For those who don't understand - any property falls under rent control 5 years after it's first rented. So, new properties aren't rent controlled, and the landlord can raise the price however much they want every year - but of course if they do that, the tenant is going to leave, so that tends to rein in rental increases to a reasonable level - ie: the rate of inflation.
So, build nicer units, get higher initial rents, so there's still an incentive to build.
Or go back to the old ways, like putting signs up. Most people have an idea of where they want to live, so they'll look for places in that neighborhood. Signs work (most real estate sales, the sign attracts a buyer, not ads on the net or mls listings or even newspaper ads).
You are a deplorable human being. But then, we already knew that.
Of course I'm a deplorable human being. We all are. The world would be better without us - we threaten the life of every other animal on the planet. But that's not going to stop me from pointing out that libertarian "I've got mine Jack, so fuck you" assholes and right-wing jerks who think that religion or money justifies their antagonism to those who are not like them, or gives them some divine right to lord it over others, are eventually going to bring about their own demise.
Since you agree that "the law of the jungle" - which basically boils down to the use of force if necessary to preserve life, etc., you can have no objection t UBI taking some of what's yours - by force if necessary. The term is "basic income", not "lap of luxury income."
We as a society will decide this, and we as a society will enforce it by all means necessary. Resistance is ultimately futile.
Don't be a moron. People's health improved - that is why hospital rates went down. Any increase in work-related accidents was more than compensated for by decreases in non-work-related accidents, illnesses, etc.
As I pointed out, moral rights don't exist in nature, so the natural course of action is to take what you need by force (same as animals do). We;ve decided that, in order to avoid that, we've put in place laws and the means to enforce them - by force if necessary, even to the point of killing (police shootings, anyone?). The majority agree with this. When the majority enable the passage of laws wrt UBI, the same rules will apply. If you don't want to cooperate, it will be taken by force.
We clothe this under "morals and ethics", but ultimately it's the majority protecting itself. Same with UBI - far better to have people able to feed and clothe themselves than to have them taking what they need by force. It's in everyone's self-interest.
However, I have NO right to demand that someone change their thinking with regards to transsexuals, just as they have no right to demand that I cease to exist. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - it's the actions that follow (such as discrimination) that count. And that's covered by the force of law.
So, that same legal framework is what gives me the right to demand to be treated equally, and the means to enforce it via the law, which I've done in the past. Again, it boils don to society having an interest in keeping the peace. Better than the dystopian futures we see in so much fiction.
Discrimination based on economic or social circumstances is illegal under both the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms and various provincial human rights codes. If you're being paid to do a job, you cannot be denied the coverage provided by workman's compensation. Only unpaid volunteer work is an exception, because when you're not paid, you're not classified as an employee, and you have complete control over whether you volunteer or not.
And since you want it to be mandatory, that also means that you can't get out of the associated requirements by declaring them "independent contractors". They don't meet the standards for independence, the biggie being having control over what work they take on.
The constitution is quite explicit on discrimination. Now while the constitution allows exceptions for programs to help those who are disadvantaged, including the economically disadvantaged, the courts have already ruled that this does not mean paying them less (or not at all) for work. That is not "ameliorating" their situation - it's clearly exploitative, hence unconstitutional.
Provincial charters are even more determinative - here's section 10 of Quebec's law, which when it was passed was internationally recognized as pretty much the best in the world at the time (1975):
0. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.
Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.
Social condition includes being unemployed. Don't like it, go argue with the judges who ruled that it does.
Section 16 is even more explicit:
No one may practise discrimination in respect of the hiring, apprenticeship, duration of the probationary period, vocational training, promotion, transfer, displacement, laying-off, suspension, dismissal or conditions of employment of a person or in the establishment of categories or classes of employment.
You can't have some employees who are protected by Workman's comp and others who are not - that would be discrimination with respect to conditions of employment. Same as you can't create a class of workers who aren't covered to try to get around the charge of discrimination.
Again, if you don't like it, go change it. But this is the same law that ultimately caused the city to abandon their attempt to get people on the dole to clean up people's shores back in 1982 or so. They would have had to provide the same pay, the same rights, and the same benefits, as a municipal worker doing the same job.
