2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[NobodyHere]

This is overdue. Huckabee and Christie are out of the main debate and Pataki and Graham are out of the debates completely.

Fox Business debate: Christie, Huckabee bumped from main stage - Nov. 5, 2015

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

This is overdue. Huckabee and Christie are out of the main debate and Pataki and Graham are out of the debates completely.

Fox Business debate: Christie, Huckabee bumped from main stage - Nov. 5, 2015

And that's the end of those four candidates I think

[tarcone]

I'm glad Christie is done. How do they make this decision? Polls or network decision?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I'm glad Christie is done. How do they make this decision? Polls or network decision?

The network made the decision based on the polls. Apparently you needed to above 2.5% in the polls to join the main debate and 1% to join the undercard.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Would I be correct in presuming you believe that the Government should stop supporting Walmart's policy of under-paying their workers by artificially supplementing their pay so they can survive (and thus force Walmart to pay a living wage) ... in a similar vein do you agree that subsidising corporations which make a huge profit (Oil companies and the like) should also be stopped? ... this is after all interfering with the free-market.

One question is whether a company essentially owns someone if it provides employment.

We have an ever-decreasing participation in the work force. Do we really want the government to take away even more jobs by pricing them out of the work force?

Five years from now, you'll go to a fast-food restaurant and you'll either enter your order on your cell or you'll interact with some form of a robot. Robots will be stocking the shelves and maybe even answering simple questions at Wal-Mart.

Basically, just about anything a teenager did for spending money when we were younger will be priced out the work force. I don't think it's good policy to hurry along that transition.

[Dutch]

Unemployment rate=Overpopulation rate

Government didn't create all those babies. We did.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Unemployment rate=Overpopulation rate

Government didn't create all those babies. We did.

You could make an argument for immigration. Illegal or not, these people will do any type of work and they will work hard. They don't have an ego and they weren't brought up feeling entitled.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Would I be correct in presuming you believe that the Government should stop supporting Walmart's policy of under-paying their workers by artificially supplementing their pay so they can survive (and thus force Walmart to pay a living wage) ... in a similar vein do you agree that subsidising corporations which make a huge profit (Oil companies and the like) should also be stopped? ... this is after all interfering with the free-market.

I suspect Jon would say the government absolutely should get out of the business of helping a Walmart employee survive, but not for the reasons you're thinking

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Five years from now, you'll go to a fast-food restaurant and you'll either enter your order on your cell or you'll interact with some form of a robot. Robots will be stocking the shelves and maybe even answering simple questions at Wal-Mart.

Basically, just about anything a teenager did for spending money when we were younger will be priced out the work force. I don't think it's good policy to hurry along that transition.

** Assuming said robots are much more cost-effective than a low-wage teenager, even when factoring in R&D.

If that's the case, hurray, the companies with the best robots see profits go through the roof and pay more taxes as a result. They can use those profits to make Big Macs even cheaper, make healthier food available for the same prices, or they can be undercut by someone who designs a better robot (I suspect it would be easier and cheaper to apply an upgrade to FastFoodBot 1.0 than to convince a bunch of high schoolers to fully dedicate themselves to their minimum-wage jobs). Invisible hand ftw!

[Marc Vaughan]

If that's the case, hurray, the companies with the best robots see profits go through the roof and pay more taxes as a result. They can use those profits to make Big Macs even cheaper, make healthier food available for the same prices, or they can be undercut by someone who designs a better robot (I suspect it would be easier and cheaper to apply an upgrade to FastFoodBot 1.0 than to convince a bunch of high schoolers to fully dedicate themselves to their minimum-wage jobs). Invisible hand ftw!

There are already fully automated fast food places appearing in some countries - its only a matter of time until this sort of thing expands into most low end retail establishments, you can already see many retail stores moving towards not having cashiers which is further eroding the employment base ..

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We have an ever-decreasing participation in the work force. Do we really want the government to take away even more jobs by pricing them out of the work force?

Jon and yourself will probably hate this - but your argument of increasing automation and declining jobs is exactly why I think society needs to move past this obsession with money and capitalism ...

We're rapidly moving towards a post-work society where the vast majority of people won't have jobs because there simply won't be enough to go around, at that point we need to stop victimizing people for simply being unemployed and look at ways to make their lives meaningful for them ... providing free education, healthcare (physical and mental) and such would be a good start.

