|You're talking out of your ass. I'm sure it wasn't like that. There's no evidence to support that or even suggest that it might be true.|
While this may not be direct evidence
, I wanted to point out that SIK
's statement is based on a widely excepted theory.
I've been following this thread for a bit now and I want to start out by saying that personally, I don't think our current system is broken. It is simply outdated and not inline with modern societies needs.
I for one am all for fully automating most industries but I don't think that a pure socialist economy is a necessary change that we should make. Canada had an experiment back in the 70's called "Mincome" which set a certain standard of living for all people without actually requiring them to work. I think this is a move in the right direction because it would dramatically increase the demand in labor by striping out the people who don't want to work without killing them or making them an invalid node in the great economic model. Those of us who want
to work, because maybe we want to take two family vacations a year instead of just one, will then be in higher demand for our respective skill set.
If you can't tell by now then I'll just say it; I want to live in a welfare state. I have dealt with far too many useless people in my life who only "work" because they have to in order to maintain a basic level of existence. I would go to bed happy every night if I knew that my tax dollars were paying them to stay home. Why is a 20 min trip to the grocery store allowed to turn into 90 mins just because the person behind the register doesn't want to do their job? If you've read this far then you're thinking "Stop being a jerk Geek, no one is going to work hard for minimum wage". But that is exactly my point, minimum wage is not putting a roof over this persons head. It isn't feeding them and potentially their kids. This person is already collecting hundreds or thousands of dollars in benefits so why the hell can't we just give them that little bit more? The only entity benefiting from this person being here is the store because they don't have to pay this person that much to be there. Don't give me any crap about them working harder if they were paid more, have you ever been to the DMV? If you remove these people from the job market then that job will still need to be done either by a machine that has to be installed and maintained or by a person who is going to demand more because there are now fewer people available to do this job. And that person will be there because they want to work, they would collect the same money that the others are paid to stay home, but they would be getting a paycheck from their job on top of that.
Those of you who actually think that we are overpopulated are so confused I don't even know where to start. My grandfather owns a farm, some years the DoA pays him not to grow crops
for reasons ranging from soil conservation to ensuring a certain price floor. Other years he gets paid to destroy the ones he did grow
. Why pay someone to destroy something as precious as food you ask? The answer to that one actually impressed me, if you have more food then you can store then you can't just leave it outside. That would give vermin an easily accessible food supply and lead to a population boom. Then by this time next year you have a famine because the 100,000 rats that were born are now eating ALL of your crops. But the over production of crops is necessary in the first place because of predictions of inclement weather. The Department of Agriculture is the one thing that the USA does 100% IMHO, go figure that it is directly related to food.