Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

swissinfo.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 600 posts

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#361

Post by illumen »

ZoeZoeBee wrote: post #237
illumen wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

""" I wonder if you think that pro-immigration movements can be inflamed, reflexive, unthinking and possibly offensive? Actually they do not need to be because there's been a fait accompli in that at least one million immigrants have entered Germany on the basis of what appears to be the say-so of one woman. Discussion is over! This isn't the context for a rebuttal of your suggestion that unfounded accusations abound…

A few things. 1) Sweden has been importing North African and Middle Eastern people's since the early 1970s in a concerted effort to shore up their Demographic issues. https://swedenreport.org/immigration-3/ 2) Sweden made it a crime to question the Immigration Policies of the Government. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4972/sweden-free-speech 3) The last time they reported rapes by nationalities those born in a for…

"The last time they reported rapes by nationalities those born in a foreign country or born to a foreign parent accounted for over 70% of all rapes."

That is not a factual remark.

according to Brå you quoted, immigrants were 5.5 times more likely to be CHARGED[edit: but not convicted, convictions have "little difference"] on reported rapes in Sweden. Not on the total of REPORTED rapes. There's around 190 convictions per year in Sweden compared to 6,700 reported. With such a low conviction rate, there is something terribly wrong.

Another hypothesis that could be made is that the police are targeting immigrants more than locals. Or that immigrants can not get as good a legal defense. But these are just some hypothesis, I am not willing to jump to conclusions.

Before all these people came begging for help after fleeing war, were you standing up for the thousands of women not getting justice every year in Sweden? Or is this only a new concern for women? Because the rates are about the same, and also thousands weren't getting justice. I guess it's just a strange coincidence that you haven't publicly been calling for justice.

Hate speech is a crime, where you make false accusations about hundreds of thousands of people and call for violence. If you're saying that they are rapists, that might incite violence against innocent people. If what you are saying is actually true, then yes, you can say it, and it is not a crime. You can talk about statistics, but if you make up a figure (your 70%), and you say "accounted for over 70% of all rapes" as you did, then that is not the truth is it? Even your linked articles do not say they "accounted for 70% of all rapes".

Out of the 81,300 asylum seekers in 2014 to Sweden, how many of those have been convicted of rape? If it was 2 people, then it is less than 0.0025%. Even if it was every single person convicted rape(190) in that year, that would be 0.23% It's not though, it's way less. I hope you see how silly it is to paint all those people with the same brush.

Do you really believe stuff those articles talk about? Like how the gatestoneinstitute article you linked to says how "Sweden is also home to sizeable Muslim enclaves that have become off-limits to Swedish police". That's ridiculous.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#362

Post by willu »

tptacek wrote: post #289
dmix wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toronto was/is like this too. It's a pretty big city similar to Chicago. All of the houses are >$1 million now in Toronto proper. Now the only thing being built are hundreds of cookie cutter condos right in the downtown core. So many were built in recent years that the price of condos actually went down for the first time in forever while house prices continued to rise.

You can get a decent house in a nice neighborhood on the north side of Chicago for around 200k.

>>I paid nothing close to 500k in Oak Park...

Congratulations! I'm aware Oak Park has some affordable homes (but higher taxes) since much of my family lives there. But Oak Park is not Chicago and I was talking about Chicago. If I were going to live in one of the more remote Chicago neighborhoods that had $200k houses, I'd probably opt to live in Oak Park or Evanston since you'd get more for your money (sane school systems, etc.) without much more commute to the city center.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#363

Post by notahacker »

alva wrote: post #57
_nalply wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum. Now we have the sentence «The construction of minarets is prohibited.» in the constitution. ( https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/... ) I think such regulations should be decreed as a law and not as a constitution norm if at all. But if everybody has a say you get bikeshedding in the constitution.

Out of interest, why is populistic commonly used as a pejorative? It seems to be the best friend of democracy.

"Populist" in the pejorative sense usually implies exploiting public discontent with or distrust of the status quo to propose something far worse.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#364

Post by zymhan »

bathory wrote: post #324
krmboya wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so compelling! I'd like to experience such a place. However being from some part of this planet I googled a few keywords and came across this: https://www.vice.com/read/guide-to-european-racist-leagues The website features a lot in HN so but I don't know about the quality of their journalism. Anyway, you never know till you try...

This seems to be a joke article... I quote: Germany: The Evidence At the time of going to press, a comprehensive reading of the past hundred years of German history showed no documented incidents of any racial bias. Racism Rating 0/5 ehh???

What could possibly give you that impression?

Sometimes I wonder how people can be so oblivious to satire and sarcasm.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#365

Post by pka »

Vaebn wrote: post #78
areyoucrazy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum... Oh, you liberals. You hide behind democracy when, in fact, you are a bunch of tyrants who would like to jam your ideas of immigration, multiculturalism, socialism etc. down the people's throats whether they like it or not. Why are you labeling direct democratic decision by majority of people as bad/downside? It seems that when people do someth…

Because its all fun and games until the "majority" suddenly realize they can just say "oh, and also, how about we vote to take all the money of that 10% here". There is such a thing as tyranny by the minority, and tyranny by the majority. The second is in fact much easier to do, since the first requires a modicum of power & ability for someone to keep himself in that position. The minaret thing is irrelevant, as a mi…

I'm also of the conviction that everybody should do whatever they want if they don't hurt/bother anybody else. However, a consequence of this is that people will have to waive certain freedoms if the majority is bothered by them, like building whatever they'd like on their private property.

Sure, let's say not being allowed to build minarets because people don't like that is bullshit.

