Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It still is the myth of the self-made man when all it is is the lucky man.

Guess what, the one person taking a chanve and suceeding is trying to claim that it was due to his skill. However, he will claim the three that took a chance and failed are lazy and failed completely through their own fault. Nice view from the ivory tower from someone who just got lucky.

 skyth wrote:
It still is the myth of the self-made man when all it is is the lucky man.

Guess what, the one person taking a chanve and suceeding is trying to claim that it was due to his skill. However, he will claim the three that took a chance and failed are lazy and failed completely through their own fault. Nice view from the ivory tower from someone who just got lucky.

You *make* your own luck in life.

So, get boot-strapp'n boyo.

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree. People can be wonderful parents or horrible parents regardless of income or wealth. Sometimes the state can help children who are stuck with bad parents, too often it can't. It's heart breaking to see kids suffer through no fault of their own but it's also a very dangerous slippery slope when we start empowering the state to get involved with who can have children, what constitutes good parenting and when children should be removed from families. There aren't a lot of societal ills that can be easily cured by having the govt cut some checks and through money at them.

Not throwing money a parents, but throwing money at programs. I live in the city I grew up in, and the school my kids go to now was the "bad" school when I was their age. Due to increased funding, it has changed from the worst public school in the city to one of the best. My kids have access to programs like music, dance and swimming that I would be very hard-pressed to provide. The problem kids (formerly called lazy or stupid) have extra support from teaching assistants and actually have a future better than their mentally ill or addicted parents (formerly called losers or deadbeats).

Seriously, a well-regulated socialist democracy is a paradise for it's populace.

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree. People can be wonderful parents or horrible parents regardless of income or wealth. Sometimes the state can help children who are stuck with bad parents, too often it can't. It's heart breaking to see kids suffer through no fault of their own but it's also a very dangerous slippery slope when we start empowering the state to get involved with who can have children, what constitutes good parenting and when children should be removed from families. There aren't a lot of societal ills that can be easily cured by having the govt cut some checks and through money at them.

Not throwing money a parents, but throwing money at programs. I live in the city I grew up in, and the school my kids go to now was the "bad" school when I was their age. Due to increased funding, it has changed from the worst public school in the city to one of the best. My kids have access to programs like music, dance and swimming that I would be very hard-pressed to provide. The problem kids (formerly called lazy or stupid) have extra support from teaching assistants and actually have a future better than their mentally ill or addicted parents (formerly called losers or deadbeats).

Seriously, a well-regulated socialist democracy is a paradise for it's populace.

I'm not against a social safety net but our current programs are dependency traps that actively make it harder for people to better themselves so that they don't need the assistance. Dependency isn't freedom or self agency. Assistance should be used to move up beyond the need for assistance instead of being a generational dependency that just serves to create an underclass.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree. People can be wonderful parents or horrible parents regardless of income or wealth. Sometimes the state can help children who are stuck with bad parents, too often it can't. It's heart breaking to see kids suffer through no fault of their own but it's also a very dangerous slippery slope when we start empowering the state to get involved with who can have children, what constitutes good parenting and when children should be removed from families. There aren't a lot of societal ills that can be easily cured by having the govt cut some checks and through money at them.

Not throwing money a parents, but throwing money at programs. I live in the city I grew up in, and the school my kids go to now was the "bad" school when I was their age. Due to increased funding, it has changed from the worst public school in the city to one of the best. My kids have access to programs like music, dance and swimming that I would be very hard-pressed to provide. The problem kids (formerly called lazy or stupid) have extra support from teaching assistants and actually have a future better than their mentally ill or addicted parents (formerly called losers or deadbeats).

Seriously, a well-regulated socialist democracy is a paradise for it's populace.

I'm not against a social safety net but our current programs are dependency traps that actively make it harder for people to better themselves so that they don't need the assistance. Dependency isn't freedom or self agency. Assistance should be used to move up beyond the need for assistance instead of being a generational dependency that just serves to create an underclass.

Are you saying that you think government-sponsored programs like Breakfast Club (free breakfast at school) and swimming lessons create inter-generational dependency?

 skyth wrote:
It still is the myth of the self-made man when all it is is the lucky man.

Guess what, the one person taking a chanve and suceeding is trying to claim that it was due to his skill. However, he will claim the three that took a chance and failed are lazy and failed completely through their own fault. Nice view from the ivory tower from someone who just got lucky.

