Results 51 to 75 of 519

  1. Post
    #51
    Hamburglar wrote:
    I really struggle with this attitude tbh. Is it ok to drink and do drugs with your own money?

    You've got to look at why people would feel the need to drink and do drugs in the first place. Drug use is a disease. It's a symptom of a problem (such as needing welfare). It's not a luxury but you guys seem to treat it like they're buying caviar and puffing Cuban cigars on the tax payers dime. How do you think demonizing welfare recipients is going to help them get off welfare? Guilt? It makes as much sense as picking on homeless people for not paying rent because you have to.
    Just handing them more money does not help though. And welfare alone does not create the drug problem.

    You might not like it but for lot of people in this situation more money = more booze/drugs = more crime/domestic violence etc.

    If you think giving them more money is magically going to make their world a better place then I have some unicorn shit to sell you.

  2. Post
    #52
    Vulcan wrote:
    Just handing them more money does not help though. And welfare alone does not create the drug problem.

    You might not like it but for lot of people in this situation more money = more booze/drugs = more crime/domestic violence etc.
    He wasn't arguing that some tiny minority wouldn't spend the money on drugs and booze, but rather trying to understand why that is the case and pointing out that demonising all welfare recipients based on that stereotype, which is not applicable to the vast majority of them, is completely unhelpful.

  3. Post
    #53
    Helps me sleep at night thinking the money I'm keeping for me would be wasted on someone with less means.

  4. Post
    #54
    Vulcan wrote:
    Just handing them more money does not help though. And welfare alone does not create the drug problem.
    Just like feeding beggars doesn't help solve their problems either. You look at why they're begging in the first place and fix that through education and empowerment.

    You might not like it but for lot of people in this situation more money = more booze/drugs = more crime/domestic violence etc.
    A lot of people are ****s. Most aren't. If we make it harder for most people to crack down on the few, you'll end up making more of the few. More people will resort to drugs, drink and crime because they're treated harshly.

    If you think giving them more money is magically going to make their world a better place then I have some unicorn shit to sell you.
    Take a quick look at countries with worse welfare systems than us. How's their crime rate? Are they better off? I'd rather pay someone through tax to help them survive than have them break into my house and take it because they have no options. This pervasive myth of the lavish poor living it up large is ugly and totally unproductive. It's no coincidence that it seems to be very popular with people who never learned to share as kids. It's basically the opposite of what society and community are supposed to be about.

  5. Post
    #55
    Hamburglar wrote:


    Take a quick look at countries with worse welfare systems than us. How's their crime rate? Are they better off? I'd rather pay someone through tax to help them survive than have them break into my house and take it because they have no options.
    No one is saying get rid of our welfare system.

    There is a limit though due to diminishing returns. Throwing more money at them doesn't solve the problem.

    I'm not sure what the solution is. I contend the UBI is not it however.

  6. Post
    #56
    I don't think the UBI is about the poor though. It's about the inevitable replacement of human jobs by robots. It won't just be the poorest of us needing help then, it'll be most of us. The whole problem is people trying to translate it on to todays welfare situation when in reality it's looking at solving a problem we're only beginning to see the start of. It's just long term planning. When there's 20 jobs programming robots and 20,000 mouths applying for them, we'll need a better system than we currently have. Clearly the cracks are forming.

    I explained this on the first page but it's turned into another blame the poor rant when I don't think it's even relevant. People just hear "free money" and it gets their hackles up.

  7. Post
    #57
    bradc wrote:
    Helps me sleep at night thinking the money I'm keeping for me would be wasted on someone with less means.
    Ah so UBI is a "feel good" thing then?

  8. Post
    #58
    Hamburglar wrote:
    I don't think the UBI is about the poor though. It's about the inevitable replacement of human jobs by robots. It won't just be the poorest of us needing help then, it'll be most of us. The whole problem is people trying to translate it on to todays welfare situation when in reality it's looking at solving a problem we're only beginning to see the start of. It's just long term planning. When there's 20 jobs programming robots and 20,000 mouths applying for them, we'll need a better system than we currently have. Clearly the cracks are forming.

