Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Universal Basic Income

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 76 to 150 of 227
  1. #76
    I agree with oskar in that the best solution is whatever makes most economical sense. The problem is, and I say this with experience, is that a large percentage of the unemployed, well it doesn't make economical sense to employ them, because they cost the employer more in wages than their value. These people should be given the bare minimum to survive. Giving them a phone or money for beers so they can "network" is just nonsense. The people on benefits of net economic benefit to a prospective employer, they already have phones, they're already capable of networking, they'll find a job sooner or later with the minimum of government assistance. Fuck's sake, even I got myself sorted out eventually. Was it smoking weed and chilling with my mates that got me a job? No, it was the incentive to get out of my shitty town and into the countryside.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I'm pretty sure that UBI or negative tax would be a much better system for everyone. There's more incentive to find work, and you don't bump billions into welfare management and instead can spend it directly on the people. I'm not saying it's the greatest possible system, but I'd be surprised if it's worse than the current one.
    I just hate this line of thinking.

    Why are we trying to find a "better system"? What's wrong with the current one? Why isn't the current system working?

    The problem, is fraud, waste, and abuse.

    Please tell me how UBI, with even less regulation and oversight, will help?
  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    idk, ask the doctors in norway. They seem to be doing fine.
    A specialist in Norway makes $77K. In America, that same doctor makes $230K. If you got cancer tomorrow, to which country would you go for medical care?
    https://journal.practicelink.com/vit...ion-worldwide/

    There are lots of studies about monetary incentives and productivity. General conclusion: not that important past a certain point.
    Bogus. These studies evaluate financial incentives for people working in their existing jobs. A better question would be to evaluate incentives that drive initial career decisions. In other words, why does a 22 year old want to go to medical school and be a doctor? What makes a person decide to be a lawyer, or accountant, or plumber?

    According to my own non-scientific, but completely accurate and reliable study, a major driving force in career decision making is long-term financial security.

    I don't think I'm just speaking for myself when I say: I'd much rather work in my field for minimum wage than as a cashier for twice my wage.
    you are certainly not speaking for the majority.

    So how's that working out for you guys?
    Fine.

    That's great. That's how it should be imo.
    So why do we need UBI?
  4. #79
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Well for one the three problems you listed would be gone by default. That's a semantic point, but a semantic point is a point nonetheless as spoon has taught me. The one major thing a negative tax type system improves is the perceived cost of getting work when you're on welfare. Let's say you get 50 schmeckles a month for nothing. You could get a 40h job that pays 70 schmeckles but you would be effectively working for 20 extra schmeckles. A negative tax system alleviates that.

    fwiw this is waaaaaaaaaaaaay down my priorities list. I don't read up about this, I don't think about it, but this is the least retarded thread on this forum atm and I'm trying to figure out if it's worth checking in still.
    More interesting than this whole thing is why you guys get so worked up about this. Even if it's unjust. You are not getting close to having any sort of influence on how this works. This is 100% out of your control, so there's no reason to be upset about it. This is like getting upset about the sun setting at night.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  5. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Well for one the three problems you listed would be gone by default.
    How??

    Food stamps are issued in an exclusive currency as a measure to prevent abuse. It prevents them from being spent on jewelry, video games, and drugs.

    That will be "gone by default" if you issue benefits in the form of cash instead?? Wut??

    How is this merely a semantic point?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-07-2018 at 07:58 AM.
  6. #81
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    A specialist in Norway makes $77K. In America, that same doctor makes $230K. If you got cancer tomorrow, to which country would you go for medical care?
    https://journal.practicelink.com/vit...ion-worldwide/
    Just based on prejudice I'd go with norway, but I'd do my research first. If you wanted to trip me on this you should have chosen a different country than norway.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  7. #82
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    How??

    Food stamps are issued in an exclusive currency as a measure to prevent abuse. It prevents them from being spent on jewelry, video games, and drugs.

    That will be "gone by default" if you issue benefits in the form of cash instead?? Wut??

    How is this merely a semantic point?
    I even said it was a semantic point. If you get the money no-strings-attatched, it's not fraud waste or abuse to do with it whatever you want. I told you I was making an intellectually dishonest statement for the lolz and you're still getting worked up over it. Check your blood pressure, man.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Even if it's unjust. You are not getting close to having any sort of influence on how this works. This is 100% out of your control, so there's no reason to be upset about it. This is like getting upset about the sun setting at night.
    I highly recommend you move out of whatever progressive shithole that you live in now and get yourself some democracy.
  9. #84
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I realize that since we're defaulting to ad-hominem and every logical fallacy in the book on this forum it can be very confusing sometimes.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  10. #85
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I highly recommend you move out of whatever progressive shithole that you live in now and get yourself some democracy.
    non-sequitur lol
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  11. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I even said it was a semantic point. If you get the money no-strings-attatched, it's not fraud waste or abuse to do with it whatever you want.
    Well...if we're gonna be THAT semantic, I would take issue with your use of the word "gone". That word means something different than "Re-branded"
  12. #87
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    More interesting than this whole thing is why you guys get so worked up about this. Even if it's unjust. You are not getting close to having any sort of influence on how this works. This is 100% out of your control, so there's no reason to be upset about it. This is like getting upset about the sun setting at night.
    This captures my sentiments so well.

    I think the answer is pretty simple. Most people can't tell the difference between who they are and what they believe, and are offended at the notion that they could be considered separately.
  13. #88
    You're dead wrong when you say this is 100% out of our control. If you truly believe you're powerless to stop the advancing power of the nanny-state, then I truly feel sorry for any self-motivated person who is unfortunate enough to live in whatever progressive shithole you hail from.

    Welfare has existed for decades, but it wasn't until the 1990s that people were required to work in order to receive any benefits. THat change came about through the democratic process, not by a bunch of people sitting around saying "we have no power over this, so let's just hope for the best".

    If spoon were here he would say "COLONIZED" to you both.
  14. #89
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    That's not really the point, nanners. The point is that this is FTR, not a meeting of legislators.
    Nothing that is posted on FTR is going to affect any politician or political movement or agenda.

