As long as there's a path to acquire skills, what's the problem?
You can't be so stupid as to think that ambitious but low skilled people don't want (and sometimes need) to earn money before they've learned those skills (all of which take time to develop).
You'll have to pay enough to make it worthwhile for someone. If it turns out that's not economical for you, deal with it. You don't have a right to force people to work for you.
The unintended consequence of that being... more automation, and less work for ambitious but low skilled people.
In https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10206145&cid=53813103 you wrote, "Much of which will be paid for by taxes, since people who are working will essentially give their UBI back in taxes".
Why should a high school or college student try and make some extra cash by working a low-skill part time job 10 hours/week making $10/hour ($5-6k per year) when -- according to you -- it would be taxed 100%?
most people would rather work and have more money.
1) How many jobs will there be? 2) Does not take human nature into account. (What percentage of the populace will work really hard for a relatively small increase in their income, when they'd "earn" a "living wage" by sitting around, smoking dope and playing video games.) 3) Does not take into account that the cost will always increase.
For example, about half of people work, so that's half of it accounted for right there
What are all those children and retired people (the ones not in the workforce) supposed to account for?
social security + related programs are something like $1.25tn which accounts for a quarter of the rest.
$1.25tn is one quarter of $5tn. That's "the rest" of what?
And in fact, now that I look again, I notice that you use the per capita income
Of course. Reducing the standard of living is a complete non-starter.
which includes things like CEOs that get paid millions of dollars per year.
More utter math fail. Why? Because a CEO making $100M per year adds... thirty measly cents to PCI. Thirty cents.
It should pay somewhere around enough for food and rent, which is something like $8k per household + $4k per person in the household,
Keep all the unemployables at poverty wages, eh? (They poverty line in 2016 for a family of four is $24K. Guess what 8+4*4 is?)
I'm due $30k/year from SS, and my wife at least $17k (more by the time she retires). It's a guaranteed fact that we won't be the only pissed off mofos if that's suddenly chopped back to $16k (8+4*2) in the name of UBI.
by comparing it to the current US budget you gave the impression that that would be the amount of money we'd have to find on top of the budget.
1) We'd still want an army, navy & air force, and roads, dams, etc. 2) UBI isn't going to cut is as a Medicare/Medicaid replacement.
The employees were told exactly what to do, and they did it quite happily. It was a major relief actually, because the software told them precisely what to do step by step.
Yes, I have. It's pretty damned trivial... population x income = cost. According to http://www.deptofnumbers.com/i..., the per capita income in 2015 was $30,000.
(330 * 10^6) * (30 * 10^3) = 9.9 * 10^12
Just shy of 10 trillion dollars. The US budget in 2016 was one third of that: $3.5T.
the US needs to have laws which do not allow companies to do this
That would simplify things.
once the data has left the US and entered the EU it is subject to EU law.
You'd think. But the judge didn't seem (according to the fortune.com article) to rule on that, only that the alleged fraudster gave up any right to privacy by giving his email for storage by a third party.
I wonder what the rules are in the tangible world. If I gave you evidence of a crime, and you flew to Ireland and put it in a storage unit, could the US government order you to go and return it from Ireland?
That appears to mean that the person who used gmail lives in the US, and Google just randomly decided to store part of it in Ireland.
Since data stored in the cloud isn't *really* yours anymore, you disclosed the contents of the message to a 3rd party in the US. I can see why the Magistrate ruled the way he did.
I don't know what you look like. What I do know is that you need to be sent to a reeducation camp for thinking that shaming poor, defenseless poundage-challenged people is a good idea.
Who else remembers when MS said it would take too much retraining to migrate from MSO to OO.o (and then introduced the Ribbon Bar, which required lots of retraining)?
You have a very steep, very politically incorrect fight on your hands. Most University students (trained in moral outrage by your friends on the left) would tar & feather you, then ban you from every county that voted for Hillary.
If you're already fat and you insist on spending what little you have on more food, maybe you SHOULD be ashamed. Actually, there's no "maybe" about it. There is nobody alive today who has not heard about the ill effects of being overweight, so there really is no excuse. Governments have implemented free exercise programs (aka sidewalks) to help those same poor people lose weight, and their excuse is always the same - "I'll lose it when I'm ready. I'm not ready yet."
Slashdot Mirror
First you say "people who are working will essentially give their UBI back in taxes", and then you handwave it away.
This is why Big Social Ideas are almost always Bad Social Ideas.
The older I get, the more I realize that libertarianism is just as Utopian as socialism and communism.
they can acquire skills.
As long as there's a path to acquire skills, what's the problem?
You can't be so stupid as to think that ambitious but low skilled people don't want (and sometimes need) to earn money before they've learned those skills (all of which take time to develop).
But maybe you are.
It all depends on how much the UBI will be. I'm old enough to highly skeptical that it'll be as low as you $18k.
You'll have to pay enough to make it worthwhile for someone. If it turns out that's not economical for you, deal with it. You don't have a right to force people to work for you.
The unintended consequence of that being... more automation, and less work for ambitious but low skilled people.
