Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

True, yet as annoyed points out, and rightly so (by Odin's Beard, I have agreed with him twice in a few days)

Learning is a slow process, ask any teacher.

[Annoyed]

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.

Who said they're my elite? I never bought them.

But you're right, under our system, I would oppose a UBI. And the reason is simple. The rich own our govt., lock stock and barrel, regardless of which party is in charge. Know any poor politicians?

And you are right, the taxation required would be heavy indeed. There is no way on earth that those well-off politicians who are controlled by those even more well off are going to pass such legislation if they and their masters are going to have to pay for it. So, the folks holding the bag will be the same folks who already pay the lions share of the taxes, the working stiff.

Given this, how long will there be any working stiffs? How many will just bail out and take the UBI if you take enough of their wages to support UBI? The system will collapse.

[aretood2]

Who said they're my elite? I never bought them.

But you're right, under our system, I would oppose a UBI. And the reason is simple. The rich own our govt., lock stock and barrel, regardless of which party is in charge. Know any poor politicians?

And you are right, the taxation required would be heavy indeed. There is no way on earth that those well-off politicians who are controlled by those even more well off are going to pass such legislation if they and their masters are going to have to pay for it. So, the folks holding the bag will be the same folks who already pay the lions share of the taxes, the working stiff.

Given this, how long will there be any working stiffs? How many will just bail out and take the UBI if you take enough of their wages to support UBI? The system will collapse.

Collapse is then inevitable. UBI or no UBI. Automation is happening, and as technology progresses it will be able to do increasingly more things and do some of those things better and cheaper than humans. You think unemployment is bad now? Well wait until there's not one factory floor job left for a human to do. Wait till 90% of warehouse and retail jobs are handled by machines.

The rich will survive, it's us that won't. So might as well take a shot at doing something than doing nothing. That said...you're slightly off when it comes to UBI. There would be no "working stiffs" at all because those jobs would be taken by machines. The only jobs left would be the ones that take creativity and specialized knowledge to do. Money isn't the only extrinsic motivation. Desire for fame, popularity, legacy, and a sense of personal success also motivate. Not enough on their own, but when you can earn more than just the UBI and get the possibility to obtain any of those things, that's enough to motivate. Don't underestimate social pressures and human greed.

Also, how much do you think the UBI would even pay? It may not even be money. It may be access to certain resources. Like a small room in UBI housing. Enough to be alive but if you want in on all the fun you need money and money comes from jobs. It would only be slightly better than homelessness, people would still need to work if they want Telecommunication services, access to entertainment and some forms of recreation and so on.

[AleksisMi]

eh.... stargate addresses this, technology=no work, the more advanced and well programmed the less to do

we basically need someone to program a robot that makes other robots and uploads them worker bot information for tasks, someone programs a personality program for robots based on location and work protocals, and include a base program that requires robots not murder maim inhibit or disobey humans, if someone tries to order a robot to harm someone, it locks up and resets, then include a zombie detection mode that starts up and allows people to tell them to disinfect or kill zombies... and hopefully it never malfunctions and assumes anyone infected with any virus like the common cold is a zombie and create a terminater paradox

[Gatefan1976]

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

I didn't move a thing.
I said the motivation was flawed, you said humanity is.
Why do you need a saviour if you are not flawed by design?
I think individuals have flaws, I don't think we are a flawed race by divine will, if we were, we would all default to the same failure, and while we all have failings, they are not identical.

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

Death and taxes my friend, they are the only two certainties in this life, I cannot guarantee a damn thing, I am merely a "flawed human" thinking ahead.

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.

Yes and no, look at the "whole foods hipster" movement who don't want automation in anything, they are willing to pay for "hand made products" even if they are not perfect. THIS is why I believe/feel that things like Sisko's restaurant and Picards winery still exist in the replicator world of TNG. Burgers like Micky D's and BK might go, and that's ALOT of employee's, granted.

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.

YES, it can only exist if widely adopted, no question and if it is not, it will never work. We have been "money indoctrinated" for centuries, and that will take a true concerted effort to change. I don't disagree with "pumping the brakes", what I really disagree with is leaving it so late that even slamming them on will still leave you with a hood ornament that you never wanted, but will ultimately pay for.

[Gatefan1976]

eh.... stargate addresses this, technology=no work, the more advanced and well programmed the less to do

we basically need someone to program a robot that makes other robots and uploads them worker bot information for tasks, someone programs a personality program for robots based on location and work protocals, and include a base program that requires robots not murder maim inhibit or disobey humans, if someone tries to order a robot to harm someone, it locks up and resets, then include a zombie detection mode that starts up and allows people to tell them to disinfect or kill zombies... and hopefully it never malfunctions and assumes anyone infected with any virus like the common cold is a zombie and create a terminater paradox

Asimov addressed this far before stargate.