Fortune tends to favor the bold that get up and put in the effort. I wouldn't have gotten "lucky" if I didn't put in the work in the first place. We'll never legislate our way into a fair world. Something will always be unequal. More money. Better looks. Fortunate contacts. Bad circumstances. Some things you can't help, but others you can. My internships, references from those internships, GPA, publications, and military service landed me my current job (boss told me when he had a few drinks in him). Other members of my graduating class that decided to party like rock stars never did find a job in the field. And some of them had rich parents.

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree. People can be wonderful parents or horrible parents regardless of income or wealth. Sometimes the state can help children who are stuck with bad parents, too often it can't. It's heart breaking to see kids suffer through no fault of their own but it's also a very dangerous slippery slope when we start empowering the state to get involved with who can have children, what constitutes good parenting and when children should be removed from families. There aren't a lot of societal ills that can be easily cured by having the govt cut some checks and through money at them.

Not throwing money a parents, but throwing money at programs. I live in the city I grew up in, and the school my kids go to now was the "bad" school when I was their age. Due to increased funding, it has changed from the worst public school in the city to one of the best. My kids have access to programs like music, dance and swimming that I would be very hard-pressed to provide. The problem kids (formerly called lazy or stupid) have extra support from teaching assistants and actually have a future better than their mentally ill or addicted parents (formerly called losers or deadbeats).

Seriously, a well-regulated socialist democracy is a paradise for it's populace.

I'm not against a social safety net but our current programs are dependency traps that actively make it harder for people to better themselves so that they don't need the assistance. Dependency isn't freedom or self agency. Assistance should be used to move up beyond the need for assistance instead of being a generational dependency that just serves to create an underclass.

Are you saying that you think government-sponsored programs like Breakfast Club (free breakfast at school) and swimming lessons create inter-generational dependency?

No, what he is saying is the parents that just stay on welfare and do nothing with their life are setting a poor example for kids, that you can just do nothing and someone ill provide for you

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree. People can be wonderful parents or horrible parents regardless of income or wealth. Sometimes the state can help children who are stuck with bad parents, too often it can't. It's heart breaking to see kids suffer through no fault of their own but it's also a very dangerous slippery slope when we start empowering the state to get involved with who can have children, what constitutes good parenting and when children should be removed from families. There aren't a lot of societal ills that can be easily cured by having the govt cut some checks and through money at them.

Not throwing money a parents, but throwing money at programs. I live in the city I grew up in, and the school my kids go to now was the "bad" school when I was their age. Due to increased funding, it has changed from the worst public school in the city to one of the best. My kids have access to programs like music, dance and swimming that I would be very hard-pressed to provide. The problem kids (formerly called lazy or stupid) have extra support from teaching assistants and actually have a future better than their mentally ill or addicted parents (formerly called losers or deadbeats).

Seriously, a well-regulated socialist democracy is a paradise for it's populace.

I'm not against a social safety net but our current programs are dependency traps that actively make it harder for people to better themselves so that they don't need the assistance. Dependency isn't freedom or self agency. Assistance should be used to move up beyond the need for assistance instead of being a generational dependency that just serves to create an underclass.

Are you saying that you think government-sponsored programs like Breakfast Club (free breakfast at school) and swimming lessons create inter-generational dependency?

No, what he is saying is the parents that just stay on welfare and do nothing with their life are setting a poor example for kids, that you can just do nothing and someone ill provide for you

Well, that's what you think he is saying
I know some of these kids. They're reaching the age where they see the difference in quality of life at home vs some of their friends. They aren't thinking "Sweet! Free ride!" They're asking how I can afford to take my kids away for the long weekend. Asking about the value of education. And I believe it is the fact that they get access to decent breakfast five days a week and dance programs to give them the self worth to think they can earn that too.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree. People can be wonderful parents or horrible parents regardless of income or wealth. Sometimes the state can help children who are stuck with bad parents, too often it can't. It's heart breaking to see kids suffer through no fault of their own but it's also a very dangerous slippery slope when we start empowering the state to get involved with who can have children, what constitutes good parenting and when children should be removed from families. There aren't a lot of societal ills that can be easily cured by having the govt cut some checks and through money at them.

Not throwing money a parents, but throwing money at programs. I live in the city I grew up in, and the school my kids go to now was the "bad" school when I was their age. Due to increased funding, it has changed from the worst public school in the city to one of the best. My kids have access to programs like music, dance and swimming that I would be very hard-pressed to provide. The problem kids (formerly called lazy or stupid) have extra support from teaching assistants and actually have a future better than their mentally ill or addicted parents (formerly called losers or deadbeats).

Seriously, a well-regulated socialist democracy is a paradise for it's populace.

I'm not against a social safety net but our current programs are dependency traps that actively make it harder for people to better themselves so that they don't need the assistance. Dependency isn't freedom or self agency. Assistance should be used to move up beyond the need for assistance instead of being a generational dependency that just serves to create an underclass.

