Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Womble]

The politician can get the same as the burger flipper, the people at actual risk deserve more.
EDIT:
On further reflection, Would it be so bad if the doctor got 15 bucks an hour, but did not need to pay for their education, training and other associated issues?
They get 10 years at school as a free ride, plus refresher courses and continued education for free.
Ultimately, I guess I am wondering why money should be the driving force behind a career, rather than Ability.

Because ability doesn't necessarily come with motivation.

Thought experiment time. You can make 15 bucks an hour flipping burgers now, or you can make 15 bucks an hour after 10 years of studying. There are two ways this can go, both of them variations on the theme of "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay."

If you need to support yourself during your study at least for food/drink/rent, then why study? 10 years later, all your efforts will bring you to the exact same socioeconomic point as your burger-flipping friend. You will quickly discover that the core of every skilled profession is composed not so much of the true devotees and people witi unique ability/aptitude who move science and technology forward, but primarily from large numbers of mediocrities who are in it for money and status (which derives from money). If only the true devotees become doctors, there won't ever be enough doctors to treat all the burger flippers.

If you do not need to support yourself during your study, then why flip burgers? Go study! Maybe you'll be a doctor, maybe you'll go back to burger-flipping after a few years of living off of the society's largesse without contributing much of anything. Nothing to lose; worst case, you'll go back to burger flipping for the same money. Basically it will promote degree acquisition divorced from actual social value of said degrees or intention to work in the chosen profession. That has actually been tried before, in the good old USSR. Most people had degrees, few worked with their hands. Doctors and engineers, who in capitalist countries usually comprise the upper-middle class, had the same on-paper salaries but made much less money than plumbers, electricians and various construction specialists with abundant opportunities to make off-the-books money from the educated lower class' inability to fix a leaky bathroom pipe or faulty wiring. Bribes were normal and expected - doctors, schoolteachers, everyone who worked with people demanded and took some form of under-the-table payment for their services because no one felt adequately compensated for their work, but the "shabashniks" - construction crews doing off-the-books home repairs - were the true whales. "May you live only off of your paycheck", a popular curse went.

Interesting liability questions could arise. Should the $15 an hour heart surgeon or construction engineer be held accountable to the same degree as $15 an hour burger fiipper, or should their pay reflect the potential cost of their errors to the society and to their careers?

I know you well enough to say that what you do as a job is a catastrophic WASTE of your intelligence and for what?

I don't know about that. I am paying for the mistakes of my youth of course, but I don't think my current job is a waste of my intelligence. A lot of people got a lot of help because I work where I do. (And I might be moving on. No matter what Annoyed says about reeducation after 40, I'm open to trying).

Would the world be better off, or worse off if people actually did jobs based on their ability, rather than their socio-economic constraints?

Counter-question: do you believe that the distribution of human ability is even and fair, and that one could actually sustain a society if everyone did only what they have talent for? Because if you don't, you have the answer to your question.

Would the world be better off, or worse off if we all got X amount to live on?

What is this "the world" thing you speak of?

[aretood2]

.... i guess we should make everyone get a mandatory flat rate per hour, regardless of industry or job, since some industries and corporations cannot afford to pay like hte higher end ones.... and make sure politicians and government jobs also pay the same rate.... i mean it can be a good rate... at least 15 dollars an hour... of course then the congress will just spend every day having long debates just to get overtime...

Fillibuster will become thier most favorite word ever.. and we will likely hear how every other week they have to have a roaving congressional session near florida or the west coast

While others have already pointed out the flaws of that here...I still have to say that this would lead to this.....Click for informative video

[Annoyed]

Because ability doesn't necessarily come with motivation.

Thought experiment time. You can make 15 bucks an hour flipping burgers now, or you can make 15 bucks an hour after 10 years of studying. There are two ways this can go, both of them variations on the theme of "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay."

If you need to support yourself during your study at least for food/drink/rent, then why study? 10 years later, all your efforts will bring you to the exact same socioeconomic point as your burger-flipping friend. You will quickly discover that the core of every skilled profession is composed not so much of the true devotees and people witi unique ability/aptitude who move science and technology forward, but primarily from large numbers of mediocrities who are in it for money and status (which derives from money). If only the true devotees become doctors, there won't ever be enough doctors to treat all the burger flippers.