[JPhillips]

If automation goes the way I expect, we'll either need a basic income plan or we'll live in a sci-fi movie like distopia.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If automation goes the way I expect, we'll either need a basic income plan or we'll live in a sci-fi movie like distopia.

Exactly. The "end of work" that's been predicted for so long (since the Industrial Revolution, really), is already gradually happening. Societies are going to have to figure out how to transition into a state where there just aren't enough jobs to go around. Ideally those societies will find other ways to support people and still benefit, but I imagine those based on puritan principles/ethos (hello USA) are going to have trouble adjusting.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

We're rapidly moving towards a post-work society where the vast majority of people won't have jobs because there simply won't be enough to go around, at that point we need to stop victimizing people for simply being unemployed and look at ways to make their lives meaningful for them ... providing free education, healthcare (physical and mental) and such would be a good start.

The question becomes who is forced to go out and do the work and who gets to sit home and play video games all day?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

We're rapidly moving towards a post-work society where the vast majority of people won't have jobs because there simply won't be enough to go around

[/quote]

Which is why I refer to it as not a shortage of jobs but rather an excess of people.

We're in agreement about the situation as far as numbers go, just with vastly different solutions to the subject.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which is why I refer to it as not a shortage of jobs but rather an excess of people.

We're in agreement about the situation as far as numbers go, just with vastly different solutions to the subject.

If you go by that logic, though, where the solution to work automation is a decrease in human population, eventually when complete automation occurs in the next century that would mean a complete elimination of humanity. Only those filled with lots of self hatred would rejoice at that proposition.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The question becomes who is forced to go out and do the work and who gets to sit home and play video games all day?

You say that - but I think there will be a percentage of people who will get satisfaction out of helping others and doing jobs; I for instance doubt I'll ever retire because I enjoy my job and would likely always want to continue doing it ..

PS - I see now value in victimizing people who can't work because there aren't enough jobs once that becomes apparent to all in society, by all means reward those who still do work - but its imperative that the psychological demoralization of the unemployed ends and that they're given a decent standard of living and taught how to succeed and be happy in their circumstances (something that even today people aren't given enough help with imho).

[mckerney]

Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship - POLITICO

At least the time where God made Ben's secretary disappear so he wouldn't have to talk to her really happened. We can only hope so anyway.

[digamma]

I listened to some of the Carson interview on CNN this morning. I realize some of this plays, but his faux anger at having news organizations vet him is pretty silly. He also claimed Obama got a free pass on his background, which doesn't seem to jibe with the great Birth Certificate Crisis. Don't know, but his 15 minutes may be coming to an end.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

This is overdue. Huckabee and Christie are out of the main debate and Pataki and Graham are out of the debates completely.

Fox Business debate: Christie, Huckabee bumped from main stage - Nov. 5, 2015

Yep. It's about time that the really low polling candidates are weeded out of the debates. It becomes totally unworkable when there are 10 people up there. The shame is that Christie was doing slightly better in a couple recent polls than Rand Paul, but really, the list should be pruned to 6 before long - Paul, Kasich, Fiorina, and Bush really have little chance at this point - cutting the two lowest would be a good option. Maybe make that known beforehand so the debate will be a little more interesting .

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by digamma

I listened to some of the Carson interview on CNN this morning. I realize some of this plays, but his faux anger at having news organizations vet him is pretty silly. He also claimed Obama got a free pass on his background, which doesn't seem to jibe with the great Birth Certificate Crisis. Don't know, but his 15 minutes may be coming to an end.

And the whole investigation of his religious beliefs and the one reverend (I forget his name. Wright?).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship - POLITICO

Carson's done. The American electorate (and especially the GOP electorate) is perfectly fine with candidates making shit up about policy, but really dislikes candidates making shit up about themselves.

[flere-imsaho]

The main stage is now (in order of polling, according to FBC):

Trump
Carson
Rubio
Cruz
Bush
Fiorina
Kasich
Paul

The GOP's best hope, at this point, is that 2 of Rubio, Bush & Kasich drop out asap and endorse the survivor. Given the war between Rubio & Bush, that seems unlikely.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Carson's done. The American electorate (and especially the GOP electorate) is perfectly fine with candidates making shit up about policy, but really dislikes candidates making shit up about themselves.

