3 ms·

Most people aren't going to think like that. But is the rest of society responsible for coddling those unwilling to contribute? For the record, I have no probl

Most people aren't going to think like that. But is the rest of society responsible for coddling those unwilling to contribute? For the record, I have no problem with society supporting those who cannot support themselves by providing those people with welfare. There is a difference between being unable and unwilling to contribute.

intended 10y ago
Well you have to be the one to tell people, that normal life is no longer ok. That being normal is no longer enough to count as contributing. That people will mix up normalcy for being coddled. So your kids have to take a STEM course, because that's the only option to earn enough money (ps earning money != contributing to society). Or you have to learn to code, even though you don't have the ability or aptitude to do it. do note that this is not at all about coddling, which is a luxury long lost. Making it about coddling is straw manning the argument. There's massive numbers of people who are unviable today, and can't be retrained in any practical amount of time.
- malandrew 10y ago
  "Prices are important not because money is considered paramount but because prices are a fast and effective conveyor of information through a vast society in which fragmented knowledge must be coordinated." - Thomas Sowell Earning money != equal to contributing to society, but prices are society's most effective way to communicate which contributions it considers value. Using coding and STEM as your sole examples is a strawman. Mike Rowe, for example, has demonstrated on many occasions that we have a skills gap for many jobs which society needs done that you don't need higher education to perform. There are many jobs that society wants done that aren't STEM or software engineering. https://www.inc.com/christina-desmarais/young-americans-have-zero-interest-in-the-most-in-demand-jobs-infographic.html https://www.inc.com/christina-desmarais/young-americans-have... Once many of these and other in-demand jobs are lost to automation, I'll buy the argument that massive numbers of people are unviable, but until then, there are many that still are very much viable that just aren't looking at prices to determine what contributions society finds valuable.
  - intended 10y ago
    I agree strongly with you > prices are society's most effective way to communicate which contributions it considers value. But its not perfect. Its vastly imperfect - for a variety of reasons involving joins/intersections of various systems. For example - media will always move towards the grosteque or attention grabbing. The feedback loop between AD -> Money-> Attention competition -> More Attention grabbing ads -> Repeat, is near guaranteed to spontaneously create the echo chamber effect because of human neurology. Other examples - the failure of environmental protection, which also involves the direct manipulation of the information by vested interest who spread and maintain FUD. Not to mention the straight up impact of concentration of wealth, and the ability of a few to then signal value disalgined with the values for the majority. I've also seen the various examples for other industries, and they too will fail because re-training itself is a torturous and difficult process- even when you have all the time and resources you need. Tech is a good example because its one of the easier and better covered fields.

intended 10y ago

Well you have to be the one to tell people, that normal life is no longer ok. That being normal is no longer enough to count as contributing. That people will mix up normalcy for being coddled. So your kids have to take a STEM course, because that's the only option to earn enough money (ps earning money != contributing to society). Or you have to learn to code, even though you don't have the ability or aptitude to do it. do note that this is not at all about coddling, which is a luxury long lost. Making it about coddling is straw manning the argument. There's massive numbers of people who are unviable today, and can't be retrained in any practical amount of time.

malandrew 10y ago
"Prices are important not because money is considered paramount but because prices are a fast and effective conveyor of information through a vast society in which fragmented knowledge must be coordinated." - Thomas Sowell Earning money != equal to contributing to society, but prices are society's most effective way to communicate which contributions it considers value. Using coding and STEM as your sole examples is a strawman. Mike Rowe, for example, has demonstrated on many occasions that we have a skills gap for many jobs which society needs done that you don't need higher education to perform. There are many jobs that society wants done that aren't STEM or software engineering. https://www.inc.com/christina-desmarais/young-americans-have-zero-interest-in-the-most-in-demand-jobs-infographic.html https://www.inc.com/christina-desmarais/young-americans-have... Once many of these and other in-demand jobs are lost to automation, I'll buy the argument that massive numbers of people are unviable, but until then, there are many that still are very much viable that just aren't looking at prices to determine what contributions society finds valuable.
- intended 10y ago
  I agree strongly with you > prices are society's most effective way to communicate which contributions it considers value. But its not perfect. Its vastly imperfect - for a variety of reasons involving joins/intersections of various systems. For example - media will always move towards the grosteque or attention grabbing. The feedback loop between AD -> Money-> Attention competition -> More Attention grabbing ads -> Repeat, is near guaranteed to spontaneously create the echo chamber effect because of human neurology. Other examples - the failure of environmental protection, which also involves the direct manipulation of the information by vested interest who spread and maintain FUD. Not to mention the straight up impact of concentration of wealth, and the ability of a few to then signal value disalgined with the values for the majority. I've also seen the various examples for other industries, and they too will fail because re-training itself is a torturous and difficult process- even when you have all the time and resources you need. Tech is a good example because its one of the easier and better covered fields.