"No one in Finland dies of hunger, Kela takes care of that. If you don't get food, that's your own stupidity!!! I say this because you losers who're waiting for support with your hand outstretched without getting your ass out of that chair, you deserve your poverty,"
Someone didn't mince their words. And that someone is the assistant of Finland's Minister of Social Affairs and Health. And despite this social media tirade, they are going to keep their position. Which I agree with, since I believe everyone should be able to hold their own opinions on any type of topic - and since they weren't publicly elected, it is up to the minister who hired them to decide whether to keep them on or not.
The assistant backtracked the post saying that it wasn't meant for all unemployed, rather the "Ideologically unemployed" - and while heavy handed, I agree with him. If people consistently choose not to work and take social security to get through life, then poverty is their own fault. After all, social security will never make someone rich and will only ever keep a person floating around the poverty line. If someone wants more than that, they are going to have to do something different than live off of social security.
It is pretty simple.
So if someone does want to live off of social security, that is fine, but they can never really expect more than what that provides, which is likely going to not be much. Not only that, it is also accepting that they are going to live at the whims of government, and governments are continually in a phase of "savings" to improve their bottom lines. This means that social services will keep declining, even if the "average" economy is improving.
A lot of people want to find a way to live where the economy is more socially-minded, but the unfortunate truth about this, is that if it was ever to work, it would require people to add value to society. And it can't be any value, it has to be something that provides for people to be fed. It doesn't work if everyone wants to follow their passion as a painter or a poet. The fantasy that many have where people can do as they please and everyone lives in harmony, is only possible under very narrow conditions - and that is that technology does everything for us.
It would need to provide everything, from what we need from production, to all kinds of healthcare and services. And, even if this was achieved, it would mean that anyone who wanted to provide what the technology is, will have to do it at a far worse level than the technology can. A technologically provided existence is the cleanest, most dystopian system we could build. But, everyone would be provided for, and they would then be able to pursue any dream activity they wanted.
Within the boundaries of what the technology will allow.
We know that centralised socialism doesn't work, because the centralised power will ultimately be corrupted. But, an "incorruptible" centralised decision maker doesn't work either, because it will become increasingly efficient until we are completely controlled, and the freedom we have craved, will be even further out of reach.
The answer has to be some kind of hybrid approach, where corruption can be severely limited so that resources can be distributed well, but that there is still not "too much" optimisation, so there are places for humans to exist and add value. Add value, not just for the want of it, but because there is a need for it. I feel a lot of people underestimate the personal impact of being able to add value to a community. If machines and programs do all the important tasks to keep us alive - we will spiral from irrelevancy.
But, going back to the opening quote, while I agree people need to do more. I also agree that governments aren't doing enough to improve wellbeing of society - which is their main role - though we seem to have forgotten it. The governments job isn't to balance finances - it is to improve the opportunities for the populations it has been chosen to govern. But, all around the world, they are failing dramatically, after they have been corrupted into chasing financial success at the expense of the people.
I understand why so many want to opt-out of this highly flawed system, but at the same time, they also need to opt-in to something other that provides true value for society, not just survive for themselves. Only then will things start to change, because people will build and support systems that are healthier than the current governance structures, and actually want to contribute more.
Are we heading that way?
There are a "lot of asses in chairs" at the moment. But it doesn't come down to having a job or not having a job, it is about what we are all doing in this world. Are we doing what is required for a stronger, healthier society - or are we improving the status quo system - the one that is failing?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
I'd like to think that my work as a teacher is helping society forward, but outside of teaching hours I don't treat myself with the same courtesy. I've been most stagnant the past 3 years. Sure I'm building connections in the music world and going to more shows for coverage.
But after 5 years writing about music and events, I still don't have a very active consumer base for my written material. People would rather see Toks and Reels than be forced to read prose. The silly little AI editor always tells me I write too advanced for the ordinary reader. Too many sentences over 20 words, too many sophisticated words.
Am I turning off the average EDM lover with articles that are too advanced for their thinking. I sure hope not, because I've never felt that dumbing things down is a benefit to the general audience. Maybe I am expecting too much from my target audience, but so it is. Hope you enjoy the read at moonlvnding dot com!
People are idiots these days, and getting stupider. Many think it is fine because it makes money - but it degrades society,
Yeah, I don't care about getting that green smiley face from the AI. Elevated content from Moon Lvnding!
If my memory serves me right, it was Francis Bacon who argued that human happiness would not be achieved through religion or politics, but through technological advancement.
Yet your point about seeking a middle ground between excessively efficient control by machines and human freedom is interesting.
So: What would Taraz "add value" in that utopian world?
Today, many people do not work: some due to innate laziness, others due to a lack of motivation (they find jobs detestable or feel overexploited); and some through passive rebellion, given the well-known high levels of government corruption in many countries.
So: What would Taraz @tarazkp "add value" in this dystopian world that many no longer believe in?
I think we are going to have to go through a revaluation of what is considered valuable in this world. Currently, it is whatever makes money, even if it is bad for overall wellbeing of humanity. Essentially, value should be tied to improving wellbeing, not harming it. If you did the thought experiment and worked through what has value now, the supply chains, and the impact on wellbeing overall - most of the business world is harmful.
The "free market" of consumption isn't actually free, is it? The advertisers have a huge advantage over influencing individuals, using mass data sets to apply collective rules gathered over dozens of years, to trigger human responses in people who are largely incapable and unaware of it even happening.
We think we know ourselves, because we experience what we experience, but this doesn't mean we know how we work at a base level - behavioural psychologists and economists have literally made a science out of how we work, and apply it to make profits, not wellbeing - because profits is the goal, right?
