I posted this comment already yesterday but i’ll post it again because it’s still relevant:
Do we want to get higher wages? The obvious answer might seem “yes”. But i argue it’s not that obvious.
People should be able to live without being forced to work. When your only income is from wages, that effectively forces you to work. I think we should strive for a society where basic needs are fulfilled even without jobs.
Personally i think that unless you’re disabled everyone should work. Where I live everyone has basic healthcare, cheap schools and there are lots of unions and workers rights so literally no one has to work more than 32 hours for a basic level of living. If youre disabled you receive wellfare so you dont have to work. Its literally a choice if you live on the streets here.
I have literally no idea why the US has such a horrible and oppressive system when it comes to workers rights, healthcare and schooling. I don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s a good idea to have a two party system. I have no idea why the rich barely pay any taxes there. You have a truly corrupt and inhuman system in place.
It’s because we were a nation founded by violence and oppression and built on the backs of a slave race, none of which are practices we ever truly abandoned.
You have healthcare, affordable schooling, and labor unions because, wherever you are, your populace is considered a workforce, not a slave race. When your society relies on a workforce, you want them healthy so they can work longer, you want them educated so they can work smarter, and you want them comfortable enough with their salaries and their hours to feel they can afford to have kids, who will one day join the workforce.
Governing bodies in the US don’t need us healthy, smart, or comfortable. They just need us to 1) work (hence tying our healthcare to our work hours), and 2) breed (hence minimal sex education, poor access to contraception, abortion bans, etc).
They don’t need to give us healthcare (or education, or basic human necessities or rights), because as long as we’re breeding, it’s cheaper if we just die. And if that ever bothers us enough to take to the streets (which it has, many times), our local police forces are highly militarized and have no qualms about doing to us what their white ancestors did to my native and black ones (which they have, many times).
And to be clear, this isn’t meant to be a woe-is-America spiel. These are problems that we’ve had many opportunities to address over the years, but let hubris, bigotry, and plain old stupidity get in the way. This is very much a mess of our own making, so I’m not trying to throw a pity party, just addressing your confusion.
TL;DR: Violence, oppression, and slavery. The tried and true American way.
You left off they want you poor so you’re more likely to commit crimes, like stealing food, so they can put you in jail and now use you for actual slave labor where its still legal.
The irony of assuming that it’s cheaper to let people grow old and die when the reality is a senior pension requires the income of two working aged citizens to subsidize it is not lost on me.
The US specifically didn’t choose a two party system. We accidentally set one up. The math proving that FPTP has a 100% guaranteed chance to devolve into a two party system hadn’t been done until the mid 1800s
The problem with that is there are doctors with individual opinions gatekeeping that welfare. One might think you’re disabled, while another might think you can get better. I’ve been stuck in just that kind of limbo for almost a decade. I’m required to look for a job each month that everyone involved knows I could never do, and so I have to live on the bare minimum until I reach some arbitrary threshold to get the pension I should’ve gotten a long time ago.
Meanwhile my family suffers, I have to spend what little I get on the medicine keeping me breathing and when I finally get it I’ll be too far gone to have any time left.
All this because I happened to get a disease rare enough that there are no experts and it just so happens to interact with the asthma I already had in unpredictable ways.
So tell me, who should decide who’s disabled and who isn’t?
Its literally a choice if you live on the streets here.
What if you can’t find work for whatever reason (e.g. there’s high unemployment and not enough jobs for everyone, or the person is somehow considered “unemployable,” but not necessarily disabled)? What about single parents with infants/toddlers? Are there a lot of “bullshit jobs” where you live?
We have a social rent system in place for that, it means the government will pay part of the rent. Also if you cant work because you have kids there is a system in place for that too, you receive benefits (which is based on minimum wage).
Basically everyone pays taxes on their wage here to make sure no one has to live on the streets. There is lots of social housing here.
Because your favorite authors, screenwriters, poets, bands would be homeless under what counts as “work,” or they’d not have the time, money, energy to invest in their preferred work.
I don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s a good idea to have a two party system.