Are you saying that you think government-sponsored programs like Breakfast Club (free breakfast at school) and swimming lessons create inter-generational dependency?

No, what he is saying is the parents that just stay on welfare and do nothing with their life are setting a poor example for kids, that you can just do nothing and someone ill provide for you

And that is based on the myth that people on government assistance don't work. The vast majority of people on government assistance do indeed work and they work harder than the people complaining about them being lazy are.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree. People can be wonderful parents or horrible parents regardless of income or wealth. Sometimes the state can help children who are stuck with bad parents, too often it can't. It's heart breaking to see kids suffer through no fault of their own but it's also a very dangerous slippery slope when we start empowering the state to get involved with who can have children, what constitutes good parenting and when children should be removed from families. There aren't a lot of societal ills that can be easily cured by having the govt cut some checks and through money at them.

Not throwing money a parents, but throwing money at programs. I live in the city I grew up in, and the school my kids go to now was the "bad" school when I was their age. Due to increased funding, it has changed from the worst public school in the city to one of the best. My kids have access to programs like music, dance and swimming that I would be very hard-pressed to provide. The problem kids (formerly called lazy or stupid) have extra support from teaching assistants and actually have a future better than their mentally ill or addicted parents (formerly called losers or deadbeats).

Seriously, a well-regulated socialist democracy is a paradise for it's populace.

I'm not against a social safety net but our current programs are dependency traps that actively make it harder for people to better themselves so that they don't need the assistance. Dependency isn't freedom or self agency. Assistance should be used to move up beyond the need for assistance instead of being a generational dependency that just serves to create an underclass.

I understand what you're saying. The idea of a guaranteed basic income is not to be a safety net but to allow everyone to maintain a basic standard of living with no questions asked. If you want more than that you have to find an additional source of income. This might be a job, a part-time job or casual work, or self-employment of some form that might range from plumbing to live music to coaching ice skating.

This is how a lot of retired people live. They have a pension but they also do odd jobs such as exam invigilation or selling artwork to eke out their pensions.

If it truly becomes the fact that life-time unemployment is a rule rather than an exception, thanks to robotisation, I think it would be more positive to look at it as a great liberation of humans from drudgery and wage slavery. But this cannot happen if the only way to get the money needed to live is to get a non-existent job.

 skyth wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree. People can be wonderful parents or horrible parents regardless of income or wealth. Sometimes the state can help children who are stuck with bad parents, too often it can't. It's heart breaking to see kids suffer through no fault of their own but it's also a very dangerous slippery slope when we start empowering the state to get involved with who can have children, what constitutes good parenting and when children should be removed from families. There aren't a lot of societal ills that can be easily cured by having the govt cut some checks and through money at them.

Not throwing money a parents, but throwing money at programs. I live in the city I grew up in, and the school my kids go to now was the "bad" school when I was their age. Due to increased funding, it has changed from the worst public school in the city to one of the best. My kids have access to programs like music, dance and swimming that I would be very hard-pressed to provide. The problem kids (formerly called lazy or stupid) have extra support from teaching assistants and actually have a future better than their mentally ill or addicted parents (formerly called losers or deadbeats).

Seriously, a well-regulated socialist democracy is a paradise for it's populace.

I'm not against a social safety net but our current programs are dependency traps that actively make it harder for people to better themselves so that they don't need the assistance. Dependency isn't freedom or self agency. Assistance should be used to move up beyond the need for assistance instead of being a generational dependency that just serves to create an underclass.

Are you saying that you think government-sponsored programs like Breakfast Club (free breakfast at school) and swimming lessons create inter-generational dependency?

No, what he is saying is the parents that just stay on welfare and do nothing with their life are setting a poor example for kids, that you can just do nothing and someone ill provide for you

And that is based on the myth that people on government assistance don't work. The vast majority of people on government assistance do indeed work and they work harder than the people complaining about them being lazy are.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the way our governments, state and federal, structure our assistance programs is bad and counter productive because it doesn't help people get off assistance it traps people into staying dependent on assistance.

