Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: minwage $11.40-$9.90 (Score 1) 493

If an employer is going to pay only $5/hr, why bother?

That depends largely on factors such as your cost of living and family situation.

Keep in mind that I made up the $8/hour UBI. It was based on the values in the article. Looking more closely at those numbers and comparing with GDP, income tax receipts, and current social program costs, I suspect that $17k-$24k per household is unsustainable. In the US I think it could be more realistic between $5k and $10k (or equivalent to $2.5/hour to $5/hour) with a larger benefit for cases like disability. Enough to keep you alive with food/clothing/shelter, but not enough to make most people decide to stay home.

So would you bother to work if the employer pays $7/hour while UBI covers $4/hour? Still a win for both parties over the hypothetical $10 minimum wage.

Getting the numbers right is important, which affirms your point. But that doesn't mean that UBI at any level is doomed.

Comment Re: minwage $11.40-$9.90 (Score 1) 493

These are real political concerns.

But while it is the intention of UBI to replace some social programs, it should not replace all (particularly healthcare programs). It should be funded primarily from the rich, not the middle class and certainly not the poor.

no need for education. Maybe high school. But why else

Because most educated persons who use their degree tend to demand much higher than UBI would offer. UBI probably wouldn't get you even close to the poverty line, let alone make it worth giving up a career path.

the peasant class become 100% dependent and controllable by government

Valid point, but not really any more valid than the current situation with a minimum wage and other social wealth redistribution programs.

Comment Re:minwage $11.40-$9.90 (Score 1) 493

Straight off the top, screw business, who gives a crap about private profits.

Granted this is a common attitude, but how is it helping by making some particular companies pay for our wealth redistribution process? Why shouldn't that be shared among society?

Major corporations have proven to be totally myopic tied to greed and greed, having become extremely destructive, where as small and medium business has proven to be very beneficial, providing for a social and economic need, much more effectively and socially responsible fashion, than major corporations.

Minimum wage regulations hit small businesses disproportionately hard. UBI wouldn't, because it's not a regulation on business. It should be an income or wealth tax which would much more directly target the type of greedy corporate bosses you seem to despise.

Comment Re: minwage $11.40-$9.90 (Score 2) 493

Except the minimum wage is $10 so they're not paying less than that. Or they won't find anyone who wants to work for $5/hr and they'll wind up paying $10 anyway.

If you are demanding the equivalent of $18/hour after UBI, you will be replaced by someone who is currently unemployed and only demands $10-15/hour after UBI. UBI is intended for survival and minimum needs, not comfort... if you value any level of comfort then you will need some form of a job, even if just part time, and thus you will have to make your wage demands reasonable.

Income taxes will still be progressive. UBI will certainly affect taxes, but placing a heavier burden on the poor and lower-middle classes will be counter-productive. The heaviest burden, as always, will have to fall on the very rich.

The impacts you mention are temporary anyway. And they can be reduced or eliminated with a graduated implementation.

Comment Re:minwage $11.40-$9.90 (Score 2) 493

Society wants wealth redistribution, but the minimum wage targets specific market sectors (those with low-skill labor) to bear that burden. The fair thing to do is to have society pay for wealth redistribution through taxation, and UBI is a reasonable mechanism to do so.

UBI is more pro-business than minimum wage because it relieves businesses to have more freedom in hiring.

UBI is more pro-worker than minimum wage because they no longer need an abusive job just to survive and just to feed their kids.

Comment Re:Monopoly really (Score 1) 54

Even if it were a monopoly, I wouldn't say it's necessarily the worst kind of a monopoly (yet). Messenger is free and cross-platform. It is quite feature rich and most people I know already have access to it. And it has helped to replace SMS and its per-message charges for most of my phone text conversations.

I still personally prefer open software with encrypted communications though.

Comment Re: God Dammit (Score 1) 450

States don't represent the distinctions in culture that they once did. Most people don't know why North and South Carolina are two states, and those who do likely don't share the same concerns as our ancestors. Frankly, the boundaries between all states suffer this problem to a major degree and could use a rethink.

I'm not sure if I care about the number of states, because I'd like to see some major changes in the federal legislative branch:

Regions I'd like to create a few federal regions which represent cultural areas of the US. Most federal laws (except things like declarations of war) would start in the regions, and laws could be distinguished to target urban vs. rural areas. These regions and urban/rural subdivisions would become the "laboratories of democracy" that states have failed to be. Regions may adopt and tweak laws from each other, and any law adopted by two or more regions could be eligible for nationwide consideration (by full vote).

House of Representatives Districts would be larger, bounded by region lines instead of state lines, and each region would have multiple winners. For example, each district could have 2 winners or each could have 3, so that 51-49 ties don't leave half the population without representation.

Senate Each state would be reduced to one senator, appointed as a representative of the state government. Additionally, each region would hold a popular vote to elect one senator from the urban population and one senator from the rural population. Finally, each Senate committee would have two members, chair and co-chair, voted in by national popular vote (the remaining members would serve on these committees as they do today).

All laws would require 60% vote to pass, either regionally or in nationwide votes. Regional laws would be voted by members from the region (in the senate, regional votes would include senators from the states in the region). Senate committees have the power to bring to the floor laws which are proposed to all regions, and the committees would attempt to reconcile the differences between similar regional bills and existing regional laws.

Comment Re:God Dammit (Score 1) 450

Article V is important, though its main limitation is that we have so many states that it makes it hard to get traction on any Article V amendment. (When one does, Congress steps in to pass a similar bill in order to prevent Article V from actually being invoked, which would embolden future attempts.)

Slashdot Top Deals

He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.

Working...