141–150 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I knew that I'd never be out on the streets no matter how bad things got, because I at least have the money to pay rent and buy food, there's no chance I'm working anything but BS jobs for random spending money. p=1, but still, I doubt I'm that unique. My job is difficult and takes a lot of work to get the skills necessary to do it. Who's going to take over my job? Probably nobody, but that's just my (extremely un…
> If I knew that I'd never be out on the streets no matter how bad things got, because I at least have the money to pay rent and buy food, there's no chance I'm working anything but BS jobs for random spending money. p=1, but still, I doubt I'm that unique. You can already do that. Are you claiming that the only reason you have your current job is to avoid the remote possibility of being out on the streets?
But yes, I pick my jobs almost exclusively to support my not-working hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I knew that I'd never be out on the streets no matter how bad things got, because I at least have the money to pay rent and buy food, there's no chance I'm working anything but BS jobs for random spending money. p=1, but still, I doubt I'm that unique. My job is difficult and takes a lot of work to get the skills necessary to do it. Who's going to take over my job? Probably nobody, but that's just my (extremely un…
You need to find a better job. I wouldn't do my job without pay but I would do it even if my food & shelter expenses were covered by the state.
Obviously I'd still code, it'd just be random fun stuff, whenever I feel like contributing, until some other hobby demands my attention. Within the structure of employment, even fun work tasks can become tiresome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I knew that I'd never be out on the streets no matter how bad things got, because I at least have the money to pay rent and buy food, there's no chance I'm working anything but BS jobs for random spending money. p=1, but still, I doubt I'm that unique. You can already do that. Are you claiming that the only reason you have your current job is to avoid the remote possibility of being out on the streets?
You know how people have a weight their body likes to sit at? As you eat less, some processes will slow down to maintain that caloric intake level; as you eat more, they'll kick up. I'm basically claiming I'm like that. I'm only doing what's necessary to get my paycheck. Obviously I don't pick the laziest, lowest-income job that I can find. I wouldn't be able to quickly save for retirement that way. But yes, I pick m…
How is that obvious when you literally said, "there's no chance I'm working anything but BS jobs for random spending money"?
> I wouldn't be able to quickly save for retirement that way.
This is precisely my point. You didn't choose your job simply to avoid homelessness; it has nothing to do with homelessness, as you now admit. You chose your job to maximize your income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to find a better job. I wouldn't do my job without pay but I would do it even if my food & shelter expenses were covered by the state.
You need to find a better hobby. Going to meetings, filling out time cards, watching HR training videos, attending post-mortems with scrum masters who have no idea what a "point" is in agile, and having to wake up earlier than I want for work are absolutely not things I enjoy. Obviously I'd still code, it'd just be random fun stuff, whenever I feel like contributing, until some other hobby demands my attention. Withi…
My job doesn't really involve those annoyances. Obviously I have some meetings and things that aren't really super engaging. But I enjoy what I do, I like everyone I work with, and I have a good work-life balance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know that Clinton watered down the anti-monopoly laws but wasn't sure if Reagan had watered down them considerably more than Clinton. Why the confrontational tone? If you think I'm wrong couldn't you have stated so in a more gracious tone? Does all discourse on the internet where you don't like what the person is saying have to be hostile sounding in tone?
> Why the confrontational tone? Your own original comment was confrontational and hostile: "The most egregious thing the Boomers did", "Either way it was the Boomers." It's not even a question of what the Reagan and/or Clinton administrations did. The problem with your comment was the absurdity of throwing around the "Boomers" stereotype. I think it's silly to blame everything on Boomers, a totally arbitrary slice of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and rarely asserted that "people with less fortunate life circumstances should be allowed the opportunity to take risks with their productive time rather than being forced into employment as soon as they reach adulthood". I don't deny this assertion. I deny the method of achieving this outcome whereby private property is stolen/taxed involuntarily from others to achieve it. People with worse initital conditions are…
(Thanks for clarifying!) > I don't deny this assertion. For what it’s worth, I don’t mean to say that your comment specifically denies this idea. More lamenting the assumptions that are made. > People with worse initital conditions are absolutely free the opportunity to take risks with their productive time. I agree but the risk is much less for a person who can get by on an allowance from their parents or are afford…
I don't disagree, but I also don't think the solution to this is to steal from those that started with better initial conditions.
> Why do you believe this? Not that I mean to deny it outright but I often see this claim and I cannot recall seeing strong evidence of it.
Basic economics. Money taxed from you and then allocated elsewhere means that you're worse off. This is acceptable to some degree: public goods. It is unacceptable when the gov does it to provide non public goods. In this case, UBI is a non public good. You would rather spend the money that is redistributed from you on anything else. In the event that your best use of the money was to give to people that needed UBI, you would do that voluntarily. So in all cases, those being taxed are no better than they were before, and in the worst case they are all worse off.
Example: Let's say you have $100 and can live off $50. You really want to provide clean water to a community by charitably giving, and that would cost $40. The gov imposes a tax rate of 50%. Of the 50%, 10% goes to public goods, and 40% goes to teaching lions how to drive cars.
With the tax rate, you cannot afford to provide clean water and instead must fund lion drivers. Without the lion drivers included in the tax, you could easily afford to provide clean water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
National defense is a public good. It is permissible to tax for public goods (nonrivalous, nonexcludable). Welfare ia decidely not a public good. Apples to oranges.
National defense protects the public against external threats. Welfare protects the public againt poverty. Both benefit the public.
National defense protects everyone equally.
Welfare only protects those that receive it. Welfare is not a public good by definition. It is both rivalous and excludable.
Governments should not take from some to give to others. They should only ever take from all to give to all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not unfair. That is a voluntary transaction.
I don't think it is, because if you don't feed your children, you'll probably be charged with a crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everything has to be under a chrurch. It was just the classic example. Plus it's not the reorganization of the same systems. I propose a completely voluntary system. It is more economically efficient than thr state run system.
Yes, of course! A system of voluntary cooperation! We can work together as a community to decide how we use our resources in the most economically efficient way! Obviously people are busy so we can't expect every single person to work directly on every single decision so probably the first thing we would need is a way to, lets say, "elect" specific individuals who can be entrusted to make decisions on everyone's beha…
Here is a real-life example:
I live in the Portland metro. A couple of years ago, voters decided to vote to tax my income above a threshold to pay for preschool for people who have incomes below the threshold of taxation.
This does not lead to increased economic efficiency. Every year I now have to pay $x dollars directly to other people's children under the threat of state violence. I would much rather put that money in my child's 529. Or use it to pay for my child's daycare!
This isn't increased economic efficiency. It is literal theft.