I have experience with Section 8 housing assistance, that's a program where the state sets rates for what housing should cost and subsidizes it for people who can't afford it. So you can have people living in a 2 bedroom apartment and the Housing Authority says they're qualified for Section 8 assistance so the state says a 2 bedroom should coust $600 a month and the given the amount of income the person has, whether its fixed income like social security/disability or a minimum wage job or whatever, the state pays $550 a month and the person pays $50 a month. If that person's income increases then that person risks no longer qualifying for Section 8 housing assistance and will have to pay all of their rent without assistance. So residents in the complex who were on Section 8 assistance had to be careful not to earn more money and lose their assistance. It's very difficult to make an earnings jump from minimum wage + assistance (housing, food stamps, welfare, WIC, medicare/medicaid, etc) to a higher wage that is greater than the combined sum of the minimum wage and assistance so it discouages people from taking small steps upward and incentivizes them to stay on assistance. The longer they stay on assistance in a low skill dead end job the harder it is to get a better job and the more dependent they become on assistance. Then if they have children those children grow up in an environment where it is normal to avoid making more money so you can keep collecting assistance they think that's normal and it becomes generational.

The same thing happens with unemployment. You lose your job, you file for unemployment and you get paid $ per month in unemployment so you aren't going to go take a job that pays less than $ per month because that wouldn't make financial sense. So you stay on unemployment until you can get a better job but he longer you stay on unemployment the harder it is to get a new and better job. Then eventually unemployment runs out and you're stuck with a big gap in your resume, no new skills, and no unemployment $ so you're worse off than when you first started collecting unemployment.

Those programs are counter productive because they penalize you for improving yoursef unless you can improve by a miraculous margin which in turn disincentivizes the very thing you're trying to get people to do. The government shouldn't make it extra difficult to work your way off of assistance. Of course having people dependent on government assistance makes it easier for politicians to win their votes by manipulating those assistance programs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree. People can be wonderful parents or horrible parents regardless of income or wealth. Sometimes the state can help children who are stuck with bad parents, too often it can't. It's heart breaking to see kids suffer through no fault of their own but it's also a very dangerous slippery slope when we start empowering the state to get involved with who can have children, what constitutes good parenting and when children should be removed from families. There aren't a lot of societal ills that can be easily cured by having the govt cut some checks and through money at them.

Not throwing money a parents, but throwing money at programs. I live in the city I grew up in, and the school my kids go to now was the "bad" school when I was their age. Due to increased funding, it has changed from the worst public school in the city to one of the best. My kids have access to programs like music, dance and swimming that I would be very hard-pressed to provide. The problem kids (formerly called lazy or stupid) have extra support from teaching assistants and actually have a future better than their mentally ill or addicted parents (formerly called losers or deadbeats).

Seriously, a well-regulated socialist democracy is a paradise for it's populace.

I'm not against a social safety net but our current programs are dependency traps that actively make it harder for people to better themselves so that they don't need the assistance. Dependency isn't freedom or self agency. Assistance should be used to move up beyond the need for assistance instead of being a generational dependency that just serves to create an underclass.

I understand what you're saying. The idea of a guaranteed basic income is not to be a safety net but to allow everyone to maintain a basic standard of living with no questions asked. If you want more than that you have to find an additional source of income. This might be a job, a part-time job or casual work, or self-employment of some form that might range from plumbing to live music to coaching ice skating.

This is how a lot of retired people live. They have a pension but they also do odd jobs such as exam invigilation or selling artwork to eke out their pensions.

If it truly becomes the fact that life-time unemployment is a rule rather than an exception, thanks to robotisation, I think it would be more positive to look at it as a great liberation of humans from drudgery and wage slavery. But this cannot happen if the only way to get the money needed to live is to get a non-existent job.

Where does the money come from? The government either has to either create it, borrow it or collect it from somebody. We already spend trillions a year and borrow billions per month and we have record setting lows in labor participation rates and underemployment. What part of the federal budget are we cutting to make room for guaranteed income payments to 320,000,000 people or where are we getting new money from to fund it?

If the amount is great enough to give low income or jobless people a comfortable standard of living then it's going to drive up the cost of entry level labor and make it that much harder for low skill people to get jobs. If it's only a small amount of money it won't pull anyone out of poverty. If the idea is to allow people to do more volunteer work or take more low paying jobs then it's just more corporate welfare, employers can keep wages low because the govt provided monthly income picks up the slack. It also increases the labor cost of full time work, why work full time if you can work part time and get by fine with the additional govt income? If full time work has to pay more to convince people to work 40+ hours a week then that reduces the number of jobs available which hurts employment. If fewer people are working full time and most people are dependent on monthly govt payments to subsidize their standard of living then the entire economy is now wholly dependent on govt money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
It still is the myth of the self-made man when all it is is the lucky man.

Guess what, the one person taking a chanve and suceeding is trying to claim that it was due to his skill. However, he will claim the three that took a chance and failed are lazy and failed completely through their own fault. Nice view from the ivory tower from someone who just got lucky.

