Spin off of "Teenagers" - Better Ways to Provide for Everyone

SallyMae
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3028
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

...there has to be other ways to provide for everyone society. It’s just we can’t imagine it…
Its called socialism. The problem being if everyone is given everything they need who is going to do all of the work needed to keep the country moving?
This is a really important question our society needs to answer and I'd like to shed some light on it on a number of levels - personal, economic and long-term.

At a personal level, it's a myth that most people need to be forced to work. Most people, provided with the basic needs, still have plenty of things they want - better food, fancier tech, bigger house, better car, nicer vacations, more kitchen equipment, you name it. Whole economies thrive on just "wants" that are not needs, and people are willing to work for them. And there are plenty of intangible rewards, like respect, the chance to gain skill, and especially to rise in rank, that people are willing to work like crazy for even though they are not monetary. Studies have shown that most people who get more money don't stop working, they raise their sights. There is no shortage of workers.


It's true that at the current economic level, socialism alone is not an answer, but it doesn't need to be. The fact is that socialism - systematically providing for the needs of everyone in society - is only half of a system. Capitalism is the other half, the economic engine that organizes people into labor teams and distributes the outputs - goods, and money. Each is half of what we need; they can only work together.

The most successful countries - including ours! - have a "mixed" economy, with both capitalism and socialism. In places where it works better, they are closer to half and half. Right now we are leaning much too far in the direction of capitalism, so that socialism is a misunderstood and dirty word here. If we want to provide for everyone and still use market distribution, we could shift that balance right now. When people understand that capitalism and socialism only work together, then we can fully use both.


However capitalism itself is not a fair or great system, and there is an alternative that would be better. Capitalism does not refer to the free trade of goods. That's markets. Capitalism is the ownership structure - capital is the wealth of business which is owned by a very tiny number of people. We could have a different ownership structure, where the capital is owned by the people who do the work instead. It's called Syndicalism, where instead of being owned by capitalists, businesses are owned by "syndicates" of workers, who directly share in the decisions - AND the profits - of their own work. We could still utilize market economies and self-directed distribution, but workers would get a lot more of what they produce and wealth would be less concentrated.


But, in the long term, every year it takes less human effort to produce what's necessary to distribute goods and services, while our massive over-consumption is damaging the ecologies we depend on. We need to shift human life and human work away from producing "wants, not needs" and toward helping each other, and restoring our natural systems. In the future, AIs and robots can do the unpleasant labor while humans work to create and maintain a healthy environment to thrive in. We really will have no choice.
Anonymous 1

Unread post

What if we don't want to provide for everyone?
Deleted User 1990

Unread post

We already do…


Our social programs provide food, medical care, shelter, education free and often times cash benefits for anyone under the poverty line.


What else do we need to provide? We’re kind of at our max tax-wise.
SallyMae
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3028
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 6:51 pm What if we don't want to provide for everyone?
Then you should change what you want. It doesn't work.
Anonymous 2

Unread post

BobCobbMagob wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 7:42 pm We already do…


Our social programs provide food, medical care, shelter, education free and often times cash benefits for anyone under the poverty line.


What else do we need to provide? We’re kind of at our max tax-wise.
So no one is food insecure, in medical debt, experiences homelessness, or has student debt?
SallyMae
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3028
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

BobCobbMagob wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 7:42 pm We already do…

Our social programs provide food, medical care, shelter, education free and often times cash benefits for anyone under the poverty line.

What else do we need to provide? We’re kind of at our max tax-wise.
Yes we already do, and humans always do, but we are trying to get it cheap upfront and then paying ten times the cost in social ills. We make social aid hard to get and only for the most desperate, so the working poor still do not have their basic needs met.

First, we need to structure the economy so workers keep more of what they make, and then fewer people would need basic help.

Second, we need to guarantee shelter and services. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless, or mentally ill, or elderly, etc in this country who are not getting their needs met.

Third, we need to make sure every person, no matter where they are on the "poverty line," gets great education and great healthcare, and great opportunities to grow. If only a few of them go on to big success, it pays the whole society back in new discovery and creation. It's worth the investment.

