|
 Asante
Omnicyclion prophet
 
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,330
|
 Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance.   3
#25990296 - 05/13/19 04:30 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So no devils advocate stuff.
Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, if you work FULLTIME you should be able to take care of A FAMILY OF FOUR with what you earn.
Shouldnt it be like that? I mean, really?
Debate.
--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here
|
 XUL
OTD Janitor
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America 
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Asante] 1
#25990369 - 05/13/19 04:56 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Depends where you work.
Otherwise, I think it's best carried out with a small family farm while working part-time or full-time. The extra food from the farm is free. Wells are free water. Wood is free fuel. Just Pay for electricity and car.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,910
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 9 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: XUL] 4
#25990459 - 05/13/19 05:40 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Every poor person should just buy a farm.
--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
XUL
OTD Janitor
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: koods]
#25990463 - 05/13/19 05:41 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Save for one while they are young.
Live on it when they have kids.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,811
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 11 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Asante] 2
#25990469 - 05/13/19 05:44 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Asante said:
So no devils advocate stuff.
Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, if you work FULLTIME you should be able to take care of A FAMILY OF FOUR with what you earn.
Shouldnt it be like that? I mean, really?
Debate.
I agree.
However, part time workers and non workers should also be guaranteed a basic standard of life. In my view, “take care of” should mean housing, food, water, and healthcare for all people, full time workers at the very least.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 15 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Asante] 2
#25990486 - 05/13/19 05:50 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Asante said:
Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, if you work FULLTIME you should be able to take care of A FAMILY OF FOUR with what you earn.
Yes, a full-time job should pay enough to support a family of four. Any job. If a job exists that needs to be done, those that do the work need to have their basic needs meet.
I would take it even further, and say that - regardless of employment status - everyone deserves access to the basic necessities of life: shelter, nutrition, medicine, education, community - I would even put recreation in there, because poor people shouldn't have to feel bad for enjoying life.
Especially for children, because - even if you believe that a physically capable adult should be able to bootstrap themselves up - we shouldn't punish children for their parents mistakes/faults.
--------------------
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 8 hours
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Asante] 1
#25990502 - 05/13/19 06:00 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Asante said:
So no devils advocate stuff.
Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, if you work FULLTIME you should be able to take care of A FAMILY OF FOUR with what you earn.
Shouldnt it be like that? I mean, really?
Debate.
It was like that in the US during the 1950's-1980's. Every time I suggest we go back to the economic policies of that era I get criticized.
This is why Make America Great Again is so popular today, we want to go back to that time when this goal was highly obtainable for the majority of the working class.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 15 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: XUL] 1
#25990510 - 05/13/19 06:05 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
XUL said:
Depends where you work.
Otherwise, I think it's best carried out with a small family farm while working part-time or full-time. The extra food from the farm is free. Wells are free water. Wood is free fuel. Just Pay for electricity and car.
Can you better explain what places of work should be able to support a family of four, and what places of work shouldn't? Your current answer lacks substance.
Furthermore, does your recommendation for rural life take into account the fact that urbanization is continuing to increase at an exponential rate - both globally and within the USA? In 1790, only about one out of every twenty Americans (on average) lived in urban areas (cities), but this ratio had dramatically changed to one out of four by 1870, one out of two by 1920, two out of three in the 1960s, and four out of five in the 2000s. Is it still possible for every family to adopt a rural life in today's socio-economic reality? How about in fifty years?
Although I personally prefer rural wilderness living myself, I believe the reality is that our world will continue to urbanize; as a result, any solutions that assume access to arable land are not really a solution for the majority of the earths population - and therefore, not really a solution at all.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 15 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: qman] 1
#25990526 - 05/13/19 06:13 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
It was like that in the US during the 1950's-1980's. Every time I suggest we go back to the economic policies of that era I get criticized.
This is why Make America Great Again is so popular today, we want to go back to that time when this goal was highly obtainable for the majority of the working class.
What economic policies of the era in particular? I definitely liked the strong power of worker unions we had back then.
My understanding is that an increasingly global economy, and the resulting outsourcing of labour, is one of the main factors driving the loss single income family households. Automation in manufacturing and service is another factor. These are realities that did not exist in the time period you highlight - in fact, it would appear that globalization and automation began to take effect around the time that you consider to be the end of the era.
Do you believe that these modern developments are relevant to this economic decline? If so, would reverting back to economic policies from a time before they existed sufficiently respond to the reality today?
--------------------
|
Cjmckay
Registered: 04/09/18
Posts: 387
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#25990554 - 05/13/19 06:24 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
As far as the recreation, parks and libraries. Community gardens to get your farming fix. Pittsburgh does pretty good in that area. And they have a lot of free concerts and events.
--------------------
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 8 hours
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#25990588 - 05/13/19 06:38 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
qman said:
It was like that in the US during the 1950's-1980's. Every time I suggest we go back to the economic policies of that era I get criticized.
This is why Make America Great Again is so popular today, we want to go back to that time when this goal was highly obtainable for the majority of the working class.
What economic policies of the era in particular? I definitely liked the strong power of worker unions we had back then.
My understanding is that an increasingly global economy, and the resulting outsourcing of labour, is one of the main factors driving the loss single income family households. Automation in manufacturing and service is another factor. These are realities that did not exist in the time period you highlight - in fact, it would appear that globalization and automation began to take effect around the time that you consider to be the end of the era.
Do you believe that these modern developments are relevant to this economic decline? If so, would reverting back to economic policies from a time before they existed sufficiently respond to the reality today?
Yes, the lack of unions is a key component which started when manufacturing jobs were outsourced due to globalization.
