Ya but we need to worry about the pre-set kill limits on Killbots. Zap will find a way to take them out.
Get rid of welfare and just give every adult $870/mo
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
BEEP BOOP WHY DO I FEEL PAIN
But now unskilled labor is not capable of running the murder machines of the 21st century.
Well, we could potentially create that sort of environment if enough anti-vaxxers get appointed to the right places...
Problem...solved?
--Patrick
These are the kinds of things that make people believe in Illuminati conspiracies everywhere. Hell, I think I'm starting to believe it.
Jenny McCarthy managed it just fine while also being busy on MTV... don't sell yourself short.
Despite it probably having other horrific legal consequences, a large part of me wants her tried for every Measles, Mumps, and Rubella death from any unvaccinated child in the USA (and elsewhere, hopefully) since she said her stupidity. Put her right alongside that "doctor" that started it. He may have started it, but she made it "popular" to not vaccinate.
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, there are places where it legally can't. The whole thing about sign spinning was that it was a way to get around ordinances against posting advertising - there was a loophole that a sign would be allowed so long as it was carried by a person. So then they tried to get fancy with it, and even places where it wasn't a legal requirement tried to ride the tide.. and some figured out they didn't need the human where they were.
Sign Spinning is to the Great Recession, what Sandwich Boards were to the Great Depression.
That only counts if you can construct an actual, independent android.
Good luck with that.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm not sure that's true... I think if you put a sign on a roomba and turned it loose, that might cover the bases (assuming the roomba doesn't get stuck or stolen) as far as the statutes are concerned.
Welllll, now we're just debating where exactly is the line between "construct" and "organism."
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, the loophole isn't about someone's personhood, it's just about the sign being carried instead of posted. The same thing could be accomplished with an R/C car, and at this point, you could now just set waypoints and let it navigate alone.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, if you get right down to it, isn't a roomba a specialized drone?
Unless you meant flying drone, in which case, battery life.
Better yet, have it tethered to a human-powered generator bike. He pedals, sign animates.
But then you'd have to pay him.
--Patrick
Didn't someone already try that?
EDIT: I forgot to include the time stamp, and I'm not gonna go find it again. Even as a kid I wondered how he was supposed to generate enough power to power himself enough to generate enough power to power himself enough to generate...
--Patrick
Last edited:
I figured this was the best thread for "economic equality" or any related topics.
This article was interesting. I was expecting a certain degree of bias here, but it's much more math-based than I expected in its core argument: The rich vs. poor myth - 80% of ‘wealth inequality’ in Canada is explained by one simple factor: Age
From the article, two sections that illustrate it best:
This article was interesting. I was expecting a certain degree of bias here, but it's much more math-based than I expected in its core argument: The rich vs. poor myth - 80% of ‘wealth inequality’ in Canada is explained by one simple factor: Age
From the article, two sections that illustrate it best:
The rest of the article goes into some of the reasons why this isn't reflected right now, and how there IS injustice there (and some not so much injustice as just circumstance), but the core stats are interesting in and of themselves IMO. The gap of "ideal" versus current is not as dramatic as some people might want you to believe. This isn't a reason to lack vigilance on those with wealth and power, and how they exercise/abuse that to pervert rule of law and democracy, and everything else that wealth and power usually get you, but we're also not in a situation as a society of such panic-inducing inequality of wealth as it may seem.
Dave
Staff member
Yeah, I'm really of two minds about this proposition. On the one hand, automation and computerization is going to be putting massive amounts of people out of work and that's unsustainable, but if everyone got a stipend then the prices would adjust accordingly and the poor would still be poor. It's like when they raise the minimum wage. I get why they do it, but it's not like the prices of goods and services are going to stay static when minimum wage increases. In fact, those who were above the new minimum wage already (but not rich) would find themselves depressed downward as the prices rise but THEIR wages don't.
Low-income people are also often actively discouraged from saving money (at least in the US). Money in savings can count against getting assistance.
