• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Is Poverty Even Breakable In The US?

... But if everyone in the world did exactly that, who would make the goods and services? We do not have enough robots and AI to take their place yet do we? Some people still need to work don't they?

Wouldn't this problem be self-correcting?
Apparently it all works out perfectly in Denmark. But it did not work out so well in the USSR when their shelves went bare. Nor did it work out in the US during the toilet paper shortage.
 
... But if everyone in the world did exactly that, who would make the goods and services? We do not have enough robots and AI to take their place yet do we? Some people still need to work don't they?

Wouldn't this problem be self-correcting?
Apparently it all works out perfectly in Denmark. But it did not work out so well in the USSR when their shelves went bare. Nor did it work out in the US during the toilet paper shortage.

There never was a toilet paper shortage. Warehouses full of commercial toilet paper were sitting there the whole time. It was just consumer packaging that ran short.
 
You're forgetting about the quality of the workforce. Those manufacturing plants are going to want people who follow the directions and come to work neither drunk, high or hung over. And the automated plants require more general competence--I would say that 100% of our workers (one of those automated plants you are talking about) than we would be likely to get in a place like East Cleveland. You actually have to be able to read what's on your screen and interact with it in a meaningful way, not just memorize steps by rote.
Are you saying that the quality of people found in East Cleveland are not good enough for manufacturing but the quality of the poor Chinese farmers are? I'm not buying it. Impoverished US citizens are just as smart as the impoverished Chinese and they can do just as much given the proper motivation.
 
Apparently it all works out perfectly in Denmark. But it did not work out so well in the USSR when their shelves went bare. Nor did it work out in the US during the toilet paper shortage.

There never was a toilet paper shortage. Warehouses full of commercial toilet paper were sitting there the whole time. It was just consumer packaging that ran short.

Either way the US economic system represented a complete failure in the delivery of toilet paper to the people who needed it.
 
... But if everyone in the world did exactly that, who would make the goods and services? We do not have enough robots and AI to take their place yet do we? Some people still need to work don't they?

Wouldn't this problem be self-correcting?
Apparently it all works out perfectly in Denmark. But it did not work out so well in the USSR when their shelves went bare. Nor did it work out in the US during the toilet paper shortage.

Nobody in the USSR was given money by the government for being unemployed. The shelves were bare partly because the government put people into jobs based on their ideology rather than their ability; And partly because effective central planning of production in a pre-information technology society is impossible, even if people aren't lying, and people always lie.

The totalitarianism communism against which the Cold War was fought and won is nothing like the Scandinavian welfare state model. The US belief that everything other than pure libertarian market driven economics is communism, and that all communism is the same, is a propaganda position, not any kind of reality.

Not only is there a different way of doing things from the way America does things; But there are hundreds of different ways, and the failure of one or two of those ways doesn't imply that some of the others cannot be, or have not been, more successful than the American approach.

When your economic ideas start with such foolishness as belief that the USSR paid benefits to unemployed people, or that schools are teaching children to masturbate, when these things are not just nonsense, but easily shown to be nonsense, it becomes very obvious that your conclusions are inevitably also going to be nonsense.

#ConservativesGettingMadAboutShitTheyMadeUp
 
Someone may be intelligent but have no business acumen, which puts them at a cognitive disadvantage, an inability to get rich by running a business.
 
In Denmark anybody can quit their jobs and live off welfare. Perpetually if they like. It means that menial labour jobs wages are pushed up. Because if a shit jobs wage is so low that they might as well live off welfare, they'll live off welfare. It's a great system.

Denmark has no minimum wage laws.
I would think the pushing up of menial wages would be the least of the factors to worry about.

What I hear much more often is the complaining from conservatives about a government welfare state that will eventually disenfranchise all work (and I think they are probably correct). Why does this not happen in Denmark? Especially if you can live a middle class lifestyle with no work? Most people living in the US would love to be retired early if there were sufficient means to do so. But if everyone in the world did exactly that, who would make the goods and services? We do not have enough robots and AI to take their place yet do we? Some people still need to work don't they?

Because people actually enjoy work? It's a system that actually works.

People aren't lazy if they have a possibility to do something with their lives.

And hot women prefer guys with a job. That's never going to change. It's a great motivator in life

It probably helps that Denmark has a lot of Danes. Danes do well wherever they go.
 
Apparently it all works out perfectly in Denmark. But it did not work out so well in the USSR when their shelves went bare. Nor did it work out in the US during the toilet paper shortage.

There never was a toilet paper shortage. Warehouses full of commercial toilet paper were sitting there the whole time. It was just consumer packaging that ran short.

Either way the US economic system represented a complete failure in the delivery of toilet paper to the people who needed it.

Let me see if I got this straight. The sub-debate is whether a hypothetical future welfare state will lead to economic collapse. You advance, as evidence in the affirmative, a temporary shortfall in toilet paper deliveries during the Covid pandemic. Right?

Please, people. We all have different senses of humor. If your posts are intended to emulate The Onion, enclose a smiley-face or such to help us out.
 
Either way the US economic system represented a complete failure in the delivery of toilet paper to the people who needed it.

Let me see if I got this straight. The sub-debate is whether a hypothetical future welfare state will lead to economic collapse. You advance, as evidence in the affirmative, a temporary shortfall in toilet paper deliveries during the Covid pandemic. Right?