Automation is becoming a bigger issue down road in my opinion, but there's some evidence that much of the technology gains benefit the very few at the top and not the general population.
The last issue is going to be immigration, the US didn't allow the flood of immigration during that time period like what happened after it.
I'd like to see the US practice economic nationalism like we did during that era, it make a great middle class standard of living.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 15 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: qman] 1
#25990941 - 05/13/19 08:59 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Globalization and automation, in my opinion, are inevitable results of technological advances that have occurred in the second half of the 20th century - and the 21st century appears to only be accelerating this trend. These are new variables introduced since the end of the era that MAGA hearkens to.
Perhaps the USA could enact immigration policy today that is similar to the immigration policy of the mid 20th century, but what policies of that era would recover the jobs lost to the global economy and to automation? Would reverting back to economic policies from a time before these conditions were present sufficiently respond to the reality today?
Would you expect those jobs to return, or do you instead envision a USA with closed borders and strong social welfare programs to make up for the lost jobs?
Can the economic nationalism and isolationism of the USA's past work in the reality of a world increasingly influenced by the realities of a global market and new technologies?
--------------------
|
XUL
OTD Janitor
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#25991112 - 05/13/19 10:24 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Just because s place is destined to become urbanized an does not mean rural living is a bad choice today. On the contrary, if everything will be turned into square blocks and high rise apartments, then the man with land can make some cash. Trailer parks baby.
Further, family farms promote family bonding through shared chores and maintenance. Not only is there lots of harvest, there are family and friends.
On way less than an acre, a person could grow an entire winter's worth of potatoes for a family. That isn't a bad habit to get into. Also killing a deer for the Winter. A winter of free meat.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,645
Last seen: 35 minutes, 21 seconds
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: XUL] 1
#25991220 - 05/13/19 11:58 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So...we should Increase immigration, as world population almost doubled while immigrant population rose by 24%. Then, we should go back to giving the workers the means of productions, and finally, maybe add a little more welfare for the problem of automation.
Is this what you mean, Qman/XUL?
I agree. Your party...not so much.
Oh, and also 70% tax on anyone making over 600k. 300k, if they're single, see link.
|
Brian Jones
Club 27
Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,426
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 3 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Kryptos]
#25991412 - 05/14/19 02:58 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If you don't get medical insurance through your job you can't necessarily take care of one person, yourself, working full time. If you make double the minimum wage you probably can't afford to purchase insurance through a state pool, which is about half the cost of getting it individually.
You probably couldn't support a family in the 70's and definitely not in the 80's, without employer provided insurance.
In my conclusion to a 1997 masters thesis on temp workers, I said that employer greed would eventually force socialized medicine in the U.S. Since then the number of temp agencies have increased over ten fold. Not only will socialized medicine happen in the 2020's, it's looking like a socialist solution to other economic areas will as well. American business has been shortsighted and they are the direct cause of the shift that will occur.
--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon
I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
mojotoke
Apprentice
Registered: 04/06/19
Posts: 238
Loc: Colombia 
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
 Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Brian Jones]
#25991447 - 05/14/19 03:54 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The lowest end full time incomes can be pretty horrific, and they rarely have the sole capacity to 'look after' a family of 4. Even with a good job, fluctuating drug prices and availability can do some real damage right up to the middle class and it's usually for business reasons, largely unforeseeable to society.
That being said; food production electricity & transport all might get cheaper, or not. As long as the standard does not heavily deteriorate there are plenty promising developments that could improve efficiency in these areas
When supporting a family gets easier low skill jobs should really become obselete or developed otherwise it's pointless
Edited by mojotoke (05/14/19 04:28 AM)
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 15 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: XUL] 1
#25991567 - 05/14/19 05:56 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
XUL said:
Just because s place is destined to become urbanized an does not mean rural living is a bad choice today. On the contrary, if everything will be turned into square blocks and high rise apartments, then the man with land can make some cash. Trailer parks baby.
Further, family farms promote family bonding through shared chores and maintenance. Not only is there lots of harvest, there are family and friends.
On way less than an acre, a person could grow an entire winter's worth of potatoes for a family. That isn't a bad habit to get into. Also killing a deer for the Winter. A winter of free meat.
First, I want to bring us back to the topic of this thread by asking you to clarify your initial statement, "Depends where you work." It's not only relevant to this thread, but also to your second statement which suggests a "small family farm" as the solution for those who work a full-time job but still cannot afford to support a four member family.
Second, I want to be clear that you don't have to sell me on the benefits of rural living; I call the Yukon home for a reason. But the reality is that urbanization is happening incredibly fast on a global scale and everything - everything! - predicts that this trend is not going to stop. The benefits of rural living don't matter if it is not a viable lifestyle for those who work the full-time jobs that don't pay enough to support a family. You may as well suggest hunter-gatherer living as a solution, because it's just as viable a lifestyle for the vast majority of the population today. Urbanization is the future, and the future is here.
Each new development in agricultural technology decreases the number of workers required to sustain agricultural production; the resulting decline in agricultural employment drives people to urban centres seeking opportunities. The looming integration of drones and autonomous vehicles is expected to soon drive another wave of urban migration in highly developed countries like the USA.
Industrialization, and the resulting concentration of wealth creation and demand for specialized labour, also plays a role in urbanization. When wealth is concentrated in smaller groups and more occupations revolve around products and services that support these centres of wealth creation, there is a natural pull towards those centres. Concentrated wealth creation attracts people, which increases wealth creation potential in a virtuous cycle that accelerates urban growth.
This is just a very brief description of only two of the driving factors behind urbanization, but I hope it clearly illuminates how the shift from rural to urban is an inevitable result of advancements in human technology and culture. Any solutions proposed to the question asked in the OP must take this into account, because without proper urban planning, cities become slums.
