2 of 3
2
The basic income discussion
Posted: 12 April 2017 04:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4074
Joined  2009-10-21
Beltane - 11 April 2017 07:59 PM
Lausten - 11 April 2017 07:22 PM

Nah, let’s do it your way and fight it out until only the stupid are left standing

Lel brah, that actually would turn out better…...but who said anything about fighting, the point is nothing in life is ever free.

That’s a truism that isn’t really true. When did you start paying for your mother’s milk? Did your contribution to the household match the value of the house? In an agrarian world it might have, but we don’t live in an agrarian world. Our contributions are much more abstract, but we continue to act like pay actually equals the value of what we do.

What’s more true is the way we treat the poor actually shows where are values really are.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 06:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1314
Joined  2005-01-14
Beltane - 10 April 2017 05:00 PM

Where’s the money going to come from?

The same place it comes from to build prisons, I suppose.  The prison system has become so bloated that corporations are getting into the act, running them for profit, all at the taxpayers expense.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 07:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
Advocatus - 12 April 2017 06:47 AM
Beltane - 10 April 2017 05:00 PM

Where’s the money going to come from?

The same place it comes from to build prisons, I suppose.

You mean like the State Dept. of Corrections? or the Federal Bureau of Prisons?
I really don’t think that those institutions would ever be able to come up with enough money to provide all citizens with basic income.
That’s not realistic.

How about everyone who wanted a “basic income” just applies for a job and gets it that way?
See, that’s most likely the zenith of organized society. Then things get done. Streets get cleaned. Things get invented.
Products get made. Food is provided.

Also there are plenty of jobs that require no skills or education. So using the excuse that
“try as people might, some folks just aren’t able to get skills” is just ridiculous.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 08:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
Advocatus - 10 April 2017 07:05 AM

  You need skills to get a job, and some people, try as they might, simply can’t acquire the needed skills.  And we’ve seen it time and time again—if people can’t find jobs, they will become criminals, burglars, drug dealers.  Isn’t that a drain on society?

Yeah, it was you who said that.
Throughout the history of humankind people who are deemed a drain on society are dealt with. Prisons, rehab, hospitals, killing, banishment etc etc..
That’s how it has always been. It’s part of our social behavior.

Hunter/gatherer tribes surely had very little room for people who couldn’t contribute to the welfare of the tribe or group.
We can observe this today in places around the globe.
There’s never been a place in tribes, groups or societies/villages/cities reserved for many loafers or malingerers.
As the groups grow larger and more sophisticated the tiny fraction of loafers becomes more visible, but no less controversial as they have always been.
We are still a group of social animals where everyone is expected to pull their own weight and contribute what they can to society.
It’s always been that way.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 08:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14

A simple social behavioral experiment.
Let’s take a group of 30 people and give them all a task that was moderately physically demanding and also required a degree
of thinking and planning.
Let’s say 15 shovels, 10 wheelbarrows, a scale to weigh the wheelbarrows and some paper and pencils.
The test would be to organize a large quantity of dirt into separate piles of various weights.
And there would be a time limit to this test, a moderately tight time limit.
And also a reward at the end for completion of the task. A reward that was enticing enough to make the subjects be motivated enough to complete
the task.

The task was pre-planned to be possible to complete with 27-28 people all working at a reasonably good clip.
But secretly inserted into the 30 people were 4 people who would loaf, complain, work slower than they were obviously capable of and
take very long rest periods.

Now you observe what will happen. Every time. Every Time.

This can be extrapolated out into numerous other configurations of testing. The test could be repeated again with the subjects voting to get rid of subjects and replace them etc etc etc…

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25
VYAZMA - 12 April 2017 08:22 AM

A simple social behavioral experiment.
Let’s take a group of 30 people and give them all a task that was moderately physically demanding and also required a degree
of thinking and planning.
Let’s say 15 shovels, 10 wheelbarrows, a scale to weigh the wheelbarrows and some paper and pencils.
The test would be to organize a large quantity of dirt into separate piles of various weights.
And there would be a time limit to this test, a moderately tight time limit.
And also a reward at the end for completion of the task. A reward that was enticing enough to make the subjects be motivated enough to complete
the task.

