[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

You have not explained how my claim is incorrect.

Please do so.

[wat0n]

That is usually regulated by bankruptcy laws. At least in the US:

(a)The following expenses and claims have priority in the following order:
(1)First:
(A)Allowed unsecured claims for domestic support obligations that, as of the date of the filing of the petition in a case under this title, are owed to or recoverable by a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor, or such child’s parent, legal guardian, or responsible relative, without regard to whether the claim is filed by such person or is filed by a governmental unit on behalf of such person, on the condition that funds received under this paragraph by a governmental unit under this title after the date of the filing of the petition shall be applied and distributed in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law.
(B)Subject to claims under subparagraph (A), allowed unsecured claims for domestic support obligations that, as of the date of the filing of the petition, are assigned by a spouse, former spouse, child of the debtor, or such child’s parent, legal guardian, or responsible relative to a governmental unit (unless such obligation is assigned voluntarily by the spouse, former spouse, child, parent, legal guardian, or responsible relative of the child for the purpose of collecting the debt) or are owed directly to or recoverable by a governmental unit under applicable nonbankruptcy law, on the condition that funds received under this paragraph by a governmental unit under this title after the date of the filing of the petition be applied and distributed in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law.
(C)If a trustee is appointed or elected under section 701, 702, 703, 1104, 1202, or 1302, the administrative expenses of the trustee allowed under paragraphs (1)(A), (2), and (6) of section 503(b) shall be paid before payment of claims under subparagraphs (A) and (B), to the extent that the trustee administers assets that are otherwise available for the payment of such claims.
(2)Second, administrative expenses allowed under section 503(b) of this title, unsecured claims of any Federal reserve bank related to loans made through programs or facilities authorized under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 343),[1] and any fees and charges assessed against the estate under chapter 123 of title 28.
(3)Third, unsecured claims allowed under section 502(f) of this title.
(4)Fourth, allowed unsecured claims, but only to the extent of $10,000 [2] for each individual or corporation, as the case may be, earned within 180 days before the date of the filing of the petition or the date of the cessation of the debtor’s business, whichever occurs first, for—
(A)wages, salaries, or commissions, including vacation, severance, and sick leave pay earned by an individual; or
(B)sales commissions earned by an individual or by a corporation with only 1 employee, acting as an independent contractor in the sale of goods or services for the debtor in the ordinary course of the debtor’s business if, and only if, during the 12 months preceding that date, at least 75 percent of the amount that the individual or corporation earned by acting as an independent contractor in the sale of goods or services was earned from the debtor.
(5)Fifth, allowed unsecured claims for contributions to an employee benefit plan—
(A)arising from services rendered within 180 days before the date of the filing of the petition or the date of the cessation of the debtor’s business, whichever occurs first; but only
(B)for each such plan, to the extent of—
(i)the number of employees covered by each such plan multiplied by $10,000; 2 less
(ii)the aggregate amount paid to such employees under paragraph (4) of this subsection, plus the aggregate amount paid by the estate on behalf of such employees to any other employee benefit plan.
(6)Sixth, allowed unsecured claims of persons—
(A)engaged in the production or raising of grain, as defined in section 557(b) of this title, against a debtor who owns or operates a grain storage facility, as defined in section 557(b) of this title, for grain or the proceeds of grain, or
(B)engaged as a United States fisherman against a debtor who has acquired fish or fish produce from a fisherman through a sale or conversion, and who is engaged in operating a fish produce storage or processing facility—
but only to the extent of $4,000 2 for each such individual.
(7)Seventh, allowed unsecured claims of individuals, to the extent of $1,800 2 for each such individual, arising from the deposit, before the commencement of the case, of money in connection with the purchase, lease, or rental of property, or the purchase of services, for the personal, family, or household use of such individuals, that were not delivered or provided.
(8)Eighth, allowed unsecured claims of governmental units, only to the extent that such claims are for—
(A)a tax on or measured by income or gross receipts for a taxable year ending on or before the date of the filing of the petition—
(i)for which a return, if required, is last due, including extensions, after three years before the date of the filing of the petition;
(ii)assessed within 240 days before the date of the filing of the petition, exclusive of—
(I)any time during which an offer in compromise with respect to that tax was pending or in effect during that 240-day period, plus 30 days; and
(II)any time during which a stay of proceedings against collections was in effect in a prior case under this title during that 240-day period, plus 90 days; or
(iii)other than a tax of a kind specified in section 523(a)(1)(B) or 523(a)(1)(C) of this title, not assessed before, but assessable, under applicable law or by agreement, after, the commencement of the case;
(B)a property tax incurred before the commencement of the case and last payable without penalty after one year before the date of the filing of the petition;
(C)a tax required to be collected or withheld and for which the debtor is liable in whatever capacity;
(D)an employment tax on a wage, salary, or commission of a kind specified in paragraph (4) of this subsection earned from the debtor before the date of the filing of the petition, whether or not actually paid before such date, for which a return is last due, under applicable law or under any extension, after three years before the date of the filing of the petition;
(E)an excise tax on—
(i)a transaction occurring before the date of the filing of the petition for which a return, if required, is last due, under applicable law or under any extension, after three years before the date of the filing of the petition; or
(ii)if a return is not required, a transaction occurring during the three years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition;
(F)a customs duty arising out of the importation of merchandise—
(i)entered for consumption within one year before the date of the filing of the petition;
(ii)covered by an entry liquidated or reliquidated within one year before the date of the filing of the petition; or
(iii)entered for consumption within four years before the date of the filing of the petition but unliquidated on such date, if the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that failure to liquidate such entry was due to an investigation pending on such date into assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties or fraud, or if information needed for the proper appraisement or classification of such merchandise was not available to the appropriate customs officer before such date; or
(G)a penalty related to a claim of a kind specified in this paragraph and in compensation for actual pecuniary loss.
An otherwise applicable time period specified in this paragraph shall be suspended for any period during which a governmental unit is prohibited under applicable nonbankruptcy law from collecting a tax as a result of a request by the debtor for a hearing and an appeal of any collection action taken or proposed against the debtor, plus 90 days; plus any time during which the stay of proceedings was in effect in a prior case under this title or during which collection was precluded by the existence of 1 or more confirmed plans under this title, plus 90 days.
(9)Ninth, allowed unsecured claims based upon any commitment by the debtor to a Federal depository institutions regulatory agency (or predecessor to such agency) to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution.
(10)Tenth, allowed claims for death or personal injury resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle or vessel if such operation was unlawful because the debtor was intoxicated from using alcohol, a drug, or another substance.

