5 ms·

You should also look at it from the other side: if I have a job that I work at 8-10 hours a day (and might not do if I didn't need the money), how am I "punishi

You should also look at it from the other side: if I have a job that I work at 8-10 hours a day (and might not do if I didn't need the money), how am I "punishing" the other guy by not sharing the fruits of my labor with him for nothing in return? EDIT: To put it another way: if I'm a productive worker and have a job, I am "rewarded" by working for a boss (taking orders from him/her), and having to turn over 35-50% of my income to government, to give it to others. If I were unemployed, I'd be "punished" by receiving welfare, food stamps and a bunch of other stuff, without having to contribute in any way to society.

assface 13y ago
Because you don't live in a vacuum. Our society makes it possible so that you can earn a living. You're just paying back for having that opportunity to those that are less fortunate.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  Those that are less fortunate aren't also the ones that make it possible for me to earn a living. Police, teachers, firemen, road workers and some others do all that, work hard at it, and I appreciate their contribution. They're not the ones we're talking about here.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    As soon as a policeman gets fired, he becomes worthless to you?
    - ahomescu1 13y ago
      That's an excessive over-simplification of my point. And to answer you: no, he doesn't become "worthless" to me (whatever that may mean), but I will stop paying him for his services.
      - hahainternet 13y ago
        The fact is that the healthiest situation for any society is for every member to be able to afford to meet their basic needs with a little extra income. This is clearly not possible through a purely free job market. 'Sacrificing' some of your income to maintain this society and permit mobility is in your best interests. Who's to say you won't be the next one fired, or your child?
- tsotha 13y ago
  >Because you don't live in a vacuum. Our society makes it possible so that you can earn a living. This argument doesn't hold water for me. Society makes it possible for everyone to earn a living, so people who aren't doing it should start.
  - bryanlarsen 13y ago
    except for kids, seniors, the mentally ill, the physically disabled, et cetera.
  - orthecreedence 13y ago
    > so people who aren't doing it should start But they won't. It's safe to say that lazy people are good at being lazy and will find a way to be lazy no matter what system they're in. Pretending we can build a system that eradicates laziness in an exercise in futility. It's better to accept the fact that a fixed percentage of people are only going to take while most others give (and take), and stop wasting the enormous overhead trying to figure out which is which.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      >Pretending we can build a system that eradicates laziness in an exercise in futility. Not at all. You know what eradicates laziness? Hunger.
      - orthecreedence 13y ago
        I'd argue hunger promotes stealing more than eradicates laziness.
  - 6d0debc071 13y ago
    > Society makes it possible for everyone to earn a living Do you have evidence of the size and nature of job vacancies compared to the skills and number of the unemployed?
    - 13y ago
buzaga41 13y ago
you are not, but society is an organism with more than you in it, and if he's thrown into the bin because he's can't make it in it the guy may think it's fair to take it from you... in the same vein, your job only exist because there's people with enough buying power to keep the business you're at existing, so again you depend on people, and you could be punished or rewarded depending on how society as a entire organism does...
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  > you are not, but society is an organism with more than you in it, and if he's thrown into the bin because he's can't make it in it the guy may think it's fair to take it from you... I already had a similar discussion on Slashdot recently. Taking other people's money by force is, IMHO, theft. My question then isn't why it would be OK for the guy, but why does theft become OK for society? Why are you arguing that stealing is acceptable if you're desperate enough? I say it's never acceptable. EDIT: Paying people so they don't steal from me is called a protection racket. If that's what you're arguing for, let's call it what it is.
  - rjtavares 13y ago
    People like you scare me. I can't even understand that point of view, and I don't think we can have a productive argument if we don't share a basic understanding of what a society is. Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      It's easier to understand people like this if you study how religious fundamentalism works. The key is in understanding that everything in the world, in their point of view, boils down to a basic set of axioms. This simplified reality allows them to extrapolate claims outwards that are otherwise absurd if approached from another direction, because contrary facts have already been discarded as irrelevant; it gives them the comfort of feeling that their beliefs are "holy" or "logical", which reinforces it in an infinite loop.
FD3SA 13y ago
The correct answer here is that you are not valuing your opportunity costs highly enough. If you are working 8-10 hours a day, you should be making an incredible surplus. People in ancient societies worked less, and managed to survive just fine. With the technology available today, you could be making millions of dollars of surplus value, if given the opportunity. All you would need is the time to experiment with your skill set, until you found a niche where your work generates a very large surplus. Paradoxically, you would gain much more from a BI than someone who is currently living in poverty, because you would be free to extract the maximum potential from your hard work and talent.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  Actually, I was arguing against the idea that society is punishing people who can't find a job. Personally, I'd love to get BI. That would free me to work only on what I like, or not work at all when I don't want to.
  - marknutter 13y ago
    But what's stopping you from just working hard, saving your money, and then taking extended time off of work to do what you want to? Why does that money need to come from other people? Maybe if the government just let you keep the majority of your earnings you could use that money to "work on what (you) like or not work at all when (you) don't want to".
    - ahomescu1 13y ago
      Actually, nothing's stopping me from doing all of that. I'm also not asking for BI (it sounds like a bad idea long term), I'd take it if it was offered though.
- nirnira 13y ago
  If people can improve their economic performance so much with just a small cash grant then, why haven't businesses jumped in on this apparently incredible opportunity? Seems like a great chance for businesses to make some money in tandem with people reaching their potential. Naturally it would be much better for businesses to do this than the government. Businesses have much higher motivations to use their money wisely (i.e. give the right amount to the right people and create the right incentives to ensure people are motivated to use the funds wisely, go bankrupt or get sued by investors if they spend poorly) than a government (which just gets to shrug or inflate the currency or embark on a fresh round of vilifying productive citizens). Oh wait, don't we already have that? Bank loans or something, I don't know, lol.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
> You should also look at it from the other side: if I have a job that I work at 8-10 hours a day (and might not do if I didn't need the money), how am I "punishing" the other guy by not sharing the fruits of my labor with him for nothing in return? The question itself is incorrect. Low-paid workers or the unemployed are not parasites on highly-paid workers; the capitalist class is a parasite on all workers, no matter the salary, and through their control over government they continually engineer a level of unemployment that can suppress wages. (If you don't believe me about the government, look up how inflation targeting works. Central banks are supposed to target both low unemployment and low inflation, but for the past several decades, the deliberate policy choice has been to consistently sacrifice wage growth (ie: exploit workers harder) in order to maintain both low inflation and economic growth at the same time.)

