3 ms·

They also implicitly support their "right" to fire people at will and say "not my problem because you have your UBI" even though the proposed amounts for it are

by Mz 9y ago

They also implicitly support their "right" to fire people at will and say "not my problem because you have your UBI" even though the proposed amounts for it are far below wages of jobs that are being eliminated. It is a known fact that countries with insufficient opportunities to sell legitimate exports are the highest exporters of illicit items. When people are desperate for money and lack respectable opportunities, they lower their standards or they starve. Edit: In response to your added sentence, so many rich people do all they can to find tax loopholes, I am not convinced that your assertion holds any water at all.

freeone3000 9y ago
They already have the right to fire people at will, and it already isn't their problem. Now those people have some income instead of none.
- Mz 9y ago
  Currently, UBI does not exist. So, no, they do not "now" have some income. Additionally, I am aware they can fire people at will. But how laws and social contracts get interpreted changes when policies change. Welfare made it vastly more acceptable for women to have babies out of wedlock. It was intended for "the deserving poor" and designed to help poor single mothers at a time when most single moms were widows. The language did not specify widows. It changed the de facto social contract and altered social behavior. The net result was an increase in poor single moms and an increase in the number of American children growing up in poverty. Most pro UBI articles are pretty disingenuous. They say up front that UBI is intended to compensate for a permanent lack of jobs. Then they tell glowing tales of how wonderful it will be to have UBI to supplement your underpaid job. They don't actually explore the horror of living in a world with little to no hope of getting a job while inflation erodes the value of UBI. I don't get it, honestly. The casually dismissive rebuttals here seem to be blithely oblivious to the dynamics I am commenting on and not genuinely engaging those things.
  - gbear605 9y ago
    > They don't actually explore the horror of living in a world with little to no hope of getting a job while inflation erodes the value of UBI. Better than the horror of living in a world with little to no hope of getting a job while also having no income at all.
    - Mz 9y ago
      What I am suggesting is that we could focus on redistributing work. It isn't inevitable that jobs should simply go away. But I think I am going to throw in the towel on this discussion. It seems pointless. Folks are pro UBI, and let's not let any facts get in the way.

by Mz 9y ago

freeone3000 9y ago

They already have the right to fire people at will, and it already isn't their problem. Now those people have some income instead of none.

Mz 9y ago
Currently, UBI does not exist. So, no, they do not "now" have some income. Additionally, I am aware they can fire people at will. But how laws and social contracts get interpreted changes when policies change. Welfare made it vastly more acceptable for women to have babies out of wedlock. It was intended for "the deserving poor" and designed to help poor single mothers at a time when most single moms were widows. The language did not specify widows. It changed the de facto social contract and altered social behavior. The net result was an increase in poor single moms and an increase in the number of American children growing up in poverty. Most pro UBI articles are pretty disingenuous. They say up front that UBI is intended to compensate for a permanent lack of jobs. Then they tell glowing tales of how wonderful it will be to have UBI to supplement your underpaid job. They don't actually explore the horror of living in a world with little to no hope of getting a job while inflation erodes the value of UBI. I don't get it, honestly. The casually dismissive rebuttals here seem to be blithely oblivious to the dynamics I am commenting on and not genuinely engaging those things.
- gbear605 9y ago
  > They don't actually explore the horror of living in a world with little to no hope of getting a job while inflation erodes the value of UBI. Better than the horror of living in a world with little to no hope of getting a job while also having no income at all.
  - Mz 9y ago
    What I am suggesting is that we could focus on redistributing work. It isn't inevitable that jobs should simply go away. But I think I am going to throw in the towel on this discussion. It seems pointless. Folks are pro UBI, and let's not let any facts get in the way.