Register to vote: https://vote.gov
Contact your reps:
Senate: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm?Class=1
House of Representatives: https://contactrepresentatives.org/
Way too many people are absolutely appalled when I say I don’t care if some of my taxes go to keeping lazy people alive, inside, fed, and warm. I don’t care if someone is not working because they’re disabled, being educated, looking for a job, or just lazy, no one should live without basic human dignity.
I mean at this point scarcity is artificial
For a few more years, at least, til they reinvent the real thing with climate apocalypse. Even if we turn around right now; incomprehensible numbers of people are going to die to this. Every day adds more.
We have built most of the machinery necessary to create a kind of heaven, and the fuckers we allow to have control of it are using everything we give them to create hell. Every breath they draw is a shame we all must carry.
What else is labor good for if not making things better? I want to chase improvement, not profit.
FR FR, defrauding the system should be punished, not prevented, because right now preventative measures are very obviously doing jack shit in actual service to the public
I’m not even talking about fraud. I think someone should still be entitled to a basic existence even if they don’t want to work. Like sure, don’t give them an Xbox Series X, but, give them food and heat. Maybe even an Xbox 360. What are those, like $30?
My point is that the argument for not doing that derives from paranoia about the system being defrauded by the unscrupulous poor or whatever
I hear that argument a lot and the fear and paranoia about the system being defrauded is so unfounded. People are crazy susceptible to propaganda. The cases found to be actually fraudulent are under 10%. The statistics for fraud are super low and so many people who are legit disabled get denied over and over. It’s mind boggling lol
I only find my life fulfilled if I have the latest systems, games, and full online services for each.
And only then should we all collectively say, “well then get a job.”
Laziness is NOT an existential threat.
I will gladly accept if my taxes go to someone lazy if it means people that need it are getting the assistance they need. It’ll happen anyways may as well help people who need it. That said I don’t condone people scamming the system but it’s either very high administration costs or people that need it don’t get it usually. I went on assistance once, needed it short term, recall some dude talking about how it was his weekend spending money. Annoying to hear but I got the assistance I needed for that short time till I got a job. Always felt my attitude would fit better in some European or Scandinavian countries but I’m older now and don’t speak anything other than English.
I agree so much. The vast majority of people wants to work to some degree anyway because they tend to feel useless and bored and go nuts. I see this in the huge number of refugees every day, they are going insane waiting for their documents to be approved so they can finally look for a job, be it just McDonald’s. And those who don’t - well so be it. I’d rather have someone unemployed and “lazy” than half assing some job they hate.
I’d love to have a system where everything mentioned in the meme is provided and everyone pays like 90% taxes. You get an apartment in an appropriate size not more than 15 minutes from your workplace. You get basic groceries provided and if you want truffles or crazy imported fruit you still have your 10% for that. Those 10% can go to whatever you like. You have housing. You have food. You have clothing. You have infrastructure and all your basic and medium needs are met. Save up for a trip somewhere, buy weird groceries, jewelry, go to a restaurant.
And there are just natural leaders and politicians and whatnot. I am sure that people will still want to have a “career” for money unrelated reasons. Imagine a manager who actually rocks at managing a team instead of an asshole who only does this job because it pays better. Likewise, and this hurts me so much when I see this on the playground, “low end jobs” would still be done because a lot of people love the idea of doing construction, waiting, cooking, cleaning. Garbage men are being looked up to by kids. Kids naturally love these kinds of jobs but somewhere along the way to adulthood the social stigma kicks in and the realisation that these jobs pay shit keeps them from going down these roads.
Minor nitpick: if it’s snowing outside (and you can do so), then wear a fucking sweater inside! Heating a whole room by a few degrees when you could just not run around with a T-shirt is just so wasteful.
If you can’t wear one, because you’re disabled, then ignore my rant, please.
Electricity companies hate this trick!