Most importantly, our society is NOT "at our max tax-wise." The amount of wealth held by the richest 1% in this country is so vast and uncountable it could pay for lavish social services with a skim off the top they would never miss. They need to pay the workers who are amassing their fortunes a greater share, and pay taxes enough to support their countryfolk - their customers and their workforce and their fellow citizens - in order to have a good society to do business in. They can afford it.
Anonymous 3

Unread post

SallyMae wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:09 pm
BobCobbMagob wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 7:42 pm We already do…

Our social programs provide food, medical care, shelter, education free and often times cash benefits for anyone under the poverty line.

What else do we need to provide? We’re kind of at our max tax-wise.
Yes we already do, and humans always do, but we are trying to get it cheap upfront and then paying ten times the cost in social ills. We make social aid hard to get and only for the most desperate, so the working poor still do not have their basic needs met.

First, we need to structure the economy so workers keep more of what they make, and then fewer people would need basic help.

Second, we need to guarantee shelter and services. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless, or mentally ill, or elderly, etc in this country who are not getting their needs met.

Third, we need to make sure every person, no matter where they are on the "poverty line," gets great education and great healthcare, and great opportunities to grow. If only a few of them go on to big success, it pays the whole society back in new discovery and creation. It's worth the investment.

Most importantly, our society is NOT "at our max tax-wise." The amount of wealth held by the richest 1% in this country is so vast and uncountable it could pay for lavish social services with a skim off the top they would never miss. They need to pay the workers who are amassing their fortunes a greater share, and pay taxes enough to support their countryfolk - their customers and their workforce and their fellow citizens - in order to have a good society to do business in. They can afford it.
You're crazy in thinking that people will always want to earn more and work harder. I know plenty of people who would rather live on social services than get a job.
Personally I think there should be a flat tax rate across the board. No freeloaders on the bottom end of income earnings or the top because those of us who work our buns off for our families can't carry the weight of the country. But I don't think it's fair to take all of the money from the rich just because they're rich either.
The amount of people who quit working to get unemployment during covid proves that when basic necessities are provided people will stop working.
Deleted User 1990

Unread post

SallyMae wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:09 pm
BobCobbMagob wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 7:42 pm We already do…

Our social programs provide food, medical care, shelter, education free and often times cash benefits for anyone under the poverty line.

What else do we need to provide? We’re kind of at our max tax-wise.
Yes we already do, and humans always do, but we are trying to get it cheap upfront and then paying ten times the cost in social ills. We make social aid hard to get and only for the most desperate, so the working poor still do not have their basic needs met.

First, we need to structure the economy so workers keep more of what they make, and then fewer people would need basic help.

Second, we need to guarantee shelter and services. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless, or mentally ill, or elderly, etc in this country who are not getting their needs met.

Third, we need to make sure every person, no matter where they are on the "poverty line," gets great education and great healthcare, and great opportunities to grow. If only a few of them go on to big success, it pays the whole society back in new discovery and creation. It's worth the investment.

Most importantly, our society is NOT "at our max tax-wise." The amount of wealth held by the richest 1% in this country is so vast and uncountable it could pay for lavish social services with a skim off the top they would never miss. They need to pay the workers who are amassing their fortunes a greater share, and pay taxes enough to support their countryfolk - their customers and their workforce and their fellow citizens - in order to have a good society to do business in. They can afford it.
Alright, I’m going to go one by one as to what you wrote-

1)- Yeah we do. You’re right. Taxpayers need to keep more of their earned income
2)- We do, although there is a huge amount of people that aren’t mentally competent enough to access these benefits. To be clear- I’m not trying to insult anyone I promise, but as someone from LA - there are people homeless on the sidewalk that are yelling-, screaming at people that don’t exist. We cannot expect them to navigate the online system so there has to be some other way…
3)- We do. The pell grant will cover the first two years for anyone under a certain income line. ( and that’s an associates degree)
newyearnewring
Marchioness
Marchioness
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:23 pm

Unread post

The over consumption is a major problem. I had a shopping addiction when I was in my early 20s. I was finally able to get past it and now I have a very minimalistic wardrobe. If I don't love it, if it doesn't absolutely scream at me to buy it, I don't buy it.

