It appears that there are countries that are socialist, and countries that use socialism. I failed to make the distinction, but I meant the latter, not the former.
Fair enough, so when I talk about socialist countries I mean countries that are not afraid to introduce socialist programs.... such as the ones I mentioned.
Well, it sucks to live in a place without rent controls. Sure prices will shift a bit, but by and large necessities are regulated in price where I live, for obvious reasons. Lots of people get free money for various reasons already so it's probably something that goes on already to some degree.
Then expand your definition of socialism. A country doesn't have to have a socialist constitution to be a socialist country. A socialist country is any country that has large socialist programs run by the government; something that many Americans adamantly fight against. Personally I don't really understand why Americans are ok with and even fight for a government that doesn't look to have their best interests covered at a fundamental level but I guess it is working well enough for most people (for now).
If leaving my job means my family has to go from eating healthy meals and being in enriching activities to eating raman noodles and sitting in front of a TV all evening, then I absolutely cannot leave my job.
Well sure, and there will always be a certain percentage of the population that rob others, but that is a very different thing. One thing is for sure, concentrating wealth into the hands of less and less people is definitely not the right way to head if you are worried about people who will take things from others. History has long shown us that a massive population of people with less tend to revolt violently, which is where we are headed on the current path. I fail to see how giving more people a slightly greater share of the wealth will increase that problem.
The Netherlands has enough socialist programs in the government to be considered a socialist country. According to Wikipedia, hospitals and insurance companies are mostly not for profit. Health care insurance is mandatory. Let's make a differentiation here. We are not talking necessarily about countries that are socialist in the constitution. We are talking about countries with the courage to use socialist policies in places where it makes things better for the citizens as a whole.
Why would they demand more? You're not making any sense. If that were the case, then welfare recipients would already be demanding more. Or maybe some of them are, but it doesn't matter because they're not going to get it.
Yes, with Japan third on the list at 19.4%. A capitalist country with citizens who sleep in small pods near work because their jobs and the drive for long hours demand it.
No he said people can't leave their jobs. I read this as, we totally depend on doing *something* for a living. For example, I'm in technology, no matter how low salaries go because of globalization I will probably be bound to still work in technology because I have a family I must support now and I can't just go get training for something else. If I had a crystal ball when I was coming out of high school, I probably never would have gone into this industry. But things were good for the first 15 years, and everyone told me technology was the thing to go into, so I went ahead and had a family which became dependent on my salary and that pretty much rules out going back to school form me. Obviously there is a very low bar at which point it will basically force me into a financial situation where I must get trained for something else, but that is a very low bar indeed and it leaves a lot of room for companies to have leverage over me when negotiating a salary.
I don't really understand this statement. I'm going to get more money for working then for not working, so why would I resent someone who is not working? Why is that even anyone's business?
Under guaranteed income, I would still work. I wouldn't be happy with the minimum. I'd be fine knowing a person that could make do with the minimum didn't really have to work.
And you are planning to get another job, or you have enough to quit for the rest of your life. Because as long as you need a job at some point you're not proving anything with that statement.
Android user here and I just want to say that I am totally fine with the OS being "insecure". For me it's not an inconvenience to wait to be on a PC to do my banking and I can easily avoid third party russian and chinese app stores.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears that there are countries that are socialist, and countries that use socialism. I failed to make the distinction, but I meant the latter, not the former.
Fair enough, so when I talk about socialist countries I mean countries that are not afraid to introduce socialist programs.... such as the ones I mentioned.
Perhaps it took more people to maintain a horse then a car, but when cars became popular they still needed domestic employees to manufacture them.
The shift to automobiles did not reduce the requirement for jobs as AI will. The automobile did not replace people, AI replaces people.
Well, it sucks to live in a place without rent controls. Sure prices will shift a bit, but by and large necessities are regulated in price where I live, for obvious reasons. Lots of people get free money for various reasons already so it's probably something that goes on already to some degree.
Sure, but then you're treading into the territory of people who should not have had kids in the first place.
Then expand your definition of socialism. A country doesn't have to have a socialist constitution to be a socialist country. A socialist country is any country that has large socialist programs run by the government; something that many Americans adamantly fight against. Personally I don't really understand why Americans are ok with and even fight for a government that doesn't look to have their best interests covered at a fundamental level but I guess it is working well enough for most people (for now).
If leaving my job means my family has to go from eating healthy meals and being in enriching activities to eating raman noodles and sitting in front of a TV all evening, then I absolutely cannot leave my job.
Well sure, and there will always be a certain percentage of the population that rob others, but that is a very different thing. One thing is for sure, concentrating wealth into the hands of less and less people is definitely not the right way to head if you are worried about people who will take things from others. History has long shown us that a massive population of people with less tend to revolt violently, which is where we are headed on the current path. I fail to see how giving more people a slightly greater share of the wealth will increase that problem.
The Netherlands has enough socialist programs in the government to be considered a socialist country. According to Wikipedia, hospitals and insurance companies are mostly not for profit. Health care insurance is mandatory. Let's make a differentiation here. We are not talking necessarily about countries that are socialist in the constitution. We are talking about countries with the courage to use socialist policies in places where it makes things better for the citizens as a whole.
Why would they demand more? You're not making any sense. If that were the case, then welfare recipients would already be demanding more. Or maybe some of them are, but it doesn't matter because they're not going to get it.
Yes, with Japan third on the list at 19.4%. A capitalist country with citizens who sleep in small pods near work because their jobs and the drive for long hours demand it.
Yeah well they're obviously not doing it right.
Venezuela isn't even socialist! No idea what you're talking about.
Yes, so much rampant misery in Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Canada, Sweden and Norway.
No he said people can't leave their jobs. I read this as, we totally depend on doing *something* for a living. For example, I'm in technology, no matter how low salaries go because of globalization I will probably be bound to still work in technology because I have a family I must support now and I can't just go get training for something else. If I had a crystal ball when I was coming out of high school, I probably never would have gone into this industry. But things were good for the first 15 years, and everyone told me technology was the thing to go into, so I went ahead and had a family which became dependent on my salary and that pretty much rules out going back to school form me. Obviously there is a very low bar at which point it will basically force me into a financial situation where I must get trained for something else, but that is a very low bar indeed and it leaves a lot of room for companies to have leverage over me when negotiating a salary.
Why does that cause the system to fail? The person in the 90% always has a chance to work and afford steak.
I don't really understand this statement. I'm going to get more money for working then for not working, so why would I resent someone who is not working? Why is that even anyone's business?
Under guaranteed income, I would still work. I wouldn't be happy with the minimum. I'd be fine knowing a person that could make do with the minimum didn't really have to work.
Yeah all socialist countries seem to create is happiness for the citizens. Who needs THAT.
And you are planning to get another job, or you have enough to quit for the rest of your life. Because as long as you need a job at some point you're not proving anything with that statement.
Ok so I guess there is a market for it. Pretty bad for the environment to 'chuck out' working SSDs!
Android user here and I just want to say that I am totally fine with the OS being "insecure". For me it's not an inconvenience to wait to be on a PC to do my banking and I can easily avoid third party russian and chinese app stores.
So you are saying in your $25,000 system you would never need to get inside it?
The people who make money in this economy are the people who still meet face to face with people.