/sci/ - Science & Math

[James May !NQ2MM.DOSE No.2352944]

It's 2011 so where are our futuristic lifestyles?

Except for a few technologies our houses and daily lives haven't changed in a few hundred years.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2352962]

Current version of capitalism, which is coupled with poor education and critical thinking, sort of hammers people's expectations and aspirations down a fair bit.

How we view the future, influences how we act today. - Robert Zubrin

[Anonymous No.2352972]

>daily lives haven't changed

Let's see what has happened in the last 100 years.
atomic bomb and several varieties
women in the work force
revolutions in vaccines and other branches of medicine
computer, internet, cell phones. You don't think that has changed daily life?
television has not changed daily life?
Better refrigeration technologies
better flight technologies
better transport technologies
genetic engineering of crops and animals to create greater abundance of food.

Seriously, OP, you are small minded.

[Anonymous No.2352973]

>>2352944
Alright, I'll ask. What changes to daily life would you like to see?

[Anonymous No.2352979]

ITT: People under 18 with no perspective

[Anonymous No.2352984]

>>2352962

I heard something like this. It's the govenment that want's to keep everyone working so they can't think for themselves and if we utilized technology properly most all jobs could be done by robots.

I dismissed it as conspiracy though.

[Anonymous No.2352987]

>>2352979
Nevermind, I take it back.

It's just OP.

[None !Aeris47Q2o!!8LxdWmJ2G9W No.2352989]

>our houses and daily lives haven't changed in a few hundred years.

[Anonymous No.2352992]

>>2352973

Well for one houses haven't changed in hundreds of years. Let's get some automated systems going, the kind that exist now but no one seems to be utilizing.

[Anonymous No.2352998]

I carry a personal library - with about 5 times as many books as had EVER BEEN PRINTED by the year 1700 - in my eReader.

Life hasn't changed for several hundred years?

BEST BE TROLLIN

[Anonymous No.2353001]

>>2352972
>>2352989

What I meant is that the routine hasn't changed.

- Get up
- Go to work
- Do work
- Get paid
- Return home
- Maybe go to the pub

We have been doing this for hundreds of years

[Anonymous No.2353002]

>>2352984
I buy into that. Not necessarily that it's a conspiracy, just that it's true. I'm undecided if it's a conspiracy, or a lack of vision.

[Anonymous No.2353004]

>>2352984
Automation has been increasing at breakneck pace since the industrial revolution. If we keep going, we're going to have to increase socialization (evening of wealth distribution via mechanisms such as unemployment benefits, welfare, etc) if we want to not end up with a HUGE rich-poor divide.

Only so many people own the factories, and they don't want to spread the wealth.

[Anonymous No.2353005]

>>2352944
>It's 2011 so where are our futuristic lifestyles?

Who said we would have futuristsic lifestlyes?

Why do expect pop-scientist and the general public to give you informed accute predictions?

POPSCIENCE = SHIT
GENERAL PUBLIC = STUPID AS FUCK

Why did you believe them? WTF is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.2353008]

>>2352989
wtf are you doing on /sci/... get back to /b/ where you belong

[Anonymous No.2353009]

>>2352992
>Well for one houses haven't changed in hundreds of years.
Damn it. Stop being wrong.

[EK !D96TK2PSsI No.2353010]

>>2352972
trolled.

[Anonymous No.2353016]

I have a jetpack. u all mad?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2353017]

>>2352984
Sounds like the Venus Project.

I raise you one Australia Project:
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm/
I'm actually going out of my way to recreate this over the next 30 years, but that's for another thread.

[Anonymous No.2353019]

>>2353001
OMGWTFBBQ

Write your "futuristic" schedule then. I've gotta hear this.

Also, it's not our fault that your life is boring. And everyone has to work.

[Anonymous No.2353020]

>>2353004

So just get rid of money and mass produce everything via robots so everything is free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco

[Anonymous No.2353023]

>>2353009

> Implying they have changed

My house is 200 years old and it's the exact same as one built in the 80s.

[Anonymous No.2353026]

>>2352992

Houses haven't changed so much that a hurricane that hit Florida in the 1910 era would murder just as many houses as a hurricane that hit Florida recently.
I don't believe you.

[Anonymous No.2353027]

>>2353020
The people in power don't want everyone leading a carefree lifestyle. They don't seek this out solely because they enjoy it, they do it because they want "the best," and that means "better than the vast majority."

[Anonymous No.2353029]

OP, I just had gallbladder surgery two days ago, they patched me up with fucking GLUE and now im walking like nothing happened.

Bitch all you want about the american health insurance love/hate relationship but god damn our medical facilities are top notch.

[Anonymous No.2353030]

>>2353020
"Free" is ALSO not the right mechanic. It produces hoarding and/or extreme wastefulness.

You *could* have a decent fixed stipend for everyone, on top of which you get paid for your job. It's basically universal permanent unemployment benefits, but it applies whether or not you're employed. That way, you still need to manage your allotment of resources, but you don't have anyone starving or homeless.

And don't worry about masses of poor people. Birth rates get low once you're not dirt-poor. If that's mistaken, you can always incentivize low birth-rates, like China has done (and overdone).

[Anonymous No.2353031]

>>2353026

The hurricane in Florida killed so many because Americans are stupid enough to build houses out of fucking wood.

[Anonymous No.2353033]

Where's OP's pic from?

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2353034]

>It's 2011 so where are our futuristic lifestyles?
>laughing_John_Percival_Hackworth.jpg.tiff.png.deb.tar.gz.jar.rar.zip.KBG2.bat.exe.py.sh

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2353037]

>>2353027
I'm sure you know.

[Anonymous No.2353038]

A futuristic home... Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-iFJ3ncIDo

[Anonymous No.2353039]

>>2353001

No.
There was a great shift to Urban living, and then there was a second shift to suburban living (this one in the past 100 years, I think).
People used to be farmers.
Sure, they woke up, did work, got paid, went home, but that is simplifying things a bit much. What time do people wake up now as compared to 100 years ago? What kinds of jobs are available? Those have changed. Still, there is the whole women in the workforce thing, which is a fairly significant change, I feel. And, where would you go besides your home at the end of the day?

