It was never a universal basic income, because it was never universal. Only unemployed people got it.
Just did a search on this page for the word "universal" - your comment is the first place it shows up. In TFA they clearly denote the difference:
Contrary to universal basic income, however, which advocates say should apply to all citizens regardless of background, Finland's trial is only targeting people in long-term unemployment.
And it was less generous than the previous unemployment benefits, the idea being to "encourage" people into work
nothing in TFA indicates what you claim.
So.. why did you make this post? Knee-jerk reaction to a headline? I am genuinely curious.
While crazy people might kill people using various means, guns enables them to kill a lot more of them, more quickly, while making it much more difficult for law enforcement to respond.
So, you are implying that the VAST MAJORITY of the public, the law abiding citizen, must therefore be forced to the rights, and privileges of the lowest common denominator?
Right? I mean, if we're going to play the "we must ban X because criminals might use it" game, then I would argue that free speech should be the first right taken away from us - after all, how many people do we credit Adolf Hitler with killing, using nothing but his words?
Seriously - every argument I've heard against the 2nd is equally valid against the 1st (which is to say, not valid at all).
Thank god for that, too - can you imagine how many more casualties there would have been if he had driven a fully-loaded gasoline tanker at speed through the crowd?
A crazy person armed with knives can probably be taken down by several able bodied people that don't have any weapons other than ordinary objects. Chairs. Pillows / matresses. I'll leave it to your imagination.
Right - that's why London has a lower murder rate than Ft. Worth, TX.
Nobody's talking about demand. Demand hasn't directly driven supply for almost a century now; if it did, automakers would switch to a 10 year cycle, rather than building millions of brand new cars every year that don't get sold.
a refrigerator that was built 30 years ago was built to last, and in fact many 1970-1980 model refrigerators are still in use today (like mine, for example, that was built in 1985 according to the tag).
Conversely, a new refrigerator is the victim of planned obsolescence, and is designed to fail catastrophically within the first 5-10 years of operation, requiring a new unit to be purchased.
So - even if the individual refrigerator models today are more efficient than older models, they still produce as much if not more pollution via the continual purchase-break-dispose-purchase cycle.
Translation: I'm going to selectively consider figures so that I sound better.
You want to make a legit comparison, how about considering real capital purchases, such as:
1) housing
2) automobiles
3) higher education
"China makes cheap crap" is not an argument (and to that end, the 26" CRT you bought in 1980 still works today, but the 32" ChinaVision LCD is going to crap out 30 days after the 2 year warranty is up).
I make less than $20k/year, yet am extremely wealthy by 1900's standards, probably 1980's standards by most measures.
Right, so despite technological advances bringing the cost of labor down, your dollar today doesn't go nearly as far as it did before said technological innovation, thus furthering my point - actual cost of labor has fuck-all to do with the cost of goods sold.
Since everything will be automated, there will be no real use for income. Everything will be dirt cheap because labor costs will go to zero.
Right, because that's how it's always worked throughout human history - the rich decide that they don't need the poor, so all the wealthy people suddenly become altruists, and everybody is happy.
You have a right to free speech, but non-disclosure agreements are legal and enforceable under normal circumstances (exceptions may include criminal conduct or compelled court testimony)
My wife once worked at a company where the owner made everyone sign an NDA stating that they would not report him for criminal activity (seriously). It was (obviously) unenforceable.
You agreed to this when you signed for the car. This isn't a warranty issue, it is a contract issue, which is a completely different story. First semester law school.
And in the second semester, they teach you that you can't contract away legal obligations.
I believe in this case, they're inferring that "intact" means "complete" - so technically, if you swap your air cleaner assembly with an aftermarket version, that part would not be considered under warranty any more (even though the rest of the vehicle still is), and thus the warranty is no longer "intact."
Basically, they're using weasel wording to imply a complete loss of warranty even when that's not the case. Shitty way to treat your customers.
Slashdot Mirror
I see it as anything that requires more than 0 joules of energy.
But I'm a nerd like that.
If I didn't have to work, I have a TON of other interesting things I'd rather be doing for fun.
Me too... but then I realize, a lot of the interesting things I like to do for fun would be considered work by another person's standards.
" Waiters and trash collectors are already losing jobs to automation."
They are? Employment of waiters and waitresses is projected to grow 7 percent from 2016 to 2026. What study did you do?
But if the industry grows 10% during that same time, then the jobs actually shrank 3%
Where did you take statistics?
Even if I'm seeking a job but getting money while I don't have a job why would I seriously look for job?
For the same reason that people with jobs continually look for better jobs, I suppose.
There's no stress to find a job, per the article
the article says there was less stress, not none - you quoted this yourself, but somehow missed it... being intentionally obtuse, maybe?
"Most banks" don't control the fiscal policy of an entire nation like the Fed does.
