Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Lots of SOL stories have STuDs.

For a population as large as the United States of America, 25% is an absurdly large sample. Even restricted to females between certain ages, the total population is in the millions. Done correctly, not using just one geographic region, or (for example) just ones with land line telephones, a very small sample, one percent or less, can give valid mean and standard deviation that should be very consistent with the mean and standard deviation of the entire population. As the population shrinks, larger percentage samples are required. If a high school has 1,000 students a sample size near 100 would be reasonable. For just female freshmen (perhaps 125 population, I would expect a sample size near 30 would be required. If the total population is less than 40 or so, normal curves probably don't do a good job describing it, and sample sizes would need to be half or more of the population. If you sample IQs over 130, normal curves and sample sizes would not work very well depending on what is being measured. Height or weight may well be normally distributed. Computational ability or highest education achieved probably would be much higher than for the entire population. Sometimes sample size depends on what you are trying to measure. Height to the nearest foot will likely be either 5 (for females) or 6 (for males). A relatively small sample will take care of that particular survey.

Very true. Any standard rating system has the same problems. I found that out with the psychology tests used to diagnose patients. The tests are written and scored in such a manner that at least one type of patient will always have a wrong diagnosis. The so-called experts, can not figure out why their tests don't work with those patients. I found the answer in 1 minute. A very simple solution.

I found the answer in 1 minute. A very simple solution.

do share.

do share.

All the tests are keyed to give certain results without taking into consideration one major factor.

The factor is: The number of trials and errors an individual with any kind of problem regardless of if its mental, emotional or physical or a combination will go through to find a method that works for them. It is like testing for sight in a pitch black room with one individual out of a hundred having been born blind. Guess which one of the subjects would get through the room test with least amount of problems. If all the results state if a person has problems getting around they are "Blind".

edited to add: the tests give the answers they are setup to give. Same problem as with other unrelated test areas such as the Statistic's mentioned by Ernest earlier. The doctors base their diagnosis on those results. I know which label has been given to the problem but its just about all the information they have on it. Requirements for consideration are kind of extreme as well. Had a doctor finally label me as that disorder and listed symptoms which had never made it to my records (I read them illegally). Asked me to volunteer to let him try different drugs to see what the results would be. That doctor would have made a lousy poker player. I told him I would let him know at my next appointment in one week. A week later I was LONG GONE from that state.

All the tests are keyed to give certain results without taking into consideration one major factor.

That identifies the fault in the testing methods, but I don't see any kind of solution.

That identifies the fault in the testing methods, but I don't see any kind of solution.

Solution is in the requirement for consideration. How much natural ability does the individual have. Adjust the test accordingly.

If you give the same person the exact same test 3 or more times and each time the test returns a different answer. Would you still accept that the test was perfectly accurate or would you look for a reason for the difference?
The doctors among others had repeatedly given me the same tests and each one had different results or diagnoses. What was the true diagnosis in that situation?

I mention it in passing because I don't write wish-fulfillment stories. Mentioning something which most people consider when having sex adds an element of realism, and shows the character cares about their partner and their future.

I do like one thing I have seen done in many stories especially the so-called wish-fulfillment category. The writers state at the very beginning of the story that anyone thinking of actually doing some of the things in the story needs to get help. Of course I do know that anyone who really thinks of doing those things will never go and get help willingly.

It may be a turnoff for some readers.

Rubbers are a big turnoff. But so is the thought of one's willy swelling up, turning black & yellow & green, getting drippy, and then shriveling and wilting and falling off ... that's kind of a turnoff that most don't want to write about ... much less read & enjoy. Unless, of course, you're one of them... sadists?

Correct and in my example the major problem with those tests and their results is simple. The so-called experts are accepting results from a standardized test of human minds. The experts are letting standardized tests do the thinking for them.

Edited to add: Result the test results can not be wrong. So just add this label to the patient's records.

Most of the current writers do at least stress safe sex practices by having medical exams and such. In the past I have seen other kinds of warnings as well as the magical cures for almost everything imaginable. (if only it was possible). Just the current authors are more open in mentioning it. Before it was almost a taboo subject for writers. Times do change and what is acceptable or expected also changes. Its why we can't judge the past by today's standards.

ugly women whose breasts are as flat as a fried egg and, god forbid, impotency!

While my personal aesthetic tends more towards the B and C cup range, and sometimes larger. I have to admit there are women out there that could be charter members of the Itty Bitty Titty Committee who look pretty damn good in the nude, at least if posed in the right way, in the right lighting, okay, nevermind on that.

Erotica is supposed to be a turn on; none of those things are!

Going to agree on this, oozing pus, open sores, inflamed rashes, so and so forth are not things most people would consider sexually exciting, and I'd be worried about the people who do. So while discussing that in the context of a "true to life" type story, or something geared towards sex-education makes sense...

When talking in terms of erotica in general as a genre that most people read for sexual stimulation, not education. That is one of the last things you want to have in your story as it is likely to squick the reader and send them packing.

I can't see how sharing an STD might improve a story, but, hey, you never know.

Greetings, Oyster! Love yer stuff.

In my days of yore as a sailor in Uncle Sam's drinking & yachting club (way, way back when), the terror tale whispered about was the dreaded long-shanked microblade gadget that the doc would shove all the way up inside yer dick, twist to open the little blades, and then slowly pull it back out. New guys would come to near passin' out, hearing this. It was done to drain the dick of the nasty puss n' stuff from a wild weekend in Subic Bay, P.I. or some such.

Later it got even better when tales of the "incurable" nastiness hit the fleet.

This lad kept his dick safely tucked away behind that big buttoned flap of his dress blue britches, so none of this comes from personal experience.

But it might be fun to write about! Sheee-it, Doc! Damn those blades! Ain't you never sharpened 'em?

The "incurable" venereal disease was actually a fact for a while in Viet Nam. Many first aid kits were issued with tetracycline tablets. Guys started taking it as a "no sweat" pill, a preventative before they went visiting the girls. That might work unless you waited too long and the effectiveness of the antibiotic was waning. Many STDs that were going around learned to thrive on tetracycline as a result. The "incurable VD" became curable when the medics switched from tetracycline to other antibiotics but sadly, many GIs returned home before the switch was made and infected many wives and girlfriends.

