|
Anidav posted:I occasionally run into people who are homosexual and vote Liberal. Which is odd, I'm not sure which circumstances such a political opinion is allowed to form. You like having rights, but hate the poor more.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:A libertarian being explicitly wrong about something? I am surprise personified. There are a bunch of trials of mincome going on now in European cities. For a trial to be effective, it needs to: 1. Be long term, because people won't decide that working is for suckers if they know they'll have to explain the gap on their job history later 2. Be closed-loop, because having one section of the economy subsidized by the rest proves nothing If you told me I'd get say $500 a week for the next year I'd bank it. If you told me I'd get it, guaranteed, for the next 20, I'd just mess around with hobbies all day. quote:Also, I think you will find that its only assholes who worry about what other people earn. quote:X would depend on where you lived. You would not need the same income to survive in Hobart as you would in Perth. And immediately after we have had a pages long discussion on how much centrelink sucks and how evil JSAs are, you coming in wondering if any bureaucracy can be cut. Truly and deeply ignorant. Good work pupper. I'm all for slashing bureaucracy, I just don't believe it'd actually happen. Unions would fight tooth and nail to keep the paper-pushers employed. quote:We dont deal with these people especially well now, why the sudden concern for them in the future? Because one of the sales points of Basic Income is saving money by slashing administrative costs, and I bet it wouldn't pan out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Graic Gabtar posted:Nice avatar. Wasn't me, it was because of me - partially. I can change JSAs but right now it won't matter because I'm on wftd so I don't have much interaction with them anyway. Also I'm somewhat constrained by not having a car. My current wftd is computer restoration. Considering I've built computers and know how to install windows, but don't want to do those things as a job, it's pretty useless to me. I only chose it because it at least is something I have a passing interest in. The biggest problem I've noticed as an unemployed is the perception that jobless people are somehow subhuman. I couldn't tell a prospective employer that I'm doing wftd, because wftd means long-term unemployed, which means i'm not motivated enough to get a job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:I'll remember this the next time this thread complains about the salaries of CEOs etc. Just  if you think it's a matter of CEO's salaries being too high and not the exploitation of the working class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
iajanus posted:He does it regularly, I tend to just reply edited versions of posts from here in response to get him and his cronies to go nuts. is it byrne
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
SeekOtherCandidate posted:is it byrne Nope
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Lmao the amount of people I talk to who say they will vote 1 green and liberal 2 Blue Greens are the scum of the earth and should be fired into the sun imho
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks the environment can survive while subjected to the capitalist mode of production is wrong and should feel bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Do Tree Tories produce much carbon when burnt? e:Depends if they're wet or dry. 
WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Endman posted:Blue Greens are the scum of the earth and should be fired into the sun imho Does that mean some Labor supporters are just colour blind?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Do Tree Tories produce much carbon when burnt? I hate that I laughed out loud at this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Endman posted:Blue Greens are the scum of the earth and should be fired into the sun imho 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks he looks like a Swedish architect who drives a Saab and has an unhealthy obsession with modernism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Effortpost incoming. I like to wonder sometimes about what people think the point of even having a government is. Or any kind of human society. Why don't we just have anarchy? It's the purest social Darwinism there is. Why do countries waste precious tax dollars on defense, when the richest and worthiest would have the means and foresight to build their own bunkers and hire their own private armies? But that just sounds ridiculous. Obviously it's way more efficient to let the government worry about your overall national security while you get on with your business. If every rich job creator was burdened with arranging their own defense, it would greatly cut down on their profits. And the chaos of a state of anarchy would also arguably reduce their quality of life. It's harder to fully enjoy your wealth when your mind is troubled by constant threats to your survival. It also cuts down the amount of wealth and progress you have available to enjoy. If a business genius had to actually construct their own limos and mine their own diamonds and tailor their own clothes and cook all their own degustation menus, they would get nowhere. Surely we should free them up to do what they're actually best at, which is using their superior insight and judgement to lead us in the industrial tasks they wish to see accomplished. How then, can we the everyday lowlives better improve the world for their enjoyment? Although I'll admit I'm writing this way for rhetorical flourish, I would like you to sincerely imagine with me, for the sake of argument, a world where everything the Courier-Mail wants us to believe is actually true. The rich are all well-intentioned captains of industry who have only the most noble of goals. Who worked hard for their wealth and morally deserve to keep every single penny of it. Those who don't work, or those who envy anyone's wealth and seek to steal it away through communist wealth redistribution, are the lowest of amoral filth. The world is just, and those who get themselves into a bad situation deserve no empathy or pity. Dont shy away, just grant it for the sake of argument. Cause guess what? Basic income is still a loving good idea anyway, even from a position of pure self-interest. Imagine you're one of the richest people in the world. You don't have to cater to or give a poo poo about anyone else, so I won't even waste your precious time with that kind of argument. You own, personally, as much as millions of lesser humans combined. All of human endeavour is your open sandbox Civilisation game to manipulate and influence at your leisure. Now how would you like to do things? Just as one basic example, do you want the top of the line medical knowledge to prolong your life and keep you in good condition? You