Predicting the Next Decade 2020-2030

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,722
Seattle
#51
It already has. The number of people deriving some sort of government-funded benefit in the US is extremely high and continues to increase. Food stamps, child care benefits, low income assistance, social security, disability pensions, agriculture subsidies, medicare, medicaid, rent assistance, housing subsidies, veterans assistance, and so on.
I don't mind the support for the people who can not work, are disabled. Have genetic syndromes or mitochondrial diseases or whatever. Really disabled. And I am in a difficult psychological situation. I believe that we have to decriminalize all the drugs and build safe houses for opiate injections. (Why pay money to foreign cartels instead of supporting own businesses?). However, the sheer cost of these safe houses is such that taxes to build them will safely kill any small business.
 
Aug 2012
1,554
#52
I predict with great certainty, in fact I guarantee, that the next big thing for the oncoming decade will be VR. It's still relatively expensive, but once the technology gets cheaper then it will be as prevalent as the more flashy mobile phones. The internet also consists of a majority of porn (or so I've been led to believe, I couldn't possible comment as I wouldn't know). This would open up a brand new niche for your more technologically savvy pervo. Incidentally, if you know where to look, then there already seems to be a VR market on steam for socially awkward and grasping lechers.

VR will also provide new movie experiences as people can actually be 'in' the film and be part of the action rather than watching it on a flat screen. It also means that special occasions can be filmed and re-watched in 3D. This will revolutionise historic moments as you can go back and re-visit presidential speeches and major news events. It will also revolutionise teaching as the schools of the future will embed VR into their lessons to teach about geography, the human body and many other things in VR. Not to mention business meetings and concerts where the people can appear in VR.

The social consequences of this are also immense, people are already addicted to their mobile phones (I once showed some younger people a video about the dangers of mobile phone addiction but they were too busy looking at their phones to care). The VR addiction problem will be even bigger. World of Warcraft has ruined marriages, jobs and lives through the addiction to the online gaming community, the VR addiction will be far worse because the person will be fully immersed in the gaming experience. It will be very, very difficult for some people to step back and there may be a few deaths as a result of non-stop gaming. This may also mean that we get an even unhealthier generation who're addicted to gaming rather than living in the real world.

I'm quite looking forward to it.
This is a very intriguing idea! It is true that VR has been tried before, notably in the realm of video games by Nintendo's Virtual Boy in the 1990s. But since then, it has certainly evolved. As it becomes more accessible to those on low incomes, and technology improves over the years, it may become as integral to people's lives as mobile phones are today. Certainly, the teaching applications may make it an ideal tool to tackle the issue of classroom overcrowding.
But I also predict that the rise of VR will unleash numerous moral panics. The media is already deeply invested in denigrating video games, and will of course use Virtual Reality as further proof of the decay of society.

Still, there are so many things it could do if given the time an investment. Such as allowing the user to put on the headset and walk through a recreation of an Ancient Roman street, or take us on board the deck of a ship during the age of piracy. It could well fundamentally alter how people spend their recreational time.
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,722
Seattle
#53
Of course it was socialistic, but far less than today. There are degrees of socialism. Today, the entire OECD, except for the US, has socialised health care and none of us are communist.
We are moving towards today, I don't know if it is OK.

The quality of healthcare matters, too. In New Zealand, they told me they did have socialized care but most were not happy with it and would buy private insurance. However, there might be other reasons why some countries can afford more nice things.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,359
Australia
#54
We are moving towards today, I don't know if it is OK.

The quality of healthcare matters, too. In New Zealand, they told me they did have socialized care but most were not happy with it and would buy private insurance. However, there might be other reasons why some countries can afford more nice things.
New Zealand has a world class public health system. There has never been any talk of getting rid of it. They also have private health insurance just like we do in Australia. This helps you get elective surgery more quickly but holders of private insurance still go through the public system for more urgent matters. I find it offensive that private health insurers can cherry pick the aspects of health care that are the most profitable to them and dump their members onto the public system in cases when it isn't.