No one wants to spend a fortune with no guarantee of results, only to risk lawsuits over unforeseen complications down the road.

You can't blame them for not wanting to risk the development of new drugs or treatments. Every time I listen to the TV I hear ads from Lawyers wanting people to join in on the payoff of some "Bad Drug" law suit. Heck of it is, there are always side affects.

Big government works, but only if it's done for the common good

It's never been done for the common good and never will be. The self interest of whoever is on top will always lead to corruption.

The role of government, is to help the people, either thru better trade, supporting productive behaviors, or in supplying the essentials which allow it's people to succeed

Not even the government has the resources to help everyone, even if those resources could be spent with perfect efficiency.

Big government discourages productive behavior, because it necessarily takes the benefits away from the productive and gives them to the unproductive. The most effective thing the government can do to support productive behavior is to get out of the fucking way.

Government supplying the essentials to everyone removes all incentive to succeed.

The most effective thing the government can do to support productive behavior is to get out of the fucking way.

Right! That worked so really well for the 29 coal miners killed in W. Virginia. The billionaire owner finally faced justice: he got 12-1/2 days in country-club prison for each man he caused to die, and a $250,000 fine... which was money from his petty cash fund. He'll be out in a year and retiring to a mansion in the Bahamas. Nicely done!

Right! That worked so really well for the 29 coal miners killed in W. Virginia.

1. If you think the government is out of the way in the coal mining industry, you are delusional.

2. Yes coal mining is dangerous, but overall the benefits far out weigh the risk.

If you want electricity, someone has to mine coal and they have to be able to do it profitably.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

And, no there is no practical way to get off coal completely anytime in the next 50 years.

Edited for a few corrections:

I'm sorry, but that's just blatantly insane. You're telling me, that sending on infrastructure, like roads and bridges, because it's better if each person build their own interstate highways, shovel their own shit, or dig their own wells, then you've been drinking your own kool-aid for too long.

That sort of base infrastructure doesn't need half the government you think it does. In fact that is only 3% of existing Federal spending.

Social Security + all other entitlement programs + interest on the national debt accounts for more than half of all federal spending.

DOD is only around 16%. And if we stayed out of the middle east we could probably cut that in half.

But if you measure cost vs. benefit, and focus on the biggest gain for the least cost, it gets much easier--but only if you keep everyone's feet to the fire!

Yes, and if we actually did that it would reduce the size of the existing Federal government by more than half.

And that figure, which everyone always points out, is another false issue. If the various politicians of both stripes didn't continually milk the Social SEcurity funds to reduce their spending, it would still be secure

You are incorrect. They can't actually milk the SS trust fund because there isn't (and never has been) any money in it. The do use a few accounting tricks to use the trust fund to make it look like they are taking on less new debt than they actually are, but that's it.

By the terms of the Social Security Act as originally signed by FDR, every dollar in the SS trust fund must be invested in securities that are as least as safe as US treasury bonds. Of course government bureaucrats will never accept that any private security is as safe as sovereign debt.

So a Dollar goes in the trust fund and the trust fund buys one dollar in US treasury bonds. As with US Treasury bonds sold to the general public, the dollar goes into the general fund.

It has been that way from day one. There has never been anything in the trust fund

The trust fund is an illusion, it always has been.

SSA requires that total benefits paid not exceed this years SS tax receipts puss the balance on the trust fund.

The trust fund is an illusion designed to allow them to pay SS benefits in excess of SS tax receipts with brand spanking new debt. There isn't anywhere near enough money in the general fund to redeem the SS trusts treasury bonds without crippling the rest of the government.

ETA: Here's the real problem with SS. Most people bought the lie that it was some kind of social insurance that your tax dollars were invested to pay your benefits. It was never like that. It is and always has been a pay as you go program where current SS taxes pay current benefits.

When SS was created, there were 30 workers paying in for every beneficiary. But the picture is very different now. It's less than 3 workers for every beneficiary.

Oh, When SS was created, the average life expectancy beyond SS eligibility was only 5-10 years.

The problem isn't the basic premise, it's that the corrupt have felt free to cripple it for their own benefit, and no one ever calls them on it.

No, the problem is human nature. You can't prevent the corruption. You could call them on it and put them in jail and the next guy will still end up just as corrupt no matter how good his intentions were in the beginning. Power corrupts. The only way to limit the corruption is to limit the power.

However, those funds never get paid back, and all the losses incurred based on those bad policies ultimately come out of the Social Security Fund when it 'falls short' of expectations.

There is nothing in the SS trust fund but US sovereign debt (treasury bonds). There never has been, and never will be. The US federal government can't take treasury bonds out of the SS trust fund and spend them. What they do is nothing more than accounting gimmicks and doesn't actually affect the SS Trust's "balance" in any way.

And I disagree that the problem is with corruption--it is a major problem, but it isn't insurmountable. As you pointed out, the biggest problem is our aging population and vastly expanded lifespan. Thus the #1 solution wouldn't be to defund or privatize SS, but to shorten everyone lifespan--something the Republicans have been working on for the past several decades, but it's as unsuccessful as many of their economic theories.

I did not say the major problem with Social Security. The problem is too many beneficiaries and too few workers.

One way to address that balance would be to increase the age at which people can start collecting SS benefits. Encourage people to stay in the workforce longer as long as they are healthy.

Another way is to push policies that increase employment. This means reviewing existing regulations and eliminating unnecessary regulations (and yes, there are a lot of them). However simply reorganizing existing regulation with and eye to reducing the cost of compliance would help a lot.

Except, increasing the age of retirement simply means you'll pay out more welfare and public service benefits for all those too sick or poor to survive waiting for retirement.

We've got a crisis, not just in the U.S., but across the globe, and so far, no one is taking it seriously enough to come up with any ingenious responses to resolve the issues.

I am talking about making Social Security sustainable, not fixing poverty.

