Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Surfer Dude living large (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Surfer Dude living large
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anybody seen this? FOX News (at least that's where I think it started) profiled 28-year-old San Diego resident Jason Greenslate last August and then followed up with him more recently.
quote:
Though he’s trained as a recording engineer, Greenslate prefers to sing explicitly about what little desire he has to hold down a job, and has “f**k no” guilt toward his taxpayer-funded lifestyle. He also lives rent-free, occupying the homes of family and friends while occasionally shacking up with girlfriends – a lifestyle that he said is “wonderful, man.”

“Wake up, go down to the beach, hang out with my friends, hit on some chicks, start drinking.”

Fox News later followed Greenslate to the grocery store to see what items hey buys – using the $200 monthly handout he receives from enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly “food stamps”). Roberts watched as the freeloader picked out gourmet sushi and lobster, “all paid for by our wonderful tax dollars,” according to a smug Greenslate.

One blogger noted, "When asked what he has to say to hardworking taxpayers who fund his lifestyle, this clown looked into the camera without batting an eye and said: “Thanks!”"

Nice.

He did have a response to the "haters":
quote:
“This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing,” Greenslate said in front of the news cameras. “It’s free food; it’s awesome.”

<snip>

Greenslate said he's not lazy, putting more than 40 hours per week into his band, Ratt Life, which has an album coming out in six weeks. He said Fox found him through a friend. He cooperated with three days of the network's filming in hopes his band could win some publicity. It won him some local media attention, he said, but also an interview with a local prosecutor who wondered if Greenslate had broken any laws (he apparently hasn't).

"I do work," Greenslate said. "I'm just not making any money. I'm setting up a career for myself."

<snip>

In a follow-up email, Greenslate lamented that Fox had portrayed him as a beach bum. "I don't feel like a bum," he said. "I pull hot chicks, drive nice cars, dress nice and wear the most baddest jewelry in the world."

Yeah, good work if you can get it I guess.

So that's the system he's in, can we really blame the guy for living within it? No, not really. He's been told this is good, he's paid enough by the government to do it to have a pretty tasty life. Why shouldn't he do this?

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If that's all that he's content to achieve in life, I don't see any reason that we should force him to displace people that actually want to achieve more (and drag down whoever ends up trying to employ him as well)
At least this way everyone around him ends up profiting from his behavior, rather than having to be dragged down by the cost of supporting him without being paid by him for that support.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Displace people that actually want to achieve more? It's not a zero sum game, he wouldn't be taking anyone's "spot".

When did being a freeloader become a good thing?

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty sure Pyrtolin didn't mean it this way but the concept is a new and rather alien idea to me.

Someone graciously removes themselves from the job market allowing me a spot in that job market. So it's only logical that I support that selfless individual with a little bit of my money.

Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As a single able bodied male, he is only eligible for SNAP for 3 months out of 36.

Total tax burden 600$.

A 200$ monthly income for a 3 month period is not exactly the 'good life'.

As I've pointed out elsewhere - providing government jobs such as cleanup, should be done. If he refuses the work, then cut off the public support.

At 200$ a month - that would be 17 hours a month for 12$ an hour. I'm sure he would probably be willing to do 2-3 days a month of cleaning up parks.

As to him buying 'lobster and sushi' - so that burns through 40$, and he has 160$ to live on the rest of the month. Rather silly of him. Almost certainly it was 'showing off' for the reporter, and not a typical behavior. I've advocated in the past that SNAP funds be only eligible for 'core food' purchases - not snacks or luxury foods.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's obviously an entitled freeloader, and it's not a good thing.

However, the $200/month in SNAP funds is probably an acceptable side effect of helping the SNAP recipients who need it. That $200 isn't keeping him where he is - he's evidently getting much more support from friends and family than he's getting from SNAP (rent free living, someone paying for the car he drives). Is it worth the expense of onerous qualification checks and monitoring to prevent this kind of thing? I doubt it.

I think outrage-fuel stories about how people game the system in petty ways are meant to distract from the 1000 times worse abuses perpetrated by corrupt politicians and their owners.

