The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Pet [Chat]ah

19495969799

Posts

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Fallout 4 will supposedly have the player character be voice acted. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

    I had a knee jerk "I'm not a fan of that" reaction, but then I realized SRIV was and I was enjoyed it and it opened up some neat natural conversation, so... yeah.

    override367
  • MazzyxMazzyx I can dig it. Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So had a brainworm with my earlier comments on the changing economy and basic income so I might as well continue it with ideas that have processed more. I am @ ing a bunch of people, so if you quote please remove them. This is from some of the earlier post and the discussions about the poor and such and well like I said brainworm. Like an earworm but more theory based.

    Okay long list of @'s there. Some folks I am bugging because I like you.

    So basic assumptions with this train of though, feel free to rip them up if you want.

    1.Most post-industrial and many developing countries such as China are coming to the realization due to the movement of technology and its effects on production the mass use of unskilled labor is becoming less and less efficient and more expensive leading to a reduction the post industrial revolution standard entrance of the middle class through unskilled manufacturing work. Basically what we think of the US economy in the 1950's though this isn't 100% true.

    2. This is leaving a glut of workers young and old who displaced in these new economies not making what we would consider a basic wage especially with the rise of what we call the service based economy. This is part of the reason we are getting wage stagnation. Not all of it, that is complex but for this assumption let's just say that the current unskilled labor work is being paid less than previous routes into the middle class.

    3. This will get worse with more technology making manufacturing a more skilled semi-skilled job and there will be an increasing number of unskilled workers who will take low wage employment or unable to find employment in the marketplace. And no matter what we like to tell ourselves it isn't getting better for a lot of the college educated due to changes in the market as well.

    With this in mind and the assumption there will be more people permanently out of work or looking for work if we don't change we bring in the idea of basic income. This again also requires one other change in the US, a national healthcare system to take care of something basic income I believe does not cover adequately.

    This basic income does a few things:
    1.Increase the ability for the country to purchase which is incredibly important for consumer based economies which include the US, Canada, a lot of Western Europe, Japan and so on. And is China's goal.

    2.The income level should be enough for an individual to have food and a roof over their head providing for the basic needs.

    3.With the safety net of the guaranteed income it allows more people to remove themselves from the corporations leading a possible increase in small business and entrepreneurship.

    4.Increases the ability of single income families to function. Marriage does not remove your own personal income. It also allows for a percentage based income for the children up to the age of emancipation. This last part is important, so if a kid is emancipated at say 15 due to a harsh living environment they receive the full income. Otherwise say 18? I was thinking 21.

    5.Removes the current welfare system that is designed for an employment system that came around under the previous economic system which I think we are moving away from. Some are easy like medicade is gone thanks to national healthcare but stuff like SNAP though might also be removed or weakened as the income is suppose to provide enough that an individual should not need it to eat. Devil's in the details but overall should be less in welfare cost.

    Some issues:
    1.Inflation. I don't think this is an issue as we think of it. But I know someone will argue it.

    2.People won't work if we give them money. Not true because people want a better life and having a basic income provides a basic level of support not what I would call a high quality of life. You aren't starving, freezing or unable to provide for yourself but you also are not buying that Xbone with it.

    3.Complex cost of living map of the US. This is a detail that should be worked out for distribution and total. A median basic income in NYC would be middle class in butt fuck Mississippi.

    Conclusion(Holy shit this got long, maybe I should just change this to a bigger post as an op or something).

    At this point with the changes in the economy and how it is shifting I think we should be moving towards a more basic income style system not so much what we see as a traditional welfare system. Along with this comes the acceptance that our economy has radically changed and we cannot go back to the time where an unskilled worker will be able to move into the middle class without either help or by developing in demand skills in a economy with a shrinking demand for labor as technology and productivity of that technology alter it.

    goals #1 and #2 are problematic. it is questionable that you increase consumption at all, it is questionable that you increase domestic consumption at all, it is questionable that either is obviously desirable. #2 forgets that costs of living have intrinsic material-welfare values; places have high CoLs because they are appealing to live in.

