Yarrr... Linux!

Pages

AuthorTopic: Yarrr... Linux!
Shock Trooper
Member # 4239
Profile #50
quote:
Originally written by Eldibs:

The entire income of my immediate family is just enough to live off of (approximately $10,000 a year). Besides, are you going out and doing good in the world, or are you just sitting around complaining and saying everyone else should?
Don't take this the wrong way, but how many people are in your family? My family's comfortably middle-classish, but my father's a pastor so I know a bit about one's circumstances if the familial income is $10k/year. And quite frankly, any family of 3-4 with that level of income doesn't have time for debates on the internet. Besides the fact that 10K is less than a full 40 hour workweek on minimum wage. Yes, I'm aware that most minimum-wage jobs don't provide a full workweek, but anybody who actually needs to live off of minimum-wage work has two jobs. Not to mention (I'm assuming) multiple adults capable of working.
Secondly, yes. I came into a decently-sized inheritance (which, no, I didn't earn, my grandfather just gave it to us); I gave a goodly percentage of it to a local homeless shelter to help with the construction of a new family-housing facility. I tithe on my other income. Attending a difficult college as I am (the inheritance paying for that, incidentally, not a new car or something...just so we're clear ;) ), I don't really have the money or time to do much else. :/ I expect to spend less of my income on myself than I do on charity when I get a job. (Given my background this is actually reasonable; last year my immediate family gave away more than half its income, and I won't have the burden of children for a good while.)
And in any case, if every person in the USA gave only the tenth of their income to charity that I as a college student do, we'd actually be the generous nation we claim to be.

quote:
quote:
How do they earn it? By being good little boys and girls whenever you're watching?
No, by working (well, of course they'll have to behave, but not only when I'm looking). If they want to get that new toy or videogame, they'll have to do chores to earn it. When they turn 16 and want a new car, they'll get a job and pay for it. That way, they'll know the value of money, and they won't get a free ride. Then, when I die, they will evenly split whatever is left of my fortune with all the other members of my family.

So, err...they'll have to grow up under circumstances similar to most of the country and then they'll suddenly receive some money. I'm not saying they shouldn't get some, I'm just pointing out that they've still done nothing different from every other child in the country who doesn't have an inheritance coming their way.

quote:
quote:
You can't earn a fortune in any fair sense of the word. What you can do is get lucky in location and birth.
So If I happen to work hard, spending my own free time inventing something that revolutionizes the world, and I get rich off of it (this is assuming I'm not already wealthy), then I didn't earn it? How is that right?

You did a wonderful thing and you presumably worked hard to get the money. But somewhere there's another person who worked just as hard or harder simply feeding their family; does that mean they should be condemned to live in poverty?

quote:
Originally written by Eldibs:

quote:
Do you really think anyone works one thousand times harder than average?
No, but do you really think it's fair to take away a person's wealth when they did work harder to get it?

Well, yes. Because our form of society creates and maintains wealth disparities, it's only fair that we as a society do our best to remedy that situation. Or do you also think that there's no racism left in this country and that affirmative action is evil?

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Academic research is another field with high contributions to society for really, really low financial reward. As a medical researcher, unless I start my own biotech company or win a Nobel Prize or something, I'm likely to earn even less than a teacher for similar hours of work. (I have several family members who are teachers, so I know how much they make.)

Frankly, this doesn't bother me. I'm not in it for the money anyway.

Where do you work? (Or, perhaps less freakily, what kind of research institution?) I know several professors, and all of them are making a good bit more than public-school teachers. Though it's entirely possible there's a large disparity between various classes of college/university?

[ Sunday, January 15, 2006 20:49: Message edited by: SNM ]

--------------------
There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were.
Posts: 322 | Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #51
quote:
Originally written by SNM:

Where do you work? (Or, perhaps less freakily, what kind of research institution?) I know several professors, and all of them are making a good bit more than public-school teachers. Though it's entirely possible there's a large disparity between various classes of college/university?
At a university in Australia (I'm still studying at the moment; I'm not actually going to be working there until next year, assuming things go well). Universities here are mostly publicly-funded rather than privately-funded, so I imagine that makes a fair bit of difference to the salaries of those who work there.

(Mind you, my family members are/were fairly senior teachers -- heads of department and so on -- so they're earning considerably more than an entry-level teacher's salary. One teaches at a private school, one teaches at a Catholic school and one taught at a public school and is now retired. Not sure about the ex-public school teacher, but the other two both earn more than I'm ever likely to.)

