Want to pay NO income tax? Cut welfare.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Example for Australia:

$150,890 million - Individuals Income Tax (includes capital gains)

$121,907 million - Social Security and Welfare

$21,277 million - Defence

1. Remove income tax.
2. Remove social security and welfare.
3. Remove defence (we don't need to be fighting in any wars)
4. Bump up the corporate tax by 1% or so.
5.
6. PROFIT!

[1714748699]

1714748699

[1714748699]

1714748699

[1714748699]

1714748699

[1714748699]

1714748699

[Lethn]

We have Bitcoins, we don't need to cut welfare to not pay taxes.

[Endgame]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

[davout]

Example for Australia:

[...]

6. PROFIT!

Don't you have some sort of mental disability benefits ?

[Lethn]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

Where's your evidence for all of these statements? The gap between the rich and poor is already horribly big.

[myrkul]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

Harlem, 1930:


Harlem, 1964:


What changed?

Welfare.

[Dalkore]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

Harlem, 1930:


Harlem, 1964:


What changed?

Welfare.

I think you got this one wrong (pictures).  African-Americans had few rights in the 1930s and in the 1960s was the civil rights movements, that is why they were on the streets and that was a good thing to basically anyone you talk with.    It took the time from 1864 (emancipation of the slaves) to 1960 for the next step in getting equal rights in America.   

[nebulus]

1. Remove income tax.
2. Remove social security and welfare.
3. Remove defence (we don't need to be fighting in any wars)
4. Bump up the corporate tax by 1% or so.
5.
6. PROFIT!

Clearly, you are an idiot!

[nebulus]

I think you got this one wrong (pictures).  African-Americans had few rights in the 1930s and in the 1960s was the civil rights movements, that is why they were on the streets and that was a good thing to basically anyone you talk with.    It took the time from 1864 (emancipation of the slaves) to 1960 for the next step in getting equal rights in America.   

+1, the thing is called Voting Right Act. Even the 1964 picture's name refers to Demonstrations.

[myrkul]

I think you got this one wrong (pictures).  African-Americans had few rights in the 1930s and in the 1960s was the civil rights movements, that is why they were on the streets and that was a good thing to basically anyone you talk with.    It took the time from 1864 (emancipation of the slaves) to 1960 for the next step in getting equal rights in America.   

+1, the thing is called Voting Right Act. Even the 1964 picture's name refers to Demonstrations.

Don't look at the people.

Look at the places.

First picture: Clean streets, no bars on windows or doors.
Second picture: litter-strewn streets, bars on windows and doors.

Here, look at a picture after 20 more years of "helping the poor":
Harlem, 1986:

[Dalkore]

I think you got this one wrong (pictures).  African-Americans had few rights in the 1930s and in the 1960s was the civil rights movements, that is why they were on the streets and that was a good thing to basically anyone you talk with.    It took the time from 1864 (emancipation of the slaves) to 1960 for the next step in getting equal rights in America.   

+1, the thing is called Voting Right Act. Even the 1964 picture's name refers to Demonstrations.

Don't look at the people.

Look at the places.

First picture: Clean streets, no bars on windows or doors.
Second picture: litter-strewn streets, bars on windows and doors.

Here, look at a picture after 20 more years of "helping the poor":
Harlem, 1986:

Do you know what "Red-lining" is?  Well that has much more to do with the general disarray than welfare.   Your view it way to simplistic to advocate changes based on things like pictures 40 years apart.

[myrkul]

Do you know what "Red-lining" is?  Well that has much more to do with the general disarray than welfare.   Your view it way to simplistic to advocate changes based on things like pictures 40 years apart.

That was an interesting article. It never mentioned Harlem, nor does it explain the urban decay in 1986, nine years after the practice was banned.

Also interesting:

the specific practice called "redlining" began with the National Housing Act of 1934, which established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

Wait, isn't the FHA a welfare program?

[Dalkore]

Do you know what "Red-lining" is?  Well that has much more to do with the general disarray than welfare.   Your view it way to simplistic to advocate changes based on things like pictures 40 years apart.

That was an interesting article. It never mentioned Harlem, nor does it explain the urban decay in 1986, nine years after the practice was banned.

Also interesting:

the specific practice called "redlining" began with the National Housing Act of 1934, which established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

Wait, isn't the FHA a welfare program?

If your making a general statement about the effects of welfare on the prosperity of America then obviously you are not just talking about Harlem.  I just wanted to make sure you knew about redlining and the effects on urban decay.   

[myrkul]

If your making a general statement about the effects of welfare on the prosperity of America then obviously you are not just talking about Harlem.  I just wanted to make sure you knew about redlining and the effects on urban decay.   

No, not just about Harlem. Harlem, however, is a perfect example. Inner city areas continued to decay, all over the country, even after redlining (A policy, as I pointed out, started by a welfare agency.) was stopped.

Why?

[Dalkore]

If your making a general statement about the effects of welfare on the prosperity of America then obviously you are not just talking about Harlem.  I just wanted to make sure you knew about redlining and the effects on urban decay.   

No, not just about Harlem. Harlem, however, is a perfect example. Inner city areas continued to decay, all over the country, even after redlining (A policy, as I pointed out, started by a welfare agency.) was stopped.

Why?

Well the thing with decay is that after it has set in after so long everything is in disrepair and complete rebuilding is the only real solution.  That is why you don't want policies like that to continue for very long if at all.   Also let us not forget about the heroin and crack cocaine epidemics that his lower class urban neighborhoods and utter destroyed these thriving communities and family units.   Before the 30s, place like Harlem and Chicago's south side were considered cultural centers where people from all walks of life came for the music and atmosphere. 

I see welfare and a proposed solution after devastating effects of just a couple items I mentioned took hold.  Before that, when our manufacturing was humming along, these places where great to be in.  During that time, organized crime and bootlegging, prostitution and numbers rackets were the major issues of the day. 

[myrkul]

Before the 30s, place like Harlem and Chicago's south side were considered cultural centers where people from all walks of life came for the music and atmosphere.

So what happened? What turned these jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights?

[Dalkore]

Before the 30s, place like Harlem and Chicago's south side were considered cultural centers where people from all walks of life came for the music and atmosphere.

So what happened? What turned these jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights?

Well drug addiction is really harsh if you have dealt with or known anyone that has been affected by these severe drugs (heroin, crack, meth & pain-pills).   That is what happened, in literally every urban area with low income occupants.  Did you not know this happened?  Also WW2, Korean and Vietnam war which are traditionally disproportionately represented by lower income people.  They come back with either drug addictions or mental issues from war where they turn to drugs to cope or forget the trauma of war.

