Fear and necessity.
Intelligence isn't something you can nurture much once the lower end stuff (nutrition, stimulation) is taken care of, which it already is. A good portion of people are just dumb and mostly worthless, however much that makes your heart bleed.Good for serving jobs or mindless physical labor, but not much else.

Skills come from trying hard and taking personal responsibility. Asians manage just fine. Poor Asians with parents who didn't finish high school crush far more privileged groups, including much wealthier black people.

Where there's a will, there's a way. For a good portion of the populace, fear and necessity is the only way the will is created. When you give them handouts, you do them a disservice, in the long run.

Look at the experience of Muslims in the US vs Muslims in Europe. European Muslims receive generous handouts, and are resentful and unhappy. US Muslims receive next to nothing, and have been forced to integrate and adapt. Which group do you think is happier, wealthier, more successful, more part of society?

Necessity breeds invention and change. When you take away necessity, you do bad things to people.

it only hurts their incentive to do work *if they don't want to do anyway

You should teach him to be both strong and sensitive imo.

You are now saying "kids these days".

Turn theology into a question of semantics, and brighten everyone's day

Theoretically, it will inject more money into the economy and increase the number of market participants, both of which are measures of societal economic success afaiu.

I lol'ed

You want to breed fear in your society?

As for necessity, consider the path of least resistance. Assume people don't want to work to begin with (right?), and now you are threatening them with starvation as well.

And this without bearing in mind the activation energy (startup and transaction costs) required to get going.

I deal with low-income individuals on a regular basis. Some of these people are a lot more intelligent than some of my professional colleagues, but they have a criminal record or family baggage from their youth preventing them from getting into schools or jobs that they can use later on to further their growth.

It is easy to think everybody has opportunity when all you have known is opportunity. It is even easier to look at someone in the gutter and tell yourself "they probably deserve it" so you don't have to worry about it.

Income assistance is available to Asian Americans as well, though, so the problem has to lie elsewhere.

So kids who grow up in wealthy households, lacking fear or necessity, never develop the will to accomplish anything?

Are we comparing our respective feelings or our respective experiences? I have experienced Europe first-hand, and I would not call the general attitude towards Muslims there "generous".

Maybe you are confusing refugee asylum with domestic welfare assistance?

I don't know about this. I know if I was given a free 50k (I know we aren't talking about 50k a year, I'm just throwing a number out there) a year I probably wouldn't be doing what I'm doing right now. I'd find something with an easier schedule and less stressful. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind what I do, but if I don't have to be inconvenienced, I would avoid it. Especially now that I have young children at home.

Obviously I was exaggerating a little, but not by much. I simply can't believe how so many young men are completely un-motivated. It's almost like they are perpetual children. Look at the way they talk. They say marriage is for suckers, having kids is for suckers, you are only putting yourself at risk and you have people who suck their resources away from them and limit how often they can go snorkeling or skydiving.

What kind of talk is that? I'm totally for being careful and making good choices, but these guys don't even want to play the game! I mean, wtf, if we're not generally here to experience the joys of marriage and children, then wtf is it all about? By no means am I saying not being married or having children is an awful or unfulfilling life, it's not, we all know that. But marriage and family should be something that's looked at as a positive thing, not a prison sentence. The family unit is the most important thing in our society because it's what produces children. Strong families produce strong children. Strong children become strong adults. I never understood why conservatives were so adamant about idiotic things because I always wanted to see titties. Now I understand. Put them titties away, girl, we're at a soccer game for Christ's sake.

It's a little more complicated than that. I believe it's indoctrination from the universities. There are instances where they are re-programming the kids, so they "un-learn" or identify their deeply rooted racist and bigoted ways. It's complete madness. I consider it brain-washing, borderline child abuse. Hey, it's one thing if the parents want to teach their kids that poison, I firmly believe people may raise their children however they wish, but I surely don't want the universities forcing the students to.

I've come to realize that religious people are stronger in general. They have more conviction and more fortitude. I've always suspected it but now I'm sure of it. They just march on in many cases where I'd have quit and taken my ball home with me.

I can understand your view. I'm just unsure what the psychological and societal impact will be. Maybe it'll be a net negative on innovation/creativity? I don't know, but I'm hesitant about the whole thing.

I firmly believe part of Elon Musk's drive is in part of him still wanting to bang hot 25 year olds. That's why I brought up emasculated men. Emasculated men are just bleh, they are like a lamps. No one cares. Men like Musk are driven by many factors. Those factors mean something - they drive society forward, they produce new technologies and encourage risk taking. That drive to attract mates is primal. It gets a boost when men have children, too, because it's innate in men to go our and provide resources for their families, so they do that by working harder.

