Universal Basic Income is a scam. - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15191366
To clarify:

I pointed out that the OP was making a generalisation from his own lived experience, and that this is a logical fallacy: to assume that one’s own lived experience is universal.

No one has refuted this.

UBI is not socialism. It is, at best, one more evolutionary step towards the dismantling of capitalism and class relations. The one thing it does share with socialism is that it is a state imposed method of dealing with the exploitative nature of modern capitalism.
#15191371
Steve_American wrote:Sir, Obviously, you don't grok the point of a UBI.
1] It can't depend on having a job, because it is mainly intended to support people who's jobs are being done cheaper by AI or robots.


That's based on a future hypothetical situation. If AI does cause mass unemployment obviously a program should be put in place to provide them income. Since such a situation doesn't currently exist, this should not be a factor involved in pushing for UBI programs right now.

2] In the now, the point is to give everyone more money to spend to provide more demand in the economy. More demand would supposedly lead to investment to make more stuff to meet the demand and so lead to more jobs. Or just lead to restaurants, for example, using their current "assets" more efficiently by hiring more workers to serve more customers.


That's not the point i've ever heard. Why not just cut people a bonus check if that's the case? I've heard it mainly argued as a simplified social safety net with no conditions other than income level. No thanks.
#15191372
Pants-of-dog wrote:And if they “freeload”, why is that a problem?

It causes no problems for anyone else. I am assuming you mean that they simply live off the money and do not work at a job.


Correct. If jobs are available and you don't want to work you don't deserve income from the government. It would have a negative effect on GDP and gov expenditures/deficits at the same time.

Imagine a rich kid living off their parents wealth and getting a free 25k or whatever from the gov per year.
#15191374
Unthinking Majority wrote:Correct. If jobs are available and you don't want to work you don't deserve income from the government.


No, thanks. This seems like an arbitrary moralistic standard that has no objective importance. I have this hypothesis that Anglo cultures have been heavily influenced by Calvinism, and so they think hard work is morally good. I just never grew up being taught that.

It would have a negative effect on GDP and gov expenditures/deficits at the same time.


Do you mean it would have a bad effect?

Imagine a rich kid living off their parents wealth and getting a free 25k or whatever from the gov per year.


Okay.

If this means all the poor kids can relax and finish school instead of dropping out to work, I am fine with that.
#15191376
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, thanks. This seems like an arbitrary moralistic standard that has no objective importance. I have this hypothesis that Anglo cultures have been heavily influenced by Calvinism, and so they think hard work is morally good. I just never grew up being taught that.

Well it's not really based on that, I just don't know why we'd incentivize being a net drain on the economy. I think the government should be a social safety net and provide support, I don't think its role should be as a parental caretaker to the healthy and abled and create adult dependents who simply don't wish to work on your or my dime. It doesn't create a healthy society. Greece would be an extreme example.

As for "the protestant work ethic", it's not really a part of my argument as I said, but as an aside, i think you could make a case for it given the financial success of countries like Germany, USA, UK, compared to Catholic countries such as Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. You can also see the effect of cultures that push their children pretty hard to be successful, like Jewish culture. There's always a point where it can be unhealthy of course, ie; people in the US i think are often forced to work too hard by heartless employers. But in general I think working is healthy to the human mind and body. A rolling stone gathers no moss.

I wasn't raised to work my fingers to the bone but I was taught to not be lazy and to contribute my share of effort, and be able to stand on my own two feet.

If this means all the poor kids can relax and finish school instead of dropping out to work, I am fine with that.

Well that's a specific issue that probably has some merit, but it's the "universal" part I have a problem with. In other words, whether you need it or not. I think we should focus on needs rather than wants.
#15191378
Truth To Power wrote:
No, I stated that he was invalidly conflating UBI with socialism, and the post you cited was an explicit rejoinder to a claim by PoD specifically about socialism, not social programs or UBI.

Huh?? I am the one who pointed out that is what the OP did!

Garbage. Read the thread. I called the OP on his conflation of UBI with socialism, and when PoD changed the subject to socialism, I responded to that.



Sorry, I missed your first post. My bad.
#15191393
Unthinking Majority wrote:Correct. If jobs are available and you don't want to work you don't deserve income from the government.

This is your opinion. I suggest the single mothers might need to work just part time to raise thier kids, properly and well.

