"Nobody wants to work anymore."

[Vekseid]

Moving forward, I do in fact believe that a very sizable proportion of Gen Z will be too stupid, to be it crudely, to adapt to the transforming 21st century. Of course, I do not believe Gen Z is too stupid to be employed in labor. But what does it mean? What does the inability to adapt to the transforming 21st century mean? It is possible for most to imagine that moving forward into the 21st century, increasingly, that occupational specialization rates, in their critical values, will plummet drastically. That is to say, historically, the critical value for the proportion of agricultural occupational specialization demonstrates to be quite high in some contexts, that up to 50% of entire demographics are involved in agriculture, and if not, society may collapse. As society developed, the critical values had begun to drop and even drastically. For the 21st century, it is expected that critical values for occupational specialization rates will drop in rapid fashion across the board due to STEM human capital managing teams of automated entities, such as drones, robots, artificial intelligence algorithms, and so on.

This is where Marx predicts the proletariat will rise up. When so few people need to put in so little labor to maintain the entirety of society, all it takes is for one small splinter group to decide on a better way, and then it will be impossible to stop.

I don't necessarily agree, but it's certainly preferable to the dark enlightenment option.

If we take your argument at face value, eventually, no human will be smart enough. What do you have to offer, to compete against the gestalt of all human ability?

 

[interestedwriter1710]

Where are people using computers to think for them?

People use media to think for them. The world is enormously complex and people naturally look to others to make sense of it.

That hasn't changed since the Spanish-American war.

I suppose other examples could be provided.

Traditionally, mathematicians seem to be much more interested "calculators", so to speak, and in arithmetic as well. Now, across the board, it does look as if for certain subcultures and demographics, such computational abilities have not only suffered drastically, but lambasted as being mere "crude" cognitive labor that could be performed by fast but stupid computers. My own arithmetical abilities have suffered as well for being immersed in such subcultures. However, there are mathematics students who eventually come to realize, humorously, that a few computations and experimentation with special cases may provide further insight into more general considerations, in the same way that a few explicit computations for a few numbers may provide further insight into how one should carry out a "proof by induction" in a secondary school mathematics problem. Essentially, this can be identified to be heuristics, and is an interesting tool in motivating mathematical results in general, one that has been lost for many, including lower-quality graduate students.

From the perspective of 18th-century mathematicians, they may find such graduate students to be surprisingly inept, that they do not even possess such fundamental heuristic abilities.

Does it stop here? I don't believe it does. There seem to be entire creations of subcultures that rely heavily on high-level programming softwares in their statistical analysis, but as a result, not only is greater heuristics lost, but further rigor lost as well - increasingly, more and more lower-quality graduate students apply statistical methods lazily and even apply them erroneously (this is known to be a serious problem in the social sciences, see, for example, "p-hacking"). One such software comes in what is known as R Studios.

[Warning: Mathematics Jargon - Explicit Examples]
[Warning: Mathematics Jargon - Explicit Examples]
Historically, a tremendous amount of heuristics may have motivated the development of analysis, more specifically, infinitesimal calculus. Though rewritten versions of history may cut off the lineage of analysis at Leibniz and Newton, heuristically motivational material came from further back, in the form of astrology. I must emphasize, I am not suggesting that astrology is a science, it is not, however, astrology has induced a fascination with the motion of celestial bodies in many cultures that have resulted in mathematical developments, as in the ancient Babylonian culture. In fact, consistent heuristic data, that is, consistent computations, had motivated the various Babylonian mathematicians to arrive at the notion of an "infinite series" in their approximations. Later, the Madhava school of analysis would conclude the same thing.

For centuries and millenniums after, many observatories were built across the world (see the House of Wisdom of Baghdad as an example), and voluminous tables compiled on the orbital patterns of celestial bodies, that for those with heuristic intelligence, they begin to notice patterns. In fact, what is so-called "Newton's method" in certain subcultures today, was invented and employed by a Persian mathematician to solve a transcendental equation describing the motion of a celestial object.

And, how many know of the derivation of the determinant with what is so-called the method of "excess and deficit"? Seemingly surprising, the concept of the determinant, belonging to linear algebra, can be derived entirely with raw arithmetic. Such, however, seems to have been heuristic as well, as such a method had originated from ancient Chinese texts on mathematics, and one trend had appeared, over-approximation, and under-approximation. Whether applied in the context of approximating transcendental numbers and algebraic roots, or in the context of arithmetic, or in the context of linear algebra. Where could have such an idea originate from? Well, at the very least, it seems to be applied in siege warfare - to over-approximate and under-approximate, thus heuristically constructing a function (intuitively and implicitly, in the heads of the engineers, so to speak) that approximates the distance a reasonable projectile should travel based on the interval constructed with the two end-points (as constructed with the over-approximation and the under-approximation). Archimedes, of course, had applied such a general idea in his approximation of Pi, with successive inscribed and circumscribed polygons of a circle.

Today, such a notion of "heuristics" demonstrate to be fascinatingly effective in artificial intelligence algorithms, and, in fact, Alpha Go is such an example of a heuristic artificial intelligence. However, heuristics, as impressive as it seems, though utilized by artificial intelligence, is seemingly lost to disturbing amounts of so-called graduate and Ph.D. students. Indeed, there is a subtle distinction between heuristical learning, and trial and error, although if misinterpreted, both can seem identical.
[Warning: Mathematics Jargon - Explicit Examples]
[Warning: Mathematics Jargon - Explicit Examples]

 

[Vekseid]

@interestedwriter1710 you appear to have a different definition of heuristic than I am familiar with.

And I'm not aware of any Babylonian works that suggests they meaningfully worked with infinite series. If you've got something that predates the method of exhaustion I'd love to see it.

Regardless, this is decidedly off topic and should probably be a separate thread.

 

[interestedwriter1710]

This is where Marx predicts the proletariat will rise up. When so few people need to put in so little labor to maintain the entirety of society, all it takes is for one small splinter group to decide on a better way, and then it will be impossible to stop.

I don't necessarily agree, but it's certainly preferable to the dark enlightenment option.

If we take your argument at face value, eventually, no human will be smart enough. What do you have to offer, to compete against the gestalt of all human ability?

This is a fantastic point, and I myself have imagined putting myself in those positions, but in those positions, I have always hoped that I would make myself useful. For example, if I were a graduate student to Kolmogorov or Paul Erdos (who are now both deceased), I would sincerely try to make myself useful in every way I can. If he wants me to get breakfast, I'll get breakfast, if he wants me to make breakfast, I'll make breakfast, and frankly, that's the least I can do considering the disproportionate contributions they'll provide to society. They may think I'm "brown-nosing" a little, but I'm sure they could try to understand my position. Hilbert is known to have a slight distaste for those who "brown-nose".

In fact, it is known that differing subcultures and cultures tend to treat potential STEM human capital slightly differently. For instance, to be a mathematical prodigy in East China is cool and incredible, to be a mathematical prodigy in the southern U.S. states is awkward and boring (note that while China consistently dominates in the International Mathematics Olympiad, those of Chinese and East-Asian descent disproportionately represents and leads the U.S. in the International Mathematics Olympiad). There is even a story about Chen Jingrun, an analytic number theorist who received thousands of love letters after having his story published by the People's Daily.

Now, suppose we go further and consider, say, the Nexus Mods community, which some may know about. This is a community of modders, some of who spend hundreds of hours on a number of high-quality mods. Why do this when there is no compensation whatsoever, at least not in the form of USD? Many will notice quite quickly that, apart from passion, there is an amount of social currency offered, that is, modders praised and respected. I myself might have made comments that may appear to be "kissing ass", as interpreted from certain subcultures. But that's the least that any can do, considering the disproportionate balance of contributions.

Here comes a problem, there are subcultures with rigid caste systems that do the opposite - instead of praise and support, a noticeable proportion of STEM human capital may discover shame, aggression, and hostility from certain communities as the electronic devices are enjoyed, as the communications algorithms are enjoyed. Depending on the period and subculture, a few terms have become popularized, with differing stereotypes, as in the stereotypical archetype of the "nerd". The human species is a social species, after all, and if social currencies are not even provided, one must question why only a tiny proportion of STEM human capital should become increasingly indentured in the cognitive labor they provide to potentially idiocratic societies (see the movie idiocracy, interesting interpretation, opening scene here). And one must wonder further why there must be an indentured class of cognitive servants when such a class is disrespected by certain subcultures, while being allocated lower in caste systems. Yet, if these types of STEM human capital were praised and celebrated, showered in a wealth of certain types of social currencies, then it's foreseeable that such STEM human capital would have significantly greater motivation to contribute "for free".


Supplement:
To provide further context as to the Nexus Mods community, such a community creates a vast number of mods that may turn a 2011 Skyrim game into this, or a 2015 Fallout 4 game into this. As an interesting experience, I once showered the discord server for the SFO mod for Total War: Warhammer II in praise, and the mod author appeared out of nowhere to implicitly receive those praises, almost as if suddenly, he/she came out of his/her shell in a potential heartwarming fashion - finally, some recognition. Indeed, there are modding communities where mod authors receive a tremendous amount of abuse even given the free labor they provide, and many of them might question whether they would want to continue contributing.

 

[interestedwriter1710]

@interestedwriter1710 you appear to have a different definition of heuristic than I am familiar with.

And I'm not aware of any Babylonian works that suggests they meaningfully worked with infinite series. If you've got something that predates the method of exhaustion I'd love to see it.

Regardless, this is decidedly off topic and should probably be a separate thread.

Although some sources can be seen on Wikipedia, such an interesting factoid was seen even commented by Godement, a French mathematician of the Bourbaki group, in his undergraduate "Analysis I: Convergence, Elementary Functions".




Otherwise, my previous use of the word "heuristic" refers more so to heuristical learning, mirroring the definition seen on the Wikipedia page (at least for the moment): "-any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational, but is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal or approximation."

So, such a term was used generally. Although, the emphasis I attempted to make was more so on the idea that a wealth of data can provide motivational background to more general results, and historically, a tremendous amount of data was compiled with exhaustive computations. Such an idea can be applied in the personal setting, such as in experimenting with a few integer examples for an algebraic expression before moving on to a proof by induction for general n.