[ February 26, 2014, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3,

quote:
Displace people that actually want to achieve more? It's not a zero sum game, he wouldn't be taking anyone's "spot".
Actually when there is much less than full employment it is a negative sum game. When there is excess labor, if all labor is competing for scarce jobs, you just end up driving down the cost of labor and it actually increases the unemployment rate (as the wages are driven down due to competition - it results in reduced disposable income, which results in fewer purchased goods and labor purchased, which results in reduced demand for labor - which results in layoffs and thus a higher unemployment rate).
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
I'm pretty sure Pyrtolin didn't mean it this way but the concept is a new and rather alien idea to me.

Someone graciously removes themselves from the job market allowing me a spot in that job market. So it's only logical that I support that selfless individual with a little bit of my money.

That's pretty much exactly what it comes down to. An unproductive person is out of the way, so there's an opportunity for someone else to get paid for doing the currently available work (which there absolutely is only a limited quantity of to go around at any given time, unless we explicitly go out of our way to come up with more things to do just for the purpose of being able to pay people to do them.) And the same time no employer is inflicted with paying a person that has no interest in providing productive labor.

The only mistake you make is saying that you paid him with any of your money. Rather what happens is that we, as a society create a little bit of money for him to use so that individuals have an incentive to make things for him rather than just letting him starve. No one actually gives up anything in the process, expect as an exchange for payment in social credit (which is to say, money).

We don't give him a huge amount of credit, just enough that he can sustain himself on what would otherwise be our unrealized or wasted excess. Thus, people that want to work and achieve more benefit from doing so, while those that would inevitably be dead weight in any system (if not an outright criminal element) have their negative impact minimized as far as it is possible to do so and also remain free, at any point, to decide that it's worth engaging with society in a more productive manner in the future.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
He's obviously an entitled freeloader, and it's not a good thing.

However, the $200/month in SNAP funds is probably an acceptable side effect of helping the SNAP recipients who need it. That $200 isn't keeping him where he is - he's evidently getting much more support from friends and family than he's getting from SNAP (rent free living, someone paying for the car he drives). Is it worth the expense of onerous qualification checks and monitoring to prevent this kind of thing? I doubt it.

I think outrage-fuel stories about how people game the system in petty ways are meant to distract from the 1000 times worse abuses perpetrated by corrupt politicians and their owners.

I'm not trying to position this as "outrage-fuel" but more along the lines of why shouldn't more people do this? It seems to work; who wouldn't want a lifestyle that his 'job' is working on his band and and plenty of time to "pull hot chicks, drive nice cars, dress nice and wear the most baddest jewelry in the world"? If government handouts can allow you to have this kind of life, how long before a lot of people decide it's good enough? The fact is, it probably *is* good enough.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
I'm pretty sure Pyrtolin didn't mean it this way but the concept is a new and rather alien idea to me.

As you can see, he actually did mean it this way.

quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
Someone graciously removes themselves from the job market allowing me a spot in that job market. So it's only logical that I support that selfless individual with a little bit of my money.

So why don't we subsidize the majority of people this way? Imagine, a nation filled with selfless people allowing anyone that wants it a place in the job market. If we could get a couple hundred million Americans to do such a selfless thing, would it be great? Or would it be a disaster?

Freeloading is not a selfless act. It's not noble or courageous. It's parasitic.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
As a single able bodied male, he is only eligible for SNAP for 3 months out of 36.

Total tax burden 600$.

There are a ton of exceptions and waivers to this.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
He's obviously an entitled freeloader, and it's not a good thing.

However, the $200/month in SNAP funds is probably an acceptable side effect of helping the SNAP recipients who need it. That $200 isn't keeping him where he is - he's evidently getting much more support from friends and family than he's getting from SNAP (rent free living, someone paying for the car he drives). Is it worth the expense of onerous qualification checks and monitoring to prevent this kind of thing? I doubt it.

I think outrage-fuel stories about how people game the system in petty ways are meant to distract from the 1000 times worse abuses perpetrated by corrupt politicians and their owners.

I'm not trying to position this as "outrage-fuel" but more along the lines of why shouldn't more people do this? It seems to work; who wouldn't want a lifestyle that his 'job' is working on his band and and plenty of time to "pull hot chicks, drive nice cars, dress nice and wear the most baddest jewelry in the world"? If government handouts can allow you to have this kind of life, how long before a lot of people decide it's good enough? The fact is, it probably *is* good enough.
Most of us can't convince friends and family to keep us in such style.