If you do not need to support yourself during your study, then why flip burgers? Go study! Maybe you'll be a doctor, maybe you'll go back to burger-flipping after a few years of living off of the society's largesse without contributing much of anything. Nothing to lose; worst case, you'll go back to burger flipping for the same money.

In addition, the guy who chooses to study for 10 years will find himself buried under a mountain of debt, unless he can get someone else to foot the bill, such as the govt. or a scholarship. In the US at least, education is very expensive

[Gatefan1976]

Because ability doesn't necessarily come with motivation.

That is true.

Thought experiment time. You can make 15 bucks an hour flipping burgers now, or you can make 15 bucks an hour after 10 years of studying. There are two ways this can go, both of them variations on the theme of "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay."

Okay...….

If you need to support yourself during your study at least for food/drink/rent, then why study? 10 years later, all your efforts will bring you to the exact same socioeconomic point as your burger-flipping friend. You will quickly discover that the core of every skilled profession is composed not so much of the true devotees and people witi unique ability/aptitude who move science and technology forward, but primarily from large numbers of mediocrities who are in it for money and status (which derives from money). If only the true devotees become doctors, there won't ever be enough doctors to treat all the burger flippers.

To which I would say that it is the motivation that is flawed.
I don't -want- mediocre white collar workers any more than I would want a mediocre blue collar workers, and I honestly question just how many people would stay burger flippers if the workers educational means was opened up.

If you do not need to support yourself during your study, then why flip burgers? Go study! Maybe you'll be a doctor, maybe you'll go back to burger-flipping after a few years of living off of the society's largesse without contributing much of anything. Nothing to lose; worst case, you'll go back to burger flipping for the same money.

True, but as your argument boils down to money, why do something you dislike instead something you have talent for? If I got ONE good doctor by allowing 10 burger flippers to try, the value of that ONE doctor does more for society than the 10 flippers, and as money seems to be the driving argument here, the cost is irrelevant. My tribe, my clan, my county, my state, my country, my world got a good doctor who actually wants to do more than write perscriptions.
You are arguing the world "as is", and you are not wrong, I am arguing "what should be", and if people ever stopped arguing what should be, we stagnate.

Basically it will promote degree acquisition divorced from actual social value of said degrees or intention to work in the chosen profession.

Ask a child what they want to be when they grow up, 9 times out of 10, they want to be forces of positive change, be it doctors, police, carpenters, scientists, firefighters or astronauts. As children, we lean towards the positive, with no knowledge of how much any of these jobs get paid.
Is that bad?

That has actually been tried before, in the good old USSR. Most people had degrees, few worked with their hands. Doctors and engineers, who in capitalist countries usually comprise the upper-middle class, had the same on-paper salaries but made much less money than plumbers, electricians and various construction specialists with abundant opportunities to make off-the-books money from the educated lower class' inability to fix a leaky bathroom pipe or faulty wiring. Bribes were normal and expected - doctors, schoolteachers, everyone who worked with people demanded and took some form of under-the-table payment for their services because no one felt adequately compensated for their work, but the "shabashniks" - construction crews doing off-the-books home repairs - were the true whales. "May you live only off of your paycheck", a popular curse went.

The USSR, going from Monarchy to a pretty poor form of socialism (communism) didn't exactly help in this line of reasoning. I have stated -many times- that what is now dubbed "social democracy" could not function without capitalism as a stepping stone.
As for corruption, look to motivation. The USSR skipped capitalism as a growth mechanism, so it created a quasi capitalism to fill in the void because socialism in any form cannot function in that void, it simply cannot because you need capitalism to build that infastructure.
Capitalism is not "bad", socialism is not "bad", but both extremes are oppressive.

Interesting liability questions could arise. Should the $15 an hour heart surgeon or construction engineer be held accountable to the same degree as $15 an hour burger fiipper, or should their pay reflect the potential cost of their errors to the society and to their careers?

I did specify "all other associated issues"

I don't know about that. I am paying for the mistakes of my youth of course, but I don't think my current job is a waste of my intelligence. A lot of people got a lot of help because I work where I do. (And I might be moving on. No matter what Annoyed says about reeducation after 40, I'm open to trying).