It doesn’t matter if the candidate you’re voting for supports the two party system. This current election is the most important one of our lifetimes. So we’ll keep voting for people who support the two party system because of the two party system.
by the time we were born, it was so entrenched nothing but horrible bloodshed could change it.
we’ve been inundated with news and media since early childhood not to rise up for that change and many of us have (until recently) been left comfortable enough that we don’t want to risk what remains.
we’ve been made to believe (by the aforementioned propaganda) that we can vote in real change. some of us still want this to be true. it’s becoming apparent this may not be the case. we’re terrified.
I had to take early retirement last year due to a spinal injury that causes random vertigo attacks that drop me to the shop floor more than once a week. Hated like hell to do it but didn’t want to be fired as a safety risk since it would’ve prevented me from getting work anywhere else. The company was visibly relieved by my decision as well so I guess it was my time to drop off the chain, no pun intended.
This is really the only answer and people saying “it will take generations” or “it’s not feasible” get over the negativity- the world is what we make it; and there is CERTAINLY more than enough money to provide for housing, food, medicine, electricity and info/connection for everyone. There is a shadow economy that operates outside of the tax economy that’s measured in the trillions of dollars per year… the answer is not “tax the rich” it’s “burn this entire system to the ground and build it anew”
national economies handle being welfare states just fine, which isn’t so different from what a UBI would be. Also developed service economies live and die by consumption. A UBI would stabilise and stimulate domestic consumer demand.
there’s massive difference in scale though that brings in a lot of variables that would require a full lock-in before implementation. Given how globalised and interdependent modern economies are - there are too many unpredictable factors outside of governmental control that can whiplash onto national economy and wreck the plans even more than usual. And that might render any UBI-type system a huge burden that would get targeted by folks from IMF making “valuable” “suggestions”.
It’s a nonprofot org which basically just does monthly UBI to your bank account when you sign up… They did the math and it turns out you only need a few thousand people of diverse economic backgrounds for it to be viable.
From what I understand it’s like a phone banking app, but more secure, and it takes something like 10% of your earnings each month, then returns a lump sum to everyone of around $500 almost immediately. So people earning $40k/yr will net a couple hundred dollars per month. If you make nothing that month you will get closer to $1000 People who make $100k/yr will lose a couple hundred dollars. And the multimillionaires will lose a couple Gs a month (which sounds like a lot but it’s negligible to them).
Great question. So this money goes directly to people, instead of through a charity. We are cutting out the middle man, and it affects EVERYONE with cash, not just a select few who know how to benefit from the charity and qualify for their supplies or whatever the charity provides. It’s awesome for us, but not as awesome for the billionaires and multimillionaires. The only real benefit for them is, they get to keep their heads!
If you’re capable of working, you should work. It should be a fair wage and billionaires shouldn’t exist. Our society should support those who can’t work.
I’ll tell you what. I have had to interact with some people in retail or fast food who were technically able to work, but I really wish they didn’t. I would chip in some money from every paycheck for those people to stay home, do something they enjoy. Maybe do a kind of work they are good at, but doesn’t pay much.
Some people are born with the drive to be a ceo, nfl level athlete or what not. Some are born eith the drive to solve problems, help people, or what not but also to relax. And some people are born with no drive at all. They are capable of working, but the lack of drive means they will never be any good at it. So if you don’t force people to work, you will find most still will in some form. And the ones who don’t… it’s better for all of us that they don’t.
Why? We don’t have enough work for the number of people that our work can sustain. Our ancestors literally dreamt of a time when the labor of a few could allow the leisure of the masses. We would be better served at this point addressing workaholic tendencies and refocusing that energy into something they actually enjoy doing.
I posted this comment already yesterday but i’ll post it again because it’s still relevant:
Personally i think that unless you’re disabled everyone should work. Where I live everyone has basic healthcare, cheap schools and there are lots of unions and workers rights so literally no one has to work more than 32 hours for a basic level of living. If youre disabled you receive wellfare so you dont have to work. Its literally a choice if you live on the streets here.
I have literally no idea why the US has such a horrible and oppressive system when it comes to workers rights, healthcare and schooling. I don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s a good idea to have a two party system. I have no idea why the rich barely pay any taxes there. You have a truly corrupt and inhuman system in place.
It’s because we were a nation founded by violence and oppression and built on the backs of a slave race, none of which are practices we ever truly abandoned.