Wasn't Carson also shot at by a sniper in Bosnia? Oh right that's the Democratic front runner.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Christie was doing slightly better in a couple recent polls than Rand Paul.

Ya, I thought Christie was generally ahead of Paul at this point. And certainly, all these bottom candidates are within the margin of error of these polls from each other. But I guess you have to differentiate somehow.

It does look like there's a clear top 4 at this point, so maybe it'd be better to have just those 4 in the main debate and everyone else on the undercard. I don't know if the rules allow that kind of flexibility though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know if the rules allow that kind of flexibility though.

The RNC & the networks negotiate the ground rules though, as I understand it anyhow. Those could be whatever can be mutually agreed upon since these are private affairs.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm going back to my suggestion to just make brackets .

Rank 'em 1-8, 4 in one bracket, 4 in the other based on rankings and then 2 from each bracket who is found to "win" moves into the "finals". I mean it combines debates with March Madness... win-win!

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Jon and yourself will probably hate this - but your argument of increasing automation and declining jobs is exactly why I think society needs to move past this obsession with money and capitalism ...

We're rapidly moving towards a post-work society where the vast majority of people won't have jobs because there simply won't be enough to go around, at that point we need to stop victimizing people for simply being unemployed and look at ways to make their lives meaningful for them ... providing free education, healthcare (physical and mental) and such would be a good start.

Jon and I are pretty much polar opposites on many issues. If we see common ground here, there's fairly widespread agreement somewhere.

Victimization is a very emotional word. If someone feels no shame in not working, I don't see how it's possible. If someone's standard of living is entirely dependent on the government, and entirely out of his control, he will have no incentive to work. It's hard to find value in life when no one but your immediate family and the government cares about you or depends upon you.

Your argument is also predicated on the assumption that services can be provided for free after an initial investment. The schools can educate one extra kid at a zero marginal cost. Doctors can see one more patient at a zero marginal cost.

The schools would have to change. And they are changing. Instead of preparing kids for a work life, schools would prepare kids for a different type of life. Much less individual education. Much more pablum.

The government would have far greater control since it would dictate standard of living. These things start out benevolently enough, but it's always essentially one person's view of standard of living. Soon enough in this Marxist vision, we'd become pets rather than individuals. This would become less benevolent very quickly.

Countries that have tried this approach (most recently Venezuela) have not been able to grow the economy. The standard of living rapidly drops. As does personal freedom.

I agree that population increases are changing the world. China proved that the "one-child" approach had serious problems. But how many people can the world support? Some would argue that we're already past that tipping point. If you look at world population totals, it's kind of crazy. And I really don't know what can be done about it.

You and I would work forever if we could. We wouldn't know otherwise. But our grandchildren might be born into a society where everything is out of their control. Finding meaning in a controlled existence will be difficult. I think the answers might be found with our cats and dogs. Happy, only as long as those responsible for their care are genuinely benevolent. I do not trust dictators to be benevolent. History bears that out.

[ISiddiqui]

Soo... why did you pick Venezuela as opposed to say, Sweden?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by digamma

I listened to some of the Carson interview on CNN this morning. I realize some of this plays, but his faux anger at having news organizations vet him is pretty silly. He also claimed Obama got a free pass on his background, which doesn't seem to jibe with the great Birth Certificate Crisis. Don't know, but his 15 minutes may be coming to an end.

I remain troubled by the UCC and Reverend Wright. The UCC is heavily tied to the BDS movement and actually preaches it in their churches. Wright and Farrakhan are very close. Obama made this his church for almost 20 years. I have the same questions. Obama is Christian, but this branch of the UCC is something I would consider a disqualification for major office.

The MSM sided with Obama on the birth certificate issue. And the federal elections board approved Obama as a candidate. This may be an annoying issue, but there's nothing in it. Just like there's nothing in the 9/11 "truthers" out there who think our government blew up the WTC. This was never a threat to Obama's candidacy.

But, yes, Carson is blowing up his own campaign. I couldn't vote for him myself. This is fine for now, but if he goes head-to-head with anyone on these issues, he'll lose support quickly.

