Because that could explain how you are so clueless about what's going on.
"Clueless" is what you are: the typical rich, privileged American progressive, who is hiding his greed and entitlement behind a faux concern for "the poor".
And from that you can extrapolate to the lives of millions of other American parents?
Well, most American parents were a lot better off than my parents, just like most American kids were a lot better off than I was growing up. So, yes, I can.
I'm sure you have some more abstract conception of hard work that you think is more profound, but in the context of automation, hard work equates to allotment of calories and manhours.
Read the article on the protestant work ethic.
And neither party in this country believes anything like that. Perhaps your interpretation is different, but in practice, the Republicans and largely the Democrats just blame poor people for their problems, and refuse to help. Your first post implied largely similar sentiments.
You just said it yourself: poor people are trapped in "structural and societal issues that cause cycles of nigh-inescapable poverty." We have had progressive government programs trying to "help" poor people for a century, and not only have they been ineffective, they are actually the cause of these "structural and societal issues"; there is plenty of evidence for that, you simply refuse to see it.
So, your UBI idea is to undercut trained professionals with cheap labor?
Not at all. It is to supplement expensive professionals with cheap labor.
I think what you are talking about is called PRISON
Not at all. Nobody is forcing you to take UBI; you can just as well take a job in the private sector if they prefer, or live off your savings or your girlfriend or whatever.
However, if you are of working age and have no disability, in order to get paid, you should work for it.
A big chunk of the reason we have so much childhood obesity is because parents don't have enough time to cook real food for their children, so they get cheap, quick crap instead of fresh, healthy food.
Both my parents were working when I was growing up and we always had fresh, healthy food. I have fresh, healthy food when I cook for myself.
How does parents working in any way contribute to the child?
Research simply shows this to be the case. There seem to be many different causes.
But, for example, knowing how to put "fresh, healthy food" on the table even if you have a stressful job is something kids learn from their parents. Apparently, you missed out on that.
There are lots of other skills like that: budgeting, money management, savings, deferring gratification, understanding that you need to work before you can have leisure, etc.
I disagree completely. If I need hard work, I'll use a machine or a beast of burden.
Good grief! You don't even know what "hard work" means.
However, Calvinism is big on predestination. If you work hard and God loves you, you will be rich. And if you are a poor and not destined for God's love, you will be destitute.
Which is, of course, the exact opposite of what you were accusing Calvinists of earlier ("rich people are good, and poor people are bad"), since if it is predestined, it isn't a moral failing.
With such logic, the results end up being that ridiculous assumptions are made, such as "the overwhelming majority of people who are poor in the US are poor because they or their parents have made bad choices." If you have that idiotic mindset, you will ignore structural and societal issues that cause cycles of nigh-inescapable poverty.
Of course there are "structural and societal issues that cause cycles of nigh-inescapable poverty": parents make bad choices not because of some moral failings, but because of the bad incentives government has set up for them and because of the lousy education they receive in government schools. It's not the fault of the people who are in poverty, the fault is entirely with the people who keep pushing these bad incentives and throwing more money at our lousy education system.
Let's just take that for the sake of illustration. Yes, there were! Why? Because work is dangerous, so if you work less, you go to the hospital less frequently. So, ideally, we'll just all stay home then?
As for moral rights - moral rights don't exist in nature
Well, if that's your premise, then it follows that you don't have a moral right to demand a basic income, or to be treated equally as a transgendered person.
The individual's right to survival trumps your property rights.
You just said "moral rights don't exist in nature". So where is this "individual right" supposed to come from?
Government employees are required to be covered by workmen's compensation. If you don't like it, try to get the law changed
We are talking about a hypothetical work requirement for UBI; there is no requirements for it yet because it doesn't exist yet. You said that someone needed to pay workman's comp, and I pointed out that for UBI that makes no logical or economic sense.
Also, unlike the US pension plans
CPP contributions are mandatory, which makes it very much unlike a private pension plan. Furthermore, that's your strawman; I simply pointed out that you, overall, have actually likely contributed less financially overall to the rest of society than you have taken from others. Whether that's through bad luck or bad choices, I don't know, though based on how you conduct yourself, I suspect it's the latter.
At one point segregating people of colour was the norm everywhere else in the world.
No, actually it was not. Segregation was limited to only a few countries, foremost the US. And in the US, it was Democrats and progressives who were responsible for it.
That is a repugnant reason to allow injustice to continue.
I'm sorry, you misunderstood. I pointed that out to remind you that sane people around the world don't consider these to be injustices.