assface 13y ago

Because you don't live in a vacuum. Our society makes it possible so that you can earn a living. You're just paying back for having that opportunity to those that are less fortunate.

ahomescu1 13y ago
Those that are less fortunate aren't also the ones that make it possible for me to earn a living. Police, teachers, firemen, road workers and some others do all that, work hard at it, and I appreciate their contribution. They're not the ones we're talking about here.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  As soon as a policeman gets fired, he becomes worthless to you?
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    That's an excessive over-simplification of my point. And to answer you: no, he doesn't become "worthless" to me (whatever that may mean), but I will stop paying him for his services.
    - hahainternet 13y ago
      The fact is that the healthiest situation for any society is for every member to be able to afford to meet their basic needs with a little extra income. This is clearly not possible through a purely free job market. 'Sacrificing' some of your income to maintain this society and permit mobility is in your best interests. Who's to say you won't be the next one fired, or your child?
tsotha 13y ago
>Because you don't live in a vacuum. Our society makes it possible so that you can earn a living. This argument doesn't hold water for me. Society makes it possible for everyone to earn a living, so people who aren't doing it should start.
- bryanlarsen 13y ago
  except for kids, seniors, the mentally ill, the physically disabled, et cetera.
- orthecreedence 13y ago
  > so people who aren't doing it should start But they won't. It's safe to say that lazy people are good at being lazy and will find a way to be lazy no matter what system they're in. Pretending we can build a system that eradicates laziness in an exercise in futility. It's better to accept the fact that a fixed percentage of people are only going to take while most others give (and take), and stop wasting the enormous overhead trying to figure out which is which.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    >Pretending we can build a system that eradicates laziness in an exercise in futility. Not at all. You know what eradicates laziness? Hunger.
    - orthecreedence 13y ago
      I'd argue hunger promotes stealing more than eradicates laziness.
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  > Society makes it possible for everyone to earn a living Do you have evidence of the size and nature of job vacancies compared to the skills and number of the unemployed?
  - 13y ago

buzaga41 13y ago

you are not, but society is an organism with more than you in it, and if he's thrown into the bin because he's can't make it in it the guy may think it's fair to take it from you... in the same vein, your job only exist because there's people with enough buying power to keep the business you're at existing, so again you depend on people, and you could be punished or rewarded depending on how society as a entire organism does...