The task was pre-planned to be possible to complete with 27-28 people all working at a reasonably good clip.
But secretly inserted into the 30 people were 4 people who would loaf, complain, work slower than they were obviously capable of and
take very long rest periods.

Now you observe what will happen. Every time. Every Time.

This can be extrapolated out into numerous other configurations of testing. The test could be repeated again with the subjects voting to get rid of subjects and replace them etc etc etc…

What’s your point? So there will always be a small percentage of lazy people. Who cares. The “welfare” society would have to pay for their well being is negligible compared to the welfare provided to corporations so that the lazy executives get their cake and can eat it too.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
CuthbertJ - 12 April 2017 10:44 AM

What’s your point? So there will always be a small percentage of lazy people. Who cares. The “welfare” society would have to pay for their well being is negligible compared to the welfare provided to corporations so that the lazy executives get their cake and can eat it too.

No, That’s not the point!

The point is that there will always be a majority of people who look on upon people who don’t contribute to the system as a problem.
There is always a percentage that is deemed “tolerable”. When this number increases people get testy.

That’s why “Basic Income” will never happen.
That’s why there are laws set up against cheating on social welfare programs.
That’s why we constantly have to reform welfare programs and put people to work.

Humans don’t like picking up other people’s slack if those people are capable themselves.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 11:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14

The test would show that the majority of the people would become angry with the slackers.
And those people, if given the chance would not share the reward equally, or at all, with the slackers if they somehow completed
the task and were allowed to distribute the reward themselves.
The test would show many different outcomes if run repeatedly.
But it would always be disfavorable to the slackers.
The contributors would always protest the slackers and lobby for their removal and replacement.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4074
Joined  2009-10-21
VYAZMA - 12 April 2017 11:11 AM
CuthbertJ - 12 April 2017 10:44 AM

What’s your point? So there will always be a small percentage of lazy people. Who cares. The “welfare” society would have to pay for their well being is negligible compared to the welfare provided to corporations so that the lazy executives get their cake and can eat it too.

No, That’s not the point!

The point is that there will always be a majority of people who look on upon people who don’t contribute to the system as a problem.
There is always a percentage that is deemed “tolerable”. When this number increases people get testy.

That’s why “Basic Income” will never happen.
That’s why there are laws set up against cheating on social welfare programs.
That’s why we constantly have to reform welfare programs and put people to work.

Humans don’t like picking up other people’s slack if those people are capable themselves.

You think so small VY. When I think of lazy moochers, I think of the children in the WalMart family, or Ivanka Trump or Betsy DeVos. These people don’t understand what it is to be in a position where you could lose your job and then not have money, but they get to decide how hard millions of other people should work.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
Lausten - 12 April 2017 01:48 PM

When I think of lazy moochers, I think of the children in the WalMart family, or Ivanka Trump or Betsy DeVos.

Wow! Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 09:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2016-10-10
Lausten - 12 April 2017 04:21 AM
Beltane - 11 April 2017 07:59 PM
Lausten - 11 April 2017 07:22 PM

Nah, let’s do it your way and fight it out until only the stupid are left standing

Lel brah, that actually would turn out better…...but who said anything about fighting, the point is nothing in life is ever free.

That’s a truism that isn’t really true. When did you start paying for your mother’s milk? Did your contribution to the household match the value of the house? In an agrarian world it might have, but we don’t live in an agrarian world. Our contributions are much more abstract, but we continue to act like pay actually equals the value of what we do.

What’s more true is the way we treat the poor actually shows where are values really are.

Parental sacrifices for their children are much different. That’s explained by kin selection. If you really want to break it down, even breastmilk isn’t “free” - it requires the mother be in decent health and well-hydrated - both of which cost something.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2017 07:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1314
Joined  2005-01-14
CuthbertJ - 12 April 2017 10:44 AM
VYAZMA - 12 April 2017 08:22 AM

A simple social behavioral experiment.
Let’s take a group of 30 people and give them all a task that was moderately physically demanding and also required a degree
of thinking and planning.
Let’s say 15 shovels, 10 wheelbarrows, a scale to weigh the wheelbarrows and some paper and pencils.
The test would be to organize a large quantity of dirt into separate piles of various weights.
And there would be a time limit to this test, a moderately tight time limit.
And also a reward at the end for completion of the task. A reward that was enticing enough to make the subjects be motivated enough to complete
the task.

