Do humans of the 24th Century really work to better themselves?

[T'Girl]

waiting tables

The job could also be described as meeting people, generally providing a nice atmosphere ...

That would be more the job of the maître'd (than the wait person), which I think Sisko does himself.

... and just carrying dishes back and forth (which is not an absolutely terrible thing in and of itself).

Terrible? Certainly not horrifying, but it is what it is, waiting tables.

Without the need to pay anyone ...

This is a utopia, of course they're being paid, and tipped too. Joseph Sisko comes off as a nice guy, he likely cares personally for all his employees.

Joe would have to be a real bastard not to pay his employees.

there could be enough wait staff on hand to ensure that no one has to break their back working at unrealistic speeds ...

During the dinner rush on a friday night? You can bet your ass that they're busting theirs.

From the set used and the camera angles it's a bit hard to say how big Sisko's restaurant is. My assumption is the place is on the low side of medium size, maybe 20 tables or booths, sixty plus patrons at any one time and they turn the tables over four to six time on a busy night.

Upwards of four hundred meals in one evening.

Menus - then drinks and appetizers - then salads - then main course - then dessert and coffee. Inbetween each there are dishes to be removed, plus you're back and forth with the bread and the table has to be frequently checked just to see if "everything's okay."

You're busting your ass.

And inbetween each patron groups the table area has to be completely cleaned and dressed. All without disturbing the patrons at the surrounding tables. A properly run restaurant make this all appear seamless, casual, invisible.

and there is no need to compete with each other for tips ...

Competing for tips is just another way of saying competing for the customer approval. Tips are a recognition of above average service.

When I was bartending, some of the waitress shared more of their tips with me (bartenders always get a percentage), with the understanding that their drink orders would get filled first, they in turn would deliver the drinks faster and thereby get larger tips.

... the fact that no one is paying means the restaurant has no incentive to make the customer king ...

Yeah, that will bring people back.

I actually am willing to make certain allowances for ToS, which was shown to be considerably less utopian all around.

But in utopia there will be money.

My own personal interpretation of the 24th cen. is that there are probably small barter economies

Why would a advance civilization deliberatly fall back on barter?

It's inefficient compared to simply using a medium of exchange. No, not everyone everywhere in the galaxy will accept any given medium, but if no one wants the item you're trying to use as barter, you're stuck.

but that money is probably not 'Federation money'

Actually it probably is.

One of the most important things the brand new Federation would have done is set up a interstellar bank. To facilitate trade between members and the member's differing money systems. I think this would have been the origins of "The Credit," creating a new currency out of whole cloth, instead of using something like the "Earth Real" or the "Andoria Actual" as the Federation's money and making all the members unite with one member's money and any fluctuation that might come with it.

Starfleet personnel gets paid in credits or what ever world's money they choose.

I believe that each member world be able to maintain their own "internal" money if they choose too. But I get the feeling that in this case the idea of a central, very very secure, money type would catch on very quickly. In a cash-less society trading from your worlds old money to the Federation's new money would just be a few lines of code somewhere.

And while I am a advocate of the cash-less society, I do believe physical currency/coinage will still find some limited use in the Federation and the member worlds economies. It provides for the "recordless exchange," not that you're doing anything illegal of course.

 

[wulfio]

Roddenberry`s vision of the future was one where communism worked. That is what the federation is, an egalitarian communist society.

The people in this thread are laboring under the false pretense that people were just given everything they wanted without having to lift a finger. People still had to work for society to function, but the wealth was spread over to everyone rather than an engineer making more money than a farmer.

People still had money, they gambled at quarks. But society wasn`t consumed with the accumulation of wealth. It was to succeed and grow. That was the example Roddenberry tried to create. It is seemingly his interpretation of the Ubermensch.

Obviously not everyone in the Trek universe meets those standards. But the fact that society as a whole is aware of it, and has set that as a goal, makes it leaps and bounds ahead of contemporary society.

 

[Nightdiamond]

^ When you have Kirk, Picard, Jake Sisko, Nog and Paris all saying humans don't use money, it's just hard to interpret it any other way.