[Anonymous No.2353049]

>>2353030
>You *could* have a decent fixed stipend for everyone, on top of which you get paid for your job. It's basically universal permanent unemployment benefits, but it applies whether or not you're employed. That way, you still need to manage your allotment of resources, but you don't have anyone starving or homeless.

Guaranteed Minimum Income:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
I like the Negative Income Tax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
Even Milton Friedman supports it.

[Anonymous No.2353054]

>>2353023

How do you know the interior is the same as one built in the 80s?
How do you know it has not been renovated at all since the 80s?
How do you know what a house built in the 80s is like if you don't live in one?

[Anonymous No.2353065]

>>2353054

> Implying I can't go round peoples houses.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.2353071]

I dunno, I live a pretty futuristic lifestyle. It's something you have to do deliberately. The technologies you were promised exist, you just need to take the initiative to seek out and buy them rather than their more mundane, popular equivalents.

[Anonymous No.2353073]

>>2353049
I would also support a change in the tax bracket to give an effective Maximum Allowed Income. Say, after the equivalent of 100 or 250 times the income of a full-time minimum wage job, your tax bracket hits 100%.

This doesn't apply to corporate budgets - it is personal income tax. So it doesn't hurt business, but prevents the assholes in suits from running the country into the ground while buying private islands in the tropics. In fact, preventing this parasitism would HELP business.

[Anonymous No.2353081]

>>2353049

In america, there is already a bit of that.
The problem with progressive income taxes is that people who work hard for what they earn are punished by the government, and lazy asses obtain what those hard-working people have earned.
Sure, some of the people on the dole have just hit hard times, but when you have generations of people living off welfare, there is a problem.
The question remains, why should I support someone who refuses to find a job or to obtain the skills necessary to better their situation?

A lot of socialist-type economic/government systems rely on the assumption that everyone who is poor is poor by accident and that no one will exploit the system. And that is a problem with it.

[Anonymous No.2353094]

>>2353081
It's a question of balance. I think we can agree that the problems caused by greed are far worse than those caused by laziness, currently.

Basically, do you REALLY think that the super-rich have somehow *earned* it? That their efforts are worth thousands or MILLIONS of times more than other human lives?

Could a billionaire go out for a beer with a plumber or electrician, talk with him, get to know him, and then honestly say "My 24 hours a day of effort are hundreds of thousands of times more valuable than yours?" If so, fuck him. Fuck him straight to hell.

[Anonymous No.2353098]

>>2353073

That's a dumb way of doing that.
If someone makes a lot of money (close to your 100% tax bracket) and then becomes divorced, and then receives alimony from their spouse which they need to pay tax on, then they are suddenly catapulted into that 100% range.
If you were going to have a maximum range on income then you would have to do something where it would be illegal to make more than X amount through any job wages.

[Anonymous No.2353104]

>>2353073
>I would also support a change in the tax bracket to give an effective Maximum Allowed Income.
I would totally be in favor of this. Of course, "100% taxed" is "all of it," but I get your point.

>>2353081
>The problem with progressive income taxes is that people who work hard for what they earn are punished by the government, and lazy asses obtain what those hard-working people have earned.
That's not really a problem if anyone working gets more than anyone not, as they would with the NIT. Everyone gets enough to get by, but everyone who works, gets more.

Yes, that's mostly how things work in the US now (I'm American too,) but this puts it squarely in the person's hands, and adds responsibility to it. Any bum on the street today? He may've done it to himself. But. He may have just been a victim of someone else. To say "why should I support someone else?" is, to me, the exact same problem from the opposite direction. It's like saying "no one is poor by accident, it's always of their own design." With something like this, everyone has opportunity. And this cannot be denied.

[Anonymous No.2353117]

>>2353098
Honestly, the whole "live the life one has become accustomed to" thing is bullshit. If you leave a marriage, you're leaving a situation/lifestyle, you inherently expect your situation/life to change. That's the point of getting a divorce.

[Anonymous No.2353119]

>>2353094

You're assuming everyone gets paid the exact amount their job is worth to society.
Also, I am not talking about millionaires. I am talking about people who make $34,000 a year and have to pay 25% in taxes, vs. making $33,000 a year and having to pay 15% of their taxes.

[Anonymous No.2353122]

>>2353098
You don't know how taxes work. Only the part of your income that falls into the higher tax bracket is taxed at that rate. The point is that is detrimental to society to allow any individual to take such a huge portion of community resources as personal property. I don't see how divorce or alimony changes this. If you're as rich as is allowed, how can you moan about it? Is making hundreds of times more than Joe Sixpack not enough for you?

>If you were going to have a maximum range on income then you would have to do something where it would be illegal to make more than X amount through any job wages.
This is worse, because it is full of loopholes. Salary isn't how income works for the rich - it's bonuses, stock options, etc. How do you make such transactions illegal? And you would have to have full financial information on someone before knowing if sending him a nice Christmas present was illegal.

No, just make a tax bracket that imposes a maximum net income. Then you can receive anything, pre-tax, but you can't keep it. And lying on your taxes? Yeah, we deal with that problem right now anyway.

[Anonymous No.2353126]

>>2353119
>Also, I am not talking about millionaires. I am talking about people who make $34,000 a year and have to pay 25% in taxes, vs. making $33,000 a year and having to pay 15% of their taxes.
This is impossible. Again, you don't know how tax brackets work.

[Anonymous No.2353128]

>>2353119
In Milton Friedman's proposal I mentioned earlier, he accompanied the NIT with a flat tax proposal. It almost passed, and became our (American) method of taxation. Funny how that was in the early 60s, and yet today it would be called "socialism" and he'd never get published again.

[Anonymous No.2353135]

>>2353119
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket
>Imagine that there are three tax brackets: 10%, 20%, and 30%. The 10% rate applies to income from $1 to $10,000; the 20% rate applies to income from $10,001 to $20,000; and the 30% rate applies to all income above $20,000.

>Under this system, someone earning $10,000 would be taxed at a rate of 10%, paying a total of $1,000. Someone earning $5,000 would pay $500, and so on.