ahomescu1 13y ago
> you are not, but society is an organism with more than you in it, and if he's thrown into the bin because he's can't make it in it the guy may think it's fair to take it from you... I already had a similar discussion on Slashdot recently. Taking other people's money by force is, IMHO, theft. My question then isn't why it would be OK for the guy, but why does theft become OK for society? Why are you arguing that stealing is acceptable if you're desperate enough? I say it's never acceptable. EDIT: Paying people so they don't steal from me is called a protection racket. If that's what you're arguing for, let's call it what it is.
- rjtavares 13y ago
  People like you scare me. I can't even understand that point of view, and I don't think we can have a productive argument if we don't share a basic understanding of what a society is. Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    It's easier to understand people like this if you study how religious fundamentalism works. The key is in understanding that everything in the world, in their point of view, boils down to a basic set of axioms. This simplified reality allows them to extrapolate claims outwards that are otherwise absurd if approached from another direction, because contrary facts have already been discarded as irrelevant; it gives them the comfort of feeling that their beliefs are "holy" or "logical", which reinforces it in an infinite loop.

FD3SA 13y ago

The correct answer here is that you are not valuing your opportunity costs highly enough. If you are working 8-10 hours a day, you should be making an incredible surplus. People in ancient societies worked less, and managed to survive just fine. With the technology available today, you could be making millions of dollars of surplus value, if given the opportunity. All you would need is the time to experiment with your skill set, until you found a niche where your work generates a very large surplus. Paradoxically, you would gain much more from a BI than someone who is currently living in poverty, because you would be free to extract the maximum potential from your hard work and talent.

ahomescu1 13y ago
Actually, I was arguing against the idea that society is punishing people who can't find a job. Personally, I'd love to get BI. That would free me to work only on what I like, or not work at all when I don't want to.
- marknutter 13y ago
  But what's stopping you from just working hard, saving your money, and then taking extended time off of work to do what you want to? Why does that money need to come from other people? Maybe if the government just let you keep the majority of your earnings you could use that money to "work on what (you) like or not work at all when (you) don't want to".
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    Actually, nothing's stopping me from doing all of that. I'm also not asking for BI (it sounds like a bad idea long term), I'd take it if it was offered though.
nirnira 13y ago
If people can improve their economic performance so much with just a small cash grant then, why haven't businesses jumped in on this apparently incredible opportunity? Seems like a great chance for businesses to make some money in tandem with people reaching their potential. Naturally it would be much better for businesses to do this than the government. Businesses have much higher motivations to use their money wisely (i.e. give the right amount to the right people and create the right incentives to ensure people are motivated to use the funds wisely, go bankrupt or get sued by investors if they spend poorly) than a government (which just gets to shrug or inflate the currency or embark on a fresh round of vilifying productive citizens). Oh wait, don't we already have that? Bank loans or something, I don't know, lol.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

> You should also look at it from the other side: if I have a job that I work at 8-10 hours a day (and might not do if I didn't need the money), how am I "punishing" the other guy by not sharing the fruits of my labor with him for nothing in return? The question itself is incorrect. Low-paid workers or the unemployed are not parasites on highly-paid workers; the capitalist class is a parasite on all workers, no matter the salary, and through their control over government they continually engineer a level of unemployment that can suppress wages. (If you don't believe me about the government, look up how inflation targeting works. Central banks are supposed to target both low unemployment and low inflation, but for the past several decades, the deliberate policy choice has been to consistently sacrifice wage growth (ie: exploit workers harder) in order to maintain both low inflation and economic growth at the same time.)