www.ditl.org

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:
Sorry, but no. You cannot look at a population of billions and say "Nobody would want to do X as a hobby".

Considering how stressful and physically demanding a kitchen can be... yeah. Yeah, I can. Or at least there wouldn't be enough people to run it effectively.

I suspect the working environment of a 24th century kitchen is very different from the 20th century. Since this is the Feele Goode era of the Federation, I suspect it is a much cleaner, less stressful environment.

BigJKU316 wrote: What about living space? I assume that the top floor of our Utopian Tower is more valuable than the bottom. How do we decide who lives there? What about people we see who own large grape farms and tracts of land in France? That is basically impossible without money or some form of property ownership.

Well my first reaction would be to agree with you but after thinking for a few moments I must say that I can at least theoretically imagine a moneyless society where such values as apartments etc. are assigned not on a monetary basis like today but with another system.

Picard once said that the acquiring of money isn't the driving factor behind human motivation anymore but to better themselves. Well that may very well be true in a very literal sense almost to a point where a cynic might say that nothing really changed at all. For example we could assume that your basic needs in the 24th century are covered even if you do nothing. You are assigned a small cubicle to live and weekly replicator rations for eating etc... . Now if you "better" yourself via operating a vineyard, go to school, study at an university you are assigned more replicator-rations or earn the right to choose better housing etc. based on the perceived contribution to the society.
So it really works very similar to having some form of money with the exception that if you stop contributing you might very well loose your priveliges again whereas in todays society one can very well make a good living doing nothing if lucky enough to inherit a fortune or being so rich to begin with that he/she could live from interests. That wouldn't work since sitting on your ass doing nothing would not qualify as bettering yourself and it might very well be the reason we hardly ever saw someone on star trek actually retire.

Atekimogus wrote:

BigJKU316 wrote: What about living space? I assume that the top floor of our Utopian Tower is more valuable than the bottom. How do we decide who lives there? What about people we see who own large grape farms and tracts of land in France? That is basically impossible without money or some form of property ownership.

Well my first reaction would be to agree with you but after thinking for a few moments I must say that I can at least theoretically imagine a moneyless society where such values as apartments etc. are assigned not on a monetary basis like today but with another system.

Picard once said that the acquiring of money isn't the driving factor behind human motivation anymore but to better themselves. Well that may very well be true in a very literal sense almost to a point where a cynic might say that nothing really changed at all. For example we could assume that your basic needs in the 24th century are covered even if you do nothing. You are assigned a small cubicle to live and weekly replicator rations for eating etc... . Now if you "better" yourself via operating a vineyard, go to school, study at an university you are assigned more replicator-rations or earn the right to choose better housing etc. based on the perceived contribution to the society.
So it really works very similar to having some form of money with the exception that if you stop contributing you might very well loose your priveliges again whereas in todays society one can very well make a good living doing nothing if lucky enough to inherit a fortune or being so rich to begin with that he/she could live from interests. That wouldn't work since sitting on your ass doing nothing would not qualify as bettering yourself and it might very well be the reason we hardly ever saw someone on star trek actually retire.

But that is so much more cumbersome than money. It has no efficiency reasons and would take a ton of people just to administer.

I prefer to think that he means that there is no need for money for basic supplies such as food and health care. For everything else you would still need money.

Mark wrote:However, if it was a moneyless society, then why not open up there own resturaunt? If payroll isn't an issue, and all your ingredients are free, and you have no overhead at all whatsoever, then why would you want to work for somebody else?

Chance to work with a well known chef.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:Considering how stressful and physically demanding a kitchen can be... yeah. Yeah, I can. Or at least there wouldn't be enough people to run it effectively.

From what we've seen working in Sisko's kitchen ISN'T stressful or physically demanding. Bear in mind that much of that stress comes not so much from running the kitchen, but from having to run it to make a profit. Sisko can take as many or as few customers as he likes, open whatever hours he likes, serve whatever meals he likes without any real thought to how successful his "business" is. The only thing he has to drive him in that direction is whatever pride he places in it.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Sorry, but no. You cannot look at a population of billions and say "Nobody would want to do X as a hobby".

