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.
So you agree with me, you just quibble about my use of the word "work" to define the way that human beings waste a quarter of their lives. If yu want't call it "self reliance", that doesn't change anything -- it's still the same grunt toil and it's still your holy grail. Since when is mindless assembly line work "self sufficiency and self-reliance", except that it requires setting an alarm clock and enduring gridlock traffic.
No, the jtur widget factory has a schedule of widgets, not a schedule of work. I can automate and digitize, and produce the same widgets with three people, none of them using stone axes. My widgets get turned out without any self-suffiency or self-reliance at all. Those are not components in the widget creation process. My gross receipts from sales are the same in the end, and there is enough gain that I can distribute a living income to 50 or 100 people, whether they complain at my water cooler or enjoy leisure at home with their families, the latter of which is the whole thrust behind human industrial ingenuity. It's best for Jtur Widgets Inc, best for the distributees of a share of the bounty, best for the town. The only question that remains is whether I will voluntarily distribute a share of my vast personal gain to the whole community, or whether a culturally agreed-upon ethic weighs on me to apply my profits to the commonweal of the community from which I extract my own gains.
The beauty of the machine is that it enables constant output with less work, not more output with constant work. That's what inspired men to devise machines. Constant work is not the centerpiece of the human condition, and if it were, we'd still be rowing ships across the seas with oars. In the veldt, the lion runs down a gazelle every week or so, which satisfied his need. You think the lion is content and fulfilled only if he spends 8 hours a day needlessly wasting time and energy chasing gazelles in order to increase the pile of dead ungulate carcasses, obsolescing in the sun like a useless heap of landline phones and analog TVs and cars that can't back themselves into parallel parking spaces.
Again, who gets to choose the three suckers, I mean people, who have to work in your widget factory? Why should it be up those 3 and the widget factory owner, to do all the labor and then distribute the fruits of that labor to 47 people who sleep late and watch TV all day? If the world worked this way, don't you think those 3 people and the widget factory owner would be scrambling to get into that lucky group of non-workers? After all, there's no benefit to being the sucker who has to do the work and gets the same reward as those sleeping late.
Your premise seems to be that technological advances and automation negate the need for everyone to participate. Why shouldn't the solution be to have 50 workers work fewer hours instead of putting the burden on a few? Are those 47 more worthy of being taken care of than the 3? And again, who would get to decide?
Your premise seems to be that technological advances and automation negate the need for everyone to participate.
Is that what his point was?
The only problem with that sort of uber-efficiency is if the raw number of "everyone's" who still need food
and shelter and education and medical care and all the rest continues to expand as though there was any
sort of need for them to exist. There isn't... which is the underlying problem we have today.
Since 1970 or so, as automation and outsourcing and offshoring have grown and largely eliminated so
many jobs in so many sectors, categories and even entire industries, the population in the country has
expanded 50%. There really are too many of us.
The first 2/3's of us could probably have their/our hours reduced if they/we didn't have to produce
enough "work" and taxes to provide for the needs of the last 1/3.
1.)
2.) Increase the age for Medicare to be equal to that for SS.
That's the worst idea i ever heard. Do you know how many seniors are already dying because they have no health insurance? Do you know how many more would die between 65 and 70 because they couldn't afford a premium of $2000/mo. ?
That's the worst idea i ever heard. Do you know how many seniors are already dying because they have no health insurance? Do you know how many more would die between 65 and 70 because they couldn't afford a premium of $2000/mo. ?
So your solution is to cut off food for the young? The boomers had their time. They drowned the world in debt and lived high on the hog. The future of society has to come first. I don't want to see anyone suffer, but if you're saying either the young starve or the old do, I choose the young.
The only problem with that sort of uber-efficiency is if the raw number of "everyone's" who still need food and shelter and education and medical care and all the rest continues to expand as though there was any sort of need for them to exist. There isn't... which is the underlying problem we have today.
Since 1970 or so, as automation and outsourcing and offshoring have grown and largely eliminated so
many jobs in so many sectors, categories and even entire industries, the population in the country has expanded 50%. There are too many of us.
Perhaps not. I was assuming there was a point and attempting to define it.
You are correct that off shoring and automation have eliminated jobs, making it clear that there aren't enough jobs to go around. Unless the population contracts, this will escalate. Some believe the current system is unfair because in their view, those with the most intelligence, education, connections or luck get rewarded with jobs and those who are less intelligent, more poorly educated, lack connections or are unlucky are forced to live the lifestyle that unemployment and welfare provides.
In that view, the solution is to create a society where the "smart and lucky" work to provide for everyone and all others are free to pursue whatever they'd like in their lives. What I fail to see is how that is materially different that what we have today. Under that concept, everyone makes the same money, worker or not. Then the haves become those with the most free time and the have nots are those with less (the workers). All that is accomplished is redefining the most valuable resource. It still remains an unfair system.
Isn't what you suggest closer to what Ryan wants to do and a distance from what Obama wantes to do. Ryan wants to protect those over 55 and Obama has yet to put his cards on public display.
Ryan doesn't want to protect anyone except his rich pimps. Protecting 55 and over is just a ploy with him to get 55 and under off SS. Once that is accomplished he'll have set a precedent and weakened the system thereby making it possible to knock 55 and over off the program under some trumped-up "crisis". Don't you read these phony "I'm for the little guy" liars yet?
Unfortunately when you think in terms only of the deficit, you have a narrow view of he economy. Making these cuts will have consequences. More people would slip into poverty, more would become homeless. Fewer people from lower income areas would be able to go to college, which may reinforce inequality and class structure. I seriously doubt people have all the time to do the things you mentioned while working to support their family.
A lot of these government programs also are work assistance programs. I have met several people the last few days that are getting put back to work through work assistance programs. If we merely cut all these programs I guarantee the deficit would skyrocket, not to mention healthcare premiums.
And yes, ending the bush tax cuts, for everyone, would indeed make a dent. There is no doubt there is waste in government but it is absurd that we first go for welfare programs. There has been this line of thinking that has unfortunately reached America in the last few decades, that those on welfare are lazy and don't work. In general, this couldnt be further from the truth.
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.
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.