The effects on society were documented in one town in Canada in the 1970s. More children finished school. Fewer visits to the hospitals. Better general health (which helps explain the fewer visits to the hospitals). More adults able to take time off to upgrade their skills and get a better job. More adults able to take time off to go looking for a better job. More mothers staying home with their children during the early years.
The healthier population meant money was saved by the universal public health system. Kids finishing high school meant that the money spent to try to educate them wasn't wasted. It also meant they were more employable, so they could pay more taxes. People who were sick less also didn't lose pay since they weren't sick. And those who were ill could take the time off to get better instead of returning to work prematurely and falling ill again, so more money saved and more taxes collected.
Stealing small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food did not constitute a crime, the court wrote.
"The condition of the defendant and the circumstances in which the seizure of merchandise took place prove that he took possession of that small amount of food in the face of an immediate and essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of necessity," wrote the court.
The individual's right to survival trumps your property rights..
Government employees are required to be covered by workmen's compensation. If you don't like it, try to get the law changed Also, unlike the US pension plans, here they're entirely self-funded, and your pension is based solely on your earnings and the performance of the fund, used to calculate the payment over the rest of your life. Whether you get more than you put into it, plus fund earnings, depends on whether you live longer than the average. That's just the way it works. If I live longer than average, I will get more than I put in it + the fund's earnings on my contribution. If I die earlier, then someone else who lives longer gets that money.
It's the same as any annuity - you might not live long enough to see a dime of what you paid in if you're killed in a car crash the day before it was supposed to start paying out, or you could live long enough to get your money back and then some. That you have a problem with that just shows how much of a jerk you are.
And there's the thing - I don't give a shit. There are studies that prove that UBI leaves the majority of people better off, not further into poverty. Teh German experience was NOT UBI.
We have public health care here. Doesn't mean that employers can get away without paying into the Workman's Compensation fund. Why should the general public subsidize accidents caused by employee's working conditions? Too many claims, their fee goes up. That provides them with an incentive to keep the workplace safe.
Also, the amount of the pension plan payment is based on the individual worker's contributions over their lifetime. The plan is entirely self-financed - no government contributions. It might not be much, but I paid for it.
I know it wasn't a DC because I actually read the articles and the statement from the department of justice. Shame on me for cheating so blatantly, doing a bit of research and using real facts.
They are NOT effectively insured. This whole issue came up when town council wanted to get people on welfare to clean the shoreline for free, only providing a pair of gloves. Turned out, a nice chunk of the shoreline they wanted cleaned was owned by one of the town councilors, who neither mentioned it nor recused himself. I pointed out that, as a home owner, I would be on the hook through my taxes, same as my neighbors and all the other citizens, for any injuries because they were NOT covered by workmen's compensation.
In the end, the guy had to clean his own shoreline, which is how things should be.
Now, if there's all this extra work that needs to be done, why aren't people being hired to do it? Why doesn't he hire someone to clean his shoreline? Maybe where I live now it's the exception, but here the streets are clean, the garbage and recycling are picked up twice a week even on Christmas and New Years, snow gets plowed and hauled away quickly, the parks are clean, and the mayor has been running a contest for residents to find even one pothole large enough for a chicken to nest in. His $10 per pothole reward is safe.
Cross over to the next city, it's easy to find potholes. It's not a question of budget, but that the city next door spends its' money on "other priorities," like spending $20 million tearing down the library to build a "state of the art library" that will be obsolete before it's opened. )Any bets that $20 million figure doubles? It quadrupled for the water treatment plant.)
As for me, my monthly retirement pension cheque was deposited in my account 2 days ago. I had no choice except to retire early for health reasons. Sucks to be me.
Figures don't lie, but liars figure - and that's what you're doing. More than half the people in the country do not work. They can be retired, they can be too young to work, they can be in jail, they can be sick. For every person working, there is now more than 1 person NOT working, who is being supported, either directly or indirectly, by someone who is working. What you define as the "unemployment rate" is irrelevant to that fact.
