"To do UBI correctly, it has to go to everybody. And it has to *replace* any income support programs."
Except that's not honestly the goal.
I haven't found a single UBI supporter who will agree with the simple premise stated nakedly "UBI will replace all other programs" because even they know that to do so would be sentencing most of the poor to starvation and misery.
Want proof? It's widely recognized that of lottery winners who win enough to never work again, 90% end up POORER.
If we take the poorest people in our society and instead of hand-feeding them programs which do the planning for them, and instead hand them a check at the start of the month and EXPECT THEM TO BUDGET for food, medical care, housing...they will simply die. Most within a month or two.
The dirty little secret is that most desperately poor people are there because of their own choices. Handing them piles of cash will not enrich or benefit them. They will still make stupid, short-sighted choices, and then if all other supports are gone they'll die starving in a ditch.
So let me see if I can parse this: 1) if it was backing Trump, it would be proof of collusion and Russians gaming the system to gin up support for Trump 2) since it's backing Democratic causes, it's somehow "splitting" the Democratic vote?
"Bolden next lists the "three things" he says Obama charged him to do, including, "perhaps foremost," engaging much more with dominantly Muslim nations and getting "more people who can contribute to the things that we do,"
Note that politifact rates it as half true...mainly because he is confirmed to have SAID it, but later walked back "that's not really what I meant".
Was one of the first employees of the business. Boss (who liked me) gave me plum assignment at a huge client. Worked there (quite successfully) for a year, made profits for the company ~20x what they'd paid me, expanded business beyond the original scope, etc.
While I was gone, power struggle at home office, my boss had his bluff called and was let go. When this project ended up at a stable point and I came back and said "ok what next interesting project can I get engaged in" his replacement said "I really don't have anything for you." We didn't get along, some of the reasons definitely my fault, so we mutually decided that I needed to find another opportunity.
That was 25 years ago, and I'm still at the firm I moved to, so I think it turned out ok.
...jobs are a real thing, while ubi is a complete fantasy. People suggesting ubi are in most cases out right liars or they haven't thought through the consequences of their ideas.
For example, when trying to rationalize how ubi would be more efficient (to say nothing of trying to find the staggering amounts of money needed for such a program) they talk about it replacing other social programs.
Every. Single. One.
So you're saying that we hand every single person $x and then simply wish them well? If they then don't plan for medical care and then can't afford it...we let them die? If they've spent their check on new sneakers and cigarettes, and don't have any food, we let them starve?
Poor people in the West are generally poor for two reasons: they were poor when they got here and they're in that first generation, or because they've made stupid choices. They're not going to make less-stupid choices if you give them more money.
Handing people free money may buy you votes but it doesn't make people better off. Note that this is a proven fact: most lottery winners that win enough to never have to work end up POORER than before.
Is it impossible to contemplate letting the free market work?
The pay is shit and drives are suiciding? Well, people KEEP SIGNING UP TO DRIVE, don't they? If it's that bad, and it's just that they're stupid, let them fucking suffer the consequences of their choices.
Seriously, I keep hearing people discussing about how free-market economics doesn't really work anymore...of course it doesn't. Capitalism only succeeds by failures, in the same sense evolution advances from death. Protect people and companies from failure, and that's not capitalism.
This is a resolution to initiate a study: the government equivalent of your parents saying "sure, we'll think about it".
That's all. The anti-repair lobbying money won't start substantially until the study is completed.
And let's be totally candid here. The people cheering this study only look forward to it because they expect to be validated. Largely, they don't want simply to reveal facts...unless those facts agree with them.
What if the study actually determines that the best net economic result is to block private repair? Today's ardent supporters will just say it was rigged anyway.
...and Amazon TOO is a private company: Amazon's facial recognition can identify you as the Cat in the Hat - precisely why would the ACLU have a say in that?
I'd say the ACLU is a shill more specifically as they STATED (http://reason.com/blog/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech?utm_medium=email) that they would evaluate the content of speech before deciding if Free Speech was worth defending.
...that the ACLU immediately wades into this, but has been astonishingly silent about Twitter soft-banning a number of Republican lawmakers?