    If your goal is to enact change on any of these topics, you're in the wrong place.
  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    That's not really the point, nanners. The point is that this is FTR, not a meeting of legislators.
    Nothing that is posted on FTR is going to affect any politician or political movement or agenda.

    If your goal is to enact change on any of these topics, you're in the wrong place.
    It sounds like your issue is with the person who suggested we discuss Universal Basic Income in the first place. Either that or your issue is with yourself for choosing to read this thread.

    This is like walking up to kids playing football in a park and saying "you guys should all give up and go home because this isn't the super bowl"

    Maybe just keep walking and mind your own business then??
  16. #91
    Moving away from this de-rail...

    I'll repeat my on-topic question from more than a dozen posts ago...

    What currently existing "problem" does UBI solve?
  17. #92
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It sounds like your issue is with the person who suggested we discuss Universal Basic Income in the first place. Either that or your issue is with yourself for choosing to read this thread.
    Reread what I wrote, but strip away the emotional detritus that you added and take it at face value, rather than assuming that I'm somehow making some greater statement than exactly what I wrote.

    To wit:
    I'm not suggesting that having the discussion is moot, I'm suggesting that the heated emotions are puerile.
    There's literally nothing on the line, here. This is not where the decisions are made.
  18. #93
    Politics is downwind from culture. If you wanna help your society, help yourself and those around you.
  19. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The problem is, and I say this with experience, is that a large percentage of the unemployed, well it doesn't make economical sense to employ them, because they cost the employer more in wages than their value.
    Excellent point.

    The optimal way to develop wage-earning skills is through entry-level training and all the subsequent on-the-job training. So, we should want to be in a place where entry-level trainee employment is dirt cheap. This would mean low to no minimum wage, not overschooling, the lower the regulations the better, and lots of other stuff.

    In my estimation, the best thing we could do is make it so the concept of internship is the standard for entry-level.
  20. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I'm not saying it's the greatest possible system, but I'd be surprised if it's worse than the current one.
    That may be true. Lots of legit economists (like my fave Milton Friedman) have supported UBI in some sense at some point.


    I do find myself, however, scratching my head at how it could help. Here's why: if somebody is not sufficiently mentally disabled, there are jobs he can do. This assumes low enough government intervention since things like the minimum wage make it so there are a lot of people who can't work. Anyways, what I'm getting at is along these lines: there are a lot of dishwashing jobs. Nobody likes doing them and nobody stays in those positions for long (except illegals, many of whom I used to wash dishes with). If you present yourself professionally along the lines that even 80 IQ people can easily figure out, you can get a dishwashing job. They're always open because people hate doing them because they stand there for 8 hours until 2 in the morning, AND people who do them who show a modicum of work ethic pretty quickly move up in the restaurant to a cooking position.

    Let's say you're at the bottom but you're not disabled. You're homeless, you have zero income, you have no family and no friends, you wear rags and you stink. Can you get a job as a dishwasher? No and yes. Not like that you can't, but what you can do is go someplace and ask for help. Churches still do this, but they used to a lot more. Government has been crowding them out. Regardless, every lifestyle homeless person knows of places where they go where people relish at the opportunity to help them. If you're homeless and penniless and you need a shower and a shave and an outfit so you can put in some dishwashing applications, there are a lot of people who will help you do that. In fact, a lot of the people who already help with that stuff will likely already have contacts to get you working.

    But most people at the bottom don't want to do that because the government provides them property to sleep on and live on, food to eat, amenities to entertain themselves with.
  21. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    In my estimation, the best thing we could do is make it so the concept of internship is the standard for entry-level.
    Ahem.....

    are you familiar with something called "The Emancipation Proclamation"?
  22. #97
    I know a guy who might actually be mentally retarded. He was definitely in special classes all through school. I was always nice to him in elementary school and he always remembered that and has always considered me a good friend and has always contacted me from time to time. I guess it shows that I'm not as nice as he thinks I am because I don't like him, but he's disabled enough that he can't even tell.

    Anyways, I tell you that to tell you this, he has a wife and kids and works as the lowest guy in a concrete pouring crew. He likes it because he's an optimist who believes in being a good person and believes in working. If he can support a family by working, virtually anybody who is not severely disabled can too.
  23. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Ahem.....

    are you familiar with something called "The Emancipation Proclamation"?
    What's your point?
  24. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If he can support a family by working, virtually anybody who is not severely disabled can too.
    Did he wear a hat?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What's your point?
    The law barely allows unpaid internships now. Most challenges to unpaid internships have been successful, either in court or through settlement.

    Charlie Rose forked over a quarter million.

    My point is that internships are very close to extinction, and that is likely irreversible at this point.
  26. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The law barely allows unpaid internships now. Most challenges to unpaid internships have been successful, either in court or through settlement.

    Charlie Rose forked over a quarter million.

    My point is that internships are very close to extinction, and that is likely irreversible at this point.
    Yeah I know the trend. It's bad news.
  27. #102
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    How bad is the news?

    It strikes me that all an employer has to do is actually document the cost to train the individual, and use that number to prove how much more than their worth the intern received.
    If the intern could make $10/hr and the cost to train them is $12/hr, then all the employer needs to do is to show that the intern has been paid 20% above their wage for the training period.

    I.e. if the intern wants to get paid $10/hr for their internship, then they need to pay the $12/hr cost for that training, just like any college student has to pay tuition to receive their career training.
    Obv the net upshoot is that the intern has to pay $2/hr for their training, but in a perfectly above-board, capitalism friendly way.


    Where does that fail?
  28. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    How bad is the news?

    It strikes me that all an employer has to do is actually document the cost to train the individual, and use that number to prove how much more than their worth the intern received.
    If the intern could make $10/hr and the cost to train them is $12/hr, then all the employer needs to do is to show that the intern has been paid 20% above their wage for the training period.

