3 ms·

> There is no law stating that each generation of humans should have it easier and with more resources available to them. This is pie-in-the-sky thinking, but

• csense 11y ago
  That kind of attitude invites a government to try communism (the government runs a bunch of businesses) or militarism (turn all the unemployed into soldiers; as for resources, use those soldiers to take them by force from your neighbors).
  • toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I'm perfectly fine with socialism, with the government owning robotic manufacturing and software providing basic/government services.
  • nathan_f77 11y ago
    Who knows, maybe communism might actually work today. Technology and automation might be the key.
• happyscrappy 11y ago
  > each generation of humans should have it easier and with more resources available to them. That is clearly the trend, ups and downs aside. The current generation appears to feel they have it harder than the last few generations. Not even close.
  • icelancer 11y ago
    I wouldn't say we have it "harder," because I don't believe that at all. The opportunities globalism and the Internet provide us are almost infinite. But the long-term view doesn't look too damn good from an employment perspective. There is a real mismatch of skill development and what is actually available on the market; and the labor demand is not nearly as stable as it used to be (career opportunities are changing every 5-10 years rather than 20-40). There is a lot more variance and randomness going forward by any reasonable projection, and while that doesn't actually change the underlying resource allocation, people don't do well with unpredictability.
    • happyscrappy 11y ago
      > people don't do well with unpredictability Neither do long term views, things are moving so fast that long term views are pretty meaningless.
    • XorNot 11y ago
      I think more accurately its that, as the recent article on telematics shows - that the stable availability of work itself is being slowly eroded. We can continue down that track for a while before you'll get a sufficient population of disaffection for something drastic to "suddenly" become a movement.
• jcranmer 11y ago
  To play devil's advocate here: Why should governments be beholden to the smaller half of its population (at least in most developed countries), if it comes at the expense of the larger half (and the one that is actually most involved in government)?
  • acveilleux 11y ago
    That holds until the cross-over point where the unemployed half is larger than the employed one. Note that most unemployment statistics define unemployment as a subset of the whole population that both has no job and is not actively seeking one. That last criteria is rarely as objective as the first one. In Greece, unemployment is currently 25% or so. 48.6% for 18-25. There were 3,644,000 employed individuals as of july 2015. For a total population close to 10.8m. Employed people are far from the "largest half." For the US, from the same source (all number Sep 2015), the numbers are: Unemployment: 5.1% (Youth: 11%) 148,800,000 employed individuals out of 319m population... So 160+m people are not seeking work either because they're kids, retired, unable to work, inmates or have given up. Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/unemployment-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/unemployment-rate
  • maerF0x0 11y ago
    There are massive costs to the employed portion of the population exacted by the unemployed. Social Security is an obvious item, but consider other side effects: * Desperate people are more likely to mug / murder people ==> Medical cost, psych therapy cost, security cost, cost of being afraid of who's going to get you for the $20 in your pocket. * People in shitty conditions are more likely to become drug addicts, funding criminal activity and being a burden on things like EMS / hospitals. Maybe the next time you need an ambulance it will be busy with an OD case. Or maybe the ambulance will run you over as you attempt to cross the street? Or even just the sirens interrupting your sleep at night, removing a few $ of value from your life without your consent. * For those who grow up in the poorer portion, they're less likely to get properly nourished, resulting in stunded growth, future health problems and diminished IQ (eg no omega3s in childhood) * Same security issues but with your kids and their kids comingling in public schools.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• nostrademons 11y ago
  Because you can't legislate facts.