    #1 and #3 are somewhat contradictory (national consumption and national investment need to add up...). #4 is probably in reverse - I think it would favour marriage, due to inherent stability of young male (basic) income.

    I cover Cost of Living in the problems. This is a devil in the details. In say the US that Cost of Living probably has be localized. Problem of a country where a CoL is so varied by region. This even as a brain worm is still way above policy level but I would say that just because these place are more desirable it doesn't negate the idea if you can develop a system to adjust for those difference. This was actually one of my original arguments against basic income but I think it can be overcome.

    Increase in consumption would be minimal but is something a lot of countries are trying to do right now. It is a basis of China's new reform and Abenomics. I do think one could argue by handing a bi-weekly paycheck to a person there is an increase in consumption even with basic income. I would say it is more questionable atm with economist more than say policy makers.

    Basic safety nets do allow people to take more risks. A small increase with in people taking a risk on their own do to this can be consider a net good if you view such moves as a good. There is already a move that many of these people maybe phased out anyway because of how many of the large, especially globalized companies. This could allow more folks to be productive. It is part of the idea behind things such as unemployment insurance.

    Your argument on part 4 isn't contradicting what I am saying. I am not saying it favors single people but single income households become more feasible. That means married but only one works.

    03x29di.png
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong Credential Adjacent Registered User regular
    ONEDAY6.jpg

    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
    HonkChanusTavRear Admiral Chocodesc
  • CindersCinders Whose sails were black when it was windy Registered User regular
  • simonwolfsimonwolf an expressway late at night only halogen lights shine mysteriouslyRegistered User regular
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    practicing my artwork, trying to step outside my comfort zone

    ZYasWQp.png?2nktjDAF.png?2

    one day i will be an art eest

    but today is not that day

    MORE DRAWINK

    TehSlothChanusNecoAresProphet
  • EddyEddy Gengar the Bittersweet Registered User regular
    in a post-apocalyptic, depopulated world, incest is sort of implied, isn't it? I'm assuming that's what is going on in that picture anyway

    to conspire, however marginally, whenever possible, against power and indifference
  • ChanusChanus Never Backward Always ForwardRegistered User regular
    i don't understand why that pic evokes hahaha or noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    i also don't believe i am familiar with the source material

    D&D [chat] names list for games
    XCOM Name File with [chat] First Names - All Countries, M&F | Or Shivahn's with gendered names
    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    **PUUUUUUNCH**
    Captain Carrot
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    powerpuppies introduced me to payday 2 with a couple of his buddies

    it's p fun, though until shit popped off i basically stayed back as i couldn't really shoot anyone without a silenced pistol

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So had a brainworm with my earlier comments on the changing economy and basic income so I might as well continue it with ideas that have processed more. I am @ ing a bunch of people, so if you quote please remove them. This is from some of the earlier post and the discussions about the poor and such and well like I said brainworm. Like an earworm but more theory based.

    Okay long list of @'s there. Some folks I am bugging because I like you.

    So basic assumptions with this train of though, feel free to rip them up if you want.

    1.Most post-industrial and many developing countries such as China are coming to the realization due to the movement of technology and its effects on production the mass use of unskilled labor is becoming less and less efficient and more expensive leading to a reduction the post industrial revolution standard entrance of the middle class through unskilled manufacturing work. Basically what we think of the US economy in the 1950's though this isn't 100% true.

    2. This is leaving a glut of workers young and old who displaced in these new economies not making what we would consider a basic wage especially with the rise of what we call the service based economy. This is part of the reason we are getting wage stagnation. Not all of it, that is complex but for this assumption let's just say that the current unskilled labor work is being paid less than previous routes into the middle class.

    3. This will get worse with more technology making manufacturing a more skilled semi-skilled job and there will be an increasing number of unskilled workers who will take low wage employment or unable to find employment in the marketplace. And no matter what we like to tell ourselves it isn't getting better for a lot of the college educated due to changes in the market as well.

