Ahh, when you have no logical argument, ad hominem will fill in.
No, it's logic plus insults. It's more fun that way, and not a logical fallacy.
UBI doesn't require "working normal jobs", and according to you, nobody is excluded from getting UBI. What job is there to be considered when giving people the UBI?
I didn't say it required it, I was explained how it doesn't work as a disincentive for working, which was your claim for why people should do busywork. Let's say that one job that hasn't been automated yet is a mechanic, that the UBI is $15k per capita. A mechanic earns around $40k a year. Thus, if you sit on your ass all day, you make $15k before taxes. If you work as a mechanic, you make $55k before taxes. The highest current tax bracket rounds to 40%, and even if the mechanic is paying that for everything over the $15k, they are keeping $24k more than the guy that sits on his ass.
Depends on the job, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. As I said, even a fairly modest non-busywork job is earning significantly more doing productive work than doing nothing, even if you had a maximum income of $100k, which would be beyond even the most extreme remotely serious proposals.
And it depends on the amount of taxes that need to be extracted to pay other, less work-friendly people their UBI. You cannot simply tax the rich to pay everyone a UBI, they don't have enough money, and if you do, they will learn to not have so much and you will run out of UBI to hand out.
The whole reason for moving to UBI is because we are at the point technologically where we can meet basic needs without having enough necessary useful work for everyone to have a full-time job. There is not a shortage of productivity, just work that actually needs a human. Humans are being replaced by robots, and the displaced humans are allocated a portion of the labor savings so they don't starve and break the machines that took their jobs.
I don't think you are actually reading something I wrote.
You were talking about how the people who receive the UBI "contribute nothing to society," which I quoted. I was making a joke by comically assuming that when you say the some "contributes nothing to society" you are obviously talking about management, which is not an uncommon sentiment among/.ers. Do I need to post a bunch of Dilbert comics to get that through your thick (possibly PHB?) skull?
Except, apparently, children. Or anyone that the government defines as "children".
Sorry, I was trying to avoid being too technical, because you are obviously too busy jerking off to Ayn Rand (or some derivative) to have an intelligent thought, even one as intelligent as Rand is capable of. How UBI treats children is not set in stone (although the model would almost certainly be the same or reduced, as with existing welfare systems), but if people can be arbitrarily excluded from it on the whims of the powerful, it's not UNIVERSAL. There are things that are ambiguous about the logistics, but arbitrary decisions by the wealthy is the antithesis of the UBI model.
As for taxes, since the entire program has to be paid for by taxpayers, you cannot exclude the idea that your "progressive" tax bracket for some taxpayers won't have to become > 100% to pay for everyone who takes the free money
Actually, even with a maximum income, which is the most extreme tax bracket that has been proposed, you don't get 100% effective tax rate even if the nominal rate is 100%. Because everyone pays the same amount for their first $10,000, $100,000, and $1 million dollars ( obviously excluding deductions, since I have to spell everything out for you). Could you have an extreme version of UBI that breaks the budget? Potentially, but then that would make it no longer a 'basic' income. So far, you've struck out on 2 of the 3 words that make up UBI. Is your next trick to not understand what the word 'income' means?
Your further ignorance aside, the main point was that for people working 'normal' jobs under anything remotely considered for a UBI, you would be making significantly more if you have a job,so the incentive remains. That's why Milton Friedman proposed such a system as an alternative to welfare, precisely because it avoids that perverse incentive. In fact, people are likely to be MORE likely to want to be make actual contributions to society because they actually have social mobility, as opposed to someone making a starvation wage being a stand-in for a robot.
You see, unlike Republican fantasies, being poor is soul crushing and often difficult to get out of, making more money makes you happier until at least around $70k, and doing nothing can get really fucking boring. So, your whole excuse for bullshit busywork is...bullshit. Work for the sake of work sucks. The idea goes so far back that toil was seen as divine punishment in Genesis. If you are a masochist, that's fine, just keep in the bedroom and out of the government.
and contributes nothing to the society.
Why are you talking about management for? They will also get UBI, but their lives are relatively unchanged by that.;)
>And that will result in a lot of them realizing that they are working 40 hours a week to get an income after taxes that is the same as (or less than) the free money everyone else is getting.
