So, you don't think that the Democrats have abandoned blue-collar workers? And, in a related manner, do you think that labor *feels* that the Democratic Party represents them? The Democratic Party, it seems to this idiot, felt that blue-collar workers would have no choice except to vote for them. "They wouldn't vote Republican now would they?" Yuk.Yuk.
Trump channeled their frustration and their anger at being dismissed and ridiculed. He said that he would bring blue collar jobs back to the US. (Not necessarily mining - but blue-collar jobs.)
Is government the end-all-be-all? If not then government should do everything. (Hence privatization. Gov't has a place, unless you're an anarchist, so not everthing should be privatized - police, military, judicial, prisons are some.)
Re drug legalization I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how many Republicans and people on the "right" are in favor of drug legalization. Gus Johnson, Rand Paul, Justin Amash and others. Ted Cruz wants it to be determined by the states. Hmmm. What does that mean? It means he has no problems for states legalizing it.
Oklahoma is about as deep-red as you can be and it's real close to passing a medical marijuana law. North Dakato, another red state, (IIRC) just passed a medical marijuana bill. Libertarian principles are winning in red states.
Slowly but surely it's not simply rhetoric but action.
It's more than jobs - but the approach taken by the Democratic Party and many slashdotters of "eff" them.
Now that the Democratic Party has abandoned labor (we're not talking about gov't unions here but the New Deal labor coalition) they felt that nobody was listening. All the Dems were doing were offering them welfare and some worthless "retraing"program.
The final straw was when the Dem Party went against the pipelines and opposed fracking. That's jobs. It's not sending money to Saudi religious fanatics. Trump promises jobs. Manufacturing jobs. Blue collar jobs. Not necessarily coal jobs.
no. I'm not a slave because I need to support myself. Even is I was alone on an island I would need to work to survive. I drink great beer which I don't know how to brew; eat cheese and prosciutto which I don't know how to make; wear clothes that I can't make. And even if I could brew beer, make cheese, prosciutto and clothes I wouldn't have the time to - nor would I the time to the crops, raise the animals and everything else required to make those products.
In your terms I'm their slave for doing my work and they're my slaves for doing my work.
In my opinion we freely exchange our time and commitment in exchange for money (a means of exchange) which we then exchange for the products and services completed by others. We are not slaves. We are free people.
Go to neighborhoods dominated by Section 8 housing. A large percentage of the population there has free housing and food? This will be live under a Universal Basic Income. Are the people in these neighborhoods happy? Content? Are they filling up their free time with hobbies, taking care of their neighborhood? Living a kumbaya life? No.
The above iis true in white neighborhoods and black; in the US and elsewhere.
UBI solves the problem of starvation and homelessness but there is much more to the equation then those two factors.
Sex Ed has nothing to do with it. There has been one study and documentaries after another showing that ignorance and access of reproductive measures have nothing to do with it. (At least not in the US in the last 20+ years.) People (read women) make a conscious choice to have children they can't affortd.
But how do you account for the millions who have housing and EBT (food stamps) who live a miserable unfulfilled life? Why do these people who do not need to work not behave in that way?
I say this as someone who sees 20 year olds having babies, on section 8 and still can't pay their rent, but have 60" tvs, xboxes and stay at home all day doing nothing.
I see them, know some of them by name, know they don't have a job, know they aren't going to school; know they are just hanging out.
Go to Far Rockaway, East New York, Red Hook. Assuming you're a new yorker:-)
Nobody - especially religious people brought Jesus into the equation.
Remember the shovel ready jobs? Never happened. The monies went to cronies - whether it was Bank of America or the teacher's union. The monies did not go to infrastructure.
Trump and Republicans are going to capitalize on the Democrats foolish aversion to pipelines, fracking and drilling. (Yes it ought to be regulated and yes no eminent domain atrocities and yes monies need to be put into escrow for potential damages)
But the jobs; the hopes for even more jobs; the defunding of the Saudi religious nuts and the good will (in the US flyover states) may very well hurt the Democrats for quite a while. If labor joins the Republicans because the Democrats have deserted them then... the balance of power will have been changed.
I don't disagree with your points. The economy has become sclerotic and it's very difficult to get ahead.