[digamma]

That's not the point.

Carson seems to have some expectation that he's above reproach and shouldn't be vetted or researched. "Aw shucks, people asked me to run for President, so I guess I better."

All candidates go through this and to suggest that Obama (or Bush or Gore or Clinton or anyone else) didn't, regardless of how you feel about the outcome of the vetting, is silly.

Again, I recognize much of this is to play to the anti-media wing of things, but this stuff goes with the territory. If Carson has as thin a skin as he seems to be showing, he's not long for the campaign.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I thought Christie was generally ahead of Paul at this point. And certainly, all these bottom candidates are within the margin of error of these polls from each other. But I guess you have to differentiate somehow.

It does look like there's a clear top 4 at this point, so maybe it'd be better to have just those 4 in the main debate and everyone else on the undercard. I don't know if the rules allow that kind of flexibility though.

History shows it's still very early in the race. This "undercard" concept was probably necessary, but it isn't terribly democratic.

Bill Clinton received 2.5% of the Iowa Caucus vote in 1992.

It's unfortunate that there are still 14 candidates in the race. But the MSM shouldn't pressure people to get out of the race. If we rely on the MSM to dictate who is and who isn't a candidate, we'll get what we deserve in the end.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by digamma

That's not the point.

Carson seems to have some expectation that he's above reproach and shouldn't be vetted or researched. "Aw shucks, people asked me to run for President, so I guess I better."

All candidates go through this and to suggest that Obama (or Bush or Gore or Clinton or anyone else) didn't, regardless of how you feel about the outcome of the vetting, is silly.

Again, I recognize much of this is to play to the anti-media wing of things, but this stuff goes with the territory. If Carson has as thin a skin as he seems to be showing, he's not long for the campaign.

We can agree that Carson shouldn't think he's above reproach even if we disagree as to whether Obama was vetted or anointed.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's unfortunate that there are still 14 candidates in the race. But the MSM shouldn't pressure people to get out of the race. If we rely on the MSM to dictate who is and who isn't a candidate, we'll get what we deserve in the end.

just curious, what is the opposite of MSM? Is it alertantive media, conservative media, non-profit media?

Part of me reads your quote as: liberal bias media shouldn't decide....
And another part of me reads it as: entertainment outlets shouldn't artificially create....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I thought Christie was generally ahead of Paul at this point.

Made me curious so I went to RCP and looked

Last five major polls, Paul - Christie
4-2
2-3
2-3
2-1
4-1

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed, because the "MSM" in this case is Fox Business...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by digamma

That's not the point.

Indeed. You can't say that the media didn't give at least some air to the birther crap (too much, IMO), or especially the Reverend Wright ties. Obama had to give a speech to save his campaign when the media pounced on him for Wright.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Victimization is a very emotional word. If someone feels no shame in not working, I don't see how it's possible. If someone's standard of living is entirely dependent on the government, and entirely out of his control, he will have no incentive to work.

Is this what we're really talking about though? Are there millions of people just sitting around doing nothing, looking for the gov't to take care of everything?

7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact | Groundswell

I've not fact checked all of this, but it sure doesn't sound like it:

Myth #2: Welfare Recipients Are Lazy

The idea that most people on welfare are able-bodied adults who are just too lazy to get a job and make an honest living is utterly false.

Most benefit programs require recipients to work in order to collect. Take Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), for example. Single parents receiving this grant must work at least 30 hours per week in order to be eligible, and two-parent families must work between 35 and 50 hours a week.

The fact is, blue-collar wages in America are simply not high enough to support workers in today’s economy. The wages paid by many large employers are so low that their full-time employees are eligible for welfare.

You heard that right: People are working full-time to support their families, paying their fair share of taxes, but are so underpaid that they can’t get by without relying on government assistance.

This is partly due to the disturbing fact that the federal minimum wage has not been increased in over five years (despite the incessantly rising cost of living in our country) and partly due to voracious corporate greed.

And furthermore, half of all food stamp recipients are children. More than 82% of all food stamp money goes to households that include children, elderly people, or people with disabilities.These are people who legally or physically cannot work and live at the mercy of the system.

So where are all of these able-bodied lazy adults who are luxuriating off of their benefits? They are a fabrication.

