It is not an "all or nothing". The fact acknowledged by TFA itself is that people receiving assistance begin working less than they used to.
This is not true in the least. First of all the survey asked what they WOULD do. That is speculation, and only 3% surveyed said they would stop working, which would probably end when they realize the amount would not even pay their rent.... 8% said less, but how much less are we talking about, without numbers you really cant point out the problem.
And they are happy to have others help them pay for it...
Please point out, mathematically, how say 960 euros a month (the Netherlands experiment) would be able to pay for rent/mortgage, a car, food, utilities, vacation, and other entertainment, please show your work. This is the only
It depends on your definition of "should" What percentage of the population is happy to live in poverty, but be able to afford the basics of bills, and scrape by? is that small % of the population worth worrying about?
Also so far as I have seen the proposed basic incomes would not allow what you to do what you are talking about. The UBI is typically household based, so living with your parents would negate it.
Serious question. If you made UBI, which is income that is BARELY enough to scrape by, without being able to afford anything else but scraping by, are you seriously going to stop working and stop making the money needed for things outside of bare necessities?
The whole "people will stop working if you pay for their bare needs" argument is a massive lie. You may have increased worry over under the table jobs, but people are not going to stop working, just like they dont generally stop working on welfare, because no one wants just enough money to pay for your house, utilities, and putting cheap crappy food on the table, they want a vehicle, they want vacations, they want Netflix and other entertainment.
you got this in reverse, Unions work when not undermined by the state. The purpose of right to work is not to help employees, but to undermine unions.
Insurance companies were doing fine before the mandate, but citizens were not. And good actors, writers, and skilled workers still benefit from the union, just as much as the mediocre does.
Because that is not how contracts work. The business will try and squeeze you out for everything. Rarely will you get what you are worth when you go on your own.
Taking a licensed taxi simply means getting into a car with a total stranger. Most of the drivers are probably OK, and most of them probably drive reasonably OK cars; but you don't know that. You could be unfortunate and get the serial rapist, the drunk or the guy who drives something that is falling apart, although it looks OK on the outside.
There really isnt that much difference in Uber vs normal drivers.
I fully understand it well. No, it does not know what you do on the internet unless you search on it or go to sites/apps who record the history for it. If you for say just use other non-browsing functionality, then google does not know what you are doing, but your ISPs do.
I buy a google phone to use their FREE service to do searches, knowing that the cost of that service is the history.
I PAY for internet service through my phone, expecting the cost of that service to by the money I paid to the company.
There is nothing weird about it. It also ignores that we have a choice to use google or some other search providor, we dont have a choice, typically, in the home market.
The deal was illegal, it was not retroactive, since the deal could not legally exist. Sign into a contract that is not legal and see if the law allows it to be binding.
Yes it does. We still cannot spend more than we make. We can put it on a credit card, but the payments for that card still has to be within our receipts. Deficit spending is like putting it on a credit card, not good, but still limited.
there is plenty of evidence to support it. And if it is harmful to me then I have a right to live and you dont have a right to smoke around me. You can smoke anywhere you want, just not around me.
Citations of limiting due process? and property rights? understand that just because someone claims to be liberal does not make them liberal. Dont confuse democrat with liberal, or republican with conservative. Kim Davis for example was not a liberal.
The corporation thing is not really a thing, and would not be an individual liberties issue if it was.
As for the groceries, now you are just going off the rails, I Did no know that was a liberty, even if it is businesses giving you free plastic backs to carry things in is not an individual liberty. I dont think you know what the individual part in individual liberties mean.
they have, that you did not see it does not mean they have.. BLM has never called for people to retaliate. individual members may have, but not the organisation.
Ahh, but you missed the "individual" part. Cup sizes and the like are buisness regulations, not individual regulations. The laws in NY did not prevent you from bringing in your own cup.
Liberals in general want to protect INDIVIDUAL liberties. Due process, 1st amendment, yes even the second amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says? And you are saying that those low paid workers would not keep their jobs to actually be able to do more with more income?
In addition with the increased money in peoples hands you would actually see larger demand, and more economic growth from a demand spike.
It is not an "all or nothing". The fact acknowledged by TFA itself is that people receiving assistance begin working less than they used to.
This is not true in the least. First of all the survey asked what they WOULD do. That is speculation, and only 3% surveyed said they would stop working, which would probably end when they realize the amount would not even pay their rent.... 8% said less, but how much less are we talking about, without numbers you really cant point out the problem.