Maybe you should stop and think that the reason no one has been able to come up with a workable solution to the issue of poverty is that no such solution exists.

Maybe you should stop and think that the reason no one has been able to come up with a workable solution to the issue of poverty is that no such solution exists.

Well, that and it seems to be undergoing constant redefinition.

Amoung first world nations, I doubt there is anyone still living in (sometimes several feet of) untreated sewage and other filth.

Death due to "exposure" is something that is virtually unheard of in the first world, and usually tied to large scale power grid failures from unusually extreme weather more than personal income.

While malnutrition remains a problem, outright (death by) starvation is practically something you have to try to do in order to achieve if you're near any kind of population.

Safe drinking water, and a number of other modern convenience items are also in the hands of the impoverished. It's one of those things about a "rising tide lifting all boats" there are people today who qualify as impoverished who are living in quantifiably better ways than many members of even the upper classes did just a few centuries ago.

It doesn't mean it's all roses for them, but some of the metrics commonly used are a little dubious.

Well, that and it seems to be undergoing constant redefinition.

Of course, if the government had to admit that poverty by a global standard didn't exist in the US at all, people would demand that they stop spending so much of other peoples money on it. The percent of the total amount of money from poverty programs that goes to administrative costs rather than helping poor people is not insignificant.

Of course, if the government had to admit that poverty by a global standard didn't exist in the US at all, people would demand that they stop spending so much of other peoples money on it.

It does still exist in places, but in most of those cases I think some of it is by choice on the part of someone in the household. Such as many people living in the "Alaskan Bush" for example.

And that figure, which everyone always points out, is another false issue. If the various politicians of both stripes didn't continually milk the Social SEcurity funds

Its not just the Social Security funds which the politicians grab hold of without paying back. And of course the funding problems according to them is the fault of the very funds they are raping for their own programs. If only there was some way to actually keep their dirty hands off those funds. The programs might just work as intended.

Its not just the Social Security funds which the politicians grab hold of without paying back.

Again, there is nothing in the SS trust fond for politicians to grab. All that's in it is US sovereign debt.

The most effective thing the government can do to support productive behavior is to get out of the fucking way.

Minimal government hasn't worked in the past.
Why would it be any different now?

Government supplying the essentials to everyone removes all incentive to succeed.

No, it removes the arguments about "I had to steal this or that in order to support myself/family, whoever".
The government should supply the bare basics- food, shelter, medical care, clothing.
If you want more than the minimum, you work for it.

No, it removes the arguments about "I had to steal this or that in order to support myself/family, whoever".

This is just an excuse for being too lazy to go out and earn it yourself.

The government should supply the bare basics- food, shelter, medical care, clothing.

If you want more than the minimum, you work for it.

If the government is going to supply all this, why bother to work? And who is going to pay for all this 'free' stuff the government provides?

If the government is going to supply all this, why bother to work? And who is going to pay for all this 'free' stuff the government provides?

It's all going to come from pixie dust and unicorn farts.

Replicators from Star Trek and advanced power generation systems to run them on, presumably also from Star Trek. ;)

Replicators from Star Trek and advanced power generation systems to run them on, presumably also from Star Trek. ;)

I say mythical tomatoes, you say mythical tomahtoes

This is just an excuse for being too lazy to go out and earn it yourself.

That is an oversimplification. People do get injured in honest-to-God accidents, which can put them in dire straits immediately. There also is no shortage of bigots and other types who are more than happy to continue (proverbially) kicking a person once they're down, if their victim fits a certain profile for them.

So there is a basis for wanting assistance programs to exist. I'm a big fan of charities and other non-Governmental types, but others have larger ambitions, and aspirations that government can cover more ground and be more effective than a NGO.

I do get great amusement about the charitable actions of the big name "Social Justice" advocates on that front. As actual charity seems to be outside of their nature. The government needs to make them do it, or they won't. While the people who most frequently protest about the government becoming involved, are the charity doners. Odd, that.

People do get injured in honest-to-God accidents, which can put them in dire straits immediately

So there is a basis for wanting assistance programs to exist.

Yes there is such a basis. but the comment to which Capt Zapp was replying was saying that the government should provide all of the basic necessities to everyone, not just those who are truly incapable of providing for themselves.

There is no government anywhere on earth with sufficient resources to do such a thing sustainably.

There is no government anywhere on earth with sufficient resources to do such a thing sustainably.

Well, if they nationalize(socialize) everything, then arguably they do because the government is the economy at that point. But as history demonstrates, most recently in Venezuela, such efforts tend to only enrich the people at the head of the government, and utterly destroys the middle class.

But as history demonstrates, most recently in Venezuela, such efforts tend to only enrich the people at the head of the government, and utterly destroys the middle class.

And ultimately they collapse under the unsustainable financial strain.

This is just an excuse for being too lazy to go out and earn it yourself.

That is an oversimplification. People do get injured in honest-to-God accidents, which can put them in dire straits immediately. There also is no shortage of bigots and other types who are more than happy to continue (proverbially) kicking a person once they're down, if their victim fits a certain profile for them.

You left out the part I quoted:

No, it removes the arguments about "I had to steal this or that in order to support myself/family, whoever".

So you are saying that if someone becomes injured though an 'honest-to-God accident', then it gives them permission to go out and steal from someone else in order to support '(themselves)/family, whoever'? If they have enough ability to go out and steal someone else's property, it seems to me that they have the ability to do some kind of work.

So you are saying that if someone becomes injured though an 'honest-to-God accident', then it gives them permission to go out and steal from someone else in order to support '(themselves)/family, whoever'? If they have enough ability to go out and steal someone else's property, it seems to me that they have the ability to do some kind of work.

As already mentioned by others, petty thieves and in modern parlance, shoplifters, don't always do so for the thrill or as a shortcut to getting something they want. They do so because they're destitute, have no support structure working to assist them(not the same as saying it doesn't exist, they're just not using it), and they're starving. So pilfering a roll from a bakery or foodstuffs from various other stands/stores is something they'll do if an opportunity presents itself. If done right by the thief, to the right targets, the effort expended will be minimal enough.