(b)If the trustee, under section 362, 363, or 364 of this title, provides adequate protection of the interest of a holder of a claim secured by a lien on property of the debtor and if, notwithstanding such protection, such creditor has a claim allowable under subsection (a)(2) of this section arising from the stay of action against such property under section 362 of this title, from the use, sale, or lease of such property under section 363 of this title, or from the granting of a lien under section 364(d) of this title, then such creditor’s claim under such subsection shall have priority over every other claim allowable under such subsection.
(c)For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section, a claim of a governmental unit arising from an erroneous refund or credit of a tax has the same priority as a claim for the tax to which such refund or credit relates.
(d)An entity that is subrogated to the rights of a holder of a claim of a kind specified in subsection (a)(1), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), or (a)(9) of this section is not subrogated to the right of the holder of such claim to priority under such subsection.

So in the case of a corporate bankruptcy, first priority is paying the attorneys in charge of the process, then secured debtors (those whose debt is backed by physical collateral, like a property), then preferred unsecured debtors (including employees), then the other unsecured debtors and - if there's anything left - shareholders (with those with non-voting shares usually having priority over shareholders with voting rights).

[Pants-of-dog]

So this can be a very easy and inexpensive way to get out of a contract, or a large and expensive way, depending on context.

My experience with this is construction contractors who want to get out of a contract. They lay everyone off, fold the company, do the paperwork themselves, pay themselves off (since they are the investors or owners or shareholders), create another numbered company, and sell the assets from one company to another for a “loss”.

Your own experience may vary.

[wat0n]

So this can be a very easy and inexpensive way to get out of a contract, or a large and expensive way, depending on context.

My experience with this is construction contractors who want to get out of a contract. They lay everyone off, fold the company, do the paperwork themselves, pay themselves off (since they are the investors or owners or shareholders), create another numbered company, and sell the assets from one company to another for a “loss”.

Your own experience may vary.

It depends, really.

In some countries (e.g. Chile) construction companies will create a different enterprise for each project. Once the project ends, the enterprise closes. This is regardless of whether the project is profitable or not.

[Godstud]

You have not explained how my claim is incorrect.

You made the idiotic claim. YOU prove it. Your debating tactics are lame.

Have you not heard about people being sued for breaches of contracts? Have you not heard about the consequences of going bankrupt?

You made the absolutely false claim. Support your claim instead of using your same old "pass the buck" tactic, and then bitching about 'Whataboutisms", when they are valid comparisons..