It's not entirely, or even mostly, the SNAP benefits that support this guy's lifestyle. He's an example of someone who doesn't NEED the benefits taking advantage of the system, sure, but he's not an example of what the system can do for you. Most of us, if we tried this, wouldn't have such a good time of it.

(I also happen to believe that most of those who could swing that lifestyle aren't going to abuse the system, either. They'll surf couches and drive the car that daddy bought and [here I speculate] sell some weed and get by without the food stamps.)

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am curious as to why this bothers you so much? Is there stuff that isn't getting done?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's build some context around this ...

Free food, free healthcare (and the idea that 2.5 million are "choosing not to work"), the so called living wage to which we are entitled.

I think most of us could have a good time of it. Of course, it would mean a reduced standard of living but then think of the freedom from all the bull**** of a job, the low stress life style, all that free time to work on your novel (or band or whatever is your hobby).

What if, we as a society, can give you the life of surfer dude? How many would take it? Why not take it? Why not be a "person of leisure" if you can? That's the end state all this pushes toward.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Surfer dude might get free time and free food but it seems like a narrow and static kind of life. Unless his band takes off, is he ever going to do anything different? Sounds dreadfully boring. And I don't find idleness to be stress free, so just kicking around in the sun would lose it's appeal.

It's also worth noting that most 'leisure' classes developed complex hierarchies of status and politics to keep themselves busy. Athenians had slaves to their work and they spent all their time running the city or thinking very hard.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I am curious as to why this bothers you so much?

I wouldn't say it bothers me so much as gives me concern in general about where this ends:
quote:

Greenslate has no intention of getting a job.

“That’s not the direction I’m going right now,” he said to Roberts, explaining his ambition is to be a rock star.

“It’s going great,” Greenslate said about his state of unemployment. “Yeah, it’s going really well.”

“This is the way I live and I don’t see anything changing,” he said, adding that he does not see anything wrong with his lifestyle on food stamps. “Why would it be bad in any way? It’s free food. It’s awesome.”

When presented with Greenslate’s situation, American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray told Fox News he was not surprised they were able to find a person like the La Jolla surfer.

“Jason [Greenslate] has cousins in every town in America,” Murray said.

“That guy is kidding himself,” Murray added. “He is passing time as pleasantly as possible right now. That’s not what constitutes a satisfying human life. The sad thing is that the whole philosophical grounding of the welfare state encourages people to think of life in terms of the picnic.”

Where do the Jason's of the nation end up when they're pushing 50? What are we losing as a nation to see this mentality develop and implement programs that encourage it?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What are we losing as a nation to see this mentality develop and implement programs that encourage it?
Develop, encourage? PEople with this attitude have been around from the dawn of civilization. It's just part of the natural overhead of social living. There's no encouragement here, just acknowledgement that it's best to mitigate the possible negative impact that such people can have rather than wasting time and resources on the impossible task of eliminating them.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And the philosophical grounding of the laissez-faire state encourages people to think of life in terms of what? The workhouse? The plantation? The factory?

Shouldn't we strive for the picnic? Isn't that why people want to get rich? To free themselves from the drudgery of the daily grind to earn their bread?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I missed this bit the first time around:
quote:
Greenslate said he's not lazy, putting more than 40 hours per week into his band, Ratt Life, which has an album coming out in six weeks.
SO it's not even that this guy is unproductive- he's actually being productive in a way that we would have been actively restricted from being if he had to chase an external income instead of being able to focus on his direct vocation.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are not enough resources in society for everyone to have the privilege of living off of others the way this guy is, so we can't allow him to do it or else others will be incentivised to follow him and the whole system will collapse. Indeed, this is slowly occurring. Note the lowest number of adults in the workforce in many years and the exponential expansion of welfare across America.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
Let's build some context around this ...

Free food, free healthcare (and the idea that 2.5 million are "choosing not to work"), the so called living wage to which we are entitled.
I
I think most of us could have a good time of it. Of course, it would mean a reduced standard of living but then think of the freedom from all the bull**** of a job, the low stress life style, all that free time to work on your novel (or band or whatever is your hobby).

What if, we as a society, can give you the life of surfer dude? How many would take it? Why not take it? Why not be a "person of leisure" if you can? That's the end state all this pushes toward.

I don't see a problem if society can afford to fund that without failing on its more pressing obligations.

Where I differ from Pyr is I don't think we are there yet as a society.