As I said, this isn't really a problem for me. Since I'm relatively frugal and despise children, I'm never likely to have much to spend money on anyway.

[ Sunday, January 15, 2006 21:05: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4239
Profile #52
Ah, that makes sense. Private high school teachers make a good bit more than public-school ones...at least in the US. I think average starting salary is ~30k/year and it climbs to ~50k; whereas professors at the lower end of (4-year) schools tend to start at that level and can climb into the 100ks. ;)

--------------------
There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were.
Posts: 322 | Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #53
I love that argument and use it frequently, but I recognize the fallacy and try not to complain when it comes back to bite me. Of course, I'm refering to society needing to erase a wealth disparity because it was created by society.

Umm. I'm pretty sure that "society" doesn't stand isolated from that which it creates, so there is little to guarantee society will remain without wealth disparity. It may, but why take that chance? A person can easily pick themselves up from nothing and make a load of cash.

quote:
...if every person in the USA gave only the tenth of their income to charity that I as a college student do, we'd actually be the generous nation we claim to be.
This was good too, and when I was younger I thought along similar lines. It goes back to the thing Mom used to ask, "If Jimmy jumped off that cliff, would you follow him?" It turns out that every person has the ability to make their own choices, independent of influence from anyone else. The one person that doesn't make charitable donations is not a bad person. They just aren't. If you feel badly that they aren't donating to charity, or you feel that they should in fact donate to charity, then you need to step back a few feet and ask how it would feel to be in that persons shoes and have that kind of pressure.
Our society is somewhat contingent on mutual respect, and more and more I see our freedom of choice removed by well meaning individuals. That creates homogenity, which in my view is bad for me and bad for society as a whole. But be how you want to be, I won't stand in opposition, as long as I can be left out of it.

*this message sponsored by acme soapbox emporium - serving lefties only since 1903*

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #54
If you invent something spectacular, you deserve a reward for it. I think quite a few inventions are motivated by greed. A whole lot of biotech research may be done by biologists who love their work, but the investors and such who underwrite the R&D want their money back with interest. That's fine.

However, the fact that you can make millions of dollars off of your work does not mean you should make millions. What, practically, is the difference between $100 million and $200 million? To the average person, very little; those are figures so high that there's no real difference. So if you make $200 million and half of it is taken in taxes to be used for the good of everyone, perhaps by paying those teachers who make so little, is that disastrous? I think not.

—Alorael, who is bothered by the amount of money made by most researchers. After going through college and often graduate school, a long and expensive process, they make next to nothing. Aside from unfairness, this means that it can become hard to attract scientists to the career, although those who do become scientists are obviously in it for love of science. It's also rather difficult to attract young doctors to researchers hospitals when private practice is far more lucrative, although increasing lawsuits and rising costs balanced the scales a bit.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #55
The classic argument for laissez faire capitalism is that wealth disparity is nowhere near as big a moral issue as absolute poverty. Raising the standard of living of the poorest fraction of society, or at least of most of it, is worth all kinds of unpleasant costs -- including the cost, if such it is, of making the richest fraction of society disproportionately richer still.

In other words, the rich getting richer is an acceptable side effect in a system that makes the poor less poor faster than any other practicable system.

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4239
Profile #56
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

quote:
...if every person in the USA gave only the tenth of their income to charity that I as a college student do, we'd actually be the generous nation we claim to be.
This was good too, and when I was younger I thought along similar lines. It goes back to the thing Mom used to ask, "If Jimmy jumped off that cliff, would you follow him?" It turns out that every person has the ability to make their own choices, independent of influence from anyone else. The one person that doesn't make charitable donations is not a bad person. They just aren't. If you feel badly that they aren't donating to charity, or you feel that they should in fact donate to charity, then you need to step back a few feet and ask how it would feel to be in that persons shoes and have that kind of pressure.
Our society is somewhat contingent on mutual respect, and more and more I see our freedom of choice removed by well meaning individuals. That creates homogenity, which in my view is bad for me and bad for society as a whole. But be how you want to be, I won't stand in opposition, as long as I can be left out of it.

