Well, UBI is a future response to a future problem where increased automation may mean rapid job loss. Try to keep up. Even then, the easy answer to your question is by solving another one: if there are literally thousands of jobs available, why is there unemployment?
1. Canadians aren't being trained for skilled jobs that we have available.
2. Canadians no longer want to do menial work for lesser jobs.
Canada is basically reliant on immigrants to do menial labour. We import many of our skilled workers too:
Right, that's my point. "Thousands of jobs available" tells basically a fraction of the picture. There might be thousands of jobs available, but that does not mean they are available to anyone without a job. If certain predictions come to be, the disparity between available jobs to skilled workers and unskilled workers (technically formerly skilled workers who have been made redundant) will grow.
The question of "why do we need UBI when there are so many jobs" is as silly and simplistic as asking why we need EI, or retirement income, or other government supports for those who can't work, when there are so many jobs.
Really, why do we even have EI or pension plans when there are so many jobs? Shouldn't that money go towards retraining younger works and requiring older works into menial jobs?
Well, UBI is a future response to a future problem where increased automation may mean rapid job loss. Try to keep up. Even then, the easy answer to your question is by solving another one: if there are literally thousands of jobs available, why is there unemployment?
To some of us, UBI is an idea of helping those in need. That is why I'm open to a certain idea of it.
To others UBI is a government handout that helps people sit around on their ass and be lazy while still having enough money to survive.
As to why there is unemployment despite thousands of jobs being available, surely even someone as dense as you should be able to figure that out, no?
Lots of work, no workers to hire that have the skills required. Gee, I wonder what is going on there.
To some of us, UBI is an idea of helping those in need. That is why I'm open to a certain idea of it.
To others UBI is a government handout that helps people sit around on their ass and be lazy while still having enough money to survive.
As to why there is unemployment despite thousands of jobs being available, surely even someone as dense as you should be able to figure that out, no?
Lots of work, no workers to hire that have the skills required. Gee, I wonder what is going on there.
Yup, someone as dense as me can figure it out. The reason I asked is that the answer, which if someone as dense as me can figure out, I assume someone very smart like yourself can figure out, would aid in answering your own question.
Then again, you also thought the NBA came up with the idea for rapid COVID testing. So, perhaps I've pegged you wrong and you're just as dense as I am, a complete moron like me, even. It's nice to have the company! Welcome brother!
To others UBI is a government handout that helps people sit around on their ass and be lazy while still having enough money to survive.
Who are these 'others' that are advocating for this?
UBI, in every serious discussion I've come across, is intended to be enough guaranteed income for a person to meet their basic needs like food and shelter while not enough so that people are able to not be productive members of society.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Yup, someone as dense as me can figure it out. The reason I asked is that the answer, which if someone as dense as me can figure out, I assume someone very smart like yourself can figure out, would aid in answering your own question.
Then again, you also thought the NBA came up with the idea for rapid COVID testing. So, perhaps I've pegged you wrong and you're just as dense as I am, a complete moron like me, even. It's nice to have the company! Welcome brother!
I actually had you on the ignore list but took you off because of a quoted post which almost made it seem like you would say something intelligent.
Who are these 'others' that are advocating for this?
UBI, in every serious discussion I've come across, is intended to be enough guaranteed income for a person to meet their basic needs like food and shelter while not enough so that people are able to not be productive members of society.
Advocating for what? As with all welfare discussions, there is a side that thinks that it'll make people lazy and not able to sustain themselves. Most here haven't outright said that, but there is the belief that more handouts won't solve the problem.
Plus, we've been diverting into a discussion the last 4-5 pages about the fact that there are thousands of jobs not being filled while at the same time unemployment levels are much higher than they should be. That discussion has been based around the idea that before we start implementing UBI, perhaps we need to reassess as a society how we educate and train people for jobs, and what jobs will be available in the future as it is very clear that the education system is not training people for the work that is available.
The reason the jobs are not being filled is due to the lack of properly trained workers. A big issue is not only in kids coming out of post secondary into fields with no available jobs, but perhaps an even bigger issue is lack of retraining available for workers coming from industries that are dying off. A good example of that being the oil & gas industry, and the lack of resources available to take thousands of workers and retrain them into industries that have more work.
Either way, I still think UBI on a very local level could work, and I feel that there is enough evidence to suggest that it should be based around providing shelter, and less around providing all the basic needs at once.
Yup, someone as dense as me can figure it out. The reason I asked is that the answer, which if someone as dense as me can figure out, I assume someone very smart like yourself can figure out, would aid in answering your own question.
Then again, you also thought the NBA came up with the idea for rapid COVID testing. So, perhaps I've pegged you wrong and you're just as dense as I am, a complete moron like me, even. It's nice to have the company! Welcome brother!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I actually had you on the ignore list but took you off because of a quoted post which almost made it seem like you would say something intelligent.
Clearly I was wrong. Have a nice day.