If you're lazy, I'll help:
https://insights.fondia.com/fi/en/artic ... in-general

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/debt-rel ... sequences/

[Fasces]

3. That's not coercion, that's just life.

On political discussion forums, especially ideological ones like PoFo, people tend to discuss what they believe should be. Politics itself is about compromise and finding ways to allocate scarce resources across competing interest groups, but that's not what we're doing on PoFo. I find that a lot of people use "it is what it is" to get around defending "it is as it should be".

Hypothetically, and putting aside the question of the price tag for now: if it were feasible, would you support a society which sponsors individuals who do not wish to work? IE: the society provides them with enough basic material so that have enough to cover their basic needs; a house to stay in; healthcare to keep them healthy; and so on. Not buying them luxury goods or sponsoring their hobbies, but enough that someone who does not want to work will still have all their basic needs met?

If a diabetic man desperately needed insulin, which you had in a locked box, and you put a contract in front of him and told him to sign in exchange for access to the insulin, this would be considered a contract under duress - even if the insulin were your own property. Our society can provide a much better platform to equalize the differences in material wealth (and thus power) held by employers and prospective employees. As it is right now, the relationship between these firms and a citizen is no different from the diabetic man in our example, because the firms control access to the material resources the citizens need to live, and can choose who does and does not gain access.

In any communist state that has ever existed the people do not have control over the state.

No one is talking about any communist state. Just the relationships between workers, their labor, and a firm's owners.

What does this even mean?

Humans are not individuals. They are social creatures that evolved to exist in a group. They benefit from that group, and vice versa. A human without relationships is not a fully realized person - something has gone terribly wrong. This is not to say that humans don't have individual rights, but when we talk about things such as money in particular... money [property] is only worth something if a group of humans exist. Money [property] is worthless to a single individual human.

You talk about a group 'stealing an individual's money [property]'. Money [property] cannot exist without a group of humans. A group cannot steal from itself. An individual, however, can steal from the group and horde resources. This is what billionaires do.

[Unthinking Majority]

Hypothetically, and putting aside the question of the price tag for now: if it were feasible, would you support a society which sponsors individuals who do not wish to work? IE: the society provides them with enough basic material so that have enough to cover their basic needs; a house to stay in; healthcare to keep them healthy; and so on. Not buying them luxury goods or sponsoring their hobbies, but enough that someone who does not want to work will still have all their basic needs met?

No, that is an abhorrent proposal that will destroy people psychologically, and very likely lead to poorer outcomes socially and physically as well. I would actively fight against such an idea. Full retirement isn't even a good thing for many people. Once AI takes hold in the workplace and many people are living off UBI it will erode humanity and society. Even our age of abundance have turned many people into adult dependents of their parents. Adults becoming dependents of the state is not healthy.

Everyone needs a reason to get up in the morning. Not simply as an option, but as something they need to do to compel them to wake up at a reasonable hour and venture outside their door and enter the world and be a productive member of society. A rolling stone gathers no moss.

I think you and POD have an overly maternalistic view of economics and want to turn people into dependents and treat adults like children as many socialists do. These are the types of people who let their adult child live in their basement until age 35. People have agency and if they aren't raised by their parents to be useful to themselves and others they should be forced to before getting society's help. If you're actually in tough circumstances through no fault of your own, like having a disability, mental illness etc, then yes you should be helped.

If a diabetic man desperately needed insulin, which you had in a locked box, and you put a contract in front of him and told him to sign in exchange for access to the insulin, this would be considered a contract under duress - even if the insulin were your own property. Our society can provide a much better platform to equalize the differences in material wealth (and thus power) held by employers and prospective employees. As it is right now, the relationship between these firms and a citizen is no different from the diabetic man in our example, because the firms control access to the material resources the citizens need to live, and can choose who does and does not gain access.

If somebody has something you need yes you typically need to give them something they want in return. This is basic commerce. Why does the diabetic person deserve to take what the other person has for free or by force if they are able to provide something in exchange? Insulin companies aren't their slaves and don't work for free. Government can even subsidize the price of expensive medications, but that can also drive up the price as drug companies take advantage of this.

If the diabetic man is so unhealthy that he can't work and is thus disabled then sure the state can support him, but if he's able to work he should support himself like any independent adult does.

Yes, human beings have to engage in work if they want to eat and have shelter and other basic needs. A contract means both parties are getting something they want in return. If there was only one employer in the entire economy then maybe you'd have a point, but there's thousands of people offering jobs and competing against each other to get you to work for them.

Humans are not individuals.

They actually are.