You have to take chances and work hard if you want to be successful. Outside of straight up nepotism or corruption you can't get promotions and job offers without hard work. You've gotten promotions, did you earn them from drawing straws or were you recognized for working hard and getting things done? Even lucky people have to work hard. I could work hard on my jumpshot and never make it into the NBA but Lebron James wins the genetic lottery with his body type and athleticism and his hard work makes him a superstar in the NBA. Steph Curry wasn't born with the ability to make a jumpshot he had to work at it even though he has natural ability and talent. Even idiot savants have to learn their job and do it well.

Nothing guarantees a postive outcome, not hard work, education, luck, nothing. But if you don't take a chance and try hard then it's unlikely that a better situation is going to just fall into your lap through random chance. Working hard and taking calculated risks is commendable behavior, you don't have to be Teddy Roosevelt to find that to be admirable. It's only normal to recognize that your hard work and risk taking paid off when that happens. It's also normal and honest to recognize that taking risks and working hard doesn't guarantee success either. Someting like 50% of new restaurants fail and it's not because the people who own them and work in them don't try their best but it's still impossible to create a successful restaurant if you don't try to open one in the first place.

So it boils down to chance whether a person succeeds or not.

Guaranteed income would remove the bad part of risk taking. If trying to improve your position will leave you and your family homeless if you fail there is too much risk to try. Guaranteed income means that they will still have the ability to support themselves if something goes wrong. It also gets rid of the section 8 housing problem you mentioned.

You can only PICK TWO:

but all three can't be done at once.

If someone says we can do all 3... simply ask them to show you the math.

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It still is the myth of the self-made man when all it is is the lucky man.

Guess what, the one person taking a chanve and suceeding is trying to claim that it was due to his skill. However, he will claim the three that took a chance and failed are lazy and failed completely through their own fault. Nice view from the ivory tower from someone who just got lucky.

You *make* your own luck in life.

So, get boot-strapp'n boyo.

See exactly. I mean right now there's some loser in Africa dying of polio. If only he'd tried a little higher before he was born he could managed to pop out the womb in america and gotten vaccine. What a joke. Hell, sometimes I see those 16yr old kids with sports cars and just think "If I'd tried a little harder maybe my daddy would have bought me a fancy car when I was teenager too. *sigh* but I was lazy and didn't make an effort so I never even met the man. Oh well, maybe I'll do better next time I'm gestating"

 Chongara wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It still is the myth of the self-made man when all it is is the lucky man.

Guess what, the one person taking a chanve and suceeding is trying to claim that it was due to his skill. However, he will claim the three that took a chance and failed are lazy and failed completely through their own fault. Nice view from the ivory tower from someone who just got lucky.

You *make* your own luck in life.

So, get boot-strapp'n boyo.

See exactly. I mean right now there's some loser in Africa dying of polio. If only he'd tried a little higher before he was born he could managed to pop out the womb in america and gotten vaccine. What a joke. Hell, sometimes I see those 16yr old kids with sports cars and just think "If I'd tried a little harder maybe my daddy would have bought me a fancy car when I was teenager too. *sigh* but I was lazy and didn't make an effort so I never even met the man. Oh well, maybe I'll do better next time I'm gestating"

Misquoting there Chong?

 skyth wrote:
So it boils down to chance whether a person succeeds or not.

Guaranteed income would remove the bad part of risk taking. If trying to improve your position will leave you and your family homeless if you fail there is too much risk to try. Guaranteed income means that they will still have the ability to support themselves if something goes wrong. It also gets rid of the section 8 housing problem you mentioned.

Or we could just change our assistance programs to gradual phaseouts to allow people to make normal incremental improvements in their lives and income without having to take on drastic negative consequences. We already have programs that are supposed to be helping people improve themselves, if they're not currently working as well as we want them to lets change them before we scrap them entirely and go with a new untried sweeping reform that could have horrible unintended consequences. It's not a binary solution set of guaranteed monthly income (that has no track record of success anywhere in the world because nobody thinks its a good enough idea to try it) and the same broken programs that haven't succeeded over 50+ years of trying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It still is the myth of the self-made man when all it is is the lucky man.

Guess what, the one person taking a chanve and suceeding is trying to claim that it was due to his skill. However, he will claim the three that took a chance and failed are lazy and failed completely through their own fault. Nice view from the ivory tower from someone who just got lucky.

You *make* your own luck in life.

So, get boot-strapp'n boyo.