[myrkul]

Before the 30s, place like Harlem and Chicago's south side were considered cultural centers where people from all walks of life came for the music and atmosphere.

So what happened? What turned these jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights?

Well drug addiction is really harsh if you have dealt with or known anyone that has been affected by these severe drugs (heroin, crack, meth & pain-pills).   That is what happened, in literally every urban area with low income occupants.  Did you not know this happened?  Also WW2, Korean and Vietnam war which are traditionally disproportionately represented by lower income people.  They come back with either drug addictions or mental issues from war where they turn to drugs to cope or forget the trauma of war.

So, War, and drug addiction.

War we can lay squarely at the feet of the State. I don't think anyone's going to argue against that.
Drug addiction, though, especially to the harder forms.. that's a tougher nut to crack... or so it would seem. What was the Jazz musician's drug of choice?
Hint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ

So, What turned these Jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights (note, I am not talking about sidewalks, here)

[Dalkore]

Before the 30s, place like Harlem and Chicago's south side were considered cultural centers where people from all walks of life came for the music and atmosphere.

So what happened? What turned these jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights?

Well drug addiction is really harsh if you have dealt with or known anyone that has been affected by these severe drugs (heroin, crack, meth & pain-pills).   That is what happened, in literally every urban area with low income occupants.  Did you not know this happened?  Also WW2, Korean and Vietnam war which are traditionally disproportionately represented by lower income people.  They come back with either drug addictions or mental issues from war where they turn to drugs to cope or forget the trauma of war.

So, War, and drug addiction.

War we can lay squarely at the feet of the State. I don't think anyone's going to argue against that.
Drug addiction, though, especially to the harder forms.. that's a tougher nut to crack... or so it would seem. What was the Jazz musician's drug of choice?
Hint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ

So, What turned these Jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights (note, I am not talking about sidewalks, here)

I think just experimentation and that spread but the problem was that they are almost impossible to quit.  From accounts I have read, it literally just spread like wild-fire that in a time frame like a few months is what just everywhere like an epidemic.  Also there was a ton of money (profit) involved in it so it was pushed quite hard. 

[myrkul]

Before the 30s, place like Harlem and Chicago's south side were considered cultural centers where people from all walks of life came for the music and atmosphere.

So what happened? What turned these jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights?

Well drug addiction is really harsh if you have dealt with or known anyone that has been affected by these severe drugs (heroin, crack, meth & pain-pills).   That is what happened, in literally every urban area with low income occupants.  Did you not know this happened?  Also WW2, Korean and Vietnam war which are traditionally disproportionately represented by lower income people.  They come back with either drug addictions or mental issues from war where they turn to drugs to cope or forget the trauma of war.

So, War, and drug addiction.

War we can lay squarely at the feet of the State. I don't think anyone's going to argue against that.
Drug addiction, though, especially to the harder forms.. that's a tougher nut to crack... or so it would seem. What was the Jazz musician's drug of choice?
Hint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ

So, What turned these Jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights (note, I am not talking about sidewalks, here)

I think just experimentation and that spread but the problem was that they are almost impossible to quit.  From accounts I have read, it literally just spread like wild-fire that in a time frame like a few months is what just everywhere like an epidemic.  Also there was a ton of money (profit) involved in it so it was pushed quite hard. 

You're still chopping away at the branches. Strike the root. Why were they experimenting? Why was it so profitable?

[Rudd-O]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni

OH, THE HORROR!  ANYTHING BUT THAT!

:-D

[asdf]

Example for Australia:

$150,890 million - Individuals Income Tax (includes capital gains)

$121,907 million - Social Security and Welfare

$21,277 million - Defence

1. Remove income tax.
2. Remove social security and welfare.
3. Remove defence (we don't need to be fighting in any wars)
4. Bump up the corporate tax by 1% or so.
5.
6. PROFIT!

Hell yes! I'm living in AU and have made the same point.

[asdf]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

Try looking at the other side of the coin. What are the consequences of NOT robbing people of half their labor to give handouts?

- A man can actually support his family without his wife working, leading to better raised children, less strain on the relationship hence fewer single moms needing welfare.
- More disposable income/time for voluntary charity.
- Stop the culture of dependency that the welfare system creates. These people will actually work and produce extra wealth for society instead of pumping out more welfare babies.
- More wealth produced due to NOT reallocating resources from the productive to the unproductive. This will result in lower cost of living.

Of course, most of the problems that the welfare system "solves" are problems which are also created by state violence: crime, gap between rich and poor, high cost of medical care/education, etc.

You are treating the symptoms of institutionalised violence with institutionalised violence.

[Dalkore]

Before the 30s, place like Harlem and Chicago's south side were considered cultural centers where people from all walks of life came for the music and atmosphere.

So what happened? What turned these jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights?

Well drug addiction is really harsh if you have dealt with or known anyone that has been affected by these severe drugs (heroin, crack, meth & pain-pills).   That is what happened, in literally every urban area with low income occupants.  Did you not know this happened?  Also WW2, Korean and Vietnam war which are traditionally disproportionately represented by lower income people.  They come back with either drug addictions or mental issues from war where they turn to drugs to cope or forget the trauma of war.

So, War, and drug addiction.

War we can lay squarely at the feet of the State. I don't think anyone's going to argue against that.
Drug addiction, though, especially to the harder forms.. that's a tougher nut to crack... or so it would seem. What was the Jazz musician's drug of choice?
Hint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ

So, What turned these Jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights (note, I am not talking about sidewalks, here)

I think just experimentation and that spread but the problem was that they are almost impossible to quit.  From accounts I have read, it literally just spread like wild-fire that in a time frame like a few months is what just everywhere like an epidemic.  Also there was a ton of money (profit) involved in it so it was pushed quite hard. 

You're still chopping away at the branches. Strike the root. Why were they experimenting? Why was it so profitable?

Please enlighten me, you seem to know the answer, I have been responding to questions to this point.

[myrkul]

Before the 30s, place like Harlem and Chicago's south side were considered cultural centers where people from all walks of life came for the music and atmosphere.

So what happened? What turned these jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights?

Well drug addiction is really harsh if you have dealt with or known anyone that has been affected by these severe drugs (heroin, crack, meth & pain-pills).   That is what happened, in literally every urban area with low income occupants.  Did you not know this happened?  Also WW2, Korean and Vietnam war which are traditionally disproportionately represented by lower income people.  They come back with either drug addictions or mental issues from war where they turn to drugs to cope or forget the trauma of war.

So, War, and drug addiction.