Paris said implies there was a unanimous decision to literally do away with money.

The only way it can make at least some type of sense is that some processor was created that could instantly produce food and basic needs easily.

Humans decided to eliminate money as a result.

If you don't have enough credits, your replicator will only give you water, or juice or something, some nutrient meal. No one is going to starve.

But-- if you want filet mignon and a fine wine and whenever you wan it, you work to get paid in credits that automatically goes towards your replicator.

But--that implies that no one is any wealthier than the other. Which does imply a type of communism.

The limitation was done on purpose to motivate humans to work.
At least that the theory that seems to make the whole thing appear to make sense.

The main question is, is this what's happening in human society?

Trek left too many questions unanswered about this concept.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

^ Problem with the communism theory is the Picard Vineyard.

From the TNG episode "Family", we can see that Picard family is very well off. I willing to wager that Robert sells his wine to other people on Earth and other Federation planets. You'll notice Robert grew the grapes and processed them naturally. As opposed to just using a replicator to scan the make up of one bottle of wine and mass producing the same bottle over and over. With Saurian Brandy and Romulan Ale being traded (although the latter is illegal) through the Federation and Star Fleet, there is definately a market for Robert Picard to make money.

But that conflicts with the repeated statement of their being no money in Federation soceity. Or maybe theris no money used on Earth.

 

[robau]

Somewhere on the web I read a theory that everyone gets paid but isn't able to take money directly from another person. The credits or whatever that get spent just disappear instead of someone else having it.

 

[CRM-114]

I think this issue underscores a basic problem with the Federation as presented: we're told that it's a wonderful place but we really don't know much about how it all works. Much of what we do know comes in dribs and drabs that can be broadly interpreted.

 

[wulfio]

The main question is, is this what's happening in human society?

Trek left too many questions unanswered about this concept.

I`m not discussing plot holes. I`m simply stating that the way Roddenberry set up and described the federation, it is an egalitarian communist society. With themes from the Ubermensch used as the cultural foundation. If Roddenberry wasn`t an avid reader of Nietzsche I`d be shocked.

What paris or nog says in dialogue is inconsequential to the money issue. Encounter at farpoint Beverly and other officers are shopping. Riker negotiates for the rights to a wormhole in the Price. Tapestry, a young picard & co. visit a bar in which they gamble, eat, and drink. DS9, Jadzia partakes in gambling at quarks on a regular basis. Federation officers are shown gambling at quarks on a regular basis. Nothing in Quarks bar is free. In a certain episode, Quark charges the federation for use of his bar to `store`furniture and such. The federation obviously uses money, and people obviously have money, and depending on the episode, the idea of no money is merely used as a plot point, or for a piece of dialogue to hammer home the ideology that the Federation is a society that isn`t concerned with material gains. The show is rife with inconsistencies from writer to writer.

As for your question, I don`t think so. Unless there`s a paradigm shift in regards to culture and government, there`s no way we end up like the federation. We`re more likely to end up like the Ferengi or Romulans. But if we`re talking sci-fi representations of how the human race ends up, if we haven`t exhausted our resources to the point we essentially create another dark age, in my opinion it`d more closely resemble B5, starship troopers, avatar, etc(minus the aliens of course).

 

[T'Girl]

^ When you have Kirk, Picard, Jake Sisko, Nog and Paris all saying humans don't use money, it's just hard to interpret it any other way.

Let's see.

Nog specifically said Humans abandoned currency.

Paris said money went away in the 22nd century, but there was obviously money after that.

Kirk was able to buy and later sell a house. His statement in TVH likely was referring to currency.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

waiting tables

The job could also be described as meeting people, generally providing a nice atmosphere ...

That would be more the job of the maître'd (than the wait person), which I think Sisko does himself.

Terrible? Certainly not horrifying, but it is what it is, waiting tables.

And there's no reason why people should automatically find it unsatisfying.

This is a utopia, of course they're being paid, and tipped too. Joseph Sisko comes off as a nice guy, he likely cares personally for all his employees.

Joe would have to be a real bastard not to pay his employees.