See exactly. I mean right now there's some loser in Africa dying of polio. If only he'd tried a little higher before he was born he could managed to pop out the womb in america and gotten vaccine. What a joke. Hell, sometimes I see those 16yr old kids with sports cars and just think "If I'd tried a little harder maybe my daddy would have bought me a fancy car when I was teenager too. *sigh* but I was lazy and didn't make an effort so I never even met the man. Oh well, maybe I'll do better next time I'm gestating"

Being born in America is no guarantee of not being born with serious birth defects, conditions or contracting life threatening diseases.

Plus every program was untried at first. Doesn't meam it won't work.

You still haven't addressed that the ability to develop new skills is determined by luck.

And I forgot to address something I wanted to. You brought up the red herring of labor particopation rates being low. I don't neccasarily see this as a bad thing. Especially when this is caused by a couple factors...baby boomers retiring and older workers being laid off because they are too skilled and then no one wanting to hire them.

 skyth wrote:
Plus every program was untried at first. Doesn't meam it won't work.

You still haven't addressed that the ability to develop new skills is determined by luck.

And I forgot to address something I wanted to. You brought up the red herring of labor particopation rates being low. I don't neccasarily see this as a bad thing. Especially when this is caused by a couple factors...baby boomers retiring and older workers being laid off because they are too skilled and then no one wanting to hire them.

It's not. If you want to learn new skills you just need the desire to learn them. Whether that's making time to learn skills via the internet for free at your local library, taking night classes at community colleges, doing web based home study certification clases, etc. and if need be you can apply for loans and grants. What does luck have to do with it? If you don't have the motivation to use your spare time to better yourself then you won't. Nobody is going to randomly drop off new job skills at your home for you just throught the luck of the draw. The only way you obtain new skills is to learn them and that requires work and effort on yoru part.

Low labor participation rates mean that there are already a large number of people not working. Programs that can incentive not working will only exacerbate that problem. Fewer people working reduces the ability for the govt to collect tax revenue beacause less people working hurts the economy. Less tax revenue inhibits the ability for the govt to fund programs to help people.

Yes, every program has to get starterd sometime but why are you dead set on starting this one when we already have existing programs that are desperately in need of fixing. Why scrap programs that have the potential right now to be beneficial and instead replace with with a social experiment that could fail horribly?

Prestor Jon wrote:

Being born in America is no guarantee of not being born with serious birth defects, conditions or contracting life threatening diseases.

I'm fairly sure rates of Polio are much lower in the america than rural Africa. If you've got got some source that indicate otherwise, I'd love to see them.

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Being born in America is no guarantee of not being born with serious birth defects, conditions or contracting life threatening diseases.

I'm fairly sure rates of Polio are much lower in the america than rural Africa. If you've got got some source that indicate otherwise, I'd love to see them.

That's not because of a lack of government programs. In Africa's case, it's because of their governments that they are in the shape they are in now. And it certainly wasn't because of government mandates and regulations that the vaccine was developed in the first place.


And there is more that can go wrong with a child at birth than just polio, which has largely been stamped out in the United States (it happens, but very rarely).

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


And there is more that can go wrong with a child at birth than just polio, which has largely been stamped out in the United States (it happens, but very rarely).

See. If those kids didn't want polio they should have made a big effort to be born in the united states. One's life is the result of one's own effort and all. If they didn't want polio they should have just tried harder to be born where it wasn't a problem. As for all those kids born with birth defects in america, they just didn't put in enough effort to be born in the future after we've cured them.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Plus every program was untried at first. Doesn't meam it won't work.

You still haven't addressed that the ability to develop new skills is determined by luck.

And I forgot to address something I wanted to. You brought up the red herring of labor particopation rates being low. I don't neccasarily see this as a bad thing. Especially when this is caused by a couple factors...baby boomers retiring and older workers being laid off because they are too skilled and then no one wanting to hire them.

It's not. If you want to learn new skills you just need the desire to learn them. Whether that's making time to learn skills via the internet for free at your local library, taking night classes at community colleges, doing web based home study certification clases, etc. and if need be you can apply for loans and grants. What does luck have to do with it? If you don't have the motivation to use your spare time to better yourself then you won't. Nobody is going to randomly drop off new job skills at your home for you just throught the luck of the draw. The only way you obtain new skills is to learn them and that requires work and effort on yoru part.

It takes more than that. Intelligence (IE the ability to learn) is not something under your control. It is solely determined by luck. Being born with above average IQ and not having your brain development made worse through poor nutrition is not something that you can work harder at. Believe it or not, the vast majority of people don't learn new skills that pay well easily or even at all. It's not a matter of working hard or having motivation at all, but raw innate ability. To be able to study while working and taking care of children requires you to be healthier than average and to have better endurance than average. It also requires you to be lucky enough to have a job with a fixed schedule where you can dedicate time to studying. Plus what do you do about the people that borrow money to go to school but can't find a better job and now can't pay back the loans and still have enough money to feed and shelter themselves and their families?