For real I dont understand why people forget that they can just wear thicker clothes even at home. And they complain the electricity is expensive
But let’s not forget the fact that a heart pump would be great, if ran minimally and a small fireplace is not going break the bank. So don’t think heating is a complete burden, enjoy the fruits of labor we all work hard on.
heart pump?
Yeah, you know. To pump blood around your house to heat things up.
What, you don’t have a heart pump‽ /s
This is the real answer, with the efficiency of a heat pump you can have your t-shirt and wear it (guilty free) too.
Because electricity is used for more than just heating: running computer, charging phone, lighting living space, keeping food eadible and making food.
Ok, last one is heating too, but for another purpose.
Significantly lowering indoors temperatures can have detrimental effects on health, particularly for elderly people. Also, electricity should be sufficiently accessible and cheap that I don’t need to freeze my butt off in my home in order to pay the bills.
You’re reading waay too much into my comment. I specifically said that there were exceptions and only said that you shouldn’t heat up to t-shirt temperatures.
I suppose it’s not you I’m annoyed with actually. It just rubbed me the wrong way. We’ve had 13-15C indoors this winter in order to afford the power bill, and that’s with geothermal and a decently isolated house. Combined increases in grid fees and electricity price have multiplied our power bill five-fold the past years (and that’s with everything else inflating also).
Next winter we’ll hopefully have cleared the chimney and start burning wood again during the most expensive parts of winter.
Yeah, that’s obviously a shitty thing to endure. Good luck for the next winter!
Ah, to be young again and not have your hands and feed start freezing indoors when it starts getting chilly outside…
Fair comment, just wanted to add that it depends on the humidity and shelter condition. Dry cold is perfectly comfortable with extra layers - I’ve heard many stories of relatives sleeping outside in snow caves or under layers of snow over animal skins - but depending on how badly insulated your house is and how close to the ground (the answers for which, for most people in the situation of the comic, are: badly and low) you may not have much of a choice.
Yes dress for winter even indoors, but once my nose and extremities and phalanges get cold, I’m turning on the heater.
Fine. So long you don’t heat it up to 28°C
And honestly it’s so cozy to be in a chilly room in a toasty wool wrap.
I do that, but I also have fish tanks without a heater which can’t go below a certain temperature, so there is a fine balance that must be maintained.
We seem to love building thin-walled wooden boxes entirely above-ground and living in them.
Is “fat” a suitable disability for sweater forgiveness? Asking for a friend … whom I accidentally ate.
If everyone has a home how can I look down on the homeless and drug addicted while I drink cheap bourbon?
Humanity runs on
Gesundheit.
If only we could codify these ‘rights’ into some kind of a ‘bill’…
Everyone is talking about the politics, but there’s that symbol in the bottom right that drew my attention. Is it some encoded data?
Wondering the same
It’s my logo :)
UBI, single payer, and free college for all. Yes we can, and absolutely should!
Is the verdict really in on UBI? Hasn’t the concern been it would be equivalent to the school voucher coupons and justified to gut a wide variety of social services in the end resulting in less net-benefit to the working class?
I honestly don’t know, but that kinda/sorta makes sense on the face of it. UBI would throw everyone at the mercy of the “free market” for social services, and yes, could have the unintended consequence of obsolescing the state funded ones. Without adequate controls for services (regulations) it could get ugly. Especially if you consider that for-profit “healthcare”, as we enjoy it in the US today, covers most of these services we’re talking about.
UBI is a bandaid, and not a very good one.
Sure, having more money absolutely makes life easier. I’m not disputing that and no one with any sense would. But it doesn’t address the numerous problems it seeks to.
But you touched on the problem, adequate controls are needed. We can do adequate controls without UBI.
The problem with UBI is that when you do big payouts like that, they just become a target for price gouging. Everyone knows there’s extra money to be had and they’re going to want their cut. Your landlord is going to know exactly how much extra you’re making and without rent control there’s nothing stopping him from taking it. The best way to prevent that is to force him to compete for tenants.
So wait, why isn’t he competing for tenants now?