Unthinking Majority wrote: It would have a negative effect on GDP and ...

Actually it would almost certainly increase the net GDP. This is because the poor would have a lot more money to spend. They would mostly spend it too.
. . . The UBI would also increase wages, because (if you are right and many people would rather be dirt poor than work for sh!t wages), employers will have to pay more, as some are already finding that they must. Increasing wages will also increase the GDP as they are spent.
. . . This could cause some price increases as the economy adjusts to the new system. However, unless these price increases continue, this is NOT truly inflation.

Unthinking Majority wrote:... and gov expenditures/deficits at the same time.

Yes, it would increase the deficit, unless the Congress could increase tax revenues collected from the rich, a lot. This seems unlikely soon, though.
. . . So, what?, the national debt is just the money gifted in total since 1836 to the American people. [The American people have used some of it to buy stuff from overseas, so this cash is there now. Mostly this cash has been invested back into US bonds.]
. . . An MMT understanding shows one that the economy needs Gov. deficit spending to be healthy.
. . . This is more true now, than before, because the top 1% are sucking up too big a share of total incomes. Then they can't spend it or even investment. So, they save it. Money saved is not used by banks [ever] to make loans for investment. Banks create cash with every loan they make.

Unthinking Majority wrote:Imagine a rich kid living off their parents wealth and getting a free 25k or whatever from the gov per year.

With all due respect, you're worrying about pennies, while the parents of the rich kid are cheating the tax man out of $millions, and the tax rate on the rich is 40 to 50 percentage points too low.
Please, do something about these 2 problems before you worry about 10,000 rick kids getting $25K. This is just $250 million/year, while the tax man is cheated out of at least 100 times that.

I wonder if you realize that in the 1950s (which most conservative Americans think was the Golden Age in American history) the top tax bracket was about 90%. I was alive then, and I can assure you that for white American males, it was the Golden Age.
. . . Also, the 50s sort of began with the end of the Korean War and stretched until 1963. Which is the year in which "American Graffiti" is set, and it is clearly about the "50s".

In summary, YMMV.
#15191404
Unthinking Majority wrote:Giving people free income should come with conditions, like a clear incentive to find a job. I think UBI would have too many freeloaders. The money you save on gov administration would go out the door to freeloaders, so whats the point?

The far-left and far-right should stay away from economic matters, and most other matters for that matter.

But you're expressing a far right economic perspective. Rich people and even comfortably off people are free loaders, because they monopolise land and other scarce natural resources. Rich people and comfortably off people are also free loaders because they monopolise capital that was created in the past from scarce natural resources. This includes cultural and social capital.

Modern Britain is not a capitalist state, the owners of capital have outsized influence but they do not rule. The Soviet Union was a capitalist state. Like Pre Marius Republican Rome in the Soviet Union the people who controlled the capital, controlled, the elections, the government, the army, the legal system and religion. But even an imaginary fairy land communist state where the manual and low grade clerical workers actually controlled the state, would not be fair, because those that worked hardest and most diligently would not be fairly rewarded. A completely fair economic system can not be constructed even in theory let alone reality.

Our modern mixed economies liberal democracies have achieved great things and by the standards of the past have brought amazingly high levels of prosperity to the bulk of their citizens and residents. However while there may not be a fixed lump of labour, but there is pretty much a fixed lump of land. As citizens get richer they seek to spend more and more money competing to acquire a bigger share of that fixed lump of land. Immigration damages the economic interests of all but the richest of the current citizens and residents of a country. The irony is that although the Right likes to whine on about foreign benefit scroungers, it is skilled hard working immigrants, who quickly seek to get on the housing ladder and start competing for ownership of that fixed lump of land that most damage the economic interests of the "indigenous" population. However even by renting property and using shops, roads, paths, leisure facilities, parks and countryside immigrants damage the quality of life of existing citizens.

But even leaving immigration aside we are in part in a zero sum game. The rich acquire ever more land and consume ever more, possibly irreplaceable scarce natural resources. Far from being a scam national basic income is a just corrective to the unfair privileges of the rich and the comfortably off.
Last edited by Rich on 21 Sep 2021 20:03, edited 2 times in total.
#15191458
Unthinking Majority wrote:Well it's not really based on that, I just don't know why we'd incentivize being a net drain on the economy.


Please provide evidence for this claim that UBI is a drain on the exonomy.