Did you want to work as a travel agent, no matter how GOOD you are in the field, as a child?
Honestly, you should just take the compliment, there was no hidden message there.

Counter-question: do you believe that the distribution of human ability is even and fair, and that one could actually sustain a society if everyone did only what they have talent for? Because if you don't, you have the answer to your question.


What is this "the world" thing you speak of?

Yes, I do think that is possible, if you accept this "world" thing.
You see, my ancestors were RAIDERS, they came for loot and pillage and that defined their society and religion, THEN they became traders, as it was far more effective, THEN they came up with the idea of what now defines modern legal and political practices in the west.
Your ancestors were SLAVES, then they demanded equality, then they formed their own nation based on laws.
The how and why does not matter so much as the -PROGRESSION-, and I want society to advance.
Imagine what could be done if the west and the east saw past their wasteful differences and worked togeather.
Is it a dream?
Sure.
Is it not "worth" anything??
No.

[aretood2]

To which I would say that it is the motivation that is flawed.
I don't -want- mediocre white collar workers any more than I would want a mediocre blue collar workers, and I honestly question just how many people would stay burger flippers if the workers educational means was opened up.

We're only human.

True, but as your argument boils down to money, why do something you dislike instead something you have talent for? If I got ONE good doctor by allowing 10 burger flippers to try, the value of that ONE doctor does more for society than the 10 flippers, and as money seems to be the driving argument here, the cost is irrelevant. My tribe, my clan, my county, my state, my country, my world got a good doctor who actually wants to do more than write perscriptions.
You are arguing the world "as is", and you are not wrong, I am arguing "what should be", and if people ever stopped arguing what should be, we stagnate.

Don't know about him, but I would add in that pure intrinsic reward is not enough to fully meet society's needs. Extrinsic rewards are also needed. Not to mention that very few people actually want to flip burgers for a living. Very few people will select garbage collection. Very few people would select a job where they sit and stare at a conveyor belt doing the same monotonous action for ten hours...

There are many dirty and tedious jobs that need to be done for society to function in any capacity, most of those jobs hold very little intrinsic value for the majority of the population. At the same time the really good doctor actually prefers to flip burgers! What then? That form of society would change things, but it is not guaranteed to be better, just different. And I have to say, it is very hard to think of how certain essential jobs would be filled without any extrinsic value *Money.

The USSR, going from Monarchy to a pretty poor form of socialism (communism) didn't exactly help in this line of reasoning. I have stated -many times- that what is now dubbed "social democracy" could not function without capitalism as a stepping stone.
As for corruption, look to motivation. The USSR skipped capitalism as a growth mechanism, so it created a quasi capitalism to fill in the void because socialism in any form cannot function in that void, it simply cannot because you need capitalism to build that infastructure.
Capitalism is not "bad", socialism is not "bad", but both extremes are oppressive.

The USSR didn't simply skip capitalism. It murdered capitalism by design. You know..."seize the means of production" is followed by "eliminate the bourgeoisie". Neither is done through a gradual peaceful process...Socialism has its limits. Prices still rise, governments get stuck trying to figure out where to get the money for everything.

[Annoyed]

The USSR didn't simply skip capitalism. It murdered capitalism by design. You know..."seize the means of production" is followed by "eliminate the bourgeoisie". Neither is done through a gradual peaceful process...Socialism has its limits. Prices still rise, governments get stuck trying to figure out where to get the money for everything.

And the well-off live in the lap of luxury while the not so well-off work their arses into the grave.
The only difference is how "well off" is defined. Money in the bank or position in the ruling party.

[Annoyed]

Gotta say I agree with the animal rights folks on this one.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/polar-b...ay-2018-07-30/

"Let's get too close to a polar bear in its natural environment and then kill it if it gets too close". Morons.

Just because a group of tourists wants to visit the habitat of a dangerous animal doesn't give anyone the right to kill them.

[Who Knows]

Gotta say I agree with the animal rights folks on this one.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/polar-b...ay-2018-07-30/


Just because a group of tourists wants to visit the habitat of a dangerous animal doesn't give anyone the right to kill them.