Additional housing fixes the rent problem. UBI puts a temporary bandaid on it.
Universal healthcare fixes the medical expenses problem, strong unionization fixes the wages problem.
Don’t get me wrong I’d love the paycheck, but it isn’t the solution people think it is.
The problem with UBI is that when you do big payouts like that, they just become a target for price gouging.
If you have robust laws preventing price gouging, that is not a problem. No one serious is suggesting implementing UBI with no framework around it.
Incidentally, Alaska has a universal basic income in the form of oil dividends every year and there’s no evidence it’s led to price gouging as far as I know.
A few thousand dollars a year is an order of magnitude different than a few thousand dollars a month. Shits already expensive in Alaska because it’s remote.
Incidentally a handful of studies are several orders of magnitude different than actual UBI, and would similarly fail to showcase the problem.
Again- if you have robust laws against price gouging, there is no price gouging problem.
Robust laws also prevent the need for UBI in the first place. If we can’t figure out how to run a society without it, slapping UBI on top of that isn’t actually going to fix anything.
Universal Basic Income reduced child poverty by 30%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_tax_credit#United_States
By making the child tax credit non-refundable it is effectively a Negative Income Tax which is a form of UBI.
‘Additional housing fixes the rent problem. UBI puts a temporary bandaid on it. Universal healthcare fixes the medical expenses problem, strong unionization fixes the wages problem. Don’t get me wrong I’d love the paycheck, but it isn’t the solution people think it is.’
All of your points misunderstand what the goal of UBI is. By guaranteeing that everyone earns a certain amount of income, the government is garaunteeing a basic standard of living. So a CTC of $3600 means that everyone is guaranteeed an income of at least $3600.
At first, there will be an inital raise in prices as a UBI will likely increases aggregate demand which will increase prices, but eventually prices would stabilize.
Of course, this only helps people with children right now, and there are barriers to filing a tax return in the United States. But the laws could be change to expand the credit, and it’s completely possible for the United States to implement return free filing.
Only when Republicans are in power. At least historically.
Issue with UBI that it can be distorted so much it could mean almost anything at this point. AI corpos think UBI is when you buy their stocks early on, before the big AI boom (FOMO).
I dont think UBI is needed. The super rich/elites would still find ways around it. What is needed is for Politicians to stop being such cunts and start to protect their people from greedy arseholes, bring in higher rates of tax, bring in employment laws… etc etc
My only thing on UBI is who will disperse it? Our own government can’t because it would be used as a tool of leverage against us and they would always threaten to take it away.
Yes, exactly as they constantly threaten to take away our Social Security, roads and military protection! /s
I don’t understand. They do take away our social security and roads. DoD is strong though but it doesn’t really function in service of us.
Heck, if we could have all that for free, what’s the point of working?
I’d continue working if it meant I could afford more luxury in life.
I go to work and still can’t afford the bare minimum of what’s listed up there.
Yeah, that’s the point, it shouldn’t be like that
video game
That might fall under the categories of “free internet” and “living a fulfilled life.” So I’m pretty sure your video games would be provided complementary by the government too!
having video games doesnt fall within free internet and living a fulfilled life
I don’t play video games but those who do seem pretty addicted to them therefore they’re doing something they enjoy and their life is fulfilled.
While real video game addiction is not a thing to trivialize, not all gamers are addicts. It’s a hobby. Same as reading, watching TV, working on a car, woodworking, stamp collecting.
Generalizations suck dude.
And people who engage in their hobbies have a fulfilled life. That’s a point made in the OP meme.
Given the bad faith nature of your answers and your at best confused message of “addiction = fulfillment”, I’m going to chalk this “BuT i’M aGrEeInG” answer to more bad faith.
Free Internet doesn’t mean gaming pc
These are the basic needs. You’ll need a job if you want internet, or a cell phone
free internet was on their list. look at the meme again.
Yes he did, but I’d too say internet isn’t a necessity to live, you can live without internet, internet is mostly for leisure. And where it is useful, it can be replaced easily by the other above, especially if you have free public transport.
