4 ms·

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

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...

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...