    With this in mind and the assumption there will be more people permanently out of work or looking for work if we don't change we bring in the idea of basic income. This again also requires one other change in the US, a national healthcare system to take care of something basic income I believe does not cover adequately.

    This basic income does a few things:
    1.Increase the ability for the country to purchase which is incredibly important for consumer based economies which include the US, Canada, a lot of Western Europe, Japan and so on. And is China's goal.

    2.The income level should be enough for an individual to have food and a roof over their head providing for the basic needs.

    3.With the safety net of the guaranteed income it allows more people to remove themselves from the corporations leading a possible increase in small business and entrepreneurship.

    4.Increases the ability of single income families to function. Marriage does not remove your own personal income. It also allows for a percentage based income for the children up to the age of emancipation. This last part is important, so if a kid is emancipated at say 15 due to a harsh living environment they receive the full income. Otherwise say 18? I was thinking 21.

    5.Removes the current welfare system that is designed for an employment system that came around under the previous economic system which I think we are moving away from. Some are easy like medicade is gone thanks to national healthcare but stuff like SNAP though might also be removed or weakened as the income is suppose to provide enough that an individual should not need it to eat. Devil's in the details but overall should be less in welfare cost.

    Some issues:
    1.Inflation. I don't think this is an issue as we think of it. But I know someone will argue it.

    2.People won't work if we give them money. Not true because people want a better life and having a basic income provides a basic level of support not what I would call a high quality of life. You aren't starving, freezing or unable to provide for yourself but you also are not buying that Xbone with it.

    3.Complex cost of living map of the US. This is a detail that should be worked out for distribution and total. A median basic income in NYC would be middle class in butt fuck Mississippi.

    Conclusion(Holy shit this got long, maybe I should just change this to a bigger post as an op or something).

    At this point with the changes in the economy and how it is shifting I think we should be moving towards a more basic income style system not so much what we see as a traditional welfare system. Along with this comes the acceptance that our economy has radically changed and we cannot go back to the time where an unskilled worker will be able to move into the middle class without either help or by developing in demand skills in a economy with a shrinking demand for labor as technology and productivity of that technology alter it.

    goals #1 and #2 are problematic. it is questionable that you increase consumption at all, it is questionable that you increase domestic consumption at all, it is questionable that either is obviously desirable. #2 forgets that costs of living have intrinsic material-welfare values; places have high CoLs because they are appealing to live in.

    #1 and #3 are somewhat contradictory (national consumption and national investment need to add up...). #4 is probably in reverse - I think it would favour marriage, due to inherent stability of young male (basic) income.

    I cover Cost of Living in the problems. This is a devil in the details. In say the US that Cost of Living probably has be localized. Problem of a country where a CoL is so varied by region. This even as a brain worm is still way above policy level but I would say that just because these place are more desirable it doesn't negate the idea if you can develop a system to adjust for those difference. This was actually one of my original arguments against basic income but I think it can be overcome.

    Increase in consumption would be minimal but is something a lot of countries are trying to do right now. It is a basis of China's new reform and Abenomics. I do think one could argue by handing a bi-weekly paycheck to a person there is an increase in consumption even with basic income. I would say it is more questionable atm with economist more than say policy makers.

    Basic safety nets do allow people to take more risks. A small increase with in people taking a risk on their own do to this can be consider a net good if you view such moves as a good. There is already a move that many of these people maybe phased out anyway because of how many of the large, especially globalized companies. This could allow more folks to be productive. It is part of the idea behind things such as unemployment insurance.

    Your argument on part 4 isn't contradicting what I am saying. I am not saying it favors single people but single income households become more feasible. That means married but only one works.

    the point is that adjusting for differences at all is problematic, because it subsidises living in an expensive, desirable area for no reason. Which has a predictable impact on the area remaining expensive and desirable.

    You can argue that people take on more risks, but that straightforwardly contradicts the hypothesis that they consume more as well. Consumption and investment have to add up to the same national income less net capital movement.

    Agree re #4, I misinterpreted your original post. Yeah I can see a move toward single income families.

