5 ms·

I have no idea if what you say is true but let's say it is true. So the options are incomes and stability or no income and uprisings and instability. Which worl

I have no idea if what you say is true but let's say it is true. So the options are incomes and stability or no income and uprisings and instability. Which world would you rather live in? The uprisings don't put food on the table but are likely to have the opposite effect so I'm in favor of the income and I'm in favor of stability. I have a young son and a stable world is my dream for him, along with breathable air, an intact Amazon Basin, etc. The things that I can think of that would make the world a better place are not impossible.

Clubber 10y ago
Nobody can predict the future, I was just pontificating, BUT the US government (both parties) don't really work for the American people. I'm talking Congress and the House, the ones that have the real power. The US government was setup by elites for elites. Why do you think white, male landowners were the only ones who could vote? It's in our foundation and has only changed in brief periods. I think a living wage will be required eventually, but you better believe the people who donate largely to campaigns will fight it tooth and nail. Not only that, they will make sure it's just enough to quell uprisings and comes out of debt rather than increased taxes.
- marmot777 10y ago
  Why would they fight it if it was in their interest? The elites have an interest in stability. There would have to be some good marketing and some good direct sales to said elites but to me, it seems obvious that something will have to be done on this to preserve stability. Even an ice cold sociopath would want that, I would think unless these elites are a different species altogether. I doubt it.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    For the same reason they fight it now, they don't like writing checks.
    - marmot777 10y ago
      Who fights what exactly? I'm not disagreeing I'm trying to understand. And are elites just one monolith? I don't think that's how it is. I think every group in society has its cool people and its narrow-minded, greedy cretins. I doubt that there's a single entity called the elite that acts in concert after the annual meeting.
      - Clubber 10y ago
        I think you are pretending to be obtuse. Wealthy people can afford to lobby congress, poor people cannot. Congress (has a whole) rarely does squat unless they are paid to do so. Most, if not all lobbying is controlled by wealthy people. Not all wealthy people control lobbying efforts. Therefore, when 90% of the workforce is not needed, people who can afford to lobby congress (wealthy) will assuredly continue to lobby congress to ensure that the laws to deal with that problem don't affect their interests negatively. Paying what is essentially social security for everyone isn't going to be cheap. Paying 150 million people (approx workforce) $1000 a month would cost $1,800,000,000,000 a year, and that probably won't be enough. This is not limited to the GOP and there is a ton of historical evidence of this. The middle class has been stagnant since Reagan. Globalization, trade agreements, ignoring the minimum wage limits, increasing visa limits, not prosecuting employers who use illegal labor, weakening of unions, not allowing the government to bargain on drugs they purchase through tax dollars, not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries, extending copyright monopoly durations, etc. None of those things help the middle class, they only help the corporations and people who lobbied congress. Here is a list of the top 20 lobbying groups / people. I cannot see of any (except the AARP) that has citizens interest's in mind when they lobby. I certainly don't see any who would lobby to increase their taxes to support a living wage. These organizations are all controlled by wealthy people. https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s In short, wealthy people and organizations lobby congress because they are the only ones who can afford to.
        marmot777 10y ago
        I wasn't trying to be obtuse. I fully acknowledge that greed is one of the forces ripping the society to shreds. However, people act in what they misperceive to be their best interests all the time. If your scenario comes to pass, then it will be flatly impossible to have anything close to a stable society. The rich do not become rich and stay rich in a vacuum. Maybe some of them think they didn't act on a platform or that they don't need society but if things start to fall apart and the safety net goes from frayed to ripped, the situation can go from bad to worse very fast and keep going. These lobbyists you speak of and those who fund them can be dethroned in the next wave of populism to hit. The next wave might come from the left, might come from the right, or might just hit as a nihilistic spasm. The order that you describe above is there based on an illusion. I'm not trying to make some mystical claim. Pull a bill from your wallet. Try to eat it. What's it worth? It's worth money because of a tacit agreement on its value. There's no inherent value in that $5. Go to the campus of a University. Why is that place University and not the park down the block? Because we've agreed and yes made laws to protect that designation and the professors and students show up at one and not the other but it's not objective reality woven into the fabric of the universe. There's a lot of assumptions and agreements in almost everything that's part of civilization, including the details of the order that you described above. That you will always have electricity, water, and enough to eat are also not written in stone either. Nobody who really understood some history, I mean feels it beyond mere abstraction, would say a destabilizing word in public or try to stir anyone else to act against stability. This person would have a broader understanding of their own interests. They would never advocate for authoritarianism as they'd grok Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., etc. I am not saying that it's even close to guaranteed that civilization will pull off survival nor do I have any clue how fast we are sliding and how much acceleration is to come and when. Nobody does. But I think it would be foolish for smart people to not consider this with an open mind. To act in time I think will require some persuasion because if this idea is forced to wait until it can sell itself, then conditions will have deteriorated to the point where even those deep in denial will feel it. Reality can hit hard and fast. I'm not saying you personally think things are just fine as I can't imagine anyone on HN who is not at least aware of the inevitability of a growing gap between those who need to work to survive and the number of jobs. Further, I'm sure you're aware there are millions who are not going to be even close to ready to survive through their retirements. If this all comes together with a malevolent or just clueless demagogue then things could get a whole lot worse, a whole lot faster. I hope people are watching and learning and can put aside whatever ideology they currently cling to because those ideologies are just hindrances to clear thinking.