War we can lay squarely at the feet of the State. I don't think anyone's going to argue against that.
Drug addiction, though, especially to the harder forms.. that's a tougher nut to crack... or so it would seem. What was the Jazz musician's drug of choice?
Hint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ

So, What turned these Jazz-filled cultural centers into crack-filled blights (note, I am not talking about sidewalks, here)

I think just experimentation and that spread but the problem was that they are almost impossible to quit.  From accounts I have read, it literally just spread like wild-fire that in a time frame like a few months is what just everywhere like an epidemic.  Also there was a ton of money (profit) involved in it so it was pushed quite hard. 

You're still chopping away at the branches. Strike the root. Why were they experimenting? Why was it so profitable?

Please enlighten me, you seem to know the answer, I have been responding to questions to this point.

Oh come now... What might have caused these Jazz musicians to experiment with harder drugs? Why was it so profitable to sell crack cocaine in the ghettos? What happened in 1937 that started us down the road to where we are now? What started right around the same time that started us down an even more disastrous road?

It's all connected, intertwined, in a way I don't even think the architects of the system understood.

[Dalkore]

It's all connected, intertwined, in a way I don't even think the architects of the system understood.

In what manner is the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and the New Deal of 1933 connected to people of lower income in urban areas experimenting with very hard drugs and if we want to include both, profiting from the sale of it (not sure if you were referring to both of my examples in your response)?

[DoomDumas]

Example for Australia:

$150,890 million - Individuals Income Tax (includes capital gains)

$121,907 million - Social Security and Welfare

$21,277 million - Defence

1. Remove income tax.
2. Remove social security and welfare.
3. Remove defence (we don't need to be fighting in any wars)
4. Bump up the corporate tax by 1% or so.
5.
6. PROFIT!

Better than that, just take back owner ship of the money-printer, instead of borowing money with interest from the FED.. there you go.. keep SS and Welfare, no taxes increase, and no more deficit..

US debt = US Govt owe to the FED

Shutdown the FED (privately owned) and no more debt right away !

[Rudd-O]

"But what about all the poor people?"

Simple: http://youtu.be/d2a5wtTrlLs?t=17m38s

[DoomDumas]

In USA, Income taxes have been created in 1913, the same year the FED has been created.


Take the RED PILL

Find and listen to the documentary "The Money Masters"

This doc is well researched, well documented..

WARNING : Listening to it with attention may makes you angry, frustrated, and completely delusioned !

A must see.. The Money Masters


begins here : http://youtu.be/lXb-LrVkuwM

[myrkul]

It's all connected, intertwined, in a way I don't even think the architects of the system understood.

In what manner is the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and the New Deal of 1933 connected to people of lower income in urban areas experimenting with very hard drugs and if we want to include both, profiting from the sale of it (not sure if you were referring to both of my examples in your response)?

Very well, I will connect the dots for you. The Marijuana Tax Act was the first shot in the drug war. It effectively made pot illegal by requiring a tax stamp in order to possess it, and to get a tax stamp you had to come in with some...

So with marijuana illegal, they went looking for other drugs. Many years later, crack cocaine is introduced, and because of it's relatively low price, sells like gangbusters. It's the drug war that enables this, because if drugs were legal, the poor quality of crack, stemming from the bizarre list of chemicals used to cut it, would never fly on the open market. Now, we've strayed some from welfare, but really not too far. When you're on welfare, it's against your best interest to find a "real job," since almost everywhere, but especially in "blue" states, welfare pays better than minimum wage. And getting a "real job" means no more welfare. So, what do you do with the day? You could sit and watch your stories all day, but that gets boring. You could go make another paycheck baby with your woman, but you already got four, and they're starting to get on your nerves.

So you hustle. And drugs are where the real money is. Since you can just shoot your competition (What are they gonna do, go to the cops?), you can charge whatever you like, and the money just flows in. And the best part is, you still get your check from Uncle Sam on the third. So the State has created not only the market, but a good chunk of the incentive to sell.

[Monster-Ant]

Do many of you realize that welfare in the United States has the following:

• Lifetime limit to amount of time spent on welfare
• classes and other requirements
• Paperwork, checkins, and child safety classes
• Inability to turn down work

To top it off, the amount of money given for welfare is not that much.

Here in Oregon a family of 4 will receive roughly $700-$800/mo in cash assistance and $350/mo in foodstamps.

They are not allowed to save up money to stave off a disaster, have limits to personal property, and other limitations.

The cost of housing sits (after a quick scan of local listings) at $1,000/mo for a 3 bedroom house. Well, that's unaffordable. How about something cheaper?

I found ONE place that was a 3 bedroom for $550/mo, in a bad part of town, that was a mobile home in a lot. (Everything else that was 3-bedroom was at least $650/mo) That leaves roughly $200 to cover: Electricity, car insurance, phone, natural gas, gasoline for the car.

So, let's assume that someone gets an $8/hr job (seasonal, meaning they'll only be employed for a short period of time), working 32 hours a week (so their employers don't have to pay full time benefits according to state regulation), and using a tank of gas every two weeks to get there. (Public transportation is next to useless for most people) They'll be making $256/week, spending that $56 on gas every two weeks.

So, before taxes, they'll be pulling in $1024/mo.

The concept of "welfare queens" and "living high on welfare" is a fallacy. Nobody WANTS to sit on public assistance. You have no mobility, you have next to no money for anything beyond the basic sustenance, and you're scrabbling harder than if you had a minimum wage job.

Sadly, many employers are now using the part-time to avoid paying benefits (can't get in the way of record profits and shareholder profits), meaning either both parents will have to work (meaning possible child-care costs and even two cars and the additional upkeep costs), or one parent will have to hold down two jobs.

Welfare, food stamps, HUD, and other social safety nets are vitally important to a nation's well-being, and considering the screwed up taxation of the most wealthy parts of the nation, the lack of employee safety-nets, the loss of unions (at least they made sure you HAD a damn job), and many other problems, removing welfare is a horrible thing.

[Rudd-O]

Do many of you realize that welfare in the United States has the following:

• Lifetime limit to amount of time spent on welfare
• classes and other requirements
• Paperwork, checkins, and child safety classes
• Inability to turn down work

To top it off, the amount of money given for welfare is not that much.

Here in Oregon a family of 4 will receive roughly $700-$800/mo in cash assistance and $350/mo in foodstamps.

They are not allowed to save up money to stave off a disaster, have limits to personal property, and other limitations.

Sounds to me like the people doing business as "government" have accomplished what no one thought possible: they have made the Negro into a slave once again.

No wonder people say all the time "Oh, but we can't take their welfare away, don't you see that without our help, the Negrothe poor would starve to death?"

[farlack]

Every $100 you get from welfare, you should have to do 5 hours of community service.

