Ruthlessrider wrote:
Rongnongno, you hit a critical point when you began this conversation. More workers will get displaced as a result. Some will survive by being motivated enough to get retrain for other jobs, but a fair portion will not and will add to the growing numbers of people who join the ranks of the unemployable. I am sure this will rekindle the discussion for creating a minimum income for the nation. To some, especially the greedy wealthy (and I must state that not all wealthy people are greedy) and those already on the margin, this has and will seem like a crazy idea (what give money away?), when in reality it probably makes perfect sense if you think about the future of the nation. It will be for what people ‘need” to live, not for what they ‘want’, and there is a difference. Think of it this way, if you will, if people don’t have what they need, what is the incentive strive for a better life or to fight for the country, if and when it is necessary? It not only incentivizes people to defend the country, but a way of life we can all enjoy. As Marx warned what’s seems like long ago, when the growth of the people living in poverty (the proletariat) become so numerous and disenchanted with the way things are, they will revolt. I, for one, believe that in a nation as rich as this one, we should care for those left behind by the economic and social progress we strive for, if we don’t what will be the incentive to defend the nation?
The rant is over.
Rongnongno, you hit a critical point when you bega... (
show quote)
Ruthlessrider said:…. in a nation as rich as this one, we should care for those left behind by the economic and social progress we strive for, …….
Alas. Therein lies the conundrum. To discern those who would s**m the system from those in honest, authentic, need.
It is becoming increasingly apparent the default setting for the human psyche, seems to be trending toward lackluster.