    I explained this on the first page but it's turned into another blame the poor rant when I don't think it's even relevant. People just hear "free money" and it gets their hackles up.
    I don't think capitalism could survive with high unemployment, regardless of a UBI. A UBI covers basics, or helps to cover basics. It certainly couldn't sustain a consumerist society. And that's just one issue. Capitalism has many issues, most of which we don't like to discuss intelligently and simply ignore, or where we bizarrely expect the the problems of the system to be solved by the system itself.

  9. Post
    #59
    I think it'd survive fine. We have debt as a mechanism to support consumerism.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Vulcan wrote:
    Ah so UBI is a "feel good" thing then?
    I don't think so. But I might need to start using sarcasm tags.

  10. Post
    #60
    I'm just cynical because I've been waiting 30 odd years for these robot overlords that are going to take our jobs to come and cut my lawns for me.

  11. Post
    #61
    It's really hard to say where things will end. I got to replace an Admin person with a salesperson by integrating a piece of software for $75 a month, potentially I could've just reduced the labour bill. But if you were in the on premise server biz for instance, things will be looking pretty dicey unless you're in a fortunate position. Then there's another industry financing those servers, etc etc, you can see it could snowball. But for now, weeeeeee!

  12. Post
    #62
    s0cks wrote:
    I don't think capitalism could survive with high unemployment, regardless of a UBI. A UBI covers basics, or helps to cover basics. It certainly couldn't sustain a consumerist society. And that's just one issue. Capitalism has many issues, most of which we don't like to discuss intelligently and simply ignore, or where we bizarrely expect the the problems of the system to be solved by the system itself.
    Yeah, I agree. By the time something like a UBI is relevant or necessary, capitalism as we know it won't be. I think even the concept of jobs and unemployment will seem rather alien, like how we see feudalism today.

    I like the forward thinking though. It'd be better have a solution in place before it's forced on us.

    Vulcan wrote:
    I'm just cynical because I've been waiting 30 odd years for these robot overlords that are going to take our jobs to come and cut my lawns for me.
    It's a good thing the cynical and dangerously out of touch aren't in charge then. Oh wait, they are

  13. Post
    #63
    Vulcan wrote:
    I'm just cynical because I've been waiting 30 odd years for these robot overlords that are going to take our jobs to come and cut my lawns for me.
    It's been happening for decades already. China is now having to deal with automation in assembly factories, as wages rise it makes more sense to bring in machines. A few of the bigger manufacturers are combating this by building factories in more remote areas where wages are still cheap.

    The west has mostly moved into services, but a lot of that is becoming DIY, using websites and apps.

    It's not hard to envision a world where a lot of jobs, especially those dirty or boring, could be automated. Even self drive cars are just around the corner.

  14. Post
    #64
    s0cks wrote:
    Even self drive cars are just around the corner.
    Yeah nah

    etween September 2014 and November 2015, Google’s autonomous vehicles in California experienced 272 failures and would have crashed at least 13 times if their human test drivers had not intervened, according to a document filed by Google with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
    Even once perfected there are lots of caveats.

    Sure robotics and automation have grown massively in the last 30 years, but there is still plenty of human interaction in the processes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    it's a good thing I read the article and the data it linked too, which shows an increasing amount of bene's are refusing or failing the test

  15. Post
    #65
    I still believe we'll see self-drive cars take off in our lifetime assuming BAU. Probably won't see the majority of jobs automated mind you.

  16. Post
    #66
    Vulcan wrote:
    it's a good thing I read the article and the data it linked too, which shows an increasing amount of bene's are refusing or failing the test
    "Bene"? Are you serious? Failing or refusing a test for a drug that will soon be legal? The same drugs you don't judge the rest of us for using because we have jobs? In greater numbers because it's now harder and more stressful to be a "bene" that it's been in years? As in a massive regression in the way we treat our poorest citizens? Something we should be terribly ashamed of?

    Cool story bro. That's the sort of wonderful attitude that gets you the job manning the door to the gas chamber. Because they're just druggy scum right? This is like arguing with Bill O'Reilly.

