[sithadmin]

Is poverty really 'designed into our society'? It seems to me that the underlying aspects of poverty - particularly resource scarcity and insecurity - are inherent aspects of the 'state of nature', which are only escapable via the cooperative mechanisms associated with the formation of society and governance. Sure, these things aren't 100% effective at eliminating poverty, but the proposition that poverty is somehow an intentionally baked-in objective seems hyperbolic.

Further, the notion that the USSR failed because "they tried to make a better man" is an absurd whitewashing of Soviet history.

[_DeadFred_]

Yes, poverty really is 'designed into our society'. Huge parts of our economy are prerequisite on 'zero hour' jobs. Where you are guaranteed zero hours per week, and have to check your schedule at the start of every week. Those working these jobs often have to work multiple zero hour jobs just to survive and somehow juggle that neither job has a fixed, dependable schedule. These jobs then prevent them from being able to use their off time (because they can't schedule around their jobs) to improve their lot in life. It is designed to be chaotic and a trap paying not even enough for survival (hence needing multiple jobs) let alone get ahead.

[EndShell]

Zero hours contracts are likely the unintended consequence of other (employment) regulation. People / Organisations (this includes private businesses and organisation, as well as state owned organisation) will try to circumvent any limits placed on it.

You seem to be of the belief that if you "tweak the nobs" just right, things will be magically be fixed, this is naive. The law of unintended consequences has been observed countless times throughout history when people have tried to do exactly that. This is extremely naive.

Even Star Trek itself that you appear to be a fan of. The Earth is post scarcity, they show that the Federation isn't the benevolent force that they pretend to be (This is hinted multiple times in TNG and shown outright in DS9) and that there are others that are negatively affected by the Federation and its policies e.g the Marquis.

[_DeadFred_]

I am of the belief that people in zero hour jobs are basically fucked, and that because a large portion of our businesses use zero hour jobs our society in fact has stagnation in poverty systemically built in/designed in.

Star Trek's a cool show. The bible's a cool book. They are guides on how to do better, not reality, not true events. That doesn't change that they can be used to reflect on ourselves/our society to improve them, nor does that condemn us to accept immorality/lower standards as inevitable.

[EndShell]

> I am of the belief that people in zero hour jobs are basically fucked, and that because a large portion of our businesses use zero hour jobs our society in fact has stagnation in poverty systemically built in/designed in.

1) People take zero hour jobs for various reasons. I worked on minimum wage for 8 years, I wasn't condemned to a life of poverty.

2) You have no proof of it being "designed in" because zero hour contracts exist. Repeating the statement does not make it true. The fact is that the law of unintended consequences is a thing that has been observed repeatedly.

3) I don't view it as "our" society. I don't even really know what people mean by that. I don't see it like that at all. I live in a country (England) and I see the government/state as adversarial to my interests generally. Many of the people in England and the UK don't share many of the same values as I do.

> Star Trek's a cool show. The bible's a cool book. They are guides on how to do better, not reality, not true events.

The fact that you equate Star Trek with the Bible is very troubling. Star Trek is an entertainment show with a fanbase, it is not a guide to do better. The Bible on the hand is much more important (even if many here don't recognise its importance) and this is coming from someone that is an Atheist.

> That doesn't change that they can be used to reflect on ourselves/our society to improve them, nor does that condemn us to accept immorality/lower standards as inevitable.

The point I was making that many people don't agree on what the improvement should be. What you believe is an improvement / moral etc. maybe seen by others as regressions and/or immoral. The writers in DS9 understood there were those that had this different point of view.

[_DeadFred_]

1. Good for you. Did you have kids or was it just you?

2. It is baked in at this point. People with zero hour jobs are at an extreme disadvantage. It's not adversarial government, it's business choice. There are many countries with larger burdens placed on business that have businesses that aren't forced into the zero hour practice. There companies that chose not to adopt zero hour practices. Stating that the government forced business into it doesn't make it true, and the fact the above businesses exist observably shows it's not a direct law of unintended consequences but a choice by business.

3. This position is outside the norm.

Both Star Trek and the bible are moral parables used to shape people's ideas. I'm guessing you are younger and don't understand the 90s tech ethos around Trek. Where I worked Trek was always playing in some room during lunch. Zero people were reading the bible. But I'm from the 80s/90s bay area (ish, Santa Cruz). Trek was definitely a parable that gave people something to aspire to.

Yes, differing views exist. You are the one that seems hostile to them, writing off your entire society because of your personal interests ("I don't view it as "our" society""). Most people agree on what improvement should be (people should be able to afford to raise families and live in some level of dignity and freedom from scarcity, people should not have to fear crime, education should be encouraged) they just don't agree how to fund it nor make it happen.

