Translation is: for every person on UBI there will be at least one robot doing the work for him, kinda. So no person will work instead of a jobless person. It will be a robot. Are we already contemplating robot's rights and call them people?
No, you're missing the point. Unless you can just go down the street and ask for a free burger and everybody from the farm to the restaurant is completely automatic, (which it isn't) then you're essentially asking that somebody, somewhere along the supply chain to do their job for free. That is the slavery part.
As for the bigger picture; does automation cost a job somewhere? In the long term it's not likely, and so far, there hasn't ever been a long-term loss in jobs as a result of it. The scale that we automate some things often means either it's somehow automated, or it just doesn't get done. For example, the word "computer" used to refer to a person, not a machine, whereas now it's universally in reference to a machine. Do you think everybody that owns a computer would hire a personal assistant? Of course not. Either they'd do the work manually, or just not have it done at all. The otherwise manual work also has the side effect of giving you more free time, and more free time means you're more likely to do or want other things, which often means spending money on other things that you otherwise wouldn't (i.e. entertainment,) which means the economy grows in a way that it couldn't before. In addition to that, when you're able to do things that are otherwise impractical, you're also building value for the economy by creating things that are otherwise impractical. This also scales to business entities in addition to individuals, and it's why overall when a job is eliminated due to technology, we end up with more jobs somewhere else at a later date.
Will that continue indefinitely? Who knows; nobody has a crystal ball. But so far, there isn't any kind of proof or hard evidence (mathematical or otherwise) that this is going to end any time soon, rather just a lot of conjecture and hypothetical scenarios. (Likewise, UBI is trying to solve a problem that nobody is sure will ever happen.) When somebody loses a job due to a technology change, we call that frictional unemployment, and it's nothing new. We might see more frictional unemployment now than in the past, but there are reasons for that (for example, there's a lot of disruption in the tech sector as of the last two decades.)
And sure, if it's your thing, you can argue all you want about how economists' predictions are always wrong and all of that, (as is common on slashdot) but if you do, then there's really no point in discussing UBI to begin with because you'd be making the same kind of prediction that economists do.
Please, they wouldn't have otherwise as the expansion is now relatively cheap BECAUSE OF SUBSIDIES. You don't think they're paying 100% out of pocket for this shit, do you? Even the Berniecrats are more pragmatic than you Paultards.
And where do these subsidies come from? Oh that's right, they tax it from the carrier. Sure, the carrier passes that cost on to you, but ultimately what's the difference? Every company ultimately passes its taxes on to its customers.
I dunno, it seems to me that at least in the case of the wireless industry, you have Verizon trying to make its services available where few people go in order to prove that it is providing a premium service for a premium price, while T-Mobile is trying to prove that it can provide the same services at a lower price.
Seems like good ol' fashioned competition to me.
Regulation, in many cases, does the opposite. Patents and copyrights are basically a form of regulation, with the former often inhibiting new, disruptive technologies hitting the market because somebody thought of a similar idea with a poor implementation.
either on a narrow scale or on a wide scale. if you subsidize shiftlessness eventually nobody works and everybody dies.
This bears repeating. At some point I'm wondering if the goal of all of this is just to make it so that nobody has to do anything to sustain themselves, as if they have the right to make somebody else do it for them. We did do this in the past, and it was called slavery.
Besides, this whole UBI concept won't even work anyways. You're just going to move the store of value from one place (sitting in somebody's bank account or investment portfolio) and to the pockets of everybody else. That doesn't do anything to alter the allocation of material goods. I explained this pretty well a few days ago:
I'll be throwing a big "I told you so" when its observed that UBI only temporarily solves some problems while providing no long-term benefit and creating additional long-term problems.
The point of UBI is that you no longer has to live near a major city to make a living. More people can go live in lower cost of living parts of the country when they have a passive income.
Nobody has to live near a major city to make a living as it is. Nobody, period.
The reason people do it is because you can be within close proximity of nice things. But as with all nice things, the nicer they are, the more people want them (and the more people want them, the more they pay for them.) This is why many people work in New York City on minimum wage, when it would be MUCH easier to live someplace like Houston, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and other low cost cities on their respective minimum wages.
