4 ms·

I just experienced something like a flashback, I was in debate club, listening to yet another kid claim that social change X would lead inevitably to global nuc

I just experienced something like a flashback, I was in debate club, listening to yet another kid claim that social change X would lead inevitably to global nuclear annihilation. Strongest case possible, right? We can't possibly re-allocate the trillions of dollars the federal government spends, or the more trillions the collective states spend, because it would lead inevitably to mass die-offs comparable to soviet-era famine conditions. Existing UBI programs don't directionally move that way? Pandemic productivity actually rose, despite a couple of quarters of setbacks? The actual evidence doesn't support gloom and doom? Just make the claims of potential harm bigger! Nobody can counter hyperinflation, civil unrest, or world war!

htrp 4y ago
Debate clubs always lead to global thermonuclear war.
Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>Pandemic productivity actually rose, despite a couple of quarters of setbacks? Covid did not create Universal Basic Income. Everyone knew that Covid money will run out, so most people didn't quit their jobs (although still many did, which was GP's point). Also, the amount of debt raised during covid was no joke, and we don't know the long term effects. But even disregarding that last point Covid isn't a useful datapoint for disproving GP's claim. The fundamental issue is with UBI is people will not want to work and that is GP's central claim.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  So GP using involuntary unemployment numbers in support of an anti-UBI case didn't trigger your alarm, but me using voluntary employment numbers to demonstrate the falsity of the original claim did? If Covid isn't a useful datapoint for disproving GP's hysterical claims, then it definitely isn't a useful datapoint for supporting them. The number of people who quit their jobs to depend on "Covid money" rounds down to zero. There just wasn't enough "Covid money" for that. Many people were unemployed during the early days of the pandemic, but not voluntarily. Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence and the counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way. But carry on. Civil unrest and a world war await.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    >So GP using involuntary unemployment numbers in support of an anti-UBI case didn't trigger your alarm Obviously, becasue the cause is unemployment, not whether it is voluntary or not. >but me using voluntary employment numbers to demonstrate the falsity of the original claim did? Yes, because it is a logical error, as I explained above. >Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence The evidence is that most people don't like working. I've never met anyone who went to work on a day off; I've seen countless people to get out of it. >counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way. They are as you say: limited. We would only see the effects after UBI becomes "a thing" that allows people to slack off, not a trial. And then children won't take eduaction seriously as there is no more carrot.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      Hahahahahaha! I had no intention of replying at all, but this, this is so outrageous I laughed out loud: > And then children won't take eduaction seriously as there is no more carrot. From the misspelling of education to the apparent breathlessness with which this prognostication is offered up as a fait accompli, it's perfection itself! We live in a world in which for some strange reason people try to educate children and work at jobs making more than subsistence wage, and even try to get raises and promotions, and even when they get a job making six times the average, they keep working and advancing, but no, if UBI is enacted, civil unrest and world war will be the least of our problems. CHILDREN WILL CEASE TO LEARN! Hahahahahahahaha! Okay, NOW carry on.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
        Your're right that "And then children won't take edu[ca]tion seriously as there is no more carrot" is wrong. It's more accurate to say there is less incentive to learn, and education will be taken less seriously. But the main point still stands that when work is optional it will be taken less seriously. 13% of people are on SNAP already,[0] and a large percent of those people are not actually looking for a job or only work part time. The idea that this number will increase as a result of UBI is obvious. Claiming that it won't is not, which is why you need to resort to high school debate team tactics of taking your "oppenent" in bad faith and ignoring their points. Grow up. [0]https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiving-social-safety-net-benefits.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiv...
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Why does everybody who earns above ~$30K/yr go to work? They could retire after a few years if UBI would suffice.
- chaps 4y ago
  Well, Chicago started a trial program of it recently. Doubt that would have come out if it weren't for the pandemic.

htrp 4y ago

Debate clubs always lead to global thermonuclear war.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago

>Pandemic productivity actually rose, despite a couple of quarters of setbacks? Covid did not create Universal Basic Income. Everyone knew that Covid money will run out, so most people didn't quit their jobs (although still many did, which was GP's point). Also, the amount of debt raised during covid was no joke, and we don't know the long term effects. But even disregarding that last point Covid isn't a useful datapoint for disproving GP's claim. The fundamental issue is with UBI is people will not want to work and that is GP's central claim.

pwinnski 4y ago
So GP using involuntary unemployment numbers in support of an anti-UBI case didn't trigger your alarm, but me using voluntary employment numbers to demonstrate the falsity of the original claim did? If Covid isn't a useful datapoint for disproving GP's hysterical claims, then it definitely isn't a useful datapoint for supporting them. The number of people who quit their jobs to depend on "Covid money" rounds down to zero. There just wasn't enough "Covid money" for that. Many people were unemployed during the early days of the pandemic, but not voluntarily. Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence and the counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way. But carry on. Civil unrest and a world war await.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  >So GP using involuntary unemployment numbers in support of an anti-UBI case didn't trigger your alarm Obviously, becasue the cause is unemployment, not whether it is voluntary or not. >but me using voluntary employment numbers to demonstrate the falsity of the original claim did? Yes, because it is a logical error, as I explained above. >Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence The evidence is that most people don't like working. I've never met anyone who went to work on a day off; I've seen countless people to get out of it. >counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way. They are as you say: limited. We would only see the effects after UBI becomes "a thing" that allows people to slack off, not a trial. And then children won't take eduaction seriously as there is no more carrot.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    Hahahahahaha! I had no intention of replying at all, but this, this is so outrageous I laughed out loud: > And then children won't take eduaction seriously as there is no more carrot. From the misspelling of education to the apparent breathlessness with which this prognostication is offered up as a fait accompli, it's perfection itself! We live in a world in which for some strange reason people try to educate children and work at jobs making more than subsistence wage, and even try to get raises and promotions, and even when they get a job making six times the average, they keep working and advancing, but no, if UBI is enacted, civil unrest and world war will be the least of our problems. CHILDREN WILL CEASE TO LEARN! Hahahahahahahaha! Okay, NOW carry on.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      Your're right that "And then children won't take edu[ca]tion seriously as there is no more carrot" is wrong. It's more accurate to say there is less incentive to learn, and education will be taken less seriously. But the main point still stands that when work is optional it will be taken less seriously. 13% of people are on SNAP already,[0] and a large percent of those people are not actually looking for a job or only work part time. The idea that this number will increase as a result of UBI is obvious. Claiming that it won't is not, which is why you need to resort to high school debate team tactics of taking your "oppenent" in bad faith and ignoring their points. Grow up. [0]https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiving-social-safety-net-benefits.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiv...
hgsgm 4y ago
Why does everybody who earns above ~$30K/yr go to work? They could retire after a few years if UBI would suffice.
chaps 4y ago
Well, Chicago started a trial program of it recently. Doubt that would have come out if it weren't for the pandemic.