They are social creatures that evolved to exist in a group. They benefit from that group, and vice versa. A human without relationships is not a fully realized person - something has gone terribly wrong. This is not to say that humans don't have individual rights, but when we talk about things such as money in particular... money [property] is only worth something if a group of humans exist. Money [property] is worthless to a single individual human.

You talk about a group 'stealing an individual's money [property]'. Money [property] cannot exist without a group of humans. A group cannot steal from itself. An individual, however, can steal from the group and horde resources. This is what billionaires do.

How is property worthless to an individual human? If someone builds a tool, a chair, a house they can use this for themselves and therefore it has value. We live in a society where not everyone knows how to build a modern house with luxuries like electricity etc, or modern appliances etc. So people work and use money earned to trade for things they want that others have. Commerce is great.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, that is an abhorrent proposal that will destroy people psychologically, and very likely lead to poorer outcomes socially and physically as well. I would actively fight against such an idea. Full retirement isn't even a good thing for many people. Once AI takes hold in the workplace and many people are living off UBI it will erode humanity and society. Even our age of abundance have turned many people into adult dependents of their parents. Adults becoming dependents of the state is not healthy.

Everyone needs a reason to get up in the morning. Not simply as an option, but as something they need to do to compel them to wake up at a reasonable hour and venture outside their door and enter the world and be a productive member of society. A rolling stone gathers no moss.

I think you and POD have an overly maternalistic view of economics and want to turn people into dependents and treat adults like children as many socialists do. These are the types of people who let their adult child live in their basement until age 35. People have agency and if they aren't raised by their parents to be useful to themselves and others they should be forced to before getting society's help. If you're actually in tough circumstances through no fault of your own, like having a disability, mental illness etc, then yes you should be helped.

I remember you bringing up this claim before when discussing UBI.

I think the evidence showed that it did not lead to a rise in unemployment claims. This contradicts the claim that a UBI would lead to more dependency on the state.

If somebody has something you need yes you typically need to give them something they want in return. This is basic commerce. Why does the diabetic person deserve to take what the other person has for free or by force if they are able to provide something in exchange? Insulin companies aren't their slaves and don't work for free. Government can even subsidize the price of expensive medications, but that can also drive up the price as drug companies take advantage of this.

If the diabetic man is so unhealthy that he can't work and is thus disabled then sure the state can support him, but if he's able to work he should support himself like any independent adult does.

Yes, human beings have to engage in work if they want to eat and have shelter and other basic needs. A contract means both parties are getting something they want in return. If there was only one employer in the entire economy then maybe you'd have a point, but there's thousands of people offering jobs and competing against each other to get you to work for them.

This then becomes a morality debate.

Is it more ethical for the sick man to take medicine by force and deprive the owner of the wealth of the medicine, or is it more ethical to allow the owner to maintain his wealth and let themselves die?

Lol.

They actually are.

No, not really.

If you take a human being and raise them without any human interaction at all ever, the end result would not be a sapient being who could articulate ideas with self awareness, as humans do.

While this person would be human in many ways, such as deserving of rights, it would differ in many significant ways, such as a much poorer brain network development.

How is property worthless to an individual human? If someone builds a tool, a chair, a house they can use this for themselves and therefore it has value. We live in a society where not everyone knows how to build a modern house with luxuries like electricity etc, or modern appliances etc. So people work and use money earned to trade for things they want that others have. Commerce is great.

Property is a social construct. Property and trade only make sense in a social context.

[Fasces]

treat adults like children as many socialists do

A social net gives people more agency and freedom to act, not less - even to businesses.

Everyone needs a reason to get up in the morning.

Work is the thing we do so that we can get up every morning. If work is the reason you get up every morning, that's kind of sad and indicative of a warped mindset.

Full retirement isn't even a good thing for many people.

Only because of the warped mindset expressed above that robbed these people of hobbies or meaningful relationships due to spending an inordinate amount of time at work to earn the bare minimum to survive.

If somebody has something you need yes you typically need to give them something they want in return.

Depriving someone of things they need to force them to sign a contract is a textbook legal example of 'contract signed under duress'. If a man in diabetic shock signed over his house to you for a shot of insulin, courts would consider this, rightly, to be unenforceable. If a woman signs an NDA to not report sexual assault under threat of being fired, this is also not acceptable. Do price gouging or undue influence not exist in your hypothetical world?

I do particularly like the example of 'retaliatory firings'. Companies rightly have to pay 'damages' to individuals that have been fired in retaliation or for discriminatory reasons, because we recognize that being out of work in a capitalist society damages human health. All employment contracts are the same choice - sign the contract, or damage your health.