The reason that the housing cost wouldn't go up is because of the limit amount of UBI. The amount given should be just enough to live by with purchasing food and necessities (possibly help the accommodation cost).
This amount is supposed to go everybody, right? Because it's universal, right? If so, then let's suppose then that it's about $400 a month (even that wouldn't be enough in SF, but let's suppose it is.) The person already living there already makes more than enough to feed themselves, or else they wouldn't be living in such a high cost area. Meanwhile, they now have an additional $400 a month. Since they already have the basics, they'll spend that on whatever, including rent, everyday goods, etc.
Given a lot of people in California tend to like to live paycheck to paycheck, these people are likely spending every dime of income they have. That inevitably means the demand for goods (and housing costs) will inevitably increase.
Remember: If SF didn't already have such a high money supply, housing prices wouldn't be anywhere near as sky high as they are. And you are, without a doubt, increasing the money supply by doing this.
It's true that the cost of higher end housing would probably increase in SF because everyone living there would now have more money, but most of the people who stay can probably afford it anyway. To put it another way, it doesn't matter if the cost of housing in SF increases because the people who can't afford it (right now even) would have greater opportunity to leave and spend time finding a job somewhere else. Moving and job searching take time and money. This is what UBI offers.
That would only apply if the person wants to stay there basically forever. And even then, that still wouldn't work if they are renting. Eventually other properties in the area will rent for higher and the landlord will likewise want to increase their rent. Depending on the tax situation, it could even apply to owners as well.
Spam is just nuisance, and therefore noise. Eliminating it in the broader sense gives you better signal-to-noise, which is always good. And, it's one thing to do it to preserve the network itself, which it sounds like this was, but it's a whole other thing to do it just because you disagree with the content being delivered.
Based on what? Phoenix's cost of living is roughly the same as the average of the whole US, and I had no problem at all living by myself on $25k earlier in this decade. The mortgage on the house I lived in at the time (3 bedroom, ~1,600 square feet) was about $500 a month, which was livable even on a single income minimum wage.
I wouldn't want him to take advice from Volvo mainly because Volvo as a brand is close to the bottom when it comes to reliability, which means their quality control is likely crap. I'd say they Toyota would be a better bet because they've been consistently at the top for years.
Furthermore, I think he's right to not want anything to do with UAW; they have a looooooooooong history of corruption, even making shady deals at the expense of their own dues-paying members.
The solution is easy, to build more housing. San Francisco and the surrounding region is extremely anti-new-housing. That's why it's so expensive to find a place here.
I've got an even easier solution: Live about 100 miles away and commute.
Though honestly, that's not realistic. Sure, SF can alleviate the housing problem by building more dense housing, but that isn't going to solve the problem of one person wanting to live in the same place at the same time as somebody else. You can build more houses, and you might even be able to build houses on top of houses, but you just can't build more land.
Nobody's talking about increasing the money supply, they're talking about shuffling it around. And as the money is representative of material goods, that's equivalent to shuffling the material goods around too, which is the entire point of the exercise.
It's still increasing the money supply just the same.
Think about it: If you were strapped for cash, would you be more inclined to move to a more expensive house? Of course not, you'd be more inclined to either stay where you are, or find a less expensive house. Now, suppose we decide to take a billion dollars away from Bill Gates and distribute it to one thousand people in San Francisco, giving them an additional $100,000 over what they might already have in their possession. Bill Gates isn't likely to sell any of the properties he owns as a result of that, however now we have a lot more people in SF that might decide they want to upgrade their living conditions. The price of housing has now gone up because a lot more potential consumers now have more money.
Now imagine doing this with everybody in SF. And indeed, this isn't just going to happen with houses; this will also happen with more everyday things like the price of food. The fact is, you're more likely to buy more stuff when you have more money, and when the demand for goods increases, the price tends to go up with it. Meanwhile, the few wealthier people that you're taking this money away from probably aren't going to be consuming less, so it isn't balancing out somewhere else. This is primarily because wealthy people tend to sit on a lot of cash, and when somebody sits on cash, that cash isn't circulating and isn't being spent.
A perfect analogy is how the value of gold dropped when the conquistadors brought it over to Europe.
