Or do you seriously think that a basic income would actually give people enough to do things that interest them beyond just the ability to merely exist.
Why not?
You should also consider that much of the money made working goes into continuing to work. The costs of commuting and paying others to do things you don't have time for are nothing to scoff at if you're making anywhere near minimum wage.
Good question, of course there will be nobody to do it, and when this question hits the economy that will be the point when capitalism suddenly implodes.
In the meantime we're trying to fill the gap by producing more products for the 1% who can still afford to buy things, but even their consumption has limits - when this realization hits the economy, the question you posed will soon after.
The wealthy love nothing more than to pat each other on the back (or hold a circle jerk, if you prefer) over how awesome and hard-working they are and therefore how much they totally deserve to be so much wealthier than everyone else (who is just as hard-working, and in some cases, also just as educated).
And that's what's being done again here. Get a room guys.
No, my argument is that he made a generalization about an entire population based on averages, so those generalizations are wrong - and racist.
We do have to avoid making generalizations even if they are based on sound averages. That's an ethics issue, not a scientific one. We shouldn't let any individuals be profiled in one way or another because of the stats on their ethnicity.
Wrong. You should hire based on reaction times alone. If that results in only blue-eyed people being hired, that would obviously create some problems but a hiring practice that overtly discriminates by eye color would not be one of them.
Also, unless all blue-eyed people were proven to have faster reactions than all brown-eyed people, it would likely not result in the fastest-reacting set of employees.
That was racist because to say it was to imply they had an unfair advantage.
It wouldn't be racist to just state that fact, but it would indeed be racist to use it to imply an unfair advantage. It wasn't proven that every black person has better muscles than every person of any other race.
(I'm assuming you're not just using some fringe comment or a strawman argument to fuel a persecution complex).
Or alternatively - not having reviewed all the claims in question (just like you) - it could be another case of scientific racism
And if we do ever scientifically prove that people of some etnicity are on-average superior or inferior in some way, the ethically correct thing to do with that information would be basically to ignore it in our everyday lives, to leave it as an academic issue.
So bad news for any racists out there, science will never legitimize your hatred.
(Anyway, if it is/i. true, it shows that meritocracy has no ethical basis.)
Which would be a freaking bombshell for our civilization.
If true, we could use the finding in one of two ways. To give up on all attempts at equality and create a caste-based society (see also: Gattaca), or to try to move past our primitive ambition for meritocracy and go straight for egalitarianism...and I think we know which one is much easier and more likely:-(
Just NO? I would have said HELL TO THE FUCK NO to that!
Furthermore to the problems pointed out in TFS, they would quickly drive up the price of vulnerabilities until the US government can't justify the cost, leaving them priced out of the means of garden-variety crooks but conveniently reserved for other very dangerous, high-profile buyers who may be interested.
If you remember how low their standards are for marking someone as affiliated with a terrorist group, this 40% must be super-whitebread middle-Americans who have never met a foreigner.
A business trying to restrict users' free speech, or users empowering the various review sites out there that seek to become "gatekeepers of reputation."
That's an odd way to spell "embryonic." You do know it's taken from a simple ball of a few cells, right? It doesn't work like in the South Park episode about Christopher Reeve.
Which, like a higher minimum wage, will cause a ripple effect of wage increases, which I am absolutely certain is how inflation happens! How can these leftists expect the economy to work if we pay all these jackoffs decent money for their effort!?
And losing less than $6m over it works out to be a smokin' deal.
It seems that if they don't get caught, they save money, and if they do get caught, they just have to pay the wages that were due, which is no big deal.
Damn, I didn't know that, I thought the only problem was the pilot's terrifyingly noobish response to an incorrect airspeed indication. If this is a fly-by-wire system, it might be best to mechanically interlock the two sets of controls. This worked well for decades with hydraulic controls.
I wasn't joking that much. Shinzo Abe has a lot in common with Reagan (including big weird hair) and Abenomics is a lot like Reaganomics. Similarly it's gutting their lower and middle classes and achieving nothing other than running up the high score numbers of the ultra-rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Bones everywhere? That's ridiculous!
They'll be collected by the robots and made into elaborate thrones.
Or do you seriously think that a basic income would actually give people enough to do things that interest them beyond just the ability to merely exist.
Why not?
You should also consider that much of the money made working goes into continuing to work. The costs of commuting and paying others to do things you don't have time for are nothing to scoff at if you're making anywhere near minimum wage.
Good question, of course there will be nobody to do it, and when this question hits the economy that will be the point when capitalism suddenly implodes.