Okay, now that we've laid the groundwork let's examine your proposal more closely.
First, I will have to once again request for you to specify what types of full-time work you believe deserve enough compensation to support a family of four, and which ones you don't. My suspicion is that most of these poorly compensated jobs will exist in urban areas. Running a family farm is already a full-time job in and of itself, have you considered the logistics of someone also working a full-time job in the city and commuting back and forth between farm and city? How many hours in total do you expect they will have to work weekly?
Second, how feasible would it be for every family in need to afford an acre of farm land that is still within a reasonable commute time of the city where they work? Especially when we consider how much agricultural land is already owned by industrial factory farms, I would imagine that both price and distance would quickly make that small acre plot unaffordable to many of the families needing to supplement the wages of a full-time job. Have you put any thought towards this problem? Is it realistic to expect that every family in need will be able to find land that is both cheap and nearby?
Finally, I want to touch on one specific point you made: "a person could grow an entire winter's worth of potatoes for a family". Is this really the future you want XUL? Forced to work a full-time job in the city, than commute whatever distance to work on your farm - all to barely keep your family alive throughout winter on a diet of potatoes and venison? Is this really what you are suggesting? Because that sounds like some straight up feudal peasant shit.
--------------------
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 8 hours
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Kryptos]
#25991802 - 05/14/19 08:31 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
So...we should Increase immigration, as world population almost doubled while immigrant population rose by 24%. Then, we should go back to giving the workers the means of productions, and finally, maybe add a little more welfare for the problem of automation.
Is this what you mean, Qman/XUL?
I agree. Your party...not so much.
Oh, and also 70% tax on anyone making over 600k. 300k, if they're single, see link.
I have no idea the point you're attempting to make. 
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 8 hours
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#25991813 - 05/14/19 08:41 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Globalization and automation, in my opinion, are inevitable results of technological advances that have occurred in the second half of the 20th century - and the 21st century appears to only be accelerating this trend. These are new variables introduced since the end of the era that MAGA hearkens to.
Perhaps the USA could enact immigration policy today that is similar to the immigration policy of the mid 20th century, but what policies of that era would recover the jobs lost to the global economy and to automation? Would reverting back to economic policies from a time before these conditions were present sufficiently respond to the reality today?
Would you expect those jobs to return, or do you instead envision a USA with closed borders and strong social welfare programs to make up for the lost jobs?
Can the economic nationalism and isolationism of the USA's past work in the reality of a world increasingly influenced by the realities of a global market and new technologies?
Economic nationalism doesn't have to involve isolationism, did the US isolate itself economically in the 1950's-80's? Absolutely not.
It involves the trade of goods and services today, the US doesn't practice free trade, it's manipulated trade by controlling currencies. I just want a BALANCE of trade and nothing more, that's what true free markets are all about.
I would also suggest more socialist policies to make up for the existing wealth inequality for US citizens.
All of these factors would help us to get back to that era in my opinion.
|
XUL
OTD Janitor
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#25991990 - 05/14/19 10:32 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I live around a lot of hybrid worker/farmers. Some work full time and farm. Some work part-time and farm.
Mixing the farm into it really helps in my experience.
Some people don't even see family farming as a job, but God's work toiling in the soil making free food. The kids can help, the wife, friends, and extended family. Or you can go solo.
The true benefits as I see it are free water (well), heat (wood), sewage (tank/outhouse), and food (farm/livestock).
That leaves one bill -- maybe two. Electric and garbage (most can be recycled for money or burnt).
Throw up some solar panels and you are nearly free from Uncle Sam.
The ultimate goal to only pay land taxes.
Depending on the acreage you bought, one can also timber land and sell. Or sawmill.
And it grows back every time!
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
|
Enlil 
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Asante]
#25992125 - 05/14/19 11:59 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Why four? A full time job should take care of one person... the one working. Anything beyond that is for people who bring more value.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,811
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 11 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 5
#25992471 - 05/14/19 02:53 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The true goal of a just society
--------------------
|
YangSupporter
Stranger
Registered: 04/28/19
Posts: 1,696
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: The Ecstatic] 1
#25992477 - 05/14/19 02:57 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Ecstatic said:
The true goal of a just society
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 15 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: XUL] 3
#25992614 - 05/14/19 03:59 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
XUL said:
I live around a lot of hybrid worker/farmers. Some work full time and farm. Some work part-time and farm.
Mixing the farm into it really helps in my experience.
Some people don't even see family farming as a job, but God's work toiling in the soil making free food. The kids can help, the wife, friends, and extended family. Or you can go solo.
The true benefits as I see it are free water (well), heat (wood), sewage (tank/outhouse), and food (farm/livestock).
That leaves one bill -- maybe two. Electric and garbage (most can be recycled for money or burnt).
Throw up some solar panels and you are nearly free from Uncle Sam.
The ultimate goal to only pay land taxes.
Depending on the acreage you bought, one can also timber land and sell. Or sawmill.
And it grows back every time!
XUL, I specifically wrote "I want to be clear that you don't have to sell me on the benefits of rural living; I call the Yukon home for a reason."
This isn't a debate about the benefits of rural living, it's a debate about the viability of rural living. So please, can you drop the Ben Shapiro tactics and actually answer my questions this time?
First, I will have to once again request for you to specify what types of full-time work you believe deserve enough compensation to support a family of four, and which ones you don't. My suspicion is that most of these poorly compensated jobs will exist in urban areas. Running a family farm is already a full-time job in and of itself, have you considered the logistics of someone also working a full-time job in the city and commuting back and forth between farm and city? How many hours in total do you expect they will have to work weekly?