But my oldest teenager is now the same way- constantly thinking she needs more. At one time, she had more clothes than would fit in her closet. I refused to take her shopping for anything else until she cleaned out her closet and it turned out she had 15 pairs of jeans that she had outgrown but felt like she couldn't get rid of. I finally convinced her that the jeans had already served her purpose and were put to better use when actually being worn by someone who can fit into them. She admits now that she doesn't like having so many clothes that she can't even sort through them. But she still constantly wants to buy stuff. Thankfully, we are all really into thrifting so we don't spend that much on clothing and we aren't buying fast fashion, but still. I think she's going to have a huge wake up call when she becomes an adult. Mom doesn't refuse to take you to Starbucks and shopping every weekend because she's mean, it's just not affordable.
User avatar
Valentina327
Princess
Princess
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 2:23 am

Unread post

Anonymous 3 wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 9:07 pm
SallyMae wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:09 pm
BobCobbMagob wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 7:42 pm We already do…

Our social programs provide food, medical care, shelter, education free and often times cash benefits for anyone under the poverty line.

What else do we need to provide? We’re kind of at our max tax-wise.
Yes we already do, and humans always do, but we are trying to get it cheap upfront and then paying ten times the cost in social ills. We make social aid hard to get and only for the most desperate, so the working poor still do not have their basic needs met.

First, we need to structure the economy so workers keep more of what they make, and then fewer people would need basic help.

Second, we need to guarantee shelter and services. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless, or mentally ill, or elderly, etc in this country who are not getting their needs met.

Third, we need to make sure every person, no matter where they are on the "poverty line," gets great education and great healthcare, and great opportunities to grow. If only a few of them go on to big success, it pays the whole society back in new discovery and creation. It's worth the investment.

Most importantly, our society is NOT "at our max tax-wise." The amount of wealth held by the richest 1% in this country is so vast and uncountable it could pay for lavish social services with a skim off the top they would never miss. They need to pay the workers who are amassing their fortunes a greater share, and pay taxes enough to support their countryfolk - their customers and their workforce and their fellow citizens - in order to have a good society to do business in. They can afford it.
You're crazy in thinking that people will always want to earn more and work harder. I know plenty of people who would rather live on social services than get a job.
Personally I think there should be a flat tax rate across the board. No freeloaders on the bottom end of income earnings or the top because those of us who work our buns off for our families can't carry the weight of the country. But I don't think it's fair to take all of the money from the rich just because they're rich either.
The amount of people who quit working to get unemployment during covid proves that when basic necessities are provided people will stop working.
I agree with you. Sally's comment is nice, and it would be great if people really were like that, but it's very pie in the sky compared to reality.

I'm a landlord. Managing property, you see in graphic detail and up close the amount of people that don't want to work and don't have any personal pride or other, better things they want to accomplish as Sally suggested. They want to not make any sort of effort in life. They pride themselves on sliding by. Many consider it a victory. It's almost like a game to see how they can avoid working and coast.

It bothers me to see, because there are people that legitimately need help but can't get it because there's professional recipients on the dole that don't belong there. Our social programs would go so much farther if there weren't the professional recipients. It seems to me our programs need to revise how they qualify people, in order to cut some of this out.

There's businesses constantly advertising to hire workers. There's businesses that are closing earlier and reducing hours because they don't have enough people. Why are businesses so short staffed then if people would rather work then collect?

Anyone else see the videos constantly popping up of the low lives busting into stores with trash bags, stealing merchandise and running out? I guess they must just be entrepreneurs, setting up their own business of fencing someone else's merchandise that the victim paid for.

We just had 2 Brinks carriers robbed at gunpoint over the last couple of days. Those fine gentlemen must have set up their own cash transportation business and just were helping Brinks I guess.

None of this is a hallmark of a society full of people that want to work and take pride in themselves. It might have been like that in the 1950s, but now we have a fully blown entitlement mindset we're dealing with.

I truly do wish Sally's perception was reality. We could accomplish some wonderful things as a society if it was.
Let's Go Brandon!
#FJB

https://openvaers.com/
Locked Previous topicNext topic