In the meantime we're trying to fill the gap by producing more products for the 1% who can still afford to buy things, but even their consumption has limits - when this realization hits the economy, the question you posed will soon after.
Interesting, but completely off-topic.
A solution looking for a problem being sold to people who don't have extra money to spend.
I didn't say the oceans aren't absorbing heat, they are. But they are also absorbing CO2. Here's some good introductory material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Global warming is faaaaake!
dickbutt.jpg
Then there's nothing to worry about from CO2 if the oceans are absorbing the heat
The oceans are absorbing the CO2, causing ocean acidification. Nothing to worry about, right?
The wealthy love nothing more than to pat each other on the back (or hold a circle jerk, if you prefer) over how awesome and hard-working they are and therefore how much they totally deserve to be so much wealthier than everyone else (who is just as hard-working, and in some cases, also just as educated).
And that's what's being done again here. Get a room guys.
No, my argument is that he made a generalization about an entire population based on averages, so those generalizations are wrong - and racist.
We do have to avoid making generalizations even if they are based on sound averages. That's an ethics issue, not a scientific one. We shouldn't let any individuals be profiled in one way or another because of the stats on their ethnicity.
Wrong. You should hire based on reaction times alone. If that results in only blue-eyed people being hired, that would obviously create some problems but a hiring practice that overtly discriminates by eye color would not be one of them.
Also, unless all blue-eyed people were proven to have faster reactions than all brown-eyed people, it would likely not result in the fastest-reacting set of employees.
That was racist because to say it was to imply they had an unfair advantage.
It wouldn't be racist to just state that fact, but it would indeed be racist to use it to imply an unfair advantage. It wasn't proven that every black person has better muscles than every person of any other race.
(I'm assuming you're not just using some fringe comment or a strawman argument to fuel a persecution complex).
Hahaha holy hell if he said something about Jews and money he would have got a BINGO!
Would any of the people crying "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE WILD!" like to defend any such arguments?
Or alternatively - not having reviewed all the claims in question (just like you) - it could be another case of scientific racism
And if we do ever scientifically prove that people of some etnicity are on-average superior or inferior in some way, the ethically correct thing to do with that information would be basically to ignore it in our everyday lives, to leave it as an academic issue.
So bad news for any racists out there, science will never legitimize your hatred.
(Anyway, if it is/i. true, it shows that meritocracy has no ethical basis.)
Which would be a freaking bombshell for our civilization.
If true, we could use the finding in one of two ways. To give up on all attempts at equality and create a caste-based society (see also: Gattaca), or to try to move past our primitive ambition for meritocracy and go straight for egalitarianism...and I think we know which one is much easier and more likely :-(
Like most things the [truth] is probably somewhere in the middle.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/B...
Just NO? I would have said HELL TO THE FUCK NO to that!
Furthermore to the problems pointed out in TFS, they would quickly drive up the price of vulnerabilities until the US government can't justify the cost, leaving them priced out of the means of garden-variety crooks but conveniently reserved for other very dangerous, high-profile buyers who may be interested.
But you don't use that for most things do you?
I have an 800W gaming PC but I'm usually using a 40W laptop or a <10W phone.
We don't need to make do with less. We just have to make our things waste less, and there's plenty of room for that.
If you remember how low their standards are for marking someone as affiliated with a terrorist group, this 40% must be super-whitebread middle-Americans who have never met a foreigner.
A business trying to restrict users' free speech, or users empowering the various review sites out there that seek to become "gatekeepers of reputation."
That's an odd way to spell "embryonic." You do know it's taken from a simple ball of a few cells, right? It doesn't work like in the South Park episode about Christopher Reeve.
Which, like a higher minimum wage, will cause a ripple effect of wage increases, which I am absolutely certain is how inflation happens! How can these leftists expect the economy to work if we pay all these jackoffs decent money for their effort!?
And losing less than $6m over it works out to be a smokin' deal.
It seems that if they don't get caught, they save money, and if they do get caught, they just have to pay the wages that were due, which is no big deal.
Damn, I didn't know that, I thought the only problem was the pilot's terrifyingly noobish response to an incorrect airspeed indication. If this is a fly-by-wire system, it might be best to mechanically interlock the two sets of controls. This worked well for decades with hydraulic controls.
I wasn't joking that much. Shinzo Abe has a lot in common with Reagan (including big weird hair) and Abenomics is a lot like Reaganomics. Similarly it's gutting their lower and middle classes and achieving nothing other than running up the high score numbers of the ultra-rich.