But let's also imagine I buy some land in front of the kindergarden your children go to and build a giant wall showing hardcore porn movies all day. Now probably you and the majority of people living there wouldn't like me to do that, but it's my damn right so gtfo.

It's a slippery slope both ways (minarets, gay people can't kiss in public, porn walls) and I have no idea how to draw the line between what the majority wants and the invasion of personal freedom. More importantly, neither the majority nor any elected officials should be allowed to draw that line (almost by definition), so it seems it's a catch 22 situation.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#366

Post by nemo44x »

_9MOTHER9HORSE wrote: post #270
etatoby wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very simple actually. Consider, for brevity, a mortgage where the monthly or yearly payment, including taxes, is equal to the rent you would be paying for the same place. Then live in the place and go about your life for several years, until the mortgage is paid for. Option 1, you took the mortgage. Now you own a house and you are not due any more payments. You can keep living there and use the excess income for…

You do incur a lot more costs as a property owner than as a renter, which you should bear in mind. Over the life of your average 20-25 year mortgage you should expect to have to replace numerous appliances, encounter a couple of catastrophic and unexpected issues (leaking roof, etc.), and after 10 years the decor will be outdated and shabby. To get optimum resale value you will have to sink a lot of time/money into r…

I was waiting for someone to mention that. Home ownership is expensive and makes you inflexible. Also, consider property taxes (which will scale with inflation) and the fact home owners insurance is more expensive than renters.

And besides finance you need to consider if you want the responsibility of owning a home. Cutting the grass, shoveling snow, cleaning gutters, fixing things, painting, etc. It's a lot of work.

Owning makes sense for some people but there are a lot of benefits to not having to spend your life taking care of a building.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#367

Post by wicker »

ryandrake wrote: post #353
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A two hour daily commute is like 12% of your waking hours crumpled and thrown away. That sounds like hell. Two hours is a long time! Sit around for the two hours doing nothing, you'll see.

I currently commute 2 hours each way. It's not as bad as it sounds. If you happen to be able to afford to live close to work, consider yourself lucky.

Do you do anything in particular to make use of the time during the commute besides just concentrating on driving, listening to music, or daydreaming? I struggle with long commutes since I inevitably feel like I'm wasting the time.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#368

Post by cplease »

rs999gti wrote: post #177
taneq wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a waste if you don't put the difference to work in some way. Owning a house outright is great (I'm 1/3 of the way there) but for most, a 30-year mortgage is no more of a wise decision than a rental. You're just swapping landlord for bank.

> You're just swapping landlord for bank. And even if you pay off your mortgage you still don't technically own it due to yearly property taxes.

Not only do taxes pass through to renters, very often they are substantially higher. In New York, for instance, there is a substantial school tax credit for homeowners not available to rental properties. In addition, some cities have a homestead property tax rate that is substantially lower than the commercial tax rate applicable to rental properties.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#369

Post by tptacek »

willu wrote: post #362
tptacek wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get a decent house in a nice neighborhood on the north side of Chicago for around 200k.

>>I paid nothing close to 500k in Oak Park... Congratulations! I'm aware Oak Park has some affordable homes (but higher taxes) since much of my family lives there. But Oak Park is not Chicago and I was talking about Chicago. If I were going to live in one of the more remote Chicago neighborhoods that had $200k houses, I'd probably opt to live in Oak Park or Evanston since you'd get more for your money (sane school sy…

Oak Park is significantly more expensive than Chicago.

I don't think you can legitimately call Jefferson Park "remote" while saying you'd like to live in Evanston, which is much farther from the center of the city.

Jefferson Park is a straight shot down Milwaukee from the center of the city, and a pretty good chunk of every restaurant or bar you'd want to go to is along that shot. It's also got a Blue Line station, with better service than the Purple Line. For that matter, Jefferson Park is bisected by I-90. Have you ever had to commute between downtown (or anywhere else) and Evanston? It's a nightmare: you're a 20 minute drive from any major commuter road.

(I was born and raised on the south side of Chicago and moved to Evanston, and then Lakeview, when I was 18).

Bringing this all back to the point of the thread: a decent house in a nice neighborhood in Chicago will cost you $200, maybe $250 if you're optimizing. Well within reach of anyone in our industry. You can spend more. You can spend $500, or even a million. But it would be weird to do that. The fact that there are family-oriented neighborhoods in Chicago that people have barely heard of with all the conveniences of (say) Jefferson Park is the reason you can get such good deals on houses here. Chicago is just a well-designed city.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#370

Post by ryandrake »

ajkjk wrote: post #149
akerro wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And on the opposite, I never understood how people can not own a house and waste money on renting for decades. Where market for houses in western countries is very limited due to stupid regulations and every year a few millions of people move to that country causing renting prices to increase by XX% each year. It decreases my financial stability. Losing a job for less than a month is a financial disaster, I still to…

If losing a job for less than a month is a financial disaster, you're probably not in the market for a house anyway. It's perfectly possible to rent for decades and have years of runway in savings. Also, the burden of being rooted, and of having to maintain a house, could be such a significant detraction to quality of life that it totally makes up the difference. Also, at least in my case as a relatively young Americ…

Surprisingly, I seem to be in the minority here: I consider the lack of freedom and NOT being rooted that comes with renting to be much more of a burden. To me a huge advantage of buying a house is that I know where I'll be living next year and 5 years from now. I don't have to worry about my scummy landlord raising rents by 30% every year "because they can". I don't want to burden my kid with having to find a new set of friends every year because we have to move to a different school district again. If I want to build a deck or knock down a wall or install surround sound in the living room, I can do so tomorrow without having to ask permission.
Post reply on HN