It's not hard for you. it's not hard for me, either. So, let's agree that we're not talking about you or me (although I was in Federal Prison for 9 years).
Many of these people have never used a computer before. Some have only used public access computers (like those in a library), often only for things like YouTube and maybe email. Many of these people are elderly. Some of these people have learning disabilities.
I was locked up with Walter Forbes and John and Tim Rigas. We're not talking about those guys' families. We're talking about the families of guys who dropped out of high school, don't have GEDs, and wound up in prison because they were trying to make money illegally and got caught.
Prisoners typically have access to only one service provider for telephone/videophone/email services. The providers are all profiteers. They can easily provide cheaper services, but their motivation is to pursue monopoly pricing. Some inmates have had success with Google numbers, but others complain of poor sound quality.
There used to be several number selling companies that would sell local numbers to prisoners' families (which made calls cheaper), but a lot of them went out of business when FCC capped prices on long distance calls. Maybe they'll come back now to provide long distance numbers? Probably not enough volume of business to make it worthwhile.
It's not the lawyers, it's the families. Many of them struggle with technical issues, and almost all of them struggle with cost issues. Many inmates rely on their families to send them the money to make calls to maintain family ties. This makes that much harder.
Okay, IANAL, and all of that. However, when I was locked up the Feds provided us a subscription to a periodical called the Criminal Law Review. This gave summaries of cases and decisions with potential import for inmates who had appeals running. There were several types of cases that I always read; one of these was cases that involved the use of confidential informants, another was attempted entrapment defense.
In all of the cases of these two types that I ever read, I don't remember any Federal Appeals Court ruling that receiving money from the cops made an informant an agent of the state. This has strong implications for both wrongful convictions (dudes will finger somebody they have never even seen for a reward or a sentence cut) and for entrapment (once a government agent is involved in instigating a crime, the courts have a test called the "but for" test which is a whole other kettle of fish).
I do think there was a guy on a trumped up terrorism charge that got a favorable ruling a year or two ago, but I don't remember the details, so things might be changing. I haven't had access to research materials for a year, now.
Beyond that, your last sentence was "Informants that gain something after they obtain information are not considered agents." Isn't that exactly what happened in the case in question? The Geek guys found the child porn and notified the FBI, then they got rewards.
Put in 02-278 and it should fill in the text portion of the proceeding name and show the proceeding name in a suggest box. Click on that. Hit enter (you have to hit enter after every entry). Email is optional, but you have to enter it if you want them to email you a confirmation of your submission. Fill out the required boxes and put your comment in the bottom box. Click the "Continue to Review Screen" button, submit.
I'm going to work on the assumption this is a serious view and not a troll.
First, monks = volunteers. This implies that the people in this environment are at least somewhat open, questing, seeking. This is an entirely different mindset than that found in the vast majority of inmates. Also, monks = vetted. This indicates that the people running the monastery are convinced that the candidate is both ready and capable of achieving the desired growth.
Second, as to 'more entertaining being better', that was not my point. I said we don't have prisons like the Nordic countries.
Having said that, there IS evidence that more entertaining is better. BOP knows this. BOP constantly has to balance the costs of incarceration with the security of the institution. When conditions get too bad, guards start getting assaulted. This is a huge problem for the BOP. Some of those guards wind up on disability forever. Conditions get bad enough, now you have a riot. People get hurt, more costs, both financial and human.
They can't lock everybody up in no-human-contact cells, and they can't afford enough guards to staff all prisons like Highs. The only way to keep the guards safe (and to a less extent the inmates) is to keep a bearable quality of life.
Also, it's humane. Think about that.
Also, I suggest you consider the incentives you are setting for future criminals with every change to the penal system. More severe penalties (which a more unpleasant prison system surely represents) will incentivize some potential criminals NOT to offend. That's good. But you will also incentivize some criminals who are desperate (as I was when I offended) to resist surrender, or worse, remove their incentive to leave witnesses alive. This is a serious issue, and I think people don't think about it enough.
Beyond that, I don't think entertaining is necessarily a worthy target. The biggest challenge most ex-cons face upon release (those determined not to go back, that is) is supporting themselves. Most jobs are not for us. We talk a lot about people deserving a second chance, but we don't really want to be the one to give that second chance. Someone ELSE can do that. So, you want a worthy target for your prisons? How about realistic job training?