The "unemployment rate" also is total bullshit because the definition of the work force is a lie that is continually being tweaked to produce "good numbers". As one example, discouraged workers aren't counted, even though when jobs open up, they go back to work. So, why aren't discouraged workers included? The same with people who go back to school or take training because they can't find a job. The only reason they're not working is because they couldn't find a job in the first place - and when a job opens up, they go back to work - and many times the job has nothing to do with their new training.
You've got more people in jail than any other country in the world. Are you going to say that NONE of them would be working if they weren't in jail? They too are part of the pool of potential labour that is under-counted.
Bullshit. Your position is contradicted in the first paragraph
During the crisis, the extended use of short-time labor subsidies that prevent jobs from being destroyed is likely to have prevented strong increases in unemployment.
Those subsidies are "free money" to the company and the worker that receive them, courtesy of the state. It's also why "helicopter money" is being looked at again, with people predicting Japan will give it a try.
Actually, you did say that people should have to work for UBI, and you gave those jobs as examples of work that can be done - but that work is already being done. You haven't given examples of work that needs to be done and isn't being done currently.
Also, if people are working for UBI, then you'd better treat them the same as regular employees - workmen's comp being a biggie. You don't provide adequate training and they hurt themselves, guess who pays?
While SCOTUS has struck down laws limiting anonymous speech, what SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS can take away. Or have you missed the whole current debate over supreme court nominees? Grow up, read the news.
Someone exaggerated. You don't "need connections" to get surgery in another province. Medical coverage is portable across the country. If you can find a surgeon in another province who will do it, no problem.
Still doesn't make it a tail - and that's the point. If someone faxes you a picture of a pizza, you can call it a pizza all you want, but you're going to go hungry. Reality intrudes.
Sure I have. That's political. Police routinely ignore anyone they see toking up. It's not worth the hassle. And it's not hard to find - they just have to follow their noses - that shit stinks.
Slashdot Mirror
"Challenge accepted!" - Microsoft, Mozilla, tons of app store (cr)apps, several bloated antivirus companies ...
Never said anyone makes a library because they're lazy. You're projecting. Again. Try reading it s-l-o-w-l-y. Maybe it will become clear.
For those who don't understand - any property falls under rent control 5 years after it's first rented. So, new properties aren't rent controlled, and the landlord can raise the price however much they want every year - but of course if they do that, the tenant is going to leave, so that tends to rein in rental increases to a reasonable level - ie: the rate of inflation.
So, build nicer units, get higher initial rents, so there's still an incentive to build.
Or go back to the old ways, like putting signs up. Most people have an idea of where they want to live, so they'll look for places in that neighborhood. Signs work (most real estate sales, the sign attracts a buyer, not ads on the net or mls listings or even newspaper ads).
You are a deplorable human being. But then, we already knew that.
Of course I'm a deplorable human being. We all are. The world would be better without us - we threaten the life of every other animal on the planet. But that's not going to stop me from pointing out that libertarian "I've got mine Jack, so fuck you" assholes and right-wing jerks who think that religion or money justifies their antagonism to those who are not like them, or gives them some divine right to lord it over others, are eventually going to bring about their own demise.
Since you agree that "the law of the jungle" - which basically boils down to the use of force if necessary to preserve life, etc., you can have no objection t UBI taking some of what's yours - by force if necessary. The term is "basic income", not "lap of luxury income."
We as a society will decide this, and we as a society will enforce it by all means necessary. Resistance is ultimately futile.
Don't be a moron. People's health improved - that is why hospital rates went down. Any increase in work-related accidents was more than compensated for by decreases in non-work-related accidents, illnesses, etc.
As I pointed out, moral rights don't exist in nature, so the natural course of action is to take what you need by force (same as animals do). We;ve decided that, in order to avoid that, we've put in place laws and the means to enforce them - by force if necessary, even to the point of killing (police shootings, anyone?). The majority agree with this. When the majority enable the passage of laws wrt UBI, the same rules will apply. If you don't want to cooperate, it will be taken by force.
We clothe this under "morals and ethics", but ultimately it's the majority protecting itself. Same with UBI - far better to have people able to feed and clothe themselves than to have them taking what they need by force. It's in everyone's self-interest.