It's a damned shame, I used to respect the ACLU that regardless of politics, was about standing up for constitutionally-guaranteed rights. They'd go to bat for a socialist journalist with the same tenacity that they'd defend a southern white gun owner.
Now they're just another shill of the hard left in this country.
The summary talks about FB being in trouble for NOT DISCLOSING political ads, but then continues about an agreement to restrict filtering ad content by certain protected criteria like race...is it one, the other, or both?
"I'm disappointed that people who were born after the Internet was well-established don't know this by now." I think it's a corollary to Goedel's Theorem: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) in that you cannot prove a system completely from within that system, I think it's likewise even hard to recognize a system, and to know its rules and bounds accurately, from within that system as well.
Ergo, those of us who grew up before there was a social media see it from outside (which is why we don't generally 'get it' either - I still really don't understand the point of twitter, much less instagram).
Or, perhaps we're just telling the damned kids to get off our lawn. I'm not sure anymore.
"The reason diversity matters is that talented people don't come in a particular gender or skin color. " I fundamentally agree with you in principle, but the objective proof would seem to suggest otherwise. Look at most modern companies - whether they're held-over old-economy relics or new-.com-era firms: their massive successes and growth were when? When they were mostly white, mostly male.
Show me a company whose sustained growth curve IMPROVED when they started prioritizing diversity in hiring, and I'll show you ten that didn't improve at all.
And as much as this is commonly laid at the feet of old-worlders, let's recognize that fundamentally it was going to happen at SOME time and the fact that new worlders hadn't much gotten past the stone age was ultimately (if you believe Jared Diamond) the reason they hadn't developed stronger general immunities.
Last time I was there, German gas was about 1.37 Euro/L. of that, 0.87 was taxes, not an intrinsically high price of gas. Remove that, and they're paying about $2 euros a gallon...pretty comparable to US prices without tax.
And the US collected about $45 bn in federal gas taxes last year, while the states collect about another total $70bn each year = about 115bn per year in gas taxes collected.
Considering the Iraq War 2 cost about $1.2 trn (your number) and lasted about 10 years, then pretty much gas taxes paid for it.
Last time I checked, only 5 of the 29 members of NATO (you know, our closest allies) meet the 2% goal they PROMISED to meet only 4 years ago (that they promised to meet for the last 50 years).
So, I think your point is baloney.
Also, US now has the largest oil reserves recognized in the world. If the price of oil goes up, the US's strategic situation is IMPROVED. https://oilprice.com/Energy/En...
...and this is honestly where I think the whole suspicion of media was born.
I don't think it's unreasonable to hear a story about Ireland divesting itself of 'fossil fuel' investments, and wonder, 'how much do they use'? It certainly wasn't rocket science to look it up. I think it was an Irish gov't website, for pete's (I avoided the easy pun there, you're welcome) sake.
So why isn't the lead story about this asking the simple and obvious question, instead of parroting the gov't line and obviously trying to help them virtue-signal on this?
Nobody trusted Isvestia or Pravda because they were government organs and every story was slanted to support the government. The same is true with ANY media whose bias is clear and pervasive.
I'd also wager that the people who really built those companies and continue to drive them are a) mostly male, b) mostly white, and c) couldn't give much of a shit about a picture of a big titted chick riding a bulldog (or heavens, they might actually like it).
I've found that SJW claims about a company's diversity "needs" rarely have any intersection with recognizing the company's previous success track. If it's success has truly come from hiring 51% women or x% transgender, they'd already be doing it and wouldn't have to keep being told.
Slashdot Mirror
If you've ever been to SFO quite frankly a number of those names wouldn't be descriptively inaccurate, either.
"To do UBI correctly, it has to go to everybody. And it has to *replace* any income support programs."
Except that's not honestly the goal.
I haven't found a single UBI supporter who will agree with the simple premise stated nakedly "UBI will replace all other programs" because even they know that to do so would be sentencing most of the poor to starvation and misery.
Want proof? It's widely recognized that of lottery winners who win enough to never work again, 90% end up POORER.