I think the government should be a social safety net and provide support, I don't think its role should be as a parental caretaker to the healthy and abled and create adult dependents who simply don't wish to work on your or my dime. It doesn't create a healthy society Greece would be an extreme example.


Then provide evidence from Greece that giving UBI to healthy unemployed people creates an unhealthy society.

As for "the protestant work ethic", it's not really a part of my argument as I said, but as an aside, i think you could make a case for it given the financial success of countries like Germany, USA, UK, compared to Catholic countries such as Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. You can also see the effect of cultures that push their children pretty hard to be successful, like Jewish culture. There's always a point where it can be unhealthy of course, ie; people in the US i think are often forced to work too hard by heartless employers. But in general I think working is healthy to the human mind and body. A rolling stone gathers no moss.

I wasn't raised to work my fingers to the bone but I was taught to not be lazy and to contribute my share of effort, and be able to stand on my own two feet.


Again, we should not use money to force others to comform to some arbitrary moral standard that you happen to like,

Well that's a specific issue that probably has some merit, but it's the "universal" part I have a problem with. In other words, whether you need it or not. I think we should focus on needs rather than wants.


I think that you or the government do not have the required wisdom to judge for other people what is a need and what is a want.
#15191532
Steve_American wrote:This is your opinion. I suggest the single mothers might need to work just part time to raise thier kids, properly and well.


Actually it would almost certainly increase the net GDP. This is because the poor would have a lot more money to spend. They would mostly spend it too.
. . . The UBI would also increase wages, because (if you are right and many people would rather be dirt poor than work for sh!t wages), employers will have to pay more, as some are already finding that they must. Increasing wages will also increase the GDP as they are spent.
. . . This could cause some price increases as the economy adjusts to the new system. However, unless these price increases continue, this is NOT truly inflation.


Yes, it would increase the deficit, unless the Congress could increase tax revenues collected from the rich, a lot. This seems unlikely soon, though.
. . . So, what?, the national debt is just the money gifted in total since 1836 to the American people. [The American people have used some of it to buy stuff from overseas, so this cash is there now. Mostly this cash has been invested back into US bonds.]
. . . An MMT understanding shows one that the economy needs Gov. deficit spending to be healthy.
. . . This is more true now, than before, because the top 1% are sucking up too big a share of total incomes. Then they can't spend it or even investment. So, they save it. Money saved is not used by banks [ever] to make loans for investment. Banks create cash with every loan they make.


With all due respect, you're worrying about pennies, while the parents of the rich kid are cheating the tax man out of $millions, and the tax rate on the rich is 40 to 50 percentage points too low.
Please, do something about these 2 problems before you worry about 10,000 rick kids getting $25K. This is just $250 million/year, while the tax man is cheated out of at least 100 times that.

I wonder if you realize that in the 1950s (which most conservative Americans think was the Golden Age in American history) the top tax bracket was about 90%. I was alive then, and I can assure you that for white American males, it was the Golden Age.
. . . Also, the 50s sort of began with the end of the Korean War and stretched until 1963. Which is the year in which "American Graffiti" is set, and it is clearly about the "50s".

In summary, YMMV.


I have no problem taxing the rich more and giving it to the poor and middle class. But i think your ideas are insane. It is far-left utopian nonsense.
#15191534
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for this claim that UBI is a drain on the exonomy.

Then provide evidence from Greece that giving UBI to healthy unemployed people creates an unhealthy society.

Again, we should not use money to force others to comform to some arbitrary moral standard that you happen to like,

I think that you or the government do not have the required wisdom to judge for other people what is a need and what is a want.


You're a compassionate person. You want to help the poor. Sure, me too. We disagree on how to do that. I don't think turning people into government dependents is a good thing, you don't seem to have an issue with it. We need another way to redistribute income from the rich to the poor, which i'm fine with.