Welders, plumbers, bricklayers, electricians. No shortage of jobs, there. Instead, one federal prison maintains a training program for accounting. Who are all of these companies looking to hire recently released felons for their accounting department? Don't even get me started on the 'phantom' programs, training programs on the books that have had no participants for >5 years, or programs that process everybody in the prison and everyone in the program graduates with an A, guys who literally cannot read passing a computer literacy program with an A on their first try. My prison started a program to train people to repair fiber optic cables, a really good program. From a population of 1400 inmates, they were graduating 6 people a year. I tried to get in but I was too far from release. I tried to get into the next class, but I was too close to release.
Sorry this went so long. I am a reentering felon and I am struggling. I take some of this too personally. Anyway, I wish you well.
First, I didn't say the Nordic countries were doing anything right, that was somebody else.
I believe SCOTUS found that there was no constitutional right to rehabilitation
No, you're right, I misspoke. I smashed two things together in my head and didn't clearly articulate them. Sorry, my bad. The problem is that once they decided that, BOP no longer had to pretend to try to rehab inmates. Programs that were not seen as immediately beneficial to BOP were gutted. Because of this quality of life deteriorated markedly (inmates suffer tremendous boredom and programming is one of the ways they fight it; less programming = more boredom = more bad shit like gambling, fights, and yard politics).
Finally, BOP Minimums (called 'camps') are NOTHING like nordic prisons. Inmates sleep in open bays, the food sucks, there is little recreation opportunity. The only things inmates like about camps is the contraband. It is easy to get cellphones, alcohol, pornography, drugs, and outside food. Also, if your woman lives nearby or can travel you can get laid. Alternatively, there are hookers that service some of the camps, but I hear that's rare. In real life, some guys intentionally get caught doing something to get sent back up to the Low. Camps are not equivalent to nordic prisons.
As a former offender my problem with algorithmic sentencing stems from the perceived (by me) likelihood that once the algorithm is accepted it will be corrupted and used as a justification for ever-longer sentences for more and more mundane offenses.
Previous examples of similar fuckery (in the Federal System) include the definition of weapons of mass destruction, the conspiracy statute, and the entrapment defense.
I also do not believe that algorithms are robust enough to accept and properly weight the vast array of mitigating evidence that can apply to any messy, chaotic human life. Aggravating factors are much simpler, and indeed many are already encoded in the sentencing guidelines and statutes.
Lawyer: Look, the alogorithm will give you a lower sentence if you get a haircut, get your fellow gang member to produce a fake job for you, and hide your constant drunkeness.
Many victims report feeling vindication and a sense of closure from the 'retribution' component of sentencing. Maybe we as a society owe that to them.
I was a bad guy, and as much as I didn't want to spend a single extra day in prison, it would be hard for me to say my victims didn't deserve at least some of those feelings.
and we imprison and rehabilitate low risk prisoners there.
Again, no. 1987 the SCOTUS found that there was no rehabilitation component of federal incarceration and many of the programs were gutted. Some people believe that RDAP is an attempt to reintroduce rehabilitation. When they talk to people who go through the program they stop thinking that.
Sure, but there are way fewer appeals of sentence for inappropriate leniency than for inappropriate harshness. Most prosecutors know (although they often will not admit) that if a defendant beats a charge, he's much more likely to re-offend and get caught again, which gives the government another chance. Especially a defendant with multiple previous charges. The things that motivated him to criminal activity aren't going away.
A defendant who gets smacked in the head with a big number, though, is highly motivated to get an adjustment. And, to an extent, I agree with him. I think that over-punishing is much worse than under-punishing (and yeah, I get how self serving that seems as an ex-convict). When you under-punish, somebody gets away with something, but then they probably go right back to what they were doing and get sucked in again. When you over-punish, it seems a little like punishing someone who is at least a little bit innocent. I hate that.
Disclosure: My sentence was extremely fair and moderate, 130 months incarceration and 60 months of supervised release (probation).
If you report a bug to Google and get a bounty, that doesn't make you a Google employee. If you find and report child pornography to the Feds and collect a reward, it doesn't make you a cop ("agent of the government").
It's not so much that they are "paying people to go on fishing expeditions", as that they are buying the fish when the boat gets back to shore. This probably reduces the agency in the relationship.
Probably the government's position will be that they were not in the direct employ of the gov. They were private actors and received bounties for their efforts. This is their stance on confidential informants in drug cases, conspiacy cases and in some entrapment cases.