If we take the poorest people in our society and instead of hand-feeding them programs which do the planning for them, and instead hand them a check at the start of the month and EXPECT THEM TO BUDGET for food, medical care, housing...they will simply die. Most within a month or two.
The dirty little secret is that most desperately poor people are there because of their own choices. Handing them piles of cash will not enrich or benefit them. They will still make stupid, short-sighted choices, and then if all other supports are gone they'll die starving in a ditch.
As long as they've PROMISED not to do it, I guess we're good then, yes?
Except the NASA director SAID it.
He admits it.
Politifact confirms it.
That's the dumbest spy-novel plot I've ever read.
So let me see if I can parse this:
1) if it was backing Trump, it would be proof of collusion and Russians gaming the system to gin up support for Trump
2) since it's backing Democratic causes, it's somehow "splitting" the Democratic vote?
Or maybe if Nasa's foremost mission hadn't been "Muslim outreach"?
https://www.politifact.com/tex...
"Bolden next lists the "three things" he says Obama charged him to do, including, "perhaps foremost," engaging much more with dominantly Muslim nations and getting "more people who can contribute to the things that we do,"
Note that politifact rates it as half true...mainly because he is confirmed to have SAID it, but later walked back "that's not really what I meant".
80% of all workers feel they're underpaid
95% of people feel they're underappreciated.
So at 60% unhappy, relatively, tech workers are doing pretty fucking well!
(See how useless stats can be out of context, in case you missed the actual point of this post?)
Was one of the first employees of the business. Boss (who liked me) gave me plum assignment at a huge client. Worked there (quite successfully) for a year, made profits for the company ~20x what they'd paid me, expanded business beyond the original scope, etc.
While I was gone, power struggle at home office, my boss had his bluff called and was let go. When this project ended up at a stable point and I came back and said "ok what next interesting project can I get engaged in" his replacement said "I really don't have anything for you." We didn't get along, some of the reasons definitely my fault, so we mutually decided that I needed to find another opportunity.
That was 25 years ago, and I'm still at the firm I moved to, so I think it turned out ok.
...jobs are a real thing, while ubi is a complete fantasy.
People suggesting ubi are in most cases out right liars or they haven't thought through the consequences of their ideas.
For example, when trying to rationalize how ubi would be more efficient (to say nothing of trying to find the staggering amounts of money needed for such a program) they talk about it replacing other social programs.
Every.
Single.
One.
So you're saying that we hand every single person $x and then simply wish them well? If they then don't plan for medical care and then can't afford it...we let them die? If they've spent their check on new sneakers and cigarettes, and don't have any food, we let them starve?
Poor people in the West are generally poor for two reasons: they were poor when they got here and they're in that first generation, or because they've made stupid choices. They're not going to make less-stupid choices if you give them more money.
Handing people free money may buy you votes but it doesn't make people better off. Note that this is a proven fact: most lottery winners that win enough to never have to work end up POORER than before.
That fact that it's getting warmer doesn't mean people are causing it.
When you stand on the beach, do you believe YOU are causing the tide to come in?
Is it impossible to contemplate letting the free market work?
The pay is shit and drives are suiciding? Well, people KEEP SIGNING UP TO DRIVE, don't they? If it's that bad, and it's just that they're stupid, let them fucking suffer the consequences of their choices.
Seriously, I keep hearing people discussing about how free-market economics doesn't really work anymore...of course it doesn't. Capitalism only succeeds by failures, in the same sense evolution advances from death. Protect people and companies from failure, and that's not capitalism.
It's harder to see the contours of a dark-colored shape (ie a face) than a white one.
Seriously, people, how are we going to get around that?
This is a resolution to initiate a study: the government equivalent of your parents saying "sure, we'll think about it".
That's all.
The anti-repair lobbying money won't start substantially until the study is completed.
And let's be totally candid here. The people cheering this study only look forward to it because they expect to be validated. Largely, they don't want simply to reveal facts...unless those facts agree with them.
What if the study actually determines that the best net economic result is to block private repair? Today's ardent supporters will just say it was rigged anyway.
...and Amazon TOO is a private company: Amazon's facial recognition can identify you as the Cat in the Hat - precisely why would the ACLU have a say in that?