Although I hear dumpster diving for food outside restaurants is, or at least was, common enough too in many areas. Which also isn't normally considered criminal behavior, just disgusting.

You're also ignoring that just because you may claim you're able and willing to work, doesn't mean a prospective employer agrees. Or that an employer would be willing to accommodate any special needs you might have.

But as to being "honestly injured"(as opposed to the slip/fall scammers) and that being ground to give them "permission to steal" as you claim. No, it does not, it does however create a situation where you're likely to turn people into thieves who otherwise would never consider it.

It also provides a "Grade A" example of a case that most decent people would agree that the person in question is a justified charity case. In such cases, most people would(historically) have rendered some form of aid.

Sadly, we live in an age of crooks who know sob stories are great ways to get people to hand cash over to them to do with as they please, and the successful ones can be very successful at it. Which means you either restrict your charity to charities that hopefully are being run honestly, and that they're getting the people they help. Or, you keep your charity close to home, and only assist those people you (think you) know. That latter group is a significant contingent in pushing the government option for "charity"(which it isn't if the government is doing it, but anyhow), as the government "should know" if someone is trying to defraud it. (Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off at that for a bit)

Although I hear dumpster diving for food outside restaurants is, or at least was, common enough...

Been there, done that.

You're also ignoring that just because you may claim you're able and willing to work, doesn't mean a prospective employer agrees.

Someone who is willing to work will find a way to earn enough to get by on. It may not be a 'real job', but it is something. I remember picking trash for recyclables just to get enough to buy a burger and fries and maybe enough to get a little fuel. I agree that most people are so paranoid of others that doing odd jobs to get by isn't as easy as it once was.

the government "should know" if someone is trying to defraud it. (Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off at that for a bit)

I'll join you.

Although I hear dumpster diving for food outside restaurants is, or at least was, common enough too in many areas. Which also isn't normally considered criminal behavior, just disgusting.

You'd be surprised at how much perfectly edible food restaurants throw out (rather than say donating it to soup kitchens) because of overly conservative health regulations.

It may not be particularly appetizing to eat restaurant scarps out of a dumpster, but for those who have no other choice, it's not even half the health risk that most people these days think it would be.

This also applies to a grocery stores and supermarkets, once the package is damage or the use by date is reached they can no longer legally sell it or give it away, they must, by law, dump it.

True, and it's so fucking stupid when "feed the poor" organizations are constantly struggling to have enough food.

Not one person on the face of the earth is starving because there isn't enough food. They are starving because of politics.

US food aid to several African nations has been left to rot on the docks so the government could starve out rebel groups (or confiscated for military use).

Even here in the US New York (not sure if it's the state or NYC) banned private food donations (even fresh food) to soup kitchens. The soup kitchens have to get all their food from a government agency so the government can make sure that the meals the kitchen is serving meet the latest nutrition fad that the politicians have bought into.

People trying to live on minimum wages can't afford to eat properly, but the government spends millions and millions of dollars artificially raising food prices.

This is just an excuse for being too lazy to go out and earn it yourself.

I'm an Australian, and live in Australia.
A large proportion of the first Europeans that settled here did so as punishment for various crimes.
There were plenty of murderers & the like, but there were even more people that would be classified today as petty thieves- theft of food stuffs being one of the more common crimes people were sentenced to transportation for.
Back in that period of time there just weren't that many jobs available. And many of those that were working in the lower paid jobs often didn't make enough to cover food & rent.

So stealing in order to survive just wasn't about people being too lazy to go out & earn it themselves.

The government should supply the bare basics- food, shelter, medical care, clothing.
If you want more than the minimum, you work for it.

If the government is going to supply all this, why bother to work?

If you're happy to live in the most basic of housing, with the most basic of clothing & the most basic of food stuffs, then there's no need to work.
Of course if you'd like better food, accommodation, entertainment etc then you would work for it.

And who is going to pay for all this 'free' stuff the government provides?

You could always do what the US government does, and just print more money.
Or it could be supported by a general consumption tax.
If everyone is so happy getting by with the minimum, then there'll be bugger all crime. So no need for all the prisons & courts & lawyers we have now.
And the load on the health system will be way down as people won't be able to get wasted on a regular basis as they're not working & so don't have the money to by booze.

If you're happy to live in the most basic of housing, with the most basic of clothing & the most basic of food stuffs, then there's no need to work.
Of course if you'd like better food, accommodation, entertainment etc then you would work for it.

One small problem. In order to provide those basics the government must take the fruits of the labor of those who desire to have more.

Because of the tax burden need to provide those basics, those who do work will never be able to work enough to have what they want. All that work and the benefit is going to other people. Once they wake up to that reality, they stop working too.

You could always do what the US government does, and just print more money.

That's been tried before. Every nation that has tried that has either woken up to the fact that it can't be sustained indefinitely or has ended in death, destruction, ruin, and the collapse of the government that tried it.

Don't bet that the US will be able to beat the odds.

Or it could be supported by a general consumption tax.

A high enough consumption tax to support what you are talking about will have the same net effect as an income tax.

If that was true, then the current American system would guarantee that no one in America would ever rise above the level of middle class, yet we've got the largest social inequality of all time, and we essentially no longer have much of middle class at all.

We don't see that in the US, because the US is not providing the level of support grant suggests we should. Therefore the existing tax burden while high is not yet high enough to fully eliminate the marginal benefit of working more/harder. Try looking at Greece to see what would happen if we went there.

Try looking at Greece to see what would happen if we went there.

The problem with Greece is that they tried to provide a high level of public support, when they didn't have the income to support it. They didn't even have the income to support even minimal levels of welfare.
So they cooked the books & joined the EU.

That's how they ended up the way they are now.

The US has that income. They would also have considerably more income if corporations were taxed on par with individuals.

A high enough consumption tax to support what you are talking about will have the same net effect as an income tax.

Which isn't to mention that the consumption tax would penalize the lower income brackets disproportionately. They tend to shop at convenience stores as they're more likely to be within easy walking distance. Higher income brackets favor grocery stores or even wholesale warehouses like CostCo and Sam's Club, where product markup isn't as significant.