Paying bounties is very different than employing. Not sayin' it's right. Just sayin' the Feds have a history of this. Many, many confidential informants receive money for their work, but they're not agents of the state in court.
I was locked up with a pedophile in Allenwood PA who was arrested and convicted based on child pornography found during an illegal search conducted by a third party. This is the third party search doctrine. When a non-government employee discovers something illegal, through illegal means, he can report it to the authorities and they can use that evidence. The Fourth Amendment protects you from illegal governmental search, not illegal search generally.
If a burglar breaks into your basement and finds a woman you have kidnapped and calls the police, you are cooked regardless of how she was found.
There is a real question of when the BB guys become agents of the government, but prior decisions along this line are not encouraging.
As far as using this in court, this probably looks like one of those really easy cases. Tons of precedent for third-party search and CI not proving agency. What will this judge say? Who knows, but from cases I've read before, this guy is probably going to prison.
As someone who has read literally dozens of cases of guys convicted using the testimony of Confidential Informants, I disagree. In the federal system, at least, there is lots of precedent that CIs are NOT agents of the government, in spite of acting at their behest, being paid by them, and being strongly incentivized to produce convictions. There is a similar issue at play in the use of the federal conspiracy statute.
Incorrect assessment of the agency relationship is one of the biggest problems with the War on Drugs, as currently administered. There is a little variability from district to district, and the States' systems are obviously a whole other kettle of fish, but please don't spread misinformation.
You might also profitably read about the third-party search doctrine. It is extremely relevant in child pornography cases.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me you are thinking of the situation that the proposed law is suggesting.
I think we have to try to think of the situations they are not talking about, too. Like, if a police department decides to disperse a number of peaceful demonstrators. The scene commander turns on the 'repellent' right before the tear gas shells come out. Now there's no aerial footage of what actually happened. Even if they don't turn it on, some drone operators will not have their drones overhead because of a fear of losing the drone (a so-called "chilling effect").
I just think this is a deeper question than the proposed law implies.
Because the FOIA request is how people (us) prove that the government (the cops) didn't stay inside the rules. This is what gives them an incentive to only use their powers as they were intended.
Your "... just as long as they are not out using it on a whim and the destroyed drone is someplace it's not allowed..." requirement is basically sound, I guess. I would press for a little more freedom from oversight, myself, but, whatever. The problem is that you can't just trust them to follow the rules you and they agreed upon. One of the best methods we have developed to assure compliance is the FOIA, where the citizens get to make the government rat themselves out with their own records. It works surprisingly well.
As far as effectiveness, I think it might work on the stupid bad guys. Truly smart/intelligent bad actors will just disable the systems or build drones from scratch without them. So, maybe this works for jackasses unintentionally impeding emergency workers, but in exchange for that we lose a lot of the potential for drones to help fight abuses of power.
I think it's a balancing act, and I don't think we know enough yet to make wise laws.
I agree with everything you said except for the part about the prices of ICE cars coming down. This would be likely in the very beginning of the process, but would soon choke itself out.
Cars from modern factories have huge fixed costs behind them. They are only affordable because there are so many sold and those fixed costs get split up among all of those cars. When fewer cars are made/sold, each car has to account for more of the fixed costs. With a sizable and long-term decrease in demand, the car manufacturers run out of room in their pricing and start to lose money. If they can't get their costs down (which I don't think they could do), the curve hockey-sticks and bang, they're screwed.
This is aggravated by the same process happening in all of the complimentary and support industries. Gas stations, oil change stores, even to some extent used parts stores start to struggle and consolidation begins. Each of these services is now harder to find, which makes car ownership look even less attractive, which is another gut-shot to the automaker's demand. I think THIS is the problem, especially the gas stations.
Are Europeans suffering rising wealth distribution inequity as much as the US? It seems possible to me that as more people fall into lower wealth percentiles, they become more likely to have a positive view of UBI. Is this a real attitude shift, or merely people feeling they are being left behind? Or, are those even two different things?
For the record, as a convicted felon trying to make a new start making $8/hr, I have a very positive view of UBI, but I'm not very sanguine about the economics of it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not hard for you. it's not hard for me, either. So, let's agree that we're not talking about you or me (although I was in Federal Prison for 9 years).