    I.e. if the intern wants to get paid $10/hr for their internship, then they need to pay the $12/hr cost for that training, just like any college student has to pay tuition to receive their career training.
    Obv the net upshoot is that the intern has to pay $2/hr for their training, but in a perfectly above-board, capitalism friendly way.


    Where does that fail?
    It sounds like you're saying that some interns might be better off if they paid for the position. I like that thinking, and it could apply in some fields.


    There are very big costs and risks associated to employers with new employees, particularly inexperienced positions. The less an employer has to pay them by law, the more hiring risk they can take. Most entry-level inexperienced potential workers get the most benefit simply by getting in the door -- where they can then learn and prove themselves.

    So, I think I agree with what you said, if I'm reading it correctly.
  29. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Where does that fail?
    Well, presumably, the more difficult/advanced a job is, the greater the training cost. So in that regard, heart surgeons and NASA engineers would gain the greatest benefit by working for free.

    The main legal challenge to unpaid internship is that they supplant paying, taxpaying, jobs.
  30. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Well, presumably, the more difficult/advanced a job is, the greater the training cost. So in that regard, heart surgeons and NASA engineers would gain the greatest benefit by working for free.
    They would?

    Those are examples where the entry level would naturally be well paid.

    The main legal challenge to unpaid internship is that they supplant paying, taxpaying, jobs.
    Well, they don't, but yes the belief is that they do. Most voluntary markets are competitive enough, it may be that all are. In these markets, unpaid internships would not replace paying jobs.
  31. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Most voluntary markets are competitive enough, it may be that all are. In these markets, unpaid internships would not replace paying jobs.
    Here's a way of looking at it.

    You're job searching. You get turned down from an entry-level position you applied because your qualifications are close but not quite what the firm wants. Well, some of these qualifications the firm wants are because the firm has to pay a certain amount. If they could pay less, some of those qualifications would go away. And then you, or some others, would get interviews/jobs that literally would not have existed otherwise. Then, after a month or two of you proving yourself, your pay would raise to the level that the "higher qualifications" hiring was going to pay.
  32. #107
    Even in a market where employers can pay whatever they want, most entry-level work would be paid. It's on certain margins in certain types of industries that could gravitate more towards very low entry-level pay.
  33. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    They would?

    Those are examples where the entry level would naturally be well paid.
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought MMM's point was that the intern is receiving $12/hour in training value and is working for free. heart surgery training costs a lot more than $12/hour. So, a volunteer heart surgeon is very well compensated. That seems silly to me.

    Where MMM's logic fails is that he assumes a paid employee does not need to be trained. If training the employee costs $12/hour, then it costs $12/hour. If you also have to pay the employee $10, then the function of that job actually costs you $22.

    The logic fails further when you realize that "training" is irrelevant. We're talking about unskilled labor, which means something that can be taught in less than 3 days. What internships provide is "experience", which is different, and cannot be quantified as a cost to the employer.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Well, they don't, but yes the belief is that they do. Most voluntary markets are competitive enough, it may be that all are. In these markets, unpaid internships would not replace paying jobs.
    Internships are only legal if the employer gets "no immediate advantage" by employing the intern. That's some loose language that can equate any unpaid position to slavery. of course free labor is an advantage!!

    I think what it specifically refers to is a competitive advantage. In other words, if Firm A can sell it's products cheaper than Firm B because Firm A employs unpaid interns, and Firm B pays it's employees, then the unpaid positions at Firm A are illegal.

    the other successful challenge to unpaid internships is that they are unfair to poor people. In order to benefit from an unpaid internship, you have to be able to afford to work for free.
  34. #109
    There are many jobs that employers don't even list because they would have to pay too much for the job to be worth it, yet those are potential jobs that can benefit the employer and the employee greatly. Examples are small business administrative work. Oftentimes they have just one administrator who often could use help. To hire help, the owner has to pay $10/hr. But the help might not be worth that. The help might leave after a few months, might make too many mistakes, and ultimately might cost more than $10/hr. But at $4/hr, the job could be offered at low enough risk to the employer. And the person who gets the job gains valuable experience. Some go from that sort of pay to 50k+/yr within a couple years.

    This process doesn't even get off the ground floor if the employer isn't allowed to offer a job at a low enough wage to make it worth his while. And then we're left with most entry-level listings not even being entry-level in the first place.
  35. #110
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Here's a way of looking at it.

    You're job searching. You get turned down from an entry-level position you applied because your qualifications are close but not quite what the firm wants. Well, some of these qualifications the firm wants are because the firm has to pay a certain amount. If they could pay less, some of those qualifications would go away. And then you, or some others, would get interviews/jobs that literally would not have existed otherwise. Then, after a month or two of you proving yourself, your pay would raise to the level that the "higher qualifications" hiring was going to pay.
    This is one of my favorite arguments against minimum wage because of how much it hurts people in the long run instead of just in the short run.
  36. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    There are many jobs that employers don't even list because they would have to pay too much for the job to be worth it, yet those are potential jobs that can benefit the employer and the employee greatly. Examples are small business administrative work. Oftentimes they have just one administrator who often could use help. To hire help, the owner has to pay $10/hr. But the help might not be worth that. The help might leave after a few months, might make too many mistakes, and ultimately might cost more than $10/hr. But at $4/hr, the job could be offered at low enough risk to the employer. And the person who gets the job gains valuable experience. Some go from that sort of pay to 50k+/yr within a couple years.

    This process doesn't even get off the ground floor if the employer isn't allowed to offer a job at a low enough wage to make it worth his while. And then we're left with most entry-level listings not even being entry-level in the first place.
    What should happen here, is that the current administrator gets more efficient, through experience and innovation, to command an extra $4/hour.

    Remember, businesses aren't in business to educate an entry-level workforce. In my scenario, the cost is the same but the firm also gains by acquiring more efficient processes in its operation. And if they can negotiate with the administrator and pay something less than $4/hour, then profits are enhanced.
  37. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought MMM's point was that the intern is receiving $12/hour in training value and is working for free. heart surgery training costs a lot more than $12/hour. So, a volunteer heart surgeon is very well compensated. That seems silly to me.