“Yeah but you needed internet to work” Work belongs to the workplace, not your home. Can’t take work to your home. (And in that case you would have mommy to buy internet)
And you’d be wrong. All over the place. I work exclusively from home as a data engineer. When the pandemic hit, my job was wholly unaffected. In fact, without the burden of a commute and dealing with existing in an office, my productivity soared. Your life experience is not everyone else’s.
Also, when’s the last time you applied to… anything? Credit card, bank account, job? All of these require internet now. You can’t meaningfully exist in our society without it on some level anymore. You can’t go somewhere and hand someone a resume, you have to submit it online. Those days are long gone.
Honestly if we just tax the rich and start distributing government surplus we probably wouldn’t even need to mandate most of this list.
I think you could mandate the things you mentioned and the list.
Yeah both is good but I just wanted to really illustrate that the thing standing in our way is inequality.
I’m a simple man. I see Eddie Izzard, I upvote
What happens when you see a monkey in a tree, while you’re wearing a beret?
Le singe a disparu
civlized countries are starting to realize it’s cheaper to help people than keep them in poverty
What does owning adequate clothing even mean?
Here in California, I can go to a local shelter right now and get all of these things. Except adequate clothing because I don’t know what that even means.
I’d assume adequate clothing means clothing that fits properly, and is appropriate for the climate and weather.
Sometimes I see homeless people wearing shoes that look way to big for them and I’m guessing it’s because that was the closest they could find that fit on their feet so they just had to go with that. It’s really not adequate though because it could be a tripping hazard.
Homeless people pick their own clothing. They are often too zonked to even care
Umm, please use a more appropriate term, like consciously-divergent.
Regressivist scum keeps attacking strawmen. More non-news at 11.
Source: your anus
Tru
Not everyone is so lucky that standard sized clothing and shoes will fit them, or are even manufactured.
Additionally, facilities to wash clothing. This was one of the biggest struggles when I was homeless.
You are promising a lot from an institution that is corrupt to its core and has a vested interest in denying you these things in order to extract the most out of you and hoping you die before society has to support you
No! We can’t do this! That’s communism!
Removed by mod
Why is it that work is the only way? Why must we work and have “incentive to work”? Who decided that we must work or be worthless? Why must we be forced to play a game that treats us like shit or be outcast and ostracized?
I don’t expect you to have answers, this is just something I’ve always wondered.
Humans are naturally creative and driven. We like working, building and accomplishing something.
Yet you must be forced to do the work of your employment.
If you had all your necessities met, not for long you would start to work. But you would work on projects you enjoyed. I doubt all those projects would be less useful for society than the average workplace nowadays.
I think must of the UBI experiments that we’ve done, many of the participants chose to do work in addition to the basic income.
For one, the operational word is “experiments”. People on experimental UBI know it’s only temporary.
For another, they are never large scale. So you can have success stories about how people given a UBI reprieve were able to take a moment to get things together, get some training, and maybe be selective and find a good job, but it’s unfortunately not saying how it would scale. Unfortunately those great opportunities are likely sparse, and if entire cities could take that same benefit, you’d likely see a reset to a similar scenario as before UBI. That said it may be a much better simpler situation than means tested welfare, but the ubi amounts in the experiments are often less than welfare, so you’d not replace the system…
Then there’s the debate of how much UBI.
On top of everything else that’s been said, most people would want more than just whatever the UBI was even if that was enough to survive on. Most people do not want to just survive. Sure, you might get enough to live a very basic life without any frills if you didn’t work, but isn’t it better to guarantee those people homes and food rather than just let them die in the street?
Because all the things in that picture are produced by people working. If there are not people working to make clothes, you don’t get clothes. If there are not people making and maintaining power plants, there is no electricity. And so on.
It’s okay if temporarily non working people, or people that are unable to work, or people that work but are not paid enough gets these things for free (or deeply discounted. But if absolutely everyone gets all of that for free, there won’t be enough people working just to sustain the ones who won’t.