Many of these people have never used a computer before. Some have only used public access computers (like those in a library), often only for things like YouTube and maybe email. Many of these people are elderly. Some of these people have learning disabilities.
I was locked up with Walter Forbes and John and Tim Rigas. We're not talking about those guys' families. We're talking about the families of guys who dropped out of high school, don't have GEDs, and wound up in prison because they were trying to make money illegally and got caught.
Many of them struggle with technical issues.
Prisoners typically have access to only one service provider for telephone/videophone/email services. The providers are all profiteers. They can easily provide cheaper services, but their motivation is to pursue monopoly pricing. Some inmates have had success with Google numbers, but others complain of poor sound quality.
There used to be several number selling companies that would sell local numbers to prisoners' families (which made calls cheaper), but a lot of them went out of business when FCC capped prices on long distance calls. Maybe they'll come back now to provide long distance numbers? Probably not enough volume of business to make it worthwhile.
It's not the lawyers, it's the families. Many of them struggle with technical issues, and almost all of them struggle with cost issues. Many inmates rely on their families to send them the money to make calls to maintain family ties. This makes that much harder.
Okay, IANAL, and all of that. However, when I was locked up the Feds provided us a subscription to a periodical called the Criminal Law Review. This gave summaries of cases and decisions with potential import for inmates who had appeals running. There were several types of cases that I always read; one of these was cases that involved the use of confidential informants, another was attempted entrapment defense.
In all of the cases of these two types that I ever read, I don't remember any Federal Appeals Court ruling that receiving money from the cops made an informant an agent of the state. This has strong implications for both wrongful convictions (dudes will finger somebody they have never even seen for a reward or a sentence cut) and for entrapment (once a government agent is involved in instigating a crime, the courts have a test called the "but for" test which is a whole other kettle of fish).
I do think there was a guy on a trumped up terrorism charge that got a favorable ruling a year or two ago, but I don't remember the details, so things might be changing. I haven't had access to research materials for a year, now.
Beyond that, your last sentence was "Informants that gain something after they obtain information are not considered agents." Isn't that exactly what happened in the case in question? The Geek guys found the child porn and notified the FBI, then they got rewards.
Put in 02-278 and it should fill in the text portion of the proceeding name and show the proceeding name in a suggest box. Click on that. Hit enter (you have to hit enter after every entry). Email is optional, but you have to enter it if you want them to email you a confirmation of your submission. Fill out the required boxes and put your comment in the bottom box. Click the "Continue to Review Screen" button, submit.
Thanks for helping.
I'm going to work on the assumption this is a serious view and not a troll.
First, monks = volunteers. This implies that the people in this environment are at least somewhat open, questing, seeking. This is an entirely different mindset than that found in the vast majority of inmates. Also, monks = vetted. This indicates that the people running the monastery are convinced that the candidate is both ready and capable of achieving the desired growth.
Second, as to 'more entertaining being better', that was not my point. I said we don't have prisons like the Nordic countries.
Having said that, there IS evidence that more entertaining is better. BOP knows this. BOP constantly has to balance the costs of incarceration with the security of the institution. When conditions get too bad, guards start getting assaulted. This is a huge problem for the BOP. Some of those guards wind up on disability forever. Conditions get bad enough, now you have a riot. People get hurt, more costs, both financial and human.
They can't lock everybody up in no-human-contact cells, and they can't afford enough guards to staff all prisons like Highs. The only way to keep the guards safe (and to a less extent the inmates) is to keep a bearable quality of life.
Also, it's humane. Think about that.
Also, I suggest you consider the incentives you are setting for future criminals with every change to the penal system. More severe penalties (which a more unpleasant prison system surely represents) will incentivize some potential criminals NOT to offend. That's good. But you will also incentivize some criminals who are desperate (as I was when I offended) to resist surrender, or worse, remove their incentive to leave witnesses alive. This is a serious issue, and I think people don't think about it enough.
Beyond that, I don't think entertaining is necessarily a worthy target. The biggest challenge most ex-cons face upon release (those determined not to go back, that is) is supporting themselves. Most jobs are not for us. We talk a lot about people deserving a second chance, but we don't really want to be the one to give that second chance. Someone ELSE can do that. So, you want a worthy target for your prisons? How about realistic job training?