Corporations exercise a small amount of undue influence over all labor contracts. In a truly free society, this would be minimized as much as possible.

They actually are.

No, they're not. They're dependent on other humans to be human. Putting aside birth itself, stick a single human child in a room completely isolated from social groups, and the result can barely be called an individual, as we know it.

How is property worthless to an individual human?

To own an object is little more than saying 'society has determined that I have priority to use this object' and is meaningless beyond that. If there were one human on Earth, in what sense does 'this chair is mine' have any meaning or utility?

Property, a fictitious concept delineating which humans have been allocated the right of use of an object, only makes sense when there is more than one human. 'Property' is a social concept defined collectively, not an intrinsic quality of an object.

[Unthinking Majority]

I remember you bringing up this claim before when discussing UBI.

I think the evidence showed that it did not lead to a rise in unemployment claims. This contradicts the claim that a UBI would lead to more dependency on the state.

I personally know an adult capable of working who chooses to stay on welfare year after year. This single example literally proves your above claim is false since one example is higher than zero.

This person is the biggest loser I've ever met, they are mooch off their family, steal things from stores because they don't want to work for the money to pay for it etc, and throw anger tantrums when people call them out on their BS. They are like a child that never grew up because they don't take responsibility for anything yet feel entitled to everything. They became like this because their mother always bailed them out and made excuses for them and let them mooch off her.

Is it more ethical for the sick man to take medicine by force and deprive the owner of the wealth of the medicine, or is it more ethical to allow the owner to maintain his wealth and let themselves die?

Lol.

Have the state pay for the medicine, or start a Go Fund Me, or some other charitable drive. There's no need to steal. Communists always want to steal from people with wealth, it's the basis of their Robin Hood ideology.

If you take a human being and raise them without any human interaction at all ever, the end result would not be a sapient being who could articulate ideas with self awareness, as humans do.

While this person would be human in many ways, such as deserving of rights, it would differ in many significant ways, such as a much poorer brain network development.

Adults are different than children. Children, especially very young children, can't fend for themselves, they are dependents. Healthy adults should be able to take care of themselves, hence why they are adults and not children and move away from their parents and have their own children. You seem to want to treat adults like a child dependents, which is socially destructive.

[Unthinking Majority]

A social net gives people more agency and freedom to act, not less - even to businesses.

The concept of a social "net" is to safely "catch" people who are falling (on hard times). You just want to give free stuff to people so they don't have to work if they don't want to, which won't turn out the way you think it will. That's not a social net, it's just charity to people who don't even deserve it.

Would be much better to give that money to people who actually need it, not just want it. There's a lot of poor and sick people in the world.

If a person can't find work despite their best efforts because there's no jobs, then yes it makes sense to support them until a job is available.

Work is the thing we do so that we can get up every morning. If work is the reason you get up every morning, that's kind of sad and indicative of a warped mindset.

It's the way its been for every single animal species on the planet forever. You're saying you think the human condition and nature itself is an injustice and just not fair? I think that's indicative of a warped mindset. You said you're not a utopian but you want to live in a utopia. Also, if you dislike working so much you probably need to find a better line of work.

I guarantee that people needing to go to work 5 days a week and be a productive member of society is much more healthy than having an environment where anyone can sleep in until 11am and watch Netflix and browse their phones most of the day if they want.

Only because of the warped mindset expressed above that robbed these people of hobbies or meaningful relationships due to spending an inordinate amount of time at work to earn the bare minimum to survive.

There would be a lot fewer hobbies to pursue if nobody bothers to go to work to produce all the things we need to pursue our hobbies.

I do particularly like the example of 'retaliatory firings'. Companies rightly have to pay 'damages' to individuals that have been fired in retaliation or for discriminatory reasons, because we recognize that being out of work in a capitalist society damages human health. All employment contracts are the same choice - sign the contract, or damage your health.

Or work for yourself. You can be a social influencer and need no capital at all, along with many other jobs.

Laws against harassment are good. All businesses should follow labour laws.

No, they're not. They're dependent on other humans to be human. Putting aside birth itself, stick a single human child in a room completely isolated from social groups, and the result can barely be called an individual, as we know it.

I'm not talking about a child dependent, i'm talking about working age adults. Children aren't able to support themselves, which is why they have parents, whose job is to provide the necessities and raise them to be become self-sufficient adults who can acquire the necessities themselves.

[ingliz]

charity

This is me being charitable; tax the rich until the pips squeak.

A tax code for billionaires...

In the UK, in the 40s, the highest rate of tax on earnings was 99.25%, with slightly less at 98% being levied on investment income.

