You know, I'm normally a huge fan of these TED talks, but this idea, I am not a fan off.

Ok, I rewrote this second paragraph about a dozen times trying to phrase exactly what bothered me about it, and I've cooled down a bit. At first I thought her idea was that people should believe in supernatural process as a means to relieve stress. I think now that her idea is a little more subtle than that. She is basically saying, pretend this supernatural process exists, allow it to exist in your imagination, and it can relieve stress. She isn't saying that you should actually believe it to be true. It's like a game. A game that relieves stress.

So I take it back. It is not a bad idea.

^
Parody on religion perhaps?

I agree that eventually we'll get to the point where it simply isn't possible for every citizen to work. I don't think that means we'd have to go to socialism though. You can accomplish the same goals that socialism would tackle by using a Negative Income Tax, without the drawback of giving complete control to the government on deciding whose work is most valuable.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I am loyal to no party. I consider all politicians 'the enemy' - persons to be viewed with distrust, suspicion, and wariness. I go in assuming that whatever they're up to is bad, and needs to be stonewalled, limited, or outright rejected at face value. I'm consistent. That's how I know I'm NOT a zombie.

I applaud that you are loyal to no party, and while I am not as pessimistic about politicians as you, I can understand your perspective. Though I think you should cut everyone on the sift some slack. I've seen a lot of stereotyping on the sift, where people try to categorize a person as democrat (liberal, lefty, etc) or as republican (conservative, right-wing, etc) based on a single comment to one video. But I've also debated with individuals who have seemed very diametrically opposed to me in one political thread, and then agree with them completely in another political thread.

I think there are more people like you here than you think. People who agree with what they think is right, as opposed to blindly following their favorite party's propaganda.

Winstonfield,

Maybe... just MAYBE... I mean, it might be possible... maybe even highly probable... that when someone supports a single action performed by Obama, then that doesn't imply that this someone automatically supports every action performed by Obama.

>> ^darkrowan:
If only you and dead people know how to read hexadecimal, how many people know? Answer: 57006

LOL, I hadn't heard that one before.

There are 10 kind of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

>> ^skhisma:
>> Let me guess - you've never had to work to survive before? Mom and dad pay the way?


After high school, I got grants and lots of loans and went to college. Worked my butt off and got a job I am passionate about after graduation. I'm one of those salaried people that draak13 mentioned.

And why would you think that about me when I explicitly said in the text that you quoted that I think everyone deserves enough money to survive without even having to work?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Flood, 'Supply and demand' becomes date rape when you own the only store in town. Without a minimum wage, what's to stop them from paying workers with store credit? It beats starving, right? Viva supply and demand?!
If you can't afford to pay your workers minimum wage, then you shouldn't be in business. Period.
Rottenseed, When you don't pay your workers enough, they don't buy enough, and when people don't buy enough, we get recessions and depressions.


If there is only one store in town, then maybe someone should open a store and get some competition going? Besides, I would only want to get rid of minimum wage laws if a Negative Income Tax (thanks Krupo) system was put in place.

Does this guy think people shouldn't be allowed to take risks with their own money?

Capitalism is working as intended. This economic crisis is the result of a lot of people (directly or indirectly) making a lot of risky choices, and in many cases just plain stupid choices because they had no idea what the risk was.

That's not to say we couldn't improve on things. A "Negative Income Tax" system would be nice for example.

>> ^srd:
Other people call it Basic Income. It's a great idea that I deem could be viable in 10 to 15 years if we try to automate just about anything that can be automated. Only catch is, in our global economy, the entire world has to switch. Or at least all first world countries do.


Much appreciated srd!

I don't think I follow why it would have to be implemented on a global scale though. The largest challange I see is striking the balance between starving people to death and removing all incentives to work. The amount of Basic Income given would need constant monitoring and adjustment.

Picard would give this a double face palm.

>> ^BillOreilly:
You liberal Atheists make me puke. If a Republican were to admit he screwed up, the video would go to #1 and everyone would rip on the offender.
Hussein Boy admits he's a failure already, and he's somehow "noble."
You all need to grow up.


BillyBoy, "Noble" is actually a word. You don't have to put it in quotes. If you were to look it up in the dictionary, you might learn that to be noble is to have excellent moral character. Maybe if you didn't pick and choose your morals from self-contradicting dogma, you'd be better at spotting what actually is and is not noble.

The pay for a job follows simple supply and demand. If the job is a low skill job, then there is a very high supply, which drives the pay for the job down. The minimum wage laws causes economic inefficiencies because it sets an artificial floor on what an employer can pay for a job.

That said, I understand that everyone deserves to have enough money to live. My radical idea (in summary) is that we set welfare to be barely enough to get by, and then we give it to everyone, even the employed. Next, eliminate minimum wage. Finally, set a flat income tax. If you work out the math, the net result is effectively a progressive income tax. Everyone gets enough to live, and working becomes a means of improving your life style, status, and luxuries. I call it the "Welfare for Everyone Flat Tax Plan".

ctrlaltbleach,

I can understand how you could come to the conclusion that without a god, life would become meaningless. For in the end, we are but a tiny spec in the vast wasteland that is the universe, and in the long run our impact on the grand scheme of things will most likely be very close to negligible.

However, while looking very far into the future paints a bleak picture, looking towards the near term you can find meaning everywhere. From making the world a better place for our friends, family, and future generations. You can find meaning by doing what you feel will improve this world that you live in now, instead of finding meaning that has to do with the next world (if there is an after-life).

Also, being an atheist doesn't mean that you can't have hope that there is an afterlife and a god, anymore than the belief that you won't win the lottery doesn't prevent you from hoping that you will.