[Annoyed]

Also, how much do you think the UBI would even pay? It may not even be money. It may be access to certain resources. Like a small room in UBI housing. Enough to be alive but if you want in on all the fun you need money and money comes from jobs. It would only be slightly better than homelessness, people would still need to work if they want Telecommunication services, access to entertainment and some forms of recreation and so on.

Need I point out that we already consider luxuries such as cell phones a "necessity" and covered by existing welfare programs? How much you want to bet things of that nature would be considered essential?

[Annoyed]

eh.... stargate addresses this, technology=no work, the more advanced and well programmed the less to do

we basically need someone to program a robot that makes other robots and uploads them worker bot information for tasks, someone programs a personality program for robots based on location and work protocals, and include a base program that requires robots not murder maim inhibit or disobey humans, if someone tries to order a robot to harm someone, it locks up and resets, then include a zombie detection mode that starts up and allows people to tell them to disinfect or kill zombies... and hopefully it never malfunctions and assumes anyone infected with any virus like the common cold is a zombie and create a terminater paradox

How does Stargate address the question of how people support themselves if there are no jobs?

[Chaka-Z0]

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.

When have I said they cannot co-exist?

We have some of these elements you mentioned in effect in my country. Before I go any further, it is important to note that my province of residence, Québec (QC) is of a different mindset than the other 10 Provinces and 3 Territories; our policies, laws and regs are much more socially driven.

Long story short, in 1968 the Gov. of QC created a network of Public Universities in order for superior studies to be accessible to all Quebecers. The fees have slightly increased over the years and are now capped at about 1.4k$ per session (an average of 300$ per course, give or take) and increase slightly with inflation. Anybody that went to University, or anybody that gave a quick glance at the usual fees will agree that 1.4k has to be the cheapest fees you've ever heard of. This network is of course financed through our collective taxes.

There was a major student strike in 2012. Long story short, the Liberals wanted to increase the scholarship fees and it raised uproar throughout the whole province. They called this movement the *red square*. I was studying in Business Administration at the time, this was the biggest conflict in QC that implicated youth mainly. Crazy times, we actually built barricades in our school .

What shocked me is the difference of opinion between the youth and *working-class adults*. We were against the raise not solely for financial purposes, but mainly for the principle that our society made a choice to cap the fees in order to get more, less fortunate (Billy-Bobs of this world) people in Universities. Almost EVERY single people of the older generation which I spoke to at the time were in favor of this raise, and dismissed our protest on the ground that 1.4k is really cheap (which is true) and we should not complain for a few hundreds of dollars more. Bad PR, Liberals lost the election, the Parti Québécois (separatists) came in power and cancelled the raise. But, they equally cancelled some tax credits in order to get their money back, politicians will be politicians .

The 1968 initiative was successful and much needed at the time: there were only 3 universities throughout the whole province! That being said, an individual that wants to study in fields that are not ''specialties'' of these public facilities, has to go to the private sector and pay the same ridiculously high prices (about 10k per session). Why do so if could save so much going to the Public network? The renown and prestige of Universities. This is how it works in the real life once you get out of your books. If you want a high-profile job in a major company, or be recognized as an accredited professional in high-profile jobs (Doctors, scientists, etc.), you need to be a Harvard-class protégé of this world. A sad but cold hard fact this is. They want the best of the best, aka the ones stamped with the prestige that comes with it.

This is a real, concrete application of this social initiative you speak of. In principle, it's great, in practice it simply doesn't work as well as in theory. Don't get me wrong, it's great for those (such as myself) whose family couldn't afford 40-100k$ of debts. The main problem with any and all social-democratic initiative is that the grass is always greener on the other side, and people will do ANYTHING to be considered better or more qualified than their neighbor. In a capitalist society, money dictates where we go, and there's literally nothing we can do about it unless we do a complete 180 degree in our economic system. My conclusion: social-democratic initiatives are great, but are very limited as to what they can accomplish.

[Annoyed]

We have some of these elements you mentioned in effect in my country. Before I go any further, it is important to note that my province of residence, Québec (QC) is of a different mindset than the other 10 Provinces and 3 Territories; our policies, laws and regs are much more socially driven.

Long story short, in 1968 the Gov. of QC created a network of Public Universities in order for superior studies to be accessible to all Quebecers. The fees have slightly increased over the years and are now capped at about 1.4k$ per session (an average of 300$ per course, give or take) and increase slightly with inflation. Anybody that went to University, or anybody that gave a quick glance at the usual fees will agree that 1.4k has to be the cheapest fees you've ever heard of. This network is of course financed through our collective taxes.