I see Universal Basic Income as important. It solves the problems of starvation and homelessness. But... then what?
As one poster says this provides even more reason for humanity to go to space. Once again we'll have a "wild west" to provide an outlet for people who don't have a place in the existing societal structure.
But, baring that? The only thing I can see is having less people. And not by genocide, war or other such horrors but by providing incentive to not have kids.
Give people "x" to not have kids? What is "x"? I don't know. $100,000? more. Something besides money? I don't know.
Supporting oneself putting food on the table whether a paycheck or from gardening, husbandry, hunting gives many people a sense of pride. Too many people ignore the self-worth that comes from doing something. Getting an apartment and food doesn't seem to give people a good sense of self, and this seems to be not only in the USA - but take a look at France and Germany where immigrants get housing and food. And yet.... Discontent is rife.
Food and housing are not a cure all.
Re McDonalds as a stepping stone -- all entry level jobs are just that; whether you work as a cashier at a liquor store, stocking shelfs at bookstore or driving cab to earn cash as student. No. it will not help you get a job at Google or Apple but it's an entry-level job.
I'm not saying Universal Basic Income won't be necessary - only that it is not a cure all.
Nor am I saying it's a matter of keeping people busy. No. Not at all. I'm saying that
1.people thrive on having a sense of purpose.
2. UBI will solve the problems of homelessness and starvation but it will not solve the problem of self-worth; self-worth.
Work does fill that role. Now, when that role is gone - then what. I personally would have no problem coming up with a million wonderful things to do. But - take a look at what happens to people when they retire. How many slowly fade away; doing nothing; becoming less every day. And this is not a function of age but of lack of purpose. br
Is my word "purpose" the right one? Maybe not. I'm still trying to figure out how best to describe this.
I think it's a major source of discontent around the globe. (More complicated discussion than we can cover here.)
The purpose is supporting oneself; being an independent, self-sufficient person, making his way in the world. And no being a fry cook at McDonalds probably does not serve that purpose for that many people. But, I think McDonalds work has value as a stepping stone. It's a start.
Re the wealth - Universal Basic Income will never provide the lifestyle options and panache that the wealth have. The panache gives a false sense of superiority but even if you pull that away UBI will never (or at least not in the foreseeable future) give it's recipients luxury apartments, travel to destinations the world over, access to the best restaurants, etc...)
I'm glad you're OK with eliminating welfare payments that come for having more children. And I agree we should remove tax incentives for all breeders.
Re investment in women. We do that in the US. More difficult in Syria and Saudi Arabia.
We see a universal basic income in France and we don't have a rosy outcome. Immigrants have been given free housing and food and yet... discontent is rife; despair consumes entire communities and hatred and violence are outcomes. And yet. They have a roof over their heads and food to eat. Where is the entrepreneurship? the art?
Why can't we point to the them as an example of how well the universal basic income works?
If it was simply a case of "racism" then why are white, educated french people leaving france in droves?
Absolutely. No question about that. That holds true for the world over. Population rates have dropped fast. And yet... what happens when industrialization means that a billion plus people are put out of work?
What happens when we don't need truck drivers, taxi drivers, when kiosks remove a large portion of cashier jobs; when stores don't need people to stock the shelves; when Amazon and other retailers don't need people to box items? And let's not forget all the other industries which require less and less labor - construction is a prime example but it includes law and financial planning as well.
This will be a very bad problem and we need to start talking about how people need to be able to afford to have children. More people is not necessarily a good thing. Killing people, incarcerating, warehousing (Universal Basic Income) are not necessarily the answer.
All I can think of is having less children and the best way to continue this trend is to not give financial help when you have children.
But think about the children!! They didn't ask to be born. Why should we punish them?
We shouldn't. We should then do what? I propose to provide incentives to NOT have children and to remove the financial incentives that exist in order to have children.
Trust-fund babies, by definition, have parents that can afford them. But you raise a good point they do not cause more trouble than the general population.
The flaw in the argument is that a basic universal income will not provide enough money to vacation in hotspots around the world; have 10,000 square foot apartments in NYC high rises and villas in Monte Carlo and Palm Springs.
