People want to be useful, and people don't want to do the same thing for the rest of their lives. These are statistically true generalizations.
UBI would allow people to expand their career paths since basic survival would not be on the line. Personally I've got minor health issues from being in front of a computer too much, would absolutely love switching it up with a more physicaly demanding job if I had UBI to make sure a drop in wages wasn't threatening my family's basic survival. This also assumes universal healthcare.
"You cannot have both an opt-in working class and an opt-in nonworking class and have a healthy society."
So I agree, but I do not think it would become a real problem. If it does become a problem we could implement a lottery system that swaps workers out every so often.
Don't know what to tell ya; I wont be running into town to grab a pic for you. Local McDonald's is currently advertising on a big sign $17/hr with vacation time. My kid reported that another fast food shop in town is now to $20/hr. I was talking with a roofer a bit north of me two weeks ago. His starting pay is also $20/hr and he can't get anyone. Anyone. He is now down to just himself because he can't get folks.
That is a poor argument and not even really correct. He is advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy which would indeed take away from his own wealth. You can't expect people to sacrifice themselves completely to help others when the necessary changes are systemic and not individual.
Universal healthcare and education at all levels. Strong worker protections, good safety nets. Return to mid 1900s tax rates on the rich, fund the IRS to make sure corporations and ultra wealthy pay their taxes.
We have multiple successful models to look at where capitalism is reigned in by all the above.
Neither of which would solve this pandemic. Someone has to man the line or else everyone dies. Should we get rid of the military because it results in someone dying to help the greater good of a larger sum? Life is full of suffering
How does this advice apply to the current situation? None of these suggestions ensures crops are planted, freight is moved, or sick patients are cared for.
"(c) The SDK Software is licensed solely and exclusively for use with products
offered for sale by Boston Dynamics, Inc. (“BD Products”). Use of the SDK
Software with simulators and emulators is not prohibited so long as it is a
software based simulation / emulation. Use with any other hardware is strictly
prohibited."
The problem is that the "reason" was simply being associated with someone. We need to creste privacy laws, this assumption thst it is OK to go through someone's personal life merely for being in someone else's contact list is unethical.
There should be compelling evidence, and after some short time period say > 5 years the person should be notified of the investigation.
Filing a subpoena to get information related to an active investigation is a reasonably common event. The requirement for and around the subpoena are the privacy laws.
It's perhaps not reasonable to expect any legislature to pass privacy laws that block legitimate subpoenas that are part of an investigative process.
We already know what it is, the centralized ownership of news media. Billionaires do not want Sanders to bring their taxes in line with reality. Thus the corrupt political elites and the corporate owned media marginalize him every chance they get.
Just part of the panopticon, they are forcing you to make it super easy for governments to monitor you. Tracking email addresses and correlating amongst shared names makes for more false negatives, tie it to a phone number and you're doing their work for them.
Money is an artificial construct used by humans to facilitate trading their labor amongst each other in order to get what they need to survive.
Arguments about how expensive things are make no sense if we restructure our society where money is only half the equation. The labor required to provide food, health, and housing is incredibly small compared to the overall economy.
People want to be useful, and people want more than just a place to live and food to eat.
The real danger would be in creating a system that stifles the free market side of the economy and leaves people stuck in basic assistance hell with no way of working to improve their lives. Worrying about the costs of providing basic assistance to all is actually the least important bit.
UBI would allow people to expand their career paths since basic survival would not be on the line. Personally I've got minor health issues from being in front of a computer too much, would absolutely love switching it up with a more physicaly demanding job if I had UBI to make sure a drop in wages wasn't threatening my family's basic survival. This also assumes universal healthcare.
"You cannot have both an opt-in working class and an opt-in nonworking class and have a healthy society."
So I agree, but I do not think it would become a real problem. If it does become a problem we could implement a lottery system that swaps workers out every so often.