Europeans considering universal basic income and job guarantees

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody's able to take care of themselves for their entire life; Nor even in most cases for the majority of it. The ability to support yourself without any assistance from others is assuredly NOT a basic aspect of being alive, and I find it horrific that you have such a warped worldview as to accept such an absurd claim without question.

It's only a problem if you subscribe to the philosophy of the unfathomable protestants, with their inscrutable 'work ethic'.

It's a problem for anyone who doesn't feel like supporting leeches.

Fuck off with your petty insults. A person who is temporarily unable to support himself financially isn't a "leech" if he accepts assistance from others. You need to be FAR more critical in your reading of Ayn Rand - She's a fucking idiot; Don't emulate her if you don't want to be thought an idiot too.

Goalposts! "Temporarily"--but you were saying some people weren't suitable for work. That's a permanent state.

I do not have a problem with supporting those with disabilities that keep them from working. I have a big problem with people who simply want to not work.

Since the industrial revolution, society has needed fewer and fewer of its members to work in order to feed, clothe and house everyone. Why are you so keen to force work onto people who don't want it; to push employers to hire people that aren't desirable employees; and to punish those who cannot or don't want to work?

That effort should be used for the betterment of society.

Yes. It should. You seem to have a VERY narrow view of what benefits society.

Letting people leech off society doesn't better society.

Traditionally, most people don't support themselves (except those living in poverty).

Middle class households typically had one 'breadwinner', whose work supported a spouse; children (including any unmarried adult children, particularly if they were female); Elderly relatives (particularly widows); and often various other wards, such as cousins, nephews and nieces.

The spouse worked, just not in an income-producing fashion. The others basically fall into one of those two exceptions I named--the young and the disabled. (From a practical standpoint an awful lot of the elderly are disabled.)

Society can and should support its members. All of them. A society that allows people to starve as a result of misfortune is a badly broken society.

Goalposts! I'm not saying people should starve due to misfortune. If there's work available and you simply don't want to do it I don't think society owes you support.

 

[barbos]

Letting people leech off society doesn't better society.

Maybe in a perfect society, and I am not even sure of that.
The society we currently have sucks at detecting leeches.

 

[Wiploc]

So long as we let rich people leach off of society, we should let poor people do so too.

 

[Angry Floof]

So long as we let rich people leach off of society, we should let poor people do so too.

It's astounding how many billions in cash and bailouts and welfare programs can be handed to the wealthy and corporations without a blink from people who bleat on about not giving "handouts" to the poor. It's sickening.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So long as we let rich people leach off of society, we should let poor people do so too.

It's astounding how many billions in cash and bailouts and welfare programs can be handed to the wealthy and corporations without a blink from people who bleat on about not giving "handouts" to the poor. It's sickening.

Think I approve one bit of such bailouts for the rich????

 

[Angry Floof]

So long as we let rich people leach off of society, we should let poor people do so too.

It's astounding how many billions in cash and bailouts and welfare programs can be handed to the wealthy and corporations without a blink from people who bleat on about not giving "handouts" to the poor. It's sickening.

Think I approve one bit of such bailouts for the rich????

No idea. I've only ever heard you criticize things that help the poor and vulnerable, not the rich and powerful.

 

[DBT]

Think I approve one bit of such bailouts for the rich????

No idea. I've only ever heard you criticize things that help the poor and vulnerable, not the rich and powerful.

LP's position may be one of survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, only the 'strong' do well and they do it without the aid of government. Aid or assistance being for the pansies. Workers to serve the rich, to fulfil the dreams of the entroponour, the industrialist, the business leaders.....and to do so at minimum cost.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Think I approve one bit of such bailouts for the rich????

No idea. I've only ever heard you criticize things that help the poor and vulnerable, not the rich and powerful.

LP's position may be one of survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, only the 'strong' do well and they do it without the aid of government. Aid or assistance being for the pansies. Workers to serve the rich, to fulfil the dreams of the entroponour, the industrialist, the business leaders.....and to do so at minimum cost.

No. I support helping the disabled or whose problems are truly beyond their control. (For example, I favor tying unemployment benefits to how your cohort fares rather than a calendar. Unemployment needed to last longer in 2008 than 2018.) However, the majority of people who think their problems are beyond their control are wrong.

I do not support helping people because they are members of a disadvantaged class--that's racism.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I do not support helping people because they are members of a disadvantaged class--that's racism.

Correction: You don't believe there's such a thing as a disadvantaged class and ignore that it's already largely tied to race.

So you mouth the words, but won't actually support a fair society. You're pretty transparent, really.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not support helping people because they are members of a disadvantaged class--that's racism.

Correction: You don't believe there's such a thing as a disadvantaged class and ignore that it's already largely tied to race.

So you mouth the words, but won't actually support a fair society. You're pretty transparent, really.