This is entirely circular reasoning. A non monetary system can't work because they must be getting paid because you refuse to believe that a non monetary system can work. That Joe is a nice guy who cares about people is irrelevant if money simply isn't necessary on earth.

during the dinner rush on a friday night? You can bet your ass that they're busting theirs.

From the set used and the camera angles it's a bit hard to say how big Sisko's restaurant is. My assumption is the place is on the low side of medium size, maybe 20 tables or booths, sixty plus patrons at any one time and they turn the tables over four to six time on a busy night.

Upwards of four hundred meals in one evening.

Menus - then drinks and appetizers - then salads - then main course - then dessert and coffee. Inbetween each there are dishes to be removed, plus you're back and forth with the bread and the table has to be frequently checked just to see if "everything's okay."

You're busting your ass.

And inbetween each patron groups the table area has to be completely cleaned and dressed. All without disturbing the patrons at the surrounding tables. A properly run restaurant make this all appear seamless, casual, invisible.

You're assuming friday night dinner rush still exists at all, despite the fact that it is a direct result of our work culture and that the entire premise under discussion is that the work culture of the future may be radically different. You're also assuming that wait staff are still treated as servants who should accomplish every task instantly and without anyone noticing. And you're ignoring the fact that if there are specific rushes, Sisko could easily bring in as many waiters as they needed. If any one waiter only has two tables to cover all night, then, no, they're not going to be breaking their back.

Competing for tips is just another way of saying competing for the customer approval. Tips are a recognition of above average service.

When I was bartending, some of the waitress shared more of their tips with me (bartenders always get a percentage), with the understanding that their drink orders would get filled first, they in turn would deliver the drinks faster and thereby get larger tips.

All of which would now be unnecessary.

Yeah, that will bring people back.

Sisko doesn't need people to come back. If they come back, it's because they liked the food or the atmosphere. If not, what does it matter? He's there because he likes being there. Not because his livelihood hangs in the balance. Worst case scenario: people stop coming and he's forced to either change the way he approaches people or find something else to do with his time.

But in utopia there will be money.

Because i say so isn't an argument.

My own personal interpretation of the 24th cen. is that there are probably small barter economies

Why would a advance civilization deliberatly fall back on barter?

It's inefficient compared to simply using a medium of exchange. No, not everyone everywhere in the galaxy will accept any given medium, but if no one wants the item you're trying to use as barter, you're stuck.

I see it less as 'falling back' on barter economies and more as barter will continue to survive as a sort of secondary luxury economy (even today, barter is alive and well all over the world, it's just not the main economy). The whole point of the 'no money' concept as I see it is that the Federation has access to such wonderful power sources and technology that they have conquered scarcity. Therefore, they don't need to be efficient in their economy. And whenever they want to trade with another race for whatever reason, their technology means they can replicate almost any trade good their potential partners might want.

but that money is probably not 'Federation money'

Actually it probably is.

One of the most important things the brand new Federation would have done is set up a interstellar bank. To facilitate trade between members and the member's differing money systems. I think this would have been the origins of "The Credit," creating a new currency out of whole cloth, instead of using something like the "Earth Real" or the "Andoria Actual" as the Federation's money and making all the members unite with one member's money and any fluctuation that might come with it.

Starfleet personnel gets paid in credits or what ever world's money they choose.

I believe that each member world be able to maintain their own "internal" money if they choose too. But I get the feeling that in this case the idea of a central, very very secure, money type would catch on very quickly. In a cash-less society trading from your worlds old money to the Federation's new money would just be a few lines of code somewhere.

And while I am a advocate of the cash-less society, I do believe physical currency/coinage will still find some limited use in the Federation and the member worlds economies. It provides for the "recordless exchange," not that you're doing anything illegal of course.

That's a lovely theory and I have no problem with the fact that you prefer your theory to mine, but I see no canon reason whatsoever to suggest that your theory is more likely the truth than mine is. My theory takes the Feds at their word and tries to imagine how it would work, yours takes an assumption of how things should work and tries to explain why that doesn't match the descriptions. But they both fit perfectly well into canon.