[Rudd-O]

Every $100 you get from welfare, you should have to do 5 hours of community service.

5 hours?  That's like double the minimum wage.  These people can't get a job to flip fucking burgers because they are less than useless, and you're suggesting to pay them $20 an hour?  Holy shit, you're generous!

:-)

[myrkul]

Every $100 you get from welfare, you should have to do 5 hours of community service.

Why not just give them a job paying $20 an hour?

[fgervais]

Do many of you realize that welfare in the United States has the following:

• Lifetime limit to amount of time spent on welfare
• classes and other requirements
• Paperwork, checkins, and child safety classes
• Inability to turn down work

To top it off, the amount of money given for welfare is not that much.

Here in Oregon a family of 4 will receive roughly $700-$800/mo in cash assistance and $350/mo in foodstamps.

They are not allowed to save up money to stave off a disaster, have limits to personal property, and other limitations.

Sounds to me like the people doing business as "government" have accomplished what no one thought possible: they have made the Negro into a slave once again.

No wonder people say all the time "Oh, but we can't take their welfare away, don't you see that without our help, the Negrothe poor would starve to death?"

[myrkul]

Do many of you realize that welfare in the United States has the following:

• Lifetime limit to amount of time spent on welfare
• classes and other requirements
• Paperwork, checkins, and child safety classes
• Inability to turn down work

To top it off, the amount of money given for welfare is not that much.

Here in Oregon a family of 4 will receive roughly $700-$800/mo in cash assistance and $350/mo in foodstamps.

They are not allowed to save up money to stave off a disaster, have limits to personal property, and other limitations.

Sounds to me like the people doing business as "government" have accomplished what no one thought possible: they have made the Negro into a slave once again.

No wonder people say all the time "Oh, but we can't take their welfare away, don't you see that without our help, the Negrothe poor would starve to death?"

Well "said."

Nathan Fillion is the shit, btw. Browncoat all the way.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

In USA, Income taxes have been created in 1913, the same year the FED has been created.


Take the RED PILL

Find and listen to the documentary "The Money Masters"

This doc is well researched, well documented..

WARNING : Listening to it with attention may makes you angry, frustrated, and completely delusioned !

A must see.. The Money Masters


begins here : http://youtu.be/lXb-LrVkuwM

Or you know, perhaps this thread is about Australia.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Do many of you realize that welfare in the United States has the following:

• Lifetime limit to amount of time spent on welfare
• classes and other requirements
• Paperwork, checkins, and child safety classes
• Inability to turn down work

To top it off, the amount of money given for welfare is not that much.

Here in Oregon a family of 4 will receive roughly $700-$800/mo in cash assistance and $350/mo in foodstamps.

They are not allowed to save up money to stave off a disaster, have limits to personal property, and other limitations.

The cost of housing sits (after a quick scan of local listings) at $1,000/mo for a 3 bedroom house. Well, that's unaffordable. How about something cheaper?

I found ONE place that was a 3 bedroom for $550/mo, in a bad part of town, that was a mobile home in a lot. (Everything else that was 3-bedroom was at least $650/mo) That leaves roughly $200 to cover: Electricity, car insurance, phone, natural gas, gasoline for the car.

So, let's assume that someone gets an $8/hr job (seasonal, meaning they'll only be employed for a short period of time), working 32 hours a week (so their employers don't have to pay full time benefits according to state regulation), and using a tank of gas every two weeks to get there. (Public transportation is next to useless for most people) They'll be making $256/week, spending that $56 on gas every two weeks.

So, before taxes, they'll be pulling in $1024/mo.

The concept of "welfare queens" and "living high on welfare" is a fallacy. Nobody WANTS to sit on public assistance. You have no mobility, you have next to no money for anything beyond the basic sustenance, and you're scrabbling harder than if you had a minimum wage job.

Sadly, many employers are now using the part-time to avoid paying benefits (can't get in the way of record profits and shareholder profits), meaning either both parents will have to work (meaning possible child-care costs and even two cars and the additional upkeep costs), or one parent will have to hold down two jobs.

Welfare, food stamps, HUD, and other social safety nets are vitally important to a nation's well-being, and considering the screwed up taxation of the most wealthy parts of the nation, the lack of employee safety-nets, the loss of unions (at least they made sure you HAD a damn job), and many other problems, removing welfare is a horrible thing.

In australia, a single person will get $1,000 a month through New Start Allowance. Partners will get $1,800 a month.

Meanwhile, the current government is seeking to expand this.

[Monster-Ant]

Every $100 you get from welfare, you should have to do 5 hours of community service.

5 hours?  That's like double the minimum wage.  These people can't get a job to flip fucking burgers because they are less than useless, and you're suggesting to pay them $20 an hour?  Holy shit, you're generous!

:-)

So everyone who has ever had to apply for public assistance is worthless? Less than worthless? There's no such thing as being unemployed through no fault of their own in Rudd-O-Land? There's no disasters that wipe out businesses, no shady business practices that eliminate jobs and fire people to avoid paying benefits, and nobody ends up on public assistance unless they're got a genetically predisposition to be welfare queens?

I don't know how it is in Australia. Here in the States for every 1 job opening there is, even if it is flipping hamburgers, there are 5-15 people competing for it, depending on the region.

My daughter handles job applications for a company. She told me at the last opening there was ($10/hr, 40/week, benefits) there was over 500 applications. All of them qualified, many of them with college degrees.

These people aren't worthless, there just aren't as many jobs as there are people who want them. Combine them with the shitty thing employers do, which is hire people as "temp workers" and then fire them right before they'd qualify for benefits by law, and you've got serious problems.

And as someone who once had to take assistance for a brief period of time, the $100 = 5 hours of community service is a terrible idea for a myriad of different reasons. Number one, you've just consigned them to about an entire work week of community service every month. Taking away time for education, classes, job searching, whatever.

Oh, and speaking as a mixed race American....

Sounds to me like the people doing business as "government" have accomplished what no one thought possible: they have made the Negro into a slave once again.

No wonder people say all the time "Oh, but we can't take their welfare away, don't you see that without our help, the Negrothe poor would starve to death?"

Check your privilege.

According to state and federal statistics, more white people are on welfare and food stamps then African Americans.

And yes, if you took away welfare and food stamps, millions of children of all ethnicity would face starvation, homelessness, and many other problems.

But sure, claim it's all about African Americans and all their fault.

Racist. How's the food at the Klan meetings?

I suppose explaining such things as empathy, compassion, reasons, how a society should be judged on how they treat those who have fallen on hard times and the most vulnerable of their citizenry, the duties of a government to serve the public good, and other esoteric topics would be a complete on a man who has it all figured out.

