Even the pro-choice side generally don't like abortions
Though I can't speak for others, I don't believe "them" saying that on TV, because it's activists pushing abortions trying to sound reasonable. (Show me NARAL running a string of adoption placement centers and I'll start to change my mind.)
Individuals saying things like "I'm personally against abortion, but think it's a woman's right to choose" makes me want to retch at the intellectual vacuousness, since what it really means is, "I'm personally against sucking babies through tubes into biohazard bags / taking pills to flush them down the toilet / have their heads crushed and then sucked out, but think it's a woman's right to choose".
or as something which must be legal as it is sometimes the least-worst of a set of bad options.
Paradoxically, that's why I think that abortions should be legal: women are going to have them anyway, whether we like it or not.
so long as it isn't women looking to control their own bodies
Because obviously killing babies is A-OK, right?? Heck, squalling brats and constantly changing disgustingly stinky diapers is pretty damned stressful, so after-birth abortions should be legal, too.
or cis individuals picking the bathroom of the gender they identify with
When did "slots in this bathroom" and "tabs in that bathroom" get sooooo controversial?
If businesses charges more simply because they think their customers can afford it, it means all that "supply and demand" stuff was a bunch of bullshit.
If the government passes a law tonight mandating that all bank accounts have a zero added to them, and all cash be replaced by notes with an extra zero on it (ignore the practicalities), will we actually be 10x as rich, or will there just be 10x the cash chasing the same amount of goods?
We're discussing the role financial reward plays in the creation and/or development of smart and ambitious people in the context of the effect a basic income guarantee would have on modern society.
And I think that has everything to do with why the USSR had crappy doctors.
Say you're a bright, young ambitious man who wants to be a doctor. Now, being bright, you look around you and see how doctors are paid and live, and then see how bright, young ambitious men who become party apparatchiks are paid and live. You might be idealistic enough to become a fine doctor anyway, toiling endlessly against the general crap that is Soviet Russia. Or... having grown up in that crap-sack society and seen who really wins, practicality wins out and you become a corrupt party apparatchik.
Anyway... way back when I started this threadlet, the point was that people are paid peanuts for back-breaking work because they're desperate, not because the supply of people able to do it is large, and a large supply of labor drives down the price of labor. (It's the same reason why the large supply of Indian IT workers drives down the cost of US IT workers.)
A small Canadian town in the 1970s is in now way comparable to Los Angeles, New York City, New Orleans, or Detroit, and didn't have to deal with towns full of meth-heads.
Here's a paper that was presented earlier in this comment section as evidence that BI will work. Too bad he didn't read more than the the title. http://economics.mit.edu/files/10849 However, despite this, policy-makers are often concerned about whether transfer programs of this type discourage work. And indeed, in developed country policy contexts, some transfer programs have indeed been shown to have small, but statistically significant, effects on work.
Yes, I see the words "some" and "small". Yet I also see that proponents ignore the circumstances in which BI programs are attempted (underdeveloped areas where the poor people aren't fat).
Social standing depended on more than money then, it depended on character and class... One of the big problems with these systems wasn't the lack of reward for effort, it was that loyalty to the system was rewarded more highly than performance which is indeed demotivating
I think you just contradicted yourself, since "character and class" are more associated with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn than your basic party hack.
Von Mises's argument for money supply leading to inflation (which animates the goldbugs) was based on a circular reasoning fallacy
I don't know (or care) what Von Mises' argument was.
My argument is "more dollars chasing the same number of goods mean that business can raise prices since consumers have more cash" a circular reasoning fallacy?
Or you could work your back breaking job part time
The people who say this don't have a clue as to the needs -- not of business -- but of customers who want their project done on time instead of when a bunch of pot smoking video gamers decide to show up for work.
Let's take you for example: do you want the plumber to finish digging under your house and putting in new pipe as soon as possible (after all, you like flush toilets), or do you want the project completed when he can get enough part-time workers to show up?
Well, you say, the plumbing contractor will just have to pay these people more to entice them to show up, like Uber surge pricing. But that means that the plumber will raise his rates, charging you more than before UBI.
Basic income should be to keep people from starving to death and from living on the streets.
Honestly, when there are so many obese poor people, how many people actually starve to death in the US, as opposed to being "food insecure", where that's defined by questions like:
"We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
and
In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)
All of those crappy "backbreaking" jobs that they can get away paying peanuts for today because the only people that will do them are desperate?
