Income Inequality

[Martin Hash]

Cool, keep doing it! Why the fuck are you talking about a UBI?

Because recognizing that certain jobs are going away does not require that one be employed in said certain jobs?

Dude, you confused me with the legalese; say that in English, please.

[DBTrek]

You left out the rest of the argument because it specifically refutes what you just posted. Try again with the entire quote. Thanks.

Nothing in the rest of your "argument" refuted the fact that landed slave owners, by and large, didn't use their free time to innovate, create art, or advance the cause of humanity. The premise is faulty. The idea that an individual subsiding on government assistance is suddenly going to turn into Thomas Jefferson because we give them a guaranteed monthly income is puzzling. We should be able to name countless lottery winners that have become great thinkers, artist, innovators, and inventors if that is the case.

Can you name any?

Me neither.

Faulty.

[Martin Hash]

UBI is wishful thinking of the Listless Class.

[Speaker to Animals]

You left out the rest of the argument because it specifically refutes what you just posted. Try again with the entire quote. Thanks.

Nothing in the rest of your "argument" refuted the fact that landed slave owners, by and large, didn't use their free time to innovate, create art, or advance the cause of humanity. The premise is faulty. The idea that an individual subsiding on government assistance is suddenly going to turn into Thomas Jefferson because we give them a guaranteed monthly income is puzzling. We should be able to name countless lottery winners that have become great thinkers, artist, innovators, and inventors if that is the case.

Can you name any?

Me neither.

Faulty.

It did. Which is why you removed it from the quote. It directly preempted your juvenile rant, and instead of dealing with that, you erased and carried on as if I had never posted it. Whatever, dude.

[Speaker to Animals]

We are faced with two negative potentials argued from each side: (1) automation will result in the vast majority of people being disenfranchised from jobs. (2) If people have access to a universal income, then a lot of people would choose not to work, innovate, or contribute to society in any way. That's what each side is basically arguing.

But if the ability to feed yourself, raise a family under a roof in a safe neighborhood, and so on, remains contingent upon access to a job, then most people will essentially be told to die or shuffled to a welfare state where you have to spend money on them anyway. So argument (2), in my opinion, is rubbish from the start if you accept automation as inevitable.

Furthermore, (2) does not comport to historical evidence in which aristocratic or otherwise very privileged classes still chose to work on their own pursuits, increasing culture, science, and even medicine on their own. Most of the Enlightenment aristocracy, for example, devoted themselves to intellectual pursuits. Jefferson, who lived off the labor of slaves, spent his time in political, scientific, and philosophical pursuits.

The reason you don't see that in the welfare state is because: (A) the welfare state actually requires that people not work in any way. If they show any aptitude for innovation or work, the rug is pulled from beneath them and they starve or find work (which in our near future is not going to be possible). (B) the welfare state creates further disincentives by drastically cutting welfare/disability funds if the person can manage part-time work. It's not economically feasible for people on these programs to work part-time even when they can or want to do so. The system is designed top-to-bottom to keep people out of the workforce and dependent upon the bureaucracy. (C) most of the people in the welfare systems were already compromised by a corrupt and useless government school system that denied them in many case of even literacy. (D) Other government policies encourage some classes of people (especially women) to become totally dependent upon the system in order to farm them for votes, further increasing the cancer of the welfare state.

If we continue down this current path, we are going to get a fuck ton of (1), with increasingly ignorant people driven to hopelessness and despair (and likely to crime). (2) Has it's pitfalls, but it's not an obvious dead-end like (1).

Note the bold part that was deleted from the quote DB selected when he posted this:

Furthermore, (2) does not comport to historical evidence in which aristocratic or otherwise very privileged classes still chose to work on their own pursuits, increasing culture, science, and even medicine on their own. Most of the Enlightenment aristocracy, for example, devoted themselves to intellectual pursuits. Jefferson, who lived off the labor of slaves, spent his time in political, scientific, and philosophical pursuits.

Whether one sustains themselves by the work of slaves or by Section 8 housing and government cheese, they remain equally free to innovate. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson was far from the only slaveholder of his time - yet where is this cultural, scientific, and social Renaissance of Southern plantation owners who likewise lived off the labor of slaves. According to your theory they, like Jefferson, should've devoted their lives to intellectual pursuits and innovation.

But it didn't happen.

Ergo the entire premise is flawed.

His post was lazy and no attempt at honest debate. It was a waste of all our time.

[Okeefenokee]

Cool, keep doing it! Why the fuck are you talking about a UBI?

Because recognizing that certain jobs are going away does not require that one be employed in said certain jobs?

Dude, you confused me with the legalese; say that in English, please.

You asked why a person with a job they enjoy is talking about a UBI. Having a job and discussing why people who will or have lost their jobs might need a UBI are not mutually exclusive. You can be employed in a field that is currently not threatened by automation or globalization, and recognize that there are others who are not. There is no reason why being in the first group means you can't talk about the issues faced by the second group.

You of all people of course already know this, what with your constant going on about how those with must give bennies to those without, lest they rise up.

Cool, you have an income. Why the fuck are you talking about welfare?

[Zlaxer]

Come on DB - The proles will be fine cuz they got electrolights

[Fife]

We are faced with two negative potentials argued from each side: (1) automation will result in the vast majority of people being disenfranchised from jobs. (2) If people have access to a universal income, then a lot of people would choose not to work, innovate, or contribute to society in any way. That's what each side is basically arguing.

But if the ability to feed yourself, raise a family under a roof in a safe neighborhood, and so on, remains contingent upon access to a job, then most people will essentially be told to die or shuffled to a welfare state where you have to spend money on them anyway. So argument (2), in my opinion, is rubbish from the start if you accept automation as inevitable.