You're not making a correction here, that's two sides of the same coin. I don't believe there are disadvantages classes, any attempts to help them are simply racism in disguise.

That does not mean that there aren't disadvantaged individuals. Help the individuals that need it (to the extent we reasonably can--in many cases there's nothing we can do to overcome the problems they grew up with), based on their circumstances, don't look at what groups they might be members of.

 

[Jarhyn]

I do not support helping people because they are members of a disadvantaged class--that's racism.

Correction: You don't believe there's such a thing as a disadvantaged class and ignore that it's already largely tied to race.

So you mouth the words, but won't actually support a fair society. You're pretty transparent, really.

You're not making a correction here, that's two sides of the same coin. I don't believe there are disadvantages classes, any attempts to help them are simply racism in disguise.

That does not mean that there aren't disadvantaged individuals. Help the individuals that need it (to the extent we reasonably can--in many cases there's nothing we can do to overcome the problems they grew up with), based on their circumstances, don't look at what groups they might be members of.

Except for that whole mechanic where their circumstances are ubiquitous across a group owing to ubiquitous hate for the group kicking around some known and easily identified segment of society.

I mean shit, I look like a homeless person most days, and I have never once been treated like I don't belong where I am.

If you don't think that the same factors that impact black people being harassed in stores impact their ability to get fucking jobs, you're out of your goddamn mind.

 

[Wiploc]

You're not making a correction here, that's two sides of the same coin. I don't believe there are disadvantages classes, any attempts to help them are simply racism in disguise.

That does not mean that there aren't disadvantaged individuals. Help the individuals that need it (to the extent we reasonably can--in many cases there's nothing we can do to overcome the problems they grew up with), based on their circumstances, don't look at what groups they might be members of.

Sounds like an argument for a universal basic income.

- The money goes to every individual, without regard to race or class.

- Sidesteps intractable philosophical problems of who is really disadvantaged and who is really deserving.

- Doesn't require anyone to either admit or deny the existence of disadvantaged classes.

 

[Angry Floof]

You're not making a correction here, that's two sides of the same coin. I don't believe there are disadvantages classes, any attempts to help them are simply racism in disguise.

That does not mean that there aren't disadvantaged individuals. Help the individuals that need it (to the extent we reasonably can--in many cases there's nothing we can do to overcome the problems they grew up with), based on their circumstances, don't look at what groups they might be members of.

Sounds like an argument for a universal basic income.

- The money goes to every individual, without regard to race or class.

- Sidesteps intractable philosophical problems of who is really disadvantaged and who is really deserving.

- Doesn't require anyone to either admit or deny the existence of disadvantaged classes.

Yep, and there is another aspect to the "universal" part of UBI and that is psychology. Every single millionaire and billionaire will receive a UBI check exactly like everyone else, a monthly reminder that they are not separate from the rest of us. It's very important that no rich person have the option to opt out of receiving a UBI check.

Plus, the shame mentality of poverty is all but erased because, A, people's basic needs will be met on a permanent and secure basis and that has a powerful effect on a person's sense of well being and stability, reducing both the society wide problems that come with poverty and the level of stress among the people, and, B, every impoverished person receiving a UBI check would know that every other citizen, including the billionaires, receive the same check every month and therefore the poor are not separate or marginalized for their poverty.

Then on top of that, you have millions more people with a little more money, a little more time, and a little more peaceful existence in which to pursue their interests and contributing more to society instead of spending their time and energy constantly trying to meet their basic needs.

Win/win/win. UBI would be a cultural game changer in many ways.

 

[bilby]

I saw a doco the other day about a factory in the UK that makes frozen potato waffles.

It produces a million waffles a day, enough for the entire UK market, plus significant exports (particularly to Ireland).

The factory has a staff of seven.

Not a typo. 7 people.

Almost every imaginable product could be manufactured with this level of automation. And soon will be.

In a world where seven workers can make a million waffles every single day, the idea that working is noble, necessary, and virtuous is insane.

Everyone can be a freeloader. And the only entities with the right to be upset that they are working hard while others don't have to are the machines.

The biggest barrier to the even more rapid and widespread automation of production of everything is the need for work to avoid starvation, which is a consequence of stupid moralising; And the availability of stupidly cheap labour, which is a consequence of that consequence.

 

[barbos]

Not a typo. 7 people.

And thousands to drive trucks with these waffles around. Plus don't forget people who manufacture these machines.
In any case, the number I heard was 1% of the people actually produce the food (farmers) and then 10% work in processing and distribution.
Japan has a plan to have no farmers at all.
Speaking of documentaries, I saw about cotton in US, where situation is similar - tiny amount of people actually involved in that but then it gets shipped to Indonesia and then to Bangladesh with their slavery system to make t-shirts which get shipped back to US and gets thrown after a one wear by some people.

