One day to start a new life.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I've had several ideas of how to "level the playing field", so to speak. The most recent one JUST popped into my head, but I will start chronologically.

 

1. Job Trade Holiday

We all get stuck in a highly redundant process of achieving survival by getting our paycheck. What if we chose to implement some sort of Job Trade Holiday, where everyone, under some restrictions, gets the opportunity to trade their job with someone else?

 

Note: This idea was developed very early in my Philosophy training, probably while I was taking Ethics. It's not complete at all, just a suggestion for a new radical type of holiday that would give us the chance to liberate ourselves.

 

2. Equal Day

This would be a bank holiday, and probably would never ever work because the rich would be rushing to spend their money before they can have it taken from them. The idea is that all bank accounts are checked, all money is added up, and all the money is equally divided amongst the population. This would give the poor a chance to redeem themselves, but it would most definitely affect the above average class, so it probably will never work out, but the idea is there at least.

 

In any case, here is the system that I think will be ideal for all of us, a system called Scientocracy. All people will have a say, and all politicians will be well versed in public opinion and consensus. Shit will get done to say the least.

[Phi for All]

Job trading is a great idea. I actually recommend that to clients. If every employee at a company can run all the machines, handle all the stations, covering shifts is easier and training costs go down. It also gives everyone a better sense of how the whole company works if you've done more than one job there. I got the feeling though that you meant trading permanently, or at least long-term. I think in that case you'll almost always have one unhappy person who was forced to trade away a job they liked.

 

As for the whole leveling the economic playing field argument, you'll be hard-pressed to find enough wealthy people to participate. While it could be argued that there are those wealthy individuals who wouldn't mind sharing their wealth with some deserving families, I think they would object to some kind of system where their hard-earned money ends up in the pocket of someone who just wants the money without working for it. Also, how would you feel about your system if tomorrow someone offered to pay you $1M for one of your ideas? How would you feel if the bank then told you that you can only keep $5K and the rest would be redistributed to 199 other deserving people? You could argue that $5K is better than nothing, but wouldn't it make a huge difference to you, a person who might be able to set up a budget so you could live a long time on $1M? How many people who get a $5K chunk of your money are going to spend it on something you think is wrong, like booze or tricking out their car or designer clothes?

[Greg H.]

Job trading only works within a narrowly defined field, which is not what I think you're discussing. I doubt anyone wants their greengrocer and their neurosurgeon to trade places the day they're due for brain surgery.

[Popcorn Sutton]

 

I got the feeling though that you meant trading permanently, or at least long-term. I think in that case you'll almost always have one unhappy person who was forced to trade away a job they liked.

No no no, just one day a year, like a holiday, where people have the option to trade their position or just put it up for trade and see what offers they get.

 

 

Also, how would you feel about your system if tomorrow someone offered to pay you $1M for one of your ideas?

. Don't get me excited.

 

 

How many people who get a $5K chunk of your money are going to spend it on something you think is wrong, like booze or tricking out their car or designer clothes?

I'd be pissed if that were the case. That is partially why I proposed scientocracy, so we can focus on the main aspects of political debate first, get them out of the way, then, if they pose a problem again in the future, we can get them out of the way all over again, all the while running down the list of things that need to be done with high priority first. I don't think that this system will prevent people from spending their money on stupid things, but at least it will circulate the money legally to people who have worked hard to deserve it, no matter what background they come from.

Job trading only works within a narrowly defined field, which is not what I think you're discussing. I doubt anyone wants their greengrocer and their neurosurgeon to trade places the day they're due for brain surgery.

We can impose restrictions though. We can test competence, we can evaluate credentials. There are plenty of things that we can do to prevent critical fails.

[Phi for All]

No no no, just one day a year, like a holiday, where people have the option to trade their position or just put it up for trade and see what offers they get.

 

So, it's only one day a year, but the trade could be permanent (assuming the guy who is doing the job now doesn't ever want to switch back). I don't agree with this. It's one thing to cross-train at your place of employment, it's quite another to trade those jobs like a commodity. For one thing, you may be doing the job, but it's the employer who actually "owns" the job. Without you, the owner gets someone new; without the owner, the job doesn't exist. And the owners may not like the way employees switch. They may not want just anyone in those positions, even if they are qualified.

