What is civlian life like in the Federation?

[PhoenixClass]

OK, but what is the point you are using that data in support of?

Are you serious?
After the last ~5 posts, you are still failing to understand what 'the point' of that data is within the scope of this thread?
Ookie-dookie.

No, I don't understand it. T'Girl made a disjointed comment about people on welfare, the unemployed and the disabled and about drugs and artists. In response to questions, she posted statistics with no discussion.

So, no, I don't understand her point. Most of those last 5 posts were people responding with their own understanding of what T'Girl meant.

Do you understand it? If so, please explain it to me. Otherwise, I'll wait for T'Girl to speak for herself.

 

[Sci]

OK, but what is the point you are using that data in support of?

Are you serious?
After the last ~5 posts, you are still failing to understand what 'the point' of that data is within the scope of this thread?
Ookie-dookie.

No, I don't understand it. T'Girl made a disjointed comment about people on welfare, the unemployed and the disabled and about drugs and artists. In response to questions, she posted statistics with no discussion.

So, no, I don't understand her point. Most of those last 5 posts were people responding with their own understanding of what T'Girl meant.

Do you understand it? If so, please explain it to me. Otherwise, I'll wait for T'Girl to speak for herself.

It's a rhetorical device designed to create doubt in the audience as to the moral authority of the welfare state and to justify the economic suffering of the impoverished.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Are you serious?
After the last ~5 posts, you are still failing to understand what 'the point' of that data is within the scope of this thread?
Ookie-dookie.

No, I don't understand it. T'Girl made a disjointed comment about people on welfare, the unemployed and the disabled and about drugs and artists. In response to questions, she posted statistics with no discussion.

So, no, I don't understand her point. Most of those last 5 posts were people responding with their own understanding of what T'Girl meant.

Do you understand it? If so, please explain it to me. Otherwise, I'll wait for T'Girl to speak for herself.

It's a rhetorical device designed to create doubt in the audience as to the moral authority of the welfare state and to justify the economic suffering of the impoverished.

We're not in your fantasy world, Sci. You would be shocked how little of reality is about your far-left beliefs.


In the discussed case, I merely pointed out to PhoenixClass how playing the idiot when s/he runs out of arguments, far from gaining her points in a discussion, merely embarasses him/her.
Indeed, s/he should be thankful. Most readers merely have a good laugh at his/her expense in the privacy of their own homes, letting him/her unaware of this failure mode.

 

[sonak]

No, I don't understand it. T'Girl made a disjointed comment about people on welfare, the unemployed and the disabled and about drugs and artists. In response to questions, she posted statistics with no discussion.

So, no, I don't understand her point. Most of those last 5 posts were people responding with their own understanding of what T'Girl meant.

Do you understand it? If so, please explain it to me. Otherwise, I'll wait for T'Girl to speak for herself.

It's a rhetorical device designed to create doubt in the audience as to the moral authority of the welfare state and to justify the economic suffering of the impoverished.

We're not in your fantasy world, Sci. You would be shocked how little of reality is about your far-left beliefs.


In the discussed case, I merely pointed out to PhoenixClass how playing the idiot when s/he runs out of arguments, far from gaining her points in a discussion, merely embarasses him/her.
Indeed, s/he should be thankful. Most readers merely have a good laugh at his/her expense in the privacy of their own homes, letting him/her unaware of this failure mode.

taking this away from name-calling and taunts and back to Trek, what one side has consistently FAILED to show is why a post-work citizenry would be such a "disaster" when we have groups in society already, such as the comfortably rich or retired people, who don't have to work and seemed to find productive ways of spending their time.

There's something creepily authoritarian and reactionary in the belief that having to sell your labor to someone else in a hierarchical fashion is just SUCH an important part of what it means to be a society that one can't even conceive of what a different form of societal organization, based around individual freedom and self-actualization would look like.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

taking this away from name-calling and taunts and back to Trek, what one side has consistently FAILED to show is why a post-work citizenry would be such a "disaster" when we have groups in society already, such as the comfortably rich or retired people, who don't have to work and seemed to find productive ways of spending their time.