You will have an apartment, in NYC that will be 350-550 square feet; basic furnishings; and enough food to live. Sweet.
No. It's not. I'm saying that a Universal Basic Income will not solve the problem. It will solve the problem of starvation and homelessness but it will not solve the problem. We see this, for instance, in France. Immigrants come in. Get a roof over their head and food in their bellies but little else. It solves an immediate need but that's it.
People need more than housing and food. They desire purpose and productive activities.
The full cost? No. But the money coming in from the federal government does play a role in people's decision making.
Their decisions may be foolish in a whole slew of ways -- but it is still being done. And it is not out of ignorance or lack of access to family planning. There are other dynamics at play. There are too many 18 year olds who have kids and they have "good" reasons for keeping them - including the fact that they will get housing vouchers and EBT (food stamps). Is the decision objectively foolish? Of course it is. The monies received does not come near to the amount necessary to raise a child. And yet... It's done.
This "incentive" needs to be removed. Let's not be tied down to the particular word "incentive." If you have a better word then let me know. I'll use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I creating a false dichotomy. About the only thing that hear called as "fascist" is his desire to limit immigration.
I'm not necessarily in favor of that but limiting immigration is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "fascist."
As far as a "database of muslims". Sh!7 we have a database of everybody but I don't remember anybody calling the Obama Administration "fascist."
And you think that a country MUST accept any and all immigrants or else it is, by definition, fascist?
Really?
If that's the case then Mexico is fascist, and the Dominican Republic and China and South Korea and everyplace else.
Thank you for the insight.
So, you don't think that the Democrats have abandoned blue-collar workers? And, in a related manner, do you think that labor *feels* that the Democratic Party represents them? The Democratic Party, it seems to this idiot, felt that blue-collar workers would have no choice except to vote for them. "They wouldn't vote Republican now would they?" Yuk.Yuk.
Trump channeled their frustration and their anger at being dismissed and ridiculed. He said that he would bring blue collar jobs back to the US. (Not necessarily mining - but blue-collar jobs.)
So eliminating waste is not good?
Is government the end-all-be-all? If not then government should do everything. (Hence privatization. Gov't has a place, unless you're an anarchist, so not everthing should be privatized - police, military, judicial, prisons are some.)
Re drug legalization I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how many Republicans and people on the "right" are in favor of drug legalization. Gus Johnson, Rand Paul, Justin Amash and others. Ted Cruz wants it to be determined by the states. Hmmm. What does that mean? It means he has no problems for states legalizing it.
Oklahoma is about as deep-red as you can be and it's real close to passing a medical marijuana law. North Dakato, another red state, (IIRC) just passed a medical marijuana bill. Libertarian principles are winning in red states.
Slowly but surely it's not simply rhetoric but action.
You're missing so very much.
It's more than jobs - but the approach taken by the Democratic Party and many slashdotters of "eff" them.
Now that the Democratic Party has abandoned labor (we're not talking about gov't unions here but the New Deal labor coalition) they felt that nobody was listening. All the Dems were doing were offering them welfare and some worthless "retraing"program.
The final straw was when the Dem Party went against the pipelines and opposed fracking. That's jobs. It's not sending money to Saudi religious fanatics. Trump promises jobs. Manufacturing jobs. Blue collar jobs. Not necessarily coal jobs.
Would you like to have sharia law here? Would you like the US to become part of an Islamic Caliphate?
Do you want to spend time, money, and blood preventing that?
If your answer is no. Then immigration can be a problem.
express.co.uk : 1000 Muslims block London streets demanding an Islamic Caliphate.
If you're an atheist why would you want to import people who want to kill you?
Interesting point!!!!
no. I'm not a slave because I need to support myself. Even is I was alone on an island I would need to work to survive. I drink great beer which I don't know how to brew; eat cheese and prosciutto which I don't know how to make; wear clothes that I can't make. And even if I could brew beer, make cheese, prosciutto and clothes I wouldn't have the time to - nor would I the time to the crops, raise the animals and everything else required to make those products.
In your terms I'm their slave for doing my work and they're my slaves for doing my work.