>Meanwhile, someone earning $35,000 would face a more complicated calculation. The rate on the first $10,000 would be 10%; the rate from $10,001 to $20,000 would be 20%; and the rate above that would be 30%. Thus, he would pay $1,000 for the first $10,000 of income; $2,000 for the second $10,000 of income; and $4,500 for the last $15,000 of income; in total, he would pay $7,500, or about 21.4%.

[Anonymous No.2353138]

>>2353104

Where do you think the government is going to get all of this money to pay every person in america with? minimum wage is already not a living wage. But let's assume it did. The government needs to pay out 300,000,000 (approximate population of america) x 7.50 (the rate in Florida, dunno if it varies by state) which comes to 2,250,000,000.
Where is that magical two billion dollars going to come from?

>>2353117
That is an issue with an alimony system rather than income, which is the point I was making. Certain circumstances necessitate alimony. For example, if one parent was home with the children for 15 years of their life, then goes back to work for 3 years, and then the other parent decides they want a divorce, you cannot say that the person who was home raising the children (and who gets custody of them) is going to be able to support 3 kids without help from their spouse through alimony or child support. (Keep in mind, child support is a pitifully low amount in some states.)
But, as I said, this is a different issue.

[Anonymous No.2353144]

>>2353138
>Where is that magical two billion dollars going to come from?
You have OBVIOUSLY not looked at the federal budget. Or even just the defense budget. $2B is easy.

[Anonymous No.2353146]

>>2353126

This is how tax brackets work now.

[Anonymous No.2353150]

>>2353146
No.
>>2353135

God DAMN, is this thread full of underageb& faggots who have never had to file their taxes?

[Scia No.2353155]

>>2352944
Except the internet, expected to live past 70, Regular health care, Curing polio and smallpox, ect..

[Anonymous No.2353156]

>>2353144

Yes.
Because 100% of the amount of money the government takes in goes to keeping people afloat right now. Do you see the problems they are having with medicare and social security? Certainly the budget needs to be reapportioned, but if they cannot even rearrange it so that people who have paid into social security can still receive benefits then how do you expect them to be able to rearrange it for everyone in the country?

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353160]

>>2353138
>Where is that magical two billion dollars going to come from?
... Yeah. Keep adding, and pretty soon you're talking about REAL money. (You realize that's nothing, right?)

But, I DO advocate raising the minimum wage to a living wage, and trying it to the rate of inflation to be reviewed annually.

Also, for this conversation, I'm taking trips. These were me:
>>2352973
>>2353049
>>2353073
>>2353104
>>2353117
>>2353128

[Anonymous No.2353163]

>>2353150

>Implying someone can't be over 18 without having had a job.

[Anonymous No.2353170]

>mfw a thread about how we don't live in the future became a thread about taxes

[Anonymous No.2353177]

>>2353156
>Do you see the problems they are having with medicare and social security? Certainly the budget needs to be reapportioned, but if they cannot even rearrange it so that people who have paid into social security can still receive benefits then how do you expect them to be able to rearrange it for everyone in the country?
Again, you have not looked at the defense budget.

Also, you have not even tried to calculate what a 100% tax bracket at 100 times full-time minimum wage would bring in revenue. Let's do that, shall we?

Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. 40 hours a week, say about 50 weeks a year gives you $14,500 a year. If we set the tax bracket at 250 times this, that's $1.45M/yr.

This means that all personal income over $1.45M is handed over to the government. No one is allowed a net income higher than this, effectively. Are you really trying to tell me you can't get $2B/yr out of this? I'll look up some numbers here.

[!!flat-tax No.2353184]

>>2353177
Starting a trip

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353189]

>>2353138
Also, for the record, you realize your number was hourly, right? And we're actually talking a much larger number?

But in case you were seriously asking where the government would get the money... Taxes. That was kinda the point. And only a small portion of people would even be eligible for these small payments.

>>2353170
Good point. Let's talk about awesome changes we could make to daily life with modern tech.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353195]

>>2353177
Starting a trip.

>>2353156
>Because 100% of the amount of money the government takes in goes to keeping people afloat right now.
No. Have you even looked at the defense budget?

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353217]

>>2353177
I'm fixing the 2B number. $14,500 per person per year is minimum wage. Give this to 300,000,000 people, and you've got $4.35T. This is a big number

But then lots of people are bumped up a tax bracket! This number doesn't help us much.

Note, we are simply taking income from the rich and giving to the poor. The question is how obscenely rich ARE the rich, anyway?

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353244]

>>2353217
Yeah, I crunched some numbers too (looking at population data for "adults," etc.) and then realized "it would only go to the poor below the threshold anyway... So it's a moot point to figure this number out anyway."
But, I'd like 30" monitor that stood on a charging stand on my desk, that I could pick up and carry around my house as a tablet. It would be dumb, streaming everything from my home PC. And I should be able to get a data plan from a phone company to call into my home from anywhere in the world. (Or go online and stream from my home network, as I should be able to do for free via wifi.)

Why hasn't technology done this, yet? It should even be cheaper than modern tablets, as it wouldn't need the processing power, HDD, everything else. Just a fast graphics card, fast network connections, a touchscreen, and a processor for the touchscreen.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353248]

>>2353217
Yeah, I crunched some numbers too (looking at population data for "adults," etc.) and then realized "it would only go to the poor below the threshold anyway... So it's a moot point to figure this number out anyway."


On topic?
I'd like 30" monitor that stood on a charging stand on my desk, that I could pick up and carry around my house as a tablet. It would be dumb, streaming everything from my home PC. And I should be able to get a data plan from a phone company to call into my home from anywhere in the world. (Or go online and stream from my home network, as I should be able to do for free via wifi.)

Why hasn't technology done this, yet? It should even be cheaper than modern tablets, as it wouldn't need the processing power, HDD, everything else. Just a fast graphics card, fast network connections, a touchscreen, and a processor for the touchscreen.