Sigh... such a communist mentality. It's why the USSR paid medical doctors the same as laborers. Did they get more good doctors? No. They got crappy doctors, since the smart, ambitious people weren't motivated to spend all that time and effort to be competent MD when common laborers earned the same amount.
Crappy, backbreaking jobs pay peanuts because they take no skill, and (almost) everyone meets the minimum qualifications. IOW, there's a very large supply (which drives the price -- in this case, of labor -- down).
As for why would you work at all - well, firstly, a UBI is generally far more modest, generally somewhere around survival level - call it equivalent to a full-time job at federal minimum wage , or about $15k/year
You idiot. $15/hour full-time is $30K/year. That's specifically why I chose that number.
The people who want the minimum wage to be a living wage.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/ Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.
Tell that to the indigenous people that were in the country before you invaded it, and killed most of them.
That's a complete non sequiter.
1) The clue is on the name: BASIC. It's not $30,000
Take a wild-assed guess what the yearly income of someone at the proposed $15/hr minimum wage: that's right, $30,000/year
That's why I specifically chose $15/hr.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/ The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.
Slashdot Mirror
Even the pro-choice side generally don't like abortions
Though I can't speak for others, I don't believe "them" saying that on TV, because it's activists pushing abortions trying to sound reasonable. (Show me NARAL running a string of adoption placement centers and I'll start to change my mind.)
Individuals saying things like "I'm personally against abortion, but think it's a woman's right to choose" makes me want to retch at the intellectual vacuousness, since what it really means is, "I'm personally against sucking babies through tubes into biohazard bags / taking pills to flush them down the toilet / have their heads crushed and then sucked out, but think it's a woman's right to choose".
or as something which must be legal as it is sometimes the least-worst of a set of bad options.
Paradoxically, that's why I think that abortions should be legal: women are going to have them anyway, whether we like it or not.
It's urinals that are (probably) the issue.
Then puberty struck hard, and the "slot" parts started making hormones that would have been lethal to suppress
I'm sure that a rational conversation with the school's principal could work things out. After all, the NC law doesn't say "burn the witches!!!"
so long as it isn't women looking to control their own bodies
Because obviously killing babies is A-OK, right?? Heck, squalling brats and constantly changing disgustingly stinky diapers is pretty damned stressful, so after-birth abortions should be legal, too.
or cis individuals picking the bathroom of the gender they identify with
When did "slots in this bathroom" and "tabs in that bathroom" get sooooo controversial?
That reasoning is simply false because it hugely oversimplifies and ignores basic reality (which is why empiric data shows this hardly ever happens).
Is there empirical data on the long-term effects of BI in developed countries?
The union leader is said to have replied: "The more important question, Henry, is how are you going to get them to buy your cars".
And yet BI supporters on /. are so gung-ho on automation/robotification...
What programs are BI supposed to replace?
Be specific so that I can try to do the math.
If businesses charges more simply because they think their customers can afford it, it means all that "supply and demand" stuff was a bunch of bullshit.
If the government passes a law tonight mandating that all bank accounts have a zero added to them, and all cash be replaced by notes with an extra zero on it (ignore the practicalities), will we actually be 10x as rich, or will there just be 10x the cash chasing the same amount of goods?
IOW, more cash chasing the same amount of goods.
-1, Redundant.
We're discussing the role financial reward plays in the creation and/or development of smart and ambitious people in the context of the effect a basic income guarantee would have on modern society.
And I think that has everything to do with why the USSR had crappy doctors.
Say you're a bright, young ambitious man who wants to be a doctor. Now, being bright, you look around you and see how doctors are paid and live, and then see how bright, young ambitious men who become party apparatchiks are paid and live. You might be idealistic enough to become a fine doctor anyway, toiling endlessly against the general crap that is Soviet Russia. Or... having grown up in that crap-sack society and seen who really wins, practicality wins out and you become a corrupt party apparatchik.
Anyway... way back when I started this threadlet, the point was that people are paid peanuts for back-breaking work because they're desperate, not because the supply of people able to do it is large, and a large supply of labor drives down the price of labor. (It's the same reason why the large supply of Indian IT workers drives down the cost of US IT workers.)
While true, it doesn't have anything to do with the number of crappy physicians in Soviet Russia.
BI was tried in the past ... Mincome
A small Canadian town in the 1970s is in now way comparable to Los Angeles, New York City, New Orleans, or Detroit, and didn't have to deal with towns full of meth-heads.
