But while it is the intention of UBI to replace some social programs, it should not replace all (particularly healthcare programs). It should be funded primarily from the rich, not the middle class and certainly not the poor.
no need for education. Maybe high school. But why else
Because most educated persons who use their degree tend to demand much higher than UBI would offer. UBI probably wouldn't get you even close to the poverty line, let alone make it worth giving up a career path.
the peasant class become 100% dependent and controllable by government
Valid point, but not really any more valid than the current situation with a minimum wage and other social wealth redistribution programs.
Straight off the top, screw business, who gives a crap about private profits.
Granted this is a common attitude, but how is it helping by making some particular companies pay for our wealth redistribution process? Why shouldn't that be shared among society?
Major corporations have proven to be totally myopic tied to greed and greed, having become extremely destructive, where as small and medium business has proven to be very beneficial, providing for a social and economic need, much more effectively and socially responsible fashion, than major corporations.
Minimum wage regulations hit small businesses disproportionately hard. UBI wouldn't, because it's not a regulation on business. It should be an income or wealth tax which would much more directly target the type of greedy corporate bosses you seem to despise.
Except the minimum wage is $10 so they're not paying less than that. Or they won't find anyone who wants to work for $5/hr and they'll wind up paying $10 anyway.
If you are demanding the equivalent of $18/hour after UBI, you will be replaced by someone who is currently unemployed and only demands $10-15/hour after UBI. UBI is intended for survival and minimum needs, not comfort... if you value any level of comfort then you will need some form of a job, even if just part time, and thus you will have to make your wage demands reasonable.
Income taxes will still be progressive. UBI will certainly affect taxes, but placing a heavier burden on the poor and lower-middle classes will be counter-productive. The heaviest burden, as always, will have to fall on the very rich.
The impacts you mention are temporary anyway. And they can be reduced or eliminated with a graduated implementation.
Compared with the minimum wage? It could be much lower. Someone who makes $10/hour today but gets a UBI equivalent to say $8/hour would be better off just making $5/hour at work. And the company is paying less even as the employee comes out ahead.
Society wants wealth redistribution, but the minimum wage targets specific market sectors (those with low-skill labor) to bear that burden. The fair thing to do is to have society pay for wealth redistribution through taxation, and UBI is a reasonable mechanism to do so.
UBI is more pro-business than minimum wage because it relieves businesses to have more freedom in hiring.
UBI is more pro-worker than minimum wage because they no longer need an abusive job just to survive and just to feed their kids.
Even if it were a monopoly, I wouldn't say it's necessarily the worst kind of a monopoly (yet). Messenger is free and cross-platform. It is quite feature rich and most people I know already have access to it. And it has helped to replace SMS and its per-message charges for most of my phone text conversations.
I still personally prefer open software with encrypted communications though.
Right, it is in prerelease builds. Not anything mainstream, and no guarantee that the feature will remain in the final release or if it will work the same.
Also, I'd like to see representatives and senators spend as much time in their home area as possible. They could even vote remotely in front of a camera. Let them walk outside and face the people they represent.
States don't represent the distinctions in culture that they once did. Most people don't know why North and South Carolina are two states, and those who do likely don't share the same concerns as our ancestors. Frankly, the boundaries between all states suffer this problem to a major degree and could use a rethink.
I'm not sure if I care about the number of states, because I'd like to see some major changes in the federal legislative branch:
Regions I'd like to create a few federal regions which represent cultural areas of the US. Most federal laws (except things like declarations of war) would start in the regions, and laws could be distinguished to target urban vs. rural areas. These regions and urban/rural subdivisions would become the "laboratories of democracy" that states have failed to be. Regions may adopt and tweak laws from each other, and any law adopted by two or more regions could be eligible for nationwide consideration (by full vote).
House of Representatives Districts would be larger, bounded by region lines instead of state lines, and each region would have multiple winners. For example, each district could have 2 winners or each could have 3, so that 51-49 ties don't leave half the population without representation.
Senate Each state would be reduced to one senator, appointed as a representative of the state government. Additionally, each region would hold a popular vote to elect one senator from the urban population and one senator from the rural population. Finally, each Senate committee would have two members, chair and co-chair, voted in by national popular vote (the remaining members would serve on these committees as they do today).
All laws would require 60% vote to pass, either regionally or in nationwide votes. Regional laws would be voted by members from the region (in the senate, regional votes would include senators from the states in the region). Senate committees have the power to bring to the floor laws which are proposed to all regions, and the committees would attempt to reconcile the differences between similar regional bills and existing regional laws.
Article V is important, though its main limitation is that we have so many states that it makes it hard to get traction on any Article V amendment. (When one does, Congress steps in to pass a similar bill in order to prevent Article V from actually being invoked, which would embolden future attempts.)
Perhaps it is you who needs to learn the meaning of the word:
complicit: helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way
I believe the word you are looking for is complacent: "marked by self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies".