[Anonymous No.2353260]

>>2352972
>implying those are indicators of progress or that they dont even come close to what is possible due to >>2352962


>>2353170
gtfo if you fail to see the correlation


capcha emothing religion

[pascal !PascaL9QAg No.2353271]

>>2353138 minimum wage not liveable wage

I've lived while making minimum wage.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353277]

>>2353217
This site says 98% of US households make less then $250,000, and 99.99% makes less than $5M. I don't have a number at $1.45M. There were about 1.1M households in the US at that time. So, 110,000,000*(0.0001) = 11,000 households over $5M in income. 110,000,000*(0.02) = 2,200,000 households over $250,000.

If we ONLY tax the people over $5M a year down to $1.45M/yr (ignoring the people already between $1.45M and $5M because I don't have that number), you get
11,000*($5M-$1.45M) = $39.05T.

That's nearly 40 trillion dollars, just from taxing the people over $5M/yr back down to $1.45M/yr.

Compare that to the $4.35T/yr to give everyone an EXTRA minimum wage income, and realize how fucking screwed up the US is.

If anyone sees an error in the arithmetic, please correct me.

[Anonymous No.2353279]

>>2353217
1% owns 95% pays 80% of taxes

but it always bothers me that it isnt obvious why handing out money wouldnt change shit. i've been in online games where players are begging. im a lazy shit but goddamn.. i dont think there's any way to fix the worlds problems without some kind of global dictatorship, cuz people are really really fuckin stupid and/or bat shit delusional

[Anonymous No.2353293]

>>2353271
im pretty sure the kids digging through mountains of syringes are living as well


lrn2evolvepastduplicity

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353296]

>>2353277
tl;dr - tax everyone above $5M/yr back down to $1.45M/yr, and you can give everyone nearly ten times a minimum wage income.

Damn... Are those numbers right?

$3.55M per taxed household,
0.01% = 0.0001,
0.0001*110,000,000 = 11,000 taxes households, giving
$3,550,000*11,000 = $39.05B

Oops.
Well, this was a drastic underestimate anyway.

[Anonymous No.2353297]

After posting on /new/, I'm worried that raising the quality of life around the world, as opposed to just the global north and other superior countries, will increase dysgenic fertility.

What do you think?

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353300]

>>2353279
That's why you put a limit on what you get just for being human. A hard limit, but one where you won't starve or freeze to death.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353302]

>>2353271
I think you bring up a great point, it really IS possible to live on minimum wage. But only in some areas of the nation.

No one poor enough to receive money from a NIT would be able to live in NYC, for example.

[Anonymous No.2353308]

>>2353277
If anyone sees an error in the arithmetic, please correct me.

doesnt need to be exact, we all know the pyramid, but the only thing it highlights for me is that politicians are just negligent. they dont care what happens to the average joe.

but increased wages will not change anything for the lower class. most deserve to be there.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353311]

>>2353308
>but increased wages will not change anything for the lower class. most deserve to be there.
>most deserve to be there.
You have been brainwashed. Joe Sixpack HAS a job. Why exactly does he deserve to be poor?

[Anonymous No.2353315]

>>2353300
but how do you prevent a man from spending all his money on hookers and booze

if food stamps were used more than currency for purchasing food, what would that do to "leading brands"

[Anonymous No.2353316]

>>2353297
No.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353317]

>>2353300
I'm for a maximum wage, but it would have to be lenient.

For instance, I'd like to see the hard cap of annual income only after one has amassed a lifetime wealth of, shit I don't know, a half a billion? I mean, after you've made half a billion, I really see no point in letting you make more than ~15 million a year.

I'm not sure. I'm still kicking the maximum wage idea around.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353321]

>>2353315
You shouldn't. A man should be free to dive into ruin if he so chooses. But at least with a NIT (or other GMI,) he'd have that choice.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353323]

Found some better, but older, numbers. The top quintile (top 20%) of households in 1995 had 53% of the income, but paid 22.2% of the federal taxes.

This is morally wrong, IMO.

[Anonymous No.2353326]

>>2353311
Joe Sixpack HAS a job. Why exactly does he deserve to be poor?
>Joe Sixpack
>sixpack

you might have missed my point about the human disposition for mediocrity, present company excluded


my main point is there's always going to be limited jobs, and technology is going to replace many people, so the only thing that is inevitable is mass unemployment. are they going to create jobs in the future just so people can work when there's no work to do?

joe six pack is that guy who doesnt contribute shit but works to afford his beer at some job im willing to bet doesnt need to exist

[Anonymous No.2353330]

>>2353311
>>2353308
>>2353279

I think people are trying to hit on the giving a man a fish vs teaching him to fish argument.
Look at what happens when people who are very poor win the lottery. Do they reinvest it in themselves by spending it on college education to get them a better paying job? More often than not, they don't. It's all gone within a few years.
Giving everyone in the country X amount to keep them from freezing and starving (which is what someone was suggesting; even for people who had already had jobs and made more than that, which is what sparked the calculations using the population of the country) may not change peoples lives for those living at the bottom because of laziness/whatever else. Throwing money at these people will not solve the problem that they are being a drain on resources without contributing. But it would make a difference for those who had just fallen on hard times, who would then turn around and be able to do better.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353331]

>>2353323
Are you sure that's income? I mean, I'm on your side, but having lots of wealth isn't the same as having lots of income.

A wealth tax would be a different best entirely. I'm not sure I'm comfy with that.

[Anonymous No.2353334]

>>2353321
that's where i disagree

the only point of capitalism is to privatize the planet, and the only way to do that is to buy out all the assets already owned, and the only way to do that is to allow individuals to create unrecoverable mistakes like bad loans and indulgence in bad habits. thats not freedom - thats entrapment

[Anonymous No.2353340]

Sounds like we need...a technocracy. I nominate myself as Premier.

[Anonymous No.2353344]

How would you ever convince the rich to give so much of their money to the government?

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353352]

>>2353323
Forgot link.
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-1.htm

Even better numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Distribution
>In 2007, the top 5% of income earners paid over half of the federal income tax revenue.[41] However, as of 2004, the top 5% hold 59.2% of wealth. The top 1% of income earners paid 25% of the total income tax revenue.[42] Again however, the top 1% hold 23.5% of wealth.

This is close to paying a percentage of the tax burden similar to your percentage of the income.

This sounds nice, but consider: there are much fewer people in the top 1% or top 5% than the rest. Is it good for the top 5% of people to have more than half the wealth?