[Warning: Mathematics Jargon]
[Warning: Mathematics Jargon]
And arithmetic, not just merely crude computations, may provide intuitive insight into the structure of different sets of numbers (for the traditional analytic number theorists like Euler, Reimann, or Chebyshev, and so on, the many conjectures that they have made were heavily motivated by heuristic computations, without proofs - many analytic number theorists have a tendency of, through years and decades of entertainment in computations, developing robustly powerful intuition for the relationship that exists between sets of numbers, without proofs, Ramanujan being an extreme example). When there is a relatively low computational complexity algorithm that factors numbers, or polynomials, and further (belonging to a so-called "unique factorization domain"), relatively quickly, I would wager that some of the people responsible for some of those algorithms may have had a fascination with arithmetic their entire lives, and from their perspective, arithmetic might be considered to be more creative than crude. Even, there are unsolved problems today, as subtleties of complexity pertaining to factorization algorithms [1], with prime factorization complexity as known to be exploited in modern cryptography.

I would like to stress that the general idea of over-approximation and under-approximation is just that, a general idea. Heuristics, being considered so generally, allows a wealth of other potential approaches, and stochastic analysis (e.g. Markov chain decision algorithms, martingales, etc.), as a subfield, has exploded in recent periods in its applications to heuristical artificial intelligence. As a quick and relatively accessible explicit example, which some may or may not seen, it is known, and can be demonstrated, that a stochastic variation of the gradient descent tends to converge much more rapidly for initial iterations. Indeed, the stochastic gradient descent, as an entry mathematical technique (of an entire world of mathematical techniques), has exploded in popularity in artificial intelligence communities.

Gradient descent
Stochastic gradient descent
[Warning: Mathematics Jargon]
[Warning: Mathematics Jargon]

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

*shrugs* The internet is a prime example of how people have gotten dumber in some aspects. Sure, they may have become smarter in some ways, but critical and objective thinking has taken a slide in the rise of the Internet, and Social Media in particular.

It doesn't help that people don't like to have their preconceptions challenged (a critical component of objective thinking) - you only have to look at the demand for "safe spaces" to see this.

While this can be fun to discuss, it's also going off-point for the topic at hand.

This is amusing to me, this complaining of safe spaces when earlier in this thread you complained about a lack of civility and said you were going to leave.

Guess you didn't like your preconceptions challenged.

 

[Amante]

That’s two seriously different things, come on.

“We’ve had a discussion, and you’re acting uncivil/resorting to ‘point scoring’ instead of actual discussion”

is a far cry from

“There should be places where certain people aren’t allowed, and discussion shouldn’t be had in the first place.”

Trying to have a discussion and not putting up with bad faith ‘point scoring’ rhetoric is not even in the same ballpark as wanting a ‘safe space’. But again, we digress off the topic of the thread.

 

[Lockdown]

So my perhaps naive answer is that one would subsidize those who don't want a job because it would, overall, create a better society.

Think of a school project. Four members have to pull their weight to get a good grade. Now imagine one person not doing much. Now YOU have to do some of their work to get a good grade. I’m sure we’ve all gone through that before. That’s not fair right?

When you give people handouts, they get lazy and forget how to do anything for themselves. I think some people do need it to get back on their feet, but lots will simply accept defeat and live off of those subsidies. You see that happening today.

I don’t care whether or not someone likes or dislikes their job (Hell I mostly don’t). Yes the person who dislikes their job will most likely be corrupt than the person that likes it. But that’s the beauty of a capitalist society, (unlike socialism and communism) you can choose to work somewhere else. Yes that’s easier said than done, and no capitalsim isn’t perfect (nothing is and ever will be) but it’s pretty damn good when giving people the freedom of how to make more income. Whether it be a self made business or finding a new employer.

If you reward those who do not help society keep going, then those that do will feel discouraged since what’s the point of putting in all of this hard work when you can get subsidies without the stress of trying.

Maybe I’m more pessimistic, and yes I have had your opinion in the past. But everything has a price in life. Whether it be purchasing food to survive or the taxes I have to pay for subsidies.

 

[Laa]

Think of a school project. Four members have to pull their weight to get a good grade. Now imagine one person not doing much. Now YOU have to do some of their work to get a good grade. I’m sure we’ve all gone through that before. That’s not fair right?

When you give people handouts, they get lazy and forget how to do anything for themselves. I think some people do need it to get back on their feet, but lots will simply accept defeat and live off of those subsidies. You see that happening today.

I don’t care whether or not someone likes or dislikes their job (Hell I mostly don’t). Yes the person who dislikes their job will most likely be corrupt than the person that likes it. But that’s the beauty of a capitalist society, (unlike socialism and communism) you can choose to work somewhere else. Yes that’s easier said than done, and no capitalsim isn’t perfect (nothing is and ever will be) but it’s pretty damn good when giving people the freedom of how to make more income. Whether it be a self made business or finding a new employer.

If you reward those who do not help society keep going, then those that do will feel discouraged since what’s the point of putting in all of this hard work when you can get subsidies without the stress of trying.

Maybe I’m more pessimistic, and yes I have had your opinion in the past. But everything has a price in life. Whether it be purchasing food to survive or the taxes I have to pay for subsidies.

In society at large, you would still get different 'grades', right? So it's not too unfair to do more work if I'm going to get graded better (get a better income) than someone who is not working too hard (slacking off). UBI could then be viewed as a "everyone gets to pass (not die/starve/get evicted)" measurement, where they get a low but still barely passing grade, right? And it doesn't make sense for the hard working, well-off person to be envious of what those who have little in this situation gets, unless of course they believe they're causing society as a whole to collapse.

I don't know if there's any data to support the second bit, neither for or against. At the very least, when people get unemployment benefits, they usually get back in employ after a while afaik. I'm currently on unemployment benefits, and I'm not forgetting much of anything. I also think a lot of the people who give up are given a lot of good reasons to give up. The current workplace isn't exactly a forgiving place. It's not exactly one that takes differences into consideration. Everyone has to work 40 hours a week (if not more), meet up in person and so on and so forth. It's fairly standardized; so if you have some issue, which could be solved and worked around, most workplaces simply won't. So yeah, giving up becomes the obvious choice for a lot of people. Let's say you're a smart fella with ADD or autism. You're perhaps more easily stressed, but really bright. You could add a lot to the world while working fully remote (giving you less social stress) or perhaps by working less hours while still earning enough to make do. In most cases, neither is possible or it takes a lot of negotiation to find. There's just no flexibility. A lot of people are, through no choice of their own, forced to give up eventually.
UBI would be paid even if this person took some limited job with less pay; motivating them to still work even if just a little, allowing them to tailor their life to their own capacity and according to their need.

If we go back to the school example, the vast majority of the time someone slacked, it wasn't because they were lazy. Perhaps they just weren't any good; That's what that is, but it's not slacking. Alternatively, they might have anxiety, depression, they might be demotivated because they live in a rigid world that forces them to study although they'd love to just have some job and get by the simple way; none of those jobs actually allowing them to get by the simple way. So, with the threat of economic destitution with the backing of social norms pressuring them from every angle, these depressed, anxious people get up every morning and barely make it to school. To no one's surprise, they can barely muster any energy to perform, which then gets seen as 'slacking'. Are there real slackers? Yeah, for sure. But there's also a lot of people who are trying and just simply can't perform as society demands at present.

If you're corrupt, the most practical way to play the game is not to shop around, except to get raises. It's to delude your superiors to believe you're performing well, even if you're not. Work towards what's measured and nothing else. And usually, these measures aren't good enough unless done in a qualitative way. No, corrupt people don't have a motivation to leave; they have a motivation to stay and suck the workplace dry for value. Although, to be fair, these kinds of people probably wouldn't go away thanks to UBI.

And again, as mentioned earlier, you would still be rewarded for your work. And there's still prestige in the work. And you'd have more energy to get a job that truly feels meaningful to you on top of everything else, as you can easily take some time to figure out what you want to do in life. I would truly be surprised if anyone truly got discouraged from doing their job with UBI in place. Unless said job is paying you absolutely nothing, in which case, I don't know that they deserve the labor in the first place.

 

[Lockdown]

In society at large, you would still get different 'grades', right? So it's not too unfair to do more work if I'm going to get graded better (get a better income) than someone who is not working too hard (slacking off). UBI could then be viewed as a "everyone gets to pass (not die/starve/get evicted)" measurement, where they get a low but still barely passing grade, right? And it doesn't make sense for the hard working, well-off person to be envious of what those who have little in this situation gets, unless of course they believe they're causing society as a whole to collapse.

I don't know if there's any data to support the second bit, neither for or against. At the very least, when people get unemployment benefits, they usually get back in employ after a while afaik. I'm currently on unemployment benefits, and I'm not forgetting much of anything. I also think a lot of the people who give up are given a lot of good reasons to give up. The current workplace isn't exactly a forgiving place. It's not exactly one that takes differences into consideration. Everyone has to work 40 hours a week (if not more), meet up in person and so on and so forth. It's fairly standardized; so if you have some issue, which could be solved and worked around, most workplaces simply won't. So yeah, giving up becomes the obvious choice for a lot of people. Let's say you're a smart fella with ADD or autism. You're perhaps more easily stressed, but really bright. You could add a lot to the world while working fully remote (giving you less social stress) or perhaps by working less hours while still earning enough to make do. In most cases, neither is possible or it takes a lot of negotiation to find. There's just no flexibility. A lot of people are, through no choice of their own, forced to give up eventually.
UBI would be paid even if this person took some limited job with less pay; motivating them to still work even if just a little, allowing them to tailor their life to their own capacity and according to their need.

If we go back to the school example, the vast majority of the time someone slacked, it wasn't because they were lazy. Perhaps they just weren't any good; That's what that is, but it's not slacking. Alternatively, they might have anxiety, depression, they might be demotivated because they live in a rigid world that forces them to study although they'd love to just have some job and get by the simple way; none of those jobs actually allowing them to get by the simple way. So, with the threat of economic destitution with the backing of social norms pressuring them from every angle, these depressed, anxious people get up every morning and barely make it to school. To no one's surprise, they can barely muster any energy to perform, which then gets seen as 'slacking'. Are there real slackers? Yeah, for sure. But there's also a lot of people who are trying and just simply can't perform as society demands at present.

