what happens to the lazy people?

[data_lover]

picard always talks about how they have done away with poverty and money, so what happens to all the lazy people? does someone just give them some houses and replicators? land? and how do they decide who gets how much? like picard's family had that giant vineyard in france, i find it hard to believe everyone gets a piece of land that large. i realize that picard's family owned the vineyard forever, but when they "did away with poverty" did they also do away with property ownership? how can you own things without money? i am so confused.

 

[Withers]

I get the sense that, in their future, because all of the baser needs are taken care of they are able to self actualize as a majority more so than humanity has ever been able to in the real world. If you don't have to worry about feeding yourself or having a place to live your mind is free to focus on more esoteric pursuits.

It's essentially "If you could do anything you wanted to do what would it be?" And then they're able to do it. I've no doubt there are lazy, holoaddicted folk in the 24th century, but I think the majority of the population (even right now) would want to do something with all their free time. Rather than "jobs" though they have "careers."

-Withers-​

 

[Destructor]

picard always talks about how they have done away with poverty and money, so what happens to all the lazy people?

Stellar cartography.

does someone just give them some houses and replicators? land?

Well, if poverty is eliminated, that indicates that everyone in the very least gets housing and food for free as a human right, which seems fair enough in a world where replicators exist. Land is probably a different issue since it can't be replicated.

and how do they decide who gets how much?

Presumably there is a credit system of some kind that's never been explicitly explored in the show, but is implied in many cases.

like picard's family had that giant vineyard in france, i find it hard to believe everyone gets a piece of land that large. i realize that picard's family owned the vineyard forever, but when they "did away with poverty" did they also do away with property ownership?

I think it's safe to assume you can still own property (that's explicit within the show), that you can still have personal possessions, and that you still have to do things in order to earn things, so lazy people have less property and possessions than active people.

how can you own things without money? i am so confused.

Think about why things have value. You are willing to give me $2 for this can of coke because there are a limited supply of them in the world so it' is valuable. In a world where energy and matter are interchangeable, you can make an infinite supply of coke, so its value becomes zero. How would money function is such a society? Where everything is super-abundant, money has no function. All land on earth already belongs so someone, so a different form of economics would have to come into play, particularly when you start throwing in things like spaceships and colonization rights. So, there are two possible answers:

1. The simple answer is that people use 'credits' or some other form of what we'd understand to be virtual currency. This is presumably what most people imagine (certainly it's the only thing I can think of), although there are a few things in the canon that contradicts this. When Sisko's dad gets a customer at the restaurant, they give him some of their 'credit', which he can spend on other things like trips to DS9. Basically money.
2. The more complicated answer is that they use a form of economics we can't imagine, much as we can't imagine how a warp drive or transporter might overcome the fundamental laws of our universe. This is probably closer to the truth of what Roddenberry intended when he imagined a world without money, because money is the focus of greed and he imagined greed to have been eliminated. Probably the reason we can't imagine this is because it tends towards a sort of communism where the government/federation dictates who gets what, an idea we all naturally and rightfully balk at.

 

[TheGodBen]

what happens to the lazy people?

They stay working in the civil service.

http://instantrimshot.com/

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

everyone in the very least gets housing and food for free as a human right, which seems fair enough in a world where replicators exist. Land is probably a different issue since it can't be replicated.

So if there's an infinite supply of housing, but not land, where do all those people live?

If somebody wants to move, but they don't own any land, who decides where that person may move to? What kinds of housing options will they have? Do all the lazy people live in huge dorm-like facilities, like the City Blocks from Judge Dredd? (And we see how THOSE typically turn out... )

 

[DevilEyes]

So, there are two possible answers:

1. The simple answer is that people use 'credits' or some other form of what we'd understand to be virtual currency. This is presumably what most people imagine (certainly it's the only thing I can think of), although there are a few things in the canon that contradicts this. When Sisko's dad gets a customer at the restaurant, they give him some of their 'credit', which he can spend on other things like trips to DS9. Basically money.
2. The more complicated answer is that they use a form of economics we can't imagine, much as we can't imagine how a warp drive or transporter might overcome the fundamental laws of our universe. This is probably closer to the truth of what Roddenberry intended when he imagined a world without money, because money is the focus of greed and he imagined greed to have been eliminated. Probably the reason we can't imagine this is because it tends towards a sort of communism where the government/federation dictates who gets what, an idea we all naturally and rightfully balk at.