I hope, for your sake, Rudd-O, that you never fall on hard times and have to subsist on the very safety net you so despise.

[payb.tc]

My daughter handles job applications for a company. She told me at the last opening there was ($10/hr, 40/week, benefits) there was over 500 applications.

in other words, the true market price of labor in your area is much lower than $10/hr.

probably held artificially high by regulators.

[fgervais]

My daughter handles job applications for a company. She told me at the last opening there was ($10/hr, 40/week, benefits) there was over 500 applications.

in other words, the true market price of labor in your area is much lower than $10/hr.

probably held artificially high by regulators.

No. My own wild guess, though a wild guess tempered by a couple years of HR management jobs, is that the people must be applying on some dying career.

I worked as a manager in a security firm at different times during college (including off semesters to pile up cash to pay for the damn thing), over here guard jobs were worth around 13$. Woop-dee-fucking-doo I hear you say, 13$ to watch paint dry.

However, the amount of people that came in with CVs full of manufacturing experience (even some at technical or regular college levels) that were ready to take a 50%+ (90% in some cases) cut in salary just so they could get more than welfare was staggering, and yeah, I actually had to shut out an astounding amount of people.

Same goes for recent immigrants with educational background not recognised by my local professional orgs. I had a site literally staffed with post-doctorates that were in the process of doing n amount of college years required to get back up to spec.

Let me guess, during those types of transition periods you'd be against gov't support?

Now, before you get all high and mighty, I live in Quebec. Have a look at the platform of the most popular up and coming party:

http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/QS-Plateforme-2012-anglais-.pdf

I don't like retarded regulations. I don't like that pretty much half my salary goes up in taxes. But if you think that I can conceive for a second that welfare needs to be pulled wall to wall, just wow.

[payb.tc]

Let me guess, during those types of transition periods you'd be against gov't support?

Now, before you get all high and mighty, I live in Quebec. Have a look at the platform of the most popular up and coming party:

http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/QS-Plateforme-2012-anglais-.pdf

I don't like retarded regulations. I don't like that pretty much half my salary goes up in taxes. But if you think that I can conceive for a second that welfare needs to be pulled wall to wall, just wow.

sorry i was off-topic, talking about minimum-wage laws, not welfare.

[fgervais]

Let me guess, during those types of transition periods you'd be against gov't support?

Now, before you get all high and mighty, I live in Quebec. Have a look at the platform of the most popular up and coming party:

http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/QS-Plateforme-2012-anglais-.pdf

I don't like retarded regulations. I don't like that pretty much half my salary goes up in taxes. But if you think that I can conceive for a second that welfare needs to be pulled wall to wall, just wow.

sorry i was off-topic, talking about minimum-wage laws, not welfare.

End of semester delirium, to be honest I probably went off-topic as well. Incidental, we're breaking the 10$ barrier over here soon, with a ~50% increase over the last 10 years:
http://www.cnt.gouv.qc.ca/en/wages-pay-and-work/wages/history-of-the-minimum-wage/index.html

This I have reservations against.

[sega01]

Example for Australia:

$150,890 million - Individuals Income Tax (includes capital gains)

$121,907 million - Social Security and Welfare

$21,277 million - Defence

1. Remove income tax.
2. Remove social security and welfare.
3. Remove defence (we don't need to be fighting in any wars)
4. Bump up the corporate tax by 1% or so.
5.
6. PROFIT!

I mostly agree with these statements. If you are unemployed and on welfare, the system is forcibly taking money from the employed (and actually making it harder to get jobs). If you are employed, you're making much less money paying taxes to pay for those without jobs. This also gives you less money to hire people, for odd jobs, mowing the lawn, or starting a company.

If there were no welfare, everyone with a job *could* make more. But really, I think you'd see both higher income and more jobs. But what about the jobless? Would they starve and die? Only if you let them. Nothing stopping you from personally feeding the homeless or helping out a jobless friend.

"Welfare" should be the common good of the people, acting individually. Not an government forced tax. And as Ronald Reagan said, "The best social program is a job."

[Schleicher]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

[myrkul]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

I think you are overestimating the amount of money that would actually be needed.

Simple math shows that charity dollars outperform tax dollars in helping the poor by 233.33%.

http://nomorecages.com/2012/12/16/inconvenient-facts-part-1.aspx

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

This is not 20%.. Most people in australia pay something like 35% in income taxes.

[myrkul]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

This is not 20%.. Most people in australia pay something like 35% in income taxes.

Adding in all the taxes, most Americans pay considerably more. One number I saw placed it close to 50%.

[fgervais]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

This is not 20%.. Most people in australia pay something like 35% in income taxes.

Adding in all the taxes, most Americans pay considerably more. One number I saw placed it close to 50%.

Keep in mind that those figures vary wildly depending on what you purchase. I'm up north so I'm not too familiar with you guys' tax and levy structure, but if you want to know you almost absolutely need to crunch the numbers yourself. Quite an interesting exercise too, IMHO, but then again I'm one of those weird people in accounting that likes their job.

I ran the numbers for a couple of years, and my high score is nearly 80%, but that was a weird year.

[Littleshop]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

I think you are overestimating the amount of money that would actually be needed.

Simple math shows that charity dollars outperform tax dollars in helping the poor by 233.33%.

http://nomorecages.com/2012/12/16/inconvenient-facts-part-1.aspx

Also people will help in different ways, some that cost them little or no money at all.  Some people can give an unemployed friend/relative an unused ROOM and food from the kitchen.  In the real world, made at home food does not cost much especially incrementally (if you are cooking for several already).  What would cost the state $2000+ a month (unemployment+the overhead of giving it) might cost a friend/family member $200. 

[gabbergabe]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

agree sadly..

[Lethn]

People keep saying that sort of thing but I never actually see any proper evidence for that sort of thing, forgetting of course the fact that one of the main reason the gap between the rich and poor is so high is because of inflation rather than any cuts to welfare, if you had a government system without debt or money printing then a welfare system could actually work but unfortunately I see a lot of evidence that while welfare is intended to help people it often causes a huge number of problems.

On the opposite end of the scale you also have charities and ironically I saw Ron Paul healthcare debate video where there was a news segment before which actually talked about how people like doctors without borders couldn't give people free healthcare all on their own because of state laws. This is another thing I hate about political debate where often an opposite side on a debate uses hypothetical threats and fear mongering to try and make their points rather than facts.

[myrkul]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

agree sadly..

Without welfare, students would have to get loans and work to pay them off, sick people will have to rely on their insurance, single mothers and the poor will have to get jobs, crime will decrease, and the size of the middle class will increase.