You have healthcare, affordable schooling, and labor unions because, wherever you are, your populace is considered a workforce, not a slave race. When your society relies on a workforce, you want them healthy so they can work longer, you want them educated so they can work smarter, and you want them comfortable enough with their salaries and their hours to feel they can afford to have kids, who will one day join the workforce.
Governing bodies in the US don’t need us healthy, smart, or comfortable. They just need us to 1) work (hence tying our healthcare to our work hours), and 2) breed (hence minimal sex education, poor access to contraception, abortion bans, etc).
They don’t need to give us healthcare (or education, or basic human necessities or rights), because as long as we’re breeding, it’s cheaper if we just die. And if that ever bothers us enough to take to the streets (which it has, many times), our local police forces are highly militarized and have no qualms about doing to us what their white ancestors did to my native and black ones (which they have, many times).
And to be clear, this isn’t meant to be a woe-is-America spiel. These are problems that we’ve had many opportunities to address over the years, but let hubris, bigotry, and plain old stupidity get in the way. This is very much a mess of our own making, so I’m not trying to throw a pity party, just addressing your confusion.
TL;DR: Violence, oppression, and slavery. The tried and true American way.
You left off they want you poor so you’re more likely to commit crimes, like stealing food, so they can put you in jail and now use you for actual slave labor where its still legal.
America: 4% of the world’s population
20-25% of the world’s prisoners
But your BigMac costs a dollar less because of it!
But I love my Trump sponsored hamberders!
The irony of assuming that it’s cheaper to let people grow old and die when the reality is a senior pension requires the income of two working aged citizens to subsidize it is not lost on me.
The US specifically didn’t choose a two party system. We accidentally set one up. The math proving that FPTP has a 100% guaranteed chance to devolve into a two party system hadn’t been done until the mid 1800s
The problem with that is there are doctors with individual opinions gatekeeping that welfare. One might think you’re disabled, while another might think you can get better. I’ve been stuck in just that kind of limbo for almost a decade. I’m required to look for a job each month that everyone involved knows I could never do, and so I have to live on the bare minimum until I reach some arbitrary threshold to get the pension I should’ve gotten a long time ago.
Meanwhile my family suffers, I have to spend what little I get on the medicine keeping me breathing and when I finally get it I’ll be too far gone to have any time left.
All this because I happened to get a disease rare enough that there are no experts and it just so happens to interact with the asthma I already had in unpredictable ways.
So tell me, who should decide who’s disabled and who isn’t?
What if you can’t find work for whatever reason (e.g. there’s high unemployment and not enough jobs for everyone, or the person is somehow considered “unemployable,” but not necessarily disabled)? What about single parents with infants/toddlers? Are there a lot of “bullshit jobs” where you live?
We have a social rent system in place for that, it means the government will pay part of the rent. Also if you cant work because you have kids there is a system in place for that too, you receive benefits (which is based on minimum wage).
Basically everyone pays taxes on their wage here to make sure no one has to live on the streets. There is lots of social housing here.
Because your favorite authors, screenwriters, poets, bands would be homeless under what counts as “work,” or they’d not have the time, money, energy to invest in their preferred work.
This is exactly why my country subsidizes art so people are still encouraged to make. I guess the US doesn’t have that either.
If it’s a good idea, it’s safe to assume it doesn’t exist in the US. You’ll be correct much more often than not.
Is there competition for the subsidies?
I agree. “Starving artist” should not be a common phrase.
It doesn’t matter if the candidate you’re voting for supports the two party system. This current election is the most important one of our lifetimes. So we’ll keep voting for people who support the two party system because of the two party system.
at this point, most of us were born into it.
by the time we were born, it was so entrenched nothing but horrible bloodshed could change it.
we’ve been inundated with news and media since early childhood not to rise up for that change and many of us have (until recently) been left comfortable enough that we don’t want to risk what remains.
we’ve been made to believe (by the aforementioned propaganda) that we can vote in real change. some of us still want this to be true. it’s becoming apparent this may not be the case. we’re terrified.
Even if change can be voted in, its pretty obvious now that it can be undone pretty easily as well. Change is at best temporary.
I had to take early retirement last year due to a spinal injury that causes random vertigo attacks that drop me to the shop floor more than once a week. Hated like hell to do it but didn’t want to be fired as a safety risk since it would’ve prevented me from getting work anywhere else. The company was visibly relieved by my decision as well so I guess it was my time to drop off the chain, no pun intended.