If you're happy to live in the most basic of housing, with the most basic of clothing & the most basic of food stuffs, then there's no need to work.

Who decides what is "basic housing?" Because I know there are groups (and the Obama Admin agrees with them) that want to push high speed internet as a basic right.

So what exactly do you mean by "basic" because if it includes active provisions for them to spend all day surfing YouTube and posting cat pictures. I'll have to disagree.

Back in that period of time there just weren't that many jobs available. And many of those that were working in the lower paid jobs often didn't make enough to cover food & rent.

How much of that applies to Australians today?

If you're happy to live in the most basic of housing, with the most basic of clothing & the most basic of food stuffs, then there's no need to work.

When the people on government programs start living better than the working people (Who are the ones the government is getting the money from for all the 'free' stuff), it sure doesn't provide incentive to the working people continue to work.

When the people on government programs start living better than the working people (Who are the ones the government is getting the money from for all the 'free' stuff), it sure doesn't provide incentive to the working people continue to work.

And this actually is something even the leftist media twigs onto, although they use as grounds to up the minimum wage. At least a few times a year you'll get the news report about people living on government assistance who "feel trapped" because they get more being on the dole, than they can reasonably expect to earn working minimum wage.

And this actually is something even the leftist media twigs onto, although they use as grounds to up the minimum wage.

I don't remember where I heard it, but supposedly there are nurses or teachers quitting so they can take minimum wage jobs because they make the same money for less stress.

At least a few times a year you'll get the news report about people living on government assistance who "feel trapped" because they get more being on the dole, than they can reasonably expect to earn working minimum wage.

I can see a possible solution. Make a time limit on being on the dole and limit the amount received to minimum wage level with no additional benefits for children. If my family has to be able to try and survive on minimum wage, so should they.

I don't remember where I heard it, but supposedly there are nurses or teachers quitting so they can take minimum wage jobs because they make the same money for less stress.

Probably some those $15+/hour minimum wage areas. As that tends to be the flip side of boosting the minimum wage, it inflates the cost of everything, and brings the middle class that much closer to the ever shifting poverty line.

Most working class professionals won't see a pay raise simply because the minimum wage went up. All that minimum wage hike did was bring the minimum wage closer to what they were already being paid.

In the meantime, the real long term beneficiaries are tech companies selling automation systems(as robots then become more cost competitive against increasingly more expensive labor), and large corporations who can afford to source their minimum wage work somewhere less expensive. Small businesses get screwed, as does everyone else below the median income.

North America is starting to run into capacity issues related to the average truck driver being in their mid 50's. They're starting to retire, and they don't have as many people wanting to enter(and remain) in that industry as they have leaving it. They're plugging the dike, largely with immigrants, but they're still falling behind. And here is the kicker, for most over the road(long haul) drivers, a $15/hour job pays better than what they make, if they honestly accounted for all the hours they really work. (Labor laws are different for them, they're paid by the mile unless their employer opts otherwise, so they get nothing for documenting hours worked not driving... except less time they can drive (and get paid) with)

So if they pass a national wage law that makes it more viable for them to go work at Wal-Mart stocking shelves than driving truck, expect some quality fun to start happening within a few months of that law entering its enforcement date.

I took Economics a long, long time ago (mid 60s) but as I recall, there were no reputable economists who thought they were a good idea for the economy. Certain already employed individuals might benefit, but there were lots of people who were not working who would be glad to take a job under the minimum wage (example, young people who needed an entry level job, its hard to get a job unless you have a job history). As pointed out, to some extent capital investment and labor compete, you can automate some work (harvesting with reapers, etc. or auto making with robotic machines) which replaces workers (labor cost) with capital investment (machines). But its can be less efficient and effective for the economy as a whole if you let workers go and buy machinery (or move jobs to Mexico or other lower wage countries) to meet government requirements or labor union wage and benefit demands for how much people who do stay hired get paid. As a general principle, if a worker does not produce goods and services whose value exceed (or at least equal) what the owner pays the worker, there is no reason to keep him or her employed. I don't hire yard workers or maids for the prices they charge. If a neighbor were willing to accept less, I might, and there are other people like me who can't afford minimum wage workers.

Another effect is that lots of workers officially are contractors or subcontractors and not employees. Very few taxi drivers or whatever the newest car for hire firms are now turn out to be "wage slaves." Minimum wages that are not affordable, or that can be beaten by making drivers contractors who hire the vehicle from the cab company and "work for themselves" are a better bargain for the owners. Farm workers (itinerant fruit pickers, for example) are aliens with temporary visas who do piece work (paid by the pound or basket) replace local students who had to be paid by the hour.

As a result, some people who would work for less than the official minimum wage, can't, and others do but get called something other than workers. And you can't get a clerk in a lot of stores, including grocery stores because the owners want you to check out your groceries at "self service" registers instead of having someone available to do what they used to do, when there were no minimum wages, or they weren't so high.

Lets make everybody rich, and set the Minimum wage at $100 an hour. Wouldn't work, lots of jobs aren't worth $100 an hour? Well there are jobs that aren't worth $15 and hour, or any other dollar amount you chose. But Minimum wages are politically popular and I don't know if even Economists are willing to say they depress employment any more. They do have something to do with jobs moving overseas. We used to have a lot of garment manufacturing jobs in this country. Not any more, minimum wages decided Americans couldn't do that job.

First off, you hit the other item right off. Having a minimum wage means that any task, or worker not expected(on whatever horizon they're looking at) to perform at or above the amount of pay required for hiring them, will simply be dropped/contracted out, or simply not done. So the 16 year old looking for a summer job with an announced plan for a 2 week family vacation in the middle of July suddenly becomes a lot less employable at $8.75/hour than he would have been at say, $5.00/hr.

Another effect is that lots of workers officially are contractors or subcontractors and not employees. Very few taxi drivers or whatever the newest car for hire firms are now turn out to be "wage slaves." Minimum wages that are not affordable, or that can be beaten by making drivers contractors who hire the vehicle from the cab company and "work for themselves" are a better bargain for the owners.