Low labor participation rates mean that there are already a large number of people not working. Programs that can incentive not working will only exacerbate that problem. Fewer people working reduces the ability for the govt to collect tax revenue beacause less people working hurts the economy. Less tax revenue inhibits the ability for the govt to fund programs to help people.

So in other words seniors should have to work to survive until the day they drop dead. You ignored absolutely everything I said in this regard. Labor participation rates are at a record low because we have a record number of senior citizens. Your 'incentives' won't do anything to 'fix' that and a fix is not needed. Like I said, it's a red herring. Retired people still spend money, and in fact, spend a higher portion of their income than middle class or wealthy individuals.

Yes, every program has to get starterd sometime but why are you dead set on starting this one when we already have existing programs that are desperately in need of fixing. Why scrap programs that have the potential right now to be beneficial and instead replace with with a social experiment that could fail horribly?

I don't see it failing horribly. It's basically a more efficient social safety net. Means testing creates issues plus has a larger administrative overhead. The issues with current social safety nets is that people play political football with them because people on them are 'lazy' and 'unmotivated'.

 Chongara wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


And there is more that can go wrong with a child at birth than just polio, which has largely been stamped out in the United States (it happens, but very rarely).

See. If those kids didn't want polio they should have made a big effort to be born in the united states. One's life is the result of one's own effort and all. If they didn't want polio they should have just tried harder to be born where it wasn't a problem. As for all those kids born with birth defects in america, they just didn't put in enough effort to be born in the future after we've cured them.

You know, not one of Prestor Jon's ideas are meant for an undeveloped nation so comparing them to one ends up being silly. He has been addressing 1st world nations and in particular the US. Every kid born in the US has opportunities most kids born on the continent of Africa will never have. That is life.

Mental capacity is hardly the only reason that people are unable to increase their income potential.
This thread reads like a transcript from a Victorian gentlemen's club.
"They simply need to take advantage of the opportunities provided to them. Hard work is all they need!"
"William, you know very well that hard work is no subsitute for the limited cranial capacity of the lower classes!"
"My gardner has the sharp look of a gypsy, and yet I now pay him a shilling a month more since he apprenticed to the wainwright!"

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Being born in America is no guarantee of not being born with serious birth defects, conditions or contracting life threatening diseases.

I'm fairly sure rates of Polio are much lower in the america than rural Africa. If you've got got some source that indicate otherwise, I'd love to see them.

Polio is the only disease that counts? Our neighbor's son was born with cerebral palsy and one our daughters friends has an older brother with severe autism. Again, being born in America doesn't guarantee you anything other than US citizenship. If you choose to have children you roll the dice and take responsibility for whatever comes. People are born into tough heartbreaking situations all over the world. I'm not seein the point behind your game of finding somebody somewhere who's worse off than somebody else.

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Plus every program was untried at first. Doesn't meam it won't work.

You still haven't addressed that the ability to develop new skills is determined by luck.

And I forgot to address something I wanted to. You brought up the red herring of labor particopation rates being low. I don't neccasarily see this as a bad thing. Especially when this is caused by a couple factors...baby boomers retiring and older workers being laid off because they are too skilled and then no one wanting to hire them.

It's not. If you want to learn new skills you just need the desire to learn them. Whether that's making time to learn skills via the internet for free at your local library, taking night classes at community colleges, doing web based home study certification clases, etc. and if need be you can apply for loans and grants. What does luck have to do with it? If you don't have the motivation to use your spare time to better yourself then you won't. Nobody is going to randomly drop off new job skills at your home for you just throught the luck of the draw. The only way you obtain new skills is to learn them and that requires work and effort on yoru part.

It takes more than that. Intelligence (IE the ability to learn) is not something under your control. It is solely determined by luck. Being born with above average IQ and not having your brain development made worse through poor nutrition is not something that you can work harder at. Believe it or not, the vast majority of people don't learn new skills that pay well easily or even at all. It's not a matter of working hard or having motivation at all, but raw innate ability. To be able to study while working and taking care of children requires you to be healthier than average and to have better endurance than average. It also requires you to be lucky enough to have a job with a fixed schedule where you can dedicate time to studying. Plus what do you do about the people that borrow money to go to school but can't find a better job and now can't pay back the loans and still have enough money to feed and shelter themselves and their families?

