Good Read: "The Martian" by Andy Weir

Main > Everything Else

<< < (8/15) > >>

Locke141:

--- Quote from: pbj on September 30, 2015, 04:51:49 pm ---We are here to bash NASA, not entertain your libertarian fantasies. Thanks!

--- End quote ---

+1

--- Quote from: dkersten on September 30, 2015, 05:22:19 pm --- Social programs don't strengthen a nation

--- End quote ---

Have you ever been to a country that does not have a functioning social safety net? Do some traveling.

This web site puts things in perspective.
http://nasawatch.com

The latest article seem to lend credence to PBJ's comment about JPL.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/09/nasa-cancels-b6.html

I still think we need to spend more on NASA. The money should just come from the military side of the budget.

dkersten:

--- Quote from: Locke141 on October 01, 2015, 03:17:35 am ---
--- Quote from: dkersten on September 30, 2015, 05:22:19 pm --- Social programs don't strengthen a nation

--- End quote ---
Have you ever been to a country that does not have a functioning social safety net? Do some traveling.

--- End quote ---
Give any of those countries you are thinking about a working economy where the population has a way to earn their own way and live well and you don't need the safety nets. Take a country where there is a social "safety net" but no working economy and you have a fantasy land or a country that will not exist when the bills come due because they are spending money they don't have to support a population that can't or won't contribute to society. Give the population a way to earn their OWN way and take away the ability for them to live comfortably on the "safety nets" and suddenly you have a productive society that doesn't need to spend a trillion dollars a year on welfare programs.

Besides, I am all for safety nets, just not ones that 50% of the population are using because 90% of those are capable of living without them but can live better by not putting in the effort and letting the others do the work for them. Take out the abuse and suddenly you have hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on things like NASA (or better yet, balancing the budget and paying down debt).

Slippyblade:
You are overlooking the fact that a large part of the reason so many are relying on these "safety nets" is due to an unsustainable model. Over the past several decades costs of living have skyrocketed, yet wages have been mostly stagnant and in some markets, dropped. Once upon a time a person could put themselves through college by working a summer job at minimum wage. Now it takes two full-time workers making substantially more than minimum just to be above poverty.

A sizable chunk of the "welfare" and "social spending" that charts like these use is highly misleading since they include Medicare and Social Security. Neither of those are actual tax spending and the only reason they are even included in the budget charts is due to policies that "borrowed" from those funds to pay for more military that we don't need. This started with Reagan and has been continued since.

yotsuya:
This is why I don't read the P N' R forum. >:D

dkersten:

--- Quote from: Slippyblade on October 01, 2015, 04:00:49 pm ---You are overlooking the fact that a large part of the reason so many are relying on these "safety nets" is due to an unsustainable model. Over the past several decades costs of living have skyrocketed, yet wages have been mostly stagnant and in some markets, dropped. Once upon a time a person could put themselves through college by working a summer job at minimum wage. Now it takes two full-time workers making substantially more than minimum just to be above poverty.
--- End quote ---
There is certainly a widening gap between the rich and the poor and cost of living raises don't seem to track very well with the actual cost of living increases. But frankly when I compare 20 years ago to today, I don't see things have really changed much. Costs of living across the board have nearly doubled, but then so did minimum wage. I was able to live off minimum wage 23 years ago, and there is no reason someone couldn't do it today.

Rather than post actual costs from then and now and talk about perceived standards of living, just look at the poverty line:
In 1992 it was roughly $12k for a family of 3 (two adults, one child). Min Wage was $3.85 per hour, which at full time is ~$16,000 for two working adults.
In 2015, it is roughly $20k for a family of 3. Min wage is $7.25 per hour, so 2 working adults full time is ~ $30,000 per year.
You are better off today making min wage than you were 2 decades ago, and even 2 decades ago 2 working parents were WELL above poverty.

Now college:
In 1991, I went to Montana State University. It cost me $3k per semester for tuition, room, and board.
in 2015, my daughter is going to Montana State University. It cost me $7800 per semester for tuition, room, and board. (Notice I said "me", not "her", lol)
It is certainly up at a higher rate than the poverty line increase, and even looking at actual costs then vs now of housing, cars, gas, and food costs, college is more expensive by about 20-30% than back then.

However, unless your "summer job" included a pole and a lot of dollar bills, you would have been hard pressed 2 decades ago to work for a couple months in the summer to pay for a year of college. Perhaps in 1950 you could do that, but in 1950 you lived 20 years less than you do today, so I guess there are some tradeoffs there...

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version