 

I'd be pissed if that were the case.

 

And you don't think any other millionaires are suddenly going to be pissed off? A big problem with redistributing the wealth is that people think they'd suddenly be rich. If you use the CIA Factbook and look at the US GDP divided by the population, you get roughly $50,000 per person.

 

That is partially why I proposed scientocracy, so we can focus on the main aspects of political debate first, get them out of the way, then, if they pose a problem again in the future, we can get them out of the way all over again, all the while running down the list of things that need to be done with high priority first. I don't think that this system will prevent people from spending their money on stupid things, but at least it will circulate the money legally to people who have worked hard to deserve it, no matter what background they come from.

 

Here's the main problem with this concept: your ideas of "high priority", "problem", "worked hard" and "deserve it" are not universal. I know some very wealthy people who would probably scoff at what you think of as hard work.

 

And my point with spending money on "stupid things" is that it's all subjective. Designer clothes can be very important to some people, and you actually want them to be, so people can make money in the designer clothing business and not compete with you in YOUR business. The same with booze and car accessories. One man's junk....

[Popcorn Sutton]

It would consistently renew perspective. If someone thinks theyre qualified for the position, and the current employee is willing to train/trade, then the employer shouldn't have to take the burden. It's between the two employees at that point. In a perfect system, the employer gets a notice required by law some duration prior. If this system gets implemented, keep rejection in mind. We don't want to hurt peoples feelings. Get the cops involved if shit gets real.

 

If, after some period of time the employment it's no longer possible, unemployment until next year.

 

And $50000 sounds great yearly, but I don't think it would turn out well unless the entire world agreed to do the same. Then we would have to monitor.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[Phi for All]

And $50000 sounds great yearly, but I don't think it would turn out well unless the entire world agreed to do the same. Then we would have to monitor.

 

Where is this money coming from? Are you talking about redistributing the wealth every year?! Where is the incentive to work? And where do you get the money after the first year? You robbed all the rich people to pay the poor people last year. Why are the people who are capable of making millions of dollars going to continue when it all gets taken away every year and given to those who can't make millions?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Their productivity would be phenomenal in the things they thought mattered.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[Ophiolite]

Their productivity would be phenomenal in the things they thought mattered.

Indeed. They would find a million new ways to say "**** you!".

[Popcorn Sutton]

Ok, I'm not supporting redistribution of wealth, for reasons stated or hinted at above.

[Bignose]

Their productivity would be phenomenal in the things they thought mattered.

Think of all the advances we'd have in video game playing, pot smoking, and people not listening to reason in the Speculations section! (Just to pick on 3 of many, many things that people do as pastimes.)

 

Look, I think I get your point here, and let me paraphrase -- and that is that if people didn't have to worry about 'working', there would be more time for creation and arts. And I don't think that anyone is going to argue with that. That is pretty much the world that is envisions in the Star Trek universe.

 

But, I would also argue that we as a society are not mature enough for that yet.

 

As an example, at my heart I am a bleeding liberal about illicit drug use. You want to inject heroin into both your eyeballs? I don't care, just do it at home. But there are far, far, far too many people who decide to do that in public, at work, while driving, anywhere where someone else can get hurt. Just look at all the DUIs and car wrecks due to drunken driven. We as a society aren't mature enough to have most drugs available to us.

 

And I think it is similar in terms of having a society where the accumulation of wealth is not a motivating factor. Essentially, you are talking about communism. It is a great idea, but its been tried many times and failed many times. Orwell put it best in Animal Farm... all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. That is what has happened every time.

 

Now, that doesn't mean we can't strive for it, just understand where our society is right now. And I would further argue that hamfisted "days of wealth redistribution" where forcing people to give up their wealth is a really poor idea. It went over like a lead balloon in Cyprus not all that long ago.