The United States has the most expensive health care system in the OECD yet it has the worst outcomes.

I don't mind the support for the people who can not work, are disabled. Have genetic syndromes or mitochondrial diseases or whatever. Really disabled.
This is socialism. You said that you are "outta here" if the US becomes socialist. The US has been socialist since before World War II, but, as I said, there are degrees of socialism. The US has less socialism than many other countries in the OECD.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Tulius

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,722
Seattle
#56
New Zealand has a world class public health system. There has never been any talk of getting rid of it. They also have private health insurance just like we do in Australia. This helps you get elective surgery more quickly but holders of private insurance still go through the public system for more urgent matters. I find it offensive that private health insurers can cherry pick the aspects of health care that are the most profitable to them and dump their members onto the public system in cases when it isn't.

The United States has the most expensive health care system in the OECD yet it has the worst outcomes.


This is socialism. You said that you are "outta here" if the US becomes socialist. The US has been socialist since before World War II, but, as I said, there are degrees of socialism. The US has less socialism than many other countries in the OECD.
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,722
Seattle
#57
This is socialism. You said that you are "outta here" if the US becomes socialist. The US has been socialist since before World War II, but, as I said, there are degrees of socialism. The US has less socialism than many other countries in the OECD.
Oh no. Australia is not socialistic, nor is the US, or Britain, or even Finland.

"Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."


What neither of the countries has would be the community as the whole owning the means of production. We have privately owned, large corporations.


The only socialistic thing in countries like Finland or Sweden are higher taxes, out of which they pay subsidies to the less fortunate. This might be "to each according to contribution" part. But this is the only socialistic part. Your countries are still owned by big corporations.


And big corporations successfully avoid high taxes. So your so-called "socialism" produces unbelievable burden on the middle class, that is taxed, and heavily so. We all are overburdened, and shrinking.
 
Apr 2010
1,017
evergreen state, USA
#58
Well, I'm not an intellectual. And I'm too old to really care. But as for the USA, the competition between the Pentagon and social benefits will only increase; socialized medicine versus keeping up with China and Russia militarily. And the government is broke.

A new item in the news is that the masses in Africa are waking up. They are tired of corrupt dictators. And the internet, etc. is bringing them together. So maybe the future is looking brighter in Africa for Africans.

Long term, as the world enters the space age and inter-planetary colonization, I suspect globalist governments will resemble Xi's China, with little room for inefficient democracy. But I hope I'm wrong about that.
 
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
#60
The only socialistic thing in countries like Finland or Sweden are higher taxes, out of which they pay subsidies to the less fortunate. This might be "to each according to contribution" part. But this is the only socialistic part. Your countries are still owned by big corporations.


And big corporations successfully avoid high taxes. So your so-called "socialism" produces unbelievable burden on the middle class, that is taxed, and heavily so. We all are overburdened, and shrinking.
Not to nitpick, but we subsidize everyone. The entire deal about the Scandinavian model is that access to welfare is generally speaking not means-tested. A good example of this is the barnbidrag where everyone gets the same lumpsum of cash from the Govnt if they have a child (and more, if they have more children), regardless of income and wealth.

Another fun fact is that we tax the middle class much more than any other place on earth (although to be fair they also get more from the government than in say the US) - while we have some of the lowest capital gains (officially it's 30%, but there are a lot of deductions, loopholes and separate taxation methods for non-corporate actors etc.) and corporate taxes (18% I think) in the industrialized world... We also basically don't have a property tax, no wealth tax and no inheritance tax. Much of the tax corporations pay to the government are in the form of arbetsgivsaravgifter ("Employer-tariffs") which is a transfer payed by the owners of companies on their employees (i.e. out of their employees' salaries) to pay for their social security etc. Companies with high automation and fewer employees or employing some consultant solutions can find ways to minimize these taxes.
 

Similar History Discussions