Quick question, do you think it is humane to force people to work by threats of hunger and homelessness?

did you just assume xir gender?

Bait thread don't touch.

Why do people here always assume that I am some unemployed lazy guy? I make $140K per year which is not elite but it is very high for age 33. I have worked over 60 hours a week for 7 years now and I have saved up almost a million dollars for emergencies and retirement. I understand exactly how capitalism works and how to thrive in it and I am always learning new things to constantly improve.

This is about having an open minded discussion about our economic system and whether it's efficient. It's not about my personal life so stop trying to avoid the question. Stop projecting your own failures on me and have a look at how the economy actually works. You don't have to defend your boss even in your freetime.

Do you really think we are using people's creativity and potential for innovation when they are constantly worried about rent and bills and healthcare? There has to be a better way because life is utterly miserable for large sections of the american working class, white black and hispanic. I don't face this pressure because I have savings but I know many people who do. And it is preventing people from reaching their full potential.

Let's have an open minded discussion on how to fix it. By the way, fuck Hillary, fuck Sanders, and fuck Trump so don't make this into an election thread.

What favors to we do to the weak or inept by coddling them. Without struggle, there is no growth. Once a society stops growing it becomes stagnant, decadent. For all of the lefts arguments for progress, most of the ideas they champion will lead only to that very stagnancy that will destroy their culture.

Is it humane to force people to work with the threat of hunger and homelessness? What reason would there be for them to work if all their needs were met? Imagine if suddenly 40-60% of any given economy's workforce suddenly quit. That would devastate the economy and industry of a nation. Instead of worrying about being able to pay for food there will instead be no food at all because what incentive is there to grow it? To ship it? To work the cash register at the store that sells it?
If people can't recognize the positive incentives to work and be productive then they damn well better fear the repercussions of not doing so because otherwise this whole system we've built will come crashing down.

Nobody is forcing or threatening anybody. If you want a home, you work for it. The government isn't your mommy.

That's what it takes to live in modern society.

Utilities don't maintain themselves, houses don't build themselves, roads don't build themselves, food doesn't grow and ship itself.

If you want to be a part of the system and use the system's resources, you have to contribute something of value to the system. And with high population, a lot of people don't provide more value than others.

There is something to be said about needless consumerism though.

Too drunk to read anything but a few words of that.
Read up on absurdism and nihilism. The world is whatever the fuck it is and your opinions and views on it don't matter for shit.

>do you think it is humane to force people to work by threats of hunger and homelessness?

Yes. People who do not work should be homeless and starve.

You sure have a point. I like (you). I suggest you to read Walden, or the life in the woods. Not about being a misanthropic nihilist or something. Give it a try. You could find some interesting topic and anslysis in it.

>using people's creativity and potential for innovation
>preventing people from reaching their full potential

I think a reality that you have to accept is that the vast majority of people have none of the qualities you describe. If allowed the opportunity to never have to work again, most would simply spend their days consuming entertainment and going out with their friends. The vast, vast majority of people have no artistic or innovative talents whatsoever.

>There has to be a better way

Then propose an idea, but make sure it's a fair one. Most people would propose some form of socialism or communism, but the result of those systems is that people don't get to retain the fruits of their labor.

Had to save under that file name. Source?

Good luck with littering in a national forest ya dingus. It's super illegal to set up camp in the middle of nowhere and rangers will eventually find you unless you are constantly on the move and actively concealing yourself.

I never implied you were lazy, OP. I was attempting to point out the inconsistency in your argument; being that it is both immoral and irresponsible to allow society as a whole to degenerate into a slew dependant upon the government. The best way to help people is to have them help themselves, and feel proud in doing so.

>Do you really think we are using people's creativity and potential for innovation when they are constantly worried about rent and bills and healthcare? There has to be a better way because life is utterly miserable for large sections of the american working class, white black and hispanic. I don't face this pressure because I have savings but I know many people who do. And it is preventing people from reaching their full potential.

It's up to the people to realise their potential in the environment they are born and raised into, not the other way around. If people find the environment too constricting, they will often work towards changing it.

Thanks for the genuine response. I understand your concern about the need for incentives. But if we took care of basic needs, there would still be room for people to compete. I mean, the hot girl in the town can only marry one guy, so competition will always be there.

Definitely, but under capitalism in reality, over half the population is unemployed. I think in socialism, the number of people working would actually increase, not decrease.