need some people out there trained as doctors, and some people out there researching new treatments. But what if some of the greatest medical minds you could possibly hope to have on your side were born into poverty and war? Or into an allegedly first-world country like America, but in a town like Flint, Michigan where that brain with so much potential gets dulled by lead poisoning before it can even go to med school? Don't worry. I'm not saying you need to feel sorry for them or responsible in any way. I'm just saying, you could have a greater wealth of human advancement and technology here at your disposal if you aren't letting whole swathes of it spoil and go to waste for no good reason. This is inefficient. It's unproductive. It's bad for business, and you as a captain of industry can do better. Do you even notice if you have 1 or 2 less billion dollars? No. But you'll sure as hell feel the difference if the luxuries you wish to acquire with that wealth aren't there to buy. "But Bif," you say, "quit going on about that junk! Okay so maybe in some utopian fantasy sense, a rich person arguably should be convinced that they can afford to splurge on basic income with their nearly infinite wealth. But I wasn't talking about that. I'm talking about me, an ordinary middle class battler. I don't want all MY money taken away to give to the unworthy when I'm still struggling despite working so much harder than them! (But no, don't take it from those richer than me either, cause I'm gonna hold you to what you said about accepting for the sake of argument that rich people are awesome.)" Well. The same things apply to you, actually. In fact, even more so, because unlike the rich, your ability to partake in the fullness of human society's advancements and achievements is more limited by its affordability. "Exactly!" I hear you cry. "I need to afford it, so don't take my drat money!" Just forget about the money for one minute, okay? No, really. It's about scarcity, supply and demand, right? The whole reason we want to hold that stick over people's heads where they have to work or starve and die is cause we want them to keep improving the overall human condition... Right? To make more goods and services available so we can afford them, instead of having to fight over scarce luxuries and wait longer for understaffed services? If you're surrounded by the disaffected unemployed and underemployed, who can't get anywhere in life and are constantly punished for their failings, you might at least get a nice short-term immediate feeling of superiority and increased self-worth from looking down on them. But while they're stuck down there, they can't do anything meaningful to make your life and your world better. Take some of your own bootstraps advice for once, and look at the rational long-term. By keeping the inferior dregs of human society elevated to a minimum baseline standard, you can improve your own quality of life by reducing crime and increasing education and entrepreneurship. By making it a government-wide program like basic income and spreading the burden through taxes, you ensure that everyone else already above the baseline is also chipping in with you to pay for it. This will help keep the widespread perks of this societal upgrade more affordable. And if, heaven forbid, some serious misfortune should ever befall you, (that was what you were worried about in the first place, right? That you couldn't afford something like this, because your financial situation is not stable enough!) the basic income will already be there to catch you. While you complained about it "not really being free money, cause you just have to pay it back in taxes", the regular payments kept coming regardless. And they will continue to come after you lose your cushy job. Or after some family emergency forces you to quit and relocate. Or some other strange circumstance that would have left you without any welfare in our current society, perhaps because you were considered too well-off and left to fall through the cracks. The transition is now seamless instead, with no need to apply for new payments and no need to keep updating the government with the particulars of your circumstances. Just continue collecting the baseline you are owed. And get back to paying it back once you're back in a higher earning position. You should have a much easier time of that now. Doesn't that just fill you with more consumer confidence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
I love reading facebook and seeing head empty greens thinking that turtleneck means The Greens will form a Coalition with the Liberals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
I remember when Greens leaders didn't used to look evil.  *sigh* Edit: do politicians ever look good in these sort of posed photo op things? They usually seem designed to make the subject look as stupid and uncomfortable as possible. dr_rat fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Endman posted:Am I the only one who thinks he looks like a Swedish architect who drives a Saab and has an unhealthy obsession with modernism? Nope, that's exactly what I see too. Also a bit of Steve Jobs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
I think he looks like the head of the shadowy Turtleneck Appreciation Society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Anidav posted:I occasionally run into people who are homosexual and vote Liberal. Which is odd, I'm not sure which circumstances such a political opinion is allowed to form. Google "log cabin republicans". It's basically gay people who value money more than they value their own human rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Anidav posted:I love reading facebook and seeing head empty greens thinking that turtleneck means The Greens will form a Coalition with the Liberals. Pretty much guaranteed imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:Effortpost incoming. Simply put, how is basic income going to encourage more people to contribute to furthering the human condition? How many otherwise skilled people will drop out because they'll get money anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
