Slashdot Mirror
California City Tries Universal Basic Income Programs -- Including One Targeting Potential Shooters (latimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Los Angeles Times:
Mayor Michael Tubbs, a Stockton native and Stanford graduate who is all of 27 years old, wants to give at least $500 a month to a select group of residents. They'll be able to spend it as they wish, for 18 months, in a pilot program to test the impact of what's called guaranteed basic income... Workers in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco-Oakland area, driven out of the cuckoo housing markets in those communities, have snapped up cheaper properties in Stockton, accepting the bargain of killer commutes... But Stockton still suffers the crushing burdens of poverty, crime and now the rising rents and home prices that come with gentrification. For those who don't have the education or training to work 60 miles away on tech's front lines, Stockton still struggles to develop jobs that pay a living wage...
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Space X's Elon Musk have both pitched the idea in terms of inevitability, given the growing income gap and the threat of massive job losses because of automation... As small as the program will be, it's not going to dramatically affect many Stockton residents, but the goal is to get a sense of whether such an infusion on a broader scale can significantly alter lives and boost the economy.
The program will be funded by private and nonprofit sources, according to the article. And while it may not start until early next year, Stockton is already launching a similar program where the benefits are more targeted. Stockton is about to award stipends of up to $1,000 a month to residents deemed most likely to shoot somebody... The idea is that a small number of people are responsible for a large percentage of violence, and offering them an alternative path -- with counseling and case management over an 18-month period, along with a stipend if they stay the course -- can be a good investment all around.
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Space X's Elon Musk have both pitched the idea in terms of inevitability, given the growing income gap and the threat of massive job losses because of automation... As small as the program will be, it's not going to dramatically affect many Stockton residents, but the goal is to get a sense of whether such an infusion on a broader scale can significantly alter lives and boost the economy.
The program will be funded by private and nonprofit sources, according to the article. And while it may not start until early next year, Stockton is already launching a similar program where the benefits are more targeted. Stockton is about to award stipends of up to $1,000 a month to residents deemed most likely to shoot somebody... The idea is that a small number of people are responsible for a large percentage of violence, and offering them an alternative path -- with counseling and case management over an 18-month period, along with a stipend if they stay the course -- can be a good investment all around.
$500 UBI a month for a select group of individuals, and $1000 a month for an even more select group of individuals.
Hmmm
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
How is a "select group" "universal"?
Is that because it is too expensive to be "universal"? If there are income criteria attached, there is already a name for such a program.... it is called "welfare".
In the US, 90% of stupid posts are caused by trolls. Try getting a job that pays above minimum wage without going to university or vocational training. Meanwhile, training/education cost money. At the very least, giving a stipend to university or vocational students is a good idea.
Not so crazy when you see NRA and so many others on the right repeatedly fight tooth and nail to ensure those who are likely to shoot someone are still able to conveniently buy military-grade assault weapons without any background checks.
Please provide just one link to any single thing the NRA has ever published that supports what you just said. Which you can't, because you're just plain lying. So the real question is, why are you lying? You know that what you're saying is child's play to fact check, and that it doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. So, you know you're lying, and you know that everyone else will know you're lying. So, really, is it just because you're a lazy troll?
I understand the aim is to increase firearm sales since, if and when they become the next school shooter, NRA's members share prices will spike.
Ah, I see. You're pretending that you're actually incapable of reading and learning things, or are hoping that everyone else is. But here's the thing: even the people who pretend to believe what you're saying know that the NRA's members are millions and millions of individuals. The vast majority of the funds that the NRA raises come from member fees and member donations (not corporate sponsors). And essentially ALL of the money they spend in political lobbying (which is handled by a completely separate legal entity with its own publicly viewable money trail) comes from small donations by millions of individuals. All of which you know, and you know that everyone else does, too. Which makes it so strange that you think you're fooling somebody with your absurd assertion. So, stop lying - you're not kidding anyone.
Statistically, most domestic terrorists have a right-wing ideology (e.g. smaller government, racial hatred, non-christian intolerance) and carry out their murderers usually for political reasons not because they don't have a livable income. They apparently had enough money to buy easily available firearms without respectable background checks, afterall.
This is incoherent, has no basis in fact, and is you - once again - spouting nonsense about something you know to be false, or about which you're so embarrassingly misinformed that it's a wonder you can even string together a meaningful sentence on the topic. Oh, right! You haven't actually done so.
I can understand their logic as more reasonable than I can relative to NRA's complicit encouragement in arming these unstable individuals to become the next mass killer headliners
Again, simply lying about it doesn't make it true. Your failure to show a single example of what you're lying about pretty much wraps it up. Though it is worth pointing out that the people who REALLY love mass killings are the liberals. Because it makes a great lever they can use to send out sock puppets like those kids from Florida, armed with money from people like Soros, to lie just like you, all in the name of regaining the political power the left has squandered for years. Please, keep it up! The more transparent BS-spouting you do, the more it helps people to understand why they should vote in exactly the opposite way you're trying to con them into in the first place. So, more, please! Every time people like you do, organizations like the NRA get record amounts of new members and individual donations. You're helping their cause when you lie. Thanks!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It makes no sense to take from someone who earns the money and give it to someone who has done nothing to earn the money.
Now show us some evidence that the people who are getting the most money in our society are actually earning any of it.
able to conveniently buy military-grade assault weapons without any background checks.
Number of people killed in America last year by military-grade assault weapons purchased without background checks: 0.
Number of people killed in America last year by handguns: 25,227
If I'm a peaceful guy not getting $1000, but the violent guy next door does, then I'm bound to become suddenly violent as well. Now hand me my $1000, bee!
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
Obama didn't legislate. He issued an executive order that included ZERO due process. It was so bad that even the ACLU objected to it.
You're just mindlessly repeating stupid propaganda.
You can't even get this simple set of facts right.
The measure in question only applied to old geezers on social security. It had no real standard for determining "mental illness".
It takes real talent to create an "anti-gun" measure that even the ACLU doesn't like.
It's not what you're trying to pretend it was.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
>"Number of people killed in America last year by handguns: 25,227"
Number of defensive gun uses that either stopped or prevented crime in America by non-police, with and without any shots fired: up to 3,000,000