Furthermore, the English got their reputation for bad teeth from the added sugar to their tea. The Irish aren't known for bad teeth because the breakdown of potatoes into sugars doesnt happen in a manner that effects teeth.
Excessive soda consumption is bad for your teeth. Do things effect some individuals more than others? Yes, like all things in regards to bodily health there are variations. Are there other things bad for your teeth (oh bread turns to sugars? "Neanderthal man" didnt have bread either guy), yes that is true. Are they widely available year round and consumed in place of water, like in your already absurd scenario? No.
Then you go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with our conversation and that ignores large populations of long lived vegetarians that exist today in our modern, meat heavy diet.
I was unemployed for 6 months after the tech crash at the end of the 90s. It was fucking awesome. While I wanted to go back to work as soon as possible so as to rid myself of financial unknowns and so I could afford luxuries again it was really great hiking, reading, gaming, and just living life with friends and family. I never have enough time to do as much of that as I would like working 40 hours. I would definitely be one to want a job under a near future UBI as I'm materialistic enough to want one but I'm jealous of the lives people will live one or two hundred years from now if things go in a socially just manner.
You make me laugh. Odds are you make fuck all compared to him.
Furthermore, everyone has to pay taxes that goes towards things they don't like, from the far left to the far right. You not being happy paying your fair share for a social program doesnt mean a thing beyond what your prefer.
Voter ID laws are racist because poor voters are less likely to have ids and minorities are more likely to be poor. Likewise, minority voters are far more likely to vote democrat which is why red states love their voter id laws.
A well edited video of the public talking about any political concept can find a shocking level of ignorance on any subject. Your video proves nothing.
Your point is fine but that's a terrible analogy. While I do think a person can do better than Vitamin Water it has half the sugar and half the calories of Coke per serving so even if you ignore all of the added vitamins Vitamin Water is indeed healthier than a can of Coke.
So you own the business you work for and dont depend on anything like roads, internet infrastructure, or any other outside influences (basically you operate in a vacuum?)? I ask because if otherwise you're a dependent. The person who signs your paycheck is no different from the government in a context like this and if you're the one who signs your paycheck you are certainly beholden to various other business' and the government.
Maybe I didn't tell anyone that because that wasn't the subject of the conversation Highdude.
But since you now ask, the idea is that it would be funded by a combination of the elimination of most social programs (for instance UBI and social security are redundant) and then higher taxes on the affluent who will be earning ever more money in the highly automated future UBI is meant for.
"And you don't understand that the current welfare system would not be replaced by UBI." If UBI comes from the federal level then they could certainly end all current federal welfare. What the hell would be stopping them, they're the ones who make the rules. After that, why would it matter what the states did?
"The only way it could be, is if the Government controlled 100% of the economy and production. " Why on earth would the government need %100 control of the economy? How the hell does getting rid of the current welfare system involve government control of the economy? They are completely unrelated things.
"Give everyone 1,000.00 a month and what happens to rent?" I already explained to you TWICE now that UBI is for basic needs. 1,000,000 per person could only happen in some far off future with levels of productivity that make us look like cavemen.
"Considering that people needing assistance now are no better off with more cash if it's worse less, you are proposing a completely unworkable system based on numerous false premises. Such ass "humans are all altruistic and infallible so will do what you want with the cash." Why on earth is my premise based on people are altruistic and infallible. Quite the opposite in fact. UBI is meant for a shrinking labor market due to automation and a society that is NOT altruistic and infallible. If it were, UBI wouldnt be needed.
"Answer this simple question: A person now who is in poverty with dependent children spends their UBI on lottery tickets instead of rent and food. Do you tell them to piss off and let them and their dependents live on the street and beg for food, or do you pick up the tab for housing and food in addition to UBI? You and I both know the answer to the question." I do but it's clear you don't. We do the same thing we did prior to the great depression. Let them go to a nearby church or food bank which currently operate largely without federal government funds.
You really are just making up false adjectives and claims. Get back to me when you can back something up.
You dont understand what UBI is. UBI is not promising prosperty for all, it is promising the basics (literally the "B" in the acronym). People have to give up all their liberties under UBI? You're just making up undesirable atributes for UBI now. What liberties would be lost under a policy of UBI?
You also decided to completely ignore my point that the failed states you mention used COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS and then you just repeated yourself. UBI is the same as these failed state communist policies because they both try to help people? Are apples the same as oranges because they're both food? What about social security, public education, public roads or any one of hundreds of other policies that exist to help people that exist in every successfull country in the world?
There are no negative examples for UBI because there are literally no examples of UBI in any form of meaningfull practice.
Your only valid point is that there are no positive examples of UBI which certainly does not mean it's doomed to failure as it is an untested idea. It only means it is not garunteed to succeed which I would certainly agree with.
The key flaw in your post is that you seem to think that UBI is communism when it is anything but.
People want to work under a UBI system precisely because of the "B". "Basic".