Welders, plumbers, bricklayers, electricians. No shortage of jobs, there. Instead, one federal prison maintains a training program for accounting. Who are all of these companies looking to hire recently released felons for their accounting department? Don't even get me started on the 'phantom' programs, training programs on the books that have had no participants for >5 years, or programs that process everybody in the prison and everyone in the program graduates with an A, guys who literally cannot read passing a computer literacy program with an A on their first try. My prison started a program to train people to repair fiber optic cables, a really good program. From a population of 1400 inmates, they were graduating 6 people a year. I tried to get in but I was too far from release. I tried to get into the next class, but I was too close to release.
Sorry this went so long. I am a reentering felon and I am struggling. I take some of this too personally. Anyway, I wish you well.
First, I didn't say the Nordic countries were doing anything right, that was somebody else.
No, you're right, I misspoke. I smashed two things together in my head and didn't clearly articulate them. Sorry, my bad.
The problem is that once they decided that, BOP no longer had to pretend to try to rehab inmates. Programs that were not seen as immediately beneficial to BOP were gutted. Because of this quality of life deteriorated markedly (inmates suffer tremendous boredom and programming is one of the ways they fight it; less programming = more boredom = more bad shit like gambling, fights, and yard politics).
Finally, BOP Minimums (called 'camps') are NOTHING like nordic prisons. Inmates sleep in open bays, the food sucks, there is little recreation opportunity. The only things inmates like about camps is the contraband. It is easy to get cellphones, alcohol, pornography, drugs, and outside food. Also, if your woman lives nearby or can travel you can get laid. Alternatively, there are hookers that service some of the camps, but I hear that's rare. In real life, some guys intentionally get caught doing something to get sent back up to the Low. Camps are not equivalent to nordic prisons.
That was a great comment, thanks.
As a former offender my problem with algorithmic sentencing stems from the perceived (by me) likelihood that once the algorithm is accepted it will be corrupted and used as a justification for ever-longer sentences for more and more mundane offenses.
Previous examples of similar fuckery (in the Federal System) include the definition of weapons of mass destruction, the conspiracy statute, and the entrapment defense.
I also do not believe that algorithms are robust enough to accept and properly weight the vast array of mitigating evidence that can apply to any messy, chaotic human life. Aggravating factors are much simpler, and indeed many are already encoded in the sentencing guidelines and statutes.
Well, not really. More:
Lawyer: Look, the alogorithm will give you a lower sentence if you get a haircut, get your fellow gang member to produce a fake job for you, and hide your constant drunkeness.
Algorithm: That's better!
Devil's advocate:
Many victims report feeling vindication and a sense of closure from the 'retribution' component of sentencing. Maybe we as a society owe that to them.
I was a bad guy, and as much as I didn't want to spend a single extra day in prison, it would be hard for me to say my victims didn't deserve at least some of those feelings.
Just sayin'.
The US has prisons similar to Norway's
No they don't. Period. Seriously, stop it.
and we imprison and rehabilitate low risk prisoners there.
Again, no. 1987 the SCOTUS found that there was no rehabilitation component of federal incarceration and many of the programs were gutted. Some people believe that RDAP is an attempt to reintroduce rehabilitation. When they talk to people who go through the program they stop thinking that.
Sure, but there are way fewer appeals of sentence for inappropriate leniency than for inappropriate harshness. Most prosecutors know (although they often will not admit) that if a defendant beats a charge, he's much more likely to re-offend and get caught again, which gives the government another chance. Especially a defendant with multiple previous charges. The things that motivated him to criminal activity aren't going away.
A defendant who gets smacked in the head with a big number, though, is highly motivated to get an adjustment. And, to an extent, I agree with him. I think that over-punishing is much worse than under-punishing (and yeah, I get how self serving that seems as an ex-convict). When you under-punish, somebody gets away with something, but then they probably go right back to what they were doing and get sucked in again. When you over-punish, it seems a little like punishing someone who is at least a little bit innocent. I hate that.
Disclosure: My sentence was extremely fair and moderate, 130 months incarceration and 60 months of supervised release (probation).
Devil's advocate:
If you report a bug to Google and get a bounty, that doesn't make you a Google employee.
If you find and report child pornography to the Feds and collect a reward, it doesn't make you a cop ("agent of the government").
It's not so much that they are "paying people to go on fishing expeditions", as that they are buying the fish when the boat gets back to shore. This probably reduces the agency in the relationship.