Just because people are capable of choosing to continue to perpetrate evil doesn't mean the government should let them. "If Jimmy says murder is bad, does that mean you have to feel the same way?"

quote:
Originally written by SoT:

In other words, the rich getting richer is an acceptable side effect in a system that makes the poor less poor faster than any other practicable system.
Arguably true. However, in practice that's sometimes a non-issue because it is, in fact, not always true that the poor slowly get richer within our society. I believe I at one point found out that the average income of California's bottom 20% has actually gone down over the last 20 years--I believe in unadjusted dollars, not just in terms of those corrected for inflation, too. (I'd get you sources but I've forgotten my googling steps and don't really have the time right now...later I hope I can.)
Secondly, that argument only works if you leave the rest of the world out of it. If you don't, laissez-faire capitalism pretty clearly doesn't work...sweatshops, anybody? How about Africa, anybody care to take responsibility for exploiting that continent's people?
Before you tell me that Africans today are better off than they used to be, I respond with this article which informs you that the percentage of Africans living on <$1/day has doubled since the 1970s. That's one hell of a long wait and a downward slide for us to be putting up with.

--------------------
There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were.
Posts: 322 | Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #57
If the whole world had a livable minimum wage, that would really change the whole economy. Things would be more expensive to produce so they would cost more. People would be able to buy less. However, more people would be able to buy things. If it is possible and was done, life would have a totally different perspective.

Dikiyoba finds it odd that the money earned in a year from a federal full-time minimum wage job is below poverty level for a four person family. Obviously, not every person working a minimum wage job is supporting a family, but why is the system set up for failure?
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #58
Evil is a construct, not a boolean function or a bank account balance. Murder is considered a subset of the "societily labeled wrong" group of actions that take place. That is to say, society doesn't consider all murder to be evil. Some societies consider certain "murders" to be necessary components of a properly functioning society.
Furthermore, the USA society was founded on moral principles and yet it also was founded to encourage bootstrapping through enrichment. The problem is, they are almost mutually dependent.
I appreciate your devotion to making sure that the lowest income earners get the fair chance that is needed to make a successful life. I fear that some frustration is in your future, but don't let it get you down. Target the roadblocks to success, but not the success itself.

*this message sponsored by the evanston national bank*

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #59
Inflation is only part of the correction. One of the most basic and important advantages of capitalist economies is also one of the hardest to measure: continuous quality improvement. The extreme low end of today's consumer products is often better than the extreme high end was twenty years ago. Accounting for inflation doesn't take into account that today's fifty bucks can buy what five thousand bucks couldn't, back then.

We take this for granted, but it only seems to happen in capitalist economies. In fact I think one could argue that this one issue was the single great failure of Soviet communism. By the standards of 1917, the Soviet system was extremely successful.

So I doubt that the true absolute wealth of the poorest Americans has declined. Even if it has, however, this isn't really a big deal, because it certainly hasn't plummeted to Third World levels in the past 20 years. 100 years ago, it was pretty close to that. American grandparents remember when 'a chicken in every pot' was a promise, not a joke. Like the stock market, the wealth of capitalist nations has its ups and downs. Over the long haul, it does better than anything else.

Africa is an example of why one can say that income stagnation in America is not big deal. In economics the stakes are starvation, not keeping up with the Joneses. Africa is certainly in a bad way, and I wish I understood more about why. Half a dozen recent books haven't given me any clear ideas for simple fixes.

They have convinced me that chalking it all up to exploitation is about as helpful as telling a cancer patient that they are sick. When two healthy capitalist enterprises strike a mutually profitable deal, the fact that each is getting more than they give the other isn't seen as a problem. So the only reason to speak about African exploitation is that Africa is so poor. But then why is it so poor in the first place?

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #60
From what little I understand of political economic theory (not as much as I should), part of the argument for socialism is that the GDP alone is not a great measure of the overall well-being of a society. Being able to control certain aspects of the economy to make sure that our money is serving us instead of us serving our money is worth a small reduction in growth rate.

For example, in terms of environmentalism: after a certain point, cutting costs by using less clean methods to manufacture products runs up against increases in medical bills due to the problems that pollution causes.

More importantly, who gives a damn about being able to buy a table for fifty dollars instead of seventy-five if you can't breathe the air without getting cancer?

The other (purely economic) rationale that I've heard is that strict laissez-faire capitalism is subject to a boom-and-bust cycle. If you study U.S. economic history, you start to notice that there's a pattern of panics every twenty years: the Panic of 1819, the Panic of 1837, the Panic of 1857, the Panic of 1873, the Panic of 1893, etc. That's what laissez-faire capitalism gets you. Socialism can be used to mediate the booms and busts so that one gets a more level (although still somewhat bumpy) rate of growth.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #61
Now we get non-economic panics. Ahhhhh! The world will end on midnight of January 1, 2000. Oh. Never mind. It will happen sometime in 2016.

