I don't think we can really know what makes society thrive, and some of the traditional measures like unemployment and productivity may not be the right ones to use.
I think the answer is in some sort of UBI, where everyone can have a base level of existence for "free", but if you want nice things, you have to work for them. It seems to me that we would hit an equilibrium where everyone who's content not working can leech a little, but people who do want to work will have much greater rewards and would be higher quality workers.
Based on the number of people that I've met who are concerned about status symbols and having the latest and greatest toys, I suspect we'd see most people actually working in a UBI scenario. We would certainly see more risk takers, which could be the best possible thing for society.
I'd like to think that I would have founded a startup by now if I didn't need an income.
That's not an argument against UBI - I mostly agree with your analysis and solution - but I wouldn't be so dismissive of individuals' desire to improve their lives directly. It's not "greed" to want some control over your living standards and situation.
> unless safeguards were put in place to ensure their malignant genes stopped with them at the end of their days.
As if it’s their genetics and not their disenfranchisement from society that makes them want to drop out. We allow cheap foreign labor to displace these people, if we had stricter immigration I can guarantee that there would be less people in poverty, business would have to pay more to incentivize people to work there.
And we hardly help men “pick themselves back up”.
>you get what you put in.
lol, that’s a good one, I’m sure the Koch brothers would agree.
Plenty of people put in a lot and don’t get much back. Just because life worked out great for you—you put in effort and saw a return—doesn’t mean it works that way for everyone. I personally worked my ass off for 5 years and then got screwed out of my work by people with more money.
>voter rights
Am I getting trolled? You seriously want to associate voting rights with employment? Here I thought we left those sorts of attitudes in the last century.
Dude, I worked especially hard for 13 years and got screwed badly. You are lucky that you got that knowledge in 5 years that hard work does not equate to anything and did not waste a lot of time.
Most of the people who graduated with me found loopholes in the system and are more successful exploiting it. Very few people took hard work route and even less became successful. (Note: I am not from the US)
>As if it’s their genetics and not their disenfranchisement from society that makes them want to drop out
Some traits are heritable. We know intelligence certainly is. The "highly intelligent, just not driven" thing is a trope. I've lived and spent considerable time in European countries, particularly the British Isles, where they not only have a working class but also a welfare class made up of multi-generational families on welfare and have no intent on giving it up. It's not a significant amount of welfare recipients, but there are many and it's not something that should be encouraged.
Again, society is give and take. Fostering a sub-society of people who merely want to take and not reciprocate is unfair on the rest of society supporting them.
>And we hardly help men “pick themselves back up”.
I don't disagree with that. I'd argue that instead of enabling them to comfortably check-out, do nothing and live off others that the money would be better spent helping them become productive contributors to the society they've asked to be a part of.
>lol, that’s a good one, I’m sure the Koch brothers would agree.
Finding edge cases to point at does nothing for an argument talking about society (and the economy) in general. What I said holds true for the majority of the people.
Even if you want to self-select for an outlier like the Kochs, they're the beneficiaries of the hard work that came before them and whose lineage has both managed their work-earned money well, and taught their descendants to do the same.
Even then, the Koch's provide employment to roughly 100,000 people, 60,000 in the US alone[0], and give billions towards charity.[1]
Charles Koch's monetary charitable contributions alone top a $1bn, or ~2% of his fiscal net worth. How much of yours are handing over in the name of good?
I'm not even advocating for that kind of wealth, but simply pointing at the outlier you've chosen to show that my point actually does hold true - the Koch's employ and pay 100,000 people, people who use that pay to undoubtedly support countless others, while also giving large sums of effort and indeed cash to good causes. They are reaping the benefits from participating in society in an outlandish manner, but they're also contributing in one, environmental issues aside.
>Plenty of people put in a lot and don’t get much back. Just because life worked out great for you—you put in effort and saw a return—doesn’t mean it works that way for everyone. I personally worked my ass off for 5 years and then got screwed out of my work by people with more money.
What you've said is in support of my points, not against it. As I said, trying is what matters. Yes, some people work harder than others. Some people work smarter than others. Some people work harder and smarter. What's important is that everyone is giving it their best. I'm giving it my best, you've given it your best.
Again, as I said, a just society looks after those who are trying. The US, if you want to bring a single country into this (which I have tried to not, as I'm generalizing about society with hypothetical situations, some of which apply to some countries, some to others) is not a just society. I'm not going to sit here and singly talk about the USA.
The discussion came from a statement that society, en large, should facilitate those who don't want to participate. I see no reason why that should be US-centric.
>Am I getting trolled? You seriously want to associate voting rights with employment? Here I thought we left those sorts of attitudes in the last century.
No. I said that in the hypothetical situation that we create a class of people who want to permanently disengage and no longer contribute what they can to society, in doing so rejecting the responsibilities of being part of society, that they should not be extended the same rights as those participating in the society they're opting out from.
An entity who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always defend on the support of Paul. Conservatives who promise to reduce welfare or taxes in order to return money to those most affected can always depend on the support of those who will benefit. Leftists who promise to increase welfare and taxes to provide more social services can always depend on the support of those who already receive both. Both are fine, in a society where everyone is trying to do a little better one bit at a time.
People who could hypothetically opt-out permanently and rely on a life provided for by those who are not opting out is not someone who should be empowered to weigh in on decisions affecting those whose charity and good grace they're essentially still breathing from.
I hope none of the above is too outrageous to you, and it shouldn't be if you can sway yourself toward the hypothetical brought up and not concentrate on January 2020's America.
[0] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/issues/koch-industries-compan...
[1] https://time.com/5413786/charles-koch-charitable-giving/
The article is about the USA, and the problem is specific to the US. It seemed natural that we were still talking about US society. I didn’t intend to provoke you with my bombast, I simply misinterpreted your argument, my apologies.
The first post didn’t elucidate your points well enough for me to put them in context, and it makes a lot more sense given this additional information. I actually agree with almost everything you said in principle! :) But the ambiguity of your previous post left me genuinely upset, as this particular issue hit close to home. I’m glad to have this sorted.
I tend to see a welfare class as an unfortunate inevitability of social welfare programs. The best thing we can do is have strong public education and holistic healthcare system to try and combat a multi-generation welfare class. It’s a difficult problem.
I’ll leave my original post as is, for the sake of prose.
I initially felt on-the-fence about this but upon further thought I absolutely disagree with the idea.
Society works and thrives when we've a common goal (all working to make things slightly better for everyone one bit at a time) and honest reciprocal agreements as one.
I am happy to partake in a society where the majority are trying their best for themselves and others, to support them when they fall down and want to get back up, or to step out of the workforce to procreate or retrain, to provide healthcare for all, access to housing, education etc.
I don't mind paying a little more if everyone who's willing to try their best to lean in to society and contribute gets the support and opportunity to do so, even if there's a disproportionate difference in outcome i.e. if all you're capable of doing is flipping burgers, parking cars, collecting trash, etc. then that's fine, just do your best at it.
I absolutely will not support those who just want to opt-out, unless safeguards were put in place to ensure their malignant genes stopped with them at the end of their days. I would also absolutely not support extending the right to vote to such people.
You get out what you put in. It's ok to try and fail, or fall ill, or struggle with a mental illness. It's good for a society to be there to help you pick yourself back up, to become well, and try again. It's the intent that counts. If you (the rhetorical you) merely want to sit on the sidelines because "life's too tough" then I'm sorry but you won't be doing it on my dime, or trying to sway the direction of my society with voter rights.