Disability Fraud Fallout in Appalachia

[LVH2]

What if there was a Star Trek replicator that was publicly owned & free to operate? How would that work out?

There would be immediate calls to destroy and ban it. That's the sort of things that destroys people's livelihoods, and even if it's a net gain in the long-term, luddism always has its say first.

If the oil-powered automobile was being invented now, forums such as these would be filled with arguments about how economically unfeasible and ridiculously unreliable and unsafe the prototypes being showcased are compared to the perfectly good, sensibly-speeded horse-and-buggys we have now, thank you very much, and exactly what is your plan for dealing with all the whip craftsmen you're proposing putting completely out of business, hmmm?

I wonder how people would react if you gave them the whole picture.

Over a million people will die in these things, p
Often horribly. More will be maimed. A bunch of people will be killed by disease from the pollution. Also, they might contribute to the destruction of our climate.

However, you will be able to travel more efficiently.

Im sure you would have some healthy opposition.

[KerningChameleon]

I listen to a podcast by Marxian economist named Richard Wolff who is against a universal guaranteed basic income, but does support guaranteed work with an adequate income. I think his reasoning is that getting something for nothing is bad for people, but there is plenty of work still out there. Pay enough to actually live, create social cohesion, and get things like those roads fixed, or more houses, or better care for the elderly.

The problem isn't "there won't be jobs", the question is "will there be enough gainful jobs for most of the populace?" Say 90-95%, depending on what level of employment and/or steady income recipients you think is necessary to avoid "dangerous" levels of civil unrest. If there won't be, and you insist on "guaranteed employment" then you'll just end up giving lots of people pointless "dig a ditch, then fill it in, to dig it back out again" jobs. Which is still just a universal guaranteed basic income, just with incredibly unfulfilling busywork strings attached to it.

If that's not Marxian thinking, I'm not sure what is.

[Martin Hash]

Ideology means something. I have a liberty ideology, and I'm sure a Liberty nation is the best kind & can endure indefinitely if everyone was rational, but they're not: envy, resentment, greed, control-seeking, etc. muck up the inner workings. If we recognize these hazards, we can alleviate them. Isn't that what we're doing here?

You tell me people are self-interested shits then are surprised that I'm not surprised.

[KerningChameleon]

I think we're drifting a bit from the topic. My point is "guaranteed work" may not be a solution because people don't just want "to work", they want "meaningful work." If automation destroys too many meaningful jobs and enough aren't replaced, you'll get an entire underclass who rightfully feel they've been left behind because society has determined they don't need the fruits of their labor skills anymore. That's what leads to civil unrest. You can't "make work" for these people, because they a) know the jobs aren't useful to the economy and thus b) they know you're giving them garbage jobs to try and appease them, and that'll just piss them off even more.

Like I said a month or two ago, if people want to work on small farms, that's fine. But these days, the greater economy doesn't need people working on small farms anymore. These people will have to accept if they want to work such jobs because its what they find fulfilling, then they will be getting most of their income from welfare, not the fruits of their labor because there is no longer sufficient market demand for them. And at that point, small farmers start questioning if the work they love is "meaningful", and start getting angry when they realize everyone else is just "humoring" them like so many liberal arts students.

[Martin Hash]

previous discussion

[Martin Hash]

duplicate