There's no difference in an unemployed 30 year old living off mommy and daddy or them living off the government dime. In both cases you're enabling dependency. If you want evidence this is not good for people please consult any psychologist. The problem with most homeless people isn't that they have no money, the problem is that these people do not have the abilities and skills to remain self-sufficient adults in a healthy manner. They have fundamental issues a cheque alone won't solve, they need therapy, healthcare, education, skills, and the government can provide that to them.
#15191548
Unthinking Majority wrote: The problem with most homeless people isn't that they have no money, the problem is that these people do not have the abilities and skills to remain self-sufficient adults in a healthy manner. They have fundamental issues a cheque alone won't solve,


https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/21/how-one ... eless.html

    How one universal basic income experiment is helping the homeless get off the streets
    PUBLISHED SAT, AUG 21 202110:06 AM EDTUPDATED SAT, AUG 21 202110:07 AM EDT

    KEY POINTS
      The Covid-19 pandemic has put many people in a vulnerable spot when it comes to reliable income and housing.
      Now, one universal basic income pilot program is testing what happens when unhoused individuals are given $500 per month.
      “They used the money better than any way that I could have told them to,” the program’s leader said of the participants.



    During the Covid-19 pandemic, Miracle Messages expanded its programs to take its help even further. It started matching unhoused individuals with members of the community to help build relationships.

    Then, it raised money to pilot a universal basic income project for the homeless.

    ….

    This new program, dubbed Miracle Money, is the first of its kind to target the homeless in the U.S. One program in Vancouver, Canada, called the New Leaf Project has also tested the concept.

    Miracle Money began fundraising in December 2020, and ultimately raised around $50,000 through individual donors.

    Then, in February, the program began distributing payments of $500 per month to 14 unhoused individuals in the local area.

    The participants were selected from nominations within the community.

    The program was designed so that the $500 monthly income would not interfere with other government benefits the participants may receive.

    All of the participants had to set up bank accounts in order to receive the money. They also were paired with a “buddy” from the community, with whom they would keep in touch. Financial coaches were also available upon request to help them navigate their new resources.

    Notably, there were no requirements as to how they used the money.

    The initial results of that pilot were “astonishing,” Adler said, with more than 35% of the participants able to use that monthly income to secure permanent housing. “I wasn’t anticipating anyone getting housed. That was not even a thing we were measuring at first,” Adler said.

    One of those participants who was able to turn his living circumstances — and life — around is Ray, 49. (Ray requested his last name be withheld for privacy reasons).

    His connection with the program began when someone knocked on the door of the temporary housing where he was staying. The question they asked was simple, he said: “Do you want to have a friend to talk to every now and then?”

    After saying yes, Ray was connected to Jennifer Roy, a Marin County resident and Miracle Friend volunteer who developed a friendship with him and ultimately nominated him to participate in the UBI pilot.

    Ray became homeless after he suffered heart failure, which he blames partly on overwork due to the stress and travel his sales job required.

    Participating in the program was a “lifesaving experience,” he said.

    He was able to fully reconnect with his 18-year-old daughter after regaining the sense that he could help provide for her.

    “Miracle Friends gave me the one thing that I really didn’t have being unhoused and that was the confidence that I could be part of somebody’s life,” he said.

    Ray also found work, first at a Covid-19 testing site, and then at a vaccination center as the pandemic wore on.

    “Just to get up every morning and have a purpose was amazing,” he said.

    Today, after watching his daughter graduate from high school and prepare to move away to college, he has made a move of his own. Ray has relocated to Kansas and paid for the first six months of rent in an apartment he shares with a friend. Having money set aside has also given him the opportunity to focus on his health.

    But the social support he gained the program through the relationship with Roy and others was even more valuable, he said.

    “Being unhoused, one thing that’s easy to do is go on with life by yourself and not pay any mind to anyone, or not even reach out to people when you really need to, you’re accustomed to being alone,” Ray said. “It wasn’t a roof over my head — I needed to not feel homeless anymore.”

    Roy said she has also noticed a transformation as their friendship has grown.

    “Ray has realized I can’t do this alone,” Roy said. “I don’t want to do this alone. It’s really about community.”

    While Ray has received more help than he ever anticipated, she said, he’s also realized how much he has to give back as a result of those relationships he has formed.

    Both say they anticipate being lifelong friends, despite the geographic distance between them.

    In addition to securing housing, program participants have found success in other ways, such as by acquiring service dogs or buying appliances they need.

    “They used the money better than any way that I could have told them to use the money,” Adler said.

    “One thing we should be doing is trusting the ingenuity and resourcefulness of some of the individuals who are experiencing homelessness and what barriers they have already confronted in getting housed and resources,” he said.


    Now, the program plans to assess how it can continue to provide financial help beyond its initial $50,000 pilot, Adler said.