And they are happy to have others help them pay for it...
Please point out, mathematically, how say 960 euros a month (the Netherlands experiment) would be able to pay for rent/mortgage, a car, food, utilities, vacation, and other entertainment, please show your work. This is the only
It depends on your definition of "should" What percentage of the population is happy to live in poverty, but be able to afford the basics of bills, and scrape by? is that small % of the population worth worrying about?
Also so far as I have seen the proposed basic incomes would not allow what you to do what you are talking about. The UBI is typically household based, so living with your parents would negate it.
Serious question. If you made UBI, which is income that is BARELY enough to scrape by, without being able to afford anything else but scraping by, are you seriously going to stop working and stop making the money needed for things outside of bare necessities?
The whole "people will stop working if you pay for their bare needs" argument is a massive lie. You may have increased worry over under the table jobs, but people are not going to stop working, just like they dont generally stop working on welfare, because no one wants just enough money to pay for your house, utilities, and putting cheap crappy food on the table, they want a vehicle, they want vacations, they want Netflix and other entertainment.
you got this in reverse, Unions work when not undermined by the state. The purpose of right to work is not to help employees, but to undermine unions.
Insurance companies were doing fine before the mandate, but citizens were not.
And good actors, writers, and skilled workers still benefit from the union, just as much as the mediocre does.
They do? Last I checked I pay the same as all my coworkers, and the risk assessment is done as a pool.
Because that is not how contracts work. The business will try and squeeze you out for everything. Rarely will you get what you are worth when you go on your own.
Taking a licensed taxi simply means getting into a car with a total stranger. Most of the drivers are probably OK, and most of them probably drive reasonably OK cars; but you don't know that. You could be unfortunate and get the serial rapist, the drunk or the guy who drives something that is falling apart, although it looks OK on the outside.
There really isnt that much difference in Uber vs normal drivers.
I fully understand it well. No, it does not know what you do on the internet unless you search on it or go to sites/apps who record the history for it. If you for say just use other non-browsing functionality, then google does not know what you are doing, but your ISPs do.
I buy a google phone to use their FREE service to do searches, knowing that the cost of that service is the history.
I PAY for internet service through my phone, expecting the cost of that service to by the money I paid to the company.
There is nothing weird about it. It also ignores that we have a choice to use google or some other search providor, we dont have a choice, typically, in the home market.
The deal was illegal, it was not retroactive, since the deal could not legally exist. Sign into a contract that is not legal and see if the law allows it to be binding.
Yes it does. We still cannot spend more than we make. We can put it on a credit card, but the payments for that card still has to be within our receipts. Deficit spending is like putting it on a credit card, not good, but still limited.
Do you own stock or something?
If you dont fine them greater than the profits generate how do you get them to stop?
they mean secret as in not disclosed, as is required, to regulators.
hmm job prospects for Linux admins are pretty darn good right now.
Driving down wages is an issue unless you have deflation. If wages fall but prices stay the same you have the exact situation we are in now.
So with lower taxes we squandered it on socialism? Could it be that this is just an effect of capitalism? driving down costs == driving down wages.
there is plenty of evidence to support it. And if it is harmful to me then I have a right to live and you dont have a right to smoke around me. You can smoke anywhere you want, just not around me.
So constitution be damned right?
But to also be fair this primarily happens through the "report" feature. A closed group dedicated to this is not going to be reporting itself.
You seem to be confusing republican/democrat with conservatives/liberals.
Feinstein is a liberal closing in on the border of the loop to authoritarianism, as I stated in my previous post.
Citations of limiting due process? and property rights? understand that just because someone claims to be liberal does not make them liberal. Dont confuse democrat with liberal, or republican with conservative. Kim Davis for example was not a liberal.
The corporation thing is not really a thing, and would not be an individual liberties issue if it was.
As for the groceries, now you are just going off the rails, I Did no know that was a liberty, even if it is businesses giving you free plastic backs to carry things in is not an individual liberty. I dont think you know what the individual part in individual liberties mean.
they have, that you did not see it does not mean they have.. BLM has never called for people to retaliate. individual members may have, but not the organisation.
Ahh, but you missed the "individual" part. Cup sizes and the like are buisness regulations, not individual regulations. The laws in NY did not prevent you from bringing in your own cup.
Liberals in general want to protect INDIVIDUAL liberties. Due process, 1st amendment, yes even the second amendment.