Most people on welfare are hardworking, taxpaying citizens, just like the rest of us. Or they are impoverished children, elders, or folks with disabilities.

But it’s a lot easier for welfare critics to take help away from people that they imagine are lazy and deceitful, so that false image lives on.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Made me curious so I went to RCP and looked

Last five major polls, Paul - Christie
4-2
2-3
2-3
2-1
4-1

Makes me think of an "Others receiving votes" section of a football poll.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Is this what we're really talking about though? Are there millions of people just sitting around doing nothing, looking for the gov't to take care of everything?

7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact | Groundswell

I've not fact checked all of this, but it sure doesn't sound like it:

I'm sure it's not slanted at all with terms like "voracious corporate greed" in it.

[cuervo72]

Oh, I'm sure the source is slanted (as if the source of some of the links Jon has posted aren't). But that doesn't mean the argument is without merit. So all or even most people on assistance are sitting around doing nothing? And if people are working and are still dependent on the government, why are they working? Jim suggests they wouldn't be.

[cuervo72]

Get a Job? Most Welfare Recipients Already Have One - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This might be better. But it's "blog" so hey, maybe not, maybe it's also slanted.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Oh, I'm sure the source is slanted (as if the source of some of the links Jon has posted aren't). But that doesn't mean the argument is without merit. So all or even most people on assistance are sitting around doing nothing? And if people are working and are still dependent on the government, why are they working? Jim suggests they wouldn't be.

This is about a future where there's no incentive for work. Not today.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Oh, I'm sure the source is slanted (as if the source of some of the links Jon has posted aren't). But that doesn't mean the argument is without merit. So all or even most people on assistance are sitting around doing nothing? And if people are working and are still dependent on the government, why are they working? Jim suggests they wouldn't be.

Well his 82% figure seems to imply we can't blame the children or elderly for being lazy which I completely agree. But a woman with 5 children on government assistance who doesn't work would have that 83%/17% split and I feel like I can definitely blame her after kid #1.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by panerd

But a woman with 5 children on government assistance who doesn't work

Yes yes, blame the woman.

(Also, wonder what ways we could reduce births per mother. Maybe we can brainstorm this.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

(as if the source of some of the links Jon has posted aren't).

I'm kinda used to slings & arrows around this joint & I tend to let more of them slide than not but this one? I just can't.

I work my fucking ass off to spread the wealth on sources -- moreso on social media than here frankly, because we tend to be more detailed here than there, so fewer sources for a key point/stat -- and for the very purpose of avoiding

Feel free to dig through my posts for a week, a month, a year, or my entire fucking time here. Unless it's a specific report I'm citing (like a Rasmussen poll), you'll find my links & sourcing comes from a very wide range. I use BBC for international stuff, I'll go with Fox or CNN equally depending upon who is further in front on a story, I'll link local coverage instead of national on specific locales, I link the NYT probably about as frequently as anyone or any source (and you know damned well what I think about their agendas). And quite likely my most common cited source here is AP, since I read them in my aggregator site before I see virtually anything else and whatever biases they may have it's spread across the spectrum because pretty much every legitimate news source takes a great deal of their material right off the wire even to this day.

My spread of sources isn't done by accident, it's because I know how people think & behave, and if I link something then it's because I'm far more fucking interested in the information contained than I am in having some petty argument about FXNC.

You can hate my stinkin' guts, you can wish that I'd die in a fire while undergoing chemo for testicular cancer that was discovered while I was being treated after suffering a prison rape ... I'd probably let that slide. But I'll be damned & dipped in dogshit if I'll sit here in silence & be used as the placeholder for slanted sourcing when that is not my thing, it's never been my thing, and is pretty fucking unlikely at my advanced age to ever become my thing.

[cuervo72]

My apologies, and fwiw I hold no animosity towards you at all. Admittedly not all of your stances line up with mine but eh, it happens.

I do however consider you to be one of if not the most conservative posters here, and I probably make the mistake of using you as an easy personification of that. In this case I did that without really giving a thoughtful analysis. I assumed that the links to My Way were to a right-leaning outlet along the lines of WND or ONN without really examining the source (the 1998 aesthetics of the site reminded me of some of the more crackpot sources I've come across).

