Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-07-2017, 06:39 AM
 
2,625 posts, read 3,414,988 times
Reputation: 3200

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Of course not. But education for it's own sake might return.
Getting away from college as a job training program can only help the world.


For it's own sake. As it should be.
https://www.macfound.org/press/press...ral-education/

For what do so many individuals need to even exist?
And how are the masses going to pay for all that education being pursued just for its own sake when they live off of a UBI (likely subsistence-level) income????? Or is that liberal arts or other education going to be provided to them for free or nearly so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2017, 06:44 AM
 
4,224 posts, read 3,020,173 times
Reputation: 3812
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Who exactly do you believe gets the benefit of those efficiencies?
It sounds as though it's NOT the owners and shareholders.
That's up to us. We have had 40 years now of everything going preferentially to owners and shareholders. That has not worked out well for anyone else or for the country as a whole. Maybe we need to rethink this a little.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
The best chance that YOU have is to reduce the number of people you'll have to compete against to get one of these increased output jobs. (which btw should pay pretty well under such circumstances)
I appreciate your concern, but I'm personally quite happy being well-situated enough to be one of the roughly 90 million Americans who presently do not have a job and do not want one either. Otherwise the contemplated problem is one of distribution. With fewer people working, an increasing reliance on means other than income will be needed in accomplishing resource allocation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 06:46 AM
 
2,625 posts, read 3,414,988 times
Reputation: 3200
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post


THIS!.. and yet we still get called uneducated because we didnt go to a secondary school to pay for a 20k+ paper to hang on a wall.
Actually, you meant to say a post-secondary school (entailing an institution of higher education). "Secondary education" entails grade K through 12.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 06:50 AM
 
4,224 posts, read 3,020,173 times
Reputation: 3812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
There should still be plenty of jobs this century. In the year 2510....
I don't condemn the people of the early 16th century for their many failures to make my life today any easier. Similarly, I will count on the people of 2510 to work through their own problems and difficulties as they can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 07:08 AM
 
4,224 posts, read 3,020,173 times
Reputation: 3812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You still haven't proven economically why someone is entitled to a certain Standard of Living or Life-Style.
Hmmm. What did the global collapse of capitalism teach us? Where did all those Depression-era work programs come from? Where have all these post-WWII social welfare programs come from?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 07:10 AM
 
Location: The Triad
34,090 posts, read 82,988,469 times
Reputation: 43666
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll View Post
And how are the masses going to pay for all that education being pursued just for its own sake...
What masses?

See, that's the fulcrum point in the discussion as I see it.
Whether we do something about the real problem of just too damned many.. or just ignore it.

I'll put you in the "prefer to ignore it" column.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 07:18 AM
 
Location: The Triad
34,090 posts, read 82,988,469 times
Reputation: 43666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
We have had 40 years now of everything going preferentially to owners and shareholders.
That has not worked out well for anyone else or for the country as a whole.
Maybe we need to rethink this a little.
Oh. Did you perhaps get a new book during the holidays? Sounds like it. Maybe one of these?
https://www.amazon.com/Chairman-Maos.../dp/B0046NEO0E
https://www.amazon.com/What-Be-Done-.../dp/0801495474

Quote:
I appreciate your concern, but I'm personally quite happy being well-situated enough...
I am as well. As are my TWO kids and my brothers TWO kids.
And largely because our parents and in-laws also limited themselves to few kids.

Quote:
..the contemplated problem is one of distribution...accomplishing resource allocation.
Well YOUR contemplation is ...as you keep coming back to that.
I'll keep coming back to having fewer forks poised over the pie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 07:24 AM
 
4,224 posts, read 3,020,173 times
Reputation: 3812
It's pretty much ingrained in the American mindset at least that individual women guide their own reproductive histories. Do-gooders cannot keep them from reproducing, nor can they compel them to it either. And with all that in mind, the CDC tells us that US fertility rates are at their lowest levels in recorded history. The government began keeping these records in 1909.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 07:27 AM
 
Location: The Triad
34,090 posts, read 82,988,469 times
Reputation: 43666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
...the CDC tells us that US fertility rates are at their lowest levels in recorded history.
The government began keeping these records in 1909.
Look deeper.
It's not hard to find the RAW NUMBERS relative to income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 07:40 AM
 
4,224 posts, read 3,020,173 times
Reputation: 3812
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Oh. Did you perhaps get a new book during the holidays?
I'm sure you've already realized how weak this really was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
I am as well. As are my TWO kids and my brothers TWO kids. And largely because our parents and in-laws also limited themselves to few kids.
Anecdotes are not better evidence than baseless assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Well YOUR contemplation is ...as you keep coming back to that. I'll keep coming back to having fewer forks poised over the pie.
The number of forks is actually an example of insufficient evidence, as the size of the pie is continuously changing. It is meanwhile an unassailable fact that there will be a given GDP and total population, and that the problem from there is simply one of allocation and distribution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:21 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top