In my opinion we freely exchange our time and commitment in exchange for money (a means of exchange) which we then exchange for the products and services completed by others. We are not slaves. We are free people.
Go to neighborhoods dominated by Section 8 housing. A large percentage of the population there has free housing and food? This will be live under a Universal Basic Income. Are the people in these neighborhoods happy? Content? Are they filling up their free time with hobbies, taking care of their neighborhood? Living a kumbaya life? No.
The above iis true in white neighborhoods and black; in the US and elsewhere.
UBI solves the problem of starvation and homelessness but there is much more to the equation then those two factors.
Sex Ed has nothing to do with it. There has been one study and documentaries after another showing that ignorance and access of reproductive measures have nothing to do with it. (At least not in the US in the last 20+ years.) People (read women) make a conscious choice to have children they can't affortd.
Interesting point.
But how do you account for the millions who have housing and EBT (food stamps) who live a miserable unfulfilled life? Why do these people who do not need to work not behave in that way?
I say this as someone who sees 20 year olds having babies, on section 8 and still can't pay their rent, but have 60" tvs, xboxes and stay at home all day doing nothing.
:-)
I see them, know some of them by name, know they don't have a job, know they aren't going to school; know they are just hanging out.
Go to Far Rockaway, East New York, Red Hook. Assuming you're a new yorker
union /= labor.
Witness the dollars unions spend for one party but the percentage of union members voting for the other party.
Dollars may be 90% + for the democrats but the union members vote 60-40 and sometimes 50-50.
good point.
:-)
My mileage definitely varied
Nobody - especially religious people brought Jesus into the equation.
... the balance of power will have been changed.
Remember the shovel ready jobs? Never happened. The monies went to cronies - whether it was Bank of America or the teacher's union. The monies did not go to infrastructure.
Trump and Republicans are going to capitalize on the Democrats foolish aversion to pipelines, fracking and drilling. (Yes it ought to be regulated and yes no eminent domain atrocities and yes monies need to be put into escrow for potential damages)
But the jobs; the hopes for even more jobs; the defunding of the Saudi religious nuts and the good will (in the US flyover states) may very well hurt the Democrats for quite a while. If labor joins the Republicans because the Democrats have deserted them then
I don't look at it that way. Too bad for you that that's the way you internalize the need to take care of yourself and your family.
"other's have money. that money should be mine. ooooh I'm so mad."
enter your social warrior bullsh!t here.
I don't disagree with your points. The economy has become sclerotic and it's very difficult to get ahead.
... then what?
I see Universal Basic Income as important. It solves the problems of starvation and homelessness. But
As one poster says this provides even more reason for humanity to go to space. Once again we'll have a "wild west" to provide an outlet for people who don't have a place in the existing societal structure.
But, baring that? The only thing I can see is having less people. And not by genocide, war or other such horrors but by providing incentive to not have kids.
Give people "x" to not have kids? What is "x"? I don't know. $100,000? more. Something besides money? I don't know.
Supporting oneself putting food on the table whether a paycheck or from gardening, husbandry, hunting gives many people a sense of pride. Too many people ignore the self-worth that comes from doing something. Getting an apartment and food doesn't seem to give people a good sense of self, and this seems to be not only in the USA - but take a look at France and Germany where immigrants get housing and food. And yet. ... Discontent is rife.
Food and housing are not a cure all.
Re McDonalds as a stepping stone -- all entry level jobs are just that; whether you work as a cashier at a liquor store, stocking shelfs at bookstore or driving cab to earn cash as student. No. it will not help you get a job at Google or Apple but it's an entry-level job.
I'm not saying Universal Basic Income won't be necessary - only that it is not a cure all.
Nor am I saying it's a matter of keeping people busy. No. Not at all. I'm saying that
1.people thrive on having a sense of purpose.
2. UBI will solve the problems of homelessness and starvation but it will not solve the problem of self-worth; self-worth.
Work does fill that role. Now, when that role is gone - then what. I personally would have no problem coming up with a million wonderful things to do. But - take a look at what happens to people when they retire. How many slowly fade away; doing nothing; becoming less every day. And this is not a function of age but of lack of purpose.
br Is my word "purpose" the right one? Maybe not. I'm still trying to figure out how best to describe this.