Sigh. The ignore list. The last rhetorical defense tool for the intellectual dark web set. "If I put this person on my ignore list they won't make me look like the idiot I am anymore! Now let me rail on about free speech and other topics I know nothing about!" God bless their hexagonal crystalline little hearts.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
No, it just allows the weight of reality to rest on the house of cards you are attempting to build. What you're suggesting requires massive systemic overhaul in component of our society and culture. Every single system of we rely on for our society to function - market economy, governance, personal beliefs and responsibility, etc. - are going to have to be altered. People are not going to accept it. Corporations are not going to accept it.
Your're dead wrong. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Everyone has different basic needs. Children and elderly require more care and attention. Same with people with physical or mental illness. Then there is the extreme poor who may live in areas where services do not exist. You are trying to force everyone into the same situation which is reflective of our society and the complex nature of it.
Spoken like someone who has never experienced poverty or actually helped a community try to escape the clutches of poverty. Even if you operate as meeting basic human needs is the expectation, you are not meeting that need. $20K does not meet basic human needs pretty much everywhere. You are trying to treat a symptom rather than treat the disease. You can give a man a fish, but if you teach a man to fish... ! Solve the actual systemic problem rather that try and throw money at it thinking that uneducated people will somehow figure it out themselves.
So the tax system will be overhauled as well. How many corporations and rich people do you think are going to hang around your little social experiment? How many corporations are going to look at your tax rate and just move out of Dodge? How many people of affluence will just pull a Murray Edwards? Businesses and people with means, the ones you are saddling with funding this scheme, are not going to sit back and take it. They are going to pull out and move operations elsewhere. And when those operations are gone, they aren't coming back.
You have an unreasonable expectation of what $20K will buy with people. If the basic living wage is better than double that, triple that in many areas, the incentive is not strong. People still have to make up the difference and will go to the appropriate means to do so. People will rely on the same means to meet their needs after UBI is implemented. You are killing off the many social programs that people rely up to meet a minimal standard of living, and replacing it with a marginal replacement, so what do you think is going to happen?
You're going to have to explain this. How is the Canadian health care system creating moral hazard? Also, $20K a year is not an incentive for people to live an active healthy lifestyle. Just the opposite. Poor people eat bad food because that is all they can afford. Good food is expensive. Junk food is cheap. When you don't have enough money to put a roof over your head and have to cut corners and that directly affects diet. As a result people gain do not have a healthy lifestyle. It is a vicious circle well documented and why many programs operate the way they do.
You can disagree with anything you like, but the data is there and it is irrefutable.
Its because you don't know what you're talking about. You obviously don't know how government works and are approaching it from a private sector position. You think everyone is the same. That everyone has the same access. That everyone has a bank account. People come from different conditions and it is the responsibility of the government to provide the promised services in the best ways possible to meet the needs of the communities they serve. You're making wild assumptions based on your condition and not recognizing that there are millions of people out there who do not have the access you do.
It is attempting to understand your point of reference. Your thinking on this issue is very rudimentary and is coming from a single perspective. You think all people are the same - they are not - and all conditions are the same - they are not - so have attempted to solve all problems based on your very limited knowledge and exposure. Society is very complex and there is no thing as a single fit solution to a problem like poverty and social mobility. Also, I have to add, that your comments clearly reflect that you think expertise, experience, and exposure mean nothing when solving problems.
Sorry, but you sound like someone who is living in your parent's house and has this incredible safety net to fall back on. $20K is not a lot of money. It does not meet the basic needs of an individual. If you think that is enough money to tell your employer to go #### themselves you are sadly mistaken. Jobs are hard to come by, especially for the poor and the disadvantaged. Yeah, a white kid from a middle class or better up bringing can really speak to the plight of the poor black or brown person without walking a mile in their sandals (if they can afford sandals). You are constructing a social reality that just doesn't exist and thinking throwing money at individuals is going to solve systemic problems. Yeah, you come off as a kid with no point of reference or experience to understand the complex nature of the systems you're talking about. And yes, experience and exposure matters.
And corporations are corporations and can close up shop in one country and move to another. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There is a reason why states/provinces will compete like hell to attract this big corporations, and why they bend over backward to keep them happy. They provide jobs and a tax base. Piss them off and they will pull up stakes and leave. You have to strike a fine balance between private and public sector, and you're thinking you can bully your way to forcing compliance. That isn't the way the world works.
You don't understand how government transparency works. Government transparency is provided through oversight means. That is a level of bureaucracy that is mandatory to establish transparency in the public sector. You don't gain transparency through "smaller government" that is a fallacy created by people who think they can apply private sector practices to public sector operations. Public sector has a requirement to have every transaction double and triple checked.
It's not vague. It has a lot more substance behind it than UBI. It is a principle that has been used to keep taxation and systemic abuse in check for over two hundred years.
No, you missed the point. Those are picture of people that don't have that $48K a year. That is what $20K looks like. Those poor people are living on a fraction of basic income needs, which is exactly what your UBI proposal would be; a fraction of what is required to live. I was hoping to put a face on this issue for you, but you seem to have missed the reality that so many people live under.