The first answer is the more likely one, if we want Federation economy to make some sense. There's no way that I more developed economy would revert to barter trade, a long obsolete method of trade that has been replaced by the use of currency for the simple reason that it was clumsy and inefficient.

Saying that money is the source of greed is just silly. It's no more the source of greed than the things that you buy for money are. If there's no money, people will have greed for land or old buildings or beautiful clothes or antiques or the possibility of attending prestigious live concerts of renowed musicians or whatever. Money is not the cause of greed, money is just something we use to make trade easier and economy more efficient. The cause of greed is human desire for power, status and ownership. Saying that greed has been eliminated is also silly, since it falls into that category "oh yeah, we have lobotomized humans so they're somehow fundamentally different from the human beings you know in real life" Some people will always be greedy - for power, status, ownership, and so on, while others will not. Money is also not specific to capitalism, it existed and exists in various systems, from feudalism to socialism, and as far as I am aware, Marx never postulated that money would become obsolete in communism. Probably because, unlike Roddenberry, he had a clue about economy.

 

[Xerxes1979]

The deed(if deeds exist) for the Picard vineyard will eventually pass to the communal ownership of the village of La Barre.

How and whom they give use of the land need not be based on monetary considerations. The house itself could be raffled off in a egalitarian lottery or perhaps offered to another technology hating, land bound individual in the mold of Robert and Maurice Picard.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The deed for the Picard vineyard will eventually pass to the communal ownership of the village of La Barre.

How and whom they give use of the land need not be based on monetary considerations. The house itself could be raffled off in a egalitarian lottery or perhaps offered to another technology hating, land bound individual in the mold of Robert and Maurice Picard.

Robert's widow still lives there, doesn't she? So therefore she owns it. Although she could give it to Jean-Luc if she wanted...

Spoiler: novels

Since he and Beverly are married with a son on the way, they'll need a place to live, won't they?

 

[Xerxes1979]

Robert's widow still lives there, doesn't she? So therefore she owns it. Although she could give it to Jean-Luc if she wanted...

Since he and Beverly are married with a son on the way, they'll need a place to live, won't they? [

What are the limits of realestate inherritance in the 24th-25th century? Will Marie remarry? Will her spouse have children? Given enough time lineages do die out, that is one mechansim by which the Catholic church became so wealthy in land.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

AFAIK, in the novels, Marie still owns and lives on the property (she had it restored after the fire. She hasn't remarried yet). No word on what she plans to do with it eventually, although I'm sure her first choice would be to give it to Jean-Luc since she would probably prefer to keep the vineyard in the family. I don't think we even know where he lives when he's not on the ship...

For that matter, Jean-Luc may already be co-owner. It could be that the *entire Picard family*, as such, owns it, with any member of the family having a legitimate right to it. As of now this would just be Jean-Luc and his sister-in-law. Although if Marie remarries, technically she's no longer a Picard, and Jean-Luc may become sole owner. IANAL, so don't quote me on that.

 

[Doug Otte]

Everyone else has answered the question better, but I was shocked that someone would equate poverty with laziness. That's a pretty naive viewpoint. Do you think that every poor person is just lazy, and not crushed by a combination of health problems, oppressive or ineffectual governments, lack of natural resources, overcrowding, war, religious or racial or cultural oppression, etc. etc.?

Doug

 

[indolover]

The economics of the Federation don't make much sense. they have no money, so how do they trade goods and services?

OK, they have replicators, but they still require power. this power is not unlimited, no resource on the Earth is.

But in Kirk's day they had no replicators and the economy was the same. the same is true of Archer.

I'm kind of thinking that some whizz economist came up with a system that is waaay beyond economic thinking now.