    Where MMM's logic fails is that he assumes a paid employee does not need to be trained. If training the employee costs $12/hour, then it costs $12/hour. If you also have to pay the employee $10, then the function of that job actually costs you $22.
    We'll have to wait for him to clarify. I thought he envisioned a scenario where an employee could pay the employer for the position since the employee would be gaining more than the employer would. It's a neat idea and could maybe work in some very unique ways, but it wouldn't be widespread.

    The logic fails further when you realize that "training" is irrelevant. We're talking about unskilled labor, which means something that can be taught in less than 3 days. What internships provide is "experience", which is different, and cannot be quantified as a cost to the employer.
    No labor is truly unskilled. Knowing how to speak English is a very big labor skill, for example.

    There are a lot more costs to employers of new employees than just the initial training. It takes a while to find the real cost and real benefit of the employee.

    I think what it specifically refers to is a competitive advantage. In other words, if Firm A can sell it's products cheaper than Firm B because Firm A employs unpaid interns, and Firm B pays it's employees, then the unpaid positions at Firm A are illegal.

    the other successful challenge to unpaid internships is that they are unfair to poor people. In order to benefit from an unpaid internship, you have to be able to afford to work for free.
    I get that these have been successful legal challenges. They get the economics wrong.

    People who can work for pay won't work for no pay. People who can't work for pay but still want to work tend to be poor and are those who benefit the most from being able to work briefly for no pay.
  38. #113
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    People who can work for pay won't work for no pay. People who can't work for pay but still want to work tend to be poor and are those who benefit the most from being able to work briefly for no pay.
    Bingo.

    Unpaid internships are optional. Nothing should be keeping people from offering or accepting them.
  39. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    What should happen here, is that the current administrator gets more efficient, through experience and innovation, to command an extra $4/hour.
    That is true and happens to a degree, though it has limits. As scale increases, more help is needed. This is why one of my friends is one of five accountants at his firm instead of just one of one accountants at his firm.

    Remember, businesses aren't in business to educate an entry-level workforce.
    Why is that? I know of a lot of reasons why we have been gravitating away from that. Yet, the concept is still very valuable.

    I believe things would operate much more productively if we moved back towards the norm that there should be more of a role in firm-designated training and apprenticeships. We already have a lot of this in indirect ways; an example is in how employers will often pay for employees to go to college. This tells us that firms do consider themselves playing the role of educating the workforce. It's just that the current standards for how to do it are not that efficient.
  40. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That is true and happens to a degree, though it has limits. As scale increases, more help is needed. This is why one of my friends is one of five accountants at his firm instead of just one of one accountants at his firm.
    That's different.

    In the administrator example, the admin is providing a service that the employer is willing to pay $10/hour for. If the "scale" of that job increases, meaning the volume of work, then the additional work is also worth $10 per hour. Paying someone $4 just because they are willing to, is an exploitation.

    What interns do changes the "scope" of the administrators job. The Intern can assume tasks that do not require the administrator's skill, but are still the administrator's responsibility. The lower skill requirement is what justifies the lower, or non-existent, wage.

    So going back to my original point. Innovation and efficiency on the part of the administrator eliminates the need for the intern. Either by eliminating those extraneous tasks, or by the administrator simply having more time to do them. Scale would not affect this. Scale would affect the need for more administrators.
  41. #116
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That may be true. Lots of legit economists (like my fave Milton Friedman) have supported UBI in some sense at some point.


    I do find myself, however, scratching my head at how it could help. Here's why:
    I'm not sure how any of what you said after that was relevant. UBI should help, imo, in 2 major ways:

    - Cutting down on bureaucracy. Running a system that interviews, monitors, processes, makes decisions etc for millions of people takes an obscene amount of work. If everyone just got a fixed sum every month, none of that would be needed.
    - Incentivizing labor. Not familiar with the details of your system, but here up north a lot of people are much happier just collecting unemployment benefits, since if you can only get a shitty job, you won't be making much more than from the benefits, without working. Doing even part-time work will cut heavily into your received benefits, making finding a minimum wage job pointless. With a fixed income that's unaffected by your income and that covers some basic necessities but no luxuries, every bit of extra work would be extra in your pocket, as it should be.

    These are the reasons we're trying this out: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...l-basic-income
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  42. #117
    A universal basic income is a necessary first step in the march towards the end goal of full-on communism. When it happens, and it will happen, it will mark the point of no return for these capitalist bootlickers and their oppressive overlords.

    Here's how it will unfold:
    1. First, we will get an initial universal basic income at whatever low level.
    2. Next, the politicians who win will be the ones who promise the biggest increases to the universal basic income.
    3. Step 2 will continue to greater and greater levels until wealth is fully redistributed to the oppressed.

    There is no other path, and there's absolutely nothing you capitalist apologists can do about it. The process is already too far along to be stopped by Drumpf or any of his cronies.
    Resist.
  43. #118
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I didn't have a point, I had a question.

    I proposed that simple bookkeeping is all that's needed to justify if a position in profitable for the company, and why not let a potential employee offer to make it profitable to the company to receive training?

    I'm not suggesting that all training is equal, or will require equal resources from an employer.

    I tend to think wuf is right that plenty of jobs would pay much less during training, but not actually need to charge the employee for the training, as the net benefit of having a semi-competent person on the staff is greater than the loss of equity by their trainer.
  44. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I'm not sure how any of what you said after that was relevant. UBI should help, imo, in 2 major ways:

    - Cutting down on bureaucracy. Running a system that interviews, monitors, processes, makes decisions etc for millions of people takes an obscene amount of work. If everyone just got a fixed sum every month, none of that would be needed.
    I don't see any logical premise for this argument. How is creating a whole new entitlement program going to cut down on bureaucracy??

    You can't give everyone the same fixed amount. Seniors, disabled people, unemployed people, people with children, all have different needs. They all have a different definition of what is "basic necessities". So now you need the government to interview, monitor, process, make decisions, etc for millions of people.