[fornit]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

agree sadly..

Without welfare, students would have to get loans and work to pay them off, sick people will have to rely on their insurance, single mothers and the poor will have to get jobs, crime will decrease, and the size of the middle class will increase.

yeah right, because banks give loans to lower class students, sick people dont get fucked by insurance lawyers, everybody wants to employ single moms, millions of jobs will just magically appear out of thin air, people without any support from society would never resort to crime as a means of survival and work is so much better at redistributing money than interest is...

i think this is a perfectly valid worldview - as long as you are not older than 16.

[myrkul]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

agree sadly..

Without welfare, students would have to get loans and work to pay them off, sick people will have to rely on their insurance, single mothers and the poor will have to get jobs, crime will decrease, and the size of the middle class will increase.

yeah right, because banks give loans to lower class students, sick people dont get fucked by insurance lawyers, everybody wants to employ single moms, millions of jobs will just magically appear out of thin air, people without any support from society would never resort to crime as a means of survival and work is so much better at redistributing money than interest is...

i think this is a perfectly valid worldview - as long as you are not older than 16.

Ever think that a degree in "women's studies" is not very conducive to a productive career? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone needs a college education? Ever think that one of the best jobs for a single mom is taking care of other people's kids? Ever think that the licensing requirements and regulations are getting in the way of people doing just that? Ever think that minimum wage is reducing the number of available jobs? Ever think that your "solutions" are part of the problem?

[fornit]

Ever think that a degree in "women's studies" is not very conducive to a productive career? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone needs a college education? Ever think that one of the best jobs for a single mom is taking care of other people's kids? Ever think that the licensing requirements and regulations are getting in the way of people doing just that? Ever think that minimum wage is reducing the number of available jobs? Ever think that your "solutions" are part of the problem?

the "problem" is ever increasing productivity. just because people get paid less doesnt mean there is more work to do. this goes especially for jobs not requiring high-level education.
your whole idea of a society is based on people earning their livelihood through work, which is not realistic in the present and will become completely absurd in the foreseeable future.

[myrkul]

Ever think that a degree in "women's studies" is not very conducive to a productive career? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone needs a college education? Ever think that one of the best jobs for a single mom is taking care of other people's kids? Ever think that the licensing requirements and regulations are getting in the way of people doing just that? Ever think that minimum wage is reducing the number of available jobs? Ever think that your "solutions" are part of the problem?

the "problem" is ever increasing productivity.

I don't know about you, but I don't see that as a problem. Do me a favor. Logic through, step by step, how, exactly, that's a problem.
I'll start you off:

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

[fornit]

I don't know about you, but I don't see that as a problem. Do me a favor. Logic through, step by step, how, exactly, that's a problem.
I'll start you off:

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

with limited worldwide resources and resources being a necessary part of production, worldwide productivity has, even without considering demand at all, an upper limit. therefore, it is, at some point, impossible, to let everybody work at maximum productivity. since it is inefficient to teach double the amount of workers and let them work half-time, work will eventually be done by few people working full time.
to avoid that you can either:
- let a society be deliberately inefficient, giving everyone work
- find a way to distribute wealth without the necessity for work

both of which your prefered society cannot accomplish. or, for that matter, any existing one i know of.
so, increasing productivity is not a problem by itself. the problem is that we dont have a good way to deal with its consequences.

[Schleicher]

I don't know about you, but I don't see that as a problem. Do me a favor. Logic through, step by step, how, exactly, that's a problem.
I'll start you off:

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

In areas where demand is lower than the supply you need less people for production.
(milk, pants, toilet paper, pizza, etc)
Products will become cheaper so that the people who still have a job don't have to pay as much to buy the products.
The saved money will instead go to charity to support the unemployed people.

[myrkul]

I don't know about you, but I don't see that as a problem. Do me a favor. Logic through, step by step, how, exactly, that's a problem.
I'll start you off:

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

with limited worldwide resources and resources being a necessary part of production, worldwide productivity has, even without considering demand at all, an upper limit. therefore, it is, at some point, impossible, to let everybody work at maximum productivity. since it is inefficient to teach double the amount of workers and let them work half-time, work will eventually be done by few people working full time.
to avoid that you can either:
- let a society be deliberately inefficient, giving everyone work
- find a way to distribute wealth without the necessity for work

both of which your prefered society cannot accomplish. or, for that matter, any existing one i know of.
so, increasing productivity is not a problem by itself. the problem is that we dont have a good way to deal with its consequences.

I don't think you quite understand how to do a logical progression. Let's try again.

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

Each individual will be able to produce more in less time. Therefore, it follows that:

There will be less workers needed to produce the same amount of products. Therefore, it follows that:

Less workers will be trained to produce products. Therefore, it follows that:

If people want to work, they will have to find something to do other than production. Therefore, it follows that:

The economy will shift largely from a manufacturing one to a service economy.

This is already being seen in industrialized nations. Your bogeyman is nonexistent. Not every job is one that produces something, some, perhaps even most, are services, such as daycare, tech support, or sales.

[fornit]

I don't think you quite understand how to do a logical progression. Let's try again.

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

Each individual will be able to produce more in less time. Therefore, it follows that:

There will be less workers needed to produce the same amount of products. Therefore, it follows that:

Less workers will be trained to produce products. Therefore, it follows that:

If people want to work, they will have to find something to do other than production. Therefore, it follows that:

you mistake appearance for function. just because you make it look formal doesnt mean its correct. specifically, without arguing with limited resources, less producing workers is no consequence of higher efficiency.

The economy will shift largely from a manufacturing one to a service economy.

This is already being seen in industrialized nations. Your bogeyman is nonexistent. Not every job is one that produces something, some, perhaps even most, are services, such as daycare, tech support, or sales.

my bogeyman is very much alive. service economy is nothing new, its just that services are a little more complicated to automate than production. but that doesnt mean service economy is the future, it just means its a little less ancient history than production economy. most services either require a good education or are at risk of becoming obsolete. daycare, medical care and similar services are one of the very few exceptions.

eventually, you just run out of services you can offer. unless, instead of increasing quantity you increase quality, which, for the most part, means better educated service personnel.

[myrkul]

eventually, you just run out of services you can offer. unless, instead of increasing quantity you increase quality, which, for the most part, means better educated service personnel.

So, your fear is that automation will take all jobs except those that need the most education, do I understand that correctly?

[fornit]

eventually, you just run out of services you can offer. unless, instead of increasing quantity you increase quality, which, for the most part, means better educated service personnel.