Poor people do not have the economic means to move. Again, you're applying your frame of reference on people you have not idea about. Oh, if you aren't happy with your life, just move! That isn't possible for the vast majority of people. Most people don't have that as an option. There are millions of people out there that are stuck in their current predicament and know that is their lot in life. They struggle to find jobs, and when they do they have to do everything in their power to maintain that job. They don't have the economic or social means to move.
Obviously. You don't understand poverty. I have a very strong feeling you have never experienced poverty. I don't think you've ever faced a day where you haven't have a full belly or a roof over your head, let along dealing with that for weeks or months at a time. I seriously doubt you have had to make the decision of which bill you are not going to pay so you can go and buy yourself a $5 pizza that you're going to stretch for a whole week. You think poverty is something that can be solved by giving people money, instead of the means to better themselves and give them the tools to leverage social mobility.
Do you even know what upward mobility is? Based on your responses I don't think so. I also think you better go back and take another read of your copy of Atlas Shrugged. Something didn't resonate.
In your system, every person HAS to have a job. Without one they have no hope of meeting the basic needs to live by. Poverty skyrockets and the poverty cycle kicks into full gear.
This mostly comes across as a bunch of gaslighting and condescension (and yes, more strawmen and ad hominem attempts).
Simple math shows that 20k/year is enough for a person to scrape by and access the bare minimum necessities. I'm not going to be gaslit into thinking otherwise.
The idea that UBI should be higher than 20k/year, is certainly worth considering. However, your overall case against UBI is mostly based on misconceptions and preconceived bias. You seem to have this idea that only certain people should be treated with decency and compassion, and not others. You're never going to end up with a well-functioning society that way. Callousness only begets more callousness.
You complain about people who vote for Donald Trump. Well you know what gives birth to the Trumpian mindset? It's the concept of "no one ever gave a damn about me, so why should I give a damn about others?" You can't combat this mindset by only looking out for those who are in the worst situations. You have to send a clear message to everyone that every person matters.
Since you've swung the doors open on ad hominems, now it's my turn... you may have more years of experience in certain areas than I, but never underestimate the biases and damage that creep in as a person suffers more emotional/psychological trauma as the years go on. There's a reason why candidates like Sanders and Yang polled well among young people and poorly among older people, it's because people tend to become more callous and ruthless as they get older.
Here's the other thing... it seems like we've always sat back and let the "old wise" folk call the shots in our society. For the most part, we've generally trusted them to make the best decisions because of their (purported) vast experience, wisdom, and knowledge. I don't know about you, but from my perspective the world is a complete disaster right now. Look at climate change, pollution in general, never ending wars, poverty (both here and abroad), organized crime, rampant wealth disparity, systemic racism, opioid epidemic, dictatorial regimes, and other problems. This is the result of hundreds of years of letting the all-knowing experts make the big decisions. Maybe it's time to move away from the notion that the old & experienced always know best? Maybe it's time to let younger voices into the conversation and take their input seriously to heart?
...For the most part, we've generally trusted them to make the best decisions because of their (purported) vast experience, wisdom, and knowledge. I don't know about you, but from my perspective the world is a complete disaster right now. Look at climate change, pollution in general, never ending wars, poverty (both here and abroad), organized crime, rampant wealth disparity, systemic racism, opioid epidemic, and other problems. This is the result of hundreds of years of letting the all-knowing experts make the big decisions. Maybe it's time to move away from the notion that the old & experienced always know best? Maybe it's time to let younger voices into the conversation and take their input seriously to heart?
Other than huge over-population in Southeast Asia, the world today is at the best it has ever been. Literally, the best on all accounts - socially, economically and culturally. Perhaps, the old and wise folk didn't do too bad.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
Other than huge over-population in Southeast Asia, the world today is at the best it has ever been. Literally, the best on all accounts - socially, economically and culturally. Perhaps, the old and wise folk didn't do too bad.
You mean we're not precariously close to suffering cataclysmic consequences as a result of climate change?
You mean our oceans and waterways aren't being pumped full of garbage and other toxins?
You mean we aren't breathing in toxic gases every single day from vehicles and other sources?
You mean the top 1% of the world's population doesn't hold nearly half the world's wealth?
You mean the US doesn't have a bloated military industrial complex which fights endless wars?
You mean there isn't an opioid crisis reeking havoc on our population?
You mean there aren't still people committing suicide every single day, despite how wonderful everything supposedly is?
You mean there hasn't been a huge surge in recent years of climate change denial, anti-vax, and other anti-science movements?
You mean people aren't tossed aside like garbage as soon as they don't do as society demands of them?
You do realize how much shorter, more awful, more dangerous and, generally, more horrible in most respects human life was just a hundred years ago, right? This is not Fox News stuff. Just history.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
You do realize how much shorter, more awful, more dangerous and, generally, more horrible in most respects human life was just a hundred years ago, right? This is not Fox News stuff. Just history.