[EndShell]

> 1. Good for you. Did you have kids or was it just you?

It was just me. However it works for people who aren't single and do have kids e.g I know a woman who does deliveries and she can work as little or as much as she wants, while her husband has a full time job. You can't do that with mandated hours. She prefers it and thinks it is great.

You are making a bunch of assumptions about people's needs. People are individuals and they know what is best for them and not you.

> 2. It is baked in at this point. People with zero hour jobs are at an extreme disadvantage. It's not adversarial government, it's business choice. There are many countries with larger burdens placed on business that have businesses that aren't forced into the zero hour practice.

You keep on asserting this as a truism, I know plenty of people doing zero hour jobs and they do just ok. Most of these people are Students, Younger people or people who wish to work part time.

As for burdens. In the UK and Europe economic growth is dead because of these large burdens.

> There companies that chose not to adopt zero hour practices. Stating that the government forced business into it doesn't make it true, and the fact the above businesses exist observably shows it's not a direct law of unintended consequences but a choice by business.

I never claimed that governments forced business. I said government regulation could have created the incentive. I made no definitive statement. People constantly put words in your mouth in these discussions. Businesses will generally follow incentives. Not all will adopt the same practices if it doesn't fit in with it business model.

> 3. This position is outside the norm.

Yes I am aware. That doesn't mean that the norm is correct. I can explain exactly why I think this and give exhaustive examples to back up what I believe.

> Both Star Trek and the bible are moral parables used to shape people's ideas. I'm guessing you are younger and don't understand the 90s tech ethos around Trek. Where I worked Trek was always playing in some room during lunch. Zero people were reading the bible. But I'm from the 80s/90s bay area (ish, Santa Cruz). Trek was definitely a parable that gave people something to aspire to.

You make a lot of assumptions. I am in my early 40s. I understand the feeling at the time. I've moved on from the 90s, I didn't stop evolving my beliefs, they changed when I realised my previous beliefs about how the world operated was incorrect.

Just because people aren't reading the Bible in your break room doesn't mean it isn't important. Star Trek just isn't and will be all but a curiosity in a generation or two. The Bible I wager won't.

> Yes, differing views exist. You are the one that seems hostile to them, writing off your entire society because of your personal interests ("I don't view it as "our" society"").

No I am not hostile to the normal people. You have no idea what I think. Taking one phrase I said and then turning that into how I view everyone is disingenuous.

I had previously lived outside of the UK for many years and it isn't unusual for expats to have a bit of a culture shock when coming home. Travel tends to open your mind to new ideas and when you come back home you see everything with a new set of eyes.

> Most people agree on what improvement should be (people should be able to afford to raise families and live in some level of dignity and freedom from scarcity, people should not have to fear crime, education should be encouraged) they just don't agree how to fund it nor make it happen.

No they don't. That the entire divide in both the US, The UK and Europe. There also will never be freedom from scarcity.

[jemmyw]

I mean, I've read enough of the Bible to know it's pretty out there. It's packed with the writings of humans who lived in a time so different to now, with interpreted translations. Shakespeare's writings are a lot more relevant to us, although maybe inspirational rather than aspirational, and far better written. A modern take with updated aspirations that is understandable and approachable isn't a bad thing to equate it to, even if it's the basis for an entertainment.

[rbanffy]

> Zero hours contracts are likely the unintended consequence

That's hard to believe. It's such an obvious outcome.

[EndShell]

Considering there are long essays and writings about the law of unintended consequences it would suggest that these thing are not obvious.

[rbanffy]

They can always claim the consequences were unintentional, but that doesn’t make them less unbelievably convenient for the people who say they had no intention of causing them.

[EndShell]

It really depends what you want to believe doesn't it. Purely asserting it is obvious because you believe it to be so, isn't proof that it was deliberate. As I previously said there has been a lot written about the law of unintended consequences and many cases where it wasn't obvious, it seems you haven't cared to read any of it, otherwise you wouldn't have this attitude.

[BoxOfRain]

>Further, the notion that the USSR failed because "they tried to make a better man" is an absurd whitewashing of Soviet history.

Isn't he referring specifically to the notion of the 'New Soviet Man' here, the idea that a communist economic model would produce fundamentally different humans as a result? I can see why he would describe that as a flawed approach, but you're right that it'd be an odd thing to blame for the fall of the Soviet Union over the other factors which contributed to it.

[rbanffy]

I don't think Gorbachev was trying to be precise on that moment. It is, however, a failure of the project that such "New Soviet Man" was not created, and it makes me ask myself what environment would be to create a person with these attitudes.