  17. Post
    #67
    What it comes down to is that a lot of people simply don't care about the poorest NZ citizens and don't want to help. Derogatory stereotyping helps reconcile this attitude.

  18. Post
    #68
    sykotic wrote:
    I've said it in plenty of other places and I'll say it again here....
    What is stopping business owner from distributing the workload throughout the company, or hiring new personnel?
    As you said, business owner can close the business. But this only opens up opportunity for any other niche filler, who potentially takes on the redundant talent.

    Is business owner going regional really a bad thing? Aside from alleviating a housing crisis, this one man adds another source of income to the regional town and new jobs are created.

    As for the 15 who lost their jobs (which is already a common enough experience for the majority of us), they'll just have to survive on a livable income until beginning new work or training. Which in my mind is a step up from the current method of struggling on 15k.

  19. Post
    #69
    Hamburglar wrote:
    "Bene"? Are you serious? Failing or refusing a test for a drug that will soon be legal? The same drugs you don't judge the rest of us for using because we have jobs? In greater numbers because it's now harder and more stressful to be a "bene" that it's been in years? As in a massive regression in the way we treat our poorest citizens? Something we should be terribly ashamed of?

    Cool story bro. That's the sort of wonderful attitude that gets you the job manning the door to the gas chamber. Because they're just druggy scum right? This is like arguing with Bill O'Reilly.
    Wut?

    Weed is not legal nor nowhere near it. (btw I'm pro legalization fwiw)

    I do judge people that use drugs, smoke and drink regardless of their job (or lack of).

    You need a horse to go with that white knighting buddy?

    Sorry if I don't have a lot of sympathy that are getting free money because they cannot get a job because they have a drug habit.

    My point was you quoted something that quoted something else out of context (which was a crappy stuff article) for its basis.

  20. Post
    #70
    s0cks wrote:
    I still believe we'll see self-drive cars take off in our lifetime assuming BAU. Probably won't see the majority of jobs automated mind you.
    Within our lifetime <> just around the corner.

    I'm sure we will see them in 5-10 years - but with limited city use. And that will be in cities that are prepared for them. I would seriously doubt the validity of a self drive car on NZ roads within the next 20 years.

  21. Post
    #71
    Vulcan wrote:
    Sorry if I don't have a lot of sympathy that are getting free money because they cannot get a job because they have a drug habit.
    Bit of a leap of logic there. Who says they cannot get a job because they have a drug habit?

  22. Post
    #72
    eug1404 wrote:
    Bit of a leap of logic there. Who says they cannot get a job because they have a drug habit?
    The people administering the drug test?

  23. Post
    #73
    refused wrote:
    What is stopping business owner from distributing the workload throughout the company, or hiring new personnel?
    As you said, business owner can close the business. But this only opens up opportunity for any other niche filler, who potentially takes on the redundant talent.
    Because if they were capable of running it they would be doing that. Exceptions will apply of course, but in general, if they could, they would.

    refused wrote:
    Is business owner going regional really a bad thing? Aside from alleviating a housing crisis, this one man adds another source of income to the regional town and new jobs are created.
    Regionally without the business in my example. So he wouldn't be generating more income for the regional town, apart from his own.

    But my point still stands, how do you pay for this UBI when people would give us working for high salaries? A lot would close up shop, move country, or hide the income. All of which reduce potential tax income.


    refused wrote:
    As for the 15 who lost their jobs (which is already a common enough experience for the majority of us), they'll just have to survive on a livable income until beginning new work or training. Which in my mind is a step up from the current method of struggling on 15k.
    Like I said above, how do you pay for this liveable income if 15+the owner's income just dropped to either nothing, or very little.

  24. Post
    #74
    Vulcan wrote:
    The people administering the drug test?
    You've lost me here. Employers aren't the ones doing those drug tests.

  25. Post
    #75
    eug1404 wrote:
    You've lost me here. Employers aren't the ones doing those drug tests.
    Yes plenty of them are. I'm good friends with a guy that handles the hires for a major labor company.

    He gets multiple applicants a week that refuse to do a drug test (which is part of every application).