Second, how feasible would it be for every family in need to afford an acre of farm land that is still within a reasonable commute time of the city where they work? Especially when we consider how much agricultural land is already owned by industrial factory farms, I would imagine that both price and distance would quickly make that small acre plot unaffordable to many of the families needing to supplement the wages of a full-time job. Have you put any thought towards this problem? Is it realistic to expect that every family in need will be able to find land that is both cheap and nearby?
Finally, I want to touch on one specific point you made: "a person could grow an entire winter's worth of potatoes for a family". Is this really the future you want XUL? Forced to work a full-time job in the city, than commute whatever distance to work on your farm - all to barely keep your family alive throughout winter on a diet of potatoes and venison? Is this really what you are suggesting? Because that sounds like some straight up feudal peasant shit.
--------------------
|
XUL
OTD Janitor
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#25992800 - 05/14/19 05:23 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Is this really the future you want XUL?
winter on a diet of potatoes and venison? Is this really what you are suggesting?
I mentioned potatoes because they are easy to grow. But no, it's not just deer and potatoes. If you are from a rural community, this should go without saying.
Potatoes, onions, squash, beans, corn, cucumbers and everything else under the sun.
Then you have chickens and free eggs. Perhaps a couple goats for milk. And pigs for extra meat.
You can slop pigs and chickens eat everything.
Canning, freezing, and root cellar.
I don't know what to tell you man.
Maybe you should steer clear of farming and livestock if it seems too difficult for you?
Is this what I want?
It's my dream and I already have it. I'm all aces baby.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
Edited by XUL (05/14/19 05:28 PM)
|
YangSupporter
Stranger
Registered: 04/28/19
Posts: 1,696
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: XUL] 1
#25992806 - 05/14/19 05:26 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
XUL said:
Quote:
Is this really the future you want XUL?
winter on a diet of potatoes and venison? Is this really what you are suggesting?
I mentioned potatoes because they are easy to grow. But no, it's not just deer and potatoes. If you are from a rural community, this should go without saying.
Potatoes, onions, squash, beans, corn, cucumbers and everything else under the sun.
Then you have chickens and free eggs. Perhaps a couple goats for milk. And pigs for extra meat.
You can slop pigs and chickens eat everything.
Canning, freezing, and root cellar.
I don't know what to tell you man.
Maybe you should steer clear of farming and livestock if it seems to difficult for you?
Is this what I want?
It's my dream and I already have it. I'm all aces baby.
http://www.nkeconwatch.com/nk-uploads/2011-harvest-poster-1.jpg
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,910
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 9 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: YangSupporter]
#25992810 - 05/14/19 05:28 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It’s absolutely absurd to think a family can sustain itself on one acre of land
I’m not looking for examples of families that managed to do it because unless this is a surefire plan with almost no chance of failure then you need to figure out what kind of safety net programs are going to protect those who fail.
--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (05/14/19 05:34 PM)
|
XUL
OTD Janitor
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: koods]
#25992814 - 05/14/19 05:30 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I never said that.
But the guy I buy livestock from has 3 acres.
He does really well with it.
I'm getting a milking goat from him tomorrow.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
Edited by XUL (05/14/19 05:31 PM)
|
YangSupporter
Stranger
Registered: 04/28/19
Posts: 1,696
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: koods] 3
#25992815 - 05/14/19 05:30 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
It’s absolutely absurd to think a family can sustain itself on one acre of land
Meh conservatives think everything could be solved by moving back to the 1800s
|
XUL
OTD Janitor
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: YangSupporter]
#25992819 - 05/14/19 05:32 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Meanwhile, in reality, my entire area is made up of family farmers and the like.
How do you explain that?
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
Edited by XUL (05/14/19 05:32 PM)
|
YangSupporter
Stranger
Registered: 04/28/19
Posts: 1,696
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: XUL]
#25992822 - 05/14/19 05:34 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
XUL said:
Meanwhile, in reality, my entire area is made up of family farmers and the like.
How do you explain that?
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,910
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 9 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: XUL] 1
#25992838 - 05/14/19 05:40 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
XUL said:
Meanwhile, in reality, my entire area is made up of family farmers and the like.
How do you explain that?
Bailouts
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/28/politics/farmer-bailout-trump/index.html
--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
YangSupporter
Stranger
Registered: 04/28/19
Posts: 1,696
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: koods]
#25992840 - 05/14/19 05:42 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
XUL said:
Meanwhile, in reality, my entire area is made up of family farmers and the like.
How do you explain that?
Bailouts
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/28/politics/farmer-bailout-trump/index.html
Funny how much welfare farmers suck up
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,910
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 9 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: YangSupporter] 1
#25992842 - 05/14/19 05:43 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Farming is by far the most subsidized industry in the county
--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,910
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 9 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: koods]
#25992856 - 05/14/19 05:52 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The true benefits as I see it are free water (well), heat (wood), sewage (tank/outhouse), and food (farm/livestock).
That leaves one bill -- maybe two. Electric and garbage (most can be recycled for money or burnt).
Wells are not guaranteed and you don’t need to live on a farm to have a well. I live in the inner suburbs and have a well and septic tank.
If you plan on heating using wood you’re gonna need a lot of land. You should study what happened in England during the dark ages. The entire country was deforested when the population needed the wood for heating and for reducing metal ores to metal.