So, your fear is that automation will take all jobs except those that need the most education, do I understand that correctly?

what i fear is that current societies will only address the symptoms as long as it is possible to maintain the illusion that work for everyone is an option.
what i fear is that, if the problem is tackled to late, unequality, poverty and civil unrest will already have grown to the point where rational debate and a slow transformation of a society is no longer possible.

automation will take jobs, period. i can only predict to some extent what jobs that will be, and in what order. easy example: pretty much everything that has to do with transportation and logistics is likely to vanish within the next few decades.

[myrkul]

eventually, you just run out of services you can offer. unless, instead of increasing quantity you increase quality, which, for the most part, means better educated service personnel.

So, your fear is that automation will take all jobs except those that need the most education, do I understand that correctly?

what i fear is that current societies will only address the symptoms as long as it is possible to maintain the illusion that work for everyone is an option.
what i fear is that, if the problem is tackled to late, unequality, poverty and civil unrest will already have grown to the point where rational debate and a slow transformation of a society is no longer possible.

You still haven't logically connected automation and poverty. You do realize that this song has been sung before, yes?

The Curse of Machinery (Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson)

[fornit]

You still haven't logically connected automation and poverty.

only like a million times. how do you distribute wealth without work?

You do realize that this song has been sung before, yes?

The Curse of Machinery (Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson)

yeah, very long text.
does it address finite resources at some point?
because thats really the key to the argument. in the past (industrial era etc.), resources havent been a problem.

[myrkul]

You still haven't logically connected automation and poverty.

only like a million times. how do you distribute wealth without work?

You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?

You do realize that this song has been sung before, yes?

The Curse of Machinery (Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson)

yeah, very long text.
does it address finite resources at some point?
because thats really the key to the argument. in the past (industrial era etc.), resources havent been a problem.

Read it and find out. Trust me, you will be better for the experience. In fact, read the whole book. You will be exponentially better informed. If you read one text on economics in your lifetime, this is it.

[fornit]

You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?

they are selling products, plus they will be obsolete eventually.

You do realize that this song has been sung before, yes?

The Curse of Machinery (Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson)

yeah, very long text.
does it address finite resources at some point?
because thats really the key to the argument. in the past (industrial era etc.), resources havent been a problem.

Read it and find out. Trust me, you will be better for the experience. In fact, read the whole book. You will be exponentially better informed. If you read one text on economics in your lifetime, this is it.

i skimmed it a bit:

It would be far better, if that were the choice—which it isn’t—to have maximum production with part of the population supported in idleness by undisguised relief than to provide “full employment” by so many forms of disguised make-work that production is disorganized. The progress of civilization has meant the reduction of employment, not its increase. It is because we have become increasingly wealthy as a nation that we have been able virtually to eliminate child labor, to remove the necessity of work for many of the aged and to make it unnecessary for millions of women to take jobs. A much smaller proportion of the American population needs to work than that, say, of China or of Russia. The real question is not how many millions of jobs there will be in America ten years from now, but how much shall we produce, and what, in consequence, will be our standard of living? The problem of distribution on which all the stress is being put today, is after all more easily solved the more there is to distribute.

We can clarify our thinking if we put our chief emphasis where it belongs—on policies that will maximize production.

i tihnk its pretty clear that he does not address the problem of finite resources and/or a society that already moved from not employing children to not employing anyone that isnt between 20-50.

[myrkul]

You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?

they are selling products, plus they will be obsolete eventually.

Are they producing anything? Is the tech support rep on the phone producing anything?

You're seriously worrying about a non-issue.

[fornit]

You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?

they are selling products, plus they will be obsolete eventually.

Are they producing anything? Is the tech support rep on the phone producing anything?

You're seriously worrying about a non-issue.

sales clerks are already a dying species and the modern phenomenon called "tech support" is a scourge, and hopefully a short-lived one.

[myrkul]

You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?

they are selling products, plus they will be obsolete eventually.

Are they producing anything? Is the tech support rep on the phone producing anything?

You're seriously worrying about a non-issue.

sales clerks are already a dying species and the modern phenomenon called "tech support" is a scourge, and hopefully a short-lived one.

I see. you've never needed assistance with your computer, then?

You're evading, by the way.

[fornit]

I see. you've never needed assistance with your computer, then?

when i need assistance its usually with problems tech support needs assistance with, too.

You're evading, by the way.

evading a non-argument you never even presented properly.
but if you really insist: just because there are jobs that dont require any production doesnt mean there is an infinite number of possible jobs there. it doesnt even mean there is a single extra job there. unless you can make up a realistic scenario that doesnt require 80% of the worlds population becoming tech support staff i really dont see that i need to prove anything here.

[myrkul]

unless you can make up a realistic scenario that doesnt require 80% of the worlds population becoming tech support staff i really dont see that i need to prove anything here.

There are many more service-oriented careers that won't go out of style, no matter how automated the world gets, besides tech support. and yes, that includes sales clerk. The more upscale shops might even pride themselves on having human staff. Can you predict the future with 100% certainty? Neither can I. Nobody can. But the market can react to it when it happens, so long as it's not constrained by short-sighted regulations.

[fornit]

There are many more service-oriented careers that won't go out of style, no matter how automated the world gets, besides tech support. and yes, that includes sales clerk. The more upscale shops might even pride themselves on having human staff. Can you predict the future with 100% certainty? Neither can I. Nobody can.

strawman. i never claimed to precisely predict the future. neither did i claim that every single job will vanish. but if some jobs disappear, you need replacements. you didnt come up with any.

But the market can react to it when it happens, so long as it's not constrained by short-sighted regulations.

"the market" consists of human beings, which are short-sighted too - and usually dont give a fuck about other human beings that are only an abstract number in a statistic.
trusting in the market to magically solve all problems is just another religious belief.

[myrkul]

There are many more service-oriented careers that won't go out of style, no matter how automated the world gets, besides tech support. and yes, that includes sales clerk. The more upscale shops might even pride themselves on having human staff. Can you predict the future with 100% certainty? Neither can I. Nobody can.

strawman. i never claimed to precisely predict the future. neither did i claim that every single job will vanish. but if some jobs disappear, you need replacements. you didnt come up with any.

No, expecting me to come up with the new jobs is the strawman. I can't predict the future any more than you can. So I can make up jobs, like "fnargle washer," but without knowing what a fnargle is, I can't say for certain that it would need washing. But I can tell you that a great many of the service jobs that exist today will not go out of style, either because they cannot be automated, or because it will be a mark of prestige that you have chosen not to automate that particular service.

But the market can react to it when it happens, so long as it's not constrained by short-sighted regulations.

"the market" consists of human beings, which are short-sighted too - and usually dont give a fuck about other human beings that are only an abstract number in a statistic.
trusting in the market to magically solve all problems is just another religious belief.

