51–60 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, without all this working for others we wouldn't have a system which lets us spend that other half of our lives seeing the things we do get to see. It's a net win overall.
That's just speculation, what system are you imagining in place of 'wage labour'? chattel? I imagine UBI and an explosion in the sciences; When anyone with interest can afford to follow that interest.
We can't all decide we are going to live for free and magically still get to drive cars, live in houses, eat food, have running water, etc.
The entire point of the economic system is to motivate people to help each other. If the money motivation goes away, people either stop helping each other or you have to motivate with violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just speculation, what system are you imagining in place of 'wage labour'? chattel? I imagine UBI and an explosion in the sciences; When anyone with interest can afford to follow that interest.
UBI doesn't work because it depends on people working to fund it. The amount of money required for poverty level UBI in the US (one of the richest countries) is more than all of the federal current tax revenue, which comes from working people. We can't all decide we are going to live for free and magically still get to drive cars, live in houses, eat food, have running water, etc. The entire point of the economic sys…
The entire point of the current economic system is to motivate the masses to enrich the few. If the motivation goes away then maybe people will work to enrich their own lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just speculation, what system are you imagining in place of 'wage labour'? chattel? I imagine UBI and an explosion in the sciences; When anyone with interest can afford to follow that interest.
No, it's not speculation. I have a cite: literally the entire progression of human history and societal development. Steady (and in the last century, enormous) progression toward more leisure time, with more wealth and latitude at our disposal than ever before. UBI is good. You're going to fund UBI by working for other people.
> "To photographers and stargazers in northern climes, Steve has been a familiar night phenomenon for decades. But the mysterious ribbons of light only entered the scientific literature for the first time earlier this year" It's so exciting to realize how little we really know . Think about how many fantastic unexplained things there must be in the universe if we haven't even finished understanding the ones right und…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The first documented death related to asbestos was in 1906, yet it was only banned a century later Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA; only a small list of products are banned by the EPA federally.[0] It was increasingly banned in Europe from the mid 1980s, and totally banned throughout the EU in 2005.[1] [0] https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos [1] https://cordis.europa.eu/news/…
>Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA; only a small list of products are banned by the EPA federally.[0] It was increasingly banned in Europe from the mid 1980s, and totally banned throughout the EU in 2005.[1] Like everything else, everything is deadly at large doses. Even water. Alcohol clearly causes stomach cancer too at large doses, yet alcohol is not banned, right? If we were to ban everything…
Generalisation fallacy 1: "some harmful things are not banned; asbestos is a harmful thing; asbestos should not be banned".
Thankfully most governments are more nuanced with their regulations. In the case of asbestos, since comparable materials exist with less potential for harm, they are favoured and/or the more harmful stuff is banned. Where not possible there can be exemptions, e.g. see my European Commission link earlier, along with the "ban" it says:
> One remaining use of chrysotile has not been banned, however - in diaphragms which are used for electrolysis in certain chlorine plants. This exception is justified because no safe alternative has been developed and this process is carried out on closed sites under strictly controlled conditions.
Generalisation fallacy 2: "asbestos can be dangerous; if handled safely asbestos is not dangerous; asbestos is not a large risk".
Because it can be used safely does not make it generally safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just speculation, what system are you imagining in place of 'wage labour'? chattel? I imagine UBI and an explosion in the sciences; When anyone with interest can afford to follow that interest.
UBI doesn't work because it depends on people working to fund it. The amount of money required for poverty level UBI in the US (one of the richest countries) is more than all of the federal current tax revenue, which comes from working people. We can't all decide we are going to live for free and magically still get to drive cars, live in houses, eat food, have running water, etc. The entire point of the economic sys…
Sadly I don't see a political environment where that's actually viable any time soon, but at some point we're going to have to see a move in that direction because there will be an ever decreasing pool of jobs that require actual people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just speculation, what system are you imagining in place of 'wage labour'? chattel? I imagine UBI and an explosion in the sciences; When anyone with interest can afford to follow that interest.
UBI doesn't work because it depends on people working to fund it. The amount of money required for poverty level UBI in the US (one of the richest countries) is more than all of the federal current tax revenue, which comes from working people. We can't all decide we are going to live for free and magically still get to drive cars, live in houses, eat food, have running water, etc. The entire point of the economic sys…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UBI doesn't work because it depends on people working to fund it. The amount of money required for poverty level UBI in the US (one of the richest countries) is more than all of the federal current tax revenue, which comes from working people. We can't all decide we are going to live for free and magically still get to drive cars, live in houses, eat food, have running water, etc. The entire point of the economic sys…
..in your opinion. But in reality the current system doesn't work and needs constant massive bailouts and public funding R&D to just barely operate for the minority.. The entire point of the current economic system is to motivate the masses to enrich the few. If the motivation goes away then maybe people will work to enrich their own lives.
Says an HN comment..
Maybe try to rework this sentence, because it doesn't appear to be true. While things may not be excellent for everyone, clearly the "system" works to some extent.
>The entire point of the current economic system is to motivate the masses to enrich the few.
Do you have a source on this? What do you consider to be the current system? The Federal Reserve System?
>If the motivation goes away then maybe people will work to enrich their own lives.
Do you seriously not think that people work to enrich their own lives right now? I can tell you that I'm posting this to enrich mine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UBI doesn't work because it depends on people working to fund it. The amount of money required for poverty level UBI in the US (one of the richest countries) is more than all of the federal current tax revenue, which comes from working people. We can't all decide we are going to live for free and magically still get to drive cars, live in houses, eat food, have running water, etc. The entire point of the economic sys…
The funding for UBI would require more funding than the current federal tax revenue. One of the things that would be necessary to make it work is redistribution of wealth. Taking taxes large corporates who are increasingly making more money through automation and the removal of jobs, so that it can be used to fund a better lifestyle for the majority of people. Sadly I don't see a political environment where that's ac…
Obviously increasing welfare implies increased taxes. I don't see anything controversial there? I do agree the USA currently lacks the political will to move much in this direction.