 

If this is really an ideal you want to strive for, I think a process of educating people how material things don't actually make people happy would be far more successful. When people understand that things like friendship are more important than material things, they will willingly give up their wealth.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Bignose

[HalfWit]

 

2. Equal Day

This would be a bank holiday, and probably would never ever work because the rich would be rushing to spend their money before they can have it taken from them. The idea is that all bank accounts are checked, all money is added up, and all the money is equally divided amongst the population.

I've heard it said that if you divided all the money in the world equally among all the people in the world; within five years every dollar would be back in its original hands.

[Phi for All]

Essentially, you are talking about communism. It is a great idea, but its been tried many times and failed many times. Orwell put it best in Animal Farm... all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. That is what has happened every time.

 

The part of Communism that's seductive to me is in manufacturing. Without all the need for competition from a free market, you can focus on making the best, most durable product you can, and not dilute your efforts having 30 different companies making 300 different toasters. At least theoretically. I envision really well-made products, inexpensive due to economy of scale, that last practically forever. Landfills NOT filled with disposables and crap products built to fail quickly. Maybe some day we can figure out how to combine the efficiency of a communist industry with the flexibility of a capitalist bureaucratic structure and make a better mousetrap.

 

I think it would be better in the long run to simply have a Minimum Subsistence program in place, something that would ensure that no one starved and everyone could have a roof over their heads. Temper this bit of liberalism with some tough stances, this is no frills living, and no politically correct terminology to make it seem nicer. This would be a program you don't want to use if you can help it, but it would be there for anyone who needed it.

[ACG52]

 

 

The part of Communism that's seductive to me is in manufacturing. Without all the need for competition from a free market, you can focus on making the best, most durable product you can, and not dilute your efforts having 30 different companies making 300 different toasters. At least theoretically. I envision really well-made products, inexpensive due to economy of scale, that last practically forever.

Then why was the USSR renowned for both the scarcity and the poor quality of it's manufactured goods?

[Popcorn Sutton]

In the perfect system, people would be competing for those positions. If there was enough demand, especially in these times, people would be hiring other people to make it for themselves. You see how many freelancers there are?

[imatfaal]

Then why was the USSR renowned for both the scarcity and the poor quality of it's manufactured goods?

Because it failed to implement communism and was driven more by an ideology of control rather than redistribution. that begs the question - is it possible to actually implement a Utopian shared-wealth shared-labour system? Probably not as we stand at present - see above post regarding maturity of civilization.

[Phi for All]

Then why was the USSR renowned for both the scarcity and the poor quality of it's manufactured goods?

Because it failed to implement communism and was driven more by an ideology of control rather than redistribution.

 

I would add that the USSR had a very inflexible administration, which is at odds with a lot of effective bureaucratic functions, so they ended up with a system that lied to itself. On paper they looked great, hitting all their numbers, doing what they're told, but in reality they were rotting from the inside. For the Soviets, it became more about sticking to "The Plan" than reacting to world events and national pressures.

 

The part of Capitalism that Communism needs is the incentive to keep improving. It's built into the free market process, but where's the carrot with a Communist approach?

 

And perhaps I'm being too subjective here. I personally wouldn't mind it if one company made all the world's cars, with just 10 models to choose from to cover various needs, especially if I could get either the finest quality for today's prices or today's quality at a substantial savings. That's just how I feel about cars; I like driving a great vehicle, but they're really about transportation to me. And I wouldn't mind having a toaster built like the old AT&T phones you could throw against the wall, that would last a lifetime.

[overtone]

In the English translation of the Bible, which most Americans are supposed to be following with some degree of fidelity, the concept is called "Jubilee". Rather than redistribute stuff (with the implications of oppressively active government pushing people around), the Bible declares a debt cancellation every seven years.

 

In the seventh year slaves go free, servants are released from indenture, debts vanish, nobody owes anything to anybody, land and animals return to their owners, and the economy starts over.

 

Now this may be one reason plantation slaves were not permitted to learn to read, back in the day in the US. But notice that the year was fixed long in advance - the wealthy made their plans accordingly. And notice that lending money at compound interest and similar complications were forbidden in the first place, so no problem there.