The market responds to needs. it responds to needs by filling them. Filling those needs provides employment. If all human needs are filled by a machine, then that would be a pretty damn fine problem to have, don't you think?

[fornit]

No, expecting me to come up with the new jobs is the strawman. I can't predict the future any more than you can. So I can make up jobs, like "fnargle washer," but without knowing what a fnargle is, I can't say for certain that it would need washing. But I can tell you that a great many of the service jobs that exist today will not go out of style, either because they cannot be automated, or because it will be a mark of prestige that you have chosen not to automate that particular service.

there is precious little that can not be automated. mostly stuff that requires either creativity or complex manual labor. sure, some people will prefer human personnel, even if it costs a little extra. but that doesnt change the general trend.
i agree that its not fair to ask you to make up new jobs. its also not fair to claim that the service economy will neutralize the effect of lost production jobs without any possible way to back that claim up 

The market responds to needs. it responds to needs by filling them. Filling those needs provides employment. If all human needs are filled by a machine, then that would be a pretty damn fine problem to have, don't you think?

in theory, with a much nicer human race around or with infinite resources, yeah it would be.
but with finite resources and everybody wanting as much luxury as possible?

[myrkul]

The market responds to needs. it responds to needs by filling them. Filling those needs provides employment. If all human needs are filled by a machine, then that would be a pretty damn fine problem to have, don't you think?

in theory, with a much nicer human race around or with infinite resources, yeah it would be.
but with finite resources and everybody wanting as much luxury as possible?

I just don't see where your fears are. Are you afraid we'll strip the planet? You can't honestly believe that if all human needs are met by a machine that people would be unable to meet their needs because they don't have work, because that's a straight contradiction. Of course they will be able to meet their needs, all human needs are met by a machine.

And you seem to forget that the earth is not the sole source of resources in universe, or even in the solar system. Surely a culture so automated as to meet everyone's needs by machine will have solved the problems involved in asteroid mining, most likely, again, by sending... wait for it... a machine.

[fornit]

I just don't see where your fears are. Are you afraid we'll strip the planet? You can't honestly believe that if all human needs are met by a machine that people would be unable to meet their needs because they don't have work, because that's a straight contradiction. Of course they will be able to meet their needs, all human needs are met by a machine.

so you phrase something badly and when i dont correct you, you make up a contradiction solely based on your bad formulation? seriously?

And you seem to forget that the earth is not the sole source of resources in universe, or even in the solar system. Surely a culture so automated as to meet everyone's needs by machine will have solved the problems involved in asteroid mining, most likely, again, by sending... wait for it... a machine.

up until now, i was talking relatively short-term changes like automated transportation, supermarkets etc. using offworld resources is way way beyond that. you have to realize i am not making up science fiction here. i talk about stuff that already exists, is in development or is at least possible without any significant new technologies.

[myrkul]

I just don't see where your fears are. Are you afraid we'll strip the planet? You can't honestly believe that if all human needs are met by a machine that people would be unable to meet their needs because they don't have work, because that's a straight contradiction. Of course they will be able to meet their needs, all human needs are met by a machine.

so you phrase something badly and when i dont correct you, you make up a contradiction solely based on your bad formulation? seriously?

Look, it's very simple: Until and unless all human needs are met by machine, there will still be work to be had. Once all needs are met by machine, there will be no need for work. Your fears are unfounded.

And you seem to forget that the earth is not the sole source of resources in universe, or even in the solar system. Surely a culture so automated as to meet everyone's needs by machine will have solved the problems involved in asteroid mining, most likely, again, by sending... wait for it... a machine.

up until now, i was talking relatively short-term changes like automated transportation, supermarkets etc. using offworld resources is way way beyond that. you have to realize i am not making up science fiction here. i talk about stuff that already exists, is in development or is at least possible without any significant new technologies.

And there will be some short-term disruption with each new technology. But by focusing on that short term disruption to the exclusion of the long term gains you commit the very error I was trying to prevent by suggesting you read the chapter I provided you. Now, do us all (and especially yourself) a favor, and spend a few minutes learning from Sv. Hazlitt.

[grondilu]

3. Remove defense (we don't need to be fighting in any wars)

You might want to reconsider this.

It's not because you don't need to be fighting that you should not be prepared for a fight.  Si vis pacem...

[Lethn]

You've heard of the second amendment haven't you?

[SgtSpike]

Somewhat related: Social Security.

The SS tax has been increased by 2% to 6.2%.  If we assume the same rate of payout is still available in 2053 (my year of retirement at age 66) and my monthly income does not change, I would generate about $6,500.00 in a monthly paycheck from the government. (source: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/quickcalc/)

If, instead, that 6.2% was invested in the private sector (stock market), which has, historically, generated 10% investment return per year, then I would have accumulated $1.3M of retirement wealth.  If I withdrew the investment income (10% annually) from that accumulated wealth, or almost $11,000/month.

Now, this doesn't have much of a direct tie-in with welfare, but it still jerks my chain that we're forced to participate in this system instead of being able to use that money towards something more.... profitable.

[myrkul]

Now, this doesn't have much of a direct tie-in with welfare, but it still jerks my chain that we're forced to participate in this system instead of being able to use that money towards something more.... profitable.

Like saving for our own retirement?

[SgtSpike]

Now, this doesn't have much of a direct tie-in with welfare, but it still jerks my chain that we're forced to participate in this system instead of being able to use that money towards something more.... profitable.

Like saving for our own retirement?

Something like that, yeah. 

[Korbman]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

In other words, join the party known as "Become just like the United States"

[SamuraiHP]

heheh that old chestnut 

[Spendulus]

Somewhat related: Social Security.

The SS tax has been increased by 2% to 6.2%.  If we assume the same rate of payout is still available in 2053 (my year of retirement at age 66) and my monthly income does not change, I would generate about $6,500.00 in a monthly paycheck from the government. (source: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/quickcalc/)

If, instead, that 6.2% was invested in the private sector (stock market), which has, historically, generated 10% investment return per year, then I would have accumulated $1.3M of retirement wealth.  If I withdrew the investment income (10% annually) from that accumulated wealth, or almost $11,000/month.

Now, this doesn't have much of a direct tie-in with welfare, but it still jerks my chain that we're forced to participate in this system instead of being able to use that money towards something more.... profitable.

And the meme you quote is unfortunately, wrong.  It's not wrong in comparison with quoted returns from social security, it is better than that.

Here's a guy that's done some simple work looking at after-inflation values of stocks and returns on them.  He gets about 3%.

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Adjusted_Stock_Price/NYSE_Inflation_adjusted_stock_price.asp