Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:The Republicans want to make everyone work (Score 1) 1145

They can starve while living naked in the streets. Or, if their state is the result of mental illness, they can be put into treatment.
They don't need to be taken care of further - they get their income and sooner or later they will start spending it on food or die - in both cases the problem is solved.

Comment Re:Mutation (Score 3, Insightful) 42

I think mutation isn't really that much of an issue if the DNA isn't actually doing anything (being duplicated or transcribed to RNA).

It's supposed to be one of the more stable ways of storing data, much better than tape in fact. What I'd be more worried about is reading it again - current ways of reading DNA can misread it and have problems with long sequences of the same base pair, so some kind of an encoding to avoid those would be needed.

Comment Re:What I think? (Score 1) 1052

It's a problem because it's a similar situation to how some benefits work right now - if you work you get money, but you lose your benefits. So let's say the benefit is 200$, and your pay is 250$. By working you in fact only get 50$ more.
Ant it would be the same with appartments. If you get an appartment which would regularly go for 200$ for free, but can instead spend 250$ for a slightly better one, the cost increase is huge compared to the benefit. So you are disincentivizing people from slightly increasing their income if they want to improve some of the things they are getting for free.

About controls about what people spend money on - that is one of the biggest reasons for the basic income - it's simpler and may be cheaper than the current system of benefits, which requires hordes of bureaucrats to supervise and implement. You would need something like child protection services, but they'd have a much easier job - if a child is neglected it can never be a case of the parent just being poor. So taking children away from incompetent parents should be a much easier. Aside from that, if education is free, there is again no case for not educating the children.

Again, education and healthcare would be free for everyone - the whole system would be run by the government. Sure there could be a parallel private system, but it would have to compete with a system which doesn't care about profit margins at all. If everyone decides to get some cheap procedures at private clinics, then great, that's something the government doesn't have to pay for - it can't increase costs from everyone going to the public hospitals. This is exactly the way you'd like to have the housing situation handled. The difference is that here you have a 'public' good that doesn't have a financed private competitor, while your system would also have 'private' good (appartments), which wouldn't finance private solutions.

Comment Re:What I think? (Score 1) 1052

The problem is that the entire X suddenly has to come from your income, when the previous cost was entirely covered by the government. You also don't get the chance to downgrade your appartment - live in a tent to save money for something else.

Inflation wouldn't be that much of a factor - the services have to be provided by the government at the amount of the basic income, so even if you have high inflation you can still get everything in the basic package. (There should of course be a mechanism to increase the income based on inflation, but this safety measure ensures that even if the government starts playing tricks (lying about inflation), they still have to provide the services at that cost.

If I understand your last comment correctly, you're worried that the basic income will be mis-spent? It's up to each person - they can decide to starve to afford to buy the latest iPhone. The goal is to give everyone a chance of a normal life, not to force them into it.

Comment Re:What I think? (Score 1) 1052

The problem becomes that in this system it becomes very expensive to, for example, get a slightyl bigger appartment - you suddenly have to cover the whole cost instead of getting it for free.

Why not have it done this way: everyone gets a certain basic income. To ensure that it's sufficent to live on, the government also has to provide basic services that cost that basic amount.
So let's say the basic income is X+Y+Z, the government has to offer apartments for X, food for Y and clothing for Z. 'Public' services such as healthcare and education would be free for all.

The private sector is of course welcome to undercut the government - it's up to the people to decide what they want and from whom. And the ones that decide to get a job can get better things without losing the value of the things the government provided previously.

Comment Re:California 'High Speed' Rail may beat it (Score 1) 351

That's why you don't build just a few stations. You build a whole system, so that a significant part of the country has access to public transport. Once that is done, prices for the connected part may rise, but since the supply is now so much greater, they shouldn't rise nearly as high as they are in the connected parts now.

Comment Re:So is he wrong? (Score 1) 866

One of the issues is that getting work means you lose the 'UBI'. And getting a low paying job will often mean you're worse of than staying unemployed (have to pay for childcare, with prices that are higher now since you no longer qualify for unemployment discounts,..).

With a true UBI that can go away - anything you earn is in addition to your UBI.

Slashdot Top Deals

We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM. -- Edsger Dijkstra

Working...