Of course, to prevent capital flight, you'd have to restrict capital outflow too.

[Fasces]

. That's not a social net, it's just charity to people who don't even deserve it.

It's a foundation that incentivizes risk. How many innovators failed to do so because they were busy toiling to keep themselves fed and sheltered, paycheck to paycheck, and couldn't devote their energies to more meaningful work?

You said you're not a utopian but you want to live in a utopia.

I would like the world better than it was when I was born into it, sure. You seem content to wallow in the filth like a pig.

In this case, only a couple generations ago we were perfectly content with a social ideal where only slightly under half of adults worked at all. How quickly the new mindset becomes normalized.

Also, if you dislike working so much you probably need to find a better line of work.

If only there was a social support foundation that gave people the time to breath to find a better line of work without worrying about basic necessities in the meantime. 60% of adults live paycheck to paycheck, you think they can spend a few weeks not working to look for a job that suits them?

I guarantee that people needing to go to work 5 days a week and be a productive member of society is much more healthy than having an environment where anyone can sleep in until 11am and watch Netflix and browse their phones most of the day if they want.

You're revealing a lot about yourself, here. Even on weekends and holidays I tend to get up at 6-7am, cook breakfast for my family, water and prune the herb garden, feed/play with the cats, read a book, exercise etc. I got my Masters while working full time, working on weekends and holidays.

The only times I tend to sit on my phone are down time at work, or, at the end of a particularly busy day when I'm too mentally exhausted to do much else.

It's the way its been for every single animal species on the planet forever.

Most animals [and hunter gatherers] spend far more time not working than working. Go on a safari sometime, or next weekend, instead of scrolling on TikTok all day, go actually look at a beehive.

Or work for yourself. You can be a social influencer and need no capital at all, along with many other jobs.

A social influencer still needs capital to not dehydrate, starve to death, or die of exposure in the January streets.

Creating your hypothetical world where people are truly free to pursue whatever vocation or hobby they like, can start businesses risk free, or are free to sign contracts with companies without coercion requires a lot of guardrails that provide for people's basic material necessities. The society I am describing has a lot more freedom for people than the one you are describing, despite your claims otherwise.

Do you truly believe that a the child of two rich parents has a lot less freedom in determining their life than the child of two poor immigrant parents? Or even the same?

What did the child do to earn that, by the way? You lot talk about meritocracy, and what people deserve, and hard work - but any attempt to try to give folks an equal playing field and you turn into Gollum clutching at your precioussss privledge.

[Pants-of-dog]

I personally know an adult capable of working who chooses to stay on welfare year after year. This single example literally proves your above claim is false since one example is higher than zero.

This person is the biggest loser I've ever met, they are mooch off their family, steal things from stores because they don't want to work for the money to pay for it etc, and throw anger tantrums when people call them out on their BS. They are like a child that never grew up because they don't take responsibility for anything yet feel entitled to everything. They became like this because their mother always bailed them out and made excuses for them and let them mooch off her.

No, this proves nothing.

Have the state pay for the medicine, or start a Go Fund Me, or some other charitable drive. There's no need to steal. Communists always want to steal from people with wealth, it's the basis of their Robin Hood ideology.

Again, you making the moral claim that it is more moral to force people to die of medically amenable (and therefore preventable) causes than it is to tax wealthy people for medicine.

And this is not only a weird moral argument for “money is more important than people” but also is contrary to your own life.

Your medicine is paid for by others, since you live in a country with public healthcare. So, by your own actions, you agree with me.

Adults are different than children. Children, especially very young children, can't fend for themselves, they are dependents. Healthy adults should be able to take care of themselves, hence why they are adults and not children and move away from their parents and have their own children. You seem to want to treat adults like a child dependents, which is socially destructive.

Back to the topic, humans are not individuals who can magically live without others.

In order for you to actually have a brain that functions enough to be an economic agent, you absolutely need other human beings.

[late]

When someone talks about the Free Rider problem in a non-academic setting, they usually mean is welfare bum.

The problem with that is science. We have actually looked at people on welfare, and most are trying to get off welfare. But the way the country is structured makes that almost impossible.

Which means the solution is simple. Give them support that enables them to get off, and stay off, welfare.

[Unthinking Majority]

It's a foundation that incentivizes risk.

It disincentivizes work.

I would like the world better than it was when I was born into it, sure. You seem content to wallow in the filth like a pig.

Work has meaning, it isn't filth. I would like the world to be better too. Turning people into dependents of the state and letting people go on live-long vacation where productivity drops off the map and economies fall is not a better world.