Embracing absurdism and nihilism is one practical approach and I use it already to some extent because I don't always think abou these deeper questions because I have to stay sane

I will read Walden next. But then again, all the land in the world now is controlled either by nation-states or capitalists so I would be tresspassing everywhere. Unless there is some open land i am unaware of. If anyone knows of any such areas, definitely mention them and how people live there, thanks.

>under capitalism in reality, over half the population is unemployed
Stopped reading there.

>muh socialism
Please see . Why would the amount of people working increase in a socialist society where there is no incentive for them to work?

>But if we took care of basic needs, there would still be room for people to compete.

It's not about competition, it's about pulling their own weight. Things like welfare or insurance or communal aid only work when it's the many providing a small, but cumulative, aid to a minority.
Imagine if half of an insurance company's patients had cancer. Because of the greatly increased cost to the insurance company, their only option to balance the books would be to spike the premiums for everyone and it would become unaffordable. The same principle applies to welfare concepts only now because the recipients have no income to tax, the burden is placed upon those who do work.
Even being optimistic and assuming only half of people stop working we end up in a situation where Family A is working and paying for the necessities of both Family A and Family B. Even if Family A can afford it they'd have to be saintly not to resent Family B. Even if Family A has more than Family B, the work to prosperity ratio would be unequal. A would be getting the short end of the stick. You start getting Type A Families opting out because it's just not worth it anymore.

I really think people who believe that such a system could not only manage to run but prosper greatly overestimate the average person's selflessness and sense of charity. If you plan around everything going right then the first problem that comes along will make it fall apart. If you come up with a less ideal plan that accounts for problems cropping up it's more likely to at least produce some positive results.

The bureau of labor statistics says 125 million people are employed at 28 hours or more per week. The rest are unemployed or underemployed--that's 200 million people. Assuming 100 million children and elderly, that's still 1/3 the country unemployed.

Or you can become a capitalist yourself. Start a fucking business and serve other people's needs you fucking entitled prick.

Source please. Also, nice dodging of every post that you couldn't refute :^)

It's mot forcing, or threats, it's simply a fact of nature. If an animal doesn't go out of its way to hunt or not be hunted, then it will die. On the same principle, humans can expect that if they do not work, then they better have some sort of support system or else they will die. You can't legislate away the rules of nature.

Well, the alternative to big city capitalism is subsistence farming or hunting on the Savannah. You no longer have to question if your next meal will be over the hill, or if water will be flowing in the river, or if your harvest will be sufficient. In cities, you have charities, resources, self-employed doctors, and job opportunities. Capitalism is way better than the alternatives, and the only way you can guarantee security for all is to take from those that have produced the most for society. The stealing part is easy, it's "giving it to those in need" part that gets corrupted.

Capitalism isn't selfish, nor does it breed selfishness. Regulations and taxes have created perverse economic incentives that make otherwise decent people do immoral things they never would have done before. Problems aren't solved just by simply forcing people to do what you want (or forcing them not to do something). There's always unintended consequences and people will end up blaming poverty on the free market/free trade and not the perverse incentives (and destruction of opportunity) built up over generations of increasing regulations.

Try and set up a lemonade stand on a downtown street corner and see how long it takes to get shut down. You to buy a permit to prove that you won't poison everyone. Talk about taking opportunities from the poor, if they have to spend what little money they have to buy a fucking permit, or comply with other regulations in order for them to do business, no wonder we have a poverty problem. We aren't free.

bls.gov/cps/cpsaat08.htm

It was 121 million last year but my guess is that it has increased to 125 million by now because of the recent growth.

You know, if you want your thread to go anywhere, you're gonna have to respond to people arguing against you. Or you could just accept that you got blown the fuck out and let your thread die, your choice :^)

I think it's inhumane to force people to pay for those who do not want to work.

>edgy

were cavemen force to work so they could eat and feed the cave-kids?
>why do you support hunter guathering?

If you find the idea of working for someone so distasteful, you can always form your own business and be your own boss. This can be large or small depending on your means. Plenty of successful small contractors, with like 4 employees, including the owner, out there.

The whole point of capitalism is to have that choice. In most communist states forming your own business is not allowed, or discouraged to a great extent. Even today in the US and Canada the criteria for setting up your own business is very expensive due to government red tape and fees. In a more capitalist society those barriers would be lower, allowing people to form their businesses easier, and creating more upward mobility in society.

Not every business is a multi-national corporation. Communists always forget or ignore this.

>do you think it is humane to force people to work by threats of hunger and homelessness

HELP! I'm being oppressed by nature! I have to work to eat! I have to work so I don't have to live in the woods! HEEEELP