 

[TheGoodNews]

That was the example Roddenberry tried to create. It is seemingly his interpretation of the Ubermensch.

Or maybe the "New Soviet Man."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man

 

[JesterFace]

EDITED

...because there was no delete button...

 

[T'Girl]

because there was no delete button

Hit Edit.

Below the main posting field there is a smaller box labeled "reason for editing."

Below that the are four buttons, the third one is "delete"

After you hit that a additional options box will appear.

Within there are two options, "do not delete message" (the default) and "delete message."

Select delete.

Below that is a field labeled "reason for deletion, " you have to put something in there, even if it just a bunch of random letters.

To the right of that field is the actual delete button. Push.

Really is a bit overly complex.

 

[JesterFace]

Thank you T'Girl, this hint will be needed again sometimes I think.

 

[T'Girl]

waiting tables

And there's no reason why people should automatically find it unsatisfying.

The thing about waiting table is it get you nowhere. There's no upward advancement.

If you have two people studying to be a chef, one's a waitress, one isn't. After graduating they have equal chances to be hired as a chef, because having been a wait person on your work history is meaningless.

One of the few things that people like about being a waiter is the financial positive feedback, the pay check is every two week, but the tips are every shift. Now you are saying there no tips (and no pay check), so why again are they waiters?

you refuse to believe that a non monetary system can work

Fair enough, yes that's true.

We've had these threads since I started here (and before). And I honestly can not see how having people basically volunteer their time would work over a protracted period of time. Decades or centuries.

You can stipulate that there has been a change in the society and people are now volunteering to work for no compensation.

Okay.

What happen when the society changes again? Are you going to say that "oh, it will never change again for all of future history." Except societies do change.

But in utopia there will be money.

Because i say so isn't an argument.

But isn't that what you're doing by insisting that "utopia" is directly linked with "no money?"

You can easily have utopia with money, personal property, businesses, vineyards, private starships, chartered starships, Bolian banks, Crusher having a account, Quark selling his shuttle, tip jars on pianos, sell houses, buy boats, etc. How do I know that? Because all of those things are on screen.

Let's talk about the idea of no wages.

In First Contact, Picard told the engineer Lily that money didn't exist in the 24th century. She then asked if Picard got paid.

Now stop, that's a fairly straight forward question, with really a yes or no answer. What did Picard do when asked this question? He immediately ducked it, Picard never at any point stated or confirmed that people in the 24th century don't get paid.

He did say that people in the future no longer seek wealth, too bad that isn't what Lily asked him.

Picard found himself backed into a corner by a question his person philosophy didn't cover. After saying that money didn't exist, his didn't want to admit that compensation did.

Otherwise he would have answered "no."

I honestly believe, that when Picard said that money no long existed, that that wasn't the full story, that he was deliberately leaving something out. Because there are too many examples that the "no money" statement just isn't true.

Not completely.

Therefore, they don't need to be efficient in their economy. And whenever they want to trade with another race for whatever reason, their technology means they can replicate almost any trade good their potential partners might want.

Then why are they still mining minerals on faraway planets? If they can simply replicate what they need and want, why not straight forward base metals? Replicate metal by the giga-tonnes. But they don't. All of Star Trek has mining, TNG-DS9 both have mining, even through they also have replicators.

And while we're at it, Why do we see the Enterprise Dee ripping around the sky racing for this or that pharmaceutical?

In fact, can you recall Crusher or Pulaski or Bashir ever replicating a drug?

 

[robau]

Scotty bought a boat btw. He was pretty straightforward about that. Some form of commerce clearly does exist.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

waiting tables

And there's no reason why people should automatically find it unsatisfying.

The thing about waiting table is it get you nowhere. There's no upward advancement.

If you have two people studying to be a chef, one's a waitress, one isn't. After graduating they have equal chances to be hired as a chef, because having been a wait person on your work history is meaningless.

One of the few things that people like about being a waiter is the financial positive feedback, the pay check is every two week, but the tips are every shift. Now you are saying there no tips (and no pay check), so why again are they waiters?