Please, people. We all have different senses of humor. If your posts are intended to emulate The Onion, enclose a smiley-face or such to help us out.

The really funny thing is that neither I nor anybody I know, actually ran “out” of toilet paper and ended up holed up in their house with feces all over their ass. Maybe that poster had an experience like that, so I hesitate to criticize on that account.
But still...
:hysterical:
 
Either way the US economic system represented a complete failure in the delivery of toilet paper to the people who needed it.

Let me see if I got this straight. The sub-debate is whether a hypothetical future welfare state will lead to economic collapse. You advance, as evidence in the affirmative, a temporary shortfall in toilet paper deliveries during the Covid pandemic. Right?

Please, people. We all have different senses of humor. If your posts are intended to emulate The Onion, enclose a smiley-face or such to help us out.

The really funny thing is that neither I nor anybody I know, actually ran “out” of toilet paper and ended up holed up in their house with feces all over their ass. Maybe that poster had an experience like that, so I hesitate to criticize on that account.
But still...
:hysterical:

Ha ha!
Pretty much this.

The only person I know about who was strongly effected by the TP issue was a woman at my mother-in-law's church. She'd heavily "invested" in Walmart TP, believing she would cash in. But it didn't work out. She wound up asking the church to pay her light bill because the electric company doesn't accept TP for payment.
Tom
 
Because people actually enjoy work? It's a system that actually works.

People aren't lazy if they have a possibility to do something with their lives.

And hot women prefer guys with a job. That's never going to change. It's a great motivator in life

It probably helps that Denmark has a lot of Danes. Danes do well wherever they go.

Adolf, is it you? This is an essentialist argument. Culture adapts to whatever is needed in a society to flourish. When we say that a culture is good, all we're saying is that if you apply yourself you're likely to do well. When we say that a people are lazy, all we're saying is that hard work rarely pays, in that culture.

Scandinavia is Viking culture. It's the land of Jante. We lift up the weak, but also tear down the strong. Bragging won't get you anywhere in Scandinavia. The highest status in Scandinavia is to be normal and pull your weight. We don't idolize the famous. But why?

It's a culture that was formed in the Viking age, meshed well with Protestantism, and was strengthened and perpetuated by it. It's only kept going because it's served us well.

If it would stop being useful it change.

Viking culture has downsides. It increases trust between people, which makes us naive. This means that when Scandinavians move to other countries we easily get taken advantage of. Scandinavian women behave in ways not recommended in most cultures of the world. We don't have particularly sharp elbows. Which has obvious problems in an increasingly globalised world.

edit: An example. I had a friend who owned a restaurant. He wanted to move the restaurant to a bigger place. So he sold the old restaurant. The new owners (Arabs) kept the name. When my friend complained and said it was not part of the deal they beat him up and threatened his life and the life of his family.

I'm not saying this as some sort of racist argument or anti-immigrant argument. It's more that people learn what works where they grow up and they will keep doing it even when it is dysfunctional in their new context.

There's positives and negatives about Scandinavian culture.
 
If it was as basic as do what the Danes do, then every country could be as prosperous as Denmark. But we all know it doesn’t work that way. Where does “culture” come from? Does it fall from the sky?
 
If it was as basic as do what the Danes do, then every country could be as prosperous as Denmark. But we all know it doesn’t work that way. Where does “culture” come from? Does it fall from the sky?

No, it evolves over generations. As the theory goes. In each generation it adapts to whatever new challenges it faces. Remember that Scandinavia, historically, have been harsh environments where food has been scarce and the environment is constantly trying to kill you. Cooperation and pulling your weight was necessary. Conflicts inside the tribe could easily lead to the death of the entire tribe. Because of the high cost of conflict we developed a conflict avoidant culture.

This is all highly speculative, mostly based on anthropological work with inuits and Icelanders. It's also based on a anthropological book I read comparing the cultures East and West of the Andies. The cultures West of the Andies were more sophisticated than those East of the Andes. Because the environment was harsher.

Once a high trust society has been established it's self perpetuating, because the cost of transactions is relatively low. The members of the culture work to perpetuate it.

But you don't need a lot of strife and war to make this culture go away. The Vikings built comparatively little walls and forts. Why? Because nobody in their right mind would want to conquer them. The barren land wasn't worth the effort. Historically that has been our protector. Which I suspect is what has perpetuated the culture.

If you go further south it's a non stop invasion carnage. Looking out for number one has been a better strategy for survival than blind loyalty to your kin.

I have worked a lot with Indians. Indian culture is a hell of a lot more sophisticated than Scandinavian cultures. With complicated networks of loyalties and allegiances. Corruption is complicated and in many layers. Communication is indirect. You can't tell anybody straight what you think or they'll interpret it as extreme aggression.

For good or for worse this is what you get when your culture has been the most affluent in the world since any human stopped hunting and gathering. It's a result of always having stuff a lot of other people wants to steal. It's so fertile that your doom won't come from the environment. It'll be at the hand of a "friend". Trust between people is low.

I think all culture is like this. It's the result of history and economic realities.

Now with the Internet and as globalization progresses and economies become more similar cultural differences will be smoothed out and blend into just one global culture. I think that's inevitable.

I think it's anyone's guess what that new global culture will look like
 
Back
Top Bottom