In this case, only a couple generations ago we were perfectly content with a social ideal where only slightly under half of adults worked at all. How quickly the new mindset becomes normalized.

That's because people used to have lots of kids and people didn't have washing machines, fridges, ovens/microwaves etc to make house chores easier, and now the western world population is below replacement levels and on trend towards civilization extinction.

The main thing economically that 2 working parents has done is increase production, suppress wages, and cause a ton of housing inflation. It's not like families are much if any richer for having double the income. But that's a discussion for another thread.

If only there was a social support foundation that gave people the time to breath to find a better line of work without worrying about basic necessities in the meantime. 60% of adults live paycheck to paycheck, you think they can spend a few weeks not working to look for a job that suits them?

You're revealing a lot about yourself, here. Even on weekends and holidays I tend to get up at 6-7am, cook breakfast for my family, water and prune the herb garden, feed/play with the cats, read a book, exercise etc. I got my Masters while working full time, working on weekends and holidays.

You had time to do your masters after work hours but people can't find time after work to go on the internet and look for jobs? What kind of fool living paycheck to paycheck quits their job before securing another one anyways?

Most animals [and hunter gatherers] spend far more time not working than working. Go on a safari sometime, or next weekend, instead of scrolling on TikTok all day, go actually look at a beehive.

We could all retire in a couple years if we were content to still live in mud huts with no electricity, phone, internet, TV etc. We're a slave to our consumer choices and modern standard of living, not to our employers.

A social influencer still needs capital to not dehydrate, starve to death, or die of exposure in the January streets.

That's not capital.

Creating your hypothetical world where people are truly free to pursue whatever vocation or hobby they like, can start businesses risk free, or are free to sign contracts with companies without coercion requires a lot of guardrails that provide for people's basic material necessities. The society I am describing has a lot more freedom for people than the one you are describing, despite your claims otherwise.

Do you truly believe that a the child of two rich parents has a lot less freedom in determining their life than the child of two poor immigrant parents? Or even the same?

I never said people can start a business risk-free.

Sure if you give a rich kid everything they need they have more freedom, but are they better off? Most of the kids in my high school who were from the areas above working class were spoiled entitled snobs. The kids from the working class areas were usually a lot more down to earth and grounded. And a lot of the ones from the poor areas were kinda screwed up psychologically because a lot were from broken or abusive homes.

If you have to work for something you usually appreciate it more.

[quotte]What did the child do to earn that, by the way? You lot talk about meritocracy, and what people deserve, and hard work - but any attempt to try to give folks an equal playing field and you turn into Gollum clutching at your precioussss privledge.[/quote]
Why do people deserve an equal playing field? If your parents worked hard to give their children better opportunities good for them. If you grew up in a poor household then society should help the child have the minimum standard opportunities people require to meet their needs through education, healthcare etc. and live a quality life.

Its all sort of moot anyways, its not like someone worth 10 billion dollars is sitting on 10 billion in cash. The vast majority of it is invested in companies which is used to produce the goods and service we all enjoy. Someone has to pay for the offices and warehouses and factories and machines etc. They have more luxuries but it's basically impossible for one family to consume 10 billion dollars worth of goods & services anyways. As long as needs are met is it a big deal if you sit on a golden toilet seat or a plastic one? Or if you have a movie theater in your house vs driving to the theater
complex 5 mins away?

[Fasces]

It disincentivizes work.

No, it doesn't. It disincentivizes trivial work, useless work, or exploitative work. That's very different.

Turning people into dependents of the state and letting people go on live-long vacation where productivity drops off the map and economies fall is not a better world.

They're not being turned into dependents of the state, and productivity isn't falling off a cliff. I'm not calling for the abolishment of work, but I don't see a need to keep people in shit jobs that can be automated or in do nothing corporate jobs to fulfill a fantasy of '40 hour work weeks' into the indeterminate future. It isn't necessary, or good.

The main thing economically that 2 working parents has done is increase production, suppress wages, and cause a ton of housing inflation. It's not like families are much if any richer for having double the income. But that's a discussion for another thread.

On the contrary, it is exactly the point being made in the video - we live in an era with an unprecedented number of workers per household, and an unprecedented number of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, with an unprecedented number of billionaires and corporations making unprecedented amounts of profit. It is the definition of exploitative and unethical behavior by our employers.

You had time to do your masters after work hours but people can't find time after work to go on the internet and look for jobs? What kind of fool living paycheck to paycheck quits their job before securing another one anyways?

Yes, I was very privledge to have a job that didn't exhaust me, gave me plenty of time to devote to this project, and respected my right to holidays and rest so that I could do it.