MS tried forcing Metro on their phones and it was a complete disaster
Correlation != causation. Windows Phone was mismanaged and offered little functionality to entice users to switch from existing strong platforms.
Even so, the fact that iOS and Android then adopted a flat UI would suggest the opposite of your conclusion. People liked flat/minimalist UI. Google and Apple both ditched their outdated shiny UIs in order to compete.
Who refuses to visit a website because of the shitty UI?
So UI is not important? That seems to contradict your previously stated opinions. (Not to mention that it's totally wrong; Google search and Facebook both offered a relatively minimalist UI as compared with competitors, and that is credited as one of the driving factors for the growth of the two largest web companies that exist.)
Metro started on phone, and the prevailing competition (iOS and Android) both adopted flat user interfaces. The web in general, available on desktop and then on phone, tends to use flat design.
Even so, Android tends to be customized by OEM and websites are customized by each site. There is an absurd amount of room for choice. People are largely choosing flat UIs, otherwise there wouldn't be many flat UIs.
I try to remember that getting rid of the spoiler effect is merely a gateway to the goal of better choice. You are correct that it is key to getting there and that everything else comes after, but once it goes away we have to remain diligent to educate the electorate. Otherwise we could see the spoiler effect become a lingering superstition that is as effective as reality.
When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
It's not really much of a choice, and that's the problem. If the other Republican, Democrat, third party, and independent candidates had a presence in the final election and in the debates, and if we used an alternative voting system to avoid the spoiler effect, then we certainly would have voted in a candidate more people prefer.
The number of Hitler supporters was undoubtedly inflated by fear and the social inability to form adequate resistance.
The number of doctors who believed in bloodletting was inflated by the lack of technology which now allows for advanced research and instantaneous communication.
Yet targeting the exact group of professionals which a pro iMac would target. And by all accounts doing a much better job, partially due to its touch screen.
Slashdot Mirror
These are real political concerns.
But while it is the intention of UBI to replace some social programs, it should not replace all (particularly healthcare programs). It should be funded primarily from the rich, not the middle class and certainly not the poor.
no need for education. Maybe high school. But why else
Because most educated persons who use their degree tend to demand much higher than UBI would offer. UBI probably wouldn't get you even close to the poverty line, let alone make it worth giving up a career path.
the peasant class become 100% dependent and controllable by government
Valid point, but not really any more valid than the current situation with a minimum wage and other social wealth redistribution programs.
Straight off the top, screw business, who gives a crap about private profits.
Granted this is a common attitude, but how is it helping by making some particular companies pay for our wealth redistribution process? Why shouldn't that be shared among society?
Major corporations have proven to be totally myopic tied to greed and greed, having become extremely destructive, where as small and medium business has proven to be very beneficial, providing for a social and economic need, much more effectively and socially responsible fashion, than major corporations.
Minimum wage regulations hit small businesses disproportionately hard. UBI wouldn't, because it's not a regulation on business. It should be an income or wealth tax which would much more directly target the type of greedy corporate bosses you seem to despise.
Except the minimum wage is $10 so they're not paying less than that. Or they won't find anyone who wants to work for $5/hr and they'll wind up paying $10 anyway.
If you are demanding the equivalent of $18/hour after UBI, you will be replaced by someone who is currently unemployed and only demands $10-15/hour after UBI. UBI is intended for survival and minimum needs, not comfort... if you value any level of comfort then you will need some form of a job, even if just part time, and thus you will have to make your wage demands reasonable.
Income taxes will still be progressive. UBI will certainly affect taxes, but placing a heavier burden on the poor and lower-middle classes will be counter-productive. The heaviest burden, as always, will have to fall on the very rich.
The impacts you mention are temporary anyway. And they can be reduced or eliminated with a graduated implementation.
Compared with the minimum wage? It could be much lower. Someone who makes $10/hour today but gets a UBI equivalent to say $8/hour would be better off just making $5/hour at work. And the company is paying less even as the employee comes out ahead.
Society wants wealth redistribution, but the minimum wage targets specific market sectors (those with low-skill labor) to bear that burden. The fair thing to do is to have society pay for wealth redistribution through taxation, and UBI is a reasonable mechanism to do so.
UBI is more pro-business than minimum wage because it relieves businesses to have more freedom in hiring.
UBI is more pro-worker than minimum wage because they no longer need an abusive job just to survive and just to feed their kids.
Even if it were a monopoly, I wouldn't say it's necessarily the worst kind of a monopoly (yet). Messenger is free and cross-platform. It is quite feature rich and most people I know already have access to it. And it has helped to replace SMS and its per-message charges for most of my phone text conversations.
I still personally prefer open software with encrypted communications though.
Right, it is in prerelease builds. Not anything mainstream, and no guarantee that the feature will remain in the final release or if it will work the same.