--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
mojotoke
Apprentice
Registered: 04/06/19
Posts: 238
Loc: Colombia
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: koods]
#25992867 - 05/14/19 05:58 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
YangSupporter said:
Meh conservatives think everything could be solved by moving back to the 1800s
Big farms are clearly aids but some livestock (worms included) and an aquaponics setup sounds pretty futuristic to me
The country got decimated along with all big animals, at least now the world is after lithium which seems less damaging
|
XUL
OTD Janitor
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: koods]
#25992876 - 05/14/19 06:04 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Family farms on 3 acres aren't subsidized.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,910
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 9 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: XUL]
#25992883 - 05/14/19 06:08 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Bullshit. There are farm tax credits and exemptions.
--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
mojotoke
Apprentice
Registered: 04/06/19
Posts: 238
Loc: Colombia
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
 Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: koods]
#25992917 - 05/14/19 06:24 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Too many people pay big farms regardless, sourcing food other ways takes that back, and can even profit you
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,910
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 9 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: mojotoke]
#25992937 - 05/14/19 06:32 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Small farms are inefficient. This country would starve if all our farming was done a couple acres at a time.
--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 15 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: XUL] 2
#25992956 - 05/14/19 06:39 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
XUL said:
Quote:
Is this really the future you want XUL?
winter on a diet of potatoes and venison? Is this really what you are suggesting?
I mentioned potatoes because they are easy to grow. But no, it's not just deer and potatoes. If you are from a rural community, this should go without saying.
Potatoes, onions, squash, beans, corn, cucumbers and everything else under the sun.
Then you have chickens and free eggs. Perhaps a couple goats for milk. And pigs for extra meat.
You can slop pigs and chickens eat everything.
Canning, freezing, and root cellar.
I don't know what to tell you man.
Maybe you should steer clear of farming and livestock if it seems too difficult for you?
Is this what I want?
It's my dream and I already have it. I'm all aces baby.
Are these questions too scary for you? I'm well aware of what can be achieved living in a rural space, but you don't seem to be aware that rural farming isn't a viable option for everyone.
First, I will have to once again request for you to specify what types of full-time work you believe deserve enough compensation to support a family of four, and which ones you don't. My suspicion is that most of these poorly compensated jobs will exist in urban areas. Running a family farm is already a full-time job in and of itself, have you considered the logistics of someone also working a full-time job in the city and commuting back and forth between farm and city? How many hours in total do you expect they will have to work weekly?
Second, how feasible would it be for every family in need to afford an acre of farm land that is still within a reasonable commute time of the city where they work? Especially when we consider how much agricultural land is already owned by industrial factory farms, I would imagine that both price and distance would quickly make that small acre plot unaffordable to many of the families needing to supplement the wages of a full-time job. Have you put any thought towards this problem? Is it realistic to expect that every family in need will be able to find land that is both cheap and nearby?
--------------------
|
mojotoke
Apprentice
Registered: 04/06/19
Posts: 238
Loc: Colombia
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: koods]
#25992976 - 05/14/19 06:46 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
2 acres is nothing I agree, most of peoples food would come from bigger farms just not 1,500 acres of stressed land there many reasons thats a bad idea
As so city living people are more organised, so aquaponics is really useful too
Edited by mojotoke (05/14/19 07:00 PM)
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,811
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 11 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: koods] 2
#25992984 - 05/14/19 06:50 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Farming is by far the most subsidized industry in the county
Farming is also one of the most monopolized industries in the country. The billions of dollars from the farm bill go to Tyson Foods and the like, not family farms.
--------------------
|
XUL
OTD Janitor
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: The Ecstatic]
#25993006 - 05/14/19 07:03 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I'm talking about family farming and canning or freezing.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
|
XUL
OTD Janitor
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#25993014 - 05/14/19 07:05 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If you read what I typed earlier, you would see that I said a person should save up for their land and build a homestead before having a family.
This only makes sense.
Wear a condom and plan your life.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 15 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: XUL] 2
#25993125 - 05/14/19 07:56 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So you are unwilling to answer the questions directly? I am going to say it is because you don't have any answers for them.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#25993157 - 05/14/19 08:16 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If one income can take care of a family of four, then two incomes could take care of a family of ten. Why would we want that as a baseline?
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Morel Guy
Stranger
Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 1
#25993174 - 05/14/19 08:24 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
There is not enough land nor socail interest in everyone having a small farm. Farming right now is not making money. Milk prices are low, farmers are in debt. The trade war is hurting farmers.
People spend too much money on items not really needed. Items that cost too much for poor quality. A company spends more on catchy advertising than the do having a worthy product.
All this competing among not only companies but also consumers has a lot of side effects. People over spend on meaningless crap. Most people are in debt.
Back in the day working class was enough. I think people are starting to see the bs in the American way of life. It used to be enough graduating high school. Now a college degree is not even worth much.
--------------------
"in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur"
In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,173
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 2
#25993487 - 05/14/19 11:26 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
so that people can afford to raise their friggin kids instead of working constantly. not all of us are antinatalists
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 2
#25993693 - 05/15/19 02:04 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
If one income can take care of a family of four, then two incomes could take care of a family of ten. Why would we want that as a baseline?
Because some of us think the United States should do better than #21 in the world for median wealth.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Morel Guy
Stranger
Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#25993911 - 05/15/19 07:24 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Inflation?
It's gotten to the point that a dollar can buy almost nothing. Not even a newspaper or cup of coffee. Coffee is actually very expensive. Suppose a drop of gas in the car could be purchased for a buck. It'd go about a mile, or less.
Society is too restrictive. Financially and legally there just isn't much wiggle room. The usually answer we get in response is they make it even more restrictive.
What was a DUI in the 1940s? Or 50s or 30s? Pretty much had to crash the car. America's become hysterical.
