- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Provided nobody takes over and turns it into fascism, I think communism would be better. I don't mind sacrificing speculative efficiency or 'progress' for a lifestyle everyone can enjoy without the threat of not having basic needs of food, water and shelter being met following failure.
That's not to say fascism would be awful. Fascism could be perfect with the right person and their management. I think the main problem is that even with the right people, they eventually die and another takes their place.
The farmers took up new jobs after adjusting professions and switching to an urban lifestyle.
While I appreciate you pointing to lessons of the past, I don't believe it's applicable to today due to the amount of time that passed between the automation of farming and the jobs today, the differences in scale of population and population growth under limited resources and space, the increased rate at which we are and will be turning to automation which for now would be jobs requiring data entry, basic mathematical manipulation, the remainder of large scale manufacturing, as well as anything machine learning can be trained to do. Lastly, quite importantly, though hypothetical, that in the face of an AI singularity it's meaningless to create new jobs solely for the purpose of having a human do it.
It is important that these changes are done over time in our current economic system, as people need time to adjust to these new careers. Especially as the newly created jobs as well as those that will be relatively untouched in the near future will largely require in depth specialised education. Something a middle aged generation with a limited lifespan simply won't all be able to adapt to, or to a lesser extent the entire population, since as we are now there's only so far we can go with education.
No, because it's an unstable situation that doesn't hold any particular company liable via consequence and harms all companies involved in that economy.
If a company decides to cut costs by pursuing further automation, they cut some of the overall income potential from consumers, harming all businesses, but also cut costs, allowing them to do whatever they do for cheaper, putting them relatively ahead of other companies. They come out on top, only it's on top of a pile that is reduced overall.
There is still an incentive to cut costs, and those that don't cut costs are more likely to fail due to reduced sales.
The only way I can think of to achieve the outcome you specify would be to have isolated systems, where you can only hope or else must intervene that none or few of them go for automation, in which case it wouldn't be the survival of the fittest individual company, but the wisest group of competing companies within an isolated economy.
Without intervention this sort of system is likely screwed. Wealth redistribution is one such solution, bypassing the issue of consumer income from employment, and rather giving a share of what is already virtually free automated work being done.
If automating caused unemployment less people could buy what they're offering and their profits would decrease. This is true overall, but this isn't considered when deciding to cut costs. I'm saying companies can and will blindly destroy their income source in the short sighted pursuit of eliminating costs.
That's just not true
Yes, it is. There is a correlation between intelligence and prosperity, but it is in no wy absolute. Aside from that, the intelligent take loans, paying others interst to give their ideas a mere chance. But for any large moneymaking scheme, a very large amount of capital is required to get anywhere. Think businesses, homeowners, traders.
Then you should've done better in school so you would look more appealing for grants and scholarships.
I'm sorry, but this is short sighted. We still need people to do the jobs we give shit pay for. On average something like $1300 is paid before insurance kicks in, and that doesn't include insurance payments. Others may be paying far in excess of that. This is a huge hit to the wallets of most of the working class, and if caught by surprise they're screwed. Anyone with a family will typically be struggling to keep up as is. Funding healthcare via taxation means the people that need the help will effectively be paying a little less, not all at once.
Maybe that's what your looking for
A diversion to something you agree with? Both would be good though.
How are we tripping them up? Public education, paid for through taxes
Yes, this is something that is done to help them. There are other things that aren't. Healthcare is one of them, something that truly results in no second chances.
Why should they get multiple chances in life
Well if nothing else I get where you're coming from now. I don't agree with that sentiment though. Too much is left to chance in life to not give at least some leeway. You've been heavily focused on the poor though, what about the converse, where those with inherited wealth, or those that obtained wealth disproportionate to their effort and risk, or those that obtained wealth unfairly are able to easily afford healthcare?
Those who want to cut them off should be free to do so. Those who want to help them (give them second chances, hire them, pay their medical bills, etc.) are still free to do so.
That's a good point. I don't think that's a consistent idea in policy but fair enough. Are you at least consistent with this view? I think insurance, particularly mandatory insurance, would fall under similar scrutiny if you were.
You seem to think that nothing can happen unless the government does it
I don't think nothing can happen outside government, but policy is far more reliable than relying on goodwill. Particularly through something as harshly operated as taxes.
The most important things should not be in the hands of government because government is unfailingly inept, ineffective, wasteful, and inefficient
This is true in some cases, but I'd say leaving it in the hands of regular people is worse. Charity has been going on for a long time for the same issues in the same places. When you donate to help solve a problem it's disheartening to see no change as a result of a lack of support. What's more, charity programs have to market themselves to even reach you. That's a very inefficient process right there.
This isn't even outside your own country though, I would have thought most would be in support, or at least a majority, such that taxation funded healthcare would appease most. Even if you didn't care for others, there's a self interest too. Nobody would want to find themselves in a situation where they can't treat a cancer, or have to consider abandoning a child that will cost too much to treat because of some unfortunate condition. Supposedly about a third of us are in for a date with cancer, perhaps more given increasing lifespans.
The reality is that people die no matter what healthcare policies we have or what care they receive.
True. But not all deaths are unpreventable at that time. Better policies can result in fewer dying.
You think taxes are enslavement? Everyone receives healthcare, this is a fundamental service, everyone should have access to it. Therefore everyone should be expected to pay it.
taking their profits means they can't produce as much commodities as people want
You're talking about using revenue for expansion. I'm not disagreeing with that, though it may be worth considering what we're capable of expanding, or what is worth expanding. I'm talking about what goes into the pocket.
meaning that automation can only exist while people have a source of income.
I don't agree with your conclusion. You imply some sort of equilibrium between employment opportunity and automation, but there isn't any incentive for companies not to continue automating jobs to cut costs, nor should there be. Using the most efficient method is a good thing, we just need to adjust how we treat people. The whole purpose of money is as a medium of exchange and a local consequence of that is that people are motivated to work. If we don't need people to work then we shouldn't be punishing them for it.
You've addressed very few of my ideas. Are the one's you've ignored obviously false to you?
If you choose, however, to slack off in school and not go to college, you aren't deserving of healthcare
This assumes equal opportunity for all. This isn't the case. Inheritance. You often need money to make money. Most low paying jobs don't get you access to healthcare. The poorest can't afford university. Many can be stuck just by interest repayments on debt.
You're also expecting kids, the sort of people concerned only with the now; relationships, hobbies, domestic disputes, to be liable for deciding their future.
Then, instead of protesting for free healthcare, why don't you go create a few jobs? Start a bakery or a retail store or a factory, and fix the problem
This is what we've been doing for centuries. Creating meaningless work to make jobs then pushing them through natural selection. We've created an overly consumerist culture this way, not that I disagree with it, but I feel the principle in furthering it is wrong.
This solution is becoming less viable as we replace more people with machines or efficient methods, even the busywork jobs.
someone else's mistakes
The problem is that we're tripping them up and scolding them for getting dirty.
Even if they made mistakes, you think that justifies cutting them off?