Clubber 10y ago

Nobody can predict the future, I was just pontificating, BUT the US government (both parties) don't really work for the American people. I'm talking Congress and the House, the ones that have the real power. The US government was setup by elites for elites. Why do you think white, male landowners were the only ones who could vote? It's in our foundation and has only changed in brief periods. I think a living wage will be required eventually, but you better believe the people who donate largely to campaigns will fight it tooth and nail. Not only that, they will make sure it's just enough to quell uprisings and comes out of debt rather than increased taxes.

marmot777 10y ago
Why would they fight it if it was in their interest? The elites have an interest in stability. There would have to be some good marketing and some good direct sales to said elites but to me, it seems obvious that something will have to be done on this to preserve stability. Even an ice cold sociopath would want that, I would think unless these elites are a different species altogether. I doubt it.
- Clubber 10y ago
  For the same reason they fight it now, they don't like writing checks.
  - marmot777 10y ago
    Who fights what exactly? I'm not disagreeing I'm trying to understand. And are elites just one monolith? I don't think that's how it is. I think every group in society has its cool people and its narrow-minded, greedy cretins. I doubt that there's a single entity called the elite that acts in concert after the annual meeting.
    - Clubber 10y ago
      I think you are pretending to be obtuse. Wealthy people can afford to lobby congress, poor people cannot. Congress (has a whole) rarely does squat unless they are paid to do so. Most, if not all lobbying is controlled by wealthy people. Not all wealthy people control lobbying efforts. Therefore, when 90% of the workforce is not needed, people who can afford to lobby congress (wealthy) will assuredly continue to lobby congress to ensure that the laws to deal with that problem don't affect their interests negatively. Paying what is essentially social security for everyone isn't going to be cheap. Paying 150 million people (approx workforce) $1000 a month would cost $1,800,000,000,000 a year, and that probably won't be enough. This is not limited to the GOP and there is a ton of historical evidence of this. The middle class has been stagnant since Reagan. Globalization, trade agreements, ignoring the minimum wage limits, increasing visa limits, not prosecuting employers who use illegal labor, weakening of unions, not allowing the government to bargain on drugs they purchase through tax dollars, not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries, extending copyright monopoly durations, etc. None of those things help the middle class, they only help the corporations and people who lobbied congress. Here is a list of the top 20 lobbying groups / people. I cannot see of any (except the AARP) that has citizens interest's in mind when they lobby. I certainly don't see any who would lobby to increase their taxes to support a living wage. These organizations are all controlled by wealthy people. https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s In short, wealthy people and organizations lobby congress because they are the only ones who can afford to.
      - marmot777 10y ago
        I wasn't trying to be obtuse. I fully acknowledge that greed is one of the forces ripping the society to shreds. However, people act in what they misperceive to be their best interests all the time. If your scenario comes to pass, then it will be flatly impossible to have anything close to a stable society. The rich do not become rich and stay rich in a vacuum. Maybe some of them think they didn't act on a platform or that they don't need society but if things start to fall apart and the safety net goes from frayed to ripped, the situation can go from bad to worse very fast and keep going. These lobbyists you speak of and those who fund them can be dethroned in the next wave of populism to hit. The next wave might come from the left, might come from the right, or might just hit as a nihilistic spasm. The order that you describe above is there based on an illusion. I'm not trying to make some mystical claim. Pull a bill from your wallet. Try to eat it. What's it worth? It's worth money because of a tacit agreement on its value. There's no inherent value in that $5. Go to the campus of a University. Why is that place University and not the park down the block? Because we've agreed and yes made laws to protect that designation and the professors and students show up at one and not the other but it's not objective reality woven into the fabric of the universe. There's a lot of assumptions and agreements in almost everything that's part of civilization, including the details of the order that you described above. That you will always have electricity, water, and enough to eat are also not written in stone either. Nobody who really understood some history, I mean feels it beyond mere abstraction, would say a destabilizing word in public or try to stir anyone else to act against stability. This person would have a broader understanding of their own interests. They would never advocate for authoritarianism as they'd grok Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., etc. I am not saying that it's even close to guaranteed that civilization will pull off survival nor do I have any clue how fast we are sliding and how much acceleration is to come and when. Nobody does. But I think it would be foolish for smart people to not consider this with an open mind. To act in time I think will require some persuasion because if this idea is forced to wait until it can sell itself, then conditions will have deteriorated to the point where even those deep in denial will feel it. Reality can hit hard and fast. I'm not saying you personally think things are just fine as I can't imagine anyone on HN who is not at least aware of the inevitability of a growing gap between those who need to work to survive and the number of jobs. Further, I'm sure you're aware there are millions who are not going to be even close to ready to survive through their retirements. If this all comes together with a malevolent or just clueless demagogue then things could get a whole lot worse, a whole lot faster. I hope people are watching and learning and can put aside whatever ideology they currently cling to because those ideologies are just hindrances to clear thinking.