However, I have NO right to demand that someone change their thinking with regards to transsexuals, just as they have no right to demand that I cease to exist. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - it's the actions that follow (such as discrimination) that count. And that's covered by the force of law.
So, that same legal framework is what gives me the right to demand to be treated equally, and the means to enforce it via the law, which I've done in the past. Again, it boils don to society having an interest in keeping the peace. Better than the dystopian futures we see in so much fiction.
Discrimination based on economic or social circumstances is illegal under both the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms and various provincial human rights codes. If you're being paid to do a job, you cannot be denied the coverage provided by workman's compensation. Only unpaid volunteer work is an exception, because when you're not paid, you're not classified as an employee, and you have complete control over whether you volunteer or not.
And since you want it to be mandatory, that also means that you can't get out of the associated requirements by declaring them "independent contractors". They don't meet the standards for independence, the biggie being having control over what work they take on.
The constitution is quite explicit on discrimination. Now while the constitution allows exceptions for programs to help those who are disadvantaged, including the economically disadvantaged, the courts have already ruled that this does not mean paying them less (or not at all) for work. That is not "ameliorating" their situation - it's clearly exploitative, hence unconstitutional.
Provincial charters are even more determinative - here's section 10 of Quebec's law, which when it was passed was internationally recognized as pretty much the best in the world at the time (1975):
0. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.
Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.
Social condition includes being unemployed. Don't like it, go argue with the judges who ruled that it does.
Section 16 is even more explicit:
No one may practise discrimination in respect of the hiring, apprenticeship, duration of the probationary period, vocational training, promotion, transfer, displacement, laying-off, suspension, dismissal or conditions of employment of a person or in the establishment of categories or classes of employment.
You can't have some employees who are protected by Workman's comp and others who are not - that would be discrimination with respect to conditions of employment. Same as you can't create a class of workers who aren't covered to try to get around the charge of discrimination.
Again, if you don't like it, go change it. But this is the same law that ultimately caused the city to abandon their attempt to get people on the dole to clean up people's shores back in 1982 or so. They would have had to provide the same pay, the same rights, and the same benefits, as a municipal worker doing the same job.
The effects on society were documented in one town in Canada in the 1970s. More children finished school. Fewer visits to the hospitals. Better general health (which helps explain the fewer visits to the hospitals). More adults able to take time off to upgrade their skills and get a better job. More adults able to take time off to go looking for a better job. More mothers staying home with their children during the early years.
The healthier population meant money was saved by the universal public health system. Kids finishing high school meant that the money spent to try to educate them wasn't wasted. It also meant they were more employable, so they could pay more taxes. People who were sick less also didn't lose pay since they weren't sick. And those who were ill could take the time off to get better instead of returning to work prematurely and falling ill again, so more money saved and more taxes collected.
As for moral rights - moral rights don't exist in natur Same as a judge in Italy recently ruled that theft is not a crime if you're hungry
Stealing small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food did not constitute a crime, the court wrote. "The condition of the defendant and the circumstances in which the seizure of merchandise took place prove that he took possession of that small amount of food in the face of an immediate and essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of necessity," wrote the court.
The individual's right to survival trumps your property rights..
It's the same as any annuity - you might not live long enough to see a dime of what you paid in if you're killed in a car crash the day before it was supposed to start paying out, or you could live long enough to get your money back and then some. That you have a problem with that just shows how much of a jerk you are.
And there's the thing - I don't give a shit. There are studies that prove that UBI leaves the majority of people better off, not further into poverty. Teh German experience was NOT UBI.
We have public health care here. Doesn't mean that employers can get away without paying into the Workman's Compensation fund. Why should the general public subsidize accidents caused by employee's working conditions? Too many claims, their fee goes up. That provides them with an incentive to keep the workplace safe.
Also, the amount of the pension plan payment is based on the individual worker's contributions over their lifetime. The plan is entirely self-financed - no government contributions. It might not be much, but I paid for it.
I know it wasn't a DC because I actually read the articles and the statement from the department of justice. Shame on me for cheating so blatantly, doing a bit of research and using real facts.