That hold through to the big trucks as well, in the tractor/trailer industry, the most expensive part of the operation is the truck, because you have the driver you need to pay, and then the operation and maintenance of the truck itself, and with the emissions requirements on newer trucks adding tens of thousands to the operating cost of the truck over its service life(cradle to grave). Getting drivers to step up and go "owner/operator" often becomes a lucrative deal for the Trucking Companies, and that is without certain ones allegedly pursuing predatory practices towards their drivers when it comes to trucks nearing the end of their lease and doing things to drivers to force a default. (Impossible load assignments, followed by "sorry, can't find anything for you at this time")

But yeah, minimum wage is popular with two groups. It's popular with the people who would see a pay hike with the change. And it is popular with the upper tiers of the pay scale because it makes them feel better, but otherwise doesn't have much direct impact on them personally.

That and certain groups have learned to play the emotion card on it for the people who fall in between those two groups. "Don't you care about the people who are only capable of earning ___ an hour as the minimum? Here let me share you a story of one such worker..."

Yes it sucks for the people who get trapped in that situation, but they've historically been the exception, not the rule. At least until we started actively distorting just about every market with well intentioned laws, from rent controls(which most areas quickly discovered was a disaster and eventually dropped), to housing assistance(as the alternative to rent control, but creating distortions all the same, as it effectively set a artificial "bottom" for the market, to food stamps(again, artificial bottom on the market), and so on with minimum wage being just another in a long list of them.

I do agree that between minimum wage laws and labor unions, those two things were most decisive factors in a lot of industry being shipped overseas. Environmental regulation may have forced some others, but I think those were more edge cases. It ultimately was the price of labor(and resistance to automation in the case of the labor unions) that decided things for those industries.

That isn't to say all distortions are bad, but that doesn't mean they're not distortions of the marketplace all the same.

Farm workers (itinerant fruit pickers, for example) are aliens with temporary visas who do piece work

A significant number of migrant farm workers come here without visas.

North America is starting to run into capacity issues related to the average truck driver being in their mid 50's. They're starting to retire, and they don't have as many people wanting to enter(and remain) in that industry as they have leaving it. They're plugging the dike, largely with immigrants, but they're still falling behind. And here is the kicker, for most over the road(long haul) drivers, a $15/hour job pays better than what they make, if they honestly accounted for all the hours they really work. (Labor laws are different for them, they're paid by the mile unless their employer opts otherwise, so they get nothing for documenting hours worked not driving... except less time they can drive (and get paid) with)

And if it gets bad enough, they will eventually start offering better pay to attract more drivers.

And if it gets bad enough, they will eventually start offering better pay to attract more drivers.

They already are, for a company driver, average pay has gone up about 6 to 12 cents per mile in the past 2 years alone(depending on the carrier), after having largely being flat since the 1990's. Instead of 20-ish cents per mile, they're up in the 30+cents per mile range. so the entry level guys have already seen quite the pay hike as a % of pay... And they're still falling behind, more people are quitting/retiring than are entering that workforce. While robo-truck is out there now on highway in Australia and Nevada alike, he's probably still a number of years away from not needing a driver actively engaged with it(if they ever manage to fully do away with the driver). Small cars will likely be approved for full automation first.

Small cars will likely be approved for full automation first.

I'm not so convinced that they will every be approved. No bureaucrat has ever gotten fired or disciplined for saying no. No is always the safest answer.

Small cars will likely be approved for full automation first.

I'm not so convinced that they will every be approved. No bureaucrat has ever gotten fired or disciplined for saying no. No is always the safest answer.

Then you haven't seen how many people drive.

Then you haven't seen how many people drive.

Doesn't matter how many people drive who shouldn't. Someone in the government will find a way to say no and their career will not suffer for it in any way no matter how wrong they were to say no.

Back in that period of time there just weren't that many jobs available. And many of those that were working in the lower paid jobs often didn't make enough to cover food & rent.

How much of that applies to Australians today?

The fact is there is (or at least was for a while there was) sufficient support so no matter how hard up people were, there wouldn't be any need to steal in order to eat.
Unfortunately over the last decade or two the amount of support available has been cut back significantly.
Are the numbers of people thieving to stay alive on par with those in the distant past?- not even close. But unfortunately they are becoming a significant number.
The vast majority would still be druggies & alcoholics.

If you're happy to live in the most basic of housing, with the most basic of clothing & the most basic of food stuffs, then there's no need to work.

When the people on government programs start living better than the working people (Who are the ones the government is getting the money from for all the 'free' stuff), it sure doesn't provide incentive to the working people continue to work.

So the government doesn't allow that to happen. Those doing part time work should still receive some welfare support, but they should be better off than they were for having done the work. It would just be wrong that people earning a full time wage couldn't afford the bare minimum as they should, as a minimum be able to afford significantly better (not necessarily a lot, just a significant amount) and it would be a sign of a great systemic failure for those that work to be no better of (or even worse off) than those that don't work for that to occur.

Minimal government hasn't worked in the past.
Why would it be any different now?

Maximal government hasn't worked in the past. Why would it be any different now? (USSR)

The government should supply the bare basics- food, shelter, medical care, clothing.
If you want more than the minimum, you work for it.

This has been tried. It's called communism. Generally, it makes everyone but government officials dirt poor and eventually collapses under it's own weight. No government on the face of the earth has sufficient resources to do what you suggest sustainably.

This has been tried. It's called communism.

And of course you ignored what I typed after the bit you quoted. (got to love selective quoting so people can use what they want to make their point, and ignore anything that doesn't support that point of view).

Ok, we'll ignore it.
What you called communism didn't work, because it wasn't communism. And the people that were in charge had no intention of being true to the ideals of communism. Nor socialism.

So don't write something off, just because of previous countries failures at implementing something that they used those terms for.

So don't write something off, just because of previous countries failures at implementing something that they used those terms for.

Don't assume that it's even possible to implement your idealized version of communism above the scale of a small village.

Oh, and I didn't ignore what you said after what I quoted. It's just that that sort of corruption is an inevitable result of human nature + the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary to implement communism at a national level.