I simply don't know. Maybe you're right and UBI will be some wonderful thing. But as I get older and see all this tinkering going on, I can honestly say I truly don't like what I'm seeing.

You're being too soft on them. Use a real rifle and make them learn how to stop the bleeding and stitch it up.

I'm not doing anything. If you don't care for yourself, you die. If you don't gather food, you die. Nature, reality, is what dictates you must work. It is a very powerful motivator to people without strong internal motivations such as responsibility or pride in the fruits of effort.
You're looking at this from a co-dependent helper's model. This is you, except with poor people:



Then they can work construction. There's nothing stopping someone working. I don't doubt the bolded at all.

I grew up poorer than 90% of black people in the US. My parents had less education than 95% of black people in the US. Everything I have, I created with my own will.

The children of poor Asians, at a language disadvantage and living on less than $10K a year, beat the children of wealthy privileged black families earning over $70K a year.

Using your "problem has to lie elsewhere" logic, the problem has to lie elsewhere than poverty?

I bolded the bit that makes your comment another non sequitur.

The handouts are generous. We're talking about welfare vs necessity. And I've spent years of my life in Europe, as a traveler.

He's right. When you force people to go out and do things they go out and do things. Look at what's happening right now in our society. Everyone has a "side hustle" to make some extra money because their regular jobs don't pay them enough. They aren't doing those side hustles for the funsies, they are doing it because it's necessary.

No one starves in the United States. It's a fabrication. You've never seen anyone emaciated from not having access to food in this country that wasn't tied in a basement by some lunatic somewhere. It doesn't happen.

A direct result of lack of discipline/values/broken homes, many times caused by welfare. Do not misunderstand me here, I do not advocate not providing for single mothers. We, as a society, must do so. I'm just complaining about the result.

Firstly, no one has opportunity just fall into their lap. I don't know about you but I've never had someone knock on my door and ask me if I wanted a job. I went out and looked when I needed to, and when I wasn't getting results I tried to figure out what I was doing wrong when looking, not giving up and complaining that it must be due to my race.


This is actually quite common. Many wealthy kids turn out to be completely useless. They don't understand hardship and necessity, so they are unmotivated. Would you say trust fund babies are normal, well-adjusted people?

That's why I was so interested in BoredSocial's posts in this thread in particular. I'd bet quite a bit of money Bored will never be broke again. He know's what hardship is like and he's probably (like me), scared to death of ever being in that position again. I'd go on to say I'd bet he'd be a good parent, too, because he knows exactly what the reverse is like. All complete speculation of course, but if I could somehow put money down on it, I would.

You're way too harsh. Just hit them with the butt of the rifle, imo. No need to leave scars. What's wrong with you?

titties are like F bombs

the more you see them, the less impact they have

I wonder if the world wouldn't be better if we didn't pay single mothers when the father is alive and able bodied.

This is no doubt partly caused by the welfare state.

Children raise in single parent homes:



And single parent families are terrible for children - they're far poorer, have less structure and stability and love. In fact, many of the issues in certain communities, including poverty, can be mostly explained by the choices of fathers.

The harmful do-gooders like werewolf will never see that though. It cannot possibly be welfare's fault or a cultural choice.

IMO that graph has interesting implications for UBI.

I'm not sure what this has to do with income assistance affecting motivation without it being a racial argument.

You don't address whether these poor asians avail themselves of income assistance, and you say that wealthy blacks without income assistance fail regardless.

I generally don't think it's useful to point to someone and say "you're a racist", but I do think it is helpful to show someone that there may be some racial biases prejudicing their views.

Yes. And the real clincher is the poverty rate is the same across all races, so it doesn't matter if you're a single black mother or a single white mother, you're screwed. Not only that, the children raised in single homes have statistics that are just depressing. As far as the possibility of not providing assistance, I don't think that's possible. It's a no-win situation that just must be accepted.

Kids need their fathers. It's not up for debate, in my mind. Women who say things like "you don't need a father" just make me ill. Lena Dunham just makes me sick to my stomach.

*kids need two parents

or at least I'm not aware of research indicating mom/mom or dad/dad is < mom/dad

That's why you need to space them out at correct intervals. Come on dude, get with the program here. No one would ever choose to see a lifetime of titties all in one shot. You don't eat 5 boxes of Caramel Delights all in one sitting, do you?

The data is actually questioned due to the methods they used to collect it. Personally I'm OK with it. The state raising children is absolutely horrific, so anything is a better choice than that. Even if it was sub-optimal, so be it. Kid's need homes and anything is better than nothing.