Either way, the fundamental problem with the concept of UBI is that it assumes money can always turn have-nots into haves, and we've already seen examples of when that doesn't work (the Weimar Republic comes to mind.) Wealth comes from material goods, not from money, and increasing the money supply doesn't do anything to create more material goods, instead it just increases the amount you pay for those goods.
Where I think UBI is really going to sting (if implemented) is housing costs. San Francisco is a perfect example of how increasing the money supply in a given area doesn't actually solve homelessness, and instead just makes it that much harder and more costly to find a place to live, including for those that already have a place to live and have an actual job. The reason why is because if you suddenly give people more money, they'll start to outbid one another for the same real estate, and no amount of automation will solve that.
The same will also happen for less finite material goods, though it will be a little less obvious how this occurs. If everything really was automated and you eliminated labor from the equation from common goods (which UBI proponents assume will eventually happen,) then it will ultimately come down to who can pay the most for given raw materials (i.e. iron, gold, etc.)
It doesn't bother me at all. Some whiners complain about not being able to charge the phone and listen to music at the same time. Hell, I'm rocking my tunes and posting this from my new iPhone as we speak. I don't see what the b
Yeah, I feel your pain. I have to use an iphone for work, and I really hate where they put the "send" button so that it's easy to accidentally send emails and other messages when you haven't finished writing them yet.
Thankfully, we're looking at adopting a BYOD program and I'll be able to use my Nexus 6P.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it will be all automatic some day. How can you even argue about it? Your points are terrible.
Ah; so the future is certain, so sayeth your crystal ball.
Carry on then.
Translation is: for every person on UBI there will be at least one robot doing the work for him, kinda. So no person will work instead of a jobless person. It will be a robot. Are we already contemplating robot's rights and call them people?
No, you're missing the point. Unless you can just go down the street and ask for a free burger and everybody from the farm to the restaurant is completely automatic, (which it isn't) then you're essentially asking that somebody, somewhere along the supply chain to do their job for free. That is the slavery part.
As for the bigger picture; does automation cost a job somewhere? In the long term it's not likely, and so far, there hasn't ever been a long-term loss in jobs as a result of it. The scale that we automate some things often means either it's somehow automated, or it just doesn't get done. For example, the word "computer" used to refer to a person, not a machine, whereas now it's universally in reference to a machine. Do you think everybody that owns a computer would hire a personal assistant? Of course not. Either they'd do the work manually, or just not have it done at all. The otherwise manual work also has the side effect of giving you more free time, and more free time means you're more likely to do or want other things, which often means spending money on other things that you otherwise wouldn't (i.e. entertainment,) which means the economy grows in a way that it couldn't before. In addition to that, when you're able to do things that are otherwise impractical, you're also building value for the economy by creating things that are otherwise impractical. This also scales to business entities in addition to individuals, and it's why overall when a job is eliminated due to technology, we end up with more jobs somewhere else at a later date.
Will that continue indefinitely? Who knows; nobody has a crystal ball. But so far, there isn't any kind of proof or hard evidence (mathematical or otherwise) that this is going to end any time soon, rather just a lot of conjecture and hypothetical scenarios. (Likewise, UBI is trying to solve a problem that nobody is sure will ever happen.) When somebody loses a job due to a technology change, we call that frictional unemployment, and it's nothing new. We might see more frictional unemployment now than in the past, but there are reasons for that (for example, there's a lot of disruption in the tech sector as of the last two decades.)
And sure, if it's your thing, you can argue all you want about how economists' predictions are always wrong and all of that, (as is common on slashdot) but if you do, then there's really no point in discussing UBI to begin with because you'd be making the same kind of prediction that economists do.
Please, they wouldn't have otherwise as the expansion is now relatively cheap BECAUSE OF SUBSIDIES. You don't think they're paying 100% out of pocket for this shit, do you? Even the Berniecrats are more pragmatic than you Paultards.
And where do these subsidies come from? Oh that's right, they tax it from the carrier. Sure, the carrier passes that cost on to you, but ultimately what's the difference? Every company ultimately passes its taxes on to its customers.
I dunno, it seems to me that at least in the case of the wireless industry, you have Verizon trying to make its services available where few people go in order to prove that it is providing a premium service for a premium price, while T-Mobile is trying to prove that it can provide the same services at a lower price.