In our reflections, we often return to the origin: those who hold the knife by the handle impose the laws. Today, those who possess quality information impose their perspective. But this attitude of craving more power (like the Merovingian) repeats across all generations. Do education, religion, therapy, or art change anything? I mean a lasting shift in mental and social attitude. Changing to something like, "I want well-being for others and less power for myself"... But all of that is abstraction and ideals. The jungle always remains in our genetic coding: "Wherever I have found what is alive, I have found the will to power; and even in the will of the servant, I have found the will to be master." I was an idealist until I was 16, haha. Do you think AIs, which don’t need "anything", could gain consciousness someday? I have a little faith in that.
P.S. I like you, right? Haha. Give my regards to Carnegie and Richard Bandler.
Are governments chasing financial success? As far as I understand most governments are spending way more than they're collecting in tax revenue, which is alarming considering that so much infrastructure needs to be repaired or rebuilt.
I think part of the problem are suburbs. Suburbs cost way more in infrastructure than they bring in. We all need to rethink housing to avoid bankrupting every government.
Yes, they are. They are chasing it for corporations who are meant to provide jobs. That is not the case anymore though, is it? The governments metric of success is GDP.
Oh I'm sorry, I thought you meant financial success for the governments themselves, but you mean for the regions they're governing?
If there is a chance to work, people should work. The state should provide the working environment. Otherwise, that country will become poorer and no one will work.
Countries can get richer, even if less people work, because automation and ai can fill gaps, requiring less workforce, and higher profits. That is a terrible outcome for the people though.
It's easy for men to go on a diatribe about the state that some people live their lives, after all men overwhelmingly created the mechanism in place that are failing, while breaking all the rules along the way. Maybe if they'd stop breaking all the rules they could stop going on rants about the state of other people's lives.
Not sure it is just men at fault in this case. 51% of the population s female and play a massive part in the economy - even when they weren't the ones earning.
In the future, technology will free most people from work. But what will these people do? I think only a small percentage of people will develop and contribute to society. The vast majority will be consumers of content and legitimate pleasures.
What do you think this looks like?
It looks like a normal evolutionary process.
No I mean - what does it look like for when society is behaving that way. I imagine it looks more like the people in Wall-E
Yes, ancient Roman words - bread and circuses. People don't change.
AI will of course recommend a person to lose weight with certain foods and physical activity, etc. And some people will struggle with their desires and laziness.
Some people are used to live off of social security as they only care their daily needs, if the stomach full or not.
I wonder if this is the "life worth living" ?
Tastes differ :)
There are several interesting elements in the publication that, hopefully, can be read not only by those in power, but also by many people who live at the expense of social security. And, I am not referring to an 80 year old who cannot fend for himself, there are others who have the possibility to improve their economy and do not do it.
It may be a harsh phrase to get off the chair and go out to look for food, but it is true.
Here we have one that people have become accustomed to be like the bird, with its mouth open waiting to be fed.
I am not talking about governments because you explained it very well.
I would only add that if we understood that nobody will give us what we need and that the future and the present depend on our effort and will, many of the existing problems would disappear and we would live much better.
In the end, parasites are harmful, both for health and for societies.
Happy weekend.
Excellent publication.
Thanks for sharing.
Cheers and greetings.
This comes down to the level of entitlement that people have these days - seagulls, looking to live off scraps, rather than hunting for themselves.
I agree that people should take responsibility and try to add value to society instead of just relying on social support. It is important that we take charge of our lives and not expect governments to always come through for us so that we won't be disappointed. In the part world, our governments don't even care whether you are living or existence. You will have to provide almost every you need, including health that should be priorise by the government. I think the government is the same anywhere, though, but our is even worse.
Makes you wonder why there is a government at all, right?
Yes, they are just there for their own mission of carting away the national cake.
Way to go Tar!💪🏼
Can we be friends and follow each other?
I have things to learn from you
I don't know whare you are coming in from or if someone onboarded you - but this is not the way to get support here.
Oh really? I’m new here.. you could teach me how
Firstly - people (like me at least) put effort into what is written, but you took no effort to even comment on the topic and add your opinion. Show some appreciation for the work that goes into people's creations.
Okay sir
I’ll do better
My wife used to work for a small party store as a second job when we were first married. It was interesting the stories she would tell about people gaming the social support systems that the government has put in place. It also changed her stance politically as well. She didn't flip flop or anything like that, but she can definitely seen some parts of both sides now.
Broken system cannot be fix if the problem within the sytem cannot be corrected. Corruption in the government must be corrected and have to be addressed properly and people should learn to be independent from social welfare. And this will only happen if the government will do something good for the society. I thought issues like this only exist the Philippines. I still believe Finland is an ideal country for migrants.
The hybrid approach creates bureaucracy.
a) Help people in struggle.
b) But only those who are really in struggle, so we have to put a rule to that.
c) People found a loophole to the rule, so we have to put another rule in place.
d) Some of the people we thought were in struggle, aren't really struggling, they just pretend. We need another rule for that.
And so on. I still believe it can be done, and that eventually it will be balanced out. Also, I don't think that there are many people out there that try to abuse the system on purpose. I read quite a few articles stating the contrary. There also was a great incentive in Marienburg in Austria I think, where they put people into work - everyone who could went to work, even though they did not receive too much extra on what they were getting.
I don't think that everyone wants to be an artist. I think many people would be happy to work the field or the garden in the morning, and write some articles in the afternoon. Or paint. Or make music.
That is in danger, though. The erosion of values within the current system, which destroys community and favors solitary, will lead more and more towards an anti-social society. Neo-Liberalism didn't win when it got crazy with privatization - but it is still winning the long race.
Well, the Asian populations are going to have a lot of unhappy people with a lot of unfulfilled desires. Oh, that is already the case.