I'm talking about old school applications (not appx). There is no opt out for sideloading those.
Also, I'd like to see representatives and senators spend as much time in their home area as possible. They could even vote remotely in front of a camera. Let them walk outside and face the people they represent.
each region would have multiple winners
should be: each district would have multiple winners
States don't represent the distinctions in culture that they once did. Most people don't know why North and South Carolina are two states, and those who do likely don't share the same concerns as our ancestors. Frankly, the boundaries between all states suffer this problem to a major degree and could use a rethink.
I'm not sure if I care about the number of states, because I'd like to see some major changes in the federal legislative branch:
Regions I'd like to create a few federal regions which represent cultural areas of the US. Most federal laws (except things like declarations of war) would start in the regions, and laws could be distinguished to target urban vs. rural areas. These regions and urban/rural subdivisions would become the "laboratories of democracy" that states have failed to be. Regions may adopt and tweak laws from each other, and any law adopted by two or more regions could be eligible for nationwide consideration (by full vote).
House of Representatives Districts would be larger, bounded by region lines instead of state lines, and each region would have multiple winners. For example, each district could have 2 winners or each could have 3, so that 51-49 ties don't leave half the population without representation.
Senate Each state would be reduced to one senator, appointed as a representative of the state government. Additionally, each region would hold a popular vote to elect one senator from the urban population and one senator from the rural population. Finally, each Senate committee would have two members, chair and co-chair, voted in by national popular vote (the remaining members would serve on these committees as they do today).
All laws would require 60% vote to pass, either regionally or in nationwide votes. Regional laws would be voted by members from the region (in the senate, regional votes would include senators from the states in the region). Senate committees have the power to bring to the floor laws which are proposed to all regions, and the committees would attempt to reconcile the differences between similar regional bills and existing regional laws.
Article V is important, though its main limitation is that we have so many states that it makes it hard to get traction on any Article V amendment. (When one does, Congress steps in to pass a similar bill in order to prevent Article V from actually being invoked, which would embolden future attempts.)
"Looking the other way" implies knowledge of wrongdoing; ignorance does not have that implication. That distinction is precisely the subject at hand.
Perhaps it is you who needs to learn the meaning of the word:
complicit : helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way
I believe the word you are looking for is complacent: "marked by self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies".
I'm with you completely. But don't let short term memory lull you into complacency with Democrats who have done this same kind of thing.
Screw both of them. Time for election reform.
This is just banning emulators from the Microsoft store. You can still download and install (sideload) on PCs like you've always been able to do.
You may not realize it, but having a few in power who are corrupt or complicit has little to do with the topic of majority approval.
MS tried forcing Metro on their phones and it was a complete disaster
Correlation != causation. Windows Phone was mismanaged and offered little functionality to entice users to switch from existing strong platforms.
Even so, the fact that iOS and Android then adopted a flat UI would suggest the opposite of your conclusion. People liked flat/minimalist UI. Google and Apple both ditched their outdated shiny UIs in order to compete.
Who refuses to visit a website because of the shitty UI?
So UI is not important? That seems to contradict your previously stated opinions. (Not to mention that it's totally wrong; Google search and Facebook both offered a relatively minimalist UI as compared with competitors, and that is credited as one of the driving factors for the growth of the two largest web companies that exist.)
Metro started on phone, and the prevailing competition (iOS and Android) both adopted flat user interfaces. The web in general, available on desktop and then on phone, tends to use flat design.
Even so, Android tends to be customized by OEM and websites are customized by each site. There is an absurd amount of room for choice. People are largely choosing flat UIs, otherwise there wouldn't be many flat UIs.
I try to remember that getting rid of the spoiler effect is merely a gateway to the goal of better choice. You are correct that it is key to getting there and that everything else comes after, but once it goes away we have to remain diligent to educate the electorate. Otherwise we could see the spoiler effect become a lingering superstition that is as effective as reality.
When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
It's not really much of a choice, and that's the problem. If the other Republican, Democrat, third party, and independent candidates had a presence in the final election and in the debates, and if we used an alternative voting system to avoid the spoiler effect, then we certainly would have voted in a candidate more people prefer.
The computer industry these days is a complete disaster on the software side.
The market would indicate otherwise. You need to show how being adequate enough for billions of people constitutes a "complete disaster".
"Industry" came up with the Windows 8/10 "Metro" UI, and the current flat-UI fad
Despite competition, these have been successful. Industry provided something most people like even if they didn't ask for it.
The number of Hitler supporters was undoubtedly inflated by fear and the social inability to form adequate resistance.
The number of doctors who believed in bloodletting was inflated by the lack of technology which now allows for advanced research and instantaneous communication.
Both of these are improved in our culture today.
Then the answer is still correct but is less meaningful to that person.
Yet targeting the exact group of professionals which a pro iMac would target. And by all accounts doing a much better job, partially due to its touch screen.