Why Does Modern Trek Make Earth Out To Be A "Paradise"?

No. I'm analyzing a fictional 23rd Century that has been constructed to be relatable to 21st Century people and pointing out that it doesn't make sense.

To. You.

To those of us who don't we don't see the problem.

But how do you exchange any of those with people whose economy has no scarcity?

Okaaaaaaaay...

Does pride of work motivate everyone who does it today?

Sure, but I never worked in a restaurant. Sue me for making a joke.

Oh, I never said Star Trek was plausible.

No, it is. Most everyone needs money.

That's not to say there aren't people who enjoy their jobs--there are--or who do their jobs for other reasons--again, there are--but I maintain the overwhelming majority of people, if they could maintain as good or better a lifestyle without doing them, would choose not to do them.

Why else do people buy lottery tickets?

We're not talking about the real 23rd Century. We're talking about a fictional one. And the issue is whether people who are free of economic worries would choose to do menial jobs.

I don't think you see clearly, but agree to disagree.

I don't feel like with someone who refuses to step outside of their own mentality, but I will answer this:

Same reason they buy Tijuana Mama's, they were up way too late, and were way too drunk to be buying beer, but somehow found themselves in a QuikiMart with some Busch tallboys, a pack of camel lights, a lotto ticket and some colon cleaner on the counter.

Uh huh. Want to try a serious answer?

Well, this thread has gone as far as it can.
I'm locking it.

Yep, and the show needed tension, which is why they ultimately used a weak-ass version of the Borg for that purpose. The pilot held a great deal of promise, then 7 years of blah.

We have an example right here at Wordforge of somebody who chose a life of manual labor, some that might even be labeled menial by others. I doubt anybody would question Flow or Aenea's intellects. Perhaps they are early adopters to a new lifestyle. Or perhaps Paladin should read one of the articles common at this time of year about the yuppy who leaves Wallstreet to become a fisherman, etc. We are conditioned to question these choices or see them as wrong. But most people, if given the freedom to not chase the dollar (or chase it in a different way) might very likely make choices that seem bizarre to Paladin. Within five generations of achieving that freedom, I doubt very much that anybody would work for the sort of motivations he understands.

Can you imagine how much better even the Borg story arc would have been if:

1. They hadn't nerfed the Bog, and

2. Facing that threat had been what made the crew finally come together after years of tension and mistrust?

they played it right though.
as soon as the rebs saw they had nothing, they surrendered and submitted. Sure, a few of them had their fingers crossed behind their backs and bided their time while scheming of another rebellion, but those all came to naught. Hell, the show crumbled from within long before they could take over.

meh-I think it really was just the waiters bussing their own tables or rotating the duty to make the restaurant work. We haven't even considered that the place could be run as a collective. In that case, it'd be everyone taking a turn being the scarecrow.

But in the real live 21st century? I dunno... I'm being interviewed this week for a MuchMusic documentary on punk history because I was part of making it. I'm in a couple of books and magazine articles on the subject already. Sure, there's no money in it. But the acknowledgement that I've made a meaningful contribution to something with my life... that's so much more.

nm

Maybe "post-scarcity" is the wrong word. Instead, maybe it's an age with a lot less scarcity. (For example, we're not post-scarcity now, but the modernization of agriculture, among other factors, means that there's a lot less scarcity than there was a few hundred years ago.)

I'm still trying to think this through, so I could be missing some gaping hole. But let's say there are plenty of jobs available in fields that don't require manual labor, and everyone has access to a high-quality education that makes them qualified for those jobs. In addition, Starfleet has loads and loads of money and is an extremely popular career choice. Right now, jobs like busboy tend to pay relatively little because there's a large pool of people who basically have no other choice. But if nearly everyone has access to other options, a restaurant owner who needs busboys is going to have to do something to lure them away from jobs as holonovel programmers or Starfleet navigators. And that something would probably be higher pay.

Interesting, but I find a few problems with that idea:

1. I think it unlikely that demand for jobs at the high end will create a vacuum for jobs at the lower end. Most people aren't capable of doing the more elite jobs, pretty much by definition. Lots of people in society NOW lack the cognitive abilities to do the more intellectual jobs, and I doubt it would be different by the 23rd/24th Century unless genetic manipulation has become widespread.

2. It's hard to believe that a high-wage market for busboys could exist when surely technology will by then have made automation the far cheaper alternative.

One possibility may be that, in order to collect all the 24th Century welfare bennies, you MUST work. Maybe Earth has a jobs program where people who are otherwise unemployable do the menial, unambitious jobs. Maybe Joe Sisko doesn't pay his busboys anything; he just signs off their work cards at the end of the week...

Once virtual sex becomes decent, people will become highly introverted. The skill set required for bus boy, being able to interact with people in a manner that makes them comfortable and happy will become rare and only the best of the best will succeed.

"There's no money in the 24th Century!"

Maybe it's different where you live, but the busboys at the places I frequent interact VERY LITTLE with the customers. In fact, a good many of them no hablan ingles.

That changes with the quality of the restaurant. I can't imagine going to the no hablan places when a table top replicator is available. But I'd still go to places like The French Laundry and Sisko's, where the experience is something I can't create at home. I eat out for two reasons: 1) I'm pressed for time and my kids are hungry; 2) my wife and I are looking for a few hours being catered to by the best kitchen and dining room talent available. Presumably life in the 24th century eliminates the first reason. You better believe the busing staff at high end restaurants makes good money.

true dat... I had a p/t gig as a bar back at one of the bigger clubs once. Six hours of keeping 4 different serving stations stocked was usually good for an extra 200 a night once the bartenders tipped us out. The deal was generally 1% of their recorded sales, which'd be 10% of the 10% they could expected to be getting.

Maybe if all industries placed as much importance on the contributions of supporting staff...

Something I never understood was why Earth in the 24th century had to be absolutely perfect (paradise) for the dramatic purposes in Star Trek?

What was wrong with having it incredibly wealthy with an ultra high standard of living but still have the occasional crime, some income inequality and the rare social protest? Or even a war now and then?

"Yeah, there was a war about 10 years ago. It was fought by robotic submarines on the Indian Ocean floor. Lasted more than six hours before international peacekeepers stepped in" (note I took this from a science fiction anthology about future crimes).

What is it about the very little we see of Earth in any of the series that tells you it's "perfect"?

Dayton, if mankind is united, who are they going to be having this war with??

The only curiosity I have is why Dayton has issue with the idea of a world without conflict or prejudice?

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/economy.htm

We have a "United Nations" yet have had plenty of wars since it was formed (almost all undeclared).

And yes El Chup, I like conflict. Nothing wrong with that.

Even with conflict leading to wars and death because you like conflict.

This is a probably a topic suitable for the Red Room.

Anyhow, what do you mean you "like conflict"? As in conflict makes good entertainment or you think wars are good?

Both. Obviously for entertainment. I think the occasional short wars can be good for a nation in the long run (though obviously bad for the people who are killed and injured). I remember a saying years ago that a short foreign war can be like good exercise for a nation and its people (as a whole). A line of thinking my dad (a Korean war combat veteran) and other combat veterans I've heard echoed.