I'd say the ACLU is a shill more specifically as they STATED (http://reason.com/blog/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech?utm_medium=email) that they would evaluate the content of speech before deciding if Free Speech was worth defending.
That's pathetic, given their original credo.
...that the ACLU immediately wades into this, but has been astonishingly silent about Twitter soft-banning a number of Republican lawmakers?
It's a damned shame, I used to respect the ACLU that regardless of politics, was about standing up for constitutionally-guaranteed rights. They'd go to bat for a socialist journalist with the same tenacity that they'd defend a southern white gun owner.
Now they're just another shill of the hard left in this country.
"no nude photos of Anna Kournikova"
Hope springs eternal, I'm not willing to give up the search.
The summary talks about FB being in trouble for NOT DISCLOSING political ads, but then continues about an agreement to restrict filtering ad content by certain protected criteria like race...is it one, the other, or both?
"I'm disappointed that people who were born after the Internet was well-established don't know this by now."
I think it's a corollary to Goedel's Theorem: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) in that you cannot prove a system completely from within that system, I think it's likewise even hard to recognize a system, and to know its rules and bounds accurately, from within that system as well.
Ergo, those of us who grew up before there was a social media see it from outside (which is why we don't generally 'get it' either - I still really don't understand the point of twitter, much less instagram).
Or, perhaps we're just telling the damned kids to get off our lawn. I'm not sure anymore.
"The reason diversity matters is that talented people don't come in a particular gender or skin color. "
I fundamentally agree with you in principle, but the objective proof would seem to suggest otherwise.
Look at most modern companies - whether they're held-over old-economy relics or new-.com-era firms: their massive successes and growth were when? When they were mostly white, mostly male.
Show me a company whose sustained growth curve IMPROVED when they started prioritizing diversity in hiring, and I'll show you ten that didn't improve at all.
And as much as this is commonly laid at the feet of old-worlders, let's recognize that fundamentally it was going to happen at SOME time and the fact that new worlders hadn't much gotten past the stone age was ultimately (if you believe Jared Diamond) the reason they hadn't developed stronger general immunities.
Or perhaps they're transferring money between non faction alts?
I used to do that all the time in WoW.
Last time I was there, German gas was about 1.37 Euro/L.
of that, 0.87 was taxes, not an intrinsically high price of gas.
Remove that, and they're paying about $2 euros a gallon...pretty comparable to US prices without tax.
And the US collected about $45 bn in federal gas taxes last year, while the states collect about another total $70bn each year = about 115bn per year in gas taxes collected.
Considering the Iraq War 2 cost about $1.2 trn (your number) and lasted about 10 years, then pretty much gas taxes paid for it.
Force them?
Last time I checked, only 5 of the 29 members of NATO (you know, our closest allies) meet the 2% goal they PROMISED to meet only 4 years ago (that they promised to meet for the last 50 years).
So, I think your point is baloney.
Also, US now has the largest oil reserves recognized in the world. If the price of oil goes up, the US's strategic situation is IMPROVED.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/En...
...and this is honestly where I think the whole suspicion of media was born.
I don't think it's unreasonable to hear a story about Ireland divesting itself of 'fossil fuel' investments, and wonder, 'how much do they use'?
It certainly wasn't rocket science to look it up. I think it was an Irish gov't website, for pete's (I avoided the easy pun there, you're welcome) sake.
So why isn't the lead story about this asking the simple and obvious question, instead of parroting the gov't line and obviously trying to help them virtue-signal on this?
Nobody trusted Isvestia or Pravda because they were government organs and every story was slanted to support the government. The same is true with ANY media whose bias is clear and pervasive.
I'd also wager that the people who really built those companies and continue to drive them are a) mostly male, b) mostly white, and c) couldn't give much of a shit about a picture of a big titted chick riding a bulldog (or heavens, they might actually like it).
I've found that SJW claims about a company's diversity "needs" rarely have any intersection with recognizing the company's previous success track. If it's success has truly come from hiring 51% women or x% transgender, they'd already be doing it and wouldn't have to keep being told.