Imagine a small group of 20 people, all working, and ONE of them gets more than HALF of all resources. Is this right? Wouldn't a more even distribution of wealth be better for the development of society?

Corporations can have healthy budgets for R&D and infrastructure, etc, but this is personal income we're talking about.

[Anonymous No.2353353]

>>2353326
This is the luddite fallacy.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353357]

>>2353334
See, you're arguing against capitalism entirely. I don't. I agree some "business practices" should be outlawed, but I don't think we should try to outlaw people from making "bad choices," or "choices I think are bad." Because trust me, if I was some crazy-ass absolute ruler, I'd just ban alcohol, smoking, all drugs, and anything I didn't like at gunpoint.

>>2353344
At gunpoint.

Or, the same way we do now: making it law. Also, consider enforcing a minimum wage law (and/or other business laws) for companies that choose to do business in the US with consideration to their countries of origin and prime countries of operation. Y'know, to get those companies who base them selves overseas despite doing all their business here.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353362]

>>2353326
>joe six pack is that guy who doesnt contribute shit but works to afford his beer at some job im willing to bet doesnt need to exist
If all the "joe sixpacks" disappeared, the utter idiocy of your statment would become crystal-clear. They are the janitors, the plumbers, the electricians, the secretaries, the technicians, the teachers, the construction workers. You SERIOUSLY telling me that they don't contribute?

No man is an island. It's about time you realized it.

[Anonymous No.2353365]

>>2353352
>Is it good for the top 5% of people to have more than half the wealth?
>Imagine a small group of 20 people, all working, and ONE of them gets more than HALF of all resources. Is this right?
This.

[Anonymous No.2353367]

>>2353330
it's more like a "turn a man into a fish and watch him eat himself" argument

education is bs. right now, all it is, is a business. now you're expected to have multiple degrees or masters to remain competitive.

>competition is not good for anybody

[Anonymous No.2353374]

>>2353352

You're forgetting one thing.
Those people still WORKED FOR THEIR MONEY. Whether they have 6,000 in the bank or 600,000 in the bank. Someone valued their job at a certain pay rate, and were thus willing to pay that much.
is it right? Maybe. But they still WORKED FOR THEIR MONEY. it's not like they mugged people on the street to make it. They're (probably) not sitting around with a thumb up their ass while they watch their total amount of money tick up. They did work, which someone valued at that cost.
I don't think it's right for people who make a higher wage (because someone else valued it at that much) to be punished because someone else placed that value on it.
I don't think it's right for people who work harder (which is potentially debatable about millionaires, but not necessarily) or who have worked their way up to making 100,000 a year from making minimum wage and slaving away in lower income brackets, to have more of their income taken by the government simply because they have more of it.
Doesn't seem right to me, and it seems like it discourages people from working harder, which is the opposite of what we, as a society, I believe, would like.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353381]

>>2353326
>>2353353
How is saying "technology is making is possible for people to do jobs that would've taken more people in the past?" One man can now grow far more food than a man from a hundred years ago. The point of automating and roboticizing society is only avoidable as long as we want it to be.

We could probably automate a McDonalds if we wanted, and have a small team of tech guys serve an entire state. Personal attendants would go the way bank tellers have been going, in place of ATMs. Imagine if all those menial, shit jobs disappeared in the next decade. THAT would be an economic crisis.

[Anonymous No.2353382]

>>2353362
you must have missed my point about robots replacing us.

i should know, im making skynet and iron man

also: im black and my name is tony

[Anonymous No.2353384]

>>2353367

You're telling me that you wouldn't like your doctor to have a medical degree? You're telling me that you wouldn't like your child to be taught science by someone who has a degree in science and in research-proven teaching methods? You're telling me that you don't think the people who designed your house should have a piece of paper that says they know how to properly build a sturdy house?

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353387]

>>2353374
>it's not like they mugged people on the street to make it.
It's no less a mugging if it takes place with a pen. In fact, isn't it mightier? That should probably make it an even bigger crime.

[Anonymous No.2353388]

>>2353362

Teacher starting salary in Florida is approximately $30,000 a year. Considerably higher than minimum wage. Just saying.

[Anonymous No.2353392]

I blame liberals.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353394]

>>2353374
Also, I think you're overestimating money as a motivating factor. Science has proven once someone makes "enough money to not worry about money," throwing more money at them doesn't necessarily make them work any better at all.

This is an awesome watch, if you get time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

[Anonymous No.2353396]

>>2353331
You're right that I might have missed the term "wealth" in this source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Distribution

I'll find the percentage of income for the top 5% instead of wealth percentage.

However, there is this: after-tax income for the top 1% has more than doubled since 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Household_income

[StormTroll !GnYU8vo7lA No.2353398]

ITT Communist scum.

It is my sacred goal to destroy civilization completely before you're allowed to have your dystopian future.

[Anonymous No.2353399]

>>2353387
The crime is already occurring. It would be another crime to allow it to continue.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353402]

>>2353381
>Imagine if all those menial, shit jobs disappeared in the next decade. THAT would be an economic crisis.
No, it would be fucking utopia. All that mindless work is still being done, remember? No one is less wealthy than before, because all the same goods and services are equally available - unless you let the rich steal it all, and leave the guys the robots replaced out in the cold.

[Anonymous No.2353405]

>>2353387
They didn't steal that money.
Let's say they're a higher-up in a big corporation that makes product A that can be found in retail stores.
Price of product A is set by market demands. They didn't force anyone to buy product A, although they may have made the packaging more appealing to joe consumer. They may have advertised for product A to encourage joe consumer to buy product A. But at the end of the day, joe consumer has a choice to buy product A or not. And if product A is priced too high, he wont buy it. End of story.
This works whether product A is cereal or shirts or any one of a number of other things.
Consider banks that make the bad loans. No one in the bank is forcing people to sign a contract they will not be able to keep. They may make it appealing (and they shouldn't be allowed to lie about the feasability of it being paid off) but at the end of teh day, the person signed it of their own free will.
And so, Mr. Bigmoney still worked for his big money. If people make stupid decisions, that is their own fault. if someone cannot think critically about the decisions they make in life, I can't help them, and I am ESPECIALLY not motivated to give them some of my hard-earned $30,000 yearly teaching salary because they made poor decisions.