 

[sbk1234]

They become Pakleds.

 

[iguana_tonante]

2. The more complicated answer is that they use a form of economics we can't imagine, much as we can't imagine how a warp drive or transporter might overcome the fundamental laws of our universe.

That's my view. Like the Heisenberg compensator, the economy of the Federation "works very well, thank you". I'm sure if someone gave it a cool name, like "Midas theory of non-finite economic surplus", a lot of people would accept it without blinking.

The cause of greed is human desire for power, status and ownership.

I agree. But power and status is not the same thing as ownership. In the Federation as a whole, it's implied material possession is frowned upon, apparently very strongly. Having loads of stuff will decrease your social status: only a fool and a boor would be found hoarding stuff in his safe! People would work for the prestige and social status linked to doing a good job. I think that is the meaning of Picard saying "we work for the betterment of humanity": not an idealized version of humanity, but the very real need for peer recognition and social lifting. It doesn't matter how much you make (since most stuff is almost free), but how good is your good, how useful it is for mankind and the Federation in general. So the big seaside resort (as an example of not-replicable good) will not go to the corporate manager that made a gazillion of credits, but to the doctor that found the cure for a serious disease. Now, I'm not sure how that could work, but as I said, I can accept that the society and the economy is different and leave it at that. Trying to explain it in current economic will be the same of trying to explain warp drive with Galilean dynamics. If it smells like communism to some, and they can't look further that some fossilized 50s mentality, I guess it's their problem.

Everyone else has answered the question better, but I was shocked that someone would equate poverty with laziness. That's a pretty naive viewpoint. Do you think that every poor person is just lazy, and not crushed by a combination of health problems, oppressive or ineffectual governments, lack of natural resources, overcrowding, war, religious or racial or cultural oppression, etc. etc.?

Doug

There are loads of people that thinks exactly that, right here on this board. If you are poor and you don't have money, you and your family deserve to die. It pains me to admit that, but I'm not surprised anymore.

 

[Penta]

You cannot explain how Roddenberry intended the Federation economy to work unless you ignore conservation of energy and entropy.

As this is impossible in normal space, Roddenberry must therefore be regarded as a kook.

Alternatively, Picard is speaking complete and total bullshit, and people at least work for energy credits.

 

[Anwar]

Picard only has said things like "The economics of the future are different" and that money was no longer the one driving force of human existence, not "money doesn't exist as a concept anymore". Most of this "no money" stuff is hyperbole and misinterpretation, and a cheap shot at trashing anything TOS+ for not being 100% like the 20th century in every single way.

 

[data_lover]

Everyone else has answered the question better, but I was shocked that someone would equate poverty with laziness. That's a pretty naive viewpoint. Do you think that every poor person is just lazy, and not crushed by a combination of health problems, oppressive or ineffectual governments, lack of natural resources, overcrowding, war, religious or racial or cultural oppression, etc. etc.?

Doug

Doug,

If that was the way it came across, it certainly wasn't the way it was intended. My question was how they decided who got what when there were those who didn't want to contribute in any way - this could have applied to anyone regardless of if they were rich or poor before the economic changeover. i dont think my post had the word "poor" in it anywhere.

 

[DevilEyes]

You cannot explain how Roddenberry intended the Federation economy to work unless you ignore conservation of energy and entropy.

As this is impossible in normal space, Roddenberry must therefore be regarded as a kook.

Alternatively, Picard is speaking complete and total bullshit, and people at least work for energy credits.

Best post so far!

Everyone else has answered the question better, but I was shocked that someone would equate poverty with laziness. That's a pretty naive viewpoint. Do you think that every poor person is just lazy, and not crushed by a combination of health problems, oppressive or ineffectual governments, lack of natural resources, overcrowding, war, religious or racial or cultural oppression, etc. etc.?

Doug

Doug,

If that was the way it came across, it certainly wasn't the way it was intended. My question was how they decided who got what when there were those who didn't want to contribute in any way - this could have applied to anyone regardless of if they were rich or poor before the economic changeover. i dont think my post had the word "poor" in it anywhere.