If you're corrupt, the most practical way to play the game is not to shop around, except to get raises. It's to delude your superiors to believe you're performing well, even if you're not. Work towards what's measured and nothing else. And usually, these measures aren't good enough unless done in a qualitative way. No, corrupt people don't have a motivation to leave; they have a motivation to stay and suck the workplace dry for value. Although, to be fair, these kinds of people probably wouldn't go away thanks to UBI.

And again, as mentioned earlier, you would still be rewarded for your work. And there's still prestige in the work. And you'd have more energy to get a job that truly feels meaningful to you on top of everything else, as you can easily take some time to figure out what you want to do in life. I would truly be surprised if anyone truly got discouraged from doing their job with UBI in place. Unless said job is paying you absolutely nothing, in which case, I don't know that they deserve the labor in the first place.

UBI still wouldn’t hold up. Going back to the barely passing grade for UBI example, not everyone should pass in school (Whether it’s high school is college) if they don’t meet the requirements. I say this as someone who’s passed one and failed the other. Why do I say this? So then the standard doesn’t deteriorate based on those who can’t perform on the standard level. Also the well-off person wouldn’t be envious, they would be annoyed that they need to help those that won’t help themselves and better their lives. I don’t feel bad when my taxes go to people that truly need it. I do get upset when it goes to someone who plans to live off of the subsidies.

A little bit off topic, but I don’t support UBI. Where would that come from? Our taxes? So taxes will rise just to pay ourselves (Or those who need it, so not all of us) while I went out and got a job? That’s as fair as paying for someone else’s college when I never went to one (I did go but this is just an example).

As for the second part. You can see this happening today. With the federal government supplying unemployment that pays HIGHER than what you would make with minimum wage, people quit their jobs. Yes I understand that the pandemic also forced many jobs to be terminated, but why work for less when you can get payed doing practically nothing? There’s videos of many resumes being submitted to employers to have practically no one show up since it was a requirement to look for a job while still being on those benefits. Hell I even contemplated quitting so then I could make $300-400 dollars more a week than what I was getting. But I knew that wouldn’t help society at large.
I also say this from personal experience. Where I live a certain region of people abuse the subsidies. My father grew up with these subsidies and saw how complacent people where and actively grew to rely on the income as if it was an actual job. He never wanted that and worked himself from such a bankrupt state. He instilled the drive for me to never become like that even though he told me it can be so easy to just gain income from the government and do nothing to benefit society as a whole. The workplace isn‘t forgiving, but a lot of people are missing a key component in today’s world. Having a back bone. Even I didn’t have one, but I grew one as a necessity to thrive in the workplace. Is that bad? No, it simply means I grew stronger as a person.

What you said in your post, “But there's also a lot of people who are trying and just simply can't perform as society demands at present,”. Yes I realize this. I WAS that kid in school as well. My mother told me that if recess was a class I would’ve failed that too. So she took me to tutoring and did everything that she could in order to help me in school. I could’ve taken that “passing grade” (callback to the example you said earlier) but I wouldn’t be the person I am today. I would probably still be uneducated and the school system would’ve failed me (as they should have). But instead of giving up I gave it my all. The school system didn’t cater to what I liked and how I learned, so instead I found other ways to succeed.

You can also figure out what you want to do with your life by taking a break after high school and working a minimum wage job. In that time you can search fro careers, become an apprentice, become a part-time college student, anything that will help you progress with your goal of finding what you want to do. I don’t think you should be rewarded by getting UBI by contributing nothing to society. If your profession doesn’t pay well, then look for another job.

Because what your definition of a job sounds like to me is a hobby that I do when I’m not at work. I would love to create fantasy worlds with my writing, but being realistic, I’m not going to write the next Harry Potter. So I get a job that helps fund my hobby. I don‘t think a job is supposed to be fulfilling and meaningful. It definitely CAN be but most likely won’t. People knew that for ages. When the workers went off to work, they didn’t look forward to what their job had in stored for them, they looked forward to coming home and seeing their family (Blood or not blood related since family can also mean friends) and doing what they liked.

 

[Glass Eye]

I'm confused as to why you're using the phrase "alternative viewpoint" when opinion would suffice. Because it is an opinion. I think you've got a serious axe to grind, and I am frankly aghast at what you've said and that few people have really pushed back against the pearls you've laid before us swine.

I'm going to quote your statements in an attempt to directly reply to them while maintaining enough context to be meaningful and capture the full spread of your idea. Where possible my responses have been softened to consider your feelings.

For the other people reading this: I want you to pay very special attention to one word and one phrase I am going to bold in this gentleman's statements over, and over, and over. These are two important, albeit bland phrases. Because they are so bland your eye probably skipped over them and you did not think too much of them. But it is important that you pay attention to the way they are used.

... I was trying to specifically identify issues in mathematics and the sciences. From what I can see, for the few demographics that exist around the world, Gen Z seems to appear less intelligent on average, coupled with greater impulsivity of thinking and lower conscientiousness, which heavily impacts mathematical studies.

So you're saying Gen Z is too dumb to get a job in mathematics and the sciences. Has it occurred to you that the Gen Z cohort is between the ages of 5 and 24--a developmental period specifically noted for its impulsivity and lower conscientiousness?

Note that, historically, serious mathematicians do not study mathematics due to money, and some even study mathematics disagreeably even given the threat of starvation and death - there was even a Jewish mathematician who remained active even when interned in a Nazi concentration camp. That is, although it is no doubt reasonable to acknowledge the sorry state of many economic systems around the world today that discourages human capital optimization, it was exponentially worse historically. Indeed, there are many stories of mathematicians who almost did not become mathematicians due to the stigma associated with various subcultures.

One doesn't become an academic for money today, either. While passion certainly does help with attainment, I question comparing the average person of any time to an outlier--such as a mathematician continuing their work in a death camp.

One contrast with Gen Z, in general, is that I seem to have detected a greater amount of entitlement, pertaining to suggestions as "if only my teacher was better and more creative in primary school, I would be an engineer now" - although an interesting claim, historically, for many STEM human capital, they did not even have teachers to begin with, including a number of highly successfully mathematicians who were entirely self-taught (e.g. Green, Ramanujan, a line of mathematicians who had studied from Euler's books, etc.). Perhaps such a selection process may have filtered out lower-quality STEM human capital, and perhaps that might provide one suggestion as to why Gen Z/Millenial mathematicians and scientists, including graduate students, seem to be much lower quality on average (due to a lack of filtering).

Here we get into the tricky business of outliers, again. Green, Ramanujan, and other autodidacts are notable because they are autodidacts. Most people do not have the resources or wherewithal to teach themselves from nothing. If that were the case we would not have the graduate studies system in place that fuses research with pedagogy. We would not need give researchers money to pursue their question in exchange for teaching. This system exists because it creates more dedicated scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.

I'm going to make an ass of myself by making an assumption: you were not entirely self taught. As a matter of fact, you appear to have at least once been mired in academia. Do you think you that you fall short of the average mathematician because you're not self taught?

I do not believe Gen Z is too stupid to be employed in labor. But what does it mean? What does the inability to adapt to the transforming 21st century mean? It is possible for most to imagine that moving forward into the 21st century, increasingly, that occupational specialization rates, in their critical values, will plummet drastically. That is to say, historically, the critical value for the proportion of agricultural occupational specialization demonstrates to be quite high in some contexts, that up to 50% of entire demographics are involved in agriculture, and if not, society may collapse.

What you're saying is that Gen Z is too stupid to become skilled thought workers, such as physicians or electrical engineers or mathematicians. Like yourself. So instead, for the good of society, they should be sent into the fields and fisheries lest all of these listless dummies throw the whole system into chaos.

Right now less than 2% of the American population is involved in agriculture. Over the last few hundred years agricultural productivity has sky rocketed. One easy way to communicate this change is by looking at the amount of calories a farmer produces. In 1960, the average American farmer produced enough food to sustain 26 people. Today, the average American farmer produces enough food for 155.

In those times and places where half of the population were in agriculture, they were peasants. The majority of relying on a variety of natural conditions and their skillsets to feed themselves.

Do you truly believe that we should return half of an entire generation to peasantry for fear that they will throw society into chaos? I don't think you do--however, I think it's your fantasy.

But what about the "liberal arts" degreed persons? It is already understandable from my perspective that STEM human capital will contribute disproportionately to society, while there will be persons who merely leach, not just with a percentage of former liberal arts students, but NEETS (not in education, employment, or training).

Ah yes, those unproductive liberal arts people. All of those attorneys, presidents, businesspeople, artists, entertainers, journalists, economists, librarians, social workers, financial analysts, project managers, educators, and even writers. What leeches. And if they don't have a liberal arts degree OR a STEM degree? They must be NEETs.

Tradespeople, retail workers, industrial technicians, factory workers, hospitality professionals, and every other invisible job under the sun make society work. These people are valuable. People who do not engage in the economy are also valuable, because they are human beings.

Increasingly, I would not want to work, or provide slave labor to entire masses of entitled persons who are unable to contribute, or give back to people like me, and I may be increasingly attracted to political positions that fight exceedingly hard so as to not be put, implicitly, in positions to provide cognitive slave labor to millions of non-contributing persons. To put it bluntly, I cannot see a productive future with a large proportion of Gen Z, of the many demographics today (of western countries more specifically), that it seems my interactions with such subcultures will become increasingly hostile and violent, and if a sufficient amount of Gen Z STEM human capital feels the same way, then the situation may become worse, for them. One can, of course, note that liberal arts students tend, disproportionately, to be of a certain ethnic-cultural background, and of a certain socio-economical background, but not all, of course, are of such backgrounds.

It's slave labor if you're not paid.

That's what slavery is.

Work without pay.

You are promising violence against young people that don't fit within your perspective of worthy. Your perspective of worthy seems to be interested in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. With at least one other explicit and notable qualifier.

Now, in the context of the United States, to go further, I would think that certain subcultures should be very careful in the way that they carry out their caste systems, that although society will be heavily led by STEM human capital, how such subcultures treat said STEM human capital may have consequences, and so might the policies of, shall we say, de-affirmative action as imposed on a particular demographic (East-Asian American).