  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited December 2013
    dis fukkin internet

    Organichu on
  • Rear Admiral ChocoRear Admiral Choco Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »

    It took me a minute to realize who they were dressed up as, I didn't really get the issue and then I was all "OHHHHHHHHH DAMMIT"

    2WJtdLD.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Speaking of mail, you hear about Canada Post phasing out urban door to door service?

    @ronya

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • CindersCinders Whose sails were black when it was windy Registered User regular
    Dang Cass, you are getting a lot better.

    AresProphetHonkoverride367
  • MazzyxMazzyx I can dig it. Registered User regular
    @Kalkino

    When people talk about the new economy it is due to a moves away from the industrial production based economies.

    In the US you hear a lot of rhetoric of training people for the jobs of tomorrow. This is because of the traditional jobs which were entrance to the middle class are disappearing and leaving skilled jobs which are requiring more specific skills (Programming, computer infrastructure work for example) and unskilled which are mostly lower paying service jobs.

    This shift already occurred in a lot of place but a lot of places try to implement policies which would help with the previous economy of mass mobilization of unskilled workers for production is kind of gone. Because of that there has to be a shift in policy and how we approach welfare and presenting ways to deal with what will probably be an increasing number of unemployed who lack the skills that are needed and that there will probably be fewer people needed to do such jobs.

    @Ronya mentioned something earlier today similar about establishing a welfare system that supports 10% or more of the working age population is important.

    And no worries on the conclusions, I wrote it like I was writing an initial thoughts for a paper. Your assumptions are as important as your conclusions.

    Also remove your @'s mate. ;)

    03x29di.png
    Kalkino
  • CindersCinders Whose sails were black when it was windy Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    i don't understand why that pic evokes hahaha or noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    i also don't believe i am familiar with the source material

    Last of Us cosplay as the main character and his adopted daughter.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Speaking of mail, you hear about Canada Post phasing out urban door to door service?

    @ronya

    no

    I am unsurprised though, I think it will probably spread. Your local depo may begin offering subscription coverage for delivery to your door, instead.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Fell asleep on my shoulder the other day.

    Horrible pain ever since.

    Damn you, age.

    Also I promised pictures:

    LFE declined to be shared on the forum. But she's totally real, guys! I promise! She just goes to another webzone!
    HDi0BVQl.png
    Also our first family Xmas Bush:
    mrUQJxLl.png

    Lh96QHG.png
    EddyCindersChanusRear Admiral ChocoAngelinaHonk
  • ChanusChanus Never Backward Always ForwardRegistered User regular
    Cinders wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    i don't understand why that pic evokes hahaha or noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    i also don't believe i am familiar with the source material

    Last of Us cosplay as the main character and his adopted daughter.

    Ah hah

    That would be why I don't get it

    Cuz I don't know no Last of Us stuffs

    D&D [chat] names list for games
    XCOM Name File with [chat] First Names - All Countries, M&F | Or Shivahn's with gendered names
    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    **PUUUUUUNCH**
    AngelHedgie
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    i thought it was less that he's a father figure to her and more that she's like 14 in the game i think and he's in his mid 30s

  • CindersCinders Whose sails were black when it was windy Registered User regular
    A nativity scene? Gasp
    Looks good and festive in your house.

  • MazzyxMazzyx I can dig it. Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So had a brainworm with my earlier comments on the changing economy and basic income so I might as well continue it with ideas that have processed more. I am @ ing a bunch of people, so if you quote please remove them. This is from some of the earlier post and the discussions about the poor and such and well like I said brainworm. Like an earworm but more theory based.

    Okay long list of @'s there. Some folks I am bugging because I like you.

    So basic assumptions with this train of though, feel free to rip them up if you want.

    1.Most post-industrial and many developing countries such as China are coming to the realization due to the movement of technology and its effects on production the mass use of unskilled labor is becoming less and less efficient and more expensive leading to a reduction the post industrial revolution standard entrance of the middle class through unskilled manufacturing work. Basically what we think of the US economy in the 1950's though this isn't 100% true.

