The North PacificBoard

Xyree wrote:

Are you sure you have off the charts IQ? You seem pretty dense to think that people would want to be living in barely above sustenance conditions, attached to an extremely unreliable government dole, and not working. The ~10k a year welfare gives you is so subpar its nearly laughable.

I’m not saying it be the right thing to do. I’m just saying it does have drawbacks. I never said the draw backs outweigh the advantages. I even said I would prefer to have wealthfare than not

Some decisions have advantages that outweigh disadvantage and vice versa. Some combinations of decisions amplify each other that without that combination would seem like a bad idea on their own but together are a great idea. There’s many variables

Utopicican wrote:

Some decisions have advantages that outweigh disadvantage and vice versa. Some combinations of decisions amplify each other that without that combination would seem like a bad idea on their own but together are a great idea. There’s many variables

That's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Utopicican wrote:

Not having wealthfare makes you work harder and saves money, but is unethical and cruel. Having welfare is ethnical and makes people happier and nicer and allows every to have a better life, but uses lots of government money and makes people not work quite as hard as they could and gets abused by a small percentage of people

I'm going to give a hard no on that. For one, welfare is not tied to decreased work, as productivity in countries with welfare is extremely high. Secondly, as for savings, you know that the lower class save more on average then the upper class right? The entire system right now is debt fueled, welfare or not. Welfare actually allows more to be saved, as less of the paycheck needs to go to vital expenses or debts.
As for abuse, i'm not sure if subsistence living counts as abuse.

Utopicican wrote:

I didn’t say decreased but rather that if there wasn’t welfare, there would be... extra incentive..

You would need to prove that then. Usually abject poverty and poor health as well as generally terrible living conditions are pretty good incentives. Besides, starving people usually have less productivity, and dead people even less. I suppose having less starving people more then adds to any loss from incentives.
In response to your edit, philanthropy is on an all time high in the united states. I would need proof that families are helping each other less.

*Speaks fluently in Namish language*
Hælloe rægeeoensh oevv thhæ noerthh phàotjeevveetj.

If you dont understand, look at my "Namish language" Factbook.

The better you get at analyzing these things, the more you begin to realize just how hopeless it is to calculate all the variables. I’m only analyzing at what I call level 1: direct advantages and disadvantages. But what about combinations that amplify advantages and disadvantages exponentially and can make up each others weak points? There’s just too many variables. And then you have other things like how in a different situation what might be best or even how another person might be affected differently than you? It’s a nightmare trying to calculate it all.

Xyree wrote:

And that doesn't change with welfare or without it.

Yes, but with welfare you know your family isn’t starving to death and they never will. Without it, at any time, something could happen and they would starve to death. That’s cruel and unethical, but extra incentive.

The Black Cathedral wrote:

No. You just dont have any solid proof of what you're saying.

Nor do you. That’s the point: it’s a nightmare trying to calculate it all. I could be wrong, but how can you calculate it just like that? That’s the problem.

The more I calculate things however, I keep coming to 1 conclusion no matter how many times I do it and no matter how many diffrent topics I cover and no matter how long I do it: everything has its own unique advantages and disadvantages even if you can’t see them at first. It’s annoying but true. There’s not a thing I can think of that escapes this rule. Ive been analyzing and daydreaming my whole life. If there’s anyone who could possibly know this rule to be true, it’s me.

Xyree wrote:

Then look for proof and proper reasoning, what you're bringing up is incredibly weak, to say the least.

I know, but I’ve been daydreaming and analyzing these things and debating them my whole life. If anyone know this rule that everything has an advantages and disadvantages to be true, it’s me.

Mzeusia wrote:

Interesting RMB discussion.

Hælloe, vvoergæeenær.

Ehem- I meant- Hello.