Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Descan]

Honestly, if a fucker doesn't want to be in a retail location or something, then I don't want them catering to me when I go there? Like, seriously. Think about it. People who are willing to coast on 10k, 20k, whatever the income level is, if they don't have that, what'll they do? Probably low-level service jobs. Who are they servicing? Probably you at some point, in general. Do you *really* want to deal with more people who hate their job, hate you, and would much rather be at home doing something else? I sure don't.

[Frumple]

Who, exactly, loses here?

People who need to know that other people fail in order to feel validated in their accomplishments, I guess. S'kinda' the vibe I get when I hear some folks (not here, mind -- in real life) expressing their opinions regarding the "leeches". That people who have lives so miserable that a basic living wage would be a substantial improvement need to exist, so that one's own achievements are highlighted in comparison.

I can sort of see it, even. There's those that don't have the capacity or interest in doing 1 or 2 from your three options, Baug, but are prevented from sinking into 3 solely by the threat of starvation. If that threat is removed, their own acts would lose the value they ascribe to them, from their point of view.

Mind you, it should be somewhat obvious in the saying that I think those folks are kinda' terrible human beings, but it seems to be a thing, at least implicitly.

[Zangi]

Them 'luxury' goods and services that many people take for granted today is probably going to be a beast of a motivator for people to actually work.  (They'll still hate their jobs if companies still think they need to treat their employees like shit for that extra profits.)

[Descan]

And the fact that the employee can quit and not starve gives some power back to the employee to say "Fuck you, treat me right or we're walking."

[SalmonGod]

And the fact that the employee can quit and not starve gives some power back to the employee to say "Fuck you, treat me right or we're walking."

This is the single most important factor, in my opinion, and the one that is likely to bring the most people on board with it.

I've lately been seeing shows of support for the basic income movement from libertarians, because it gives employees more bargaining power.  This strengthens two of their core tenets at once - forcing employers to act competitively in the job market and giving everyone more ability to practice free association.  And it does so without resorting to other measures that they hate, like unions and regulations.

[Zangi]

And the fact that the employee can quit and not starve gives some power back to the employee to say "Fuck you, treat me right or we're walking."

This is the single most important factor, in my opinion, and the one that is likely to bring the most people on board with it.

I've lately been seeing shows of support for the basic income movement from libertarians, because it gives employees more bargaining power.  This strengthens two of their core tenets at once - forcing employers to act competitively in the job market and giving everyone more ability to practice free association.  And it does so without resorting to other measures that they hate, like unions and regulations.

You may be right about that, but I am pretty pessimistic to how greed, profits and lobbying can corrupt that, among other factors...  Like *insert* gov't heads as a collective deciding that we can't have nice things cause security/sovereignty will be put to the crapper.  (Cause potential employment of people willing to dedicate their life to long hours of boring stuff will plummet.  For example, military and stuff.)

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

(Cause potential employment of people willing to dedicate their life to long hours of boring stuff will plummet.  For example, military and stuff.)

I have four friends who joined the military and were glad to do so.  The pool of friends I have is quite small, so that's saying something.

[EnigmaticHat]

I can totally see universal income becoming a popular idea, but not in the US.  We don't even hand out money to the needy without checking if they "deserve" it first, selling people on the government giving money to EVERYONE sounds like a stretch.

The big reason though, is that that money needs to come from somewhere.  Think about how much trouble our politicians have raising taxes or cutting any form of spending, now add a living wage multiplied by the population of the US to our expenses.  Wouldn't be pretty.

[Sergarr]

Actually, what's stopping the corporations from adjusting the prices and wages higher to negate the effects of the universal income?

That seems like something that would be done almost immediately.

[EnigmaticHat]

Competition of course.

Prices would go up naturally (due to increased buying power), as would wages (because as Salmon God pointed out, people wold have more power to say no to employers).  So the effect would be negated somewhat.  But overall setting prices higher than you need to is a bad idea, especially if its like the US and many chains have stores within sight of rival chain's stores.

Now, you can just set up a trust or whatever but that's true without a universal wage and governments can crack down on that anyway.

Also, it wouldn't be that hard to manipulate the economy so that necessities are purchasable while luxuries can cost whatever.  We've already kind of done that with corn subsidies and the price of food, albeit very incompetently and probably for less noble reasons.

[Sergarr]

The universal income still doesn't lead us into the post-capitalistic society.

Mainly because the Chinese/Indian/insert-a-typical-developing-economy-country workers will still be living in hell.

[Sheb]

So what? It's not like the whole world has to transition to post-capitalism in one go.

[Helgoland]

And it's not like post-scarcity, even if such a state can exist, is around the corner.

The Chinese and Indian workers have been making huge steps forward in the last twenty years, by the way. Capitalistically.

[SalmonGod]

I don't really see how the potential for post-scarcity is so far off.  Politically, yes, but not materially.  The way I see it, we only need to eliminate scarcity of necessities, and that's basically already done.  We very easily have enough food and shelter for everyone in excess.  If everyone is guaranteed access to those things, as in my opinion they should be, then working can be optional for the sake of obtaining luxuries that are still scarce.

[Sergarr]

So what? It's not like the whole world has to transition to post-capitalism in one go.

I fear that the process of transition may attract some... unwanted attention from the remaining forces of capitalism - which definitely don't want to lose their top-tier position in the world.