Do you see a pattern there? US Democrats and progressives come up with hare-brained, unjust, racist policies, and US conservatives along with most of the rest of the world oppose them.
Of course you don't. Nevertheless, you asked proof for the statement that "show the controlled studies that prove that giving people free stuff results in poverty in the long run", and I did.
There are studies that prove that UBI leaves the majority of people better off, not further into poverty.
Yes, if by "better off" you mean "have a little more money in the short term". That's undisputed: UBI is simply a massive tax increase on above average income earners, and a payout to below average income earners. The question is what the effect on society would be in the long term, and history shows that it would be bad. And that's not even considering the very basic issue that you simply have no moral right to take my stuff or my money just because it would "make you better off".
We have public health care here. 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.
Yes, and none of that applies to the case of UBI recipients working for the government: when they work for the government, they are paid by the government, they are already insured by the government, so the issue of workman's comp is irrelevant; if the government separately paid into workman's comp insurance, it would be paying for their health insurance twice.
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.
That doesn't mean that you paid enough for it. Regulated pension plans are generally set up to redistribute from people who earn more and work their entire life to people like you.
If they need UBI, they also need public health care. So whatever medical care they need will be picked up by the taxpayers.
Now, if there's all this extra work that needs to be done, why aren't people being hired to do it?
Like everything, it's not a binary "need/do not need" decision, it's a cost/benefit decision. A UBI recipient gets paid maybe $8/h; at that price it's worth hiring him. A government worker costs about $30-40/h, and at that price, it's not worth hiring him.
I pointed out that, as a home owner, I would be on the hook through my taxes,... 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.
Don't kid yourself: you have never made a net contribution in taxes over your lifetime.
By far the best environment for kids to grow up in is a stable marriage with one or both parents working. If people want to choose different family structures, that's their business; however, subsidizing single stay-at-home parents is utterly irresponsible: it is bad for the parent and it is even worse for the child.
Also, people are not going to pay taxes so that you can "host book groups". What valuable contribution does you hosting a book club make to society? And how slow a reader are you that you can't do that in addition to a job?
You also seem to think that a UBI is free; it's not. Everybody below a certain income gets some value out of it, everybody above that income needs to pay for it.
Finally, you assume that you can finance a UBI. If tax rates go up substantially, people will switch from regular employment (which is easily taxed) to activities that are hard to tax. If you piss off people sufficiently, they'll just leave: anybody with a good education and/or a high income has lots of options around the globe. So, you won't even be able to collect the taxes to pay for the UBI.
Ok, set UBI to be above the official poverty line and we've solved that first issue.
That doesn't work out fiscally. It also doesn't work out politically, because it would entail massive middle class tax increases, and voters would revolt.
Presumably most people will still want a job
What they want hardly matters; what matters is what they can achieve.
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
I assure you, there is a lot more street cleaning and park maintenance that can be done in addition to what municipal employees are currently doing.
Also, if people are working for UBI, then you'd better treat them the same as regular employees - workmen's comp being a biggie.
They are effectively already insured, so that's not an additional cost either.
Of course, they always have the option of not taking the UBI and working for a private employer.
Great, sounds like you're accepting the conclusions of the paper then, you're just having trouble understanding what they are. Let's look at what they are.
In 2005, Germany massively and permanently cut welfare and unemployment benefits, and imposed strict requirements on recipients. In 2008/2009, Germany temporarily subsidized short term labor during a crisis. The authors conclude that welfare reform resulted in a strong decrease in unemployment in addition to the effect of the subsidies. Separating out these effects is the point of the paper.
I think the problem is you define "poverty" as "not having a 9-5 job".
No, I define it as the current, official poverty line.
What's the point in having out dated skills to pass on to your children?
The "skills" we are talking about here are not JavaScript coding, but skills like deferred gratification, saving and investing, frugality, budgeting, showing up regularly for work, interacting with other people in the workplace, etc. Those skills are never outdated.
America won't apply obvious fixes to countless problems because we think that rich people are good, and poor people are bad. it's a very odd position, given that virtually every religion, Christianity included, strongly suggests the very opposite.
I suggest you read up on the Protestant work ethic. The protestant work ethic is about hard work, discipline and frugality. Those values are as important today as a couple of centuries ago.
It gets in the way of solving rich people being rich because they exploit or cheat, while it prevents helping the poor out
Quite to the contrary: protestantism emphasizes charity. It is progressives that have destroyed charity and community and replaced it with corruption and coercion.
because they can't accept the possibility that someone may be poor due to systematic issues instead of not being pious or hard working.