Note also that the free publicity that Fox and you have given this man and his band is worth considerably more money that food stamps have given him.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What if, we as a society, can give you the life of surfer dude? How many would take it? Why not take it? Why not be a "person of leisure" if you can? That's the end state all this pushes toward.
I could be a person of leisure right now - our family does not need my income at all. And yet I'm working full-time and also donating some of my time off to a non-profit cause. Am I unique? I don't think so.

I mean, I'm not saying that there aren't people who yearn for a life of leisure - clearly there are some. But there are also quite a lot of us who yearn for a life of useful activity.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are not enough resources in society
What do we currently have a shortage of? If it's something that labor would correct, why isn't the solution for employers then to offer sufficient pay to attract enough people to do the needed jobs? (We are looking at possible food issues due to drought, but no amount of extra base labo will correct that, unell you're going to be paying people to care water to CA from areas with excess)

quote:
. Note the lowest number of adults in the workforce in many years and the exponential expansion of welfare across America.
As a result of the financial bubble bursting and people then being unable to find work, because there simply isn't enough work to go around in the absence of sufficient income to actually drive the need to produce things to satisfy it. Get more people out and buying things, and store orders will go up to refill stock. More store orders means hiring more people to produce and deliver things to the stores, and there you'll have the employment opportunities needed to get people out of support systems and high enough wages available to make it worth it for people to come back into the labor force.

As long as wages stay low and there are few job offerings as compared to the portion of the population that would rather be working, the participation rate and will remain low, and the number of people forced to turn to public support instead will stay high.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Where I differ from Pyr is I don't think we are there yet as a society.
I don't think there's any there or not, if we set the baseline, the market will take care of the rest. More people needed to work? Then wages will go up until they attract enough people to work. Less people needed? Then at least they have options to support themselves and find their own way to provide value.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
What if, we as a society, can give you the life of surfer dude? How many would take it? Why not take it? Why not be a "person of leisure" if you can? That's the end state all this pushes toward.
I could be a person of leisure right now - our family does not need my income at all. And yet I'm working full-time and also donating some of my time off to a non-profit cause. Am I unique? I don't think so.

I mean, I'm not saying that there aren't people who yearn for a life of leisure - clearly there are some. But there are also quite a lot of us who yearn for a life of useful activity.

You are not unique but you are becoming a endangered species. We are creating a welfare state, one that promises a bare minimum of comfort but still comfort. We are creating a society that, as you can see upthread, sees little to nothing wrong with freeloading. As this becomes more common, where does it lead?

quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Shouldn't we strive for the picnic? Isn't that why people want to get rich? To free themselves from the drudgery of the daily grind to earn their bread?

People don't strive to wealth in order to fulfill basic needs or get just enough for leisure. If that was all it was about, there would be far fewer billionaires. You strive for wealth so you have choice. This "picnic" is the antithesis of wealth.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I missed this bit the first time around:
quote:
Greenslate said he's not lazy, putting more than 40 hours per week into his band, Ratt Life, which has an album coming out in six weeks.
SO it's not even that this guy is unproductive- he's actually being productive in a way that we would have been actively restricted from being if he had to chase an external income instead of being able to focus on his direct vocation.
Really? You might want to go and check out a few guys that are in a band...
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
There are not enough resources in society for everyone to have the privilege of living off of others the way this guy is, so we can't allow him to do it or else others will be incentivised to follow him and the whole system will collapse.

Aren't there?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
There are not enough resources in society for everyone to have the privilege of living off of others the way this guy is, so we can't allow him to do it or else others will be incentivised to follow him and the whole system will collapse.

Aren't there?
If everyone does what he does, who produces food?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some people like farming so instead of starting a band, they start a farm.

And no, I don't know if enough people naturally want to farm to produce enough food. Though we're probably only a few decades off from it being a trivial number.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If everyone does what he does, who produces food?
Well to be fair, if everyone just produced food then we'd have other problems. We need different people to do different things and, given the employment rate, we already have all the thing-doing positions filled. A guy who can get by on only $200 of assistance rather than competing with all those unemployed people seems like a good deal.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
There are not enough resources in society for everyone to have the privilege of living off of others the way this guy is, so we can't allow him to do it or else others will be incentivised to follow him and the whole system will collapse.