Too many Asians in math, huh? Nice. That's very nice. I'm being sarcastic, that's awful, and that no one else has commented on it is fucking astounding.

Throughout this response, this person has used two phrases repeatedly: demographic and human capital. Demographic is a term used to denote an arbitrary group of people. Since it's a stuffy word, a word relegated to talking heads and statistical analysis, we assume neutrality. And it is within that neutrality that this actual hate speech is couched.

The next important term is "human capital." Through out this person's tirade, they use the term human capital over and over again to discuss people. While the phrase is often used in a business context, this is not one. It's a distancing, othering phrase used by a man who wants to see half of at least one generation reduced to farm equipment. Don't forget he mentioned Millennials as underperforming in addition to Gen Z.

This is not innocent. This someone weaponizing the passive voice and distancing language to speak openly about an agenda inimicable to freedom and democracy. While he's been careful not to say white, he felt confident enough by the end to say East Asian American specifically. With his earlier statement, one promising a build up to violence, I cannot help but view this as a serious red flag.

This is serious.

 

[Laa]

UBI still wouldn’t hold up. Going back to the barely passing grade for UBI example, not everyone should pass in school (Whether it’s high school is college) if they don’t meet the requirements. I say this as someone who’s passed one and failed the other. Why do I say this? So then the standard doesn’t deteriorate based on those who can’t perform on the standard level. Also the well-off person wouldn’t be envious, they would be annoyed that they need to help those that won’t help themselves and better their lives. I don’t feel bad when my taxes go to people that truly need it. I do get upset when it goes to someone who plans to live off of the subsidies.

A little bit off topic, but I don’t support UBI. Where would that come from? Our taxes? So taxes will rise just to pay ourselves (Or those who need it, so not all of us) while I went out and got a job? That’s as fair as paying for someone else’s college when I never went to one (I did go but this is just an example).

As for the second part. You can see this happening today. With the federal government supplying unemployment that pays HIGHER than what you would make with minimum wage, people quit their jobs. Yes I understand that the pandemic also forced many jobs to be terminated, but why work for less when you can get payed doing practically nothing? There’s videos of many resumes being submitted to employers to have practically no one show up since it was a requirement to look for a job while still being on those benefits. Hell I even contemplated quitting so then I could make $300-400 dollars more a week than what I was getting. But I knew that wouldn’t help society at large.
I also say this from personal experience. Where I live a certain region of people abuse the subsidies. My father grew up with these subsidies and saw how complacent people where and actively grew to rely on the income as if it was an actual job. He never wanted that and worked himself from such a bankrupt state. He instilled the drive for me to never become like that even though he told me it can be so easy to just gain income from the government and do nothing to benefit society as a whole. The workplace isn‘t forgiving, but a lot of people are missing a key component in today’s world. Having a back bone. Even I didn’t have one, but I grew one as a necessity to thrive in the workplace. Is that bad? No, it simply means I grew stronger as a person.

What you said in your post, “But there's also a lot of people who are trying and just simply can't perform as society demands at present,”. Yes I realize this. I WAS that kid in school as well. My mother told me that if recess was a class I would’ve failed that too. So she took me to tutoring and did everything that she could in order to help me in school. I could’ve taken that “passing grade” (callback to the example you said earlier) but I wouldn’t be the person I am today. I would probably still be uneducated and the school system would’ve failed me (as they should have). But instead of giving up I gave it my all. The school system didn’t cater to what I liked and how I learned, so instead I found other ways to succeed.

You can also figure out what you want to do with your life by taking a break after high school and working a minimum wage job. In that time you can search fro careers, become an apprentice, become a part-time college student, anything that will help you progress with your goal of finding what you want to do. I don’t think you should be rewarded by getting UBI by contributing nothing to society. If your profession doesn’t pay well, then look for another job.

Because what your definition of a job sounds like to me is a hobby that I do when I’m not at work. I would love to create fantasy worlds with my writing, but being realistic, I’m not going to write the next Harry Potter. So I get a job that helps fund my hobby. I don‘t think a job is supposed to be fulfilling and meaningful. It definitely CAN be but most likely won’t. People knew that for ages. When the workers went off to work, they didn’t look forward to what their job had in stored for them, they looked forward to coming home and seeing their family (Blood or not blood related since family can also mean friends) and doing what they liked.

That's actually where the school example breaks down. School is a test of merit, whereas the 'real test of life' is a matter of survival, not merit. I, at the very least, vote for people to survive (pass).
And, well, why do you get upset when it goes to someone who plans to live off the subsidies? A well off person would be well off, and hence wouldn't have many wants besides maybe not working. A poor off person should be paying less taxes anyway, and should probably be happy that if things went sour that there was a social safety net to catch them. At least, that's how I see it.

UBI would come from taxes, yes. The US actually used to have a lot higher taxes. Just a smidgen of that could easily generate enough revenue for UBI. In general, people with less paying jobs should be paying less, and if you're paid more, then yes, it's practical in societal term for you to carry more of the burden and help nurture society.

Because minimum wage is criminally low at the moment. It has barely changed in decades. The current minimum wage creates margins beyond what is reasonable for corporate, so when you put out subsidies that has to encompass a living situation, you inevitably end up with a higher income than minimum wage. Combine that with the fact that most minimum wage jobs have horrible workplace environments, toxic managers who usually don't appreciate their workers and have very little upward mobility, it's no wonder people want to get away from them. Their value is being legitimately drained by soulless megacorps. And those margins, they do not go to society at large. Those margins on the minimum wage get pocketed by the company. By the already have-it-alls and their space rockets.
You can have a back bone and have that lead you to do as you did; work in favor of your principles. You can also have a back bone and pocket the money, fighting for yourself and your prosperity in a world that doesn't care about you. Having a back bone means standing up for yourself, which I do think that you did, but your way of doing it is based on your views. If your views were akin to mine as listed above, the rational way to stand up for yourself would be to immediately quit and pocket the money while searching for a better paid job, improving your situation and punishing corporate for giving out awful wages.
As for getting out of subsidies, I'm not sure I have a good argument there. Do you know why he wanted to get away from subsidies? Were the subsidies too low, or was it a matter of pride? Because I do think a lot of people would want to work as a matter of pride.

But, wouldn't the school be better if it catered to how you learned and what you liked? And I don't mean coddling, just more flexibility. Like, you said you got a tutor, that's a kind of flexibility that the school system itself could have implemented from the beginning, right? I believe flexibility of work and learning is a good thing.

I don't think most people consider minimum wage jobs a break. Like, those things can suck each ounce of energy out of you and drain you from your will to live.

I don't think I've defined what I think a job is. But think about it like this: If you had 5 years to perfect your writing, would you be capable of becoming a professional writer in some capacity? I don't think that's too unlikely, even if it is a tough path to take. Might not become a novelist, but might just find some way to make money off of it, yeah?

 

[Lockdown]

That's actually where the school example breaks down. School is a test of merit, whereas the 'real test of life' is a matter of survival, not merit. I, at the very least, vote for people to survive (pass).
And, well, why do you get upset when it goes to someone who plans to live off the subsidies? A well off person would be well off, and hence wouldn't have many wants besides maybe not working. A poor off person should be paying less taxes anyway, and should probably be happy that if things went sour that there was a social safety net to catch them. At least, that's how I see it.

UBI would come from taxes, yes. The US actually used to have a lot higher taxes. Just a smidgen of that could easily generate enough revenue for UBI. In general, people with less paying jobs should be paying less, and if you're paid more, then yes, it's practical in societal term for you to carry more of the burden and help nurture society.

Because minimum wage is criminally low at the moment. It has barely changed in decades. The current minimum wage creates margins beyond what is reasonable for corporate, so when you put out subsidies that has to encompass a living situation, you inevitably end up with a higher income than minimum wage. Combine that with the fact that most minimum wage jobs have horrible workplace environments, toxic managers who usually don't appreciate their workers and have very little upward mobility, it's no wonder people want to get away from them. Their value is being legitimately drained by soulless megacorps. And those margins, they do not go to society at large. Those margins on the minimum wage get pocketed by the company. By the already have-it-alls and their space rockets.
You can have a back bone and have that lead you to do as you did; work in favor of your principles. You can also have a back bone and pocket the money, fighting for yourself and your prosperity in a world that doesn't care about you. Having a back bone means standing up for yourself, which I do think that you did, but your way of doing it is based on your views. If your views were akin to mine as listed above, the rational way to stand up for yourself would be to immediately quit and pocket the money while searching for a better paid job, improving your situation and punishing corporate for giving out awful wages.
As for getting out of subsidies, I'm not sure I have a good argument there. Do you know why he wanted to get away from subsidies? Were the subsidies too low, or was it a matter of pride? Because I do think a lot of people would want to work as a matter of pride.

But, wouldn't the school be better if it catered to how you learned and what you liked? And I don't mean coddling, just more flexibility. Like, you said you got a tutor, that's a kind of flexibility that the school system itself could have implemented from the beginning, right? I believe flexibility of work and learning is a good thing.

I don't think most people consider minimum wage jobs a break. Like, those things can suck each ounce of energy out of you and drain you from your will to live.

I don't think I've defined what I think a job is. But think about it like this: If you had 5 years to perfect your writing, would you be capable of becoming a professional writer in some capacity? I don't think that's too unlikely, even if it is a tough path to take. Might not become a novelist, but might just find some way to make money off of it, yeah?

I get upset when the subsidies goes to someone who won’t pick themselves up and rise to the challange that life threw at them (Whether it be debt or unemployment or anything else for that manner). I‘m more than willing to lend the subsidies to those who will get back on their feet. Maybe because I know the one who will get back on their feet won’t raise my taxes any higher since they won’t depend on my money to fund their life. Also because I hope they can find genuine happiness when rising from the ashes of their misfortune only to build a better life for them than being in a constant need to lend their hand out for help. How can I help you when you can’t even help yourself (Not you specifically).

I agree that if you pay more then you should pay more taxes, but the highest earners already pay for 40% of the taxes. I think that’s more than enough and the higher limits shouldn’t pass 45-50% of their income.