There was a major student strike in 2012. Long story short, the Liberals wanted to increase the scholarship fees and it raised uproar throughout the whole province. They called this movement the *red square*. I was studying in Business Administration at the time, this was the biggest conflict in QC that implicated youth mainly. Crazy times, we actually built barricades in our school .

What shocked me is the difference of opinion between the youth and *working-class adults*. We were against the raise not solely for financial purposes, but mainly for the principle that our society made a choice to cap the fees in order to get more, less fortunate (Billy-Bobs of this world) people in Universities. Almost EVERY single people of the older generation which I spoke to at the time were in favor of this raise, and dismissed our protest on the ground that 1.4k is really cheap (which is true) and we should not complain for a few hundreds of dollars more. Bad PR, Liberals lost the election, the Parti Québécois (separatists) came in power and cancelled the raise. But, they equally cancelled some tax credits in order to get their money back, politicians will be politicians .

The 1968 initiative was successful and much needed at the time: there were only 3 universities throughout the whole province! That being said, an individual that wants to study in fields that are not ''specialties'' of these public facilities, has to go to the private sector and pay the same ridiculously high prices (about 10k per session). Why do so if could save so much going to the Public network? The renown and prestige of Universities. This is how it works in the real life once you get out of your books. If you want a high-profile job in a major company, or be recognized as an accredited professional in high-profile jobs (Doctors, scientists, etc.), you need to be a Harvard-class protégé of this world. A sad but cold hard fact this is. They want the best of the best, aka the ones stamped with the prestige that comes with it.

This is a real, concrete application of this social initiative you speak of. In principle, it's great, in practice it simply doesn't work as well as in theory. Don't get me wrong, it's great for those (such as myself) whose family couldn't afford 40-100k$ of debts. The main problem with any and all social-democratic initiative is that the grass is always greener on the other side, and people will do ANYTHING to be considered better or more qualified than their neighbor. In a capitalist society, money dictates where we go, and there's literally nothing we can do about it unless we do a complete 180 degree in our economic system. My conclusion: social-democratic initiatives are great, but are very limited as to what they can accomplish.

To some degree, this is mirrored in the US. The educational system and it's fees seems to be "paying your dues" or "buying your ticket" to a decent job, whether or not that education is really needed is irrelevant. Is the quality of education at a Harvard or some such really that much better? After all, all colleges must meet the same accreditation criteria, don't they? You're paying for the name, just as even a sheepskin of any sort is not needed to do a job, but is required due to the brainwashing the education industry has done on business.

[Womble]

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

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?

Because I need to work full time for a living. There's not enough hours in the day. If I didn't have to work or pay for studies, I would gladly have studied. Especially if the worst end result is going back to working.

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

Not really. If you want to turn society upside down, slaughter tends to follow. If you are less ambitious, it usually doesn't.

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

Or that. Or the little girl just wants to be a princess, which is pretty hard to file under striving for common good.

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.

That would make sense. But it's not what you described.

When have I said they cannot co-exist?

Follows from your original premise.


Re: technology = no work, a.k.a. FALC (fully automated luxury Communism). That used to be a famous Communist cop-out to evade the immutable problems of the ideology, primarily the question of who will do the necessarily unpleasant work such as clean the toilets in a society in which neither payment nor coercion are acceptable as motivation. It's a really nice idea that looks good in science fiction but requires two conditions which will never exist in real world - perfect technology and infinite resources.

[Chaka-Z0]

Is the quality of education at a Harvard or some such really that much better? After all, all colleges must meet the same accreditation criteria, don't they? You're paying for the name, just as even a sheepskin of any sort is not needed to do a job, but is required due to the brainwashing the education industry has done on business.

I would say it has to be somewhat better yes, probably because of the quality of the staff... but to what extent? You're still learning how to do X with Y teacher. Accreditation wise, as for academic requirements, they are probably the same. The difference is you need big bills and connections to get into Harvard.

You are paying for the name and that is my point. When let's say the most prestigious law firm is looking for lawyers, they won't even look at your resume unless it has one of these establishments listed on it.

[Annoyed]

I would say it has to be somewhat better yes, probably because of the quality of the staff... but to what extent? You're still learning how to do X with Y teacher. Accreditation wise, as for academic requirements, they are probably the same. The difference is you need big bills and connections to get into Harvard.

You are paying for the name and that is my point. When let's say the most prestigious law firm is looking for lawyers, they won't even look at your resume unless it has one of these establishments listed on it.

It's basically a millionaire's club, with the educational industry playing bouncer at the door.

[AleksisMi]

well heres a fun argument... how many white collar jobs are already unnescesary and purely a result of attempting to game the system to get extra cash for corporations or individuals

[Annoyed]

A LOT. Have to have promotions as a reward.