You're still obsessed with the idea that people are going here looking for a 'career path'. There's no need for room for advancement when the employees are mostly people who are just looking for a useful, sociable way to spend their time. And if they ever get tired of it, they can find something else. Again, since people don't have to get paid, a person could probably find a new position quite easily - outside of certain obvious fields like medicine or starfleet, there's almost no employer risk attached to giving a new person a chance, even if they don't have the right 'resume'. And if there is no money, then anyone can go back to school whenever they want to if they decide they do want to get into those higher responsibility fields.

Fair enough, yes that's true.

We've had these threads since I started here (and before). And I honestly can not see how having people basically volunteer their time would work over a protracted period of time. Decades or centuries.

You can stipulate that there has been a change in the society and people are now volunteering to work for no compensation.

Okay.

What happen when the society changes again? Are you going to say that "oh, it will never change again for all of future history." Except societies do change.

Of course they do. And you won't catch me claiming even for a second that the Federation is even remotely guaranteed to last forever. There are billions of possible scenarios that could lead to the ruin of the Federation. But - according to canon, none of them have happened yet, so that's not really relevant to trying to describe what the Federation as we it know is like.

Because i say so isn't an argument.

But isn't that what you're doing by insisting that "utopia" is directly linked with "no money?"

You can easily have utopia with money, personal property, businesses, vineyards, private starships, chartered starships, Bolian banks, Crusher having a account, Quark selling his shuttle, tip jars on pianos, sell houses, buy boats, etc. How do I know that? Because all of those things are on screen.

I'm not sure I ever even used the word 'utopia' in this discussion before. I'm not arguing that utopia must be without money, I'm believing the characters who have said in canon that the Humans don't use money, and based on that, trying to imagine how it does work and what the explanation is for all the other times when some writer completely ignored the 'no money' thing for no apparent reason.

Let's talk about the idea of no wages.

In First Contact, Picard told the engineer Lily that money didn't exist in the 24th century. She then asked if Picard got paid.

Now stop, that's a fairly straight forward question, with really a yes or no answer. What did Picard do when asked this question? He immediately ducked it, Picard never at any point stated or confirmed that people in the 24th century don't get paid.

He did say that people in the future no longer seek wealth, too bad that isn't what Lily asked him.

Picard found himself backed into a corner by a question his person philosophy didn't cover. After saying that money didn't exist, his didn't want to admit that compensation did.

Otherwise he would have answered "no."

I honestly believe, that when Picard said that money no long existed, that that wasn't the full story, that he was deliberately leaving something out. Because there are too many examples that the "no money" statement just isn't true.

Not completely.

I've already stipulated that it probably isn't completely true. That Starfleet and merchants at the very least must make some use of money in order to smooth relations with foreign peoples, and that there may even be federation planets which haven't done away with money as of yet (and maybe never will). But it seems equally strange to me to claim that all of these characters were lying or duped or philosophically blinded somehow.

Therefore I take their statements at face value and try to understand how it might work. Since most of those statements apply to humans above all others, my conclusion is that Earth, at the very least, is covered by their description. Possibly other worlds as well (almost certainly Risa, and I would say probably Vulcan). That leads me to the idea that there are two main possibilities: either it's just in the culture of some worlds to do away with money, in which case, the Federation would be a completely chaotic patchwork of monetary and non-monetary systems, or the lack of money is the direct result of their other stated advancements (eliminating poverty, prejudice, bla bla), which suggests that it would be the most developed worlds which would have advanced far enough to reach a non-monetary system, and that money would be more or less relegated to the fringes of the Federation (which are now much farther out than they were in TOS). I find the second option more attractive and, I think, more in line with the implications of what the Federation is supposed to be like.

Therefore, they don't need to be efficient in their economy. And whenever they want to trade with another race for whatever reason, their technology means they can replicate almost any trade good their potential partners might want.

Then why are they still mining minerals on faraway planets? If they can simply replicate what they need and want, why not straight forward base metals? Replicate metal by the giga-tonnes. But they don't. All of Star Trek has mining, TNG-DS9 both have mining, even through they also have replicators.

And while we're at it, Why do we see the Enterprise Dee ripping around the sky racing for this or that pharmaceutical?