That may indeed pose a dilemma. On the one hand, you have people living paycheck-to-paycheck, not being able to save anything since everything goes to paying the normal bills plus the monthly installments. On the other hand, you have people who make just as little, but who didn't blow it all on that Playstation or that big-ass widescreen tv, and managed to put a little money aside.
So, on the one hand, you have people who squandered everything they received, and are now in dire straits partly because of their profligacy. On he other hand, you have people who made do with what little they received, and actually have some assets. With a limited budget for assistance, when there just isn't enough money to go around, who is the one who needs/deserves assistance the most? Will you support the ones who have nothing and need the money to survive? Or will you support the ones who are actually trying to help themselves, but can make do without assistance for at least a short period of time?
A bit of an extreme example, but I think not all who are without assets have done all that they could to avoid getting to that point.
There are many things wrong with the horribly broken welfare system, but a poor family getting a Playstation is not one of them. Saving up $400 for a Playstation for Christmas, to bring a little joy to their family's life, isn't going to make much impact on their overall financial situation.
I know, I know, if you let them have a Playstation without judgement, the next thing you know they'll want a refrigerator...
… and that beach vacation, the second car, and a subprime mortgage...
The Playstation wasn't really the gist of my point, but I'll bite. Some families may prioritise having a Playstation, and rely on welfare to provide the rest. Others may prioritise having enough money in the bank to buy an extra month of food in case something should happen.
From what I gathered of you original post, you were criticizing that government welfare schemes penalize those who save money, in that savings cut on assistance received. What would follow is that the poor family might be better served by spending all their income instead of saving it, in order to maximize the support they receive from government assistance programs. I hope I understood your point correctly.
For the purposes of promoting discussion, I was attempting to examine why a government assistance scheme might have this effect. No government ever has the money to do everything they want. One may disagree with their spending priorities, but the money just isn't there for everything. This includes the welfare budget. So, where should they direct their assistance? To the people who can't survive without it (because they blew their money on that Playstation, or because of something else)? Or to the ones who have some little assets, and who can survive for a short while without assistance / with limited assistance? Is it fair to penalize the ones who, despite having limited means, are still trying to save up and take care of themselves? On the same token, is it fair to cause real hardship on the ones who can't make do without assistance as they have next to nothing, regardless of how they ended up in those circumstances?
Last edited:
I think Sara is simply pointing out (if I'm wrong, Sara, my apologies!) that there is this pervasive belief, at least in the US, that people of low income aren't allowed to have any nice things at all until they're not low income anymore, and it gets trotted out every time a politician decides to cut low-income assistance programs (by both sides, in fact, just with a different emotional goal).
Whatever discussions need to be had about administrative waste or appropriate assistance by income level, scrutinizing household purchases when all it takes is a single hospital visit to bankrupt an American family (whether they have a PS4 or not) is a fairly useless point.
Whatever discussions need to be had about administrative waste or appropriate assistance by income level, scrutinizing household purchases when all it takes is a single hospital visit to bankrupt an American family (whether they have a PS4 or not) is a fairly useless point.
Necronic
Staff member
I'm a bit confused. The title of the article is 80% is caused by age. Then it explains why that is wrong? I took a peek at it and I must have missed that.
Also fwiw that's definitely wrong in the US. I have more money in savings than most people in their 50s, and I'm only 35 (and I don't have a LOT in savings). Older people have seriously screwed up their savings and are one of the largest liabilities our country is currently facing.
For real the idea of a universal basic income is kind of absurd when we've got the handout generation strolling across the finish line right now.
This is because many Americans (especially religious, conservative ones) equate financial success with good morality. I.E. Those people are poor and we aren't, therefore they must have done something wrong because God doesn't allow good people to suffer. Therefore we should be able to dictate the way they live their lives, which should be devoid of things we consider frivolous even though WE wouldn't want to be without them ether.
This is what happens when you fully integrate an economic system (capitalism) into a religion system (Protestantism in this case).