In https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10206145&cid=53813103 you wrote, "Much of which will be paid for by taxes, since people who are working will essentially give their UBI back in taxes".
Why should a high school or college student try and make some extra cash by working a low-skill part time job 10 hours/week making $10/hour ($5-6k per year) when -- according to you -- it would be taxed 100%?
most people would rather work and have more money.
1) How many jobs will there be?
2) Does not take human nature into account. (What percentage of the populace will work really hard for a relatively small increase in their income, when they'd "earn" a "living wage" by sitting around, smoking dope and playing video games.)
3) Does not take into account that the cost will always increase.
For example, about half of people work, so that's half of it accounted for right there
What are all those children and retired people (the ones not in the workforce) supposed to account for?
social security + related programs are something like $1.25tn which accounts for a quarter of the rest.
$1.25tn is one quarter of $5tn. That's "the rest" of what?
And in fact, now that I look again, I notice that you use the per capita income
Of course. Reducing the standard of living is a complete non-starter.
which includes things like CEOs that get paid millions of dollars per year.
More utter math fail. Why? Because a CEO making $100M per year adds... thirty measly cents to PCI. Thirty cents.
It should pay somewhere around enough for food and rent, which is something like $8k per household + $4k per person in the household,
Keep all the unemployables at poverty wages, eh? (They poverty line in 2016 for a family of four is $24K. Guess what 8+4*4 is?)
I'm due $30k/year from SS, and my wife at least $17k (more by the time she retires). It's a guaranteed fact that we won't be the only pissed off mofos if that's suddenly chopped back to $16k (8+4*2) in the name of UBI.
by comparing it to the current US budget you gave the impression that that would be the amount of money we'd have to find on top of the budget.
1) We'd still want an army, navy & air force, and roads, dams, etc.
2) UBI isn't going to cut is as a Medicare/Medicaid replacement.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Much of which will be paid for by taxes, since people who are working will essentially give their UBI back in taxes.
What percentage of people will work in this grand and glorious future?
A lot of the rest of it will be covered by the money currently going into social security
Complete. math. fail. If you think I'm wrong, demonstrate it with numbers instead of hand waving.
The employees were told exactly what to do, and they did it quite happily. It was a major relief actually, because the software told them precisely what to do step by step.
ROFL.
That would last about 1 day.
Have you?
Yes, I have. It's pretty damned trivial... population x income = cost. According to http://www.deptofnumbers.com/i..., the per capita income in 2015 was $30,000.
(330 * 10^6) * (30 * 10^3) = 9.9 * 10^12
Just shy of 10 trillion dollars. The US budget in 2016 was one third of that: $3.5T.
Maybe that was just me.
Personal anecdotes... gotta love them.
with a universal basic income
Has he done the math as to how much that would cost?
this could simply leave us humans with more leisure time.
He has forgotten what bored young people do.
the US needs to have laws which do not allow companies to do this
That would simplify things.
once the data has left the US and entered the EU it is subject to EU law.
You'd think. But the judge didn't seem (according to the fortune.com article) to rule on that, only that the alleged fraudster gave up any right to privacy by giving his email for storage by a third party.
I wonder what the rules are in the tangible world. If I gave you evidence of a crime, and you flew to Ireland and put it in a storage unit, could the US government order you to go and return it from Ireland?
That appears to mean that the person who used gmail lives in the US, and Google just randomly decided to store part of it in Ireland.
Since data stored in the cloud isn't *really* yours anymore, you disclosed the contents of the message to a 3rd party in the US. I can see why the Magistrate ruled the way he did.
Do I look like I give a sh*t?
I don't know what you look like. What I do know is that you need to be sent to a reeducation camp for thinking that shaming poor, defenseless poundage-challenged people is a good idea.
it will take lees re-training to move.
Who else remembers when MS said it would take too much retraining to migrate from MSO to OO.o (and then introduced the Ribbon Bar, which required lots of retraining)?
The problem with your thesis is that your 97% isn't *my* 97%.
That's what point releases are for, you numb nuts.
You have a very steep, very politically incorrect fight on your hands. Most University students (trained in moral outrage by your friends on the left) would tar & feather you, then ban you from every county that voted for Hillary.
If you're already fat and you insist on spending what little you have on more food, maybe you SHOULD be ashamed. Actually, there's no "maybe" about it. There is nobody alive today who has not heard about the ill effects of being overweight, so there really is no excuse. Governments have implemented free exercise programs (aka sidewalks) to help those same poor people lose weight, and their excuse is always the same - "I'll lose it when I'm ready. I'm not ready yet."
FTFY.
Oh, wait. Fat shaming is Eeeeevil.
http://new3.fjcdn.com/pictures/Fat+shaming+friday+comp+_6d849f_5267853.jpg
It's been proven over and over again that long-term smoking causes expensive end-of-life health problems
The obvious liberty-maintaining solution is for the government to refuse to pay for such care.
ISTM that she's advocating "poor shaming".
And baby deer, and Spotted Owls, and kittens.
paki chimps in jungle
Someone failed geography class...