    Sure, MAYBE, there would be some efficiency gains if this was all administrated by a single government agency. But you're also talking about adding hundreds of millions of people to the roster of benefit recipients.

    - Incentivizing labor. Not familiar with the details of your system, but here up north a lot of people are much happier just collecting unemployment benefits, since if you can only get a shitty job, you won't be making much more than from the benefits, without working. Doing even part-time work will cut heavily into your received benefits, making finding a minimum wage job pointless. With a fixed income that's unaffected by your income and that covers some basic necessities but no luxuries, every bit of extra work would be extra in your pocket, as it should be.
    But there's only a jillion other ways to incentivize labor. Also, it's hard not to point out the circular pitfall of your suggestion. Over time, markets will adjust prices for the effect of UBI. That means that "covering basic necessities" gets more expensive. Which means UBI needs to be increased. Which prompts the market to adjust prices. Which prompts UBI to be increased.....etc.

    Furthermore, unemployed people here have to prove that they are looking for work. You can't get your check until you give the unemployment office a detailed account of your job-search efforts. They will check too. If you turn down a reasonable job offer, you can't get unemployment benefits.

    Further-Furthermore, I'm not sure why that's even relevant as unemployment is not a government entitlement program. It's an insurance program paid for by employers via a pricing system where employers with the highest turnover pay the highest insurance rates.
  45. #120
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Furthermore, unemployed people here have to prove that they are looking for work. You can't get your check until you give the unemployment office a detailed account of your job-search efforts. They will check too. If you turn down a reasonable job offer, you can't get unemployment benefits.
    For our foreign friends: I just want to point out that this is only for unemployment benefits, which is an insurance, not welfare. It's not true for welfare in many (most?) parts of the country.

    Moreover, unemployment benefits stop after a set period of time (six months last I checked), and you have to have been employed previously for a minimum length of time to qualify. On top of that, it does not cover your full salary in virtually any cases.
  46. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I just want to point out that this is only for unemployment. It's not true for welfare in many (most?) parts of the country.
    Agreed. I think it's important to pretty much throw unemployment out of this argument as it's a contained insurance system paid for by employers, not individuals.
  47. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Agreed. I think it's important to pretty much throw unemployment out of this argument as it's a contained insurance system paid for by employers, not individuals.
    Employment is a coercive trap the oppressed cannot consent to.
    Resist.
  48. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That's different.

    In the administrator example, the admin is providing a service that the employer is willing to pay $10/hour for. If the "scale" of that job increases, meaning the volume of work, then the additional work is also worth $10 per hour. Paying someone $4 just because they are willing to, is an exploitation.

    What interns do changes the "scope" of the administrators job. The Intern can assume tasks that do not require the administrator's skill, but are still the administrator's responsibility. The lower skill requirement is what justifies the lower, or non-existent, wage.

    So going back to my original point. Innovation and efficiency on the part of the administrator eliminates the need for the intern. Either by eliminating those extraneous tasks, or by the administrator simply having more time to do them. Scale would not affect this. Scale would affect the need for more administrators.
    This is true and is what I am discussing. The risk and cost of hiring new administrators is such that as the price of their labor declines, the quantity demanded of their labor inclines. So, an employer can more efficiently bring in new administrators if he was legally able to set the price lower, and lower skilled applicants are able to get work they otherwise wouldn't if they are legally allowed to accept that lower price.
  49. #124
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I don't see any logical premise for this argument. How is creating a whole new entitlement program going to cut down on bureaucracy??
    It wouldn't be a whole new program in addition to the old ones, it would replace most if not all current ones. Which one takes more effort, processing the filings of millions of people, constantly adjusting brackets, monitoring people for abuse of the system, probably a whole bunch of other activities I can't right now think of, or, setting up an automated recurring payment? I would assume were talking about a difference of thousands of man-years of labor, with all the facilities, systems and overhead running the system of thousands of people entails.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You can't give everyone the same fixed amount. Seniors, disabled people, unemployed people, people with children, all have different needs. They all have a different definition of what is "basic necessities". So now you need the government to interview, monitor, process, make decisions, etc for millions of people.
    Nope, the point is exactly that everyone gets the same amount. I suggest you read up on UBI. I'm sure there can/could be some exceptions, for example some criteria to receive higher payments, but that would defeat a lot of the purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Sure, MAYBE, there would be some efficiency gains if this was all administrated by a single government agency. But you're also talking about adding hundreds of millions of people to the roster of benefit recipients.
    Again, a recurring payment to all live citizens doesn't sound too complicated compared to any current form of social benefits.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    But there's only a jillion other ways to incentivize labor. Also, it's hard not to point out the circular pitfall of your suggestion. Over time, markets will adjust prices for the effect of UBI. That means that "covering basic necessities" gets more expensive. Which means UBI needs to be increased. Which prompts the market to adjust prices. Which prompts UBI to be increased.....etc.
    The question was how would UBI improve on status quo. What you describe is very much a part of status quo, not some new drawback of UBI.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Furthermore, unemployed people here have to prove that they are looking for work. You can't get your check until you give the unemployment office a detailed account of your job-search efforts. They will check too. If you turn down a reasonable job offer, you can't get unemployment benefits.

    Further-Furthermore, I'm not sure why that's even relevant as unemployment is not a government entitlement program. It's an insurance program paid for by employers via a pricing system where employers with the highest turnover pay the highest insurance rates.
    They have to prove they're looking for work here too. Sit down for a moment and think how much work is wasted generated nationwide to handle the data and make decisions based on it.

    Unemployment benefits are government mandated and operated here, but the point is to also get rid of welfare, student benefits (yeah we have those too, as in government benefits for students) etc. A set amount is deducted from your salary for unemployment insurance and the government pools the money and pays out the benefits to those who get unemployed. You can have private unemployment insurance on top of that, and most people do.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  50. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I'm not sure how any of what you said after that was relevant.
    I was examining the premise of UBI.