There certainly is a possibility that someone may be poor due to accident, but that's pretty rare. The protestant view of that is that life isn't fair, so this sort of thing happens, but such people deserve compassion and charity. However, the overwhelming majority of people who are poor in the US are poor because they or their parents have made bad choices.
Furthermore, the post-jobs economy
The post-jobs economy is a mix of delusion, propaganda, and FUD perpetrated by progressives; it isn't happening.
We had exactly that, a UBI of sorts and mandatory employment ( it was even named a 'right' to work).
Unlike you, who seems to be on some drug-induced trip to the USSR, my family spent many years in socialist countries, so I know this crap first hand. The part you're overlooking there is that the USSR (and other socialist countries) lacked a free, private labor market.
In any case, I think a UBI is a lousy idea. I'm just saying that for people who demand a UBI, they ought to explain why people shouldn't at least have to work for that money. That is, if you give people a UBI, they are already state employees, you might as well have them do something.
Slashdot Mirror
"Clueless" is what you are: the typical rich, privileged American progressive, who is hiding his greed and entitlement behind a faux concern for "the poor".
Nope, sorry, not true.
As an immigrant who has lived in half a dozen of those nations, I think I know the evidence quite well.
Well, you obviously have trouble with "basic economics".
If you want to eat, you have to make yourself useful to your fellow human beings, simple as that.
Well, most American parents were a lot better off than my parents, just like most American kids were a lot better off than I was growing up. So, yes, I can.
Read the article on the protestant work ethic.
You just said it yourself: poor people are trapped in "structural and societal issues that cause cycles of nigh-inescapable poverty." We have had progressive government programs trying to "help" poor people for a century, and not only have they been ineffective, they are actually the cause of these "structural and societal issues"; there is plenty of evidence for that, you simply refuse to see it.
Not at all. It is to supplement expensive professionals with cheap labor.
Not at all. Nobody is forcing you to take UBI; you can just as well take a job in the private sector if they prefer, or live off your savings or your girlfriend or whatever.
However, if you are of working age and have no disability, in order to get paid, you should work for it.
Both my parents were working when I was growing up and we always had fresh, healthy food. I have fresh, healthy food when I cook for myself.
Research simply shows this to be the case. There seem to be many different causes.
But, for example, knowing how to put "fresh, healthy food" on the table even if you have a stressful job is something kids learn from their parents. Apparently, you missed out on that.
There are lots of other skills like that: budgeting, money management, savings, deferring gratification, understanding that you need to work before you can have leisure, etc.
Good grief! You don't even know what "hard work" means.
Which is, of course, the exact opposite of what you were accusing Calvinists of earlier ("rich people are good, and poor people are bad"), since if it is predestined, it isn't a moral failing.
Of course there are "structural and societal issues that cause cycles of nigh-inescapable poverty": parents make bad choices not because of some moral failings, but because of the bad incentives government has set up for them and because of the lousy education they receive in government schools. It's not the fault of the people who are in poverty, the fault is entirely with the people who keep pushing these bad incentives and throwing more money at our lousy education system.
Let's just take that for the sake of illustration. Yes, there were! Why? Because work is dangerous, so if you work less, you go to the hospital less frequently. So, ideally, we'll just all stay home then?
Well, if that's your premise, then it follows that you don't have a moral right to demand a basic income, or to be treated equally as a transgendered person.
You just said "moral rights don't exist in nature". So where is this "individual right" supposed to come from?
We are talking about a hypothetical work requirement for UBI; there is no requirements for it yet because it doesn't exist yet. You said that someone needed to pay workman's comp, and I pointed out that for UBI that makes no logical or economic sense.
CPP contributions are mandatory, which makes it very much unlike a private pension plan. Furthermore, that's your strawman; I simply pointed out that you, overall, have actually likely contributed less financially overall to the rest of society than you have taken from others. Whether that's through bad luck or bad choices, I don't know, though based on how you conduct yourself, I suspect it's the latter.
No, actually it was not. Segregation was limited to only a few countries, foremost the US. And in the US, it was Democrats and progressives who were responsible for it.
I'm sorry, you misunderstood. I pointed that out to remind you that sane people around the world don't consider these to be injustices.
Do you see a pattern there? US Democrats and progressives come up with hare-brained, unjust, racist policies, and US conservatives along with most of the rest of the world oppose them.
Of course you don't. Nevertheless, you asked proof for the statement that "show the controlled studies that prove that giving people free stuff results in poverty in the long run", and I did.