This is really the only answer and people saying “it will take generations” or “it’s not feasible” get over the negativity- the world is what we make it; and there is CERTAINLY more than enough money to provide for housing, food, medicine, electricity and info/connection for everyone. There is a shadow economy that operates outside of the tax economy that’s measured in the trillions of dollars per year… the answer is not “tax the rich” it’s “burn this entire system to the ground and build it anew”
We should strive for that society, sure, but that’s going to take generations. Meanwhile, people need to eat today.
It will only take 1 generation willing to fight for the change.
Or don’t wait, and start doing things French style today.
There should be a clear definition of what “basic needs” means. Opinions will vary greatly when you broaden the discussion.
I’d define it as such:
Medical care
Housing
Food
Water
Internet
Replace internet with access to means of acquire knowledge and communicate with others. Internet just happens to fulfill both very efficiently.
except the national economies aren’t organized in a way to enable any form of UBI.
national economies handle being welfare states just fine, which isn’t so different from what a UBI would be. Also developed service economies live and die by consumption. A UBI would stabilise and stimulate domestic consumer demand.
there’s massive difference in scale though that brings in a lot of variables that would require a full lock-in before implementation. Given how globalised and interdependent modern economies are - there are too many unpredictable factors outside of governmental control that can whiplash onto national economy and wreck the plans even more than usual. And that might render any UBI-type system a huge burden that would get targeted by folks from IMF making “valuable” “suggestions”.
Yet
it’s not like governments are trying to get there when it’s not an election season though
Elections aren’t going to save you.
I mean Somalia is right there, mate
What?
exactly. If elections ain’t doing the trick, Somalia is doing all of the tricks
Saying “exactly” when someone questions a nonsensical retort is neither an explanation nor an elaboration
The Comingle app (beta) is seeking to start our own UBI without relying on the government to do it for us. Seems very promising
How?
It’s a nonprofot org which basically just does monthly UBI to your bank account when you sign up… They did the math and it turns out you only need a few thousand people of diverse economic backgrounds for it to be viable.
From what I understand it’s like a phone banking app, but more secure, and it takes something like 10% of your earnings each month, then returns a lump sum to everyone of around $500 almost immediately. So people earning $40k/yr will net a couple hundred dollars per month. If you make nothing that month you will get closer to $1000 People who make $100k/yr will lose a couple hundred dollars. And the multimillionaires will lose a couple Gs a month (which sounds like a lot but it’s negligible to them).
https://youtu.be/mo9FsrSXZww
Why would any of them do this instead of charity donation that they can deduct from their taxable income?
Great question. So this money goes directly to people, instead of through a charity. We are cutting out the middle man, and it affects EVERYONE with cash, not just a select few who know how to benefit from the charity and qualify for their supplies or whatever the charity provides. It’s awesome for us, but not as awesome for the billionaires and multimillionaires. The only real benefit for them is, they get to keep their heads!
how so? why not?
Every take that excludes this perspective is ableist.
Just my two cents as a person who was born and will die disabled.
the cited comment is the most “shit firstworlders say” ever.
It’s an ideological position, yes we should be striving for a non-ableist society
That ain’t happening in America in your lifetime.
If you’re capable of working, you should work. It should be a fair wage and billionaires shouldn’t exist. Our society should support those who can’t work.
I’ll tell you what. I have had to interact with some people in retail or fast food who were technically able to work, but I really wish they didn’t. I would chip in some money from every paycheck for those people to stay home, do something they enjoy. Maybe do a kind of work they are good at, but doesn’t pay much. Some people are born with the drive to be a ceo, nfl level athlete or what not. Some are born eith the drive to solve problems, help people, or what not but also to relax. And some people are born with no drive at all. They are capable of working, but the lack of drive means they will never be any good at it. So if you don’t force people to work, you will find most still will in some form. And the ones who don’t… it’s better for all of us that they don’t.
Why? We don’t have enough work for the number of people that our work can sustain. Our ancestors literally dreamt of a time when the labor of a few could allow the leisure of the masses. We would be better served at this point addressing workaholic tendencies and refocusing that energy into something they actually enjoy doing.
deleted by creator
Explain what you mean by “should work.” What qualifies as “work” and who makes the determination that it is valid or correct?
in what country do you live, if i may ask?