161–170 of 474 posts
>> Seventy-eight percent of Americans are already living paycheck to paycheck; almost half can’t afford an unexpected $400 bill On big part of this is Americans a whole need to get better with their money. I know many people can't save because of low income (or lack thereof), but 78%? Don't forget about all those people making six figures who can't get it together.
Gives a nice tummy feel but does nothing good for society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rampant inflation or the idea that nobody would go to work are commonly held up as big reasons not to have a UBI (or something similar) so it's important to address those. You completely missed the point. I am against the principle of me (a tax payer) paying for someone else not working unless they can't work (unable to work). The inflation argument is completely irrelevant. > If you want to rebut that last point b…
> It isn't about the facts. It is about the principle. What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts. And it seems you're saying it should be that way for all time because you think your principle is just and right - even if automation replaces a ton of jobs, or even if something else happens so people don't really have to work much anymore, your moral principle demands that everyo…
They said back in the 80s and 90s The computer revolution would stop end all the office work. Now there are probably more people in offices than ever. I think automation will just create different jobs. Neither you or I will know what those are likely to be.
> Don't you think the world changes and that what worked before isn't necessarily going to work for all time? I mean, read a book about being a good housewife in the '60s if you want to see how far we've come in just 60 years.
The fact of the matter is that it isn't ethical to rely on the good people in the population to work and pay for people that can't be bothered.
> I understand you're a bit put off by people getting "money for nothing" but as I said,
No I find it to be completely unethical.
> maybe the facts here are showing you live a better life because you do pay a little for people to get money for nothing. i.e. crime is lower, people are happier, etc.
I am not living a better life. Things are largely the same for me. Those unwilling to work are living at the taxpayer's expense.
Also I don't care about happiness. There are other things that are more important than happiness. I don't care about my own happiness. Happiness is for children. This is a deeper philosophical question that I will admit I don't have the tooling for. However you keep on saying happiness like I care about it.
Also if you making arguments about Happiness isn't the best way to go on it. There are accounts of slaves being happier being slaves than being free.
> As I showed with facts, it's only 5% of the Australian population who live that way, and of course some of those would only get it until they do find a job. Certainly not all of them are slackers (of course, some are)
I've told you the "facts" are irrelevant to me (and many others). Even if it was 0.01% of the UK I still think it would be wrong. I don't want to pay for people sitting on their behind. So you are forcing me to pay almost half my income for something I deeply disagree with, because not working isn't an option for me and never will be. It has nothing to do with enjoying work or not enjoying it.
> As I said, you need to keep it very clear in your head you are already paying for millions to do exactly that, and society as we know it would utterly crumble if we didn't. Who would pay for prisons, the elderly or handicapped?
I am fine for paying for those things. Because that is what/who the state should be providing for. I am not okay for people sitting on their backside.
I don't care that theoretically there would be less crime. I couldn't care less. Also not having free money doesn't allow you to break the law.
> The part I find most fascinating of all about this is how the media has conditioned people to be outraged about real and everyday people getting "money for nothing" and how they're slackers and are ruining the economy. Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.
I haven't been conditioned by anyone to think this. It is incredible insulting to be told by you that I have a problem with something because I been somehow brainwashed. Please keep on having this attitude though because it won't do you any good.
> Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.
I agree they shouldn't have been bailed out.
Build apartment high rises and condominium complexes, that people can own, with 15 years of work. Why should we be forced to work for 30 years as a slave to pay off some bank’s mortgage?
It’s not our damn fault, that politicians are inept and can’t do the right thing, by providing affordable homes.
Socialize the housing market. This is a basic human right, but the greed of capitalism is forcing everyone to pay insane prices for their housing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America is not spending trillions on their military, and even then it's still barely affordable. To give every American 12k per year would cost about 10 times the military budget (7 trillion versus 780 billion). And that's before we even discuss shenanigans like debt jubilees and free healthcare. Even dramatic cuts to the us military barely make a dent to these kinds of spending proposals.
[flagged]
Have you ever considered that it would contribute to why it is the richest country in the world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's certainly more complicated than I understand, but I see it like this... Case 1: With no UBI the person who works in food service has to live an hour or more out of town and commutes to work each day. This is because their pay is better in town than out of town so it's worth it financially overall. Or they simply are paying more in housing costs than they should, are feeding money up the rent chain instead of sav…
You make a good case why UBI might not affect rent in high-rent areas, but what makes you think there would be a place where housing costs are $300 a month when everyone has UBI? Why wouldn't the floor immediately become $1000 everywhere?
Its also worth mentioning that the US is very big and there are a lot of places that are just not that attractive to live in[1]. So I feel like it will be quite a while before we get to that point.
And a final point. UBI is not meant to provide free rent. It is a form of social welfare and safety net. The fact that the real estate market is so imbalanced in the US is a failure of capitalism (why aren't startups and companies moving to low-cost of living areas?) And the fact that UBI can help bring some balance to real estate markets is nice side benefit, but its main goal it to act as a counter weight to the ruthlessness of market economies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're gonna pay one way or another. Only because nonsense like this is allowed. > Some costs will be more monetary, some will be more health/crime-related, etc, but very few of us live in countries where there is a general desire and will to force people to work. You should be looking for work. If you haven't tried looking for a job you get your benefits removed. Obviously the Elderly and Disabled should get help…
What if there aren't enough jobs and they've automated everything they can? What's your answer when a hundred million jobs are gone to robots?
My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…
UBI and M4A would encourage me (and others) to pursue less lucrative pursuits (arts, research, gamedev, entrepreneurship, etc) but it would be hard for me to quit my nice tech job salary if there's the specter of the GOP potentially killing the benefits that enable my pursuit.
And that doesn't even compare to the effect that uncertainty has on the less fortunate.
>> Seventy-eight percent of Americans are already living paycheck to paycheck; almost half can’t afford an unexpected $400 bill On big part of this is Americans a whole need to get better with their money. I know many people can't save because of low income (or lack thereof), but 78%? Don't forget about all those people making six figures who can't get it together.
Again, blame the poor for their poverty. Gives a nice tummy feel but does nothing good for society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think something similar has happened with minimum wages. It appears to me that the natural next step is to make the minimum wage grow with inflation. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, so we're stuck with various government-mandated minimum wage levels that are tied to the value of money from several years before. Companies can now point to the law, and use this obsolete number as a metric by which to set their o…
Minimum wage doesn't grow with inflation because the point of inflation is to steal wealth from the working class: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...
The problem with UBI is that most versions of it would essentially liquidate social services that people would normally receive. UBI only makes sense in addition to the other parts of a comprehensive safety net (universal housing and healthcare), not as a replacement.
Most people receive far less than $1k/mo. Yang's plan was to allow the option so that if you were one of the few that did receive more, you wouldn't have to give that up.