We could all retire in a couple years if we were content to still live in mud huts with no electricity, phone, internet, TV etc. We're a slave to our consumer choices and modern standard of living, not to our employers.

Good luck getting a job without electricity, running water, a phone, or internet. Who would hire you?

That's not capital.

It literally is.

Some tangent about the value of hard work and character of poverty and blah blah blah

Yes, rich kids are better off. If they're snobs, that's a parenting problem, not a money problem.

Why do people deserve an equal playing field?

When we start peeling the onion of conservative thought, it really doesn't take long to get to the 'aristocratic/blue blood/my people are better than yours' mentality at the core, does it?

The thing is, in the very next sentence you even defend equality of opportunity. This isn't the first time, either, where you dismiss what I'm saying and then immediately restate it. Do you even know what you stand for?

[Pants-of-dog]

It disincentivizes work.

Work has meaning, it isn't filth. I would like the world to be better too. Turning people into dependents of the state and letting people go on live-long vacation where productivity drops off the map and economies fall is not a better world.

Critics of UBI fear that it will inevitably lead to fecklessness as people stop striving and settle into a life of relative luxury. It's an argument that is largely debunked by a recent study examining the impact of UBI on the population of Alaska.

Discouraging work?

The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program has been in place for the past 25 years, with money distributed from the oil reserve royalties earned in the state. The unconditional cash payments amounts to $2,000 per Alaskan resident.

“It is reasonable to expect an unconditional cash transfer, such as a universal income, to decrease employment,” the authors say. “A key concern with a universal basic income is that it could discourage people from working, but our research shows that the possible reductions in employment seem to be offset by increases in spending that in turn increase the demand for more workers.”

The researchers found that the unconditional payments to residents had no real impact upon full-time employment levels (whether positive or negative), although they did find that part-time work increased by about 17%.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adigaskell ... 4be397541b

The world’s most robust study of universal basic income has concluded that it boosts recipients’ mental and financial well-being, as well as modestly improving employment.

Finland ran a two-year universal basic income study in 2017 and 2018, during which the government gave 2000 unemployed people aged between 25 and 58 monthly payments with no strings attached.

The payments of €560 per month weren’t means tested and were unconditional, so they weren’t reduced if an individual got a job or later had a pay rise. The study was nationwide and selected recipients weren’t able to opt out, because the test was written into legislation.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... ell-being/

UBI does not cause unemployment and dependency on the state.

[Unthinking Majority]

No, it doesn't. It disincentivizes trivial work, useless work, or exploitative work. That's very different.

It makes work optional, which is a terrible idea. Exploitative work is already illegal but if anything should be better enforced.

They're not being turned into dependents of the state, and productivity isn't falling off a cliff. I'm not calling for the abolishment of work, but I don't see a need to keep people in shit jobs that can be automated or in do nothing corporate jobs to fulfill a fantasy of '40 hour work weeks' into the indeterminate future. It isn't necessary, or good.

You're calling for all work to be optional. That makes someone a dependent of the state, no different than a welfare recipient.

On the contrary, it is exactly the point being made in the video - we live in an era with an unprecedented number of workers per household, and an unprecedented number of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, with an unprecedented number of billionaires and corporations making unprecedented amounts of profit. It is the definition of exploitative and unethical behavior by our employers.

I mean sure, that's nothing some regulations can't fix, a lot of it having to do with housing.

Good luck getting a job without electricity, running water, a phone, or internet. Who would hire you?

No I mean many people could sell their house and move into a very modest dwelling and live a modest life and many could do it right now just with the money from the house.

When we start peeling the onion of conservative thought, it really doesn't take long to get to the 'aristocratic/blue blood/my people are better than yours' mentality at the core, does it?

The thing is, in the very next sentence you even defend equality of opportunity. This isn't the first time, either, where you dismiss what I'm saying and then immediately restate it. Do you even know what you stand for?

I'm not a conservative economically, I just explained social programs more generous than in the US. Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about in the 1st paragraph.

Communist thought quickly comes down to where everything is exploitative and let's build a society where nobody has to lift a finger because life isn't fair.

Per equality of opportunity, my idea of that is much different than yours, and a lot cheaper. And the snarky insults and emojis just make you look bad, not me.

[Pants-of-dog]

It makes work optional, which is a terrible idea. Exploitative work is already illegal but if anything should be better enforced.

You're calling for all work to be optional. That makes someone a dependent of the state, no different than a welfare recipient.

Yes, work should be optional.

If it were, it would be far more difficult for people like Musk to make billions by hiring people as cheaply as possible.