Dude - I'm pretty sure he was speaking in sarcastic hyperbole.

Tyyr wrote:It's possible his dad was a dom and he made all his subs work in his restaurant.

In every topic, there's always one.

BigJKU316 wrote:But that is so much more cumbersome than money. It has no efficiency reasons and would take a ton of people just to administer.

I know, sounds just like a government institution doesn't it? On top of that it makes the simple complex, which is beloved in the future.

Not only that, but it would lend itself to the re-establishment of money. It's basically tantamount to barter, for either goods or services. That system was indeed cumbersome, which is why mankind adopted markers to represent discrete amounts of value owed. These markers were presumed to have an equivalent value of something precious; later, this backing was removed and the markers themselves were attributed their own intrinsic value for what they could provide. That's money. Finally, those markers were used less and less in favor of a virtual ledger of such markers, transferring a promissary amount electronically. That's modern money.

GrahamKennedy wrote:
From what we've seen working in Sisko's kitchen ISN'T stressful or physically demanding. Bear in mind that much of that stress comes not so much from running the kitchen, but from having to run it to make a profit. Sisko can take as many or as few customers as he likes, open whatever hours he likes, serve whatever meals he likes without any real thought to how successful his "business" is. The only thing he has to drive him in that direction is whatever pride he places in it.

We saw it... what, a few times? Let's see it on a Friday night or the weekend, or Mardi Gras. Then we can fully judge. Until then, I'm gonna go on my RL experience in the business.

The stress comes from trying to handle the business you've allowed yourself and in putting out a product that meets your standards. Profit follows from that. Also having worked in the restaurant business, I can tell you that nobody runs a kitchen (during the service, I mean) with a thought for profit rather than a thought for getting things right. If you do that, the profits come. If not, they don't. Given the whole idea of "bettering ourselves" in the UFP, I'd think the same motivation - and resultant stress - would be present, just for pride of profession rather than for bottom line.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:We saw it... what, a few times? Let's see it on a Friday night or the weekend, or Mardi Gras. Then we can fully judge. Until then, I'm gonna go on my RL experience in the business.

Even though it's obviously not factually relevant? Well that's up to you I guess.

Personally, I'd tend to agree with Graham that saying "no one would want to work in a restaurant" isn't that great an argument. But there still has to be some form of "payment" in the UFP. Why?

It's easy enough to handwave away an economy by just pointing to a replicator and saying "you can get anything you want from that, so there's no need to buy anything". But this ignores the fact that there is one precious resource that can not be replicated. Land.

Quite simply, Sisko's dad's restaurant occupies land. How did he get that land? Did he pay someone for it? Can anyone just erect a fence and declare himself owner of all land within it? Sisko's father had to get ownership of that land somehow, which suggests that he bought it or earned it in some fashion. In any case, the simple fact that he can own a restaurant indicates some form of payment, even if we assume everyone works for free.

Sionnach Glic wrote:Quite simply, Sisko's dad's restaurant occupies land. How did he get that land? Did he pay someone for it? Can anyone just erect a fence and declare himself owner of all land within it? Sisko's father had to get ownership of that land somehow, which suggests that he bought it or earned it in some fashion. In any case, the simple fact that he can own a restaurant indicates some form of payment, even if we assume everyone works for free.

I don't think that's a particularly good example - the restaurant, like Picard's farm, could have been a family inheritance.

A more pressing issue is how replicators are sustained. Even if they could replicate anything, they still need the raw material to produce them from, and power to operate - that's where the idea of the TNG UFP economy being moneyless falls apart.

I thought replicators operated off of raw power, much the same as transporters?

They can't do - if they were capable of pure energy-to-matter conversion there would be no reason for them being unable to reproduce so many different items. They must, at the very least, be incapable of elemental transubstantiation, and probably incapable of reproducing complex chemical chains.

Is that so for everything or for just certain things that are beyond the current tech?