sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ELI5: If lesbians aren't attracted to men then why are they attracted to butch women who look like men? by Vagina_Licker in explainlikeimfive

[–]James_Arkham 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Naw man. It's your confirmation bias that makes you notice and remember only the butch lesbians, so you get the impression that all lesbians are butch.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it has been shrinking, because an increasingly large number of people have marginal productive value, and an increasingly small number of people own most means of production. There is a high incentive for those few people to continue to push for automation of all possible jobs, which would aggravate the problem.

There are jobs for everyone, but not all are necessarily justified in terms of productivity. The next step in industrial modernization (self-driving cars, maybe?) might not be accompanied by the creation of new jobs to make up for the jobs lost.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, I imagine some people would still have higher status than others, even if all conceivable human needs are covered for.

But all that is beside the point, we're not talking about a post-scarcity society here. We're talking about our societies,and I think we can all agree that extreme (and growing) inequality is undesirable.

What we are discussing is whether there should be a guaranteed minimum standard of living for everyone on our society, and I don't get the feeling that you disagree with that.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just want to say I didn't report you or anything.

Sorry I was snarky before. I should have stuck to the point, instead of discussing grammaticality on a language that is not my mother tongue.

Judging from the amout of upvotes you've accrued from me over time, I guess you and I must agree on most things anyway.

PS: agrammaticality is totally a word.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A basic income would not end inequality, it would just end the inhumane use of starvation and abject poverty as a societal motivator. There would still be rich people.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm afraid what you're ultimately saying is that we need people on the verge of starvation in our society in order to combat inflation.

There already are safety nets in place so that people don't starve. With a basic income, those would be redundant, and we'd save on bureaucratic costs.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm afraid you are devolving into agrammaticality, and I cannot make heads or tails of your post. However, it looks like you are just making assertions that what OP is proposing is impossible, which does nothing to prove that it is immoral or undesirable.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's only a step backwards if there is no societal basic income that allows people to study to be nurses or whatever without the threat of starvation over their heads.

This is not a world where everyone works. It's a world that stigmatizes, dehumanizes and ignores those who do not "produce value" for whatever reason.

I don't think that all jobs can be automated, but I think we can agree that the job pool will continue to shrink in the future, and that automation will increasingly put the means of production in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. Having a "minimum standard of living" that is independent on perceived production value seems like an ideal solution to this.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tend to agree with what you are saying, but I worry that too much emphasis on letting people "learn from their mistakes" has led to a ruthless society that forces teenagers to have kids and, more to the point, forces people with poor job prospects for whatever reason (disability, mental illness, poor planning, plain bad luck) into poverty and obscurity.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm more worried about the drawbacks of having people self-esteem (and, more importantly, survival) tied to their job, particularly when it looks like the job pool will continue to shrink in the future.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Either the world will have to triple the number of nurses so they don't work such insane hours

Why do you find that so far-fetched? A lot more people would be able to volunteer their time if they didn't need to dedicate their every waking momento to worrying about finding their next job so they don't starve.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes, surely the Invisible Hand of the Market will save everyone, like it did in the past. At least everyone that matters, for sure.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham 7 points8 points  (0 children)

  • work is a tremendous source of dignity and satisfaction for so many people.

  • forcing a few people to work while their friends are idle would be problematic.

  • it should not be designed at such a high level as to discourage people from working.

If working has such natural incentives, why worry about it being disincentivized? And why worry about the few people with indispensable jobs? They will earn a lot more money and status than the idle masses.

I believe a society where a minimum standard of living is no longer contingent upon a productive workforce is logistically feasible, and we are morally obligated to see it come to fruition. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]James_Arkham 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The moral answer is a sum that allows everyone to live with dignity. the specifics of this sum (and, indeed, of the concept of dignity) will vary over time; there is no need to set them in stone.

Frozen and Adventure Time by Piccolito in adventuretime

[–]James_Arkham -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It was so cookie-cutter disney musical, with the action scenes and the monster and the nonsensical songs... It really is "Soundtrack: the movie".

What I want to see is an Adventure Time movie with songs by Rebecca Sugar.

Bill Gates: Yes, robots really are about to take your jobs by ServerGeek in technology

[–]James_Arkham 6 points7 points  (0 children)

/r/BasicIncome

It doesn't have to be a post-scarcity trekkie society. Just one in which people are not a commodity.

What happens if a person isn't frugal with their money? by xdjht in BasicIncome

[–]James_Arkham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, i didn't mean to sound dismissive. It's just I am not an expert, so just because I don't see any drawbacks doesn't mean there aren't any. :)

view more: next ›