I won't spoil it for you, but early in the industrial revolution a man with the lad name "Ludd" started a movement to try and halt the spread of mechanization via acts of sabotage.
The Luddites actually started as a mostly peaceful group demanding decent wages and safe working conditions. There is some dispute as to whether or not Ludd and the story of him smashing the knitting machine after a supervisor criticised his work are real. The group eventually did start sabotaging machines, but contrary to popular belief, they were not, and never were, anti-technology. It was just an industrial dispute that got nasty.
If you don't have a job, "relocation" is a bus ticket. But very few people move to improve their circumstances.
Not true. If you don't believe me, look at the statistics for worker mobility - they correlate strongly with wealth. Poor people are a lot more reliant on their support networks (family, friends, and so on). If they're in a poorly paying job, then they probably can't afford to take a month to look for a new one in the new location (especially with the real possibility that they won't find one). If they don't have a job, then there's a strong psychological pressure not to move to places with fewer jobs and there's likely to be a delay in receiving unemployment benefit as these things are typically administered locally.
In contrast, someone like a typical Slashdot poster can afford to stay in a hotel room for a week or two (or have an employer willing to pay the cost) while they look for somewhere to live and will typically be able to find a job before they start moving.
Oh, if we're willing to tax the first dollar of earnings (over the UBI), it's far more credible. But right now the majority pays effectively no income tax, so that would be a massive change.
UBI itself is a massive change, so it's weird to think that you'd introduce it without introducing massive changes. Most proposals for UBI have it replace the tax-free allowance. You might have a very small tax-free allowance on top of it, but generally the way of balancing the books involves paying tax on all earned income.
It's good to see someone understands this. It's unfortunate that many people will only apply this when it is in terms of liberals being able to disassociate from people on the right, but won't apply it to a baker or photographer who doesn't want to participate in a ceremony they believe to be sacrilegious.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but I'm going to add two caveats.
First, companies are legal fictions, created through government regulation. They do not have the same rights that people do. In return for government benefits (e.g. limited liability), you agree to play by the government's rules.
Secondly, professionals are bound by professional ethics which may conflict with their personal rights to the point where the only solution may be to find a different job. So I have less of a problem with a sole trader photographer refusing to participate in a ceremony they disapprove of (which, I might add, could be as simple as saying "can't do it that day") than I do with a pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control.
And as always, freedom of speech and freedom of association does not imply freedom from consequences.
Except your group [...]
Since you addressed that to me, a clarification is in order: What "group" have you assigned me to? Is this like those suburbs of Chicago where you're assigned to a gang at puberty entirely by virtue of which block you live on?
I can't help but notice that "everything" doesn't encompass much.
I don't mean that hate symbols cause everything bad, merely that hate symbols have no redeeming features whatsoever. And by that I do not mean that people should be arrested for using them.
But the good ones are either simply not there anymore because they left, or they are not working in coding outsourcing because it pays badly
That's not quite true. The problem is that most Indian outsourcing firms are really crap places to work. They have huge staff turnover (as in, close to 100% over the course of a month). If you set up an office in Bangalore, have a mixture of people who moved out there and know your company and locals who know the environment, then you can still hire a lot of competent people. You'll probably be paying them a few times more than the local outsourcing sweatshops, but it's still cheap. You can also do the same thing on a smaller scale if you work with individuals and build a long-term relationship (pay them a 10-20% of a Silicon Valley salary and they'll have a standard of living vastly better than they'd get if they moved to the USA, so there's no big incentive for them to leave India and their family / friends).
But if you go with one of the big outsourcing outfits, or just do short-term contracts, you're likely to get either people who don't have the skills, or ones that do but will be gone before the end of the project because they've got a much better offer from somewhere else.
Problem is, the math doesn't work. Lets say we pay out 100% of current federal revenue as UBI (setting aside the fact we'd still need Medicare etc). That's just over $10,000 per citizen. Is that even a subsistence wage?
In a lot of the country, yes. UBI would likely be accompanied by a redistribution of people. Currently, poor people are the least mobile: they aren't being headhunted by companies willing to pay relocation costs and they aren't able to speculatively move somewhere with lower costs of living and hope that there will be jobs waiting. With UBI, they would be able to guarantee that they'd have that $10K/year wherever they were and move to places where it would give them a higher standard of living.
You're also assuming that you'd be giving everyone a net increase of $10K/year. I'd expect that under a workable UBI proposal I'd have a bit less take-home income because my tax rate would go up slightly.
Tell that legend to the people who have jobs in the Bay Area but cannot afford to live there
Here's a secret: a lot of Bay Area companies will happily pay 80% of a Bay Area salary for competent people to live somewhere where the cost of living is 10% that of the Bay. They're happy, because they're paying you less than if you were local (even if they're paying for a few of you to rent an office, the cost will be a tiny fraction of the expense of a desk in the Bay Area). You're happy because your take-home pay is vastly more (and you don't have to live in the Bay Area).
Tell that to techs finding their entry level jobs simply don't exist any more.
That's really the problem, and it's been a problem for well over a decade (and not just in IT-related fields): companies want to hire experienced people, they don't want to hire inexperienced people and train them.
In another article on Slashdot, we have people boycotting a Silicon Valley business associated with a CEO who has dared to donate to Trump.
That's freedom of association and it's at least as fundamental a right as free speech. If that's how they choose to stand up for what they believe in, that's their business. You and I, in turn, may use this information to decide whom we want to associate with. I don't see the problem.
And we have a GOP office being firebombed just the other day.
That's a crime. That is a problem. I hope whoever did it is caught and does hard time.
Don't you dare pin this all on the right.
More to the point, don't pretend that "the right" or "the left" is a heterogeneous mass. In both cases, we're talking about a loose association of different individuals and groups with different agendas, some of whom are extremists.
To paraphrase a friend of mine:
It's okay to be a conservative; some values are worth preserving and defending. It's okay to be a progressive; the times they are a-changing. It's okay to be a radical; sometimes the joint needs to be shaken up. It's okay to be all three, perhaps on different issues. But it's never okay to be a fundamentalist.
Everything is wrong with hate symbols, and that's kind of the point. The very notions of freedom and tolerance presuppose the existence of things that are detestable.
Try `stty 0' -- it works much better.