211–220 of 669 posts
UBI is another tool for make citizen obedient to state. Once implemented, like debts, there will be strong voting mass for system that they could benefit from - with price of less independency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, this is the single biggest problem with welfare. The woman wants to work, yet cannot because she can’t guarantee how fast she will move past the “no welfare and very little money” transition until she gets promoted to full time work. Her only recourse is to stay on welfare. Now the real issue comes to her children. If she managed to really instill in them the need to never be on welfare themselves, great, they…
This isn’t a problem really with welfare, but a problem with implementing welfare in the dumbest way possible. In general, no policy, like none at all, should be designed to suddenly come into effect when you hit a constant. All functions should be smooth.
I like to believe--or at least fantasize--that bipartisan alliances can be built around a shared commitment to Good Equations in Public Policy, even if they disagree on what those policies are.
"Look Bob, I think your tax cut proposal is pure pork and regulatory capture, but that one one goddamn sexy curve."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cards on the table: I think the vast majory of people would do less, and perhaps very little socially productive work without the current financial incentives. I don't disagree, but aren't you implicitly admitting here that the vast majority of people don't want to spend their lives doing work? We get a few laps around the sun, once, before we return to oblivion. It seems a tragedy to me to force almost everyone in…
"Increasing shareholder value" is a meme. In both the US and UK over 30% of households are owned outright with no mortgage. The economy is made up of us, it's not (predominantly) a downtrodden serving a tiny elite. Most people work and do useful stuff for each other. Yes, there are bullshit jobs, but it's a huge exaggeration to pretend they all are.
What I'm not saying is all work is horseshit and let's all party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is it some shock-horror thing that people worked less? Exactly. If I have to have 3 jobs, then with this money I "only" work 2 jobs, I'm working less but almost certainly have a better quality of life.
Yup. Individuals want to optimize for quality of life but the decisionmakers are optimizing for household income (or perhaps GDP).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add value to society?
Why is value needed? How much of it is sufficient for society to function? Yes, it IS a provocation. Let's go deeper into this question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is the goal to get people to quit their jobs and get a nice apartment? because that's the way things are in scifi like Star Trek. people want to make life imitate art.
You write like rhat’s a bad thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, this is the single biggest problem with welfare. The woman wants to work, yet cannot because she can’t guarantee how fast she will move past the “no welfare and very little money” transition until she gets promoted to full time work. Her only recourse is to stay on welfare. Now the real issue comes to her children. If she managed to really instill in them the need to never be on welfare themselves, great, they…
This isn’t a problem really with welfare, but a problem with implementing welfare in the dumbest way possible. In general, no policy, like none at all, should be designed to suddenly come into effect when you hit a constant. All functions should be smooth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the goal to get people to quit their jobs and get a nice apartment? Isn't it supposed to be a minimum base level of support? Why do we keep moving the goal posts? And if everyone quits their job and lives in a nice apartment, where is this money going to come from? The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work. Start working, you lose your transfer payments. A lot of people are stuck in thi…
Back in my college speech class, a woman gave a presentation basically supporting the "welfare today is a disincentive to work" myth, with emphasis on "today" (or current), while totally destroying the notion that welfare recipients don't "want" to work. She was a stay-at-home mom with 2 kids, her husband commit suicide after serving in Iraq and then being pushed out of the military (this was the 90s when the US mili…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the goal to get people to quit their jobs and get a nice apartment? Isn't it supposed to be a minimum base level of support? Why do we keep moving the goal posts? And if everyone quits their job and lives in a nice apartment, where is this money going to come from? The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work. Start working, you lose your transfer payments. A lot of people are stuck in thi…
> The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work No. The reason you say that is because you're young and you believe what you've heard. You will soon cease to be the former and then presumably, likely, stop to do the latter. People want to work, they want to be useful. And yes, if I support you but threaten to stop supporting you as soon as you get to work for money—suddenly working for money looks…
So you agree that "the problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work"?
$1000 is not enough to quit their jobs or get a nice apartment. They could move slightly closer to work if they have to commute. It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work. I don't think we've ever had a universal basic income test. We have always missed the universal and basic part. It's below basic and not at all universal. I suspect that you need to get international cooperation…