[Anonymous No.2353411]

>>2353353
>mfw an invalid fallacy

robots/machines/ai can potentially do everything a human can equally or better. in a capitalist society it is obvious that any costs that can be cut will be.

what the luddite fallacy fails to account for is the inherent corruption of governing bodies to preserve the establishment, meaning that all figures are inflated to fit a predetermined outcome, hiring 10 people to sweep the road when 1 person with a sweeper can do it more efficiently/cheaper is not job growth.

im having a hard time not laughing at you

[Anonymous No.2353416]

>>2353402

>implying teaching is a mindless menial job

Fuck you asshole. You can't just have a talking head at the front of the classroom. Look at the difference in standardized test scores across states and look at the requirements to become a teacher in states that do better.
Florida has shit requirements to become a teacher and shit pay to teach, and has shit scores.
This alone should be evidence that teaching cannot be automated.

Fuck you.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353417]

>>2353405
>And so, Mr. Bigmoney still worked for his big money.
The question remains: How much is that work worth?

Aren't you basically saying he should get paid as much as he can get away with paying himself? This isn't good for society.

Distinguish between corporate and personal success here. Does Mr. Bigmoney REALLY deserve to PERSONALLY take a significant chunk of an entire corporation's profits? The money could be going into something useful, instead of personal consumption.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353418]

>>2353399
Agreed.

>>2353398
>It is my sacred goal to destroy civilization completely before you're allowed to have your dystopian future.
>dystopian future.
>dystopian
>pic related

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353422]

>>2353416
Ok, I misspoke by including teachers in the "joe sixpack" category. I was arguing that they were vitally important before, remember?

And I agree, teachers cannot be replaced by robots. But some people do. The people you're pissed at aren't me.

[Anonymous No.2353426]

>>2353398
ITT communist = communist dictatorship

or so my uncle sam says

[Anonymous No.2353428]

>>2353422

You included teaching in the menial jobs category and then said it would be utopia if all of the menial jobs were gotten rid of.
How is that arguing they they are important?

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353430]

>>2353405
>if someone cannot think critically about the decisions they make in life, I can't help them, and I am ESPECIALLY not motivated to give them some of my hard-earned $30,000 yearly teaching salary because they made poor decisions.
The maximum income tax bracket wouldn't apply to you. Not even close. You're a little over twice minimum wage. The taxes we're talking about kick in at might higher income.

What would you do with 5x your current income? 10x? And is the shift from 5x to 10x your current income worth leaving people with minimum wage?

Earlier I was suggesting this bracket kick in at 100x minimum wage, not 10x or 20x.

[Seer !fIsmERL7lE No.2353432]

You are at a computer. You have the sum total of all human knowledge sitting in front of you, at your command, if you know what to ask of it. If you took a laptop with the entirety of wikipedia saved on it back, even fifty years, you would be the most powerful human alive. You hold your precious future at your fingertips. Do not beg and whine for flying cars.

[Anonymous No.2353435]

>>2353402

This has been explored in a sci-fi book. Player Piano by Vonnegut. In the 50s.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353436]

>>2353428
I was referring to teachers in >>2353362
>You SERIOUSLY telling me that they don't contribute?
I included them to give more validity to the value of "joe sixpack". Then later, someone else,
>>2353381
>We could probably automate a McDonalds if we wanted, and have a small team of tech guys serve an entire state. Personal attendants would go the way bank tellers have been going, in place of ATMs. Imagine if all those menial, shit jobs disappeared in the next decade. THAT would be an economic crisis.
I didn't think he was included teachers. And I certainly wasn't when I replied in
>>2353402

I was referring to burger-flipping. You know, the REALLY menial jobs. Not teaching. Not even being a plumber or electrician.

[Anonymous No.2353438]

>mfw we all ignore this bullcrap in the nano-socialist future living in constant hedonism, and our A.I. get around to exploring the universe.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353442]

>>2353405
>if someone cannot think critically about the decisions they make in life, I can't help them, and I am ESPECIALLY not motivated to give them some of my hard-earned $30,000 yearly teaching salary because they made poor decisions.

Mr. Bigmoney could've, by using a more fair loan. I'm not against the idea of loans, but sometimes it's fucking ridiculous.

And if Mr. Bigmoney at the bank intentionally makes a bad loan that he knows the customer can't pay, and Joe Consumer doesn't, then one of them entered that economic agreement in bad faith. Joe Consumer goes bankrupt at the intention of Mr. Bigmoney. I'd like Mr. Bigmoney held accountable for this, because I see it as legalized robbery.

And both you and I are already giving them some of our hard earned money with the current system. I'm simply advocating a system that ensure their economic opportunity (not even necessarily survival.)

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353445]

>>2353438
Fuck constant hedonism. It's a dead end. I'll explore the universe.

[Anonymous No.2353449]

>>2353416
lol statistics

youtube is better than every single teacher/professor/jedi master that has ever taught me.

>implying reading your text at home is not standard practice and onus is always on student to be self motivated

but i would agree that teaching is important, as is agriculture and architecture. almost everything else is superfluous fluff designed to quell the sheeple masses

but it seem more to me that it offends you that a robot can replace you. its not replacing you buddy, its just doing its job

[Anonymous No.2353450]

>>2353430

But isn't it the same thing? If they decided to suddenly pay teachers based on how important that job was to society (a highly improbably situation at best, but for the sake of argument, let us consider it) then I would be catapulted into a much higher pay range. And with a negative income tax, I would be required to pay more anyway.

Unless we're suddenly debating some other system where only people who make more than 100x minimum wage get all of that extra money taken away from them.
I thought we were still talking about a negative income tax situation.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353460]

>>2353435
It's one possible scenario. It can be avoided by education and wealth distribution. It is wrong to let such a large rich-poor gap develop. I'd imagine, since Vonnegut's novel is a dystopia with a large inequality in wealth distribution, that he would agree.