--------------------
"in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur"
In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: ballsalsa] 2
#25993931 - 05/15/19 07:49 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
so that people can afford to raise their friggin kids instead of working constantly. not all of us are antinatalists
I think you're missing the point. We're talking about baselines. We're not talking about average. If the baseline expectation is that one income can take care of a family of four, then the average income can take care of a family of 10-12 maybe. Perhaps more.
If we're going to have a frank discussion about basic income/minimum wage, we need to recognize that there will be low wages, high wages, and everything in between. A person should be able to live on minimum wage full time, but he shouldn't be able to afford a family at that point. When he gets a partner who is working or increases income, then he can start a family.
Economics is the system to manage scarcity. By setting the baseline so high, you're creating an average that is unsustainable by a long shot. Under this standard, a two-income family making average wages would be able to easily support a family of 16 or so. One doesn't have to be an "antinatalist" to see that this is a recipe for disaster.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Cjmckay
Registered: 04/09/18
Posts: 387
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil]
#25993976 - 05/15/19 08:30 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Rural living is ok for a minute. Until you realize your only cultural hub is a Walmart. Or a dollar general if you're really on the fringes.
--------------------
|
mojotoke
Apprentice
Registered: 04/06/19
Posts: 238
Loc: Colombia
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil]
#25994084 - 05/15/19 09:45 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Self sustainability seems the best starting point as a baseline, extending that to 4 people pretty much lowers the value of human life while benefitting mass production
|
mojotoke
Apprentice
Registered: 04/06/19
Posts: 238
Loc: Colombia
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Cjmckay]
#25994103 - 05/15/19 09:59 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Soybean hulls were £15 for 100lbs the other day I could have myself a family of 12
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#25994104 - 05/15/19 10:00 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Enlil said:
If one income can take care of a family of four, then two incomes could take care of a family of ten. Why would we want that as a baseline?
Because some of us think the United States should do better than #21 in the world for median wealth.
Who's talking about median wealth? This thread is not about the median income supporting a family of four. It's about the bottom income from full time employment supporting a family of four.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil]
#25994312 - 05/15/19 12:48 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
By setting the baseline so high, you're creating an average that is unsustainable by a long shot. Under this standard, a two-income family making average wages would be able to easily support a family of 16 or so. One doesn't have to be an "antinatalist" to see that this is a recipe for disaster.
What evidence do you have it's unsustainable? Giving people more money could actually help boost the economy, and cities that have higher minimum wages have proven to do better.
Quote:
Enlil said:
Who's talking about median wealth? This thread is not about the median income supporting a family of four. It's about the bottom income from full time employment supporting a family of four.
If the bottom income goes up, so do median incomes, as higher skilled workers wouldn't make the same wages as low skilled workers.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#25994327 - 05/15/19 01:01 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It's not about money. It's about resources. If the lowest paid full-time worker earns enough to provide adequate resources to support himself and three others, that means that each working person will be encouraged to have at least three children. This will triple population in a generation.
That's assuming everyone is at the bottom, which won't be true. Instead, the average will be encouraged to have 5-6 children each.
You need evidence that a tripling or more of population each generation is unsustainable?
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,173
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 4
#25994341 - 05/15/19 01:07 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
incentives don't really work that way, at least not regarding birthrates. If they did, we would see a glut of wealthy people with 7 or 8 kids around here. I haven't noticed that, have you?
Also, AFAIK humans get more and more effective at extracting and efficiently using resources over time. Do you have evidence to suggest that there will be a paradigm shift in that regard? Alternatively, I could be mistaken about that premise. I always appreciate insight into things I'm mistaken about.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
Edited by ballsalsa (05/15/19 01:10 PM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 4
#25994343 - 05/15/19 01:09 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
If the lowest paid full-time worker earns enough to provide adequate resources to support himself and three others, that means that each working person will be encouraged to have at least children. This will triple population in a generation.
That's assuming everyone is at the bottom, which won't be true. Instead, the average will be encouraged to have 5-6 children each.
You need evidence that a tripling or more of population each generation is unsustainable?
Income is inversely proportional to child birth rate.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#25994348 - 05/15/19 01:13 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
incentives don't really work that way, at least not regarding birthrates. If they did, we would see a glut of wealthy people with 7 or 8 kids around here. I haven't noticed that, have you?
I don't see a glut of wealthy people at all, and incentives DO work that way for undereducated people. These are the same people who would be at the baseline we're discussing. Falcon makes this point wonderfully with his link. Make it so that one can support 4, then 2 can support 10. That's how the poorest among us will live. You believe that they will suddenly stop procreating?
As to your point about resources, I think you're mistaking efficiency at theft with overall efficiency at finding/using resources. In America, we stay ahead of the curve, sure. Most of the planet doesn't. That's because most of the planet are the ones being robbed by nations like America. How do you plan to pull this off in Africa when we can't even get them electricity or running water yet?
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Patlal
You ask too many questions
Registered: 10/09/10
Posts: 44,836
Loc: Ottawa 
Last seen: 13 hours, 11 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Asante]
#25994962 - 05/15/19 07:31 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Asante said:
So no devils advocate stuff.
Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, if you work FULLTIME you should be able to take care of A FAMILY OF FOUR with what you earn.
Shouldnt it be like that? I mean, really?
Debate.
No.
Four kids is too much for one salary. Two salaries, sure.
I'd rather have 2 kids living a good life with opportunities at hobbies and sports and whatnot than four kids and being able to only feed them.
