3 ms·

What does that have anything to do with anything I said? I'm talking about how to make an economy work in a post scarcity world where labor isn't necessary; th

What does that have anything to do with anything I said? I'm talking about how to make an economy work in a post scarcity world where labor isn't necessary; that has literally nothing to do with families. Creating more pro-family laws does nothing to help with post scarcity. We have not had this problem in the past, so looking to the past for solutions does nothing, there are no past solutions to a world that doesn't need labor. This is not an issue that in any way relates to families or the undermining of families. Honestly, it's like you just make random responses that don't address anything said to you.

Mz 13y ago
No, I am not making up random responses. I am all for real national health coverage (not Obamacare). That would accomplish some of the things this is intended to accomplish. Historically, it was more feasible for a nuclear family to have one breadwinner supporting multiple members in part because family medical coverage was more common. One of the things that keeps young women with children in the work force is that family medical coverage has become relatively scarce. Most women who have small children feel conflicted about working and wish the could either work only part time or be home with their child. They work in part to retain medical coverage. Homemakers and dependent children (who can be young adults -- like college students) are technically "unemployed" but are not simply cut off from societal resources. I am sorry you do not see that but it is at least a partial answer to the issue of distributing resources to non-working members of society in a way that does not destroy the social fabric or economy.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > No, I am not making up random responses. Clearly you are because yet again not a single word of anything in your response has a single thing to do with with post scarcity. So yet again you're completely off topic. I'll say it one more time, this isn't an issue of family or women not working; Google post scarcity for fuck's sake; the topic is about when the vast majority of society, men, women, all of them, aren't working because labor itself has been eliminated by automation. We're talking 95% unemployment here, this has nothing at all to do with families or healthcare. The time is coming when virtually everyone will be unemployed. This is the problem basic income is trying to address. You don't seem to get that and it's why everything you've said utterly misses the point entirely.

Mz 13y ago

No, I am not making up random responses. I am all for real national health coverage (not Obamacare). That would accomplish some of the things this is intended to accomplish. Historically, it was more feasible for a nuclear family to have one breadwinner supporting multiple members in part because family medical coverage was more common. One of the things that keeps young women with children in the work force is that family medical coverage has become relatively scarce. Most women who have small children feel conflicted about working and wish the could either work only part time or be home with their child. They work in part to retain medical coverage. Homemakers and dependent children (who can be young adults -- like college students) are technically "unemployed" but are not simply cut off from societal resources. I am sorry you do not see that but it is at least a partial answer to the issue of distributing resources to non-working members of society in a way that does not destroy the social fabric or economy.

gnaritas 13y ago
> No, I am not making up random responses. Clearly you are because yet again not a single word of anything in your response has a single thing to do with with post scarcity. So yet again you're completely off topic. I'll say it one more time, this isn't an issue of family or women not working; Google post scarcity for fuck's sake; the topic is about when the vast majority of society, men, women, all of them, aren't working because labor itself has been eliminated by automation. We're talking 95% unemployment here, this has nothing at all to do with families or healthcare. The time is coming when virtually everyone will be unemployed. This is the problem basic income is trying to address. You don't seem to get that and it's why everything you've said utterly misses the point entirely.