Seems like good ol' fashioned competition to me.
Regulation, in many cases, does the opposite. Patents and copyrights are basically a form of regulation, with the former often inhibiting new, disruptive technologies hitting the market because somebody thought of a similar idea with a poor implementation.
Paper and fireworks also come to mind. Communist revolutions aren't so glorious...Except to the dictators that inevitably run them.
It IS "work or die"
either on a narrow scale or on a wide scale. if you subsidize shiftlessness eventually nobody works and everybody dies.
This bears repeating. At some point I'm wondering if the goal of all of this is just to make it so that nobody has to do anything to sustain themselves, as if they have the right to make somebody else do it for them. We did do this in the past, and it was called slavery.
Besides, this whole UBI concept won't even work anyways. You're just going to move the store of value from one place (sitting in somebody's bank account or investment portfolio) and to the pockets of everybody else. That doesn't do anything to alter the allocation of material goods. I explained this pretty well a few days ago:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
https://slashdot.org/comments....
https://slashdot.org/comments....
I'll be throwing a big "I told you so" when its observed that UBI only temporarily solves some problems while providing no long-term benefit and creating additional long-term problems.
That's still $2.9 trillion.
The point of UBI is that you no longer has to live near a major city to make a living. More people can go live in lower cost of living parts of the country when they have a passive income.
Nobody has to live near a major city to make a living as it is. Nobody, period.
The reason people do it is because you can be within close proximity of nice things. But as with all nice things, the nicer they are, the more people want them (and the more people want them, the more they pay for them.) This is why many people work in New York City on minimum wage, when it would be MUCH easier to live someplace like Houston, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and other low cost cities on their respective minimum wages.
The reason that the housing cost wouldn't go up is because of the limit amount of UBI. The amount given should be just enough to live by with purchasing food and necessities (possibly help the accommodation cost).
This amount is supposed to go everybody, right? Because it's universal, right? If so, then let's suppose then that it's about $400 a month (even that wouldn't be enough in SF, but let's suppose it is.) The person already living there already makes more than enough to feed themselves, or else they wouldn't be living in such a high cost area. Meanwhile, they now have an additional $400 a month. Since they already have the basics, they'll spend that on whatever, including rent, everyday goods, etc.
Given a lot of people in California tend to like to live paycheck to paycheck, these people are likely spending every dime of income they have. That inevitably means the demand for goods (and housing costs) will inevitably increase.
Remember: If SF didn't already have such a high money supply, housing prices wouldn't be anywhere near as sky high as they are. And you are, without a doubt, increasing the money supply by doing this.
It's true that the cost of higher end housing would probably increase in SF because everyone living there would now have more money, but most of the people who stay can probably afford it anyway. To put it another way, it doesn't matter if the cost of housing in SF increases because the people who can't afford it (right now even) would have greater opportunity to leave and spend time finding a job somewhere else. Moving and job searching take time and money. This is what UBI offers.
That would only apply if the person wants to stay there basically forever. And even then, that still wouldn't work if they are renting. Eventually other properties in the area will rent for higher and the landlord will likewise want to increase their rent. Depending on the tax situation, it could even apply to owners as well.
Spam is just nuisance, and therefore noise. Eliminating it in the broader sense gives you better signal-to-noise, which is always good. And, it's one thing to do it to preserve the network itself, which it sounds like this was, but it's a whole other thing to do it just because you disagree with the content being delivered.
He'll moo at them? I've seen some cows who appear, at first blush, smarter than our current president ,but I don't think you can tweet with hooves.
That...can't be true...we have many demons in Washington, and they manage to type with hooves all the time.
The US doesn't want that little weasel. Nobody does, really, except for Sweden.
That's true almost everywhere in the US.
Based on what? Phoenix's cost of living is roughly the same as the average of the whole US, and I had no problem at all living by myself on $25k earlier in this decade. The mortgage on the house I lived in at the time (3 bedroom, ~1,600 square feet) was about $500 a month, which was livable even on a single income minimum wage.