It would have been simpler to just state that you don't know how tax brackets or UBI work at all.
The paradigm of creating new jobs is ceasing to be an option. Human productivity has gone up, so we should be looking at a UBI and/or shortening the work week.
That's precisely the problem. A computer can reasonably copy Vivaldi's sensibilities in chord changes, melodies, and arpeggios, but putting it together in a coherent way that's appropriate to the scene is the tough part.
This would probably be good enough for short commercials, but wouldn't be up to snuff for anything dramatic.
Yes, there are unlimited possible variable names, but ideally, variable names make sense. The number of variable names that make sense is much more limited.
His argument was, given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. If the bug isn't shallow, you don't have enough eyes, and the number of eyes to constitute 'enough' may be incredibly high. The difference between the metaphorical cathedral and the metaphorical bazaar was specifically about how different FOSS projects can have drastically different numbers of eyes looking for bugs.
Basically, more bazaar-style, less cathedral. The "short on developers" problem isn't so much a matter of open vs. closed as it it resource allocation. Just about any project is going to have problems if you lack adequate manpower, and while going FOSS might help somewhat, it's nowhere near a complete solution.
FOSS isn't a magic bullet, it's a development model. The advantages play out in statistical trends, and the differences in those trends can depend on many factors, including how 'open' development is. For example, WannaCry is somewhat comparable, and since it affected XP, the issue likely existed for at least 9 years, if not longer.
Have you considered that maybe US intel was already incompetent? They ban pot smokers and believe in polygraph voodoo, to the exclusion of those that don't at least pretend that it has some credibility. But, they keep massive amounts of data, more than they can reasonably analyze, and because of all that data, they have to lower their hiring standards and increase their number of employees, meaning that more and more moles are going to have access to the mother lode.
You'd have the same kind of potential pitfalls as with typos. Important message is read incorrectly, and a dangerous decision is made. Very much an edge case, covered by "before you make a sign for averting danger, make sure you can read it."
Yeah, and the words you are thinking are for the meaning you object to is "direct democracy," which as I said, basically nobody has talked about for centuries. I'm not being an apologist for the oligarchy, just this stupid piece of pedantics that seems to mostly arisen as a Republican talking point for positive name association. IMO, every living president except maybe Carter and the majority of their cabinets and congresses should be in prison, if not worse. I'm also not arguing that the electoral college is the ideal way of selecting POTUS. However, if your concern is adequate representation, instead of merely supporting Team Blue, then IRV/RCV will get more done. Most of the country hated both Clinton and Trump on election day, so neither would have been truly chosen 'by the people.'
Basically every country that has freedom is 1)a democracy, 2) a republic 3) constitutionally or otherwise limited government. I'm sure there are a few limits, particularly if you count figurehead monarchs as not being republics, but it's pretty much a package deal.
Constitutional limitations on power is supposed to differentiate our system from systems prior to the Magna Carta. The US Constitution's limitations of power are not supposed to be the final conclusion, it's the basis for a decent bare minimum of protections for the people and their rights.
Republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in the last few hundred years, they've been pretty much mutually inclusive. That is, unless you are a pedantic asshole who thinks 'democracy' has to mean direct democracy, which nobody has used for centuries, outside of history books referring to Greek democracies.
Nobody? People don't think that infringers are attacking ships, but they are trying to use the bad reputation of pirates as part of a propaganda campaign, since the numbers don't back them up. They also try to conflate infringement with theft, despite grossly different underlying economics.
The exact work? Probably not. In addition to lowering the total number of works published, copyright also tended to shift authorship from informative to fictional, since only the specific words are published, and thus rephrasing a scientific text allows a relatively trivial workaround.
So, we might have fewer blockbuster films (especially since we'd have competitive markets instead of oligopolies), but we'd probably be about 50 years ahead technologically by now, and more focused on learning. Of course, greater tech could mean greater standard of living, more education, and cheaper filmmaking, so perhaps we'd have even more well-produced films.
It's also in line with the Statute of Anne. My point is that this comes from the era of the ORIGINAL copyright: A state-sponsored monopoly on speech.
