual.  And I've heard its even worse up here in New England where I currently live.  At least down South I hear they are polite enough to say high to relative strangers . . .

Socialism is supposed to be about care for your fellow countryman, right?  Why do we need the government to force us into it?

They don't have to be religious, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the are. Simply because they legally can, doesn't help someone's situation. It also doesn't change the fact that if I were to lose my job, I would likely find it very hard to get charity help and being told that there is no law against helping me doesn't exactly prevent me from going hungry. Charities also suffer from an unjustified can't-do-evil reputation.

You don't need the government, but its a very useful tool. The government (even if it requires a lot of altering and change) can be used to benefit people.

:/  Yes there is already a dependence on the system.  Those who genuinely need it.  And there are those who flagrantly seek to exploit the system.  There is no solution to it other than weaning them off or continuing to pay, although how we 'wean' them is open to debate.

I was not referring to "the system" (welfare) specifically.

How many people know how to hunt or farm for food I wonder? Probably not many as they are reliant on private systems. The public welfare system is also reliant on the private sytem.