Furthermore, (2) does not comport to historical evidence in which aristocratic or otherwise very privileged classes still chose to work on their own pursuits, increasing culture, science, and even medicine on their own. Most of the Enlightenment aristocracy, for example, devoted themselves to intellectual pursuits. Jefferson, who lived off the labor of slaves, spent his time in political, scientific, and philosophical pursuits.

The reason you don't see that in the welfare state is because: (A) the welfare state actually requires that people not work in any way. If they show any aptitude for innovation or work, the rug is pulled from beneath them and they starve or find work (which in our near future is not going to be possible). (B) the welfare state creates further disincentives by drastically cutting welfare/disability funds if the person can manage part-time work. It's not economically feasible for people on these programs to work part-time even when they can or want to do so. The system is designed top-to-bottom to keep people out of the workforce and dependent upon the bureaucracy. (C) most of the people in the welfare systems were already compromised by a corrupt and useless government school system that denied them in many case of even literacy. (D) Other government policies encourage some classes of people (especially women) to become totally dependent upon the system in order to farm them for votes, further increasing the cancer of the welfare state.

If we continue down this current path, we are going to get a fuck ton of (1), with increasingly ignorant people driven to hopelessness and despair (and likely to crime). (2) Has it's pitfalls, but it's not an obvious dead-end like (1).

Note the bold part that was deleted from the quote DB selected when he posted this:

Furthermore, (2) does not comport to historical evidence in which aristocratic or otherwise very privileged classes still chose to work on their own pursuits, increasing culture, science, and even medicine on their own. Most of the Enlightenment aristocracy, for example, devoted themselves to intellectual pursuits. Jefferson, who lived off the labor of slaves, spent his time in political, scientific, and philosophical pursuits.

Whether one sustains themselves by the work of slaves or by Section 8 housing and government cheese, they remain equally free to innovate. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson was far from the only slaveholder of his time - yet where is this cultural, scientific, and social Renaissance of Southern plantation owners who likewise lived off the labor of slaves. According to your theory they, like Jefferson, should've devoted their lives to intellectual pursuits and innovation.

But it didn't happen.

Ergo the entire premise is flawed.

His post was lazy and no attempt at honest debate. It was a waste of all our time.

USDs don't measure equality, or the lack thereof, in any way that leads to anything other than confusion, tyranny, anarchy, and destrcution.


How many USDs per month would it take to make the drunken bum pissing his pants "equal" to DB? Or catsass to you? Or anybody to anybody else?

[Martin Hash]

Okee, R U speaking for Cali? (I didn't get notified of The Power of Attorney.)

[Speaker to Animals]

We are faced with two negative potentials argued from each side: (1) automation will result in the vast majority of people being disenfranchised from jobs. (2) If people have access to a universal income, then a lot of people would choose not to work, innovate, or contribute to society in any way. That's what each side is basically arguing.

But if the ability to feed yourself, raise a family under a roof in a safe neighborhood, and so on, remains contingent upon access to a job, then most people will essentially be told to die or shuffled to a welfare state where you have to spend money on them anyway. So argument (2), in my opinion, is rubbish from the start if you accept automation as inevitable.

Furthermore, (2) does not comport to historical evidence in which aristocratic or otherwise very privileged classes still chose to work on their own pursuits, increasing culture, science, and even medicine on their own. Most of the Enlightenment aristocracy, for example, devoted themselves to intellectual pursuits. Jefferson, who lived off the labor of slaves, spent his time in political, scientific, and philosophical pursuits.

The reason you don't see that in the welfare state is because: (A) the welfare state actually requires that people not work in any way. If they show any aptitude for innovation or work, the rug is pulled from beneath them and they starve or find work (which in our near future is not going to be possible). (B) the welfare state creates further disincentives by drastically cutting welfare/disability funds if the person can manage part-time work. It's not economically feasible for people on these programs to work part-time even when they can or want to do so. The system is designed top-to-bottom to keep people out of the workforce and dependent upon the bureaucracy. (C) most of the people in the welfare systems were already compromised by a corrupt and useless government school system that denied them in many case of even literacy. (D) Other government policies encourage some classes of people (especially women) to become totally dependent upon the system in order to farm them for votes, further increasing the cancer of the welfare state.

If we continue down this current path, we are going to get a fuck ton of (1), with increasingly ignorant people driven to hopelessness and despair (and likely to crime). (2) Has it's pitfalls, but it's not an obvious dead-end like (1).

Note the bold part that was deleted from the quote DB selected when he posted this:

Whether one sustains themselves by the work of slaves or by Section 8 housing and government cheese, they remain equally free to innovate. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson was far from the only slaveholder of his time - yet where is this cultural, scientific, and social Renaissance of Southern plantation owners who likewise lived off the labor of slaves. According to your theory they, like Jefferson, should've devoted their lives to intellectual pursuits and innovation.

But it didn't happen.

Ergo the entire premise is flawed.

His post was lazy and no attempt at honest debate. It was a waste of all our time.

USDs don't measure equality, or the lack thereof, in any way that leads to anything other than confusion, tyranny, anarchy, and destrcution.


How many USDs per month would it take to make the drunken bum pissing his pants "equal" to DB? Or catsass to you? Or anybody to anybody else?

What the fuck?

This has nothing to do with equality. It's a solution to the post-scarcity world in which most labor is automated, and most people won't have available to them a job.

If anything, there will be rampant inequality as those who can innovate and invent will amass great wealth compared to the multitudes who cannot. But the multitudes who cannot won't suffer either.