[Anonymous No.2353462]

>>2353436

Well, I guess I missed where teachers/electricians/plumbers were suddenly excluded from the list of menial jobs after being initially given as examples of.
My bad.

[Anonymous No.2353465]

>>2353442
>hard earned money
>higher education
>global depression
>global warming
>

you do understand that essentially you're a slave playing off a loan your grandfather took, that your kids are going to continue paying, forever?

[Anonymous No.2353473]

>>2353449
The idea that a robot can replace a teacher is an idea thought of by someone who clearly doesn't understand either:
a) teaching
b) the current level of AI
c) the ridiculous amount of gains required for AI to be able to sufficiently replace teachers.

[Anonymous No.2353474]

>>2353465
Not if we become fascists.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353475]

>>2353450
>Unless we're suddenly debating some other system where only people who make more than 100x minimum wage get all of that extra money taken away from them.
That was my original proposal, yes.

And if teachers WERE pushing that 100x minimum wage boundary - well, I don't think you'd have a right to complain. You would be making about $1.5M/yr. No one has an argument for why it would help society if they were allowed to personally own more than that.

There's instances of large foundations and philanthropy by the ultra-rich, but I'd say this is too rare. We'd be better off just taxing it away and directing it to what's useful.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353476]

>>2353450
I know *I'm* talking about a NIT coupled with a flat tax. So yeah, in what I'm talking about, you'd pay more money, but the same rate. (For number's sake, 20%.)

[Anonymous No.2353477]

>>2353473
Right on, anon who is actually sentient.

[Anonymous No.2353479]

>>2353477
Bro-fascist fist?

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353480]

>>2353465
Wait, what?

[Anonymous No.2353484]

>>2353475
>>2353476

My bad.
Missed something in there again.
I have a problem with any progressive tax system.

[Anonymous No.2353487]

>>2353460
once you say wealth, you are contributing to the problem

the best analogy i can come up with is the world economy is like windows 3.11 patched to look like windows 7. it is complete shit from the ground up and unless the world is one this problem will never be addressed (and that's never gonna happen is it)

economics is just barter, convoluted to create as many middle men as possible, adding value.

but i guess it could be worse, you guys could be politicians

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353488]

>>2353484
Well, if you don't have a progressive tax, how will you prevent the dystopia with the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor? Money makes money. Not just brains or effort.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353493]

>>2353487
Right, sorry. I mean income distribution.

If one man doesn't blow his money on hookers and booze, he shouldn't have his property taken away just because everyone else has.

[Seer !fIsmERL7lE No.2353494]

>>2353475
You're a socialist. That's cool, me too. You should probably call yourself that, though. It's less complicated than explaining it every time.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353495]

>>2353484
The NIT would definitely be labeled as a "progressive tax system," but I don't think that precludes it from being a useful opportunity for anyone willing to be able to lift themselves from poverty. And that's the point. To give them the opportunity to learn to fish, as the saying goes.

Of course, on a separate note, I have said in this thread that I'd be in favor of a "maximum wage," but only in theory, and I'd be really hesitant about it. I mentioned it here: >>2353317

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353496]

>>2353487
>economics is just barter
Sure
>convoluted to create as many middle men as possible, adding value.
I'd argue against this. Free markets tend to eliminate middle-men who don't contribute actual value to a product or service.

[Anonymous No.2353499]

>>2353477
>>2353473
two fagots dumber than ai.

the possibility that a robot can teach seems to infringe on your humanity.

also, as i said before most teachers dont actually teach

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353501]

>>2353494
But too many people think that socialism is fixed equal income. You know, the extreme case.

Really, this is a middle ground between the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism (no outside control of income) and radical socialism (no personal control of income).

[Anonymous No.2353503]

>>2353493
>>2353493
>>2353493

See, this. This is what I mean.

[Anonymous No.2353508]

>>2353499

Just because most teachers don't actually teach doesn't mean that they shouldn't.

[Science Teacher, you jelly? No.2353515]

>>2353499

Current state of things, a robot can't teach.
Like I said before in >>2353473, huge, significant gains in AI need to be made before a robot could be an acceptable teacher, and anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand a damn thing about teaching (ACTUALLY teaching) or the current level of AI.

[Anonymous No.2353519]

>>2353496
so economics is not barter..
>yup he's serious

free markets?
how much government intervention do you need before it becomes a communist state? there's thousands of middlemen/resellers in every industry i can think of.

also fucken wall street man

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353521]

>>2353515
Absolute truth.

That said, schools could definitely use changes. I'd love to hear if you've any ideas. And how you feel on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

[Anonymous No.2353526]

>>2353508
the point was the transition from robots to teachers wouldnt affect the quality of education
capcha preacher petubs

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353530]

>>2353519
No, I said economics IS barter. It's the complex dynamics that arise from lots of voluntary transactions between many people.

As for what model on income distribution I think is good
>Really, this is a middle ground between the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism (no outside control of income) and radical socialism (no personal control of income).
Both of the extremes are bad for society.

[Science teacher, you jelly? No.2353538]

>>2353521

Watching it. 2 minutes in, so far so good.
It's 11 minutes, so give me a bit.

[Anonymous No.2353542]

I think we're just going to have to strive towards technological advances in our respective fields if we really want to make a difference. The lawyers, politicians, and businessmen will not be reasoned with, so we need to circumvent them by pushing forward towards post-scarcity.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353543]

>>2353542
The idea that technology will change the world in SPITE of bureaucracy is one that I find fascinating.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353546]

>>2353538
I'll be around!

[Anonymous No.2353549]

>>2353515
lol. you should have said AI first, because any software engineer is a problem solver so what they are teaching the robot to do is irrelevant.

you're so adamant it is mind boggling.

current level of technology cant teach <- wtf was the point of that
>leapfrog

eventually ai will accomplish many things, being able to teach being one of them, but there will be no mass adoption because part of the current mentality is that one must work

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353554]

>>2353543
They couldn't control of the printed word. After that, it's been one failure after another. Technology tends to democratize, so let's hope that trend keeps up.