I wouldn't want him to take advice from Volvo mainly because Volvo as a brand is close to the bottom when it comes to reliability, which means their quality control is likely crap. I'd say they Toyota would be a better bet because they've been consistently at the top for years.
Furthermore, I think he's right to not want anything to do with UAW; they have a looooooooooong history of corruption, even making shady deals at the expense of their own dues-paying members.
Historically, the media tends to give a free "ends justify the means" pass to politicians that they like.
VPN may not solve that. It really depends on who your VPN provider's ISP is. The only sure way around this is by using tor.
Filtering on your own end is fine for security purposes, but we can't have peering broken or else the whole thing just won't work.
That isn't the point; in fact, add another zero to that figure if you'd like.
That's the fundamental flaw in your train of thought. You think about accumulation of wealth when essentially, all that will enable is consumption.
You don't understand my train of thought at all. See my previous post.
Our current main problem is certainly not a shortage of goods or services.
Until you increase the demand for both while reducing the supply of both, which is definitely possible under UBI.
Sorry I messed that up; ten thousand people rather.
The solution is easy, to build more housing. San Francisco and the surrounding region is extremely anti-new-housing. That's why it's so expensive to find a place here.
I've got an even easier solution: Live about 100 miles away and commute.
Though honestly, that's not realistic. Sure, SF can alleviate the housing problem by building more dense housing, but that isn't going to solve the problem of one person wanting to live in the same place at the same time as somebody else. You can build more houses, and you might even be able to build houses on top of houses, but you just can't build more land.
Nobody's talking about increasing the money supply, they're talking about shuffling it around. And as the money is representative of material goods, that's equivalent to shuffling the material goods around too, which is the entire point of the exercise.
It's still increasing the money supply just the same.
Think about it: If you were strapped for cash, would you be more inclined to move to a more expensive house? Of course not, you'd be more inclined to either stay where you are, or find a less expensive house. Now, suppose we decide to take a billion dollars away from Bill Gates and distribute it to one thousand people in San Francisco, giving them an additional $100,000 over what they might already have in their possession. Bill Gates isn't likely to sell any of the properties he owns as a result of that, however now we have a lot more people in SF that might decide they want to upgrade their living conditions. The price of housing has now gone up because a lot more potential consumers now have more money.
Now imagine doing this with everybody in SF. And indeed, this isn't just going to happen with houses; this will also happen with more everyday things like the price of food. The fact is, you're more likely to buy more stuff when you have more money, and when the demand for goods increases, the price tends to go up with it. Meanwhile, the few wealthier people that you're taking this money away from probably aren't going to be consuming less, so it isn't balancing out somewhere else. This is primarily because wealthy people tend to sit on a lot of cash, and when somebody sits on cash, that cash isn't circulating and isn't being spent.
A perfect analogy is how the value of gold dropped when the conquistadors brought it over to Europe.
Either way, the fundamental problem with the concept of UBI is that it assumes money can always turn have-nots into haves, and we've already seen examples of when that doesn't work (the Weimar Republic comes to mind.) Wealth comes from material goods, not from money, and increasing the money supply doesn't do anything to create more material goods, instead it just increases the amount you pay for those goods.
Where I think UBI is really going to sting (if implemented) is housing costs. San Francisco is a perfect example of how increasing the money supply in a given area doesn't actually solve homelessness, and instead just makes it that much harder and more costly to find a place to live, including for those that already have a place to live and have an actual job. The reason why is because if you suddenly give people more money, they'll start to outbid one another for the same real estate, and no amount of automation will solve that.
The same will also happen for less finite material goods, though it will be a little less obvious how this occurs. If everything really was automated and you eliminated labor from the equation from common goods (which UBI proponents assume will eventually happen,) then it will ultimately come down to who can pay the most for given raw materials (i.e. iron, gold, etc.)
It doesn't bother me at all. Some whiners complain about not being able to charge the phone and listen to music at the same time. Hell, I'm rocking my tunes and posting this from my new iPhone as we speak. I don't see what the b
Yeah, I feel your pain. I have to use an iphone for work, and I really hate where they put the "send" button so that it's easy to accidentally send emails and other messages when you haven't finished writing them yet.
Thankfully, we're looking at adopting a BYOD program and I'll be able to use my Nexus 6P.