    2. This is leaving a glut of workers young and old who displaced in these new economies not making what we would consider a basic wage especially with the rise of what we call the service based economy. This is part of the reason we are getting wage stagnation. Not all of it, that is complex but for this assumption let's just say that the current unskilled labor work is being paid less than previous routes into the middle class.

    3. This will get worse with more technology making manufacturing a more skilled semi-skilled job and there will be an increasing number of unskilled workers who will take low wage employment or unable to find employment in the marketplace. And no matter what we like to tell ourselves it isn't getting better for a lot of the college educated due to changes in the market as well.

    With this in mind and the assumption there will be more people permanently out of work or looking for work if we don't change we bring in the idea of basic income. This again also requires one other change in the US, a national healthcare system to take care of something basic income I believe does not cover adequately.

    This basic income does a few things:
    1.Increase the ability for the country to purchase which is incredibly important for consumer based economies which include the US, Canada, a lot of Western Europe, Japan and so on. And is China's goal.

    2.The income level should be enough for an individual to have food and a roof over their head providing for the basic needs.

    3.With the safety net of the guaranteed income it allows more people to remove themselves from the corporations leading a possible increase in small business and entrepreneurship.

    4.Increases the ability of single income families to function. Marriage does not remove your own personal income. It also allows for a percentage based income for the children up to the age of emancipation. This last part is important, so if a kid is emancipated at say 15 due to a harsh living environment they receive the full income. Otherwise say 18? I was thinking 21.

    5.Removes the current welfare system that is designed for an employment system that came around under the previous economic system which I think we are moving away from. Some are easy like medicade is gone thanks to national healthcare but stuff like SNAP though might also be removed or weakened as the income is suppose to provide enough that an individual should not need it to eat. Devil's in the details but overall should be less in welfare cost.

    Some issues:
    1.Inflation. I don't think this is an issue as we think of it. But I know someone will argue it.

    2.People won't work if we give them money. Not true because people want a better life and having a basic income provides a basic level of support not what I would call a high quality of life. You aren't starving, freezing or unable to provide for yourself but you also are not buying that Xbone with it.

    3.Complex cost of living map of the US. This is a detail that should be worked out for distribution and total. A median basic income in NYC would be middle class in butt fuck Mississippi.

    Conclusion(Holy shit this got long, maybe I should just change this to a bigger post as an op or something).

    At this point with the changes in the economy and how it is shifting I think we should be moving towards a more basic income style system not so much what we see as a traditional welfare system. Along with this comes the acceptance that our economy has radically changed and we cannot go back to the time where an unskilled worker will be able to move into the middle class without either help or by developing in demand skills in a economy with a shrinking demand for labor as technology and productivity of that technology alter it.

    goals #1 and #2 are problematic. it is questionable that you increase consumption at all, it is questionable that you increase domestic consumption at all, it is questionable that either is obviously desirable. #2 forgets that costs of living have intrinsic material-welfare values; places have high CoLs because they are appealing to live in.

    #1 and #3 are somewhat contradictory (national consumption and national investment need to add up...). #4 is probably in reverse - I think it would favour marriage, due to inherent stability of young male (basic) income.

    I cover Cost of Living in the problems. This is a devil in the details. In say the US that Cost of Living probably has be localized. Problem of a country where a CoL is so varied by region. This even as a brain worm is still way above policy level but I would say that just because these place are more desirable it doesn't negate the idea if you can develop a system to adjust for those difference. This was actually one of my original arguments against basic income but I think it can be overcome.

    Increase in consumption would be minimal but is something a lot of countries are trying to do right now. It is a basis of China's new reform and Abenomics. I do think one could argue by handing a bi-weekly paycheck to a person there is an increase in consumption even with basic income. I would say it is more questionable atm with economist more than say policy makers.

    Basic safety nets do allow people to take more risks. A small increase with in people taking a risk on their own do to this can be consider a net good if you view such moves as a good. There is already a move that many of these people maybe phased out anyway because of how many of the large, especially globalized companies. This could allow more folks to be productive. It is part of the idea behind things such as unemployment insurance.