    That includes potentially partnering with other cities and communities who want to develop similar programs, or possibly running additional pilots themselves, Adler said.

    Meanwhile, its other programs to reunite homeless individuals with loved ones or pair them up with buddies continue to grow nationwide, Adler said.

The facts seem to contradict your argument.

they need therapy, healthcare, education, skills, and the government can provide that to them.


They can have that as well.

In fact, all of these things should be free for all residents regardless of whether or not there is also UBI.
#15191553
Unthinking Majority wrote:I have no problem taxing the rich more and giving it to the poor and middle class. But i think your ideas are insane. It is far-left utopian nonsense.

Sir, as is usual on line, I replied to you with 18+ lines of text, and you reply with 1 line.
You ignore most of where I showed you you were wrong.
You agreed that the rich should be taxed more, and with finding a way to help the poor and middleclass.
And, ended with a personal attack with zero details.

I have to wonder which of my ideas are insane utopian nonsense. Are they these ideas?
1] That, most conservative Americans think the the "50s" were America's Golden Age?
2] That, the districts to elect Reps. to the US House could be expanded to have 5 or better yet 7 (also 6) Reps?
3] That the size of the House be close to doubled?
4] That the Senate be increased by 50% to add a seat from each state that must be held by a woman?
5] That, there be a MMT-style-JGP that offers a socially useful job (that pays about maybe $25/hr) to every adult who wants one? It is to be Federally funded (mostly with deficit spending), but locally run
6] That, the Fed. Res. be given a fiscal lever to move to fine tune the economy to avoid inflation while also having every adult employed at a good wage doing something.? This lever would be in the form of a much modified UBI, a UBI-Supplement Program that gives every legal resident adult (and children less) a monthly payment. This payment would be changed by the Fed. from time to time, to heat up or to cool down the economy. [Obviously, if this UBI-S program is added to the MMT-JGP, the JGP wage would be reduced.]
7] That, with both the MMT-JGP & the UBI-SP in place, there would be little need for any other income support program, i.e. welfare.? It might even be possible to find a JGP job that a blind person could do.
8] That, it is economically impossible for the US to pay-off the $26T national debt without incurring new debt or just creating $26T new electronic dollars in bank accounts? That, it is impossible because after even $2T or $3T worth of surpluses (tax revenues more than net Gov. spending) had been removed from the economy it would be in a never ending depression.
. . . [That, paying the $26T worth off with gold would require the bondholders accept gold at about $0.20 on the dollar, at current gold prices of about $1,300/troy oz.]
9] That therefore, the national debt is not really a debt at all. That all debts that are never to be paid are not debts any more? That, the US debt can have the payments made with new borrowing at low interest rates if inflation is always low? That, in an emergency, when necessary, the payments can be made by selling the bonds directly to the Fed. or by just creating electronic dollars in the bank account of the, soon, ex-bondholder?
. . , That, if the US debt is no longer a debt, that it is now assets of people that are to be held forever, like land is an asset that can be held forever?

Or, are you remembering some other ideas of mine.
#15191556
Pants-of-dog wrote:The facts seem to contradict your argument.


All it says is they have money and used it to get a place. But what about after that? I'm not saying they don't need money and can't use money, or even that they shouldn't be given money. I'm saying the roots of their issues are often not simply due to lack of money.

One can provide income to help someone on a temporary basis. A good example is employment insurance. Longterm dependence I don't support. I don't support enabling anyone else to live like this, it's a cruel thing to do to someone. Continuously providing them with money with no strings attached seems like compassion but it's unintentional cruelty that extends their suffering indefinitely. You just don't understand and never will.
#15191558
Steve_American wrote:Sir, as is usual on line, I replied to you with 18+ lines of text, and you reply with 1 line.
You ignore most of where I showed you you were wrong.
You agreed that the rich should be taxed more, and with finding a way to help the poor and middleclass.
And, ended with a personal attack with zero details.


I didn't make a personal attack, i said your ideas are insane, not you personally.

I didn't reply line by line because what's the point? It's a waste of my time, and yours, we will never agree.

We have different ideologies. I'm not going to convince you of mine, and vice versa. I've been down your path many times myself. I was once a Marxist believe it or not. The utopia you seek is actually a living hell, and you probably won't realize it until you've walked miles in it. That's the tragedy of it all.