    UBI should help, imo, in 2 major ways:
    Those are the two main reasons why there is wide support, and they are very good points. There are issues, like how it needs to be low enough to incentivize work, that gives us reason to question the premise. This is because the lower it is the more it incentivizes work, yet the greater this effect, the less UBI is helping. Even if we were to decide to adopt UBI, we still have to do economic analysis to set the price. An unintended consequence of doing the economics is that even if UBI is better than current welfare setup, it might be worse than no welfare altogether.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 02-07-2018 at 05:54 PM.
  51. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I didn't have a point, I had a question.

    I proposed that simple bookkeeping is all that's needed to justify if a position in profitable for the company, and why not let a potential employee offer to make it profitable to the company to receive training?

    I'm not suggesting that all training is equal, or will require equal resources from an employer.

    I tend to think wuf is right that plenty of jobs would pay much less during training, but not actually need to charge the employee for the training, as the net benefit of having a semi-competent person on the staff is greater than the loss of equity by their trainer.
    One thing I really like about the idea of a trainee paying an employer is that it would likely be super efficient at placing workers in the right jobs. If somebody is willing to pay a small amount to do a job in order to prove he is worth paying more, he is much more likely to be a great fit for that job than somebody who is not willing. As a potential wage increases, the cost to the applicant to misrepresent his skills and misallocate his resources decreases. This cost in part falls on the employer, since he has to wade through a lower efficiency system of applications.
  52. #127
    The trainee getting very low wage or even paying a small fee idea really only applies to true entry-level work. It's not like that would be the norm for all work. It is unlikely a coincidence that most entry-level work listings aren't actually entry-level. When you have minimum wages, education subsidies, and the smorgasbord of "employee protections" (they're not protections), it's not a coincidence when employers have little choice but to not even hire for true entry-level, and instead have "entry-level" listings that have non-entry-level qualifications.
  53. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    It wouldn't be a whole new program in addition to the old ones, it would replace most if not all current ones.
    Fantasy.

    Which one takes more effort, processing the filings of millions of people, constantly adjusting brackets, monitoring people for abuse of the system, probably a whole bunch of other activities I can't right now think of, or, setting up an automated recurring payment? I would assume were talking about a difference of thousands of man-years of labor, with all the facilities, systems and overhead running the system of thousands of people entails.
    It's not a question of effort. It's a question of resources. An able-bodied educated presentable 25 year old has far different "basic necessities" than a disabled 65 year old. Just the healthcare costs alone create an astronomical difference between the two. If you're telling me everyone gets the same fixed amount, then clearly you have to err on the high side to make sure the 65 year old is covered.

    That means the 25 year old is getting alot of free money he doesn't really need. That's money that could be used to fund the administration of a more sensible, need-based welfare system. I'm not a fan of funding government bureaucracy. But in this case, you've given me the choice of giving free money to someone who doesn't need it, or creating a job. No contest.

    Nope, the point is exactly that everyone gets the same amount. I suggest you read up on UBI. I'm sure there can/could be some exceptions, for example some criteria to receive higher payments, but that would defeat a lot of the purpose.
    Pretty much my whole point. You seem to be over-estimating how long it will take for this process to be perverted. You say it "can/could" happen. I say it's certain. And it would likely happen virtually overnight.

    Again, a recurring payment to all live citizens doesn't sound too complicated compared to any current form of social benefits.
    It also sounds unnecessary and economically counter productive.

    The question was how would UBI improve on status quo. What you describe is very much a part of status quo, not some new drawback of UBI.
    No, the question is would UBI improve the status quo better than some other measure? Curtailing fraud waste and abuse within the current system seems like a far better option. Welfare should work. It's complicated now because it's been expanded for political purposes. I fail to see how UBI would not be similarly exploited. Exploitation is the problem, not a lack of UBI. Giving the exploiters something else to exploit won't make anything better.

    They have to prove they're looking for work here too. Sit down for a moment and think how much work is wasted generated nationwide to handle the data and make decisions based on it.
    I'm still not on board with including unemployment insurance as part of this discussion. But, I would say that the "work" you're referring to exists in the form of wage-paying, tax-paying jobs performed by people. The money is still going into the economy. It's just that people are working for it, rather than being handed it. What advantage is UBI providing?

    With UBI, you'd just be disbursing the same money among more people, so everyone has a little less and they are dependent on the government for it. Why is that good???

    Unemployment benefits are government mandated and operated here,
    Here too.

    but the point is to also get rid of welfare,
    Why? What's wrong with welfare if it's used as a safety net for people who are underprivileged or experiencing hardship? What "problem" does this create that needs to be solved with UBI?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-07-2018 at 06:49 PM.
  54. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Why? What's wrong with welfare if it's used as a safety net for people who are underprivileged or experiencing hardship? What "problem" does this create that needs to be solved with UBI?
    Who decides who is underprivileged or experiencing hardship? Who decides how to measure those?

    These questions are essentially what has taken a welfare system that was intended to work exactly the way you describe it should work to its rent-seeking, production-stripping, poverty-inducing system it is now.

    Also, if we're examining incentives, we want to ask why would we want a government provided "safety net" in the first place. A "safety net" brings with it its own set of problems, like disincentivizing financial responsibility and saving/investment, incentivizing short-term pleasure driven consumerism, disincentivizing strong family/community relationships, incentivizing increased undue risk-taking, and many others.

    I don't want the government to provide a "safety net" because I believe it makes people worse off.
  55. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't want the government to provide a "safety net" because I believe it makes people worse off.
    Of course you don't. Then people might actually be able to rise out of the slave class that your people put them into, and you're afraid of what will happen to your heterosexual cisgender white male privilege.
    Resist.
  56. #131
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Fantasy.
    Perhaps, but that's the concept of UBI and that's what we're talking about here.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's not a question of effort. It's a question of resources. An able-bodied educated presentable 25 year old has far different "basic necessities" than a disabled 65 year old. Just the healthcare costs alone create an astronomical difference between the two. If you're telling me everyone gets the same fixed amount, then clearly you have to err on the high side to make sure the 65 year old is covered.

