Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-08-2017, 08:15 PM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,891,225 times
Reputation: 5932

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroWord View Post
In another thread, someone suggested the following solution to poverty. I can't remember who this person was, so if you think this was your idea please speak up.

Here's the solution. Basic income for life of about ~$2000/month to anyone with one condition: voluntarily submit oneself to sterilization. Within a generation or so, the problem of poverty will be solved.

This suggestion was written on here a few weeks ago. On the outside, it sounds horrid, doesn't it? But I cannot find anything logically wrong with this policy. Put aside political correctness for a moment. What exactly is wrong with this solution?
Sorry, but the Communists pretty much thought the same and they failed. You pay for people to use the system, I am against it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2017, 08:16 PM
 
6,389 posts, read 4,094,704 times
Reputation: 8242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabridgienne View Post
Offering financial incentive to people if they sell their kids to the government? Maybe just clear out the homeless animals in the SPCA and stash the kids in there while they wait to be adopted?
I never said it would be easy. In fact, if this policy is instituted, it would put a great strain on the system for a number of years. There will probably be a lot of protests and doomsday cults springing up. As I have said many times already, the results won't be seen for at least a generation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2017, 08:18 PM
 
6,389 posts, read 4,094,704 times
Reputation: 8242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Sorry, but the Communists pretty much thought the same and they failed. You pay for people to use the system, I am against it.
The communists failed because they were enslaving people and persecuted intellectuals.

Everything I have discussed so far is voluntary. Instead of paying people a bigger pay check every time they have an additional kid outside of wedlock, why not pay them to not have more kids?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2017, 08:19 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 784,785 times
Reputation: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroWord View Post
Ok, I'll accept the accusation that I'm lazy.

There have been many people with doctoral degrees on economics trying to solve the problem of poverty. The US has instituted thousands of programs and spent trillions of dollars over the past 5 decades to tackle poverty. And yet, we still have generational poverty virtually everywhere.
That's in part because the United States claims to be a capitalist society and not an egalitarian society.

Most--not all--poverty in the USA is relative poverty. As it is in Europe. There is not as much absolute poverty in the US as there is developing countries.

The best a capitalist nation can shoot for is to not have absolute poverty. To have the poor in relative poverty. Otherwise they pay the price. "Negative extrrnalities" such as in Venezuela were rich people are kidnapped by gangs of the poor and held for ransom. When the rich all need bodyguards and can't wear gold chains in public.

Generational poverty is like generational prostitution and generational construction workers. Such things will exist but be happy it is not you and your kids if you don't like those states of being.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2017, 08:19 PM
 
4,491 posts, read 2,216,747 times
Reputation: 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroWord View Post
In another thread, someone suggested the following solution to poverty. I can't remember who this person was, so if you think this was your idea please speak up.

Here's the solution. Basic income for life of about ~$2000/month to anyone with one condition: voluntarily submit oneself to sterilization. Within a generation or so, the problem of poverty will be solved.

This suggestion was written on here a few weeks ago. On the outside, it sounds horrid, doesn't it? But I cannot find anything logically wrong with this policy. Put aside political correctness for a moment. What exactly is wrong with this solution?
The problem with it is that it's basis is naive stupidity.

While it's true that poverty tends to be a generational problem (social scientists call it the poverty cycle), it's not actually genetic. People born well off can become impoverished and people born with nothing can become wealthy. Ultimately, ability to become impoverished and leave poverty is determined by your environment, meaning that this sterilization, while it would theoretically disrupt the poverty cycle, it wouldn't necessarily eliminate poverty. What's more, this shortage of people could have negative consequences on job creation, which could actually create more poverty.

And to be clear, I'm reacting almost exclusively to the sterilization aspect of this. A basic income could work, though some stipulations would be beneficial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2017, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Japan
15,292 posts, read 7,728,768 times
Reputation: 10006
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroWord View Post
In another thread, someone suggested the following solution to poverty. I can't remember who this person was, so if you think this was your idea please speak up.

Here's the solution. Basic income for life of about ~$2000/month to anyone with one condition: voluntarily submit oneself to sterilization. Within a generation or so, the problem of poverty will be solved.

This suggestion was written on here a few weeks ago. On the outside, it sounds horrid, doesn't it? But I cannot find anything logically wrong with this policy. Put aside political correctness for a moment. What exactly is wrong with this solution?
I don't think we need to permanently sterilize anyone or offer lifetime support. Just give people incentive enough to put off having children, at least until they can afford it. If poor young women knew that not having kids was the way to get government money rather than the reverse it would make a positive difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2017, 08:21 PM
 
6,389 posts, read 4,094,704 times
Reputation: 8242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogburn View Post
That's in part because the United States claims to be a capitalist society and not an egalitarian society.

Most--not all--poverty in the USA is relative poverty. As it is in Europe. There is not as much absolute poverty in the US as there is developing countries.

The best a capitalist nation can shoot for is to not have absolute poverty. To have the poor in relative poverty. Otherwise they pay the price. "Negative extrrnalities" such as in Venezuela were rich people are kidnapped by gangs of the poor and held for ransom. When the rich all need bodyguards and can't wear gold chains in public.

Generational poverty is like generational prostitution and generational construction workers. Such things will exist but be happy it is not you and your kids if you don't like those states of being.
I refuse to accept that the poor will always be with us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2017, 08:23 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,509,364 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment View Post
There are rich and poor within all cultures.
Subcultures.

Poor people make bad decisions.

Look at the poor Asian and Jewish immigrants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2017, 08:25 PM
 
8,275 posts, read 7,914,914 times
Reputation: 12122
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment View Post
And it isn't just about attitudes and upbringing. Poverty is very likely also a function of behavioral tendencies and inabilities that have a genetic basis. Some people are simply born with brains and bodies that function in a way as to make it more difficult for them to be successful. Incentivizing such people to have fewer kids makes sense.
The bolded portion is why inequality will never be eliminated.

You bring up another good question: can we say for sure that cultural traits or tendencies are not in anyway linked to genes? We evolved in response to our environment. Culture is impacted to a large degree by environment. It seems to me that it is likely that cultural characteristics ARE related in some ways to genetics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2017, 08:26 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,509,364 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroWord View Post
The communists failed because they were enslaving people and persecuted intellectuals.

Everything I have discussed so far is voluntary. Instead of paying people a bigger pay check every time they have an additional kid outside of wedlock, why not pay them to not have more kids?
Nope. Because they use violence to confiscate all properties and make people equally poor.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 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