What you called communism didn't work, because it wasn't communism. And the people that were in charge had no intention of being true to the ideals of communism. Nor socialism.

So don't write something off, just because of previous countries failures at implementing something that they used those terms for.

And the above argument is made about EVERY time one group or another has made an all-in attempt at either a communistic or socialistic society. If it failed in spectacular ways the last several dozens of times it's been tried before, what is going to make the next time different?

(Which, I should note, one is still doing incredibly well, and until recently, due to the world economic downturn, was expected to overtake the U.S. in income within a short time.

Newer forecasts don't see it happening anytime in the next few decades at this point. They're forecast to be starting into population decline by the time things might get back on track. At which point, it'll be too late.

Thus, according to most thinking, China isn't to blame for their decline, Europe and the rest of the world is.

China can take a big part of the blame for it.
1 Their economy was based mostly on exports, and cheap exports at that. Not quality/high value exports.
If they had put more focus on developing their internal markets they wouldn't have been affected nearly as badly.

2 Corruption has resulted in mind boggling amounts of money being spent on large infrastructure projects (that's good) that benefit almost no one (that's bad).

3 Many of the official economic numbers are at best taken with many tonnes of salt as they are often massaged (or just plain made up) in order to meet the expectations of the government.

4 The government's propping up of the stock market has cost them huge amounts of money, for little if any benefit. Money that could have been used on more productive projects.

Corruption has resulted in mind boggling amounts of money being spent on large infrastructure projects (that's good) that benefit almost no one (that's bad).

They have built entire cities with no one to inhabit them.

They have built entire cities with no one to inhabit them.

Yep.

Shame they didn't put that money towards improving the infrastructure in their existing population centres.

Or maybe policing some of their existing safety regulations? Remember the huge port explosion not all that long ago? That's what happens when something goes wrong in an area where no one gave a shit about the regulations concerning the storage & handling of certain dangerous chemicals. And the local authorities had better things to spend their money on other than a trained fire brigade that knew what to do when faced with a fire in such an area.

But a bit of money to the right people & you can do whatever you want. So sad, too bad about the side effects when things go wrong.

And the above argument is made about EVERY time one group or another has made an all-in attempt at either a communistic or socialistic society. If it failed in spectacular ways the last several dozens of times it's been tried before, what is going to make the next time different?

That maybe there won't be a campaign by cashed up countries that don't like the thought of communism or socialism that go out of their way to make it fail?
That would probably make the biggest difference.

The other difference would a legal system that isn't run by the Government (for an example of what not to do; China) so when the Government and the people in it start pushing their own agenda there is a body that can push back & stop some pigs from becoming much more equal than others.

Who decides what is "basic housing?" Because I know there are groups (and the Obama Admin agrees with them) that want to push high speed internet as a basic right.

So what exactly do you mean by "basic" because if it includes active provisions for them to spend all day surfing YouTube and posting cat pictures. I'll have to disagree.

Like everything else that has gone before, what is considered basic will change over time.

Basic used to be a roof & walls. Dirt floor, no heating, no bed rooms- just the one room, no bathroom, no toilet.
Over time that changed to what would be considered basic in most developed counties these days- Roof, walls, floor, windows, heating & cooling, laundry, toilet, bathroom, separate bedrooms, kitchen.

Once upon a time radios were considered a luxury, by the 1950s they were considered a necessity by many. Telephones- once were for rich people. Now they are considered a necessity even for those in public housing. TVs, ended up replacing radios.
And now the internet. And as time goes by it becomes more & more necessary, even for those in public housing, as many companies & government departments have moved their focus to providing support online.
Forget trying to phone some government departments unless you have a few hours to spare, they expect you to do it all online. Saves them employing people to man the phones & counters.

I'd expect those on welfare to have internet access, however I wouldn't see them having full access to the web. Think of AOL; they'd have their own little version of the web. High speed, sure. But it would just be for email, government & banking support. Anything else would be speed limited & with tight data cap limits.
They want more, they pay for it. To pay for it they'd have to work.

The government should supply the bare basics- food, shelter, medical care, clothing.
If you want more than the minimum, you work for it.

The government doesn't grow crops, farmers do.

The government doesn't grow crops or raise cattle to support the textile industry. Farmers do.

The government doesn't create cloth, and it certainly doesn't create clothing. The textile industry does.

The government doesn't provide shelter, land owners do. Who in turn have their own share of "tail" involved in building and maintaining said shelter.

The government doesn't provide medical care. First responders, paramedics, EMT's, nurses, and Doctors do. Where again a lot of other "tail" crops up, from the land owner, to support service providers(medical supplies, drugs, etc)

The government also doesn't provide medications, pharmaceutical companies do.

Now,that isn't to say that government can't function as an intermediary between the customer and the provider. In particular for those who cannot afford such services. But let's not confuse the middlemen with who is actually making things happen.

I take a fair bit of issue with people who claim they have a "right to be their own person" and that right somehow seems to include depriving most of the above mentioned people of a significant portion of their own rights in the process.

Political rant over. I know I'll be attacked for suggesting more government spending, but we need to look at results, rather than pointing fingers.

I couldn't agree with you more, but that's because I tend to be a left-leaning, Socialist, pinko Communist rat-bastard. Just ask any of my Republican friends!

We live just under the Canadian border in the PacNW; I've got good friends up there. They look at us down here, dying for lack of affordable health care (or affordable insurance) and then they listen to our snarling, whining, bitching, and screaming about "Obamacare!" and they shake their heads. They never, ever worry about access to health care... I have personal knowledge of this from my elderly friends who live there. And there is NO GAWDAMNED RATIONING up there! And they pretty much get what they pay for: freedom from worry that they will die without treatment or be bankrupted from a catastrophic disease. That's just ONE small aspect of paying taxes to get social benefits.

Sure, political systems can be corrupted. We should know: for a hundred years we've enjoyed the most corrupt system of government on the planet!

THAT SAID, this on-going bullshit thread is proving yet again, that everyone is entitled to their own opinion (and, hopefully, will accept full blame therein) but NOBODY is entitled to their own FACTS!