Dikiyoba.
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #62
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

From what little I understand of political economic theory (not as much as I should), part of the argument for socialism is that the GDP alone is not a great measure of the overall well-being of a society. Being able to control certain aspects of the economy to make sure that our money is serving us instead of us serving our money is worth a small reduction in growth rate.

For example, in terms of environmentalism: after a certain point, cutting costs by using less clean methods to manufacture products runs up against increases in medical bills due to the problems that pollution causes.

More importantly, who gives a damn about being able to buy a table for fifty dollars instead of seventy-five if you can't breathe the air without getting cancer?

The other (purely economic) rationale that I've heard is that strict laissez-faire capitalism is subject to a boom-and-bust cycle. If you study U.S. economic history, you start to notice that there's a pattern of panics every twenty years: the Panic of 1819, the Panic of 1837, the Panic of 1857, the Panic of 1873, the Panic of 1893, etc. That's what laissez-faire capitalism gets you. Socialism can be used to mediate the booms and busts so that one gets a more level (although still somewhat bumpy) rate of growth.

I believe these are classic arguments against strict 19th century laissez faire. But they're not so much arguments for socialism-as-opposed-to-capitalism, as arguments for government superstructure on top of the free market. All the industrialized capitalist countries put some amount of this in place over the 20th century, so that even in the US, which surely lags in this respect, there are laws to protect the environment. (You want to see eco-catastrophe, check out the former communist countries: red doesn't necessarily mean green.) And even the US has a progressive income tax, social security and medicare, an activist Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Some people would say that this means we're all socialists now. I don't want to debate terminology; it's just that this thread did start off talking about some much more radical alternatives to unfettered capitalism than that.

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #63
Well, socialism-as-opposed-to-capitalism is very 19th century and early 20th century. We recognize that it's more of a continuum today. And if you're talking about economic theories for today, Alorael's post (going back a couple of pages) pretty well spells it out: pure laissez-faire capitalism has proven itself bankrupt, and so has pure government-controlled communism. The question is what degree of socialism is best.

Honestly, it was just that you put up the old argument for laissez-faire, so I figured I'd put up the old argument against. :P

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
Profile #64
Going back a bit;
quote:
It's entirely possible under our current economic system for a wealthy person to earn over a thousand times more in a lifetime than someone on an average income (and that's just in developed countries; in poorer countries, income disparities can be even greater). Do you really think anyone works one thousand times harder than average.
Your assuming a linear relationship with that question, perhaps with the point of making it ludicrous, but any relationship between work and earned wealth could almost never be bijective.

As for moderating the economy and the ups and downs, isn't that the purpose of the Fed?

Edited for quote fixing purposes.

[ Wednesday, January 18, 2006 06:58: Message edited by: AxB ]

--------------------
"Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are false'."
Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #65
Well, the idea of using the law to compel big corporations to act as we little people please has obvious appeal. The disadvantages of too much centralized control, and the advantages of market capitalism even for the little people, are less obvious to abstract thought, and seemed worth spelling out.

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6689
Profile #66
Before I try to un-hijack this thread, I must congradulate everyone who posted here for their very excellent ideas! All of the opinions, ideas, and hypothetical situations expressed were from talented minds and have helped me figure out what I can do to make Communism a working institution! Hahaha! :P With that said, I turn my attention to the pepperoni/Canadian bacon controversy.

I'm a vegetarian. I've only been one for a half a year. But before that I never ate pork anyhow. Pork is kinda gross, IMHO. My favorite pizza topping is pineapple! Stuff's insanely delicious.

Now please, about Avernum...

--------------------
--Dachnaz
Posts: 50 | Registered: Saturday, January 14 2006 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #67
Property is theft, man. This thread belongs to the people!

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
Profile #68
I've not done any serious studies of economics, but the way I see the success of capitalism is this:

There is no linear correlation between expenditure of effort and wealth, nor is there one between the value of the aggregate impact of the service on society on wealth; rather, wealth (by which I mean purchasing power, political influence, AND the ability to make sure one's children's futures are secure - morally bankrupt or no, that is one of the greatest motivating factors in the pursuit of wealth) is directly proportional to some power greater than 1 of the service's value to society and inversely proportional to the fraction of society that possesses the skillset to render the service. Unless there is some incentive for people possessing rare skillsets to use them (i.e. a better ratio of wealth to effort expended), then they are equally likely, perhaps more likely, to perform much more rudimentary functions. Just, no. The best way to ensure that very, very important things are done by the right people, maybe. (It also enshrines the movie industry and professional athletes, but, hell, I wouldn't want to go through life with no NFL).