I didn't think you were trashing poor or unemployed people, though I understand why some might misinterpret your post - there are far too many smartasses who don't seem to understand that most unemployed people want to work but many cannot find any job, and even more people cannot find any halfway decent job - and it makes me angry every time.

But there are some people who genuinely do not like to do any hard work, or anything that feels like work. (I find it hard to believe that there's anyone who doesn't like to do anything, since that would be incredibly boring. But you never know.)

I assume that they wouldn't have to worry about surviving, since the state provides for everyone's basic needs (food, clothes, shelter, hygiene, medical attention) without them needing to contribute anything. But if one wants anything more than basic needs, one needs to work and contribute. In other words, it would be like living on a dole (in those countries where it exists and where you can actually live off it).

I think most people would still contribute somehow to the society, even if it's the kind of activity that we would consider a hobby (and even if you're, in addition, not terribly good at what you do.) Say, if you're publishing your own blog or making Youtube videos, you're doing something, even if it doesn't feel like work/job. I find it hard to imagine that anyone would literally lie all day long and do nothing... but, as I said, you never know, maybe there really are people like this.

 

[Penta]

The free rider problem would be a huge issue if the Fed economy was run remotely as GR/Picard posits.

A limited amount of free riding, temporarily, is usually seen as okay by most people. Most people will, at some point, face a period in which they're economically free riders.

But with no real reason to work and produce, labor-force participation would nosedive. Hence, the tax burden would be spread ever more narrowly, and the social safety net would eventually collapse because of lack of inputs.

Eventually, the sheer tide of public resentment against the freeloaders would force *some* sort of change, thus.

 

[Destructor]

So if there's an infinite supply of housing, but not land, where do all those people live?

You are speaking as though there is an infinite number of people on Earth that need housing. Presumably Earth has stabilized it's population and excess people go and live on one of the hundreds of Federation colonies.

Saying that money is the source of greed is just silly.

Well then it's a good thing I said that money is the focus of greed, not the source.

Saying that greed has been eliminated is also silly, since it falls into that category "oh yeah, we have lobotomized humans so they're somehow fundamentally different from the human beings you know in real life"

The fact of the matter is that the humans on Star Trek are, by and large, very different from us. Would you say Kirk is greedy? Picard? Janeway, then? They certainly don't seem greedy from my perspective. Do I believe humanity capable of such a transition? Not really. But the premise of the show is that humanity has evolved, that the people of the 24th century are different from us, and it's explicitly stated on many occasions that they've overcome greed, and I assume the explicit mentions of the fact that there is no money in the 24th century are intended to bolster this fact. It may seem implausible to you, but it's actually less implausible than transporters and warp drive, so you shouldn't have much trouble suspending your disbelief.

OK, they have replicators, but they still require power. this power is not unlimited, no resource on the Earth is.

Yes but in a world where matter and energy are interchangable, you don't need 'power', you just take some matter and turn it into something else. Presumably this is what a replicator does- a rock and a can of coke hold basically the same amount of potential energy- they are the same thing to the replicator (this is actually not science fiction- we are, in fact, all just very, very dense balls of energy).

I'm kind of thinking that some whizz economist came up with a system that is waaay beyond economic thinking now.

This is basically the best explanation anyone's come up with.

Picard only has said things like "The economics of the future are different" and that money was no longer the one driving force of human existence, not "money doesn't exist as a concept anymore".

The 'no money' concept did not originate in First Contact, it has been around since TOS. It's actually less realistic to think that something as vast as the Federation would have an economic system of the sort that we understand in our own individual currencies and more realistic to realize that it's something we probably can't imagine.

Alternatively, Picard is speaking complete and total bullshit, and people at least work for energy credits.

It's pretty cynical to think that we'll always need some kind of currency. I'll admit it's pretty far-fetched idea, but it's not absolutely loopy. Most of the things I do in my life I do basically because I want to, not because I get paid to- it's not THAT difficult for me to imagine extending that philosophy into a sci-fi premise.