> I think we're all increasingly aware that our society and infrastructure are crumbling, and no matter how "rich" the country as a whole is, if you haven't built up your own security through wealth, you're [going to be] fucked. And that awareness translates into people being willing to overwork themselves, so they don't lose their spot in the rat race; and corporations with money to spend on workers are well-positioned to take advantage of that, and they do.
I disagree. That only makes sense if you assume you (and everyone like you) are politically powerless and the rot and decay are inevitable.
There's also another option: redirect that excess effort you're expediting to hoard for the failure into fixing the system before it fails. Your personal efforts to fix it might fail, but some other group that heeded the same call might succeed, and that's all it takes.
Hoarding wealth might seem like a safer bet, but it's just as prone to failure. The kind of wealth you could accumulate through hard work might not be enough to give you the security you want, and to get more you have to take big risks anyway.
I'm afraid that without some systemic-level changes, donating less time to work and more towards infrastructure maintenance would only be giving free gifts to corporations and small entrepreneurs alike, who will be happy to put the improved infrastructure to use in making more money for themselves.
We need a way for improving things where, when a community improves its own space, the gains don't immediately get privatized.
I think one of the biggest public infrastructure issues in the United States is the lack of equal education. The education system of the USA is not fair and inherently unequal when schools are funded from the taxes of its local communities.
Other public infrastructure issues could be lack of cheap, affordable internet access, clean water, and health care.
Even when there is some subsidising towards educating children that are unfortunate enough to have poor parents, you still end up with very unequal outcomes.
Go down to Figure 53 of this: http://www.nzchildren.co.nz which shows only 1/3 of the poorest 20% attain a high enough level of education to even enter university, while 3/4 of the richest 20% do (the relation is fairly linear for the rest).
Financing the education of children with poor parents helps, it just doesn't equalise on average. Of course it does help a few outlier children a lot.
In NZ we add extra subsidies to schools with poor parents through a system of deciles - but it doesn't offset the difference that much.
> Even when there is some subsidising towards educating children that are unfortunate enough to have poor parents, you still end up with very unequal outcomes.
I think the idea with funding education more equitably is to remove existing barriers that are created by policy, not about creating totally equal outcomes.
I think we're on the same page. I interpreted "infrastructure" primarily to be social and political infrastructure, not physical infrastructure. Fixing it would undoubtedly need to include greater resistance to exploitation by powerful private interests.
I think this conclusion really works for both physical and social infrastructure. It's cool to work on either, but it's cooler if you don't feel like being an unpaid volunteer in someone else's business.
When participating in the system of the US, wealth and job security are extremely useful. It may be rational to think “I will have more impact working to the bone and then donating/volunteering, than I would if I worked less and volunteered more”
> When participating in the system of the US, wealth and job security are extremely useful. It may be rational to think “I will have more impact working to the bone and then donating/volunteering, than I would if I worked less and volunteered more”
I think that's the trap: you can't work yourself to the bone then have energy to work more to be active in your community, volunteer, run for office, pester politicians with letters, etc. Those are the kind of activities that I think could avoid the decay and perhaps even lead to some improvement.
I think it's a mistake to view "donating money" as meaningful response to many current social problems. Many of them are caused or propped up by people with more money than you could ever dream of having. Thinking that mere donations can win is like thinking a group insurgents could win in a stand-up direct fight against the US Army. The insurgents have different advantages than the US Army, and if they're smart, they'll use them rather than futilely attempting to reach parity with the US Army's strengths.
There's definitely some minimum amount of donations that will be required to really change things, but at a certain point I think the returns diminish.
That looks like a Marine and this kind of pointless punishment is common in the corps. The more pointless, the better. (Think, digging a hole and filling it back up again, repeatedly.)
There was also the old age of sail "anti-idleness" laws which also had issues of believing their own lies and causation correlations that it caused crime and sin. There are plenty of what are now clearly goddamned moronic social theories then in the 15th to 19th centuries - and it sadly isn't an exclusive to then and ones of modern vintage exist as well. They honestly thought people drinking until they pass out in the bar was socially preferable to walking around town.
Stalin's five year plans, Pol Pot and Moa's Cultural revolution immediately spring to mind. The ancient Roman practice of having Soldiers work on construction projects (eg Hadrian's Wall) between battles is a similar idea (though to keep them from looting, not plotting revolution).
They all disliked unemployed people and often forced them into work or in the military, loathed artists and writers that were able to work independently.
They glorified "work for work's sake".
Created work artificially through gargantuan public works, bureaucracy and... war - the ultimate instrument to keep people busy and give them a common purpose.
I disagree. That only makes sense if you assume you (and everyone like you) are politically powerless and the rot and decay are inevitable.
There's also another option: redirect that excess effort you're expediting to hoard for the failure into fixing the system before it fails. Your personal efforts to fix it might fail, but some other group that heeded the same call might succeed, and that's all it takes.
Hoarding wealth might seem like a safer bet, but it's just as prone to failure. The kind of wealth you could accumulate through hard work might not be enough to give you the security you want, and to get more you have to take big risks anyway.