- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Replacing Social Welfare Programs with a Min Income Payment
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
post-scarcity: abundance of the basic needs of society (food, water, shelter, and some entertainment-leisure) to where the price of production (including human capital) is so low, that they are available to everyone.
that's probably as good as you're going to get
not really trying to be a gadfly about that, it's just a phrase that has profound implications. for example, in Star Trek TNG they were called post-scarcity thanks to the invention of replicators. i do stand by the claim that what you mean is that "we produce enough."
anyway, whether we are post-scarcity or close to it doesn't honestly mean much for the value of the proposal IMO. it's probably as good as what we have now, and probably more efficient thanks to the simplicity. and if it had problems or was insufficient/too generous, the size of the income could probably easily be tweaked
This post was edited on 1/5/14 at 12:13 pm
1
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:12 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
It won't work and it is not consistent with socialist policies. I believe that everyone should work. To whatever their ability if they are getting 15K like this plan says then they need to be put to work and organized into unions and guilds.
well i see what you're saying
a socialist society will be inefficient and not advance, which means there won't be abundance. therefore a socialist society could never reach post-scarcity and there will be enough jobs for the population
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:13 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
for example, in Star Trek TNG they were called post-scarcity thanks to the invention of replicators.
that's basically the idea/example
quote:
anyway, whether we are post-scarcity or close to it doesn't honestly mean much for the value of the proposal IMO.
i don't care what label you use. we have reached a level of efficiency in production to where our society doesn't have enough jobs for the working-age population. also there is a gap where the lower-level cannot participate in the modern economy (and it will get worse). this efficiency will grow, as well as the gap.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:14 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
To whatever their ability if they are getting housing, food, and clothing then they need to be put to work
Adjusted to an 1860 Southern slaveowner's view, but really, really close.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:15 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
Well they better get insurance then to avoid it.
And we could structure it in a way that the person can remain at their home while under ward status unless it's an end of life scenario. Key thing is we force people to pay things themselves before they ask for additional funds. And if we are giving a minimum living wage to people and they choose to buy things that they don't need thinking the public safety net will save them, they don't deserve to make that choice in the future on our dime.
And we could structure it in a way that the person can remain at their home while under ward status unless it's an end of life scenario. Key thing is we force people to pay things themselves before they ask for additional funds. And if we are giving a minimum living wage to people and they choose to buy things that they don't need thinking the public safety net will save them, they don't deserve to make that choice in the future on our dime.
This post was edited on 1/5/14 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:19 pm to C
i honestly want input from the lib-progs on this
and before they chime in, please don't say "this won't happen b/c of GOP/tea party" shite. this is a discussion about theoretical policy. of course i understand this is not happening tomorrow. of course i understand the RINO GOP will not accept it. of course most "Tea Party" types will see this as government expansion at first. i don't care about that
and before they chime in, please don't say "this won't happen b/c of GOP/tea party" shite. this is a discussion about theoretical policy. of course i understand this is not happening tomorrow. of course i understand the RINO GOP will not accept it. of course most "Tea Party" types will see this as government expansion at first. i don't care about that
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Is Ralph too far left for this discussion? 
This post was edited on 1/5/14 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i understand the RINO GOP will not accept it. of course most "Tea Party" types will see this as government expansion at first.
I see it as a potential way of bringing back personal responsibility (a Tea Party staple)
by using the democrat's most powerful weapon against them, that being Santa Claus.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:25 pm to C
quote:
Is Ralph too far left for this discussion?
if he's not a troll, he's a full blown communist...so yes
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:27 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
I see it as a potential way of bringing back personal responsibility (a Tea Party staple)
by using the democrat's most powerful weapon against them, that being Santa Claus.
i was on a drive to BR when i listened to that podcast, and i thought a lot about things...and yes
this is practical, not ideological
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
I could support this if it were left intact as it is proposed but I have no faith this would be the case.
The underlying themes of fairness and justice )bastardized) that permeate left wing ideology will always advocate for more, so a minimum income would still meet pressure of additional subsidies.
The underlying themes of fairness and justice )bastardized) that permeate left wing ideology will always advocate for more, so a minimum income would still meet pressure of additional subsidies.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:35 pm to RogerTheShrubber
i'm perfectly fine with a debate with them re: this hypothetical policy as to how much the min salary should be
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
we still need lots of petro for plastics and non-fuel products, even if all transportation and power-creation used nuclear
Even if we get nuclear fusion, which would solve our energy problems, we would still need petro. If we go into space, we will need a near-limitless energy source. To have an opulent society to support such endeavors, we need to harness nuclear power.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i'm perfectly fine with a debate with them re: this hypothetical policy as to how much the min salary should be
Well, I guess I'm just a skeptic. While a program may start off fairly simple, it will meed additional pressures after it's implemented to expand.
I like the idea, but believe we would end up with a minimum income in addiction to a bloated welfare system.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i have more faith in humanity
Why? What have you seen that gives you this faith, especially among the part of the population currently living off of entitlements.
This is an interesting plan, but for it to work people must be able to excersise some self control and be willing to live withing their means.
Nothing I have observed in this country suggests this is even a remote possibility.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:46 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
Face it today's conservative movement won't support it because they see people getting stuff for free.
Maybe I misunderstood, but wouldn't everybody get it, rich/poor, conservative/progressive. Some would take it and do nothing else, others would take it work for more.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:48 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
Maybe I misunderstood, but wouldn't everybody get it, rich/poor, conservative/progressive. Some would take it and do nothing else, others would take it work for more.
This is the way I understand it. Essentially you start getting your social security check at age 18, but that's it.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:49 pm to WikiTiger
quote:So as the world's population increases and although natural resources (except for renewable resources such as timber) are finite, you believe products made from those finite resources will become less scarce?
while we transition to a post-scarcity society.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:52 pm to LSURussian
quote:
, you believe products made from those finite resources will become less scarce?
Through efficiency and moving to new underlying building blocks? Yes
Except petro, obviously...or items fricked by government regs (helium...but that goes beyond basic needs well into luxury)
Posted on 1/5/14 at 12:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:And what are those "underlying building blocks" made out of?
Through efficiency and moving to new underlying building blocks?
I don't disagree that, left alone, private enterprise will continue to innovate and will usually make better products more efficiently, over the long run.
But to say NOTHING will be scare...i.e., a "post scarcity society"?? Nope, that's a pipe dream.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News