I think minimum wage helped/hurt people as well. Because of minimum wage, employees were given less hours which means less money being made in the long run or about the same. On the bright side they get to see their family and do whatever they please more often since they have less hours worked. But they can’t plan a vacation or do anything special with their family or hobbies with that free time since they don’t make as much as they used to. The government needs to get it’s hands off of many things (College loans, Bank loans, and several more that I can’t probably think of at this moment) so then the market can work things out. I know they want to help, but when they tried to help with college, it only made it ten times worse with tuition fees sky rocketing even further. But I’m going a bit off topic now.
I agree that pocketing the money and looking for a job else where to punish the corporate for the awful wages, but it also depends on where you work. Not all minimum wage jobs are meant to be permanent jobs. They’re meant as a stepping stone into the work force.


As for wanting to escape subsidies, my father wanted to give a good example to his children. To never be complacent with defeat. So he worked his ass off even when he would see people using the income from the government with their new accessories and cars purchasing food while he’s barely making ends meet (Yes this story happened and he told me how easy it is to live off the income but to not do so). Maybe it was for pride as well, but he also wanted to give his family a better life and that wouldn’t be found living off of food stamps and other help from the government.

Ok I can agree with you that school should be flexible. I only disagree when the school straight up lets you pass when you shouldn’t have after doing some loopholes and curving your grades because of your mental/physical disabilities. People with ADHD for example do deserve more time to take academic assessments but they shouldn’t get a pass even if their fail the exam. It’s when flexibility turns into destroying the set standard that I have a problem with so I prefer to take it with precaution.

Well then for a break what would you assume for that said person to do? Not work and not go to school? What else is there for you to do then? How would you sustain yourself?

If your definition of a job (Feel free to correct me) is to take time off and practice what you want to do before going into that career, than that’s simply college. You’re taking time off from work (Or you can ALSO work) while practicing that job. Whether it be in a lab with a new experiment to one day become a scientist or writing a short story for your literature class to hopefully be able to write your own novel. The definition of job to you would be to go to college (Or trade and other schools) to then go into that career that you like. But what I disagree (From my understanding of your possible definition from my interpretation) is that UBI should be administered to those who are honing their skills for their future career. I can‘t see how giving money to people who are practicing what they want to become in life would serve any benefits. Yes they would be happy, but would their careers serve any purpose? Would they be able to sustain themselves? What if they change their minds, how long would they be permitted to be on UBI? What requirements would they have to show that they are actually taking time off to then Eventually go into a career whereas instead of just abusing the system? These are the questions I have for UBI and if it matches your definition of work.

 

[cyrodilicbrandy]

interestedwriter1710 said:
But what about the "liberal arts" degreed persons? It is already understandable from my perspective that STEM human capital will contribute disproportionately to society, while there will be persons who merely leach, not just with a percentage of former liberal arts students, but NEETS (not in education, employment, or training).

Yeah, I'll just go fuck myself then. Sorry for doing a degree in a 'liberal arts' cause I love history and want to work within the heritage field; but I need to be more useful and not leach, clearly, to fill up some kind of quota of usefulness as a human.

I'll go be a barista. Oh, but then I'm a young unskilled person in a low-paying 'unskilled' job. So - can't win!

Also, the racism is pretty not great, either.

 

[interestedwriter1710]

I'm going to make an ass of myself by making an assumption: you were not entirely self taught. As a matter of fact, you appear to have at least once been mired in academia. Do you think you that you fall short of the average mathematician because you're not self taught?

I am entirely self-taught, and perhaps I can provide a little bit more information. Although I had a history of academic performance, a period of depression had resulted in an increasingly violent disposition (some with which were ethnically motivated, i.e., defending myself from racist attacks), and I have been expelled on multiple occasions from multiple different institutions. In fact, I was entirely self-taught from high school up until my current studies, that the secondary school where I had obtained my qualifications had a history of interest in certain demographics in raising the mean academic performance, the demographic being East-Asian. At the moment, although I am actively engaged in graduate material, I am actually working through an undergraduate degree, and the material remains entirely self-taught, through the guidance of fantastic mathematics writers, of course.

Do you truly believe that we should return half of an entire generation to peasantry for fear that they will throw society into chaos? I don't think you do--however, I think it's your fantasy.

I suppose I should've been more careful in how I have phrased things. In response to @Vekseid's point, I attempted to bring the possibility that contributions may be possible in a different fashion, in the form of social currencies not necessarily always directly valued in USD terms. After all, I do believe it is important for most people to contribute in the fashion that others do, otherwise, I will not share societies with such personalities where the balance of contributions remains exceedingly skewed.

You are promising violence against young people that don't fit within your perspective of worthy. Your perspective of worthy seems to be interested in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. With at least one other explicit and notable qualifier.

Well, perhaps some care could be realized, and this may fall in line with the suggestion of "greater impulsivity of thought", for Gen Z, on average. If, in an increasingly idiocratic society where cognitive labor of STEM human capital is increasingly exploited without much return, then I can only see increasing tension and hostility, where violence may eventually result. I myself have experienced a spout of targeted violence in multiple Anglo countries, including in Australia, due to me being Chinese, in light of the Sinophobia that has flared in recent years. Note that while Asian STEM human capital, and those of East-Asian descent in particular, increasingly dominate multiple subfields of the sciences in recent decades, a heated amount of hostility and dehumanizing exploitation remains.

Too many Asians in math, huh? Nice. That's very nice. I'm being sarcastic, that's awful, and that no one else has commented on it is fucking astounding.

I can see the possible assumptions that may be supposed due to the political climate at the moment, however, from my perspective, as far as I can tell, Anglo-Americans and European-Americans are the greatest benefactors of affirmative action in the United States. To put it bluntly, if universities were actually meritocratic, then there are not enough East-Asians, due to a system of de-affirmative action that targets those of East-Asian descent. In fact, I liken such a social phenomenon as akin to the quotas that were imposed on those of Jewish descent in the United States during the 20th century. Indeed, such may contribute to the increasingly low-quality graduate students that many institutions boast. In fact, consider the following sentiment by Michio Kaku - note his assertion of rising "stupid index" in the United States.

While he's been careful not to say white, he felt confident enough by the end to say East Asian American specifically.

Also, there is no such thing, as a "white" person, but we can distinguish Anglo-Americans, and European-Americans, where, if we were being objective, skin complexion falls on shades of tan to pink.

Otherwise, I think it might be prudent for me to state, in an attempt to communicate where I'm coming from, that still, to this day, I experience de-affirmative action across the board while managing frequent academic abuse from dummies in positions of authority, some being easily intimidated by those of East-Asian descent demonstrating to be highly capable in mathematics. Indeed, the history of the East-Asian American in the United States is to be severely exploited in cognitive and physical labor (see transcontinental railway), only to be rewarded with dehumanizing punishments, and to be shunned in rigid caste systems. For a professional historical account, one could, for example, read Iris Chang's fantastic "Thread of the Silkworm", detailing a Chinese rocket scientist 钱学森 (Qian Xuesen). I am, however, not American, merely temporarily stuck in Anglo countries.

 

[Laa]

I get upset when the subsidies goes to someone who won’t pick themselves up and rise to the challange that life threw at them (Whether it be debt or unemployment or anything else for that manner). I‘m more than willing to lend the subsidies to those who will get back on their feet. Maybe because I know the one who will get back on their feet won’t raise my taxes any higher since they won’t depend on my money to fund their life. Also because I hope they can find genuine happiness when rising from the ashes of their misfortune only to build a better life for them than being in a constant need to lend their hand out for help. How can I help you when you can’t even help yourself (Not you specifically).

I agree that if you pay more then you should pay more taxes, but the highest earners already pay for 40% of the taxes. I think that’s more than enough and the higher limits shouldn’t pass 45-50% of their income.

I think minimum wage helped/hurt people as well. Because of minimum wage, employees were given less hours which means less money being made in the long run or about the same. On the bright side they get to see their family and do whatever they please more often since they have less hours worked. But they can’t plan a vacation or do anything special with their family or hobbies with that free time since they don’t make as much as they used to. The government needs to get it’s hands off of many things (College loans, Bank loans, and several more that I can’t probably think of at this moment) so then the market can work things out. I know they want to help, but when they tried to help with college, it only made it ten times worse with tuition fees sky rocketing even further. But I’m going a bit off topic now.
I agree that pocketing the money and looking for a job else where to punish the corporate for the awful wages, but it also depends on where you work. Not all minimum wage jobs are meant to be permanent jobs. They’re meant as a stepping stone into the work force.


As for wanting to escape subsidies, my father wanted to give a good example to his children. To never be complacent with defeat. So he worked his ass off even when he would see people using the income from the government with their new accessories and cars purchasing food while he’s barely making ends meet (Yes this story happened and he told me how easy it is to live off the income but to not do so). Maybe it was for pride as well, but he also wanted to give his family a better life and that wouldn’t be found living off of food stamps and other help from the government.

Ok I can agree with you that school should be flexible. I only disagree when the school straight up lets you pass when you shouldn’t have after doing some loopholes and curving your grades because of your mental/physical disabilities. People with ADHD for example do deserve more time to take academic assessments but they shouldn’t get a pass even if their fail the exam. It’s when flexibility turns into destroying the set standard that I have a problem with so I prefer to take it with precaution.

Well then for a break what would you assume for that said person to do? Not work and not go to school? What else is there for you to do then? How would you sustain yourself?

If your definition of a job (Feel free to correct me) is to take time off and practice what you want to do before going into that career, than that’s simply college. You’re taking time off from work (Or you can ALSO work) while practicing that job. Whether it be in a lab with a new experiment to one day become a scientist or writing a short story for your literature class to hopefully be able to write your own novel. The definition of job to you would be to go to college (Or trade and other schools) to then go into that career that you like. But what I disagree (From my understanding of your possible definition from my interpretation) is that UBI should be administered to those who are honing their skills for their future career. I can‘t see how giving money to people who are practicing what they want to become in life would serve any benefits. Yes they would be happy, but would their careers serve any purpose? Would they be able to sustain themselves? What if they change their minds, how long would they be permitted to be on UBI? What requirements would they have to show that they are actually taking time off to then Eventually go into a career whereas instead of just abusing the system? These are the questions I have for UBI and if it matches your definition of work.