That part is certainly relevant in regards to the conversation on whether or not the word was misappropriated.
Slashdot Mirror
The results were within the margins of error.
No, America is a shitshow, and we know it, despite deeply ingrained jingoism. Congress is lucky to have double digit approval ratings.
You're assuming the Dems won't run Hillary's corpse over someone people actually like.
No, it's logic plus insults. It's more fun that way, and not a logical fallacy.
I didn't say it required it, I was explained how it doesn't work as a disincentive for working, which was your claim for why people should do busywork. Let's say that one job that hasn't been automated yet is a mechanic, that the UBI is $15k per capita. A mechanic earns around $40k a year. Thus, if you sit on your ass all day, you make $15k before taxes. If you work as a mechanic, you make $55k before taxes. The highest current tax bracket rounds to 40%, and even if the mechanic is paying that for everything over the $15k, they are keeping $24k more than the guy that sits on his ass.
No, it doesn't. As I said, even a fairly modest non-busywork job is earning significantly more doing productive work than doing nothing, even if you had a maximum income of $100k, which would be beyond even the most extreme remotely serious proposals.
The whole reason for moving to UBI is because we are at the point technologically where we can meet basic needs without having enough necessary useful work for everyone to have a full-time job. There is not a shortage of productivity, just work that actually needs a human. Humans are being replaced by robots, and the displaced humans are allocated a portion of the labor savings so they don't starve and break the machines that took their jobs.
You were talking about how the people who receive the UBI "contribute nothing to society," which I quoted. I was making a joke by comically assuming that when you say the some "contributes nothing to society" you are obviously talking about management, which is not an uncommon sentiment among /.ers. Do I need to post a bunch of Dilbert comics to get that through your thick (possibly PHB?) skull?
Sorry, I was trying to avoid being too technical, because you are obviously too busy jerking off to Ayn Rand (or some derivative) to have an intelligent thought, even one as intelligent as Rand is capable of. How UBI treats children is not set in stone (although the model would almost certainly be the same or reduced, as with existing welfare systems), but if people can be arbitrarily excluded from it on the whims of the powerful, it's not UNIVERSAL. There are things that are ambiguous about the logistics, but arbitrary decisions by the wealthy is the antithesis of the UBI model.
Actually, even with a maximum income, which is the most extreme tax bracket that has been proposed, you don't get 100% effective tax rate even if the nominal rate is 100%. Because everyone pays the same amount for their first $10,000, $100,000, and $1 million dollars ( obviously excluding deductions, since I have to spell everything out for you). Could you have an extreme version of UBI that breaks the budget? Potentially, but then that would make it no longer a 'basic' income. So far, you've struck out on 2 of the 3 words that make up UBI. Is your next trick to not understand what the word 'income' means?
Your further ignorance aside, the main point was that for people working 'normal' jobs under anything remotely considered for a UBI, you would be making significantly more if you have a job,so the incentive remains. That's why Milton Friedman proposed such a system as an alternative to welfare, precisely because it avoids that perverse incentive. In fact, people are likely to be MORE likely to want to be make actual contributions to society because they actually have social mobility, as opposed to someone making a starvation wage being a stand-in for a robot.
You see, unlike Republican fantasies, being poor is soul crushing and often difficult to get out of, making more money makes you happier until at least around $70k, and doing nothing can get really fucking boring. So, your whole excuse for bullshit busywork is...bullshit. Work for the sake of work sucks. The idea goes so far back that toil was seen as divine punishment in Genesis. If you are a masochist, that's fine, just keep in the bedroom and out of the government.
Why are you talking about management for? They will also get UBI, but their lives are relatively unchanged by that. ;)
>And that will result in a lot of them realizing that they are working 40 hours a week to get an income after taxes that is the same as (or less than) the free money everyone else is getting. It would have been simpler to just state that you don't know how tax brackets or UBI work at all.
You're describing our current system. By definition, a UBI can't exclude people.
Why not just give people a basic income instead of making them do busy work?
The paradigm of creating new jobs is ceasing to be an option. Human productivity has gone up, so we should be looking at a UBI and/or shortening the work week.
