| ▲ | Telaneo 3 hours ago |
| We have enough excess in society that we can spare enough of those things to those who are unable to take care of themselves. |
|
| ▲ | theflyingelvis 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It almost seems as if you are trolling. Surely we can, at least, agree that the excesses you mention exist only because of those who produce. |
| |
| ▲ | bestouff 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A society where just stating this is called trolling is such a sad society. I pity you and you brainwashed siblings. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | it's a very common trolling tactic to imply a controversial thing while overtly saying a less controversial thing |
| |
| ▲ | daishi55 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They are not trolling. They are stating the simple, undeniable fact that there is more than enough to go around and if we had a more equitable distribution of resources, we could take care of everyone with disabilities 10x over with plenty to spare. | | |
| ▲ | AlexandrB 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > we could take care of everyone with disabilities 10x over with plenty to spare. Yes, like the 40%[1] of Stanford undergrads who have disabilities. The greatest long term impediment to what you're suggesting is folks who don't need the help taking advantage of the resource distribution. It both massively increases the costs and sours those who have to pay into the system on the whole thing leading to a backlash. If we could just solve this quirk of human nature, we'd be all set. [1] https://fortune.com/article/rise-in-elite-students-seeking-a... |
| |
| ▲ | Telaneo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Have I said anything to the contrary? | |
| ▲ | throwaway173738 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You’re missing the point of the article and of the post. Why do you assume that someone who reads and takes breaks is unproductive? Should we get a second job instead? I spend 8 hours sleeping. Would you like me to work those hours as well? I spend some of my day cooking and cleaning and raising my son. Would you rather I keep working instead? Maybe it’s time that we worked together to gain that time back for you instead of you fighting for us to lose our free time. |
|
|
| ▲ | kakacik 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Don't expect much sympathy here, as per many comments folks are mostly on purely capitalistic camps to the extreme. Its distillation of US approach to work and society, something I've grown to detest by mere fact of living in much more humane, while vastly more financially efficient system that doesn't use my tax money to kill civilians all over the world (none other than Swiss system and yes it could easily work elsewhere if people reduced their egos significantly, which they won't). Its everybody for themselves in US, fuck the rest, the more the better. Some 'society' it is. The more miserable and poor others are, the better you can exploit them right. How horrible the world would be if those folks stocking shelves in shops or trimming your hair would also have a shot for a decent life. Middle class is for mediocre suckers, either your are a star (at least from financial perspective, usually the rest of life is very opposite of it) or a loser. Can't say I can respect that system, but as long as I am not part of it nor bombed by its military industrial complex to death I simply don't care. Folks can stay and be part of that system or leave, that part of freedom is still sorta there. |
| |
| ▲ | lostmsu 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Switzerland got its wealth predominantly by shielding money stolen from around the entire world. I'm glad US ended that carnival of happiness to a large degree in 2009. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | reactordev 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you know how tone deaf this is? Some people literally can’t afford their medication and you are saying “meh, we have too much already” |
| |
| ▲ | Telaneo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | We have enough medication. People not being able to afford it has little to do with whether or not we have (or could easily make) an excess. Insulin costs ~3 USD to make per vial. People not being able to afford ~30 USD insulin is not because we have too little medication. It's because there are leeches all over the healthcare system. And if you genuinely cannot afford it, you should get it for free, as part of a proper healthcare system, which the US famously lacks. |
|
|
| ▲ | pj_mukh 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| “We have enough excess in society” How are you measuring this? Hopefully something better than stock prices. |
| |
| ▲ | Telaneo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The other commentor mentioned food and clothes to you. I'll add that I can get food for free locally (soup kitchen style, although I don't think they actually serve soup) if I really need it. Around 10% of houses in the US are vacant, although I'm sure a fair amount are that for good reasons (shitty locations, old and worn to high hell). This to me sounds like a resource allocation problem and not a lack-of-resources problem. Energy could be free close to free if we made the right choices. The sun's right there. Unfortunately, we've been stuck in a political rut for a long while, making long term projects like 'do something about global warming' and 'transition away from fossil fuels' uninteresting. Many medicines are only expensive due to patents and making up for research costs. Actual production is usually cheap as hell. I don't have all the answers. People smarter than me might have them. But I do know that we can do better. | | |
