Print

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

[Rose]

I use a hand pump and throw a bucket of water into my toilet to flush it.

and I have half a megabit of internet! Half! See my poverty?

[DJ]

I think the difference is really the old glass half full vs glass half empty. Conservatives with their half empty glasses focus on the changes that fail and even make things worse, and ignore the changes that make things better. Liberals tout successful changes, and sweep failures under the rug. Essentially, liberals have a gambler mentality, and conservatives don't.

[Lagslayer]

See, if you try to level the standard of living, people will simply redefine what poverty is. Give every poor man a free hot-rod, and women will only date men with private jets. What you give away for free merely causes inflation in the never-ending human drive to be better than other people. Inequality will always exist because people need to feel better than other people. Women need to feel this guy that they're shagging is somehow better than that guy that they aren't shagging. It won't change. You'll just move the goal posts.

Just a note, your examples could be construed as quite sexist. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're using some "human nature" examples and could pull out equally selfish ones for men, though



You're right that the goalposts move as time goes on, but what conclusion should we draw from that? Should we draw a line in the sand and say "this is good enough and any more is undeserved entitlement"? Or should we re-define our definitions of poverty as our life styles change?

Long ago, indoor plumbing was considered a luxury. Go out and pump your water from the well, you lazy bum! And don't forget to clean the latrine while you're at it; flushable toilets aren't for you. Is that the same attitude we have today? Hell no, and for good reason.

And that's just comforts! How about job competition? Like you said, a high school diploma was "good enough" decades ago. Now we need college diplomas. What are we to say to someone who can't afford college? Fuck you, you're poor and staying poor since you can't afford to bring yourself up in the world? Doesn't matter how smart or talented you are; you lack the initial capital to go anywhere at all?

The goal posts move because our needs and sensibilities change over time. If you're asking where it ends, it never ends as long as our economic system rewards initial capital. Once, or rather if, we can eliminate the problem of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, then we can stop moving the goal posts. As long as you need money to make money, things like wellfare and student loans must exist and no amount of touting self dependency will change that.

I believe the point was that people keep assuming that certain problems (like corruption, income inequality, etc) are going to vanish if we raise the bar. The bar is merely a standard around which the inequalities are measured. The inequalities themselves are the result of much more deeply rooted issues.

[Rose]

When I become in charge, poor people are going to be the ones without hookers. And the hookers.

[Nadaka]

When I become in charge, poor people are going to be the ones without hookers. And the hookers.

And when I get in charge, it will be hookers for everyone. Even the hookers will have hookers.

[Rose]

What about the hookers' hookers? Will they get hookers?

Maybe they should get robot hookers.

[Darvi]

It's hookers all the way down.

[Bauglir]

What about the hookers' hookers? Will they get hookers?

No, I figure by then we'll have run out of hooks. We'll give them fishnets instead.

[SalmonGod]

Twitter Loses ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Case, Forced To Hand Over User Info

80% Of Americans Work “After Hours,” Equaling An Extra Day Of Work Per Week

Police put up posters labeling a couple as "professional agitators" and advises people to contact the police after any encounter with them, because they record police during Stop-and-Frisks and put the videos on Youtube.

[Descan]

I've always espoused the idea of giving everyone basic amenities, and anything above that they need to work for. Like a hybrid capitalist-socialist idea.

I've just never figured out how to pay for it, except from taxes on the people who decide to work for money to pay for more than basic food, water, shelter, education and some entertainment.

[AntiAntiMatter]

I've always espoused the idea of giving everyone basic amenities, and anything above that they need to work for. Like a hybrid capitalist-socialist idea.

I've just never figured out how to pay for it, except from taxes on the people who decide to work for money to pay for more than basic food, water, shelter, education and some entertainment.

Perhaps one could put the essential industries (food, water, power, etc.) into government hands and use the profit from those to finance the program?

[Graknorke]

But the point is that they wouldn't be making money because the essentials would be provided for free.
Perhaps have those who are capable of working but don't have the option of almost-unpaid work in those industries?

[Leafsnail]

1950s liberal: "People don't have good jobs because only the rich can afford college!"
1960s liberal: "I am here to bring change and save the world and demonstrate how brilliant and special I am! I will create student loans so everyone can go to college! I feel so good about myself now!"
2010s liberal: "Waaah! Everyone has college degrees now! These slips of paper mean nothing in the job market, they're worth less than highschool diplomas used to mean in the 1950s, and we all have a lot of student debt now!"

...College degrees being accessible to people of all income brackets does not in any way necessitate them becoming meaningless.  The fact that college degrees no longer reflect as much as they should on a person's merit is an independant problem (as is the lack of jobs caused by the financial crisis).

Just a note, your examples could be construed as quite sexist.

Or, to avoid mincing words: the examples are clearly sexist.  Sexism of the "Nice" Guy variety.

Perhaps have those who are capable of working but don't have the option of almost-unpaid work in those industries?

So uh... slavery?  Workhouses?

[SalmonGod]

...College degrees being accessible to people of all income brackets does not in any way necessitate them becoming meaningless.  The fact that college degrees no longer reflect as much as they should on a person's merit is an independant problem (as is the lack of jobs caused by the financial crisis).

More specifically, it's a problem of wealth consolidation.  As wealth continues to funnel upwards into the hands of an ever-shrinking ultra-elite minority, those "job creators" have less and less need to involve anyone else.  They don't have any reason to hire people for reasons that don't benefit them.  As technology advances, they need less workers to get the same amount of work done.  At the same time, a growing portion of the population is becoming impoverished to the point that they are not a profitable market.  They cannot meaningfully participate in consumerism.  So the size of the commercial labor force further shrinks with demand.

So there's greater competition for jobs, and employers can easily afford to pick someone with a Masters over a Bachelors.

What it amounts to is we need to move past this idea that a person should have a "job" in the traditional sense to justify their survival.  Our modern situation simply does not require the entire population be so trapped in order to maintain quality of life and even progress.  Our blind clinging to this model is resulting in catastrophic amounts of waste and misery.

[Descan]

Robots?