In fact, can you recall Crusher or Pulaski or Bashir ever replicating a drug?

They can't replicate everything, I fully admit. Raw materials of certain types must be acquired 'naturally' (certainly Dilithium, which would explain why civilian ships are often described as being so much slower than Starships - dilithium is rationed and Starfleet has priority).

I assume the Enterprise wouldn't have the mass replicator facilities needed to replicate medicine for entire planetary populations, and it's very clear that not every planet has the same level of technology - and even if they did have the facilities, something could be wrong with them, or with the power source driving them.

I do feel like Dr. Bashir at least replicated some at some point, but I honestly can't recall a specific episode. If I happen to find it in the near future, I'll be sure to mention it.

 

[wulfio]

That was the example Roddenberry tried to create. It is seemingly his interpretation of the Ubermensch.

Or maybe the "New Soviet Man."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man

Definitely there`s a bit of that, since Roddenberry clearly thought highly of what communism could have been. I don`t think it`s a matter of this or that. With themes like bettering ones self, transcendence, God is dead, maximizing potential, etc, there`s most certainly a strong influence from the Ubermensch as well. Not to mention all of the other existentialist themes throughout trek.

I`m sure there`s a great deal of varied influences. That`s the nice thing about philosophy. Nothing is dogma. You take it all with a grain of salt, and apply what works for you.

 

[robau]

A lot of it would work for me if I didn't need money!

 

[Anji]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was no hunger or no want??? That no one had to suffer because of money. It's not communism, it's humanism! Geez, who wants to see another human being suffer because they have no money? Does anybody???!

Hey, another thing. Star Trek proposes a different and better future but it doesn't show you how to get there. It's your job to figure it out.

 

[TheGoodNews]

You can stipulate that there has been a change in the society and people are now volunteering to work for no compensation.

But they are being compensated. Maybe not directly but in an indirect pay-it-forward scenario which is sort of how gift economies work. Or in an abundant post-scarcity environment where payment would simply be redundant.

In First Contact, Picard told the engineer Lily that money didn't exist in the 24th century. She then asked if Picard got paid.

Now stop, that's a fairly straight forward question, with really a yes or no answer. What did Picard do when asked this question? He immediately ducked it, Picard never at any point stated or confirmed that people in the 24th century don't get paid.

He did say that people in the future no longer seek wealth, too bad that isn't what Lily asked him.

Picard found himself backed into a corner by a question his person philosophy didn't cover. After saying that money didn't exist, his didn't want to admit that compensation did.

Otherwise he would have answered "no."

You'd never make it as a lawyer. It's screenwriting shorthand. The issue had been brought up and Picard (Stewart) was expanding on it. No need to waste screen time by being redundant. That's quite a stretch on your part, T'Girl. And as I said before, compensation doesn't need to be monetary or even direct.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was no hunger or no want??? That no one had to suffer because of money. It's not communism, it's humanism! Geez, who wants to see another human being suffer because they have no money? Does anybody???!

Hey, another thing. Star Trek proposes a different and better future but it doesn't show you how to get there. It's your job to figure it out.

There are people out there like that, because of their political and philosophical beliefs, that don't (appear) to care.

I once saw argument about unions. One person was trashing unions and then liberals etc, etc,.

Then another person chimed in that a person must have pretty low standards if they thought it was too much to ask to be treated with respect, have their rights respected and be paid properly.

Great counter argument and shows how blind, super capitalism can be downright short sighted and annoying.


I like Trek's idea that humans no longer have financial problems and things like poverty are eliminated.

But one problem is that Trek would never really explain concepts even when it is the one to bring them up.

We've seen those examples where a human will make a statement about something we've always wondered about, then another person will question them.

And then they'll always pause and look to the side or the scene cuts to something else.

When they do that, criticisms and theories abound.

One that I have is that on earth the situation is exactly what it is--humans don't want or need for anything.

However, if they leave earth and enter another society that uses money, they may be financially helpless .

The no money system humans use, leaves them economically isolated on earth.

Jake is an example. He even admitted it himself