91–100 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, therein does not lie the problem. You should give them enough money every month to fully cover basic food, basic shelter, and basic expenses.
Children cannot spend the money themselves. You will give the money to parents. How much are you willing to give?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being "out on the streets" because you don't have a job is hardly a "remote possibility". It's a virtual certainly unless you have a massive cash hoard built up. It's not a virtual certainty. Not even close. The rate of homelessness in the US in 2022 was 0.18%. https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless... Few people have a "massive cash hoard" built up, yet lots of people lose their jobs. And if…
>It's not a virtual certainty. Not even close. The rate of homelessness in the US in 2022 was 0.18%. https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless ... I don't get it. Is your argument that because the homeless rate is 0.18% in the US, that if you had no income and drained your savings, that the probability of you ending up on the streets is minuscule? How do you think you'll acquire housing if you don'…
My argument is simple:
1) Few people in the US have a massive cash hoard built up. "57% of Americans can’t afford a $1,000 emergency expense" https://finance.yahoo.com/news/57-americans-t-afford-1-19584...
2) Lots of people lose their jobs every year, via firings, layoffs, quitting, companies going out of business, etc.
3) Nonetheless, the rate of homelessness is only 0.18%
4) Thus, homelessness is not a virtual certainty if you lose your job.
People almost always find a way to avoid homelessness, typically by finding a new job.
> Are we reading the same comment?
Yes, your quotation is accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Tough Love" would be some kind of "Three Strikes" type of deal where your UBI is cut off if you consistently fail to demonstrate some sort of basic function. What you are alluding to is a "no love" stance (the standard conservative viewpoint). The idea that everyone should be able to "bootstrap" themselves out of poverty.
"Three Strikes" and you deserve to starve? Seems a little harsh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's not a virtual certainty. Not even close. The rate of homelessness in the US in 2022 was 0.18%. https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless ... I don't get it. Is your argument that because the homeless rate is 0.18% in the US, that if you had no income and drained your savings, that the probability of you ending up on the streets is minuscule? How do you think you'll acquire housing if you don'…
> I don't get it. Is your argument that because the homeless rate is 0.18% in the US, that if you had no income and drained your savings, that the probability of you ending up on the streets is minuscule? How do you think you'll acquire housing if you don't have any money? My argument is simple: 1) Few people in the US have a massive cash hoard built up. "57% of Americans can’t afford a $1,000 emergency expense" http…
>People almost always find a way to avoid homelessness, typically by finding a new job.
So you're basically agreeing with the original commenter? I read his comment as basically saying the only reason he works at his job is to keep a roof over his head, and that if you don't work you'll eventually be homeless. He's not claiming that getting fired means you're going to be homeless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You linked to specifically to the Self-actualization section which, critically, includes this line: "To understand this level of need, a person must not only succeed in the previous needs but master them" I would say it is more like a twisted perversion of the hierarchy of needs where all levels are broken down to a single abstraction: Net worth = Score
What makes you think all Bezos thinks "Net worth = Score"? What if he simply wants to build the best e-commerence/cloud conglomerate there is, and that happens to coincide with amazon share prices going up? After all, the better job he does at running amazon, the more investors will value it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't get it. Is your argument that because the homeless rate is 0.18% in the US, that if you had no income and drained your savings, that the probability of you ending up on the streets is minuscule? How do you think you'll acquire housing if you don't have any money? My argument is simple: 1) Few people in the US have a massive cash hoard built up. "57% of Americans can’t afford a $1,000 emergency expense" http…
>4) Thus, homelessness is not a virtual certainty if you lose your job. >People almost always find a way to avoid homelessness, typically by finding a new job. So you're basically agreeing with the original commenter? I read his comment as basically saying the only reason he works at his job is to keep a roof over his head, and that if you don't work you'll eventually be homeless. He's not claiming that getting fired…
No.
> I read his comment as basically saying the only reason he works at his job is to keep a roof over his head
Yes, that's also my reading of the comment.
> if you don't work you'll eventually be homeless.
Likely, yes. But the question isn't work vs. no work. The question is working at the OP's so-called "difficult" job vs. working at less difficult jobs. That's why the issue of homelessness is mostly irrelevant.
My strong suspicion is that the OP works at a "difficult" job, which presumably pays a lot more than "BS jobs", because the OP actually aspires to a more luxurious standard of living than the bare minimum.
Given the OP's other comments, e.g., the OP's job "takes a lot of work to get the skills necessary to do it", and given the fact that this is Hacker News, I'm assuming that the OP is a relatively well-compensated member of the tech industry. When the OP says, "Who's going to take over my job? Probably nobody", as if a well-paying job in the tech industry is somehow the "price" of avoiding homelessness, I dispute that.
It's kind of like when engineers defend working on unethical projects "because I have to feed my family", despite the fact that the vast majority of people feed their families without 6-figure incomes and stock options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most egregious thing the Boomers did is they watered down the anti-monopoly laws. That was Bill Clinton's regime. I could be wrong on that, maybe it was Ronald Reagan's regime. Either way it was the Boomers. The enemy of the success of Capitalism is monopolies.
> The most egregious thing the Boomers did is they watered down the anti-monopoly laws. That was Bill Clinton's regime. I could be wrong on that, maybe it was Ronald Reagan's regime. Either way it was the Boomers. Ronald Reagan was born in 1911, 35 years earlier than Bill Clinton, and turned 70 years old right after he took office in 1981.
And to be clear I was referring to Boomers voted for Clinton. My bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the USA (and UK) if you are poor you are considered a LOSER! Society in these two cultures is all about Winners and LOSERS. If you are not rich you are a LOSER. A LOSER is a pariah. Everybody loves Winners and hates Losers. If the game is rigged, then you lost because you didn't figure out how to manipulate it for your benefit. That makes you a loser. This belief or philosophy or religion is also known as "Surviva…
The belief in religion is called prosperity theology. I'm not sure this describes any philosophical definition of "survival of the fittest ", as systemic issues rig "survival" towards people who already have the most resources, regardless of their fitness. This isn't a meritocracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The most egregious thing the Boomers did is they watered down the anti-monopoly laws. That was Bill Clinton's regime. I could be wrong on that, maybe it was Ronald Reagan's regime. Either way it was the Boomers. Ronald Reagan was born in 1911, 35 years earlier than Bill Clinton, and turned 70 years old right after he took office in 1981.
I meant it was the Boomers who voted him in. I suppose I should've made that more obvious as many readers where quite young at the time of Reagan or weren't even born then at all. And to be clear I was referring to Boomers voted for Clinton. My bad.
In the 1980 Presidential election, won by Reagan with 51% of the vote, the oldest Boomers were 34 years old, the youngest 16, and thus not even eligible to vote.
According to the linked document, Carter slightly won voters under 30, whereas Reagan won voters 30+ with 55%. It's unclear how exactly 30-44 broke down, but in any case the total of that whole group was only 31% of the voters, and the oldest Boomers were 34. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1980
> And to be clear I was referring to Boomers voted for Clinton.
But you admitted that you don't even know whether Reagan or Clinton watered down anti-monopoly laws.