--------------------
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,173
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Patlal]
#25995134 - 05/15/19 08:55 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
family of four generally refers to two parents and two children. just throwin that out there.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: ballsalsa]
#25995153 - 05/15/19 09:05 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
But this thread is about a family of four with only one income.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,173
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil]
#25995165 - 05/15/19 09:12 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I should have made that more clear. I was saying that wealthy people should have the most children, by your reasoning. I see that you added the implication that the reason for this disparity is a corresponding disparity in education, so I guess you must have understood what I was getting at even though you didn't address it directly. Do you have evidence to support your hypothesis that raising people out of poverty will increase the birth rate? Maybe you could quote from Fal's link that you mentioned?
I'm not sure i understand your resource rebuttal though. Are you saying that it is physically impossible to develop Africa, as an example, or that there isn't the will to do so?
Edit: Quote:
Enlil said:
But this thread is about a family of four with only one income.
so? (A family of four with only one income will still almost certainly contain less than four children)
Edited by ballsalsa (05/15/19 10:43 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: ballsalsa]
#25995170 - 05/15/19 09:18 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I've seen nothing to indicate that it is even remotely possible to raise the standard of living of the current population of the Earth to that of America's middle class. The idea that we simply make it so by stating lofty ideals is absurd. Talking about what "should" be is meaningless unless there is some indication that it's even possible.
With limited resources and unlimited demand, there has to be a means of allocation. Unless you're going to prove that scarcity is a myth, thereby making economies obsolete, we need a system that determines where and how resources are used. Yeah, we'd all love a world where we work one hour a week and all of our needs are met. That isn't this world, though.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,173
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 1
#25995222 - 05/15/19 09:59 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I certainly wouldn't argue that scarcity is a myth. I think scarcity is exaggerated and that our methods of allocation could use some revising though. This may be the best system that we've implemented thus far but i refuse to believe that we are incapable as a species of doing better. Maybe asante's goal is unattainable at this time, maybe not. Either way, I don't see a reason to dismiss it as a possibility out of hand. Maybe an incremental approach could get us there. Like domino theory.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Brian Jones
Club 27
Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,426
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 3 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: ballsalsa] 2
#25995440 - 05/16/19 02:19 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I realize people are debating here on what should be, but lets put that in the perspective of empirical reality. There is a strong negative relationship between income and number of children in the U.S. and other economically advanced countries. The people who can least afford them have the most children. With only one exception in the 10 income classes in this bar chart for the U.S., it shows a nearly perfect negative relationship.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon
I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: ballsalsa] 3
#25995742 - 05/16/19 07:48 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
I think scarcity is exaggerated
With due respect, have you ever taken a real look at the scale of the problem? Have you taken a look at the proportion of land area on the planet that is virtual wasteland? Have you actually looked at the percentage of population that live in conditions worse than our homeless? I'm not asking these as a rhetoric tool. I'm sincerely asking how deeply you've looked into the issue.
I really want to believe that it's mostly allocation, but I can't. The numbers don't support that. For every American getting three squares plus snacks a day, there are a dozen out there getting one partial meal every two days on average. For every American with a shitty HMO, there are seven people with no access to even basic healthcare within 150 miles.
The dream of providing the world with food, shelter, healthcare, etc. is beautiful...but it's still just a dream. I want to be optimistic, but optimism to the point of reality denial can prevent us from finding a real solution because we're looking for that pie in the sky which isn't there.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
vault123
SangSpell
Registered: 01/31/15
Posts: 1,229
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#25995776 - 05/16/19 08:24 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
any solutions that assume access to arable land are not really a solution for the majority of the earths population - and therefore, not really a solution at all.
Now hold it right there Mr. There may be solutions you haven't considered...
--------------------
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Judge Aaron Satie
|
vault123
SangSpell
Registered: 01/31/15
Posts: 1,229
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#25995849 - 05/16/19 09:35 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Judge Aaron Satie
|
XUL
OTD Janitor
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: vault123]
#25995951 - 05/16/19 10:53 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
He doesn't believe in family farming.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 15 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: vault123]
#25996068 - 05/16/19 12:31 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
vault123 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
any solutions that assume access to arable land are not really a solution for the majority of the earths population - and therefore, not really a solution at all.
Now hold it right there Mr. There may be solutions you haven't considered...
That looks more like a vertical forest concept, which is not intended for producing food but rather mitigating the negative effects of urban environments. That being said, I definitely believe that urban agriculture is definitely a viable option for improved food security as the human population living in urban centres continues to grow.
I believe XUL was referring to low-density rural farming, which is not going to be as viable an option going into the future given current trends. If I am wrong XUL, correct me on this, but you haven't really provided much explanation for your concept beyond explaining the benefits of rural family farms so far so I hope you'll understand if I have the wrong idea.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 15 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: vault123]
#25996104 - 05/16/19 12:56 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
vault123 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Industrialization, and the resulting concentration of wealth creation and demand for specialized labour, also plays a role in urbanization. When wealth is concentrated in smaller groups and more occupations revolve around products and services that support these centres of wealth creation, there is a natural pull towards those centres. Concentrated wealth creation attracts people, which increases wealth creation potential in a virtuous cycle that accelerates urban growth.
This is just a very brief description of only two of the driving factors behind urbanization, but I hope it clearly illuminates how the shift from rural to urban is an inevitable result of advancements in human technology and culture.
This study seems to think it's because of: 
If this study is correct then we can expect future urbanization trends to be fueled by the coming population bomb that is currently growing in Africa.
[...]
So when discussing urbanization having a well rounded picture of the underlying root causes is a good starting point.
Yes, urbanization has multiple factors affecting it, and I only outlined two of them. I state as much in the passage of mine that you quote.
