What if?

[Vitriol]

This thread is intended as a catch all for odd questions and thoughts that don't merit an entire thread but you feel are worth sharing anyway. If you are not sure if a topic merits a thread post it here first and we can always split it off if people are interested.

Please note that the shallow thoughts rule applies and you can still receive a ban from here and E&N for shitposting.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I don't understand why welfare exists. What is the justification of the welfare state. To me it just seems like parasites leeching off of the productive elements of society but if it were modified (no welfare for criminals) it could become a way to pay people not to commit crime. Are there any other better justifications for the welfare state

 

[Silver]

Altruism, which I think is a very important concept.

 

[Vitriol]

I don't understand why welfare exists. What is the justification of the welfare state. To me it just seems like parasites leeching off of the productive elements of society but if it were modified (no welfare for criminals) it could become a way to pay people not to commit crime. Are there any other better justifications for the welfare state

In the UK the welfare state was introduced in the 1940's so that in the event of future mass unemployment like in the 30s people would not starve to death due to temporary economic downturns beyond their control. William Beveridges report is probably the best resource on the subject,(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_07_05_beveridge.pdf) the most famous passage from it is;

'Organisation of social insurance should be treated as one part only of a comprehensive policy of social progress. Social insurance fully developed may provide income security; it is an attack upon Want. But Want is one only of five giants on the road of reconstruction and in some ways the easiest to attack. The others are Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.'

and

'

Social security must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual. The State should offer security for service and contribution. The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility ; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family.'

Welfare includes state education systems which are a means of investing in the population and important for the economy. Likewise free school meals in the UK were introduced as the working class was not producing enough fit soldiers due to malnutrition, again it was a means of investing in the population.

The TL;DR answer is that the welfare state was the answer to the practical failures of the victorian lassiez faire system to produce a healthy, happy and productive workforce.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

In the UK the welfare state was introduced in the 1940's so that in the event of future mass unemployment like in the 30s people would not starve to death due to temporary economic downturns beyond their control. William Beveridges report is probably the best resource on the subject,(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_07_05_beveridge.pdf) the most famous passage from it is;



and


Welfare includes state education systems which are a means of investing in the population and important for the economy. Likewise free school meals in the UK were introduced as the working class was not producing enough fit soldiers due to malnutrition, again it was a means of investing in the population.

The TL;DR answer is that the welfare state was the answer to the practical failures of the victorian lassiez faire system to produce a healthy, happy and productive workforce.

That was a very good argument but none of it applies to disability (but that is a separate issue)

 

[Vitriol]

That was a very good argument but none of it applies to disability (but that is a separate issue)

It's been years since I read the report and the various responses to and discussions around it, but from memory one argument is that by removing the burden of having to care for disabled relatives one increases the productivity and happiness of the family: unmarried children (who would otherwise have stayed at home as a carer) will instead marry and have children; the relative no longer being a finacial burden means more of the households income can be spent on luxury goods which is better for growing the economy than subsistence goods and brings in some revenue in VAT/sales tax/etc.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Is economic equality desireable

 

[chimpburgers]

Is it realistically possible for there to be enough resources to have an open borders policy and if so, how would a country plan for such an influx of people coming in?

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Is privacy beneficial? I would say no because it would be better for the economy if there were no secrets because then people would be able to make more informed decisions. That being said information asymmetry is significant and thus privacy may be a necessary evil until we can make all information available to everyone

 

[AnOminous]

Is it realistically possible for there to be enough resources to have an open borders policy and if so, how would a country plan for such an influx of people coming in?

It's not a matter of enough resources as an absolute thing, but that resources are relatively well distributed between countries such that there would never be any incentive for such a border rush. This wouldn't have to mean anything near total equality, just a stable enough international system that there wouldn't be any such conditions other than disasters, and those would only be temporary.

As for whether that's realistically possible, it doesn't appear to be in the short term.

 

[exball]

Is privacy beneficial? I would say no because it would be better for the economy if there were no secrets because then people would be able to make more informed decisions. That being said information asymmetry is significant and thus privacy may be a necessary evil until we can make all information available to everyone

Are you just using deep thoughts to shitpost now? Why would making all information available be a good idea? There's quite a bit of information thats probably better for people to be completely unaware of.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Why would making all information available be a good idea?

More information means that people will be able to make informed decisions thus increasing market efficiency

There's quite a bit of information thats probably better for people to be completely unaware of.

I would like an example of such information

 

[Cave]

How do we approach gender equality in the workplace? Specifically, the business world. It's a very interesting question to me, and while I don't ponder it often, sometimes I'll find something relevant to it and wonder until I end up with no answer.

Motherhood is the real kicker here. The business world is competitive. Should a woman be forced not to have children in order to not fall behind in her attempts to reach the top? As one ages, it only becomes harder to birth a child. This is the hard part for me.

 

[AnOminous]

Motherhood is the real kicker here. The business world is competitive. Should a woman be forced not to have children in order to not fall behind in her attempts to reach the top? As one ages, it only becomes harder to birth a child. This is the hard part for me.

Norway has mandatory parental leave for both parents.

This at least removes the artificial disincentive to hire women in the first place, since the family leave will be for either parent.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Are you just using deep thoughts to shitpost now?

Ding ding ding

 

[chimpburgers]

How else would a creditor be able to generate revenue without having to charge interest? There are people out there who believe that usury should be outlawed entirely.

 

[Marvin]

How else would a creditor be able to generate revenue without having to charge interest? There are people out there who believe that usury should be outlawed entirely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance

 

[Mecha-Lenin]

Would NASA (or an equivalent organization) actually warn the populace of imminent cosmic destruction, if it was know that most (or all) of the population could not be saved?

Now, I am not one of those conspiracy spergs who looks at NASA as some evil organization made for the explicit purpose of misleading the masses... that is dumb... but I do think it is very likely that the scientists who discovered this hypothetical threat, would look at the situation like this: "Why make people sad or upset for their last days? Let everyone live their last days in peace."

It could work the other way, of course; "We should let people prepare for the end."

What do you think?

P.S. We should recognize that while being exterminated by an astronomical event is possible it is statistically unlikely over a few-hundered year time-span. For example: Extinction-sized asteroids only hit the Earth about once every few hundred thousand years.

EDIT:
P.S.S. If the mods feel this deserving of it's own topic feel free to change it or let me know and I can change it.

 

[Positron]

Would NASA (or an equivalent organization) actually warn the populace of imminent cosmic destruction, if it was know that most (or all) of the population could not be saved?

The question can be easily answered by a 2x2 decision matrix (disaster strikes/disaster does not strike i.e. false info. vs tell/not tell)

Tell/Disaster -- you did your job, but no one is alive to thank you. Even if you're not dead NASA will no longer exist to give you're pay rise
Tell/No Disaster -- imagine the outroar. Heads -- likely yours -- will roll.
Mum/Disaster-- again, no one will live to blame you. You're likely dead anyway.
Mum/No Disaster -- things go on as usual.

So the rational choice is not to tell.

 

[Mecha-Lenin]

Tell/Disaster -- you did your job, but no one is alive to thank you. Even if you're not dead NASA will no longer exist to give you're pay rise

My only problem with this is that there are other reasons besides a promotion/pay raise, to tell.

And again, I am sure scientists would try to BE SURE before telling. Telling with uncertainty is stupid, yes, but my question was centered around certainty.

If you get to the stage of certainty, the dynamic would probably change.

But I do like you answer.