But if absolutely everyone gets all of that for free, there won’t be enough people working just to sustain the ones who won’t.
This isn’t really a reasonable conclusion though, why could the people doing that work not be incentivised, by being rewarded in some other way than just a bare minimum livelihood? Why would they abandon their station to just do nothing instead ? Doesn’t good protection enable the worker to negotiate their work to be fulfilling, rewarding and well compensated? Are the workers not just cogs in the machine if they don’t get that power to actually negotiate? …
It makes no sense to assume nothing would get done if we just had enough to live no matter what, the argument that we’ll make more and better things seems much more likely to me. Both are somewhat unknowable until we just do right by people and see it working.
It’s not that “nothing will get done”. Sure, some people will work, but much less, if you could get a “fulfilling life” regardless of employment status.
There is already many (quotation needed) people that choose to live off of family members+the state in exchange of some (or a lot) quality of life.
The more you provide for free, the less people will need to work (and some people work only because they need to). This will put more strain on the people that do work, because they are the ones that pay more taxes, which would lead to less luxuries for the people that do actually work.
The higher the production, the higher mean (not median, the rich will always skew the curve a lot) QoL. The idea behind this post aims to increase the median QoL, but I think it’ll just bring the mean closer to the median, and shrink the whole thing.
Removed by mod
But in order to have the comforts of life, we need peoples to do stuff and cooperate and coordinate… think about who runs the cables for your Internet or maintains the cell towers, picks up your trash, grows the avocados for your guacamole, manufactures the medicines…etc etc.
I unironically believe that these things would get done without the need of coercing people to do them by stripping them of the means of survival. Anthropology backs me up on this one.
Show me some horsey sourcey cuz
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
Also: The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow. Basically: anything by Graeber.
Did you just use a book written in 1902 as a source
Is the origin of species out of date, cause it is older?
Also, the bulk of Graeber’s work is from the 21st century.
You can just say that you don’t want to believe me, you know.
There’s a qualitative question in what the “free” tier entails. If it’s basic survival, then that might be “affordable” with room to motivate. If the adequate food was “bachelor chow and water”, ok. If the “home” is a basic bed with a lockable door in a walkin closet sized room, ok.
If we say everyone should get all you can eat buffet with quality apartments, then you start eroding the mechanism to motivate people to do work that needs to be done.
I’d like to distance myself from the individualistic, service-oriented notion that an allayou-can-eat-buffet entails.
Give people free homes and a community and they’ll sooner or later create an all you can eat potluck.
Imagine if we had a universal basic income and people got paid more than that if they had a job?
Oh wait, that’s the whole fucking idea.
You are soo cute, do u have pp
Not everyone HAS to work. There are plenty of homeless people now who don’t work. People can choose to work to increase their pay and quality of life. Even if all my needs were met, I’d still like to buy things, travel, etc. The people making the most money in this world right now are definitely not the people who are working the hardest, nor are they cooperating and coordinating for everyone’s best interest.
We have value beyond work, but ultimately theres the practical questions of:
- If no one worked, then how does everyone get that free food and clean water? Who are the volunteers lining up to elect to keep the sewage plant running?
- Who is providing the medical care? Particularly nursing of mentally unstable, dementia, and hospice care is soul crushing and demands way more people than would ever volunteer.
- Who is building those homes and wiring them? Who is operating the free public transit? Who is repairing the vehicles, roads, and tracks? Who is stepping out in 90 degree heat to repair a road?
All the “free stuff” needs people to work to make it a reality. It may be that we can “afford” to provide basic needs confidently for free in a way that leaves motivation to do those jobs to get better, but ultimately we need work to be done and some way to motivate that work to be done.
What you mean to say is “what is the incentive to work in a mind-numbing, soul-crushing, mental and physical health-risking job?”
The answer is there aren’t any and no one should be forced to work those jobs even if it benefits others.