I want to point out that your quoted study specifically refers to urbanization in the developing world. I also believe that the paragraph of mine immediately proceeding the passage that you quoted discusses this cause in some detail too. Although you are correct that the developing world (particularly Africa) is where the greatest change in population (from urban to rural) will occur in the future, the developed world is still experiencing urbanization (albeit at a reduced rate). The passage of mine that you quote is explaining one of the driving factors behind continued urbanization in a more developed country.
As you say, a well rounded picture is a good starting point for the discussion.
--------------------
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,330
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#25996249 - 05/16/19 02:59 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Africa remains the cradle of humanity.
--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,173
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 2
#25996851 - 05/16/19 08:42 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
I think scarcity is exaggerated
With due respect, have you ever taken a real look at the scale of the problem? Have you taken a look at the proportion of land area on the planet that is virtual wasteland? Have you actually looked at the percentage of population that live in conditions worse than our homeless? I'm not asking these as a rhetoric tool. I'm sincerely asking how deeply you've looked into the issue.
Yes to all of the above, though I'm always happy to be pointed to a pile of new info.
regarding desertification, I believe that there are agricultural/pastoral techniques that are capable of mitigating and even reversing that trend. I won't post videos, but Alan Savory and P.A. Yeomans would be good names to start a google search for anyone interested.
Quote:
I really want to believe that it's mostly allocation, but I can't. The numbers don't support that. For every American getting three squares plus snacks a day, there are a dozen out there getting one partial meal every two days on average. For every American with a shitty HMO, there are seven people with no access to even basic healthcare within 150 miles.
The dream of providing the world with food, shelter, healthcare, etc. is beautiful...but it's still just a dream. I want to be optimistic, but optimism to the point of reality denial can prevent us from finding a real solution because we're looking for that pie in the sky which isn't there.
I'm saying that even if it isn't mostly an allocation issue, we can set a goal then address allocation/extraction/efficiency and see where that takes us. At least then, if there is some insurmountable obstacle, we can see it clearly.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Morel Guy
Stranger
Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: ballsalsa]
#25998476 - 05/17/19 06:04 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
People breed too much. That is what causes inflation.
A single person can survive on a lot less. People had huge families so they could basically use the kids as workers. More workers to support a family that needed more and more. Then that system kinda broke down and changed.
Fact, crime has fallen in proportion with abortion being legal.
As long as we are doing the nations thing, there will be a push for expansion. Growth of population and resources. Things inflate very quickly. Slow to the human eye, but quickly in terms of being equal with other growth and progress.
So as long as individuals feel stress and stress the rest of the system, bad things are a result. It's always been that way but not as toxic. It devalues human life and human life for most didn't have much to start.
The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
--------------------
"in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur"
In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: ballsalsa]
#25998563 - 05/17/19 06:55 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I think reducing population is where we start. Converting humans to corpses is something we're really good at.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Morel Guy
Stranger
Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil]
#25998645 - 05/17/19 07:44 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Cruel and effective.
The world is a tinder box. If it wasn't for such small shit that turns into big issues. The karma bill gets heavy.
Identity wars essentially.
--------------------
"in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur"
In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,173
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 1
#25998719 - 05/17/19 08:30 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
I think reducing population is where we start. Converting humans to corpses is something we're really good at.
We already know that birth rates drop as standard of living rises. Plenty of places are below replacement rate already. Barring the absolute need to start grinding people into soylent green, what rational argument could there be for attacking the population issue from the "making corpses" angle?
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Morel Guy
Stranger
Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: ballsalsa]
#25998732 - 05/17/19 08:36 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
World wide. It always happens.
Again aware enil is to respond.
--------------------
"in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur"
In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#26000191 - 05/18/19 04:27 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
Quote:
Enlil said:
I think reducing population is where we start. Converting humans to corpses is something we're really good at.
We already know that birth rates drop as standard of living rises. Plenty of places are below replacement rate already. Barring the absolute need to start grinding people into soylent green, what rational argument could there be for attacking the population issue from the "making corpses" angle?
Population reduction will help with an allocation scheme that raises standard of living. The alternative is to lower some people's standard to increase others. There's no net gain that way.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,811
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 11 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 1
#26000408 - 05/18/19 06:50 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
How would one measure a quality of life decrease if we took $100 billion from Jeff Bezos and left him with a mere $56 billion.
Because we could measure the fuck out of the increases that reallocated $100 billion would create. For example, we could solve world hunger for over 3 years with that money. But then Bezos would have a less glowing Forbes article the next year. So it’s a wash.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: The Ecstatic] 1
#26000452 - 05/18/19 07:25 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You're talking about money. I'm talking about natural resources. Taking money from billionaires won't create more arable land.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,811
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 11 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 3
#26000458 - 05/18/19 07:28 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What’s creating arable land got to do with it? The world already produces enough food to end world hunger. It’s an allocation problem.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: The Ecstatic]
#26000461 - 05/18/19 07:31 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Source?
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,811
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 11 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 2
#26000497 - 05/18/19 07:53 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: The Ecstatic]
#26000513 - 05/18/19 08:01 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The study your source cited doesn't support your claim nor the claim of the article. Got anything else?
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,811
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 11 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: Enlil] 1
#26000559 - 05/18/19 08:28 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,811
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 11 minutes, 59 seconds
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: The Ecstatic] 3
#26000560 - 05/18/19 08:28 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Explore the facts to your heart’s content.
If I wanted a “oh shit maybe I’m wrong” semantics debate I’d go dig up zappa.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Please debate this political statement in accordance to your true stance. [Re: The Ecstatic]
#26000618 - 05/18/19 09:18 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
That's a google search. Where's your quotes from the study?
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
silversoul7
monoamine
1 2 all )
1stimer
afoaf
Phred
Autonomous
luvdemshrooms