|
Also employers would need to actually pay people proper wages to do lovely jobs. People would just say no to gross, dangerous, or backbreaking work until the pay was worth it. This would be very good for the people overall even if it made some things more expensive, the gains in wages would more than make up for it, the top would end up having to eat it.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lmW2tZP2kU
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
lol did you just compare me to the first female billion dollar author, yeah man sorry I'm not out there being literally the only one of my sex to become a billionaire in an extremely tight industry. Also, video games are for children and most of my money just goes to the government on one of the hundred forms of taxes I pay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
PT6A posted:So, if you were guaranteed a 500 sq. ft. studio apartment in a safe but otherwise arbitrarily crappy location, you'd decide to just sit on your rear end all day, doing nothing to try to improve your circumstances further? Do you not understand that there is a huge portion of the population that has no realistic hope of anything more than having a safe place to live and not starving to death? Maybe it's because I live in BC and grew up in poverty like almost everyone else here, but like every post you make seems to have no connection at all to what life is like in poverty. Dreams and ambition are dead for us, we just don't want to be homeless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Do you not understand that there is a huge portion of the population that has no realistic hope of anything more than having a safe place to live and not starving to death? Maybe it's because I live in BC and grew up in poverty like almost everyone else here, but like every post you make seems to have no connection at all to what life is like in poverty. Nice generalising and exaggeration. You don't speak for everyone else from BC there, champ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:most of my money just goes to the government on one of the hundred forms of taxes I pay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Yea no poo poo? I'm talking about people living in poverty, of which there are many in BC. The conversation isn't about the province, it's just where I live.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Honestly, with a guaranteed minimum income I certainly wouldn't sit on my rear end all day and not work. That's boring and I'd go crazy. Plus it's not enough money to let me do the things I want like travel or buy dumb electronics. But knowing that security is there, that if the worst happens, that I won't starve to death or end up on the street? Stress levels across the country would plummet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
brucio posted:Beaten a few posts above you. You're not earning your red title today Darn, started reading it as soon as it came out and I honestly assumed nobody else in the thread cared about it. What a nice silver lining to getting so beat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Do you not understand that there is a huge portion of the population that has no realistic hope of anything more than having a safe place to live and not starving to death? Maybe it's because I live in BC and grew up in poverty like almost everyone else here, but like every post you make seems to have no connection at all to what life is like in poverty. So, assuming you no longer lived in poverty (through mincome, winning the lottery, or whatever else), you'd simply stop doing anything? I don't think that's a problem with poverty, I think that's a problem with your brain, and it's unfair to characterize all people living in poverty as unambitious as a result of their circumstances. Look at all the Syrian kids in loving refugee camps who say things like "I want to be able to go to school again," or "I want to be a doctor when I grow up so I can help people." Granted, in the short term they probably just want a safe place to live, that doesn't mean they can't have hopes, dreams and ambitions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
The impact of a minimum income would have a pretty regional specific impact, as I imagine it would be the same for everyone, else people get mad at others for "getting more". That income is gonna be enough to pay for cost of living and then some if you're somewhere where rent/food is low, while somewhere like Vancouver it's just gonna be enough to survive (assuming that the income is set to ensure people can cover basic expensive is the most expensive cities to live in). The impact on the labour market in one versus the other would be extremely variable, and while I do not particularly have much sympathy for some lovely franchise owner not being able to find employees, a lot everyday work is handled by people who are being paid poorly and are the most inclined to leave under such a system, which would make transitioning a bit hectic. I don't oppose it, but all existing research as far as I can find has been done at a city level, not a national level (and certainly not for a country as large as ours), so I am not sure if pointing to a temporary city study is necessarily going to be accurate for larger scale implementation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:The impact of a minimum income would have a pretty regional specific impact, as I imagine it would be the same for everyone, else people get mad at others for "getting more". That income is gonna be enough to pay for cost of living and then some if you're somewhere where rent/food is low, while somewhere like Vancouver it's just gonna be enough to survive (assuming that the income is set to ensure people can cover basic expensive is the most expensive cities to live in). The impact on the labour market in one versus the other would be extremely variable, and while I do not particularly have much sympathy for some lovely franchise owner not being able to find employees, a lot everyday work is handled by people who are being paid poorly and are the most inclined to leave under such a system, which would make transitioning a bit hectic. If there's a mincome and it's not enough to live exactly where you want (like Vancouver) but it's still plenty to live in a smaller city, then either get a job that pays enough that you can live where you want, or use your