And if a job is both necessary and unpleasant, you get people into it by offering them high pay above their universal basic income.
UBI is not communism. It’s an end to poverty, not an end to wealth.
offering them high pay above their universal basic income.
Isn’t the whole point of UBI that everyone gets it without questions or restrictions. This way you can get some extra bucks even from a low paying job, when you’re not actually relying on that job but it gets you extra
At least that’s how it has been discussed in Finland, and it has support on both sides of the political spectrum
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
Ah cool, I just misunderstood your msg
I don’t see a panel for European vacations, video games, fancy dinners, nice cars, concert tickets, iPhones, trips to SeaWorld, a six pack of beer, or a Netflix subscription. If you want an empty, boring-ass life then it’s yours for free. I would like to see a panel for free birth control as well. I don’t think a system like this can stand for long if every non-working person has 6 kids.
With these things you get to work at what you want. For instance, I’ve travelled extensively where the items in the meme are mostly available, and you get cottage or small businesses that are really good at what they do but make too little money to actually be a “real job”.
So you get things like someone making the finest handmade tile, the best bread, an artist gets to make his/her art, you get to run your own private consulting business, etc. You have a shot at doing what you want, not some shitty grind you’re forced to do to hope you get healthcare, kids college money and a retirement. Of course these jobs don’t make a lot of money, but you can certainly look for employment that does offer better compensation.
Point being you have a choice.
And it’s funny, even in places where these services are available the vast majority don’t sit on their asses avoiding work. They understand they want more for themselves and maybe even the community they live in, so they choose more gainful employment.
Also, just because you get those meme things doesn’t mean you get everything else too. These are just basics, not a lifestyle that gets you much more than social housing and the ability to visit cheap destinations on your guaranteed vacation via public transportation. Maybe that’s all some people want, and that’s fine. YMMV.
All of you guys have great ideas, have you ever thought about running for political office?
deleted by creator
You might, but most don’t. Most people love working as long as they are passionate about what they are doing. You might find that you wander for a while, but eventually take that time to develop a skill or lean into researching something that benefits, not only you, but society as a whole.
The issue being “as long as they are passionate about what they are doing”. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of jobs where there’s no where near enough people with passion for the job. You know anyone signing up to drive a garbage truck around all day long? Anyone excited at the prospect of volunteering at the sewage treatment plant? You might have some volunteers to help dementia patients, but not nearly enough and most would quite very soon after realuzing how hellish it can be.
We need more than passion to motivate. That’s not too say it’s impossible to get to a guaranteed basic level of living for people to feel more safe and secure about how bad it could get, but there needs to be some room to motivate beyond intrinsic passion for the work.
No one is suggesting volunteers. What’s being proposed is that a baseline of security is provided. A roof over your head, food, access to education ,and just enough money to survive. With those things guaranteed, now people are freed to pursue careers like those you have suggested. When people no longer have to worry about survival, the vast majority will spend their time on pursuing a better life for themselves. That in turn leads to a stronger and more profitable society.
That description may be fine, but you had stated “so long as they are passionate about it”, and that is unfortunately omitting a great deal of work we, as yet, still need humans doing yet no one or not enough people will possibly be passionate about it.
The “we might be able to afford a base level of viable living so no one has to have a crisis but still people will want to buy stuff and this they still will pursue income” I can agree with, but there will still be crap jobs and some folks will have to do them.
In terms of “no one is suggesting”, there are sincere “anti work” people who claim no one should ever need to do any work they wouldn’t want to do for free". In this example, there’s a lot of room for ambiguity about what they are describing, basic viable living versus pretty comfortable living.
I’m my mind, there needs to be some heavier incentive towards paying more for robots for dangerous work, and more time to share responsibility for crap work. Like instead of a system where one guy gets stuck every day going to the sewage plant, you somehow have people with multiple jobs such that they only do sewage treatment like twice a month and you have 15 people with that arrangement rather than a full time guy.
So what if now hear me out we do none of that, and do number go up instead - you know - for the shareholders?