You get upset when subsidies goes to someone who won't pick themselves up because they'll raise your taxes? I mean, no, it's people like me who wants to raises taxes, not necessarily people permanently on subsidies.
And you mention genuine happiness coming from work, which implies that there's a motivation to work beyond the money, right? You said it yourself earlier - you chose to keep on working, losing 300-400 dollars per week iirc. I'm going to assume that there's more like you out there who would choose not to be subsidized more than they have to.

It read it at some points were over 70% in the US. The economy did fine. Because the rich are just... Staggeringly rich. Even more so today

I mean yeah, corporate uses every tactic they can to screw over workers and pay them less. Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime; The value of work has increased, but the pay hasn't. They can easily pay you more, and they have in certain places due to the worker shortages. They just don't because they want all the money they can get. It's greed, not necessity, that motivates the lower payment for workers.
I think, for a lot of people, minimum wage ends up being all they can get. I don't think there'd be anything wrong in having the temporary positions become permanent, and to raise wages to match that expectation. Because that's the reality a lot of people are living.

Good on your father. He sounds like a good man, one that you can be proud of.

I agree with what you said on schooling!

Be on subsidies for a little bit. Take a few months, maybe a year, to cruise before getting back into the meat of things. It's a great chance to become healthier, get better everyday habits, perhaps learn some things about yourself and grow as a person. If you choose to spend the time wisely.

There are actually countries where you get paid to study. It's pretty awesome, imo. But that definitely isn't my definition of a job. I do think a job is something you do for money. Perhaps an overly simplistic definition, but yeah. So your hobby becomes a job once you start getting an income from it.
If you want to research the whole 'being paid to study' thing, it's something they do in Scandinavia. There's restrictions on it, such as having to pass some set of courses and the like, but yeah. Students are still stressed out like all heck, heh.

UBI is something a bit different though. It's an income you get no matter what. If you have a job or not, doesn't matter. It's not a very high rate, probably not enough to live off of, but it helps basically just make life "a little bit easier".

 

[Glass Eye]

What a twist. Let me get this straight.

Due to a series of violent incidents triggered by mental illness--some of which you felt were responding to racist attacks, and thus conversely the majority of which were not--you have been expelled from a series of institutions. You have yet to complete an undergraduate degree. You have been diverted from the higher education system by being an active physical threat to your peers and colleagues.

Would it be fair to say that you have limited experience navigating academic spaces, working with graduate students, or even working alongside Gen Z or Millennial graduate students? Have you worked along side them as a peer within a field you have met the minimum requirements (generally a bachelor's degree) to be considered to broadly identify and understand the current research within that field? Have you gone through the research process, have you presented research that either you participated in or completed yourself? Have you contributed to any journals, as in research findings, reviews, comments, or other publishable contributions?

So when you said

Now, in the context of the United States, to go further, I would think that certain subcultures should be very careful in the way that they carry out their caste systems, that although society will be heavily led by STEM human capital, how such subcultures treat said STEM human capital may have consequences, and so might the policies of, shall we say, de-affirmative action as imposed on a particular demographic (East-Asian American).

"certain subcultures" you meant decision makers in academia and broader social policy. When you said "caste systems" you mean a racialized hierarchy within the context of access to and within higher education. So what you were attempting to communicate in your 70+ word sentence was something along the lines of "In the context of the US, key decision makers in academia need to be make sure all potential STEM graduate candidates are held to the same standard instead of holding Asian students to a higher standard."

Does that capture what you were trying to communicate?

I'm going to give you a bitter pill to swallow: in the United States, Asians are overrepresented from the overall population as recipients of doctorates. It took me a whopping five minutes to find that out.

This is the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates. If you look under the field and demographic characteristics of doctorate recipients, you can see on table 24 (US Citizen and permanent resident doctorate recipients, by major field of study, ethnicity, and race: 2020) that 9.3% of American citizens who receive doctorates are of Asian descent. If you go to the US Census Bureau's website you can see that 5.3% of Americans are Asian.

I pointed to table 24 specifically because Chinese nationals are such a huge outlier of temporary visa holders gaining doctorates that they skew the numbers even further towards Asian doctoral attainment and I wanted to keep it nice and specific to the experience of Asian Americans.

You plainly do not know what you are talking about, at least where it is relevant to the USA. If you had any experience in graduate level STEM studies in or even in conjunction with US labs you would know that researchers of Asian descent are highly concentrated in these fields.

But let's talk mathematics more specifically. If you go to this lovely website you can see a breakdown of bachelor's degree attainment in mathematics and statistics in the USA by ethnicity. Here we can see that Asian Americans receive, on average, 11.3% of undergraduate degrees in mathematics and statistics.

I attempted to bring the possibility that contributions may be possible in a different fashion, in the form of social currencies not necessarily always directly valued in USD terms. After all, I do believe it is important for most people to contribute in the fashion that others do, otherwise, I will not share societies with such personalities where the balance of contributions remains exceedingly skewed.

You specifically said that the way for society to be stable going forward is if half of Gen Z were agricultural labor, with an implication that I could only characterize as transparent that it was all they could handle intellectually. If by fashion you're trying to communicate that most people should contribute an equal amount of productivity to society, sure. That sounds reasonable.

Here's the thing: they do. If we measure productivity, then we don't care what they do, whether they're baristas, biochemists, senators, pastors or porn stars. Just that they put in hours working because bereft of an abstract method of measuring productivity (ala currency) you cannot reasonably compare the productivity of an orchardist to a surgeon. A generalist surgeon may only complete three to five operations in a day; a farm worker may pick hundreds or thousands of apples in that same time.

More over, your violence--the same violence that you profess has had you removed from institutions as a threat to safety--and advocacy for violence is coming out. You don't get to decide who you share a society. You just share a society with others. When you decide, on your own, who you "share" it with, and then attempt to enforce that, you end up with genocide or its lesser cousin "the demographic shift."

If, in an increasingly idiocratic society where cognitive labor of STEM human capital is increasingly exploited without much return, then I can only see increasing tension and hostility, where violence may eventually result. I myself have experienced a spout of targeted violence in multiple Anglo countries, including in Australia, due to me being Chinese, in light of the Sinophobia that has flared in recent years. Note that while Asian STEM human capital, and those of East-Asian descent in particular, increasingly dominate multiple subfields of the sciences in recent decades, a heated amount of hostility and dehumanizing exploitation remains.

I'm sorry you've experienced instances of racist attacks. That's unfortunate and is one of the ills plaguing Western society as a whole. However, STEM workers are well compensated. Let's take a look at the numbers again.

If you go to the US Department of Labor, you can see current on numbers on STEM field incomes. STEM professionals earn over double their non-STEM counterparts. So no, STEM labor is well compensated versus the average income in the US.

I can see the possible assumptions that may be supposed due to the political climate at the moment, however, from my perspective, as far as I can tell, Anglo-Americans and European-Americans are the greatest benefactors of affirmative action in the United States. To put it bluntly, if universities were actually meritocratic, then there are not enough East-Asians, due to a system of de-affirmative action that targets those of East-Asian descent. In fact, I liken such a social phenomenon as akin to the quotas that were imposed on those of Jewish descent in the United States during the 20th century. Indeed, such may contribute to the increasingly low-quality graduate students that many institutions boast. In fact, consider the following sentiment by Michio Kaku - note his assertion of rising "stupid index" in the United States.

I'm sorry I confused your tortured, 70+ word, subclause riddled monster of a sentence. Given that you've mentioned moving towards violence vis a vis Gen Z multiple times like it's fine, I had only assumed you would be a white supremacist since, well, it's usually white supremacists who talk about affirmative action and Asians. However, I do agree that white Americans have been the recipients of massive welfare and opportunities time and again that has been purposefully withheld from other ethnic groups.

I have to reiterate: Asians are statistically overrepresented in doctoral level attainment. If Asians are being held back, that's not immediately apparent from the fact that Asian Americans are obtaining 9.3% of all doctoral degrees among citizens even though they represent only 5.3% of the US population.

Also, there is no such thing, as a "white" person, but we can distinguish Anglo-Americans, and European-Americans, where, if we were being objective, skin complexion falls on shades of tan to pink.

And yet Americans identify people of European and Persian descent (among others) as white. It's certainly one legacy of systematic racism.

Otherwise, I think it might be prudent for me to state, in an attempt to communicate where I'm coming from, that still, to this day, I experience de-affirmative action across the board while managing frequent academic abuse from dummies in positions of authority, some being easily intimidated by those of East-Asian descent demonstrating to be highly capable in mathematics. Indeed, the history of the East-Asian American in the United States is to be severely exploited in cognitive and physical labor (see transcontinental railway), only to be rewarded with dehumanizing punishments, and to be shunned in rigid caste systems.

It could be that in Australia, people of Asian descent are not significantly represented in academia or research the way that they are in the US. It could be that there are significantly higher hurdles for Asian people in Australia than there are in the US. However, while I don't doubt that there is some level of racism you have to strive against, I would imagine your abrasiveness, tortured turns of phrase, use of the passive voice, outright resentment, martyr complex and history of violence have done at least as much to hold you back. There will always be people who don't get where you're coming from in authority positions. The rest of us learn to speak with them and show that their goals are met by pursuing our directions. It's even helpful to be willing to appeal to those authorities and pursue those interests, understanding that is a fruitful way to gain mutual respect.

You have shown a persistent, dehumanizing language around others. It's perturbing. You have put forth, over and over, an idea that you can individually determine another human being's worth. Paired with your promised slide towards violent outbursts, and your self professed claims of violent outbursts in the past this is a red flag. You have built up a worldview that puts a small minority (STEM knowledge workers) above and beyond the vast majority of others in terms of their intrinsic value. A group that you, yourself, cannot yet be considered to be part of since you have yet to obtain credentials! Credentials are, by and large, what make a STEM professional. I can only imagine that you must labor under the incredible stress of believing that the world has unfairly diminished you, without any way to prove to the world that you indeed deserve what you believe you are owed.

And thanks for the recc, I love a good biography and Thread of the Silkworm sounds like a fascinating story. Don't act on your violent impulses.

 

[interestedwriter1710]

Due to a series of violent incidents triggered by mental illness--some of which you felt were responding to racist attacks, and thus conversely the majority of which were not--you have been expelled from a series of institutions.