Yes, if by "better off" you mean "have a little more money in the short term". That's undisputed: UBI is simply a massive tax increase on above average income earners, and a payout to below average income earners. The question is what the effect on society would be in the long term, and history shows that it would be bad. And that's not even considering the very basic issue that you simply have no moral right to take my stuff or my money just because it would "make you better off".
Yes, and none of that applies to the case of UBI recipients working for the government: when they work for the government, they are paid by the government, they are already insured by the government, so the issue of workman's comp is irrelevant; if the government separately paid into workman's comp insurance, it would be paying for their health insurance twice.
That doesn't mean that you paid enough for it. Regulated pension plans are generally set up to redistribute from people who earn more and work their entire life to people like you.
It's clear enough from the abstract, and if you really care about the details, it takes about 15 seconds to find the PDF.
If they need UBI, they also need public health care. So whatever medical care they need will be picked up by the taxpayers.
Like everything, it's not a binary "need/do not need" decision, it's a cost/benefit decision. A UBI recipient gets paid maybe $8/h; at that price it's worth hiring him. A government worker costs about $30-40/h, and at that price, it's not worth hiring him.
Don't kid yourself: you have never made a net contribution in taxes over your lifetime.
By far the best environment for kids to grow up in is a stable marriage with one or both parents working. If people want to choose different family structures, that's their business; however, subsidizing single stay-at-home parents is utterly irresponsible: it is bad for the parent and it is even worse for the child.
Also, people are not going to pay taxes so that you can "host book groups". What valuable contribution does you hosting a book club make to society? And how slow a reader are you that you can't do that in addition to a job?
You also seem to think that a UBI is free; it's not. Everybody below a certain income gets some value out of it, everybody above that income needs to pay for it.
Finally, you assume that you can finance a UBI. If tax rates go up substantially, people will switch from regular employment (which is easily taxed) to activities that are hard to tax. If you piss off people sufficiently, they'll just leave: anybody with a good education and/or a high income has lots of options around the globe. So, you won't even be able to collect the taxes to pay for the UBI.
That doesn't work out fiscally. It also doesn't work out politically, because it would entail massive middle class tax increases, and voters would revolt.
What they want hardly matters; what matters is what they can achieve.
I assure you, there is a lot more street cleaning and park maintenance that can be done in addition to what municipal employees are currently doing.
They are effectively already insured, so that's not an additional cost either.
Of course, they always have the option of not taking the UBI and working for a private employer.
You're on welfare, aren't you?
Great, sounds like you're accepting the conclusions of the paper then, you're just having trouble understanding what they are. Let's look at what they are.
In 2005, Germany massively and permanently cut welfare and unemployment benefits, and imposed strict requirements on recipients. In 2008/2009, Germany temporarily subsidized short term labor during a crisis. The authors conclude that welfare reform resulted in a strong decrease in unemployment in addition to the effect of the subsidies. Separating out these effects is the point of the paper.
Hence "undefined behavior".
Actually, it's undefined behavior.
On most implementations, it is not true that "C++" > "C", but it is true that "C" < "C++".
You are totally divorced from reality if you think that a society can function that way.
No, I define it as the current, official poverty line.
The "skills" we are talking about here are not JavaScript coding, but skills like deferred gratification, saving and investing, frugality, budgeting, showing up regularly for work, interacting with other people in the workplace, etc. Those skills are never outdated.
I suggest you read up on the Protestant work ethic. The protestant work ethic is about hard work, discipline and frugality. Those values are as important today as a couple of centuries ago.
Quite to the contrary: protestantism emphasizes charity. It is progressives that have destroyed charity and community and replaced it with corruption and coercion.
There certainly is a possibility that someone may be poor due to accident, but that's pretty rare. The protestant view of that is that life isn't fair, so this sort of thing happens, but such people deserve compassion and charity. However, the overwhelming majority of people who are poor in the US are poor because they or their parents have made bad choices.
The post-jobs economy is a mix of delusion, propaganda, and FUD perpetrated by progressives; it isn't happening.
Unlike you, who seems to be on some drug-induced trip to the USSR, my family spent many years in socialist countries, so I know this crap first hand. The part you're overlooking there is that the USSR (and other socialist countries) lacked a free, private labor market.
In any case, I think a UBI is a lousy idea. I'm just saying that for people who demand a UBI, they ought to explain why people shouldn't at least have to work for that money. That is, if you give people a UBI, they are already state employees, you might as well have them do something.