Slashdot Mirror
Canada's Ontario Government Ends Basic Income Project (www.cbc.ca)
Lisa MacLeod, Progressive Conservative member and Children, Community and Social Services Minister of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, said Tuesday that she would end the city's basic income pilot project, calling it expensive and "clearly not the answer for Ontario families." Few details are available as to how the project will come to an end, but MacLeod said her government will end the program "ethically" for anyone who is currently enrolled. Slashdot reader kenh shares an excerpt from a CBC.ca report: Close to 4,000 people were enrolled in the basic income pilot program in Thunder Bay, Lindsay, Hamilton, Brantford and Brant County. The pilot project started in April 2017. It was originally set to last three years, and explore the effectiveness of providing a basic income to those living on low incomes -- whether they were working or not. Under the project, a single person could have received up to about $17,000 a year, minus half of any income he or she earned. "A couple could have received up to $24,000 per year." People with disabilities could have received an additional $6,000.
No. It was a fixed scale test where the costs were known up front and already budgeted.
There was no sudden realization behind this, only a reneged campaign promise.
I mean, obviously not for poor people, they're the ones we're putting behind bars, or paying a pittance to be the guards, but for rich people, it can be a great thing.
Very profitable.
Ever heard of a "dead cat bounce"?
That's what we're in right now regarding employment numbers.
Pretty soon, the AI and automation are going to be more cost-effective than people at many jobs, way more types of jobs than can be replaced by new jobs. What new jobs there will be will be for cognitive top 5% geniuses.
Other jobs which can't be totally replaced will be modified to be hybrid AI/automation + person jobs. The person will probably get paid less than now, since they're only doing part of the work. Many jobs like that will be modified slightly to be more amenable to AI/automation integration.
If you don't see that this time it's different, because the AI and automated systems are approaching/surpassing parity with human capabilities, then you have blinders on, and you live on a river called denial.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Here in the United States, we have apparently found enough of "other people's money" to give new welfare for farmers.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/po...
Our President, who has a very good brain, will be paying farmers who have been hurt by his tariffs by giving them money that's borrowed from very same countries he levied tariffs against.
That is some 39-dimensional chess shit right there.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Social Security retirement payments in the US costs the government *nothing* Yet.
Current SS retirement payments are made from current collections and a small amount from the so-called SS Trust Fund. In 20 years or so, the so-called Trust Fund will be depleted and payments from workers will not be enough, then the program will start costing the government money.
SS currently collects 6.75% of everyone's income for the first $100K (give or take) from the employer, and an equal amount from the employee.
Every dollar paid into SS in 2018 will be paid out to SS beneficiaries in 2018.
Ken
Are you retarded?
First, we spend trillions of dollars keeping people alive. Not even talking about Medicare or welfare, the ACA is basically a massive subsidy for poor people, paid for by the middle class.
Second, our military is used almost exclusively to defend the defenseless. It has cost us trillions to protect people around the world who otherwise would be dead without our help.
Paying people free money to sit around jacking off all day isn't "helping" them. It's creating welfare zombies stripped of motivation, who will be dependent on government handouts their entire lives.
Where did bank bailouts work that way? You know what happened here? Banks needed bailouts. So they needed money, from the state. The state did not have that money, so what did the state do? Lend it of course. Where? Well, banks.
What REALLY happened here is that the state stood as guarantor for banks' liabilities, usually paying more for interest and fees than they got from the banks that needed the bailout. In the end, I don't know of a single state or country that went away with a plus from the deal.
You don't have a clue. Try reading this for a start:
https://money.cnn.com/2014/12/...
Or this if you want more depth
https://business.cch.com/banki...
The sad fact is that our economy hasn't worked like that in a very long time. Even 30 years ago I can remember seeing plenty of older people working low pay, hourly, menial jobs. There simply are not enough better jobs for workers to move up to. So you end up with over qualified mature workers filling a lot of those crap jobs because they usually have responsibilities and will simply accept what they can get to keep from becoming homeless. And frankly these kind of jobs have never been meant for any purpose other than to wring what profitable work can be gotten out of a person to the advantage of the employer. The only time when what you say would have been true would be when apprentice systems were in place for most professions. Sure people might tell themselves those things but that is more about making the work palatable, because management past the front line supervisor sure as hell doesn't care one whit about their minions career.