Low labor participation rates mean that there are already a large number of people not working. Programs that can incentive not working will only exacerbate that problem. Fewer people working reduces the ability for the govt to collect tax revenue beacause less people working hurts the economy. Less tax revenue inhibits the ability for the govt to fund programs to help people.

So in other words seniors should have to work to survive until the day they drop dead. You ignored absolutely everything I said in this regard. Labor participation rates are at a record low because we have a record number of senior citizens. Your 'incentives' won't do anything to 'fix' that and a fix is not needed. Like I said, it's a red herring. Retired people still spend money, and in fact, spend a higher portion of their income than middle class or wealthy individuals.

Yes, every program has to get starterd sometime but why are you dead set on starting this one when we already have existing programs that are desperately in need of fixing. Why scrap programs that have the potential right now to be beneficial and instead replace with with a social experiment that could fail horribly?

I don't see it failing horribly. It's basically a more efficient social safety net. Means testing creates issues plus has a larger administrative overhead. The issues with current social safety nets is that people play political football with them because people on them are 'lazy' and 'unmotivated'.

serious question Is there some kind of study or data or something you can link or direct me to that explains that malnutrition induced learning disabilities or cognitive impairment is a widespread problem in the US? I know it's a legitimate health concern but I've never thought it was a major factor in people getting stuck in dead end low wage jobs. I still don't think guaranteed monthly incomes fix that problem. People can and will still make bad unhealthy neglectful choices about their health and their kids health. Like I mentioned my wife is a pediatric nurse and she's seen all kinds of gak like parents putting Mountain Dew in bottles and sippy cups and young kids that contract type 2 diabetes from being obese. You can give their parents money but it won't stop them from malnourishing their kids.

My concern over labor participation rates isn't seniors it's that guaranteed govt stipends will discourage more people in their prime from working. It would be nice to get free money and pursue hobbies instead of working full time jobs but there is still work that needs to get done. I think we need better programs to help people get jobs not more programs to help people not have to work at all. The economy is barely growing, wages are stagnant and it's hard to find good jobs so I think paying people to stay home would be counter productive, at least until the robot overlords take over.

I have more hope of politicians finally taking steps to fix existing programs that at least have existing constituencies in both the public and private sectors than I do in politicians ever defunding and scrapping those programs in order to start a brand new program that will be just as susceptible to politicking and mismanagement but won't have existent constituencies to push for reform. Congress won't act out of altruism. More pressure and leverage can be applied to fix what exists than can be pushed onto a new program. Plus realistically we can't afford to tack on guaranteed income payments on top of existing programs and it's virtually impossible to get Congress to cut or defund anything.

 whembly wrote:
You can only PICK TWO:

but all three can't be done at once.

If someone says we can do all 3... simply ask them to show you the math.

First you have to explain and prove your trinity.

It's quite amazing that people are arguing that wealth and success is all about luck, or it isn't related to luck at all. There seems to be little consideration that both elements play a part.

I mean, I do pretty well, and yeah I worked to graduate uni, get a professional qualification and work my way through a number of jobs building my resume and skill base. But I also started my career at the beginning of a decade long boom in the state, and that helped me get promoted and helped massively with my early investments. I have younger friends who did everything I did, but they're finding promotions much harder to come by, and are stuck with very high mortgages in a flat property market.

Really, I think the issue is that people tend to see the luck other people had but not their hard work, and tend to credit their own hard work but not their luck. The whole thing becomes a process of self-congratulation, instead of a means of understanding how the world actually works.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
We'll never legislate our way into a fair world. Something will always be unequal.

False objective. We don't need to create a completely fair world in order to have been successful, we only need to create a more fair world.

And if anyone wants doubts how much more equal the developed world has become, I'd ask them to go and read about the horrific conditions that the bottom of society lived in 100 years ago, especially children. It was common and accepted that dhildren would die of malnutrition, or having lifelong stunted growth and mental development. Now those things are incredibly rare, and never happen through a simple lack of resources. We have produced a much more equal world by building the safety net.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You can only PICK TWO:

but all three can't be done at once.

If someone says we can do all 3... simply ask them to show you the math.

First you have to explain and prove your trinity.

Wiki'fu got your back!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity

A fixed foreign exchange rate

Free capital movement (absence of capital controls)

An independent monetary policy

Option (a): A stable exchange rate and free capital flows (but not an independent monetary policy because setting a domestic interest rate that is different from the world interest rate would undermine a stable exchange rate due to appreciation or depreciation pressure on the domestic currency).
Option (b): An independent monetary policy and free capital flows (but not a stable exchange rate).
Option (c): A stable exchange rate and independent monetary policy (but no free capital flows, which would require the use of capital controls).

That's not your triangle, so it doesn't explain it.