mincome to move to a place you can afford. I'm not saying the mincome should be so low that you have to live in bumfucking nowhere, mind you, just that I don't really care if you might have to move to a smaller or less desirable city like Victoria, Kelowna, Calgary, Edmonton, or somewhere like that instead of one of the most expensive cities in the whole world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If there's a mincome and it's not enough to live exactly where you want (like Vancouver) but it's still plenty to live in a smaller city, then either get a job that pays enough that you can live where you want, or use your mincome to move to a place you can afford. I'm not saying the mincome should be so low that you have to live in bumfucking nowhere, mind you, just that I don't really care if you might have to move to a smaller or less desirable city like Victoria, Kelowna, Calgary, Edmonton, or somewhere like that instead of one of the most expensive cities in the whole world. I tend to agree, though I'm not entirely certain the responsibility to handle moving should be on the people too poor to live where they are
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If there's a mincome and it's not enough to live exactly where you want (like Vancouver) but it's still plenty to live in a smaller city, then either get a job that pays enough that you can live where you want, or use your mincome to move to a place you can afford. I'm not saying the mincome should be so low that you have to live in bumfucking nowhere, mind you, just that I don't really care if you might have to move to a smaller or less desirable city like Victoria, Kelowna, Calgary, Edmonton, or somewhere like that instead of one of the most expensive cities in the whole world. I don't know, seems kinda lovely that for mincome to really be a livable mincome, people would be asked to move away from support structures like friends, families, familiar doctors, community services, etc. That might be fine for someone in the 20s, but a lot harder for someone who's 60. Seems like it would straightforward enough to just build a Locality Adjustment into it, like the US General Schedule has (I'm sure the Canadian equivalent does the same, but I'm more familiar with the American one).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 21:22
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Parliamentary Secretaries have dropped
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:The unambitious not working is good because we don't need to keep everyone working anymore. It would remove some pressure. I always tell my girlfriend that, if we ever won the lottery, I would pay off our student debt, buy a modest house better than our current, with a shed that I could devote myself to art in. It wouldn't even need to be a big lottery 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Also, something I've been wondering for a while: what kind of drugs do you think Rona Ambrose takes to get that half-lidded eyes equanimity thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Also, something I've been wondering for a while: what kind of drugs do you think Rona Ambrose takes to get that half-lidded eyes equanimity thing? Conservatism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
No chiropractors. Definitely an improvement. Too many MBAs and Bill Blairs (none is too many, especially that close to Justice). I should probably give Blair a break. Anyone that Rob Ford hates so vehemently can't be all bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
PT6A posted:So, assuming you no longer lived in poverty (through mincome, winning the lottery, or whatever else), you'd simply stop doing anything? Well it's not like I'd spend the rest of my life waking up, staring at the wall for 16 hours then going to bed, but I certainly wouldn't work anymore. There's no fulfilment or purpose to be found in standing around working for some dickhead who doesn't give a poo poo about you either way, so anyone who's not smart enough or doesn't want to be a doctor or some other supposedly noble profession doesn't have much to gain from working.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Hexigrammus posted:I should probably give Blair a break. Anyone that Rob Ford hates so vehemently can't be all bad. You would be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
If I had mincome, I wouldn't work in politics. I'd probably spend most of my time focusing on school, and my free time volunteering with the Canadian Cancer society or the Ottawa humane Society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Lots of people who aren't in "noble" professions can still enjoy what they do, and assuming a mincome would motivate better pay and working conditions for undesirable or menial jobs, you might enjoy having more money so you can travel, or something like that. I worked in high school not because I needed to, but because I wanted money to buy things with. Did I really enjoy working at Subway? Of course not, but that's why they pay you to do it. EDIT: And I'd probably hate being a doctor. It seems like it would be very stressful, and I doubt I would enjoy any part of the work. PT6A fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Conservatism.  bunnyofdoom posted:If I had mincome, I wouldn't work in politics. I'd probably spend most of my time focusing on school, and my free time volunteering with the Canadian Cancer society or the Ottawa humane Society. jfc mincome isn't so people earn free money to do nothing or go on a quest to write books, its to bridge the gap of people who are employed in precarious circumstances. You wouldn't get a mincome if you didn't work an actual job. Don't forget, you can volunteer right now instead of dreaming about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Don't forget, you can volunteer right now instead of dreaming about it. When I worked retail, I sure as poo poo never volunteered anywhere. I simply could not afford to do so, due to the costs. Going places costs money, and when you don't earn a lot, you don't have money to spend on going places you don't absolutely have to. Mincome is only for people who are already employed? What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
^^^^Also time is a factor. My days are usually school in morning, transit to work, then work til 9-10pm, then home, bed, rinse repeat.jm20 posted:
Sorry, let me be more clear. I ama full time student, and I do work an actual job. I am desperately trying to balance them both, and if I had mincome, I could focus on my school work and not worry about my job. Also, side note Whoops, OPC made another decision that shows that the OLP will rule forever. Sorry Ikantasi bunnyofdoom fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Mincome is a top-up for already employed people to bring them up to a level of income that is above poverty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:I tend to agree, though I'm not entirely certain the responsibility to handle moving should be on the people too poor to live where they are This can be fixed with high speed rail between major hubs. Make it cheap enough and you'll see people shifting all over the place. -e- If we had minincome here, I'd still be trying to get my farm up and running. It would definitely make it easier. Stretch Marx fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:When I worked retail, I sure as poo poo never volunteered anywhere. I simply could not afford to do so, due to the costs. Going places costs money, and when you don't earn a lot, you don't have money to spend on going places you don't absolutely have to. This isn't state sponsored socialism whereby you get a guaranteed paycheque for no labour provided. If you don't work, you don't get a top up by the state. This redistributes wealth from professionals like me so custodians or people in precarious work (basically all the new jobs created) won't need to work 80 hours a week to survive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Mincome is a top-up for already employed people to bring them up to a level of income that is above poverty. yeah its a subsidy to allow businesses to pay their workers even less
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
RBC posted:yeah its a subsidy to allow businesses to pay their workers even less You also raise the minimum wage, which creates inflation (which isn't necessarily bad). The cost is not entirely borne by the state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:^^^^Also time is a factor. My days are usually school in morning, transit to work, then work til 9-10pm, then home, bed, rinse repeat. The Liberals would have to acknowledge that terrorists exist to attack him on it so I think we're safe. As the old saying goes, people who live in glass houses probably can't afford to heat them in the goddamn province.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Also, something I've been wondering for a while: what kind of drugs do you think Rona Ambrose takes to get that half-lidded eyes equanimity thing? She seems like a Valium gal to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
jm20 posted:This isn't state sponsored socialism whereby you get a guaranteed paycheque for no labour provided. If you don't work, you don't get a top up by the state. This redistributes wealth from professionals like me so custodians or people in precarious work (basically all the new jobs created) won't need to work 80 hours a week to survive. Then it's loving worthless. People's weird obsession with jobs will loving kill us all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Don't you know? If you're not productive, you're worthless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
I was under the impression Mincome was for unemployed people also. Like one of the examples in the Manitoba trial thing was some people used it so they could stay home and care for young children, sick relatives, or the elderly. Like the point was that they found even if the option was there for people not to work and still get the minimum income, 99% of people still worked because it's enough to live on but not enough to thrive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
You guys are misleading people. If you do not work, Mincome gives you free money. This is how it works theoretically (a Guaranteed Annual Income is called that for a reason) and this is how it worked in the Mincome experiment in Manitoba. I'll let someone else explain it.quote:Aguaranteed annual income or negative income tax (NIT) works as follows: A family with no income gets a minimum cash benefit (G). If the family then goes out and earns additional income its benefit is reduced at the “taxback” rate of (t)—where t is between 0 and 1. In other words, for every dollar of income the family earns, it loses t times $1. Because it can never receive less than the amount G, this is tantamount to guaranteeing it a minimum payment. Hence the term “guaranteed annual income.” It's true that if you work enough they don't give it to you anymore, which makes Canada's experiment with Mincome more of a negative income tax than a guaranteed payment, but you absolutely do get money if you do no work at all. It's just nowhere near enough to live comfortably, so the vast majority of people continue to work in order to get a better place to live, better food, more recreational activities, etc. e: one of the authors of that article was Mincome's research director, for the record, so he is a far more authoritative source than anyone in this thread. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Mincome does include paying people to not work at all and if you don't think that our society will need to literally pay people to stay at home then you've been completely ignoring the progression of modern society in our lifetimes. There will soon be (and some say were already at the point) not enough living wage jobs to keep the entire population employed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Most people would rather we let everyone starve than pay people to survive. The idea of paying someone for free is so abhorrent to most people that they'd rather have you be homeless and hurting people and stealing and lying to survive than having the government pay to feed and shelter you. This is what's going to happen when there's not enough jobs (which is guaranteed at some point very soon in the future, I don't know how anyone can look at the progression of modern technology and disagree with that), and there's nothing any of us can do about it. Mincome will never be politically feasible in North America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:She seems like a Valium gal to me. Ben Carson, Politician Taking Drugs/ Appearing on Camera Expert
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:14
|
|