Ah but then we get to third kind of lie, statistics. They can be made to say just about anything. The 2012 Presidential debates were a highlight for me in this, where often the candidates would cite the same Government report, just different pages of it, to argue their position, or refute the claim made by their opponent. Both sides were rather disingenuous in their behavior, the so called "fact checkers" not being much better.

The puritan movement made an attempt at it too when they first made it to the colonies, they nearly starved to death, gave the effort up, and then prospered.

Numerous other religious groups, up to and including the Mormons gave a communistic type of living a try. It failed for virtually all of them, usually within a couple years. After which they went the charity route instead.

If you want to have fun talking about early Christian practices, the Gnostic Christians were reportedly nudists. Nude baptism also appears to have been the norm across Christianity until well into the 2nd century.

A good study of history shows that the Communistic society has worked in the past, but only at the local community level for a small agrarian community where everyone can do almost all jobs. Many of the old village chieftain societies were actually large communistic clan societies, and they worked well. History, and experience has shown that once the society gets past a certain size (no one agrees on the right figure) a communistic society can't survive because it becomes too specialized and stratified. A communistic society also requires that all in it agree with it an how it works, which is why when people seek to impose it from above or from without it can't last because it doesn't have the approval and agreement of all involved.

Of course, in THAT context, you also have scapegoating and shunning going on. Things that our present day Socialistic Utopianists would frown upon severely. But yeah, a communistic system works great if you have the option of kicking out the deadbeats rather than having to keep supporting them.

But yeah, a communistic system works great if you have the option of kicking out the deadbeats rather than having to keep supporting them.

Even if you could eliminate the deadbeats, it still wouldn't work at large scales in a modern society with labor specialization.

Even if you could eliminate the deadbeats, it still wouldn't work at large scales in a modern society with labor specialization

Large scale you have problems finding the actual deadbeats. That can still be something of a challenge on a small scale, but not as bad. Likewise, casting someone out of a commune is one thing. Trying that at a higher level presents problems as that person does need somewhere to go.

Likewise, casting someone out of a commune is one thing. Trying that at a higher level presents problems as that person does need somewhere to go.

Why do you think I said eliminate rather than kick out. If you are willing to go that far, they don't need anyplace to go if you kill them. Real world communist regimes have killed millions of people.

Why do you think I said eliminate rather than kick out. If you are willing to go that far, they don't need anyplace to go if you kill them. Real world communist regimes have killed millions of people.

True, yet another example of irony. Communistic and socialistic governments aren't shy about killing people, either directly or indirectly(hard labor). Yet many of the people agitating for more communism/socialism over here abhor both the death penalty, and prison labor.

Politicians do look ahead more than a year. Congressmen look to the next election, which may be two years ahead, although it averages about a year. Presidential candidates look toward the next Presidential election, four year cycles, averaging about two years. Senators have a six year election cycle, but often don't worry too much about it until its two years away, however they get caught up in the two year congressional cycle or the four year presidential one. Of course they might be presidential candidates.

There aren't very many top executives who can afford a long term view. Last quarter results, or what is being anticipated by analysts for the next quarter affect stock prices, and that is mostly what determines how well they are doing, what their bonus will be, or if they continue in office.

Military officers are lucky if they hold a job for three years. Command of a battalion, brigade, division or higher formation frequently gets passed to the next candidate after a year or so. Coronels retire at 30 years service, or sooner if they wish, after 20 years. Brigadier Generals get 35 years. Higher level generals get a few years in some specific posting, but few serve more than 40 years.

Whatever you do its a rat race, up or out. Some elected officials have safe districts, and don't have to work feverishly to get re-elected, but planning for the future tends to be to the next election, even for them. I suspect its similar for the Chinese, their election cycles aren't as public, but people go in and out of favor, anyway. Even Kings and Emperors can lose their jobs, civil war, assassination, or military defeat can reduce job longevity. Nobody has a 50 year plan that works that long. Who can forecast what they will be doing 50 years in the future when they are 20? Or younger.

They are planing for very long periods. They have and are working on 50 years plans, while your politicians can not think more than year (maybe two) ahead ...

That they re-write every five years. I doubt that they are functionally ever working on anything longer than a 5 year plan. By the way, a couple of the empty cities that they built are already starting to show signs of structural decay (no population to maintain them).

There's an old military saying: The first casualty in any battle is the plan. It's also stated as: No plan survives contact with the enemy.

No one can forecast well enough to create a usable 50 year plan.

The US Military has spent billions of dollars and decades of time developing weapons systems that ended up being technologically obsolete before they were ever deployed.

If the Chinese government is working to a 50 year plan, their leaders are fools or idiots or both.

They are not fools, neither idiots.
You are forgetting that they had first signs of civilization at least 6000-7000 years before we even learned word "city".

They together with our idiots politicians have already destroyed my state, and much more - see Europe (except Germany) they have lost around half of their industrial base, an no new industries are showing.

You as state are no better - you become "Wal-Mart state", and sorry to tell, but here with sheer ignorance you are showing world that you americans are fools and idiots...

Maybe it was a mean.

Why aren't there stories with STD?

Probably the main reasons are simple. Very unpopular subject matter regardless of the orientation of the reader. Most readers of fiction are doing it for pleasure primarily. Any subject which destroys that factor will lose the reader fast. Its why some things will fail no matter how accurate the facts might be.

At this time writers like DW are probably taking the best option available. Its mentioned and used as the reason for testing. He has even had a few times when one of the characters would say to wait until they could be checked. The risks are mentioned but no details unless required by a particular scene. It is subtle and works that way. I am not going to say or imply it is right or wrong.

STD

The pity is its just one of many topics which are almost impossible to include due to the reactions of the readers and critics. I think that is probably the reason so many racial issues were only hinted at for so long in both literature and other media. Sometimes a story needs to be told however and it can make a difference like "Roots" in the impact on the minds of the public.

edited to add: I do think those hints did have an effect over the years but slowly instead of a major change. Hints can sometimes have a larger effect in they make us think as we read a story.