I will try to do better next time.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Indeed. You can't say that the media didn't give at least some air to the birther crap (too much, IMO)

Indeed. The proper response, if any was given at all, was, "His birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii and even if he wasn't, it wouldn't matter because his mother was a citizen."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

My apologies, and fwiw I hold no animosity towards you at all. Admittedly not all of your stances line up with mine but eh, it happens.

I do however consider you to be one of if not the most conservative posters here, and I probably make the mistake of using you as an easy personification of that. In this case I did that without really giving a thoughtful analysis. I assumed that the links to My Way were to a right-leaning outlet along the lines of WND or ONN without really examining the source (the 1998 aesthetics of the site reminded me of some of the more crackpot sources I've come across).

I will try to do better next time.

Fair enough. Just stick to beating me for the stuff I do, not the stuff I ain't part of



MyWay, oddly enough, announced today that they're shutting down the site in early December. I've used them as my homepage for more than a decade and I'm not looking forward to trying to replace them. It was simply organized headlines by category, virtually all from AP except for a couple of sections that faded out over the years.

Owned (apparently) by the same folks who also own Vimeo among a dozen or so sites, it's been completely ad-free since day one (I never did figure out how they kept the lights on honestly), the simplistic layout suited my tastes perfectly & I really never had a bit of complaint about them. Gonna miss 'em :/

[NobodyHere]

Carson's claim that the pyramids were used for food storage has been proven true:

[nol]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Carson's claim that the pyramids were used for food storage has been proven true:

[Ben Carson leans in, lowers his voice] And don't even get me STARTED on the Sphinx

— Brian Gaar (@briangaar) November 6, 2015

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Your argument is also predicated on the assumption that services can be provided for free after an initial investment. The schools can educate one extra kid at a zero marginal cost. Doctors can see one more patient at a zero marginal cost.

Your argument is that there is a 'cost' - ignoring that money is an artificial construct created by humans ... in reality there is no such thing.

Victimization is a very emotional word. If someone feels no shame in not working, I don't see how it's possible. If someone's standard of living is entirely dependent on the government, and entirely out of his control, he will have no incentive to work. It's hard to find value in life when no one but your immediate family and the government cares about you or depends upon you.

That is partially my point - at present people are raised to feel guilty if they don't work ... its part of the indoctrination of society that the only way to be a 'good citizen' is to get a job, keep your head down and work hard.

If society taught things differently then people wouldn't feel guilty about not working.

You can see this in much of society elsewhere, for instance Gay people are (thankfully) being more accepted today and because of this they're less prone to feeling guilt and hiding their sexuality ... thats because they're no longer being indoctrinated into thinking they're doing something wrong.

(and yes 'Victimization' is a strong word - but what else would you call it when someone is punished for something which might be beyond their control ... today in some areas there simply isn't work available .. in the future those areas will be far larger and more encompassing to most people, that I in my 'niche' might be able to work doesn't mean I don't want the best situation for society as a whole and not just myself in my ivory tower)

The schools would have to change. And they are changing. Instead of preparing kids for a work life, schools would prepare kids for a different type of life. Much less individual education. Much more pablum.

I agree - people need to be directed far more towards self growth and also artistic and personal endeavors, things which profit in a way other than financial (which will hopefully be obsolete one day).

The government would have far greater control since it would dictate standard of living. These things start out benevolently enough, but it's always essentially one person's view of standard of living. Soon enough in this Marxist vision, we'd become pets rather than individuals. This would become less benevolent very quickly.

You and I would work forever if we could. We wouldn't know otherwise. But our grandchildren might be born into a society where everything is out of their control. Finding meaning in a controlled existence will be difficult.

I think you could probably have just left it with saying 'finding meaning is difficult' .. as you age and grow as a person most people have challenges with meaning and happiness, regardless of their career success or position in life imho ... its not so much whether its a controlled existence, its more confronting your own mortality and limitations in a way that you don't when you're younger.

(and everyone has a 'controlled' existence - we exist in a world of laws and are controlled presently by financial restrictions and other societal structures ... many of these exist and are obeyed subconsciously without individuals realizing .. some people have strong enough personalities and opinions to buck against these ... but most don't even realize they live within these limitations)