What's new
By:

US Pulling Out of Paris Climate Accord

JustTheTip said:
An agreement between countries where involvement is voluntary with no penalties is doomed from the beginning. It's not an awful idea, but it would never work.
Click to expand...

not only on country level but on business and indivudal level!

you got something i want i got something you want! we trade and nobody interferes

wether it is drugs, or food, or sex!
 
JustTheTip said:
I definitely think we're headed towards a UBI bc what else do we do? We've engineered so well that we no longer require the amount of workers we used to. We can't just let them rot because we don't need them.

Unfortunately, I'm not as optimistic about it. I think it will lead to a pronounced lack of productivity. If you look at groups of people who are given income for nothing, it typically doesn't result well for that group.
Click to expand...

Has it? Because UBI hasn't really been tested extensively. It is inherently different from what we call welfare in the West. It should cover for all your basic needs, not just ensure your survival. Say $2000/month to start.

Where it has been tested, the results were good. For example:

https://isa-global-dialogue.net/ind...nsformative-potential-of-basic-income-grants/
 
Bulletproof said:
I love this post.

There is this idea that if you're not doing your 40hrs and asking for more than you're just a bare minimum type person who doesn't care about anything. Where I work they definitely prefer the employees who beg for 60+ hrs a week. It means the person "cares" about what they do. I find it laughable that I have to give half a **** about the fortune of the company I work for. Employment is a mutually beneficial exchange. I perform work that they need done in order to operate and they compensate me for my time, which I need in order to pay for food and shelter. Devotion to your employer is a one-way street. It absolutely doesn't pay extra unless you're desperate to go from being an hourly worker to a low-level manager and they use the "cares" and "devoted" criteria when making those promotions.
Click to expand...

The irony is, these people work that much out of necessity, not out of love for their company. Median income in the US is something like $45k. I don't know how anyone can support a family on that. If you're making $20 an hour, and in a single-income household, then you HAVE to work 60 hours a week. And some people make even less than that!

Edit: And don't get me started on the poverty line. $18k! LOL.
 
♪alt13 said:
Like people who inherit money versus those that don't? Cuz those that inherit money surely more often do better than those that don't.
Click to expand...

Obviously they're starting with an advantage. That certainly helps. Many of them maintain or lose it, few of them advance upon what they've been given.
 
Siro said:
Has it? Because UBI hasn't really been tested extensively. It is inherently different from what we call welfare in the West. It should cover for all your basic needs, not just ensure your survival. Say $2000/month to start.

Where it has been tested, the results were good. For example:

https://isa-global-dialogue.net/ind...nsformative-potential-of-basic-income-grants/
Click to expand...

Your link isn't working, I'd like to read it so fix that please. Ya jerk.

I'm not referring to welfare either btw. You see it across the board, of course there are exceptions but if you give people money and no purpose (yes I understand that you don't like your job, but it does fulfill our purpose of providing, whether for family or employers), they tend to do nothing. Eventually trips get old because you can't vacation from a vacation. Inflation would skyrocket. And what's the point for trying to do well for yourself if you're guaranteed an income? What's my incentive? People will end up doing the minimum or less, and then beg for more money when what they've been given isn't enough.
 
Siro said:
The irony is, these people work that much out of necessity, not out of love for their company. Median income in the US is something like $45k. I don't know how anyone can support a family on that. If you're making $20 an hour, and in a single-income household, then you HAVE to work 60 hours a week. And some people make even less than that!

Edit: And don't get me started on the poverty line. $18k! LOL.
Click to expand...

I make $42k and support a family of 3 (about to be 4) on solely my income. No debt or loans out either.
 
Bulletproof said:
I love this post.

There is this idea that if you're not doing your 40hrs and asking for more than you're just a bare minimum type person who doesn't care about anything. Where I work they definitely prefer the employees who beg for 60+ hrs a week. It means the person "cares" about what they do. I find it laughable that I have to give half a **** about the fortune of the company I work for. Employment is a mutually beneficial exchange. I perform work that they need done in order to operate and they compensate me for my time, which I need in order to pay for food and shelter. Devotion to your employer is a one-way street. It absolutely doesn't pay extra unless you're desperate to go from being an hourly worker to a low-level manager and they use the "cares" and "devoted" criteria when making those promotions.
Click to expand...

This is why I try to run my facilities with the attitude of "get the job done, then go home". We try not to get stuck on hours per week, and we try to make sure they hourly folk get what they need to get a full pay-check, but I push my managers to reward results and effort not just hours worked. It is a tough hill to climb because the paradigm you mention is alive and well in American industry. But the fact remains that if I can find people talented enough to get the job done in 30 hours per week so I can give them some time off they are happier and become more productive so more gets done in the same time and it leads to nothing but good things.

I have worked for companies that only value you if you offer your entire life to the organization (amazon, where I slaved for 5 years, is very much of this cultural mind-set) and it leads to lower productivity and higher turnover and just isn't sustainable. Hell I remember getting a ding on my annual review at amazon because I actually used all of my allotted vacation time. The expectation was that you would give days back to the company and if you used all your days they almost viewed it as stealing.
 
JustTheTip said:
Your link isn't working, I'd like to read it so fix that please. Ya jerk.

I'm not referring to welfare either btw. You see it across the board, of course there are exceptions but if you give people money and no purpose (yes I understand that you don't like your job, but it does fulfill our purpose of providing, whether for family or employers), they tend to do nothing. Eventually trips get old because you can't vacation from a vacation. Inflation would skyrocket. And what's the point for trying to do well for yourself if you're guaranteed an income? What's my incentive? People will end up doing the minimum or less, and then beg for more money when what they've been given isn't enough.
Click to expand...

Remove the "s" in "https".

Incentive to do what? Half of the people where I work do tedious repetitive jobs, like soldering electrical components as fast as they could all day long. Beside fulfilling their need to earn income to live, what does performing such an inhumanely ****ty task for most of their waking hours accomplish? How would society be worse off if those people did something else instead, while their jobs got automated? And by something else I don't just mean starting a business, altho that'd be a significant step toward fulfilling work, but things like raising their kids, improving their homes, producing music and other types of art, or just playing video games and reading books in their ample free time? I don't think such ****ty jobs offer a quality of life advantage over practically any other human endeavor. I guess I'd rather play a robot on an assembly line than live under ISIS. But that's probably about it.
 
JustTheTip said:
I make $42k and support a family of 3 (about to be 4) on solely my income. No debt or loans out either.
Click to expand...

A small house in a working class neighborhood in SLC would cost you $1500 a month in mortgage. That's your entire salary, after tax, when you're making $42k a year, counting health insurance.
 
Siro said:
A small house in a working class neighborhood in SLC would cost you $1500 a month in mortgage. That's your entire salary, after tax, when you're making $42k a year, counting health insurance.
Click to expand...

Our mortgage on a 3600 sq ft 4 bed, 3 bath house in clearfield is 1400. I think something in the SLC area in a reasonably ok neighborhood, modest home, would be doable at 1200 or less with a modest down payment. We looked at houses in West Valley and other areas that were very similar to our house in clearfield for similar money. Of course right now it is a seller's market in Utah so currently they would go for more.
 
[MENTION=3073]JustTheTip[/MENTION]

If between you and your wife the government gave your family 42k a year; would you stop working or continue to work so that you could afford an 84k lifestyle for your family?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top