That's precisely the problem. A computer can reasonably copy Vivaldi's sensibilities in chord changes, melodies, and arpeggios, but putting it together in a coherent way that's appropriate to the scene is the tough part.
This would probably be good enough for short commercials, but wouldn't be up to snuff for anything dramatic.
Yes, there are unlimited possible variable names, but ideally, variable names make sense. The number of variable names that make sense is much more limited.
His argument was, given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. If the bug isn't shallow, you don't have enough eyes, and the number of eyes to constitute 'enough' may be incredibly high. The difference between the metaphorical cathedral and the metaphorical bazaar was specifically about how different FOSS projects can have drastically different numbers of eyes looking for bugs.
Basically, more bazaar-style, less cathedral. The "short on developers" problem isn't so much a matter of open vs. closed as it it resource allocation. Just about any project is going to have problems if you lack adequate manpower, and while going FOSS might help somewhat, it's nowhere near a complete solution.
FOSS isn't a magic bullet, it's a development model. The advantages play out in statistical trends, and the differences in those trends can depend on many factors, including how 'open' development is. For example, WannaCry is somewhat comparable, and since it affected XP, the issue likely existed for at least 9 years, if not longer.
Have you considered that maybe US intel was already incompetent? They ban pot smokers and believe in polygraph voodoo, to the exclusion of those that don't at least pretend that it has some credibility. But, they keep massive amounts of data, more than they can reasonably analyze, and because of all that data, they have to lower their hiring standards and increase their number of employees, meaning that more and more moles are going to have access to the mother lode.
We could cut the military budget to a fraction of what it is now and still have a "stupidly big army."
Sounds dreaful.
You'd have the same kind of potential pitfalls as with typos. Important message is read incorrectly, and a dangerous decision is made. Very much an edge case, covered by "before you make a sign for averting danger, make sure you can read it."
It didn't bother them so much as illustrate their perspective through a visual pun.
Yeah, and the words you are thinking are for the meaning you object to is "direct democracy," which as I said, basically nobody has talked about for centuries. I'm not being an apologist for the oligarchy, just this stupid piece of pedantics that seems to mostly arisen as a Republican talking point for positive name association. IMO, every living president except maybe Carter and the majority of their cabinets and congresses should be in prison, if not worse. I'm also not arguing that the electoral college is the ideal way of selecting POTUS. However, if your concern is adequate representation, instead of merely supporting Team Blue, then IRV/RCV will get more done. Most of the country hated both Clinton and Trump on election day, so neither would have been truly chosen 'by the people.'
Basically every country that has freedom is 1)a democracy, 2) a republic 3) constitutionally or otherwise limited government. I'm sure there are a few limits, particularly if you count figurehead monarchs as not being republics, but it's pretty much a package deal.
Constitutional limitations on power is supposed to differentiate our system from systems prior to the Magna Carta. The US Constitution's limitations of power are not supposed to be the final conclusion, it's the basis for a decent bare minimum of protections for the people and their rights.
Republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in the last few hundred years, they've been pretty much mutually inclusive. That is, unless you are a pedantic asshole who thinks 'democracy' has to mean direct democracy, which nobody has used for centuries, outside of history books referring to Greek democracies.
Nobody? People don't think that infringers are attacking ships, but they are trying to use the bad reputation of pirates as part of a propaganda campaign, since the numbers don't back them up. They also try to conflate infringement with theft, despite grossly different underlying economics.
The exact work? Probably not. In addition to lowering the total number of works published, copyright also tended to shift authorship from informative to fictional, since only the specific words are published, and thus rephrasing a scientific text allows a relatively trivial workaround.
So, we might have fewer blockbuster films (especially since we'd have competitive markets instead of oligopolies), but we'd probably be about 50 years ahead technologically by now, and more focused on learning. Of course, greater tech could mean greater standard of living, more education, and cheaper filmmaking, so perhaps we'd have even more well-produced films.
It's also in line with the Statute of Anne. My point is that this comes from the era of the ORIGINAL copyright: A state-sponsored monopoly on speech.
That part is certainly relevant in regards to the conversation on whether or not the word was misappropriated.