    Your argument on part 4 isn't contradicting what I am saying. I am not saying it favors single people but single income households become more feasible. That means married but only one works.

    the point is that adjusting for differences at all is problematic, because it subsidises living in an expensive, desirable area for no reason. Which has a predictable impact on the area remaining expensive and desirable.

    You can argue that people take on more risks, but that straightforwardly contradicts the hypothesis that they consume more as well. Consumption and investment have to add up to the same national income less net capital movement.

    Agree re #4, I misinterpreted your original post. Yeah I can see a move toward single income families.

    I think this is why it can be so problematic instituting. This is more a detail but I figure something along this route.

    Each state receives money based on the population and the median basic income for the state. This should not full incentive living in more expensive areas due to taking the medium not the mean income for the state or say city by city. People in more expensive areas it might not cover everything but in lower income areas it would increase purchasing power. So people would be taking a higher risk if they no other income living in more expensive parts of the state. This isn't much different that today with welfare which again probably would be abolished for this system.

    The point isn't so to reduce people living in expensive areas but to take that into account when developing the system as a policy.

    03x29di.png
  • EddyEddy Gengar the Bittersweet Registered User regular
    how old is 14 really

    to conspire, however marginally, whenever possible, against power and indifference
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Speaking of mail, you hear about Canada Post phasing out urban door to door service?

    @ronya

    no

    I am unsurprised though, I think it will probably spread. Your local depo may begin offering subscription coverage for delivery to your door, instead.

    USPS is pushing community mailboxes on new subdivisions here.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • CindersCinders Whose sails were black when it was windy Registered User regular
    He's mid 40s. At least.

  • EddyEddy Gengar the Bittersweet Registered User regular
    Cinders wrote: »
    A nativity scene? Gasp
    Looks good and festive in your house.

    It's actually an atheistic commune

    they're all sharing in the most valuable of social commodities: land

    to conspire, however marginally, whenever possible, against power and indifference
    CindersAManFromEarthronyaAresProphetHonk
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Speaking of mail, you hear about Canada Post phasing out urban door to door service?

    @ronya

    no

    I am unsurprised though, I think it will probably spread. Your local depo may begin offering subscription coverage for delivery to your door, instead.

    USPS is pushing community mailboxes on new subdivisions here.

    the glorious high-labour-wage future

  • MazzyxMazzyx I can dig it. Registered User regular
    @Eddy

    I should of @ you for that giant post.

    03x29di.png
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So had a brainworm with my earlier comments on the changing economy and basic income so I might as well continue it with ideas that have processed more. I am @ ing a bunch of people, so if you quote please remove them. This is from some of the earlier post and the discussions about the poor and such and well like I said brainworm. Like an earworm but more theory based.

    Okay long list of @'s there. Some folks I am bugging because I like you.

    So basic assumptions with this train of though, feel free to rip them up if you want.

    1.Most post-industrial and many developing countries such as China are coming to the realization due to the movement of technology and its effects on production the mass use of unskilled labor is becoming less and less efficient and more expensive leading to a reduction the post industrial revolution standard entrance of the middle class through unskilled manufacturing work. Basically what we think of the US economy in the 1950's though this isn't 100% true.

    2. This is leaving a glut of workers young and old who displaced in these new economies not making what we would consider a basic wage especially with the rise of what we call the service based economy. This is part of the reason we are getting wage stagnation. Not all of it, that is complex but for this assumption let's just say that the current unskilled labor work is being paid less than previous routes into the middle class.

    3. This will get worse with more technology making manufacturing a more skilled semi-skilled job and there will be an increasing number of unskilled workers who will take low wage employment or unable to find employment in the marketplace. And no matter what we like to tell ourselves it isn't getting better for a lot of the college educated due to changes in the market as well.

    With this in mind and the assumption there will be more people permanently out of work or looking for work if we don't change we bring in the idea of basic income. This again also requires one other change in the US, a national healthcare system to take care of something basic income I believe does not cover adequately.

    This basic income does a few things:
    1.Increase the ability for the country to purchase which is incredibly important for consumer based economies which include the US