Try telling this to surfers & skuba divers in Australia.
Shark kills surfer/diver, therfore all sharks should be hunted & killed.

You know the dangers, you put yourself in harms way, you pay the price. Get over it.

[Annoyed]

As I understand it, the Great White and some other sharks are now actually endangered species due to human hunting.

[Gatefan1976]

We're only human.

And humans are inherently flawed?
Should we argue the merit of the unstoppable force vs the immobile object now?
Or more on point, why did a flawless creator create an inherently flawed design?

Don't know about him, but I would add in that pure intrinsic reward is not enough to fully meet society's needs. Extrinsic rewards are also needed. Not to mention that very few people actually want to flip burgers for a living. Very few people will select garbage collection. Very few people would select a job where they sit and stare at a conveyor belt doing the same monotonous action for ten hours...

True, yet as annoyed points out, and rightly so (by Odin's Beard, I have agreed with him twice in a few days), some people are simply incapable of more mentally challenging work. While I understand that people -could- view that as creating a slave caste, it does not create a -caste- because the persons kids are NOT tied to that persons role or ability. I agree wholeheartedly with the right's position on the "empowerment of work over handouts", and if all a person can do is menial tasks, why not employ them to do them? If they want to do something more challenging, give them the chance to do so.
Back in the day when I was a Teen, one of my first jobs was on a metal finishing line, and there was one 50 year old bloke who ALWAYS did the washing and degreasing of the raw aluminium before and then after it was shaped. He couldn't do much else, but he would rip through that task, menial as it was, faster than any of us, and actually enjoyed doing it, and did it for YEARS.
Point being, his job matched his ability, it needed to be done, and he got paid just like the rest of us. I could not do that job, but he could.

There are many dirty and tedious jobs that need to be done for society to function in any capacity, most of those jobs hold very little intrinsic value for the majority of the population. At the same time the really good doctor actually prefers to flip burgers! What then? That form of society would change things, but it is not guaranteed to be better, just different. And I have to say, it is very hard to think of how certain essential jobs would be filled without any extrinsic value *Money.

I can't state that it would be "better", but it IS something we have not really tried before.
Can you remove money as a motivating force however?
Not now, maybe never, I don't know, but certainly not now.
BUT, IF we change HOW that money flows, without actually getting rid of money?
I don't know man, I think it would be good.

The USSR didn't simply skip capitalism. It murdered capitalism by design. You know..."seize the means of production" is followed by "eliminate the bourgeoisie". Neither is done through a gradual peaceful process...Socialism has its limits. Prices still rise, governments get stuck trying to figure out where to get the money for everything.

True, but to get back on the world stage post the cold war, it did create it's own capitalism, which was more my point.

[Gatefan1976]

And the well-off live in the lap of luxury while the not so well-off work their arses into the grave.
The only difference is how "well off" is defined. Money in the bank or position in the ruling party.

Ruling party determines ability to have money in the bank.
Side with the "monarchy" or be a peon.
Not exactly a great peoples uprising result.

[Womble]

To which I would say that it is the motivation that is flawed.
I don't -want- mediocre white collar workers any more than I would want a mediocre blue collar workers, and I honestly question just how many people would stay burger flippers if the workers educational means was opened up.

In which case, who would flip your burgers?

One of the fundamental problem with Utopias is that people share affection and aversion to roughly the same range of things. Flipping burgers or cleaning toilets is nobody's dream job, and if you let everyone do their dream job, you will end up with oversupply of pilots and undersupply of workers in jobs that are necessary but that aren't pleasant. How, in a society without financial rewards, do you motivate someone to be a burger flipper once you've made it effortless to be anything else?

True, but as your argument boils down to money, why do something you dislike instead something you have talent for? If I got ONE good doctor by allowing 10 burger flippers to try, the value of that ONE doctor does more for society than the 10 flippers, and as money seems to be the driving argument here, the cost is irrelevant. My tribe, my clan, my county, my state, my country, my world got a good doctor who actually wants to do more than write perscriptions.

You are arguing the world "as is", and you are not wrong, I am arguing "what should be", and if people ever stopped arguing what should be, we stagnate.

I am arguing that everything comes at a price, and before you offer a sweeping change you should always consider the price tag. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and so far every brave experiment in utopian social engineering ended in mass slaughter.

