Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not lazy I'm just abusing your Marxist system. That's what they did in the old Soviet Union. Their efficiency sucked comparing to the capitalist West.
I don't consider that a problem at all, quite to the contrary. Efficiency creates a lot of problems as it makes people redundant, people who exist, though, with all their needs.
The Soviet Union crumbled mostly because they tried to compete with the West, which made no sense at all as both systems have different goals. It is like a koala trying to keep up with a horse. It will simply die from stress after a little while instead of being a happy koala bear and living at its own speed.
But, in your "everyone earns the same" Utopia, no one needs to be a student past the age of compulsory education since it won't increase their earnings potential. It makes more financial sense to drop out and pocket those 10 extra years of earnings instead of wasting those 10 years on studying your a** off in order to earn the same as a burger flipper. I'm pretty sure it's less stressful to worry if a customer asked for pickles or not than worry about killing them on the operating table. And since we know stress related illnesses lead to a shorter life span, being a doctor sounds like the worst possible career path in your Utopia.
Again, I don't agree at all. Most people do not attend college because of future income, but because they want to prove to themselves that they can do it. People study engineering because they want to create stuff. People study medicine because they want to help people. A few people like MBA students might be mostly doing it for money, and they are also the biggest pest around, frankly.
So youre saying taxes serve a common interest for a government that facilitates the needs of people that those people couldn't manage individually?
How would a government then pay its judges, for example? There was a time in colonial America when judges had extreme difficulty getting paid regularly. Many did not get paid for months at a time. There were exceptions however, when the judge made a decision that benefited shady business practices where there was plenty of corruption involved. Money was then found to payoff the judge. It was rampant throughout the colonies, so bad in fact the english parliament past measures to secure steady income for the judges. But often the money was rounded up by crooked colonial legislators who were into the swindles themselves. A matter of fact most colonial politicians where crooks stealing from the people for their personal gain and taking bribes from big business. Sounds familiar.
and that right there is the heart of the problem with socialism.
It only works if everyone buys into the system. Not everyone will... ergo...
Exactly. When you say 'buy into', that already implies that it is something wrong because people don't understand its benefits, yet, and won't won't for quite some time. But as overpopulation, the depletion of resources, etc. continue, we will automatically be forced to slow down and rethink our priorities if we want to survive as humans. 100 years from now money will not play a big role anymore. Unfortunately I will not live to see it...
Exactly. When you say 'buy into', that already implies that it is something wrong because people don't understand its benefits, yet, and won't won't for quite some time. But as overpopulation, the depletion of resources, etc. continue, we will automatically be forced to slow down and rethink our priorities if we want to survive as humans. 100 years from now money will not play a big role anymore. Unfortunately I will not live to see it...
"overpopulation" is a 1970's falacy.
you need to look deeper. demographers are suggesting we are headed for a serious reversal in population that will cause serious problems in the near future.
something is wrong with a system that does not reward hard work. Human nature is what it is. if doing little or nothing will get the same reward as being very productive, the vast majority of people will choose to do as little as possible.
exactly. When you say 'buy into', that already implies that it is something wrong because people don't understand its benefits, yet, and won't won't for quite some time. But as overpopulation, the depletion of resources, etc. Continue, we will automatically be forced to slow down and rethink our priorities if we want to survive as humans. 100 years from now money will not play a big role anymore. Unfortunately i will not live to see it...
bs
and be happy you will never see it. because you have a great chance to be forced not to see it if you happen to be inside that hell.
Again, I don't agree at all. Most people do not attend college because of future income, but because they want to prove to themselves that they can do it. People study engineering because they want to create stuff. People study medicine because they want to help people. A few people like MBA students might be mostly doing it for money, and they are also the biggest pest around, frankly.
And this article from the Higher Education Research Institute would disagree with your opinion:
"Two out of three first-year students (66.6 percent) surveyed said they believe current economic conditions significantly affected their choice of college, up from 62.1 percent just two years earlier, when the question was first asked.
Reflecting this concern, students are increasingly placing a premium on the job-related benefits of going to college. The portion of incoming freshmen that cited "to be able to get a better job" as a very important reason for attending college reached an all-time high of 87.9 percent in 2012, an increase from 85.9 percent in 2011 and considerably higher than the low of 67.8 percent in 1976. In the minds of today's college students, getting a better job continues to be the most prevalent reason to go to college.
Many incoming students also said the ability "to make more money" was a very important reason to attend college; this percentage rose from 71.7 in 2011 to 74.6 in 2012, another all-time high."
Clearly the majority of students are motivated to attend college to better their future earnings. I'm sure there are some who feel they have something to prove to themselves or their families, but they are in the minority. Removing the incentive to earn more with a college degree would undoubtedly dissuade many from attending. Those who did attend would likely fall into 2 groups: those who want to do a specific job that requires additional training and those who look to academia as a way to put off joining the work force. Paying everyone the same regardless of employment would lead to a less educated population. How can that be a good thing?
you need to look deeper. demographers are suggesting we are headed for a serious reversal in population that will cause serious problems in the near future.
something is wrong with a system that does not reward hard work. Human nature is what it is. if doing little or nothing will get the same reward as being very productive, the vast majority of people will choose to do as little as possible.
the main problem is not even that. the main problem is WHO are those redistributing the scarce resources and their power - it makes the system unfair immediately.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