Seriously, you think I'm "grasping at straws?" The Supreme Court has reversed previous Supreme Court decisions 130 times. They also modified the original Roe v Wade decision on a subsequent hearing, and Trump wants them to reverse it.
They are NOT effectively insured. This whole issue came up when town council wanted to get people on welfare to clean the shoreline for free, only providing a pair of gloves. Turned out, a nice chunk of the shoreline they wanted cleaned was owned by one of the town councilors, who neither mentioned it nor recused himself. I pointed out that, as a home owner, I would be on the hook through my taxes, same as my neighbors and all the other citizens, for any injuries because they were NOT covered by workmen's compensation.
In the end, the guy had to clean his own shoreline, which is how things should be.
Now, if there's all this extra work that needs to be done, why aren't people being hired to do it? Why doesn't he hire someone to clean his shoreline? Maybe where I live now it's the exception, but here the streets are clean, the garbage and recycling are picked up twice a week even on Christmas and New Years, snow gets plowed and hauled away quickly, the parks are clean, and the mayor has been running a contest for residents to find even one pothole large enough for a chicken to nest in. His $10 per pothole reward is safe.
Cross over to the next city, it's easy to find potholes. It's not a question of budget, but that the city next door spends its' money on "other priorities," like spending $20 million tearing down the library to build a "state of the art library" that will be obsolete before it's opened. )Any bets that $20 million figure doubles? It quadrupled for the water treatment plant.)
As for me, my monthly retirement pension cheque was deposited in my account 2 days ago. I had no choice except to retire early for health reasons. Sucks to be me.
I don't read the full text of papers behind paywalls. Same as most of us here.
Figures don't lie, but liars figure - and that's what you're doing. More than half the people in the country do not work. They can be retired, they can be too young to work, they can be in jail, they can be sick. For every person working, there is now more than 1 person NOT working, who is being supported, either directly or indirectly, by someone who is working. What you define as the "unemployment rate" is irrelevant to that fact.
The "unemployment rate" also is total bullshit because the definition of the work force is a lie that is continually being tweaked to produce "good numbers". As one example, discouraged workers aren't counted, even though when jobs open up, they go back to work. So, why aren't discouraged workers included? The same with people who go back to school or take training because they can't find a job. The only reason they're not working is because they couldn't find a job in the first place - and when a job opens up, they go back to work - and many times the job has nothing to do with their new training.
You've got more people in jail than any other country in the world. Are you going to say that NONE of them would be working if they weren't in jail? They too are part of the pool of potential labour that is under-counted.
Nobody has said anything about data centers. This wasn't one, and access cards to regular buildings can be faked.
Bullshit. Your position is contradicted in the first paragraph
During the crisis, the extended use of short-time labor subsidies that prevent jobs from being destroyed is likely to have prevented strong increases in unemployment.
Those subsidies are "free money" to the company and the worker that receive them, courtesy of the state. It's also why "helicopter money" is being looked at again, with people predicting Japan will give it a try.
Actually, you did say that people should have to work for UBI, and you gave those jobs as examples of work that can be done - but that work is already being done. You haven't given examples of work that needs to be done and isn't being done currently.
Also, if people are working for UBI, then you'd better treat them the same as regular employees - workmen's comp being a biggie. You don't provide adequate training and they hurt themselves, guess who pays?
The smell leads them to the person who is standing there toking up. No need for a search when the evidence is in plain sight.
While SCOTUS has struck down laws limiting anonymous speech, what SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS can take away. Or have you missed the whole current debate over supreme court nominees? Grow up, read the news.
Someone exaggerated. You don't "need connections" to get surgery in another province. Medical coverage is portable across the country. If you can find a surgeon in another province who will do it, no problem.
Still doesn't make it a tail - and that's the point. If someone faxes you a picture of a pizza, you can call it a pizza all you want, but you're going to go hungry. Reality intrudes.
Sure I have. That's political. Police routinely ignore anyone they see toking up. It's not worth the hassle. And it's not hard to find - they just have to follow their noses - that shit stinks.