Ask a child what they want to be when they grow up, 9 times out of 10, they want to be forces of positive change, be it doctors, police, carpenters, scientists, firefighters or astronauts. As children, we lean towards the positive, with no knowledge of how much any of these jobs get paid.
Is that bad?

Children want to be that which their family, school or society glamorizes as they grow up. Their dreams reflect their surroundings, no more. In a society that is stable and prosperous, children want to be astronauts and doctors; in a society that struggles, the answers might be less pleasing to the progressive ear. In the 1990-s Russia, an awful lot of little girls dreamt of being prostitutes while boys wished to be "new Russians" in fancy cars and red suits.

The USSR, going from Monarchy to a pretty poor form of socialism (communism) didn't exactly help in this line of reasoning. I have stated -many times- that what is now dubbed "social democracy" could not function without capitalism as a stepping stone.

Of course it can't. Socialism is about distribution of wealth, not generation. It needs a supply of wealth generated by the "stepping stone" and it lasts only for so long as that wealth did not run out. Then you need to shift back to capitalism or you starve to death

(Early USSR leaders actually ran into that problem head-on as early as 1921 and were forced to admit the need for a full-on capitalist engine of growth, hence the famous NEP (new economic policy, under the slogan of "get rich" which one could not otherwise expect from the founders of the proletarian dictatorship like Lenin. China is pretty much doing the same as we speak, running a "special economic zone" of textbook capitalism to generate wealth to be distributed to the de-facto underclass in the rest of the country where socialism is maintained. Basically, a true socialist state HAS to coexist with capitalism because it can only exist as a mistress of capitalism).

Did you want to work as a travel agent, no matter how GOOD you are in the field, as a child?
Honestly, you should just take the compliment, there was no hidden message there.

Of course I didn't want to be a travel agent when I was a child. There were no travel agents in the 1980-s Russia.

I actually don't remember if I wanted to be anything in particular.

Yes, I do think that is possible, if you accept this "world" thing.
You see, my ancestors were RAIDERS, they came for loot and pillage and that defined their society and religion, THEN they became traders, as it was far more effective, THEN they came up with the idea of what now defines modern legal and political practices in the west. Your ancestors were SLAVES, then they demanded equality, then they formed their own nation based on laws.
The how and why does not matter so much as the -PROGRESSION-, and I want society to advance.
Imagine what could be done if the west and the east saw past their wasteful differences and worked togeather.
Is it a dream?
Sure.
Is it not "worth" anything??
No.

It's not a dream, it's a photoshopping of history, glossing over the inconvenient details in order to promote an idea that looks shiny.

[Gatefan1976]

In which case, who would flip your burgers?

The people who could not learn more, or could not do more.

One of the fundamental problem with Utopias is that people share affection and aversion to roughly the same range of things. Flipping burgers or cleaning toilets is nobody's dream job, and if you let everyone do their dream job, you will end up with oversupply of pilots and undersupply of workers in jobs that are necessary but that aren't pleasant. How, in a society without financial rewards, do you motivate someone to be a burger flipper once you've made it effortless to be anything else?

Utopia and effortless are talking points.
Go back to school, even if you don't pay for it and THEN tell me it's effortless.
You are open to school, why now if it is so effortless, did you not go back before?
Israel has one of the best education systems in the world.

I am arguing that everything comes at a price, and before you offer a sweeping change you should always consider the price tag. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and so far every brave experiment in utopian social engineering ended in mass slaughter.

True, but that is true of any "social engineering", Often, the only difference is weather you care about who is being slaughtered.

Children want to be that which their family, school or society glamorizes as they grow up. Their dreams reflect their surroundings, no more. In a society that is stable and prosperous, children want to be astronauts and doctors; in a society that struggles, the answers might be less pleasing to the progressive ear. In the 1990-s Russia, an awful lot of little girls dreamt of being prostitutes while boys wished to be "new Russians" in fancy cars and red suits.

Or Terrorists if they think there land is being occupied, or is that "too unprogressive"?