Probably the government's position will be that they were not in the direct employ of the gov. They were private actors and received bounties for their efforts. This is their stance on confidential informants in drug cases, conspiacy cases and in some entrapment cases.
Paying bounties is very different than employing. Not sayin' it's right. Just sayin' the Feds have a history of this. Many, many confidential informants receive money for their work, but they're not agents of the state in court.
I was locked up with a pedophile in Allenwood PA who was arrested and convicted based on child pornography found during an illegal search conducted by a third party. This is the third party search doctrine. When a non-government employee discovers something illegal, through illegal means, he can report it to the authorities and they can use that evidence. The Fourth Amendment protects you from illegal governmental search, not illegal search generally.
If a burglar breaks into your basement and finds a woman you have kidnapped and calls the police, you are cooked regardless of how she was found.
There is a real question of when the BB guys become agents of the government, but prior decisions along this line are not encouraging.
As far as using this in court, this probably looks like one of those really easy cases. Tons of precedent for third-party search and CI not proving agency. What will this judge say? Who knows, but from cases I've read before, this guy is probably going to prison.
As someone who has read literally dozens of cases of guys convicted using the testimony of Confidential Informants, I disagree. In the federal system, at least, there is lots of precedent that CIs are NOT agents of the government, in spite of acting at their behest, being paid by them, and being strongly incentivized to produce convictions. There is a similar issue at play in the use of the federal conspiracy statute.
Incorrect assessment of the agency relationship is one of the biggest problems with the War on Drugs, as currently administered. There is a little variability from district to district, and the States' systems are obviously a whole other kettle of fish, but please don't spread misinformation.
You might also profitably read about the third-party search doctrine. It is extremely relevant in child pornography cases.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me you are thinking of the situation that the proposed law is suggesting.
I think we have to try to think of the situations they are not talking about, too. Like, if a police department decides to disperse a number of peaceful demonstrators. The scene commander turns on the 'repellent' right before the tear gas shells come out. Now there's no aerial footage of what actually happened. Even if they don't turn it on, some drone operators will not have their drones overhead because of a fear of losing the drone (a so-called "chilling effect").
I just think this is a deeper question than the proposed law implies.
Because the FOIA request is how people (us) prove that the government (the cops) didn't stay inside the rules. This is what gives them an incentive to only use their powers as they were intended.
Your "... just as long as they are not out using it on a whim and the destroyed drone is someplace it's not allowed..." requirement is basically sound, I guess. I would press for a little more freedom from oversight, myself, but, whatever. The problem is that you can't just trust them to follow the rules you and they agreed upon. One of the best methods we have developed to assure compliance is the FOIA, where the citizens get to make the government rat themselves out with their own records. It works surprisingly well.
As far as effectiveness, I think it might work on the stupid bad guys. Truly smart/intelligent bad actors will just disable the systems or build drones from scratch without them. So, maybe this works for jackasses unintentionally impeding emergency workers, but in exchange for that we lose a lot of the potential for drones to help fight abuses of power.
I think it's a balancing act, and I don't think we know enough yet to make wise laws.
I agree with everything you said except for the part about the prices of ICE cars coming down. This would be likely in the very beginning of the process, but would soon choke itself out.
Cars from modern factories have huge fixed costs behind them. They are only affordable because there are so many sold and those fixed costs get split up among all of those cars. When fewer cars are made/sold, each car has to account for more of the fixed costs. With a sizable and long-term decrease in demand, the car manufacturers run out of room in their pricing and start to lose money. If they can't get their costs down (which I don't think they could do), the curve hockey-sticks and bang, they're screwed.
This is aggravated by the same process happening in all of the complimentary and support industries. Gas stations, oil change stores, even to some extent used parts stores start to struggle and consolidation begins. Each of these services is now harder to find, which makes car ownership look even less attractive, which is another gut-shot to the automaker's demand. I think THIS is the problem, especially the gas stations.
Are Europeans suffering rising wealth distribution inequity as much as the US? It seems possible to me that as more people fall into lower wealth percentiles, they become more likely to have a positive view of UBI. Is this a real attitude shift, or merely people feeling they are being left behind? Or, are those even two different things?
For the record, as a convicted felon trying to make a new start making $8/hr, I have a very positive view of UBI, but I'm not very sanguine about the economics of it.
Wow.
No, it showed the guy ask him and he said yes. Anything else is adding something that isn't in the cartoon.