If someone drops out of their field the moment they have some promise of baseline subsistence to fall back on, how committed and groundbreaking could their contribution have been, anyway? How many more people are currently doing utterly useless things with their lives, just to keep up an insecure subsistence, and dream of being able to work for something more meaningful, even if they had to just be a volunteer?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Skivvies are back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Yeah,I won't do the heavy lifting, but I can say for a fact that if I didn't have to worry about the basics of my income I would drop my day job in a heartbeat and focus on running my sole trader business full time, which would be considerably more fulfilling and generally beneficial to my community. It would also open up the situation where if my labour in my day job were particularly critical they would be forced to pay me a commensurate amount to keep me, benefitting me again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Simply put, how is basic income going to encourage more people to contribute to furthering the human condition? How many otherwise skilled people will drop out because they'll get money anyway? A number probably offset--if not completely outdone--by the amount of people who will use their newfound economic freedom to explore pursuits that make life better. I feel like anyone who tries to bring up this argument hasn't actually had nothing to do for an extremely prolonged amount of time. Dropping out of life and slacking off because other people will foot the bill has initial appeal, but doing nothing gets really depressing. Your body and mind both want to be Doing poo poo, nobody actually WANTS to be that idle when they're actually doing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
We also have plenty of existing examples already of how people won't usually be content to sit around and do nothing even when their subsistence is assured to a very high level. It's called the rich.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Simply put, how is basic income going to encourage more people to contribute to furthering the human condition? How many otherwise skilled people will drop out because they'll get money anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:If someone drops out of their field the moment they have some promise of baseline subsistence to fall back on, how committed and groundbreaking could their contribution have been, anyway? Despite being unemployed, this is pretty much how I feel right now. I know I'll probably have to settle for a lovely job, and that lovely job will probably mean I can no longer do the volunteer work I'm doing. Ideally, I'd love to do paid work at a Not For Profit but I realise it's not an easy sector to break into. A basic living wage would give me the freedom to wait until the right opportunity came my way. Regarding the argument that lifters don't want to pay for leaners, aren't they doing that already? Also if it were me, I'd much rather my taxes went to unemployeds than offshore torture facilities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
quote:How many more people are currently doing utterly useless things with their lives, just to keep up an insecure subsistence, and dream of being able to work for something more meaningful, even if they had to just be a volunteer? because i suspect you mean something like commodities trader who secretly wishes she was helping teach kids in africa or something but that doesnt fit because she could cash in her stock options and do that what i think you're actually referring to is people who are working retail, hospitality etc for subsistence. so every janitor, petrol station attendant etc is just wasting their life right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
all those waiters in LA could actually be stars if only there was a basic income
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
except there would be no movies tv or theatre because there is no one to sell you popcorn, clean up after you etc because everyone has moved on from those worthless jobs
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Pickled Tink posted:The existing system is designed to grind down people subjected to it until they no longer dare to hold ambitions or hopes because they have seen them crushed far too often, which means anything they could have achieved with the kind of support being advocated here is lost. This is an incredibly depressing outlook on life, and I'm sorry you feel this way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
By "utterly useless" jobs I'm thinking of things more like JSA's. Jobs that actively waste time and effort creating busywork. Jobs like janitors and hospitality are far more meaningful in comparison. And those who do them deserve a stable existence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
I'd be quite interested in why you presumed I would make such an argument though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
We already have a system that tries to reward people who do things society values that are in short supply; the market. Becoming a doctor is necessary and difficult, therefore pay is good. We have no shortage of people who can make hamburgers, therefore working at Maccas won't make you a millionaire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Negligent posted:except there would be no movies tv or theatre because there is no one to sell you popcorn, clean up after you etc because everyone has moved on from those worthless jobs I'm not so sure about that, I mean you could still get people working those jobs, like popcorn sales people could just be people that like talking to customers, and cleaners could just like a chill don't take home your work type job...
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Negligent posted:except there would be no movies tv or theatre because there is no one to sell you popcorn, clean up after you etc because everyone has moved on from those worthless jobs No more slaves means no more cotton, emancitards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
"Muhuhuhuhahahaha!" Negligent cackled to himself. "I have her now! Wait till Auspol sees me suggest that they have a traitor in their midst! Little did they know, the champion of basic income doesn't have ENOUGH respect for average working people! That'll show them! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!" What, exactly, it would show them was not certain. But he hit post nonetheless, confident that victory was assured.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:By "utterly useless" jobs I'm thinking of things more like JSA's. Jobs that actively waste time and effort creating busywork. the guy right above me parsed it in the exact same way as i did. quote:Despite being unemployed, this is pretty much how I feel right now. I know I'll probably have to settle for a lovely job, and that lovely job will probably mean I can no longer do the volunteer work I'm doing. Ideally, I'd love to do paid work at a Not For Profit but I realise it's not an easy sector to break into. A basic living wage would give me the freedom to wait until the right opportunity came my way. quote:How many more people are currently doing utterly useless things with their lives, just to keep up an insecure subsistence, and dream of being able to work for something more meaningful, even if they had to just be a volunteer? Negligent fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:I'd be quite interested in why you presumed I would make such an argument though. the speed at which you're walking it back would make michael jackson look bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:40
|
|