I don't see any evidence of this claim,
I think it's a major source of discontent around the globe. (More complicated discussion than we can cover here.)
The purpose is supporting oneself; being an independent, self-sufficient person, making his way in the world. And no being a fry cook at McDonalds probably does not serve that purpose for that many people. But, I think McDonalds work has value as a stepping stone. It's a start.
Re the wealth - Universal Basic Income will never provide the lifestyle options and panache that the wealth have. The panache gives a false sense of superiority but even if you pull that away UBI will never (or at least not in the foreseeable future) give it's recipients luxury apartments, travel to destinations the world over, access to the best restaurants, etc...)
I'm glad you're OK with eliminating welfare payments that come for having more children. And I agree we should remove tax incentives for all breeders.
Re investment in women. We do that in the US. More difficult in Syria and Saudi Arabia.
I know that many people are concerned and think that we need more people. But do we?
One of the reasons people have been so fond of immigration is to have an ever increasing work force. But what happens when there is no work.
No truck drivers.
No cabbies.
No cashiers.
Shelf stocking jobs are reduced to 5% of the current work force.
And let's not forget white collar jobs, attorneys, financial planners, bank clerks, librarians, etc...
I hope you're right. But I don't think so.
... discontent is rife; despair consumes entire communities and hatred and violence are outcomes. And yet. They have a roof over their heads and food to eat. Where is the entrepreneurship? the art?
We see a universal basic income in France and we don't have a rosy outcome. Immigrants have been given free housing and food and yet
Why can't we point to the them as an example of how well the universal basic income works?
If it was simply a case of "racism" then why are white, educated french people leaving france in droves?
Absolutely. No question about that. That holds true for the world over. Population rates have dropped fast. And yet ... what happens when industrialization means that a billion plus people are put out of work?
What happens when we don't need truck drivers, taxi drivers, when kiosks remove a large portion of cashier jobs; when stores don't need people to stock the shelves; when Amazon and other retailers don't need people to box items? And let's not forget all the other industries which require less and less labor - construction is a prime example but it includes law and financial planning as well.
This will be a very bad problem and we need to start talking about how people need to be able to afford to have children. More people is not necessarily a good thing. Killing people, incarcerating, warehousing (Universal Basic Income) are not necessarily the answer.
All I can think of is having less children and the best way to continue this trend is to not give financial help when you have children.
But think about the children!! They didn't ask to be born. Why should we punish them?
We shouldn't. We should then do what? I propose to provide incentives to NOT have children and to remove the financial incentives that exist in order to have children.
Trust-fund babies, by definition, have parents that can afford them. But you raise a good point they do not cause more trouble than the general population.
The flaw in the argument is that a basic universal income will not provide enough money to vacation in hotspots around the world; have 10,000 square foot apartments in NYC high rises and villas in Monte Carlo and Palm Springs.
You will have an apartment, in NYC that will be 350-550 square feet; basic furnishings; and enough food to live. Sweet.
Then what?
. Our current economic system is what prevents that since they have to make enough money to live
I disagree with this part. Providing for yourself and your family is a purpose that provides self-respect and a sense of well-being.
This was true 1000 years ago and is true today.
No. It's not. I'm saying that a Universal Basic Income will not solve the problem. It will solve the problem of starvation and homelessness but it will not solve the problem. We see this, for instance, in France. Immigrants come in. Get a roof over their head and food in their bellies but little else. It solves an immediate need but that's it.
People need more than housing and food. They desire purpose and productive activities.
The full cost? No. But the money coming in from the federal government does play a role in people's decision making.
... It's done.
Their decisions may be foolish in a whole slew of ways -- but it is still being done. And it is not out of ignorance or lack of access to family planning. There are other dynamics at play. There are too many 18 year olds who have kids and they have "good" reasons for keeping them - including the fact that they will get housing vouchers and EBT (food stamps). Is the decision objectively foolish? Of course it is. The monies received does not come near to the amount necessary to raise a child. And yet
This "incentive" needs to be removed. Let's not be tied down to the particular word "incentive." If you have a better word then let me know. I'll use it.