The 1 thing I know for sure about you is that you're a kind, compassionate person. This is great and I'm glad, but unfortunately compassion alone isn't enough.
#15191563
Unthinking Majority wrote:All it says is they have money and used it to get a place. But what about after that? I'm not saying they don't need money and can't use money, or even that they shouldn't be given money. I'm saying the roots of their issues are often not simply due to lack of money.


No one claimed that UBI is a panacea for everything.

You claimed that they do not need UBI, but instead need other services. I then provided an example of where they got only UBI and not other services, and their lives significantly improved. This seems to contradict that particular argument.

One can provide income to help someone on a temporary basis. A good example is employment insurance. Longterm dependence I don't support. I don't support enabling anyone else to live like this, it's a cruel thing to do to someone. Continuously providing them with money with no strings attached seems like compassion but it's unintentional cruelty that extends their suffering indefinitely.


Please provide evidence for this claim that permanent UBI creates dependency. Thanks.
#15191564
Unthinking Majority wrote:All it says is they have money and used it to get a place. But what about after that? I'm not saying they don't need money and can't use money, or even that they shouldn't be given money. I'm saying the roots of their issues are often not simply due to lack of money.

One can provide income to help someone on a temporary basis. A good example is employment insurance. Longterm dependence I don't support. I don't support enabling anyone else to live like this, it's a cruel thing to do to someone. Continuously providing them with money with no strings attached seems like compassion but it's unintentional cruelty that extends their suffering indefinitely. You just don't understand and never will.

Sir, you have replied to me, but it doesn't say much.
BTW, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm writing so that the lurkers here have both sides of the argument.

However, none of my insane utopian nonsensical ideas give anyone enough to live on without expecting them to work. Yes, many of them will be working in the MMT-JGP.
However, many people work for the US Gov. directly now and always have. They are FBI, prison guards, judges, paper pushers, etc. What they do is socially useful, or rather, it's necessary.
The JGP is not that different. Most of the JGP jobs are nice to have, but are intended to be temporary until the worker can find a job in the private, or maybe public, sectors of the economy.

MY UBI-SP is not intended to support anyone. It is intended to provide a lever that the Fed. can move to fine tune the economy; faster than waiting for Congress to change a tax law or a spending law to do it. It just adds some new way for some agent of the Gov. in inject cash into the economy (mostly near the bottom) that can be increased or decreased rapidly as the economy changes.
. . . A new thought, the Fed. might be required to give everyone warning that the payment will be decreased in a month or 2, so they can prepare. With a PSA, and/or with a direct email to many.

BTW, in this covid crisis, there are many families who will very soon be homeless with no savings for a rent deposit. I think they will more than double the number of homeless people. These people have none of the mental problems that you ascribe to the 'homeless'.
#15191574
Pants-of-dog wrote:No one claimed that UBI is a panacea for everything.

You claimed that they do not need UBI, but instead need other services. I then provided an example of where they got only UBI and not other services, and their lives significantly improved. This seems to contradict that particular argument.


UBI is not any more or less useful for getting the homeless into homes than welfare. They do the exact same thing. Welfare can also create dependency if it's unconditional and indefinite. The point of UBI is to take all of these different benefit programs, roll them into one program, and make them universal so the ones that have conditions no longer do.
#15191577
Unthinking Majority wrote:UBI is not any more or less useful for getting the homeless into homes than welfare. They do the exact same thing. Welfare can also create dependency if it's unconditional and indefinite. The point of UBI is to take all of these different benefit programs, roll them into one program, and make them universal so the ones that have conditions no longer do.


If the plan is to get homeless people to have housing, give them free unconditional housing. This is called the Housing First approach and works great wherever it is applied.

UBI is designed to do many things. It not only helps people get off other benefit programs, it also reduces all sorts of anxiety, probably reduces sexual harassment in the workplace, helps people finish schooling, lets people with significant disabilities not have to worry, helps creat financial stability, and a whole host of other benefits.

It seems odd to ignore all of these benefits because of a dubious claim that it causes dependency, especially when it is a fact that almost all of us depend on a paycheque every two weeks in order to survive. That dependence creates all sorts of problems.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

And there is no guarantee that 'natural' climat[…]

Even our shoes are racist.

@Unthinking Majority Okay. Please note that […]

Colin Powell....

It goes against my upbringing to throw rocks at th[…]

Tibet. And of course the China Sea. Bro, 'ca[…]