| ▲ | pj_mukh 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes to all of this, and want to double stress the Housing theory of everything [1]. Most of the "scarcity" people feel today in the North American context is driven by housing. And there simply isn't enough of it. And citing badly measured vacancy stats does a huge disservice to the effort to fix this. I agree we can do a lot better. And I have no moral qualms about giving the excess away to everyone who needs it. But I need people to admit that it will require a lot of work till we can sufficiently claim we have a real realizable "excess". And that work requires the current system to work more "efficiently" and with "higher productivity", in the economic definition of the word, not as a personal valuation as OP defines. [1]: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every... | | |
| ▲ | Telaneo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Housing is clearly the biggest problem, yes, and I doubt you'll find anyone who'll disagree that it's not a big problem. But it's a big problem for political reasons. If we all woke up tomorrow and thought 'we need 10 million new homes', I'm sure it could happen. It's just not in the short-term (and long-term?) interests of the economy as it is now. Maybe we should do something about that? Or maybe, just maybe, we should do it because it's a thing that raises people's quality of life? I only care about the economy insofar as it helps actual people on the ground, so I'll be happy to ignore it for things like this, assuming that doesn't put us in an even worse rut than we are in now. | | |
| ▲ | pj_mukh 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >If we all woke up tomorrow and thought 'we need 10 million new homes The cost (no profit) of 1 Million homes where people want to live (where your community is), would be roughly 0.5 Trillion to 1 Trillion USD [1]. So, I don't think this is true :(. We simply don't have the construction workers and the supply-chains to make it happen. Again, these are fixable problems and I want this to be true. But it is not today. [1]: https://medium.com/@dtxtransitposts/how-much-does-it-actuall... | | |
| ▲ | Telaneo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The cost (no profit) of 1 Million homes where people want to live (where your community is), would be roughly 0.5 Trillion to 1 Trillion USD [1]. That sounds worth it to me. > We simply don't have the construction workers and the supply-chains to make it happen. Again, these are fixable problems and I want this to be true. But it is not today. Sounds like something we need to fix then. | |
| ▲ | inigyou 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What if we let people build their own homes and gave them courses on how to do that? Also 1 trillion dollars sounds like a single year of national debt interest, the total amount spent and destroyed by the Iran war, or the Pentagon's black budget. I'm sure we can give up one of those for a year to fix every economic problem plaguing the country. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | butlike 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | By the fact medicine has an expiration date on the bottle. You can have so much of it you don't have the chance to use it all before it expires. | |
| ▲ | pharrington 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In the US, it can be measured by the overstocked food that gets discarded everyday, and by the houses that are vacant nine months a year. | | |
| ▲ | pj_mukh 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Just a note those "vacancies" include dilapidated buildings and housing that is between leases (literally all the housing on craigslist is included in that number). Vacancies in most major cities is near-zero. As a market-rate renter, when someone says "we have so much excess", I have no idea what you're talking about. | |
| ▲ | Zababa 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This assumes production of food is the bottleneck rather than distribution. If distribution is actually the bottleneck, overstocked food is not a measure of excess in society. | | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | But individual grocery stores throw out a lot of food each day. So the problem isn't distribution, it's that nobody bought it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | XorNot 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The world produces so much excess food we pay farmers not to grow it and fast fashion brands burn unsold merchandise in the desert. | | |
| ▲ | anovikov 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | ...and the food part, it's been this way for almost a hundred years now - with agricultural productivity skyrocketing in between. But 100 years ago, chronic food overproduction bankrupting farmers, was already a persistent problem. Since then, lots of bright minds spent their lifetimes to invent new ways to bribe or coerce farmers into growing as little as possible for their own safety. |
|
|