I will NOT make excuses for violent perpetrators, unless there is repentance, and every single person who has ever attacked me, be it violently or otherwise, will be remembered. Mental illness is a serious issue for many demographics around the world, but not every single person suffering from mental illness will set out to attack certain ethnicities in their lynch mob mentalities, particularly in targeting women and the elderly. I myself needed to grapple with multiple issues for years, and have never touched a hair on any metaphorical bystander.

Asians are NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT, YOUR SCAPEGOATS.

Would it be fair to say that you have limited experience navigating academic spaces, working with graduate students, or even working alongside Gen Z or Millennial graduate students? Have you worked along side them as a peer within a field you have met the minimum requirements (generally a bachelor's degree) to be considered to broadly identify and understand the current research within that field? Have you gone through the research process, have you presented research that either you participated in or completed yourself? Have you contributed to any journals, as in research findings, reviews, comments, or other publishable contributions?

I have an increasing body of experience and multiple corroborations from professors and course coordinators pertaining to my prodigic mathematical maturity, as I continue to gain further maturity in multiple different subfields, this while managing a number of imbeciles who perpetually underscore by academic material, only for such mistakes to be fixed after. Due to the quality of some of the material that I have written, in LaTeX, across multiple subfields, in the theory of differential equations, classical differential geometry, applications of matrix theory, analytic number theory, etc., various persons had brought up the suggestion to me pertaining to the possibility of becoming a masters student in their respective institutions to continue "further study".

Yes, I have interacted and engaged, mathematically, while attempting to be more rigorous, with a number of so-called graduate and Ph.D. students, and every time I attempt further discussions of more advanced material or try to cross subfields, every time, they fall short.

I'm going to give you a bitter pill to swallow: in the United States, Asians are overrepresented from the overall population as recipients of doctorates. It took me a whopping five minutes to find that out.

They are overrepresented despite, and I emphasize, despite the excessive discrimination and violent assaults, the racist garbage that Asian-American demographics need to deal with on a daily basis. I suggest you educate yourself further on the vile history of anti-Asian racism, and anti-East-Asian racism in the United States, with the previous book as an interesting recommendation. Otherwise, a multitude of Asian American demographics, of all age ranges, of different biological sexes, of different socio-economical statuses, experience such increasingly savage hostility from the United States that even Asian-American concentrated social media are entirely filled with issues of racism (see Asian-American groups on Facebook, some subreddits on Reddit, the follower basis of various prominent Asian-American users on twitter).

If there was at all a meritocratic culture, the East-Asian representation would go further, much further than currently, in the same way that in certain institutions in the 20th century, the Jewish representation in STEM verged on 50% after the removal of discriminatory Jewish quotas.

If by fashion you're trying to communicate that most people should contribute an equal amount of productivity to society, sure. That sounds reasonable.

Here's the thing: they do.

This is absolutely and utterly false, the mass shooter does not contribute equally as the doctor, nor does the NEET who's only life skills is to play video games, eat, shit and sleep. And although the typical liberal arts major will disproportionately see an improvement in their quality of life due to STEM human capital, this, sadly, will not be the case the other way around, as an obnoxious amount of entitlement insists that they are enlighted to the fruits of STEM cognitive labor that others, spending up to 14 hours per day, develop.

You don't get to decide who you share a society. You just share a society with others. When you decide, on your own, who you "share" it with, and then attempt to enforce that, you end up with genocide or its lesser cousin "the demographic shift."

No, I am not American, I can choose to refuse to contribute to the United States, and refuse to share a society with increasingly entitled and unempathetic demographics who insistently fail to sympathize with the centuries of plights of Asians around the world. If I need to, I will contribute to the PRC, the People's Republic of China, and if the warmongers in DC are insistent, then maybe your Gen Z demographic can see how much the entire world has actually transformed when they make the first attempt to invade the South Chinese Sea.

I'm sorry you've experienced instances of racist attacks. That's unfortunate and is one of the ills plaguing Western society as a whole. However, STEM workers are well compensated.

I never stated that they weren't, I purposefully choose careful language, and to phrase suggestions as suggestions. In fact, I had already alluded to the possibility that the engineer or the doctor may be compensated more reasonably, whereas the caretaker may not. Read.

And I reemphasize, if not for the mass de-affirmative action that Asian-American demographics experience, the representation would be significantly higher.

And yet Americans identify people of European and Persian descent (among others) as white. It's certainly one legacy of systematic racism.

The fucking gall, and given after the millions of civilian casualties as a consequence of the multiple invasions of former Persia in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Otherwise, apart from reading, you can consume a few videos quite leisurely,

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJI5veSM13Y


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcrXOyRncIM


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEwzoairmQk
etc.

Gen Z in America sees waves of BLM movements without a shred of thought for their Asian counterparts? Don't be surprised if entire demographics in the future lack much sympathy for you as they become increasingly disinterested in collaborations. Of course, they must defend themselves.

 

[interestedwriter1710]

Being a STEM major doesn't make you better than others, and being a STEM major doesn't mean that you're automatically entitled to more of the world's advancements than someone who studies liberal arts.

That's not what I stated, I specifically outlined possibilities as to how various persons, lacking in STEM skills, can contribute. Why would people like me act as slave labour for certain demographics and subcultures only to be severely dehumanized? What do you envision for society when only a small proportion of STEM human capital manage society as masses of hedonistic subcultures giggles like maniacs trashing the so-called stereotypical "nerd" archetype? Perhaps such STEM human capital, increasingly disproportionately Asian, should take it with a bucked-tooth smile?

 

[interestedwriter1710]

If your argument is that people in STEM tend to be fairly compensated ("In fact, I had already alluded to the possibility that the engineer or the doctor may be compensated more reasonably, whereas the caretaker may not. Read.") and that you're in STEM, why would you say you act as slave labor?

If you are interested in a legitimate discussion without malicious gaslighting, then I am willing to engage. What does it mean to be compensated? Indeed, one might realize that the USD, or any other "money", for that matter, does not possess genuine intrinsic value, the value comes from the ability for currencies to exchange human capital labour. Now, the questions come, if a disproportionately small percentage of society remains productive, such a minority will have to consistently allocate their time and labour to support other demographics and subcultures, while receiving very little in return whenever there are attempts to exchange human capital with such subcultures.

One issue remains, such a minority can better spend their time on each other, and may become increasingly isolated, but what about the so-called idiocratic society at large (a hypothetical)? Would it, for example, be slowly abandoned? Why should such talented STEM human capital occupy their entire lives with running idiocratic societies, when, from their perspective, they might have a more pleasant society, with more pleasant social interactions, if only like-minds interacted with like-minds? Yet, there remain ways, empathetic ways with which those lacking in STEM skills can attempt to contribute, not merely flaunt their privilege of not needing to lift a finger while enjoying the fruits of up to 14 hours of STEM cognitive labour per day.

It's probably your own actions, if the way you're speaking to everyone here is any indication.

I attempted to converse in a patient manner, but then, @Glass Eye, having lost his/her patience, decided to go for gaslighting, coupled with a wealth of victim-blaming, and tried to make it personal. If you insist that there is no such thing as anti-Asian racism, or that such concerns are overblown, then you are incredibly problematic and such is not an opinion, a primitive one, that I would ever, in my entire life, accept. You do not understand what it's like to grow up Asian in highly hostile cultures, it is NOT MY FAULT that there are entire subcultures with centuries of legacies of violence against Asians. As usual, it seems as if you expect me to take everything with a bucked-tooth smile, that to defend myself with violence, against violence, is problematic.

but whatever struggles you've faced in your own life aren't to be blamed on entire masses of the population.

I, did, not, do, that. There are more subtleties to the suggestions, not assertions, suggestions, than the strawmen that were set up.

It wasn't Gen Z or STEM majors or

I had attempted to provide genuine evidence, including by providing a link to Flynn's paper suggesting a declining mean average I.Q.. I did not make any personal arguments, it is @Glass Eyes who decided that it should become, suddenly, personnel.

 

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

Thank you, @Sensual for the thought but after reevaluating and rereading contributions, I don't know, I think it's alright. Because the thing I'm trying to bring up is the relationship people have with work and what constitutes fulfillment. Who deserves what. And I'm realizing, it's complicated and we can take any of many roads to address the questions "How do we fix it? Is there something to fix?" The topic of hustle culture, pressure to BE something and be productive is an economic question(how do we change the workplace environment? How do we bring value back to employees and the work they do? How do we pay them? Is it viable for some people to not work? Is our current system working for the needs of people in the modern age? If we change the economic system, what is the best option to alleviate these problems of people's survival and comfort? Etc.), a cultural question (why is someone's worth determined by what they produce? Should we change that? How? How do other cultures and countries deal with personal values, happiness, and the operation of society? Etc.), and generational, where we confront the bias older generations have against younger ones, the way context and conditions change over time.

I think there is this narrative currently where younger generations are considered entitled, lazy, soft, and dumb by older generations, which doesn't account for the ways all peoples of every generation have shown these qualities and their opposites. And I think it all fits under the same umbrella when we're challenging this narrative about workplace satisfaction and employment opportunities. Because we're being told to want something, pressured by certain members of our society to shut up about the flaws and the problems and just do the work to keep the machine running. So, it's a viable direction for the discussion.

 

[interestedwriter1710]

I receive very little in return from advanced mathematics, as it doesn't influence my day-to-day life.

This is highly insulting since the so-called "advanced mathematics" is the reason why you are able to engage on Blue Moon actively on a potentially day-to-day basis. From the architecture of transistor and logic gate configurations in the logic functions that they produce to the communications level in the necessary quantitative rigor as introduced by harmonic analysis. Every time you go to your doctor, if any imaging techniques were used, scattering transforms would have been utilized, being, mathematical concepts. Every time you enjoy your shower and flush your toilet, an amount of mathematics would've been introduced in not only the optimization of the household infrastructure but "global" infrastructure in energy distribution. The next time you start your car, the relatively modern engines that get you from your house to your place of work exist due to the optimization necessary pertaining to the inertia as exploited by pistons, and the geometric configuration that allows such a possibility in the first place.

