TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Can a culture be developed where there is no "welfare"?

With all of the advancements in technology it is becoming obvious that there will be less need for "labor". The problem then becomes one of what to do with people. How will they "make a living"?
I would like to suggest that instead of "welfare" it becomes the responsibility of government to supply a "job" for EVERYONE. To live in the country one must work. Instead of "unemployment offices" there are "employment offices"
Can such a system exist?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sep 23 2013: Sounds like the utopian system of star trek. No need for money and as jean Luc picard mentioned... "we work to better ourselves".. a system can exist in my opinion. Everything has to do with the way people think. When you somehow can keep people satisfied with what they have because it is in THEIR nature to be satisfied and with an intrinsic desire help society you have no need of welfare. Humans used to live that way... I don't think the very first humans wanted to earn money or jobs. As long as they can eat, sleep and be happy with their society it works. As long as people take care of each other without going thru the channels of a government... it works. Sadly, we are not prepared yet for this kind of system...in the fiction world of star trek, it took a massive world war and an alien visitation. What will it take our current society? i don't know.
    • Sep 23 2013: Actually, that system only works in star trek because of matter replicators.

      In other words, in a world with very little scarcity. Its a completely different economic model than exists in the real world, because the fundamental assumption that "there isn't enough to go around" no longer applies for anything that can be replicated.

      You can see how that sort of thing would turn the entire economy over on its head, and just how unrealistic it is to expect the real world to function in a similar manner.
      • Sep 23 2013: Thank you. You are helping me to understand my own question. But, if we believe that a change IS needed how do we go about getting to that change.Robots are coming! Man will be superfluous. (What does that mean?) Humanity has to think differently.

        Economics is not a fixed science, why can't we change it's outlook. Instead of looking for "Markets" why not evaluate "Social advancement".

        Admittedly this will require a completely different outlook but what has to be done to make it come to fruition, to make people BELIEVE?
      • Sep 23 2013: At the present time do we not have "enough" for our needs. Fundemental needs still are, for humans, food, clothing and shelter. Can.t we supply those to everyone before cars, ipods and iphones. Isn't medical need greater than material need?

        Do we believe that more people want to be "middle class" than "rich"? Keep the drive for "advancement" or "development" , let those who have the drive for "more" have the "space" to feed that "drive. but, for most of humanity the "basics" in "complete supply" will seem ample. AS the "drivers accomplish "more" it will filter down to those who "want it slowly and with "purpose.

        Can this be "sold"/
        • Sep 23 2013: I highly doubt it.
          Social inequality is a concept synonymous with humanity itself.

          The world doesn't care for equality on a global scale. It never did, and it never will.
          Each group (be it ethnic, religious, ideological or nationalist, depending on the people involved) will always look towards its own interests first. They may not say it out loud like I can, but I'm at liberty of not being a politician.

          Even inside societies, today's rich/poor relationship is still a sight better than the historical record's noble/peasant, or master/slave. Things today are actually more equal then ever, to give you a perspective how thoroughly inequality defines humanity.

          All attempts to solve this fundamental problem via solutions like communism, have all ended up doing more harm than good.
      • Sep 25 2013: further comtemplating on the idea of a government system providing jobs to everyone...my gut feeling says it wouldn't work. Our current system is actually better. A system that thrives on human interests. Such activities creates industries that specializes in marketing a product.. manufacturing a product generates jobs, marketing that product also generates jobs, and it further spills over to advertising jobs, selling jobs, ancillary jobs, 3rd party based jobs.. you have no idea how many levels of hierarchies are generated by our current system and considering each hierarchy generates its own jobs. If say a phone company boasts 12,000 employees... thats refers only to employees paid for by the company. To sell that phone means generating thousands of small businesses NOT in the phone company's payroll but rather generating its own payroll.
        If a government offers jobs... how far in a hierarchy level would that go? my thoughts are not much levels. So.. to me it just doesn't work.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.