Wil -

I am not disputing that necessity breeds accomplishment, even if I do wonder at the neighborhood desirability of such accomplishment.

I am disputing that accomplishment requires necessity and therefor that assistance prevents accomplishment. Are all trust-fund babies completely useless?


In the context of this thread, we are assuming that robots are doing all of our work, so at that point the societal need for others' accomplishment is diminished - at that point, are we worried that people will just be too bored?

is it a coincidence that cultures historically generated advanced thinking among the comfort classes?

the ancient Greeks birthed western philosophy - aren't they the first European civilization to accomplish the regular provision of basic necessities?


you can't devise a blueprint for a fascist superstate (The Republic) if you have to spend all day tilling soil

how would Marx have had time to write Das Kapital if he didn't have Engels' basement to live in?

People who grow up under harsh conditions are stronger people. It's the attitudes and the values that are instilled in them (or they learn) that can decide whether they use that hardship as a reason for all of their failure, or as a source of strength to carry on. The strongest people on the planet are from areas where death and destruction have occurred. The weakest are from the rich and civil ones. Do you think the average American man is stronger than the average Chechnyan? Absolutely, positively not.

Yes, I'd be EXTREMELY worried about people being bored. In fact I'm terrified of it. Look what's happening right now with the opioid problem. Juan brought up people winning the lottery and how their lives go immediately down the drain. What could be worse than having unlimited resources? All of your bad traits manifest themselves because they aren't limited by all the things you used to do to collect your resources (work).

Sure, some trust-fund babies turn out OK, I'm sure. Most of the one's I've met are useless, bizarre weirdos, though. Nothing is absolute in these types of discussions, and maybe I'm being too fearful in general, but I'm extremely cautious when it comes to these types of experiments. Be careful when you tinker with things like human motivation, you have no idea what the hell you'll wind up with.

You tell me? Here's the conversation:
You're not following your own line of reasoning. You asked me how people are supposed to gain skills without training/resources. I pointed out that Asians on family income of < $10K/year get there just fine, while people on far more money fail to. Clearly, even in the very lowest income tiers, people make it no problem. $10K/year is part time on minimum wage for one person. So your comment is irrelevant. There's no assistance required beyond what we give today in order to get there. Asian proves that in spades.

They're just two useful cohorts with ample reliable data that show the effects of poverty are a just a fraction of what matters in people succeeding, despite the left claiming they're huge (they're not - it's mostly cross correlation). It's the data the government chooses to record, not me. If they had data by IQ or cultural traits/beliefs, that would be much better.

The point being that money and help matters less than a culture of responsibility and pride in effort and internal locus on control. Absent the culture, what other motivator is there other than the need to provide for oneself, and the fear of having nothing?

People aren't all the same. Necessity is needed to motivate many, while others don't need it. The bottom tier of society tend to have various flaws (innate, cultural, habitual) that stop them being naturally motivated or building stable futures. Some percentage of people are simply lazy, and would be very happy to just play games all day and pop out kids as long as someone is paying their way. Welfare absolutely hurts these people, and their offpsring - they are never forced to better themselves. And success and achievement is a painul, prolonged process of overcoming your lower nature.

It's hard work digging yourself out of a pit. It's hard work building for the future and sacrificing - both in going to work when you'd rather be doing something else, and in putting aside consumption so you can have a brighter future. Without need, many people just don't do it.

It's like feeding wild animals. If you do it enough they become so used to be fed that they forget how to fend for themselves, lose the desire, don't learn the skills. Many people are like that as well.

People who are nurtured in an adverse environment are more accustomed to adversity and therefore better equipped to deal with adversity.

That has nothing to do with the original assertion that "free money" will make people useless slobs. If the environment becomes one in which we don't need people to do as much, it is not a problem that people have less pressure constantly to be "earning". In fact, that person's drive constantly to earn will probably cause them problems in their now-shifted environment.

I have a personal acquaintance with this problem. He worked really hard, coming from very little, and built for himself an impressive enterprise. He is now the victim of his success, and he cannot sit still for more than a couple hours to enjoy his wealth with his family - and he vents his resentment (possibly for himself at being unable to enjoy his surroundings) upon the exact people around him that he wants to but cannot enjoy.

Conservatives, while helpful in keeping progressives/liberals from moving too far too fast, retain an inherent flaw in their pining for the preservation of yesteryear - context matters, and if you cannot adapt to your new surroundings, you will not thrive within them.

It may be that your standards of "success" are themselves inapt.