Note that if there are ambiguities, a piston translates rectilinear motion into circular motion, a motion that a wheel takes. There are entire subfields of mathematics, of Euclidean geometry, that are entirely concerned with such problems. In the context of the piston, the piston travels upwards and downwards (rectilinear motion), and correspondingly, the wheel travels in a circular fashion. The subfield that is entirely concerned with such matters can be identified as the mathematics, or, the "science", of linkages.

Now, the fact you have even made that statement in the first place can indeed come across as very disrespectful even given all that you enjoy. Without being too personal, I hope you can understand the perspective I'm trying to convey. On the other hand, you and others may claim that, say, a poem as penned by a liberal arts major, or some project talking about climate change is at all as impressive as, say, the actual mathematical rigor as being introduced into the climate sciences, and I'm afraid that's very difficult for me to envision.

To consider such an idea of "intrinsic value" further, we can imagine, if there are different isolated subcultures and societies, as isolated on different identical planets across the galaxy. We might wonder, what are the traits of societies that might result in a higher quality of life? Would progress in medicine, and neuroimaging techniques improve the quality of life? And if so, what are the underlying skills that are responsible for medicine or neuroimaging techniques?

What about the climate change talk as opposed to more rigorous variations of the climate sciences? For the first scenario, we can imagine, no matter how exhaustive the talk, climate catastrophes will be unavoidable nonetheless. For the second scenario, if only there was a sufficient amount of qualified STEM human capital, many measures can be sought out so as to mitigate the effects of climate change. In fact, it is obviously already being carried out now, whether in the further optimization of vehicular engines in mitigating the emission of certain types of inorganic molecules, or in the transition towards increasingly robust and impressive nuclear fission and fusion technologies as an alternative means to providing a vast wealth of energy, the energy that you need to access BlueMoon.

I promise you, society as a whole can exist without individuals who think that because they do math all day they're better than someone who doesn't. I promise.

How could it be just simply mathematics all day? It is much more, it's STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Not just merely mathematics, but the scientific knowledge, to be implemented at the engineering stage. I do not feel that my positions are being fairly represented. And, of course, having escaped from implicitly rigid caste systems, they'll be able to provide good social interactions, and emotional labor, for each other.

And STEM are the quintessential elements to be utilized in the improvement of quality of life.

They (he? I don't wish to assume - feel free to correct me if you see this, Glass) did nothing of the sort and if you think that they did

He/she evidently did, the evidence lies in this thread. To deny such an explicit action is equivalent to denying that the Asian-American community is suffering an exceedingly high rate of targeted violence.

 

[interestedwriter1710]

An equal (if, honestly, not more substantial) contribution to my ability to do these things is made by entry-level workers that you argue shouldn't receive or be valued as much as the person who invented the thing

I have not argued this. Again, I remind you of the suggestion that emotional labour, as a form of human capital, can be highly valuable, as can a potential number of varying social currencies, since the human species is a social species. However, the suggestion I have brought is that certain subcultures may also lack, or are unwilling in providing the necessary emotional and social labour. I have specifically made this point in response to @Vekseid 's point.

"Some project talking about climate change" is likely taking the scientific factors into effect. To say otherwise would be facetious.

I apologize. To clarify, I have added an additional paragraph in my previous post, and it's given by:

"What about the climate change talk as opposed to more rigorous variations of the climate sciences? For the first scenario, we can imagine, no matter how exhaustive the talk, climate catastrophes will be unavoidable nonetheless. For the second scenario, if only there was a sufficient amount of qualified STEM human capital, many measures can be sought out so as to mitigate the effects of climate change. In fact, it is obviously already being carried out now, whether in the further optimization of vehicular engines in mitigating the emission of certain types of inorganic molecules, or in the transition towards increasingly robust and impressive nuclear fission and fusion technologies as an alternative means to providing a vast wealth of energy, the energy that you need to access BlueMoon."

For example, I can honestly say that I do not view Greta Thunberg as an honest or valuable human capital, Gen Z to Gen Z, that, she is merely someone who's going to be in the spotlight, potentially taking credit for the rigorous transformational successes of STEM human capital. Depending on the personality, one may be more likely or less likely to find educational value in statements such as "talk the talk but don't walk the walk".

Doesn't matter what it is you do all day, if I'm honest. You could be flipping burgers all day and I'd still find the way you speak to others offputting and representative of an undeserved superiority complex.

That's fine, I can appear highly unpleasant to certain persons, especially considering the jarring incompatibility that I offer to conventional progressive Gen Z/Millenial subcultures.

I will reemphasize, I do believe that it is entirely possible for those lacking in STEM skills to still contribute alternatively, in the form of emotional labour, for example. And, from my perspective, caretakers would be considered to be highly valuable. However, one cannot help but think of future possibilities when, objectively, it is expected and projected, that an increasingly smaller proportion of society, the STEM human capital, will manage an increasingly expanding society. And one cannot help but imagine, the possible sentiments, and political philosophies, that such a small minority may gravitate towards.

.

Although quite an interesting thread, it is clear that some of the discussions can become heated quite quickly. I'll leave it here, and others can have the last word - even slander me if they so desire.

 

[Lockdown]

You get upset when subsidies goes to someone who won't pick themselves up because they'll raise your taxes? I mean, no, it's people like me who wants to raises taxes, not necessarily people permanently on subsidies.
And you mention genuine happiness coming from work, which implies that there's a motivation to work beyond the money, right? You said it yourself earlier - you chose to keep on working, losing 300-400 dollars per week iirc. I'm going to assume that there's more like you out there who would choose not to be subsidized more than they have to.

It read it at some points were over 70% in the US. The economy did fine. Because the rich are just... Staggeringly rich. Even more so today

I mean yeah, corporate uses every tactic they can to screw over workers and pay them less. Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime; The value of work has increased, but the pay hasn't. They can easily pay you more, and they have in certain places due to the worker shortages. They just don't because they want all the money they can get. It's greed, not necessity, that motivates the lower payment for workers.
I think, for a lot of people, minimum wage ends up being all they can get. I don't think there'd be anything wrong in having the temporary positions become permanent, and to raise wages to match that expectation. Because that's the reality a lot of people are living.

Good on your father. He sounds like a good man, one that you can be proud of.

I agree with what you said on schooling!

Be on subsidies for a little bit. Take a few months, maybe a year, to cruise before getting back into the meat of things. It's a great chance to become healthier, get better everyday habits, perhaps learn some things about yourself and grow as a person. If you choose to spend the time wisely.

There are actually countries where you get paid to study. It's pretty awesome, imo. But that definitely isn't my definition of a job. I do think a job is something you do for money. Perhaps an overly simplistic definition, but yeah. So your hobby becomes a job once you start getting an income from it.
If you want to research the whole 'being paid to study' thing, it's something they do in Scandinavia. There's restrictions on it, such as having to pass some set of courses and the like, but yeah. Students are still stressed out like all heck, heh.

UBI is something a bit different though. It's an income you get no matter what. If you have a job or not, doesn't matter. It's not a very high rate, probably not enough to live off of, but it helps basically just make life "a little bit easier".

I do get upset. Imagine giving someone food because they say they’re hungry. But they NEVER eat it. So then what’s the point of giving them food? I’m missing out on vital calories and they will never eat the food to eventually get the opportunity to get their own food. The purpose as to why I’m giving the food, which is to help them in a desperate state, would be warped into me rewarding their life choice of doing nothing but less. I get nothing in return while they receive all the benefit. In nature, that’s called a parasitic relationship. I think sometimes people need help, and no matter the slow/fast pace they go at, I’m more than willing to lend a helping hand. But don’t expect a handout when you choose to give up and be complacent with your predicament.

I wouldn’t say a genuine happiness from working. I think me being responsible is more important than sitting and relaxing all day long and being rewarded $300-400 dollars more for it. I‘m not in a desperate state where I need unemployment, even if it was tempting, I knew that in my heart I should go with the right decision.

I think 70% is absolutely ludicrous. I put myself in their shoes and think “Would I be content with this?” and I say no. Even if they’re well off, that doesn’t give the federal government the right to leech off the rich so much. The price of taxes should be equally distributed depending on how much income you make. Meaning, the burden of taxes should feel the same for each class (low, middle, high) but obviously the percentage should be changed depending on annual income. It’s not for one class but all of the classes responsibility since they all live in the same nation.

Keywords on “Choose to spend your time wisely” since I guarantee you many people won’t. This can also be done when you have other responsibilities.

Yeah I figured, it sounded like a Scandinavia country. They have a lot of social programs and are more capitalistic than America. Weird combination but it works for their significantly smaller population compared to the large behemoth that America is. Some of those programs would absolutely fail (unfortunately).

UBI sounds like socialism except you don’t even do work. I’m afraid that UBI can be the gateway to Socialism which in turn would most likely lead to Communism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Also, do you realize that if everybody (Compared to strictly the unemployed which is what I assumed you meant who would be getting UBI) gets UBI then everything would pretty much be the same. Because if every person gets $1,000 dollars, than it’s practically worthless. It’s only when something is rare that it becomes valuable. BECAUSE everyone gets that extra money, EVERYTHING will simply go up in price since well...they know everyone can afford it with that extra bucks. Which means everything will balance out. Now...what’s that called again? Oh yes, inflation.
It’s the same argument against Andrew Yang’s policy when he promised to give everyone $1,000 dollars per month. Really nice policy on paper, but in practice fails and becomes utterly useless.

Maybe I’m being pessimistic and maybe we don’t see eye to eye. But this was a nice way of expressing our different point of views in a respectful manner Laa . I think we’re reaching the conclusion of where we come to an understanding to agree to disagree on certain topics while agreeing in others.

 

[Sync]

My final word in this post/thread: this topic was never going to end well.

There is, and was always going to be, a clear divide between cultures and opinions.

Seeking fulfilment in a job or career is always a desirable goal. Feeling useful and appreciated is a driving (if often unconscious) force of human activity.

But there is always the mitigating factor of contribution to society, and to the running of society. You may be finding fulfilment by spending your days painting landscape pictures, for example, but why should someone else then subsidise you just so you can feel good about what you do?

For me: there is no joy in taking part in a conversation like this when you get attacked and misrepresented just because someone disagrees with your position. So I'm not posting in it any more.

Have a good day everyone.