Of course it can't. Socialism is about distribution of wealth, not generation. It needs a supply of wealth generated by the "stepping stone" and it lasts only for so long as that wealth did not run out. Then you need to shift back to capitalism or you starve to death

Democratic socialism does not preclude capitalism, it's major tenants are that there are some services that should be run for the benefit of all, like education, healthcare, major infrastructure, power and defence, Everything else can be free market orientated.

(Early USSR leaders actually ran into that problem head-on as early as 1921 and were forced to admit the need for a full-on capitalist engine of growth, hence the famous NEP (new economic policy, under the slogan of "get rich" which one could not otherwise expect from the founders of the proletarian dictatorship like Lenin. China is pretty much doing the same as we speak, running a "special economic zone" of textbook capitalism to generate wealth to be distributed to the de-facto underclass in the rest of the country where socialism is maintained. Basically, a true socialist state HAS to coexist with capitalism because it can only exist as a mistress of capitalism).

When have I said they cannot co-exist?

Of course I didn't want to be a travel agent when I was a child. There were no travel agents in the 1980-s Russia.

I actually don't remember if I wanted to be anything in particular.

I wanted to be a pilot.
I had the reflexes, but not the eyes.

It's not a dream, it's a photoshopping of history, glossing over the inconvenient details in order to promote an idea that looks shiny.

That's actually quite funny.

[aretood2]

And humans are inherently flawed?
Should we argue the merit of the unstoppable force vs the immobile object now?
Or more on point, why did a flawless creator create an inherently flawed design?

There's moving goal posts and theirs outright changing the game.

True, yet as annoyed points out, and rightly so (by Odin's Beard, I have agreed with him twice in a few days), some people are simply incapable of more mentally challenging work. While I understand that people -could- view that as creating a slave caste, it does not create a -caste- because the persons kids are NOT tied to that persons role or ability. I agree wholeheartedly with the right's position on the "empowerment of work over handouts", and if all a person can do is menial tasks, why not employ them to do them? If they want to do something more challenging, give them the chance to do so.
Back in the day when I was a Teen, one of my first jobs was on a metal finishing line, and there was one 50 year old bloke who ALWAYS did the washing and degreasing of the raw aluminium before and then after it was shaped. He couldn't do much else, but he would rip through that task, menial as it was, faster than any of us, and actually enjoyed doing it, and did it for YEARS.
Point being, his job matched his ability, it needed to be done, and he got paid just like the rest of us. I could not do that job, but he could.

That's the problem though, there's no guarantee that there would be enough people who are unable to do anything beyond flipping burgers.

I can't state that it would be "better", but it IS something we have not really tried before.
Can you remove money as a motivating force however?
Not now, maybe never, I don't know, but certainly not now.
BUT, IF we change HOW that money flows, without actually getting rid of money?
I don't know man, I think it would be good.

Changing flow of money is a more realistic endeavour. What's going to happen is that capitalism will cannibalize itself. It's more longed lived than some of the others. Eventually people will have to come to terms with taxation, otherwise automation will start deleting a lot of burger flipping jobs.

That's my major concern. The whole basic income schemes seem like a good idea but would only be possible if it is widely adopted, and the taxation that requires it is supported. I'm sure once unemployment starts topping 20% people will start considering that....the only problem would be Annoyed's elite. Ironically, it's Annoyed and people like him that would reject such moves. But we are not there yet. We should be focusing on education and health right now. Build up as many middle classes as possible.

[aretood2]

On another note, there's this Mollie Tibbetts thing. A college student who is missing and is showing up on headlines for the past week or so. Don't get me wrong, it is a horrible thing and I really do hope that there's a good resolution to this, even though if it is an abduction there's probably very little hope at this point. However, why are we hearing so much about it?

I did a quick Google news search and found these other missing people:

In the first few pages there are missing girls from the ages of 13 to 17 (there are also results for adults). All missing, some have been missing for days...their news are relegated to local news websites with few to no repetitions elsewhere. The first one, a 13 year old, only has an alert and nothing like this article for Mollie Tibbetts (CNN Article).

Why such a focus on essentially a grown woman when there are missing girls? It's interesting too because the whole "Missing white girl syndrome" would imply that some of these girls would get more attention. It so happens that I searched for "missing white girl" so most of the missing people results were white girls. That's what I found the most interesting...in a very morbid sort of way.