The task was pre-planned to be possible to complete with 27-28 people all working at a reasonably good clip.
But secretly inserted into the 30 people were 4 people who would loaf, complain, work slower than they were obviously capable of and
take very long rest periods.

Now you observe what will happen. Every time. Every Time.

This can be extrapolated out into numerous other configurations of testing. The test could be repeated again with the subjects voting to get rid of subjects and replace them etc etc etc…

What’s your point? So there will always be a small percentage of lazy people. Who cares. The “welfare” society would have to pay for their well being is negligible compared to the welfare provided to corporations so that the lazy executives get their cake and can eat it too.

No, read it more carefully.  He’s saying that “secretly inserted into the 30 people are 4 people who would loaf, complain, etc…”  In other words, he’s not saying that some people are just lazy, he’s RIGGING the “test” on his little fantasy by ASSUMING that some people are lazy.  In actual reality, most people would work if given the chance.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2017 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4074
Joined  2009-10-21
Beltane - 12 April 2017 09:14 PM

Parental sacrifices for their children are much different. That’s explained by kin selection. If you really want to break it down, even breastmilk isn’t “free” - it requires the mother be in decent health and well-hydrated - both of which cost something.

You define free in relation to what can be taken from you by force in a world where taking things by force is normal. Like in the jungle before we came down from the trees. But even then we were developing social skills of cooperation, like giving, caring, sacrificing. If not for those, our brains would not have developed to where they are now. In other words, an animal that has learned to give freely is the one that became conscious and learned to control it’s environment in ways no other animal has (that we know of). But we evolved from something more primitive, so we still have those jungle instincts in us. People like you think that’s “natural”, that the “law of the jungle” still functions appropriately in a evolved society.

Obviously there are costs. Obviously someone has to have a warm safe place for that mother and child so it can be given to them. The question is, do we decide at the species level that all mothers should have that, or do we require something from them? If we do, what are those requirements? I like to start with the absurd. We require that they don’t eat their babies, that they don’t raise them as an army, that they don’t chain them up and give them dog food, that they send them to school, vaccinate them (with exceptions), and now we’re getting to the complicated stuff.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2017 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25
Lausten - 12 April 2017 01:48 PM
VYAZMA - 12 April 2017 11:11 AM
CuthbertJ - 12 April 2017 10:44 AM

What’s your point? So there will always be a small percentage of lazy people. Who cares. The “welfare” society would have to pay for their well being is negligible compared to the welfare provided to corporations so that the lazy executives get their cake and can eat it too.

No, That’s not the point!

The point is that there will always be a majority of people who look on upon people who don’t contribute to the system as a problem.
There is always a percentage that is deemed “tolerable”. When this number increases people get testy.

That’s why “Basic Income” will never happen.
That’s why there are laws set up against cheating on social welfare programs.
That’s why we constantly have to reform welfare programs and put people to work.

Humans don’t like picking up other people’s slack if those people are capable themselves.

You think so small VY. When I think of lazy moochers, I think of the children in the WalMart family, or Ivanka Trump or Betsy DeVos. These people don’t understand what it is to be in a position where you could lose your job and then not have money, but they get to decide how hard millions of other people should work.

From your post to god’s ears!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2017 01:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
Advocatus - 13 April 2017 07:08 AM

No, read it more carefully.  He’s saying that “secretly inserted into the 30 people are 4 people who would loaf, complain, etc…”  In other words, he’s not saying that some people are just lazy, he’s RIGGING the “test” on his little fantasy by ASSUMING that some people are lazy.  In actual reality, most people would work if given the chance.

Ughh…where’s the smart people around here? Rig the test any way you want it!

My insertion of the “plants” still shows a basic tenet of human behavior!
End of Story!!
Don’t put the plants in there! Run the test 100 times.
You’ll still get the same result!

In actual reality, most people would work if given the chance.

Oh yeah how do you know?
Will they still want to if they are letting other people make their living for them?
I highly doubt it. I think your “most people” goes down to “a few people”.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2