Want a smart phone? Gonna have to work for it. Want a TV? Gonna have to work for it. want a car? Gonna have to work for it. Unlike communism where there is no incentive for hard work, under UBI the people have shit-tons. Any material desire beyond the basic requires a job.
Then you go on to make terrible analogies to failed states that operated under completely different systems. Please educate yourself before you post again on this topic.
If UBI only pays for the basics (literally the 'B' in the acronym) which would be, more or less, food and a roof it seems to be pretty sensible to assume that people would be lining up to get a job so as to afford things like TVs, smart phones, cars or anything else associated with the average consumer. Do you really think people will suddenly abandon their desire for pretty main stream luxury items when given UBI?
Your analogy is a false one. Communism does not let one prosper more because of hard work, UBI is specifically designed to do so.
Pretty much everyone wants luxury items like TVs, cars, flash phones, and the like. Guess what they'll have to do to afford them under a UBI system? Work.
You don't understand what UBI is. It's not a utopian wage until we have utopian levels of productivity (ie. robots that do all of the jobs you list). In the in-between time (the debatable period in which automation is putting people out of work faster than new jobs are created) it's a dollar amount that keeps food in your belly and a roof over your head. Want a TV, a sensible car, or any number of other luxury? You'll be quite happy to work any of those jobs you list and at fairly low wages as your basics are already taken care of (minimum wage is not needed in a society with UBI).
Also, that's nonsense that automation is only possible for places that we've been. Europa's oceans (I think it's Europa with the oceans, I dont care enough to look it up) will most deffinitly be explorered by a robot before a person goes anywhere near that moon. What would the point of sending a person even be with the technology we have availble now, let alone with the tech in the era we're refering to.
You're talking about present tense robots in the context of a conversatuon about future tense robots.
Also, you gloss over as if it doesnt matter the key reason that robots are better at exploring. You arent risking lives and you dont need all the bulky junk required to keep a person alive in the extreme environments you describe.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, the English got their reputation for bad teeth from the added sugar to their tea. The Irish aren't known for bad teeth because the breakdown of potatoes into sugars doesnt happen in a manner that effects teeth.
You must be fun at parties.
Excessive soda consumption is bad for your teeth. Do things effect some individuals more than others? Yes, like all things in regards to bodily health there are variations. Are there other things bad for your teeth (oh bread turns to sugars? "Neanderthal man" didnt have bread either guy), yes that is true. Are they widely available year round and consumed in place of water, like in your already absurd scenario? No.
Then you go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with our conversation and that ignores large populations of long lived vegetarians that exist today in our modern, meat heavy diet.
Maybe, maybe not. Without toothbrushes and all that sugar they probably would have lost their teeth before they had babies and died of malnutrition.
Ah, so your choices are the correct ones and everyone else is dumb and stupid.
Sure.
I was unemployed for 6 months after the tech crash at the end of the 90s. It was fucking awesome. While I wanted to go back to work as soon as possible so as to rid myself of financial unknowns and so I could afford luxuries again it was really great hiking, reading, gaming, and just living life with friends and family. I never have enough time to do as much of that as I would like working 40 hours. I would definitely be one to want a job under a near future UBI as I'm materialistic enough to want one but I'm jealous of the lives people will live one or two hundred years from now if things go in a socially just manner.
Alright, since you're dense I'll repeat myself.
"One billionaire paying more in taxes isnt going to make a meaningful difference in US tax revenue so why be the one person who pays more."
You make me laugh. Odds are you make fuck all compared to him.
Furthermore, everyone has to pay taxes that goes towards things they don't like, from the far left to the far right. You not being happy paying your fair share for a social program doesnt mean a thing beyond what your prefer.
Voter ID laws are racist because poor voters are less likely to have ids and minorities are more likely to be poor. Likewise, minority voters are far more likely to vote democrat which is why red states love their voter id laws.
A well edited video of the public talking about any political concept can find a shocking level of ignorance on any subject. Your video proves nothing.
Your point is fine but that's a terrible analogy. While I do think a person can do better than Vitamin Water it has half the sugar and half the calories of Coke per serving so even if you ignore all of the added vitamins Vitamin Water is indeed healthier than a can of Coke.
You mean the politicians we get to vote for?
Last time I checked most major corperations didnt let we the people decide who their CEOs are going to be.
Nice tip. Thank you.
So you own the business you work for and dont depend on anything like roads, internet infrastructure, or any other outside influences (basically you operate in a vacuum?)? I ask because if otherwise you're a dependent. The person who signs your paycheck is no different from the government in a context like this and if you're the one who signs your paycheck you are certainly beholden to various other business' and the government.
Maybe I didn't tell anyone that because that wasn't the subject of the conversation Highdude.
But since you now ask, the idea is that it would be funded by a combination of the elimination of most social programs (for instance UBI and social security are redundant) and then higher taxes on the affluent who will be earning ever more money in the highly automated future UBI is meant for.