I've been doing a lot of thinking, and I'm coming closer and closer to the depressing conviction that my USA's standard of living is predicated on the poverty of several third-world countries. I would welcome some sort of disproof, but it seems that our proletariat became bourgeousie by turning itself into the white-collar controllers of an impoverished global proletariat, and that's ;_;
Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6689
Profile #69
Right on dude!

--------------------
--Dachnaz
Posts: 50 | Registered: Saturday, January 14 2006 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4239
Profile #70
quote:
Originally written by PoD person:

I've been doing a lot of thinking, and I'm coming closer and closer to the depressing conviction that my USA's standard of living is predicated on the poverty of several third-world countries. I would welcome some sort of disproof, but it seems that our proletariat became bourgeousie by turning itself into the white-collar controllers of an impoverished global proletariat, and that's ;_;
I'll just say that (in my experience, anyway) there's a huge correlation between those who like socialism/communism and those who are more interested in humanity than the USA.
And another strong correlation between those who like capitalism and those who don't give a rip about the rest of the world.

--------------------
There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were.
Posts: 322 | Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #71
If you know a way to make communism work, please share it. I think almost everyone acknowledges that communism is a great system on paper, where none of the problems that crop up in the real world plague it.

I maintain that the desire for wealth as one of the motivating factors behind everything we do, perhaps even the greatest motivating factor, makes communism and socialism difficult to implement. The problems of capitalism have already been outlined. Personal opinion is a big part of which point on the continuum is best, but I think that if you like socialism, the best workable plan is to find that optimum point where most people remain motivated but the actual rewards are small because most of the wealth (using wealth loosely) produced is taken and used or redistributed by the state.

—Alorael, who is a vegetarian who eats meat.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #72
quote:
Originally written by PoD person:

I'm coming closer and closer to the depressing conviction that my USA's standard of living is predicated on the poverty of several third-world countries. I would welcome some sort of disproof, but it seems that our proletariat became bourgeousie by turning itself into the white-collar controllers of an impoverished global proletariat, and that's ;_;
Is this even a controversial opinion? I thought that was well-known. And while it's unfortunate, the entire economy of the U.S. was built on the suffering of the lowest class echelon during the period of industrialization. We've just outsourced the suffering.

However, the good news is that it is likely that eventually mechanization will make menial labor jobs less and less useful and a high standard of living more and more accessible, with the result being that eventually everyone will be able to be a part of some sort of working class at least (rather than being desperately poor). The only two unknowns are: how long will this take? and will our global system survive for that long?

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
Profile #73
quote:
Originally written by Alorael:

If you know a way to make communism work, please share it. I think almost everyone acknowledges that communism is a great system on paper, where none of the problems that crop up in the real world plague it.

I maintain that the desire for wealth as one of the motivating factors behind everything we do, perhaps even the greatest motivating factor, makes communism and socialism difficult to implement. The problems of capitalism have already been outlined. Personal opinion is a big part of which point on the continuum is best, but I think that if you like socialism, the best workable plan is to find that optimum point where most people remain motivated but the actual rewards are small because most of the wealth (using wealth loosely) produced is taken and used or redistributed by the state.

My first paragraph was an endorsement of capitalism as a motivator. I feel that any sort of communism would need to keep the capitalist economic incentive structure of compensating those with rare skillsets exponentially. Otherwise, laziness and inertia will take over. People will take the obvious job if the compensation is the same. In other words, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his abilities, down to a certain minimum cost of living." Even then, the removal of the "produce or starve" capitalist motivation could prove disastrous.

t Kelandon - the crux of my little addendum was that I'm not entirely sure this lifestyle is even possible except at the expense of a lot of the world.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #74
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

However, the good news is that it is likely that eventually mechanization will make menial labor jobs less and less useful and a high standard of living more and more accessible, with the result being that eventually everyone will be able to be a part of some sort of working class at least (rather than being desperately poor).
This has been promised for the last 200 years or so. We don't seem to be particularly closer to it than we were back then.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00

Pages