[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by New Era

A bull#### stereotype? You mean being able to afford to do things with friends, have a home to raise a family, take that family on vacations to expose themselves to different places and cultures, and enrich their lives? That stupid stereotype?

Hmmm, I think that's your problem and no one else's. I haven't seen anyone else project this into this discussion except you. I don't think many people outside of teenagers considers themselves a piece of #### because they don't drive a particular car or wear certain clothes. If they do, they likely have self esteem or emotional problems. I think people want to have access to a comfortable life. They want to provide for themselves and their loved ones. Anything more is a bonus.

Really? Do tell. Do tell. Please tell me all the horrible things I have done to contribute to the downfall of our society.

Once again, your entire problem is right here. You list a bunch of nice-to-haves and try to pass them off as must-haves, then you perpetuate the stereotype that people who don't have these nice-to-haves "don't have a life". By doing so, you're helping to perpetuate the myth that those who live low-consumption lifestyles are "less than".

It's simple enough to draw a coorelation between poverty (or what certain institutions deem to be poverty) and depression (or what certain institutions deem to be depression). It's another to dig deeper and try to figure out why, in our society, there's such a link between low-consumption lifestyles and suicide. I think a lot of it has to do with people looking at those who have more and thinking "oh no, why don't I get to live like that?", and then the dismay eats away at them and eventually they slip into mental health problems. I think we combat this by helping people understand that it's ok to have less, and it doesn't make you any less of a person to live modestly.

Not sure why you keep trying to make statements against me on a personal level. Once again, they are false.

Talk about building a strawman. Where have I said anything of the sort? I've been arguing for the maintenance of social programs that help people and elevate the weakest in society. Not all people need help, so it is best to shift the money to those in the greatest need rather than cut everyone, including those who don't need the money, a check. It would be wonderful to solve homelessness, but giving homeless people money is not the solution. The are plenty of reasons people are homeless and money isn't always the solution. Mental illness, addiction, and domestic violence are big contributors that money doesn't solve. Again, you take a simplistic view at a very complex issue where there are a number of contributing factors to the underlying problem. A lot of those people need help from other programs that will no longer be available under your UBI system.

Your opposition to UBI shows that you only want certain people to be treated with decency. I think you'd be surprised at how many of those homeless people wouldn't have developed those problems in the first place if they lived in a society that didn't have such brazen disregard for their well being. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Any economic system that doesn't have UBI, is a blackmail-based economy. Period.

Have you articulated that anywhere? First I've seen of this commentary. If so, to what extent?

In the initial video I posted, I said that we can pay for UBI "and still be able to care of the sick, the elderly, and the disabled". Admittedly, I could have phrased it a different way to convey it more clearly.

Trump is a real piece of crap and people are hurting because of it. That is the thing, his party wants to do away with social programs that help the less fortunate and replace them with... nothing. They have no interest in replacing social programs with anything, they just want to eliminate them and cut the taxes for the rich.

My point is that Trump supporters don't support UBI, and generally don't support any program that promotes compassion/decency/empathy. To them, it's all "the evil socialism". So to use red states as some kind of example of why UBI doesn't work, is quite disingenuous.

And who in this thread has suggested that? We need to help the weakest in society. The argument is which is the best way.

Not only that; we also need to see to it that everyone feels valued. We don't do that by blackmailing people. You're suggesting providing assistance only to some, while leaving everyone else to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Originally Posted by GGG

The entire success of UBI rests on human nature.

If one accepts the theory that productivity is actually increasing more rapidly then before and that rapid job loss at a faster rate then job creation is inevitable to occur.

If the above is true then the purpose of UBI is to provide a disincentive for people to seek work so the available jobs matches the available number of workers. If UBI is too large then the disincentive is too large and the cost of labour rises beyond what is able to be sustained and required. Too low and it doesn’t provide the level of support.

It is entirely possible that the level of UBI required to provide a basic standard of living is above the level require to disincentivize the level of work provided by society.

That is entirely predicated on human behaviour.

Spoiler!