Aren't there?
If everyone does what he does, who produces food?
I thought that's why we absolutely must allow illegal immigration ...
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We should have robotics replace a significant portion of farming and ranching jobs over the next 20 years. I'd be surprised if we need even 5% of the current farm labor force by then. Almost all retail jobs such as stock boy, floor cleaner, etc. will be replaced as well. The price of robotics is following a moores law progression.

http://www.nextpowerup.com/news/5395/robot-being-used-to-herd-cattle-farmers-like-it.html

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker?currentPage=all

Skilled manual labor (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, masons) will take longer in some cases, although masons and carpenters already have robotic competition on a limited scale (prefabbed walls mostly).

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
There are not enough resources in society for everyone to have the privilege of living off of others the way this guy is, so we can't allow him to do it or else others will be incentivised to follow him and the whole system will collapse.

Aren't there?
If everyone does what he does, who produces food?
People who like farming and want to make the money that people are offering for food? You may as well ask, right now, why all farmers don't give up farming and go become bank executives instead. Nobody is forcing them to farm right now, but they choose to do that over the other available options.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
And no, I don't know if enough people naturally want to farm to produce enough food. Though we're probably only a few decades off from it being a trivial number.

Naturally, nothing. If too few people are producing food, then the price of food will rise to the point where more people want to do it because the money is good there. That's how markets operate. And if the balance point to get the right number of people into the field is too high to keep prices where they need to be to be affordable, we use subsidies to help adjust the market until it can function properly.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
And no, I don't know if enough people naturally want to farm to produce enough food. Though we're probably only a few decades off from it being a trivial number.

Naturally, nothing. If too few people are producing food, then the price of food will rise to the point where more people want to do it because the money is good there. That's how markets operate. And if the balance point to get the right number of people into the field is too high to keep prices where they need to be to be affordable, we use subsidies to help adjust the market until it can function properly.
That's how markets are supposed to operate. Unfortunately, government programs like the ones we're discussing and the subsidies you mention distort those markets so much they no longer operate like that.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But when you discuss those subsidies and programs, you have to remember that if there is suddenly a massive shortage of food, the shortfall can not be solved overnight.

A massive food shortage might well attract more producers, but it will take them a year, possibly two, to actually start producing. In that time, people are going to suffer and possibly even die, which is why these programs exist.

I'm not at all a big fan of farm subsidies, seeing as how the vast majority of them now go to huge corporations, but I don't really see an alternative that doesn't bring massively fluctuating food prices and the starvation and crime that would accompany it.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
And no, I don't know if enough people naturally want to farm to produce enough food. Though we're probably only a few decades off from it being a trivial number.

Naturally, nothing. If too few people are producing food, then the price of food will rise to the point where more people want to do it because the money is good there. That's how markets operate. And if the balance point to get the right number of people into the field is too high to keep prices where they need to be to be affordable, we use subsidies to help adjust the market until it can function properly.
That's how markets are supposed to operate. Unfortunately, government programs like the ones we're discussing and the subsidies you mention distort those markets so much they no longer operate like that.
No, it's public parameters and subsidies that actually allow them to function on an ongoing basis, instead of following their natural tendency to collapse toward a monopoly or cartel conditions.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Israel's holy surfers in a tizzy: http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26412295
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


Exemptions from military conscription were given to the ultra-Orthodox when Israel was created in 1948. At that time there were only 400 yeshiva students.

Now owing to their high birth rate, the ultra-Orthodox account for about 10 percent of the country's population of about eight million people.

They are a relatively poor social group. Most ultra-Orthodox men are unemployed because of their religious studies and rely on donations, state benefits and their wives' wages to live.

This has long caused resentment among Israel's secular majority leading to a demand for the ultra-Orthodox to share the so-called social burden.

In the past, Israel's coalition governments have often relied on the support of ultra-Orthodox partners, making it hard to make political changes that affect their communities.

However the current Israeli cabinet has no ultra-Orthodox members and parties are pushing for the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make reforms.

Some Israeli political leaders hope that a new approach will ultimately see more ultra-Orthodox men also entering the workplace.

Any distinction from surfer dude? I think an entire community going parasitic is a recipe for disaster. Especially when exempt from the military whose lives their voted throw in jeopardy.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where I stand is, if surfer dude is able bodied and mooching off social services, then draft him. But if the military can't use himthen maybe he's not able bodied.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1