The money is there.
You're talking absurdities and lies.
"And you don't understand that the current welfare system would not be replaced by UBI."
If UBI comes from the federal level then they could certainly end all current federal welfare. What the hell would be stopping them, they're the ones who make the rules. After that, why would it matter what the states did?
"The only way it could be, is if the Government controlled 100% of the economy and production. "
Why on earth would the government need %100 control of the economy? How the hell does getting rid of the current welfare system involve government control of the economy? They are completely unrelated things.
"Give everyone 1,000.00 a month and what happens to rent?"
I already explained to you TWICE now that UBI is for basic needs. 1,000,000 per person could only happen in some far off future with levels of productivity that make us look like cavemen.
"Considering that people needing assistance now are no better off with more cash if it's worse less, you are proposing a completely unworkable system based on numerous false premises. Such ass "humans are all altruistic and infallible so will do what you want with the cash."
Why on earth is my premise based on people are altruistic and infallible. Quite the opposite in fact. UBI is meant for a shrinking labor market due to automation and a society that is NOT altruistic and infallible. If it were, UBI wouldnt be needed.
"Answer this simple question: A person now who is in poverty with dependent children spends their UBI on lottery tickets instead of rent and food. Do you tell them to piss off and let them and their dependents live on the street and beg for food, or do you pick up the tab for housing and food in addition to UBI? You and I both know the answer to the question."
I do but it's clear you don't. We do the same thing we did prior to the great depression. Let them go to a nearby church or food bank which currently operate largely without federal government funds.
You really are just making up false adjectives and claims. Get back to me when you can back something up.
You dont understand what UBI is. UBI is not promising prosperty for all, it is promising the basics (literally the "B" in the acronym). People have to give up all their liberties under UBI? You're just making up undesirable atributes for UBI now. What liberties would be lost under a policy of UBI?
You also decided to completely ignore my point that the failed states you mention used COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS and then you just repeated yourself. UBI is the same as these failed state communist policies because they both try to help people? Are apples the same as oranges because they're both food? What about social security, public education, public roads or any one of hundreds of other policies that exist to help people that exist in every successfull country in the world?
There are no negative examples for UBI because there are literally no examples of UBI in any form of meaningfull practice.
Your only valid point is that there are no positive examples of UBI which certainly does not mean it's doomed to failure as it is an untested idea. It only means it is not garunteed to succeed which I would certainly agree with.
Ugh, sorry. I replied to the wrong comment. Must be the UBI making me lazy
You're retarded. See interkin3tic's post above because he's way more diplomatic than I would be with a non thinker such as yourself..
You're retarded. See interkin3tic's post above because he's way more diplomatic than I would be with a non thinker such as yourself.
You don't think people would pick up a job to be able to afford beyond the "Basic"?
That's certainly the reason I got a job when I was in high school.
The key flaw in your post is that you seem to think that UBI is communism when it is anything but.
People want to work under a UBI system precisely because of the "B". "Basic".
Want a smart phone? Gonna have to work for it. Want a TV? Gonna have to work for it. want a car? Gonna have to work for it. Unlike communism where there is no incentive for hard work, under UBI the people have shit-tons. Any material desire beyond the basic requires a job.
Then you go on to make terrible analogies to failed states that operated under completely different systems. Please educate yourself before you post again on this topic.
If UBI only pays for the basics (literally the 'B' in the acronym) which would be, more or less, food and a roof it seems to be pretty sensible to assume that people would be lining up to get a job so as to afford things like TVs, smart phones, cars or anything else associated with the average consumer. Do you really think people will suddenly abandon their desire for pretty main stream luxury items when given UBI?
Your analogy is a false one. Communism does not let one prosper more because of hard work, UBI is specifically designed to do so.
Pretty much everyone wants luxury items like TVs, cars, flash phones, and the like. Guess what they'll have to do to afford them under a UBI system? Work.
You don't understand what UBI is. It's not a utopian wage until we have utopian levels of productivity (ie. robots that do all of the jobs you list). In the in-between time (the debatable period in which automation is putting people out of work faster than new jobs are created) it's a dollar amount that keeps food in your belly and a roof over your head. Want a TV, a sensible car, or any number of other luxury? You'll be quite happy to work any of those jobs you list and at fairly low wages as your basics are already taken care of (minimum wage is not needed in a society with UBI).
Also, that's nonsense that automation is only possible for places that we've been. Europa's oceans (I think it's Europa with the oceans, I dont care enough to look it up) will most deffinitly be explorered by a robot before a person goes anywhere near that moon. What would the point of sending a person even be with the technology we have availble now, let alone with the tech in the era we're refering to.
You're talking about present tense robots in the context of a conversatuon about future tense robots.
Also, you gloss over as if it doesnt matter the key reason that robots are better at exploring. You arent risking lives and you dont need all the bulky junk required to keep a person alive in the extreme environments you describe.