    That means the 25 year old is getting alot of free money he doesn't really need. That's money that could be used to fund the administration of a more sensible, need-based welfare system. I'm not a fan of funding government bureaucracy. But in this case, you've given me the choice of giving free money to someone who doesn't need it, or creating a job. No contest.
    I'm not a small government fanboy but I still think creating useless government jobs just for the sake of creating jobs is inane. You're already "giving away free money", why not do it vastly more efficiently? Seriously dude, read up on UBI. I'll even provide a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I fail to see how UBI would not be similarly exploited. Exploitation is the problem, not a lack of UBI. Giving the exploiters something else to exploit won't make anything better.
    Every living person in the country gets the same amount every month, be that $500 or $1000 or something else. Please give some examples of how you're going to exploit the system?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  57. #132
    This commie guy could be spoon. Perfect grammar.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  58. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by forkitnow View Post
    Employment is a coercive trap the oppressed cannot consent to.
    I don't care if I'm being trolled.

    This is untrue. I used to think along these lines, for a very long time in fact, to the point I actually proved it wrong. I opted out of employment. I made the decision to not be "oppressed" by the system.

    Then one day, fairly recently, I decided that I was unhappy where I lived, that I would be happier if I lived elsewhere, and that the only way that was gonna happen is if I got myself a job. So I did, and now I'm in the countryside, much happier than I was.

    So the question begs... when was I oppressed? Then? Or now? Before, I was totally reliant on the government (or, more accurately, the taxpayer). Now I'm reliant on myself.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Perhaps, but that's the concept of UBI and that's what we're talking about here.
    No, I mean, that if UBI were a reality, there's no plausible scenario that I see where it would be the only form of government entitlement. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Pandora's box is already open. People are getting free food, free healthcare, free housing, free phones, free internet service, disability benefits, and who knows what else.

    UBI is either going to cover all of that, and extend that coverage to hundreds of millions of people who already pay their own way. Or existing benefits will be reduced (diluted), and then extended to hundreds of millions of people who already pay their own way. You either have to completely soak the rich to redistribute massive amounts of money. Or you have to shaft poor people.

    Which catastrophe are you advocating for here?

    I'm not a small government fanboy but I still think creating useless government jobs just for the sake of creating jobs is inane. You're already "giving away free money", why not do it vastly more efficiently?
    It's not a useless government job if it's ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not spent fraudulently, abusively, or wastefully.

    Also, you still need a backup plan. Sally gets her UBI check on the first of the month and then blows it on crack within 3 days. It's now the 4th of the month and Sally's two kids are hungry. Sally can't get a job because she's got two kids to take care of. Being addicted to crack doesn't help her chances either.

    Where is Sally going to turn? You've already soaked the upper class and redistributed those taxes to ALL citizens regardless. Supposedly everyone's "basic needs" are already covered. Are there any charities still in business?? likely not. So how are Sally's kids going to eat??

    The government is going to have to feed those kids somehow. And I don't see anyway it could do it without allocating funds to Sally's family beyond UBI.

    Furthermore, I can't see how giving Sally a check next month makes any bit of sense.

    So now we have this need for a bureaucracy of government oversight. Someone has to make sure that Sally buys milk and bread instead of crack. One way to do that is to issue the UBI in a form of exclusive currency that can only buy milk and bread, and can not buy crack. So now we have UBI, AND a food stamp program.

    That's just one example of one potential complication. The administration of this UBI for a country of 350+ million people would be a fucking nightmare. You make it sound like one guy loads some checks into a dot matrix printer, pushes "print", and then suddenly everyone's got money in their mailbox.

    It's not even close to that simple.

    Seriously dude, read up on UBI. I'll even provide a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
    I've ready enough on UBI to know what a bad idea it is. When you find a source that can explain, with data, what happens when UBI is in effect across multiple generations, then you'll have my attention. All these "experiments" that you find so promising are rigged. The UBI receivers know it's an experiment. They know it's a test. They treat the money like a bonus, like pennies from heaven, and spend/invest it accordingly. I want to know what happens when people's perception of UBI changes from "bonus" to "entitlement". No link provided anywhere in this thread, or by any advocate of UBI that I've read, answers that question.

    Once upon a time, if you wanted to retire, you had to save money. You needed to be able to support yourself if you wanted to stop working. Then one day, the USA invented "social security", which was basically a forced savings plan. They tax your paycheck a little bit every week, and when you're 65, you can cash it in and collect a payment every month.

    Savings didn't fall off a cliff as soon as that was enacted. Yet here we are 4 generations later and 1/3 of American adults can't pull together $1,000 on a day's notice for an emergency expense. Tell me how UBI will be different???

    Every living person in the country gets the same amount every month, be that $500 or $1000 or something else. Please give some examples of how you're going to exploit the system?
    Well if we go back to my original comment, and the context in which I used "exploitation", then I fail to see how UBI would be less exploitable than any other government entitlement program. Political power will be amassed through the manipulation of benefits. It's just a shitload easier because now the benefits touch every citizen, not just those in need.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-08-2018 at 07:05 AM.
  60. #135
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't care if I'm being trolled.

    This is untrue. I used to think along these lines, for a very long time in fact, to the point I actually proved it wrong. I opted out of employment. I made the decision to not be "oppressed" by the system.

    Then one day, fairly recently, I decided that I was unhappy where I lived, that I would be happier if I lived elsewhere, and that the only way that was gonna happen is if I got myself a job. So I did, and now I'm in the countryside, much happier than I was.

    So the question begs... when was I oppressed? Then? Or now? Before, I was totally reliant on the government (or, more accurately, the taxpayer). Now I'm reliant on myself.
    I don't feel like logging into that account to continue the conversation because the novelty has worn off for me now that there are copycats, but the left's line of thought on something like, "Employment is a coercive trap the oppressed cannot consent to," is that consent has to be given freely with the threat of negative "violent" consequences hanging over someone's head when they make a decision. The decision put to people they qualify as the oppressed is that they can either get a job and be miserable or not get a job and die/at least be significantly worse off (the "violent" consequence). Their idea is that the consequences of the latter decision makes the whole situation coercion, which I obviously don't agree with, but that's their logic.