 

[Wiploc]

In any case, the number I heard was 1% of the people actually produce the food (farmers) and then 10% work in processing and distribution.

Don't forget the people who make the tractors, fuel, pesticides, and fertilizers.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Yep, and there is another aspect to the "universal" part of UBI and that is psychology. Every single millionaire and billionaire will receive a UBI check exactly like everyone else, a monthly reminder that they are not separate from the rest of us. It's very important that no rich person have the option to opt out of receiving a UBI check.

Plus, the shame mentality of poverty is all but erased because, A, people's basic needs will be met on a permanent and secure basis and that has a powerful effect on a person's sense of well being and stability, reducing both the society wide problems that come with poverty and the level of stress among the people, and, B, every impoverished person receiving a UBI check would know that every other citizen, including the billionaires, receive the same check every month and therefore the poor are not separate or marginalized for their poverty.

Then on top of that, you have millions more people with a little more money, a little more time, and a little more peaceful existence in which to pursue their interests and contributing more to society instead of spending their time and energy constantly trying to meet their basic needs.

Win/win/win. UBI would be a cultural game changer in many ways.

These are excellent points, several of which hadn't even occurred to me (call it privilege).

I predict LP will completely twist the perceived results with more unsupported bullshit.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yep, and there is another aspect to the "universal" part of UBI and that is psychology. Every single millionaire and billionaire will receive a UBI check exactly like everyone else, a monthly reminder that they are not separate from the rest of us. It's very important that no rich person have the option to opt out of receiving a UBI check.

Plus, the shame mentality of poverty is all but erased because, A, people's basic needs will be met on a permanent and secure basis and that has a powerful effect on a person's sense of well being and stability, reducing both the society wide problems that come with poverty and the level of stress among the people, and, B, every impoverished person receiving a UBI check would know that every other citizen, including the billionaires, receive the same check every month and therefore the poor are not separate or marginalized for their poverty.

Then on top of that, you have millions more people with a little more money, a little more time, and a little more peaceful existence in which to pursue their interests and contributing more to society instead of spending their time and energy constantly trying to meet their basic needs.

Win/win/win. UBI would be a cultural game changer in many ways.

These are excellent points, several of which hadn't even occurred to me (call it privilege).

I predict LP will completely twist the perceived results with more unsupported bullshit.

This is where you will see an embattled plea that he really does support welfare for ThoSe WhO dEseRvE It. Never mentioning that the filtration of the "worthy" is exactly when racism starts being leveraged. Or maybe wE Can'T AfFoRD It!!!

I've been arguing for UBI since before UBI was a conversation, on the basis that everyone should have a stipend, and that means testing was nonsense. Back then, though, I recall a lot of people here being on the side of means testing and saying that the rich shouldn't get it just because they are rich, ignoring the fact that they are such a minority that it is at most 10% more expensive for the checks, and WAY more than 10% increase for the filtration logistics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not making a correction here, that's two sides of the same coin. I don't believe there are disadvantages classes, any attempts to help them are simply racism in disguise.

That does not mean that there aren't disadvantaged individuals. Help the individuals that need it (to the extent we reasonably can--in many cases there's nothing we can do to overcome the problems they grew up with), based on their circumstances, don't look at what groups they might be members of.

Sounds like an argument for a universal basic income.

- The money goes to every individual, without regard to race or class.

- Sidesteps intractable philosophical problems of who is really disadvantaged and who is really deserving.

- Doesn't require anyone to either admit or deny the existence of disadvantaged classes.

1) I don't think we can afford UBI yet.

2) I used to support UBI at some point down the road. I have changed my mind on that, though--going down the UBI road is basically a one-way street, if it turns out to be a bad decision we're screwed. Government provided jobs (useful things but stuff that normally wouldn't be considered worth the cost) would be a better option.

 

[J842P]

You're not making a correction here, that's two sides of the same coin. I don't believe there are disadvantages classes, any attempts to help them are simply racism in disguise.

That does not mean that there aren't disadvantaged individuals. Help the individuals that need it (to the extent we reasonably can--in many cases there's nothing we can do to overcome the problems they grew up with), based on their circumstances, don't look at what groups they might be members of.

Sounds like an argument for a universal basic income.

- The money goes to every individual, without regard to race or class.

- Sidesteps intractable philosophical problems of who is really disadvantaged and who is really deserving.

- Doesn't require anyone to either admit or deny the existence of disadvantaged classes.

1) I don't think we can afford UBI yet.

2) I used to support UBI at some point down the road. I have changed my mind on that, though--going down the UBI road is basically a one-way street, if it turns out to be a bad decision we're screwed. Government provided jobs (useful things but stuff that normally wouldn't be considered worth the cost) would be a better option.

Your (2) is not in evidence at all. You've merely asserted it multiple times, but I find no reason to believe it.

(1) I have no strong opinions about.