Really?
Even a cursory analysis of the current socio-economic environment is enough to establish this 'why':

A society can afford to pay a substantial negative-income tax with no work involved to its citizens when there are no longer any crappy jobs that can't be automated.
Only then, the majority of the population will not work (instead living out their fantasies in the holodeck/insert hedonistic image here), and the ones that do work will do it out of passion.

Nowadays, some crappy jobs are automated, but FAR from all (meaning, the demand for mostly unqualified jobs declined, but the supply stayed the same - which resulted in a weaker negotiating position for the workers, which led to mostly stagnating wages).
But these remaining jobs have to be done by someone. Meaning, there must be an incentive to work. Paying a substantial negative-income tax with no work involved removes this incentive; as such, at present it's not in the cards.

 

[sonak]

taking this away from name-calling and taunts and back to Trek, what one side has consistently FAILED to show is why a post-work citizenry would be such a "disaster" when we have groups in society already, such as the comfortably rich or retired people, who don't have to work and seemed to find productive ways of spending their time.

Really?
Even a cursory analysis of the current socio-economic environment is enough to establish this 'why':

A society can afford to pay a substantial negative-income tax with no work involved to its citizens when there are no longer any crappy jobs that can't be automated.
Only then, the majority of the population will not work (instead living out their fantasies in the holodeck/insert hedonistic image here), and the ones that do work will do it out of passion.

Nowadays, some crappy jobs are automated, but FAR from all (meaning, the demand for mostly unqualified jobs declined, but the supply stayed the same - which resulted in a weaker negotiating position for the workers, which led to mostly stagnating wages).
But these remaining jobs have to be done by someone. Meaning, there must be an incentive to work. Paying a substantial negative-income tax with no work involved removes this incentive; as such, at present it's not in the cards.

this is a circular argument. If we paid a GBI(or NIT) that would INCENTIVIZE the automation of the remaining crappy jobs because then every citizen receiving a basic level of support wouldn't be wage slaves needing to do a crappy job just to get food, clothing, etc. This would cause work conditions to improve by giving employees more power(sort of the same way that labor unions do-anything that levels the playing field between employer and employee makes work conditions better)

 

[Edit_XYZ]

taking this away from name-calling and taunts and back to Trek, what one side has consistently FAILED to show is why a post-work citizenry would be such a "disaster" when we have groups in society already, such as the comfortably rich or retired people, who don't have to work and seemed to find productive ways of spending their time.

Really?
Even a cursory analysis of the current socio-economic environment is enough to establish this 'why':

A society can afford to pay a substantial negative-income tax with no work involved to its citizens when there are no longer any crappy jobs that can't be automated.
Only then, the majority of the population will not work (instead living out their fantasies in the holodeck/insert hedonistic image here), and the ones that do work will do it out of passion.

Nowadays, some crappy jobs are automated, but FAR from all (meaning, the demand for mostly unqualified jobs declined, but the supply stayed the same - which resulted in a weaker negotiating position for the workers, which led to mostly stagnating wages).
But these remaining jobs have to be done by someone. Meaning, there must be an incentive to work. Paying a substantial negative-income tax with no work involved removes this incentive; as such, at present it's not in the cards.

this is a circular argument. If we paid a GBI(or NIT) that would INCENTIVIZE the automation of the remaining crappy jobs because then every citizen receiving a basic level of support wouldn't be wage slaves needing to do a crappy job just to get food, clothing, etc. This would cause work conditions to improve by giving employees more power(sort of the same way that labor unions do-anything that levels the playing field between employer and employee makes work conditions better)

I see you understood the "elusive" 'why'. Nowadays you argue how to eliminate it.

Well, call me when all remaining crappy jobs are automated (it's far from being as simple as you seem to think; and research is ongoing - you see, the results of said research are very profitable, seeing how they eliminate the need to pay tens of thousands of wages).
Also, the result of your utopia will be most of the citizens not working, NOT them working in empowered positions.

PS - You may want to read up on the meaning of the words 'circular argument'.