It was never a universal basic income, because it was never universal. Only unemployed people got it.
Just did a search on this page for the word "universal" - your comment is the first place it shows up. In TFA they clearly denote the difference:
And it was less generous than the previous unemployment benefits, the idea being to "encourage" people into work
nothing in TFA indicates what you claim.
So.. why did you make this post? Knee-jerk reaction to a headline? I am genuinely curious.
So, you are implying that the VAST MAJORITY of the public, the law abiding citizen, must therefore be forced to the rights, and privileges of the lowest common denominator?
Right? I mean, if we're going to play the "we must ban X because criminals might use it" game, then I would argue that free speech should be the first right taken away from us - after all, how many people do we credit Adolf Hitler with killing, using nothing but his words?
Seriously - every argument I've heard against the 2nd is equally valid against the 1st (which is to say, not valid at all).
Thank god for that, too - can you imagine how many more casualties there would have been if he had driven a fully-loaded gasoline tanker at speed through the crowd?
A crazy person armed with knives can probably be taken down by several able bodied people that don't have any weapons other than ordinary objects. Chairs. Pillows / matresses. I'll leave it to your imagination.
Right - that's why London has a lower murder rate than Ft. Worth, TX.
Oh, wait...
Nobody's talking about demand. Demand hasn't directly driven supply for almost a century now; if it did, automakers would switch to a 10 year cycle, rather than building millions of brand new cars every year that don't get sold.
A court order to break the law, riiiight, makes a lot of sense that does.
"Jesus, they're the government - even if it wasn't legal they'd still enforce it!"
- Mallory Archer
If I double my efficiency, that means I use half as much fuel for the same amount of work.
Right, which you subsequently make up for with twice as much work.
You failed basic math didn't you?
At the same time you were failing basic economics, apparently.
^ The memoirs of James Comey
Also -
a refrigerator that was built 30 years ago was built to last, and in fact many 1970-1980 model refrigerators are still in use today (like mine, for example, that was built in 1985 according to the tag).
Conversely, a new refrigerator is the victim of planned obsolescence, and is designed to fail catastrophically within the first 5-10 years of operation, requiring a new unit to be purchased.
So - even if the individual refrigerator models today are more efficient than older models, they still produce as much if not more pollution via the continual purchase-break-dispose-purchase cycle.
Inflation adjusted,
Translation: I'm going to selectively consider figures so that I sound better.
You want to make a legit comparison, how about considering real capital purchases, such as:
1) housing
2) automobiles
3) higher education
"China makes cheap crap" is not an argument (and to that end, the 26" CRT you bought in 1980 still works today, but the 32" ChinaVision LCD is going to crap out 30 days after the 2 year warranty is up).
Look up the Magnusson-Moss (sp?) Warranty Act.
This has been settled law for over 30 years.
Nobody likes a pedant.
"hate speech" is a misnomer used by low-intellect types who can't foment a reasonable argument.
I make less than $20k/year, yet am extremely wealthy by 1900's standards, probably 1980's standards by most measures.
Right, so despite technological advances bringing the cost of labor down, your dollar today doesn't go nearly as far as it did before said technological innovation, thus furthering my point - actual cost of labor has fuck-all to do with the cost of goods sold.
Since everything will be automated, there will be no real use for income. Everything will be dirt cheap because labor costs will go to zero.
Right, because that's how it's always worked throughout human history - the rich decide that they don't need the poor, so all the wealthy people suddenly become altruists, and everybody is happy.
You have a right to free speech, but non-disclosure agreements are legal and enforceable under normal circumstances (exceptions may include criminal conduct or compelled court testimony)
My wife once worked at a company where the owner made everyone sign an NDA stating that they would not report him for criminal activity (seriously). It was (obviously) unenforceable.
All who participated in the violent felony are responsible for all deaths as a result.
Theft isn't a violent felony; theoretically, a cop shooting a criminal who shot at him isn't a felony either.
Don't wanna be charged with murder? Don't commit a crime with the risk of death.
In Neo-America, merely interacting with a police officer can carry the risk of death; ask the estate of Philandro Castille.
You agreed to this when you signed for the car. This isn't a warranty issue, it is a contract issue, which is a completely different story. First semester law school.
And in the second semester, they teach you that you can't contract away legal obligations.
I believe in this case, they're inferring that "intact" means "complete" - so technically, if you swap your air cleaner assembly with an aftermarket version, that part would not be considered under warranty any more (even though the rest of the vehicle still is), and thus the warranty is no longer "intact."
Basically, they're using weasel wording to imply a complete loss of warranty even when that's not the case. Shitty way to treat your customers.
If the feds suspected this why are the arresting website owners and not the sex traffickers?
Well, see, in Neo-America, charging someone with a crime that they, personally, never committed is par for the course.
Kinda like when a cop shoots a thief, and they charge the thief's accomplice with murder.