[Anonymous No.2353560]

>>2353530
you say complex, i say convoluted

thats like saying choose between being a good slave or a bitter one,without exploring the option of freedom

the system is shit, everything done to resolve any issues are just band-aids designed to keep band-aids relevant (subscription society, recurring fees)

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353563]

>>2353554
What has happened to income distribution in the US over the past decade or two is not encouraging. The rich make far more money than ever, and everyone else doesn't really have much of an increase.

Here's the caption for the pic:
>Inflation adjusted percentage increase in after-tax household income for the top 1% and the four quintiles, between 1979 and 2005 (gains by top 1% are reflected by bottom bar; bottom quintile by top bar).

The poor are *barely* better off. Meanwhile, the rich make more than twice what they used to. This is a very bad trend.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353567]

>>2353560
Are there any examples of subscriptions/recurring-fees for goods, rather than services? I mean, if the services is ongoing, doesn't an ongoing fee make some sense in most cases?

[Anonymous No.2353568]

>>2353411
Sorry, but I don't see the concern. I just don't. We're so close to a jumping off point that I can't help but view some of these intermediate concerns as trivial.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353569]

>>2353560
I can understand general frustration, but it's hard for me to feel much sympathy if you don't have any suggestions on how things should change. I'd like to hear them, if you have any.

[Anonymous No.2353572]

>>2353543
is it "matter of fact" because its been so for as long as history remembers.. right

ill just be shocked if there's any bureaucracy when this planet is dead

[Anonymous No.2353579]

>>2353567
wal mart.
every aisle

[Anonymous No.2353581]

>>2353563
And yet I go on /new/ and I see people applauding this. Poor people, according to these classifications, have been conditioned to believe that, despite being exploited, they are not entitled to complain when a man of little talent can make a fortune on the stock market casino.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353582]

>>2353563
Oh I'm aware, and find this one a far better at showing the problem.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353587]

>>2353582
Please add "though it's a bit old." to that. I meant to include that.

>>2353579
I don't understand? What's sold at Walmart that requires a subscription that isn't a service?

[Anonymous No.2353591]

>>2353569
i've met a lot of assholes in my life, but you almost sound genuine there. not smart alecky or nuffin

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353593]

>>2353581
>a man of little talent can make a fortune on the stock market casino.
But the strike-it-rich thing has been a general falsehood, since the Great Depression. One in a million can go from rags to riches, but you're not that one. It's just another form of lottery.

[Science teacher, you jelly? No.2353596]

>>2353521

Okay, he makes a lot of great points.
I'm actually a zoology major who's minoring in a special program to make really awesome secondary (middle and high school) science and math teachers. And we are told that a lot of the old ways of doing things are rubbish. (Because they are.) teaching used to be, and often still is, a talking head kind of viewpoint.
I don't know about other subjects, but a lot of our practical experience teaching and designing lesson plans is based on inquiry approaches. That is, providing the tools for students to discover the natural relationships in the world, rather than just telling them a ball will fall to the ground if it's dropped.
Also, collaborative learning across subjects is a great idea, but takes a lot of time to design a good lesson where you can't really tell if it's a science lesson or a math lesson, for example. And teachers are deprived of time.

Also, standardized testing has many positives and negatives.
Negatives include that it controls and limits topics and has the unfortunate effect of being tied to merit pay, and forces a lot of teachers to teach to the test, which means boring school time.
Positives include that it can provide accountability for teachers. Are school children learning physics in physics, or does the teacher have them watch House all day?
(cont.)

[Anonymous No.2353599]

>>2353581
Ahhh, the American dream! "One day you, too, will be rich! See? That other guy did it!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[Anonymous No.2353603]

>>2353568
typing on a computer on a saturday

many things are trivial to you

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353611]

>>2353591
If I came off as assholeish, I apologize. I care about people, but I hear general bitterness and discontent without helpful suggestions pretty often. Sorry if I included you in that group.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353621]

>>2353582
"But the wealth will trickle down!"

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353634]

>>2353596
>And we are told that a lot of the old ways of doing things are rubbish. (Because they are.) teaching used to be, and often still is, a talking head kind of viewpoint.
That's kinda encouraging.
>I don't know about other subjects, but a lot of our practical experience teaching and designing lesson plans is based on inquiry approaches.
As is this!
>And teachers are deprived of time.
That seems to be a big problem, from the outside looking in, anyway.
>Also, standardized testing has many positives and negatives.
See, this is where I think it's a matter of application. I think it's horrible how it limits topics (due to time,) but even if not used as a pass/fail standard, I can see how the info derived from them could help get a picture about where we are, what's working where, etc.

Federal standardized testing should be the scientific method at teaching's disposal, not the leash that holds them to a lesson plan.

(And thanks for the feedback.)

[Science teacher, you jelly? No.2353637]

>>2353596

What you really need to do is shake things up in education is appeal to a variety of learning types. When teaching mitosis, push all of the desks out of the way and have them stand up and act it out. have them draw it, summarize the process in their own words, and de-emphasize highly technical vocabulary. It is important that they know mitosis, and that it has a certain number of phases. How important is it for them to know the technical terms for all of the parts of the cell? centromere, golgi apparatus, nucleus, nuclear envelope, mitochondria, etc. etc. Especially considering that not all of these students are going to grow up to become biologists. Some will be chemists. Some will be engineers. Some will be politicians. K-12 education in the US is supposed to give people a taste of everything, because they don't know what they want to do yet. It is supposed to give them a lot of general important knowledge. Is it important for everyone to know the basic ways a cell functions? Yes. Is it important for everyone to know the technical names for every part of the cell? No.

Also, I have to go.
We can make an education thread later.

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353640]

>>2353621
I'm laughing, see, these are tears of happiness at your joke.. Honest... *sniff*

[Anonymous No.2353641]

>>2353603
hurrdurr you're doing the same thing

[None !!oBiwiSSOFOt No.2353649]

>>2353637
>Also, I have to go.
>We can make an education thread later.
Awesome, I look forward to it! And thanks!

[Anonymous No.2353651]

>>2353001
that´s not true.

capitalism, in its actual form, didnt really existed before 1800.

[None !SBPrb0mdow No.2353655]

>>2353640
*sniff*
It would be funny if it weren't so terribly sad. At least the poor aren't getting poorer.