    What you just posted here in response is exactly the truth. However, I want to point out a couple of things.

    These people would call you a bootlicker and worse for the opinions that you've given here. A big part of that is that they believe you cannot make a decision to no longer be oppressed. This is the rejection of personal responsibility we've talked about in various forms. If you want to use the Christian mythology examples, it's the way of Cain refusing to take responsibility for the lackluster nature of his sacrifice and lashing out at God (ie: the "oppressor") by striking down Abel.

    This is also tied into why they jump to making themselves a victim in everything they do because that is the currency they use to figure out who is the most oppressed since being oppressed is their only virtue in their value system. The more oppressed you are, the bigger the victim you are and the better you are as a person, etc.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-08-2018 at 12:33 PM.
  61. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by spoon
    A big part of that is that they believe you cannot make a decision to no longer be oppressed.
    Indeed, and the fact that I "did" proves that actually I wasn't oppressed in the first place.

    The more oppressed you are, the bigger the victim you are and the better you are as a person, etc.
    This victimhood is the main reason I took a sharp turn away from the left. Everyone's a fucking victim one way or another, the left's obsession with it is a shameless attempt to tap into people's insecurities and good nature.

    Something like 15 years ago, when I first started getting into politics, the left was largely made of of nice, naive people who wanted to do things like travel, learn new languages, volunteer for the local homeless charity, that sort of stuff. But now it seems like they have become utterly consumed by hatred for anyone who doesn't fit into their naive view of "nice". Suddenly, calling someone a faggot made you a hater, like it's somehow worse than calling someone a cunt.

    It's funny. Poker has helped me move away from the left, too. In my younger days, there was a naive part of me that thought the world could be fair for everyone. Then poker made me realise in the simplest way imaginable how that isn't possible. My gain is someone else's loss, and it's either because I'm better, or I got lucky. Suck a dick. Suddenly, all those times I felt shafted, all those times I felt "that's not fucking fair", I accepted it because life isn't fair and it never fucking will be. Make the most of what you've got and what you can get, fuck everyone else.

    That's why I shifted to the right. Because I come to terms with the fact that "fuck everyone else" is an instinct that should be nurtured, not supressed. It's what drives humans, and it's what will continue to drive us into the very distant future. Accept it or be a victim, your choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #137
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    I've talked about this before in other threads, but I had a somewhat related point in my life when I stopped trying to force myself to believe that everyone was equal, and it helped me to stop being miserable.
  63. #138
    I never really was miserable, not until recently anyway but that's another matter. I guess the fact I was always satisfied with my life means I never really was truly left wing, I mean these people are all about being unsatisfied.

    The thing is, I've always resented the super rich. That feels pretty left wing. But why do I resent them? Because I'm not super rich. I'm not one of them. It's because I'm selfish, not because I'm a nice guy. It took me a long time to realise and accept this.

    The left aren't so nice. They just want to appear nice so they can manipulate others from their moral high ground. But deep down they're just the same as the rest of us... humans driven by the "me first" instinct.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #139
    I used to have some lefty tendencies. I lived on campus during college. My first job was for a real stingy, selfish, "let them eat cake" type of rich ass hole. My family has voted Democrat forever. I just sort of bought into the ideology that says rich people are cold, uncaring, and selfish. I wouldn't say I had any kind of epiphany that changed that thinking. I just spent some time in the real world and got clued in.

    Though I will say one of the things that really drove me to the right was all the Bush-Bashing that went on during the mid 2000's.

    After 9/11, celebrities somehow got empowered to start commenting on world affairs. And it just became "cool" to shit on Bush. Maybe it happened before then, and I'm just not old enough to remember. But for me, that seems like the turning point where the media stopped having a liberal slant, and went full-blown leftist mouthpiece.

    I listened to the incessant narrative of "Bush is a war-monger" and thought "what if I don't agree?".
  65. #140
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    I guess I should be more specific about what I mean regarding being miserable. I would get very frustrated with people because they would act in ways that were obviously stupid to act while other people wouldn't, and when I stopped holding onto the idea that everyone was equal in my early 20s (maybe late teens?), all of that frustration stopped.
  66. #141
    I see. I guess I'm lucky then because other peoples' failings have never really bothered me. Probably because I set such low standards for myself.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #142
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Obv. people are different.

    Obv. people are prone to treating other people with a different sense of fairness on a case by case basis.

    The difficulty with justice is that expecting people to remain impartial when it comes to deciding what is fair is a pipe dream.

    The closest thing to fair (which is not fair, but closer than other experiments) is to demand that under the law, people are not different.
  68. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I just spent some time in the real world and got clued in.
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is perhaps the most significant difference between the left and the right (on the spectrum of the left being authoritarian/social justice vs. the right being libertarian/classical liberal/conservative).

    Per usual, skin in the game.
  69. #144
    Ongie has upgraded from townie (bummer) to hillbilly.
  70. #145
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Per usual, skin in the game.
    Do you mean that by having skin in the game people tend towards ideologies/policies that they perceive to benefit themselves?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  71. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Ongie has upgraded from townie (bummer) to hillbilly.

    Bummer in this country is a homo, based on the fact "bum" is the family-friendly word for arse.

    Hillbilly? Country folk here are probably the closest you'll get to hillbillies, but out here the farmers are intelligent and hard working, rather than sitting on a lawn chair chewing grass while talking about extreme weather.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  72. #147
    Nah they are inbred weirdos too just very rich as they own so much land so can afford good education
  73. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Do you mean that by having skin in the game people tend towards ideologies/policies that they perceive to benefit themselves?
    I hope we can discard the fiction that the left cares about people and the right cares about themselves. The opposite is closer to the truth.
  74. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Bummer in this country is a homo
    I know. You taught me that.

    Like I said, townies = bummers
  75. #150
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I hope we can discard the fiction that the left cares about people and the right cares about themselves. The opposite is closer to the truth.
    Bingo.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I know. You taught me that.
    You should really consider learning when to say "no homo."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •