I was wondering if you would chime in:) I don't deny that your system is better thought out, and more rational, than most.
However, I still think you need to address what happens when people drop out of the system and start depending on UBI. That will give you clarity on how robust your system is (and it will show that you've put some thought into it, which honestly, was my primary point in asking the question. Although you've already thought about it quite a bit).
That makes sense, if you use a third party library, they might make some backwards incompatible changes, and then what are you going to do? All your users are up a creek.:/
Basically Apple has shown over and over that they only care about 30 percent of the market, and everyone else can go fuck themselves. Here they are doing it again. I'm glad I'm not locked into that crap platform, that doesn't even have an escape key (if only there were another company that made such durable laptop frames).
Yes, I've read the IPCC report. And I have no respect for people who only get their knowledge from emotion pieces.like this one. Less respect for people who don't recognize it.
Wouldn't the hand of the market adjust wages until they motivate enough people to work?
In theory it would, if you let the amount given each month as part of UBI were somehow allowed to change in response to market conditions. Otherwise it's not a free market.
Either way, it doesn't answer the question of how many people, what percentage, can be supported by UBI. You ought to understand the parameters of the system you are creating before committing to it fully.
If everyone gets benefits, but no one contributes, the system will fall apart. Saying you deserve it merely for being Canadian implies that everyone can get it, even if no one contributes. If you're merely talking about an ideal, then of course, we all should get everything.
The crucial question really is, how many people can go onto UBI without society collapsing? That is, how many people can choose to be supported only by UBI without the system being overloaded?
Obviously if everyone decided to only be supported by UBI, it wouldn't work. The question is, how many people can be, what percentage? If you can't answer that question with some level of accuracy, you have no business implementing a UBI.
how do we make sure that everyone, on average, is doing their part in the social contract? Once you figure that out you can adjust taxes and all the rest _correctly_ since you will have figured out what "their fair share" really means.
I don't have an answer for that. My guess is it's impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
"No one yet knows how to get a new chip design completed in 24 hours safely without human intervention,"
What on earth is he talking about?
I was wondering if you would chime in :) I don't deny that your system is better thought out, and more rational, than most.
However, I still think you need to address what happens when people drop out of the system and start depending on UBI. That will give you clarity on how robust your system is (and it will show that you've put some thought into it, which honestly, was my primary point in asking the question. Although you've already thought about it quite a bit).
Bye!
Some of the first computer work was simulations for economics, if I remember my linear algebra textbook correctly.
We may soon find out if it works. Germany has free housing and pocket money for all that can reach German social authorities and say 'asylum'.
Really? Is that true? Can I request asylum if I am coming from America? I even promise to learn German.
And when was the last time you actually looked at a Mac keyboard because all the ones I see have Escape keys.
Now you're just trolling.
That makes sense, if you use a third party library, they might make some backwards incompatible changes, and then what are you going to do? All your users are up a creek. :/
Basically Apple has shown over and over that they only care about 30 percent of the market, and everyone else can go fuck themselves. Here they are doing it again. I'm glad I'm not locked into that crap platform, that doesn't even have an escape key (if only there were another company that made such durable laptop frames).
Yeah, Apple has never been good at supporting games and graphics, but by deprecating OpenGL they went into full-on retard mode, that's for sure.
They will if they have to. I think you are assuming I said things that I never did.
Yes, I've read the IPCC report. And I have no respect for people who only get their knowledge from emotion pieces.like this one. Less respect for people who don't recognize it.
I think he just doesn't like to pay for people to sit around, while he goes to work.
People in Canada contribute.
That's a start at least.
If UBI isn't enough to live on, then it's not basic income. It's supplemental income.
Oh. If you're talking about fantasy, you should have said so.
Yes, that's why I clarified in the second sentence. Apparently you didn't read past the first.
It seems passengers have stopped most terrorists.....like the shoe bomber.
Now if contributions were optional, as is the Libertarian utopia, you might have a tragedy of the commons problem.
Really? Why wouldn't people contribute if it were optional? After all, the contributions benefit the contributor, as you pointed out.
You are missing the part where ai and robots will be doing all the work.
That's fantasy. Sounds good to me, though.
Wouldn't the hand of the market adjust wages until they motivate enough people to work?
In theory it would, if you let the amount given each month as part of UBI were somehow allowed to change in response to market conditions. Otherwise it's not a free market.
Either way, it doesn't answer the question of how many people, what percentage, can be supported by UBI. You ought to understand the parameters of the system you are creating before committing to it fully.
If everyone gets benefits, but no one contributes, the system will fall apart. Saying you deserve it merely for being Canadian implies that everyone can get it, even if no one contributes. If you're merely talking about an ideal, then of course, we all should get everything.
The crucial question really is, how many people can go onto UBI without society collapsing? That is, how many people can choose to be supported only by UBI without the system being overloaded?
Obviously if everyone decided to only be supported by UBI, it wouldn't work. The question is, how many people can be, what percentage? If you can't answer that question with some level of accuracy, you have no business implementing a UBI.
how do we make sure that everyone, on average, is doing their part in the social contract? Once you figure that out you can adjust taxes and all the rest _correctly_ since you will have figured out what "their fair share" really means.
I don't have an answer for that. My guess is it's impossible.
I read it all.