Here's a paper that was presented earlier in this comment section as evidence that BI will work. Too bad he didn't read more than the the title.
http://economics.mit.edu/files/10849
However, despite this, policy-makers are often concerned about whether transfer programs of this type discourage work. And indeed, in developed country policy contexts, some transfer programs have indeed been shown to have small, but statistically significant, effects on work.
Yes, I see the words "some" and "small". Yet I also see that proponents ignore the circumstances in which BI programs are attempted (underdeveloped areas where the poor people aren't fat).
Social standing depended on more than money then, it depended on character and class ... One of the big problems with these systems wasn't the lack of reward for effort, it was that loyalty to the system was rewarded more highly than performance which is indeed demotivating
I think you just contradicted yourself, since "character and class" are more associated with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn than your basic party hack.
Maybe then that job would pay at least twice as much
Congratulations for causing hyper-inflation!!!
or it would be done by robots or etc
How soon can a robot dig underneath a house and replace some busted sewer pipe?
The claims of inflation is complete bullshit.
Here's another example, unwittingly from a UBI proponent:
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9016143&cid=51962889
Maybe then that job would pay at least twice as much If labor costs rise, then prices will rise.
Von Mises's argument for money supply leading to inflation (which animates the goldbugs) was based on a circular reasoning fallacy
I don't know (or care) what Von Mises' argument was.
My argument is "more dollars chasing the same number of goods mean that business can raise prices since consumers have more cash" a circular reasoning fallacy?
Or you could work your back breaking job part time
The people who say this don't have a clue as to the needs -- not of business -- but of customers who want their project done on time instead of when a bunch of pot smoking video gamers decide to show up for work.
Let's take you for example: do you want the plumber to finish digging under your house and putting in new pipe as soon as possible (after all, you like flush toilets), or do you want the project completed when he can get enough part-time workers to show up?
Well, you say, the plumbing contractor will just have to pay these people more to entice them to show up, like Uber surge pricing. But that means that the plumber will raise his rates, charging you more than before UBI.
Basic income should be to keep people from starving to death and from living on the streets.
Honestly, when there are so many obese poor people, how many people actually starve to death in the US, as opposed to being "food insecure", where that's defined by questions like:
"We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
and
In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)
Roomba doesn't empty the trash bins.
That's why I wrote Super Roomba.
ED-209 is more likely. Shoot first, don't bother with questions.
Small steps, brother, small steps.
Where's the money going to come from? Is the sum of all the (non-old age SSI) welfare payments adequate to the task?
And how do you distribute the money? Per capita? Per adult? Per family?
The system will get gamed in much the same way that people game it now.
Like housekeeping at a hotel, night janitor
Super Roomba.
and security guard?
Short Circuit Number 5 is almost feasible -- not as a war machine, but as a security guard.
Yes, but that's not poverty level, which is closer to the current minimum wage is, and what most BI proposals target.
Your own words said, and I quote... about $15k/year.
Hmm. That's not $15/hour. That's not $15/hour at all!!
I'm sorry for making that mistake.
why wouldn't you work another 20 hours a week for $20k more?
The jobs which allow that are being automated away.
All of those crappy "backbreaking" jobs that they can get away paying peanuts for today because the only people that will do them are desperate?
Sigh... such a communist mentality. It's why the USSR paid medical doctors the same as laborers. Did they get more good doctors? No. They got crappy doctors, since the smart, ambitious people weren't motivated to spend all that time and effort to be competent MD when common laborers earned the same amount.
Crappy, backbreaking jobs pay peanuts because they take no skill, and (almost) everyone meets the minimum qualifications. IOW, there's a very large supply (which drives the price -- in this case, of labor -- down).
As for why would you work at all - well, firstly, a UBI is generally far more modest, generally somewhere around survival level - call it equivalent to a full-time job at federal minimum wage , or about $15k/year
You idiot. $15/hour full-time is $30K/year. That's specifically why I chose that number.
Who the hell's talking $30,000/year?
The people who want the minimum wage to be a living wage.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/
Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.
That's why I chose $30K/year.
Tell that to the indigenous people that were in the country before you invaded it, and killed most of them.
That's a complete non sequiter.
1) The clue is on the name: BASIC. It's not $30,000
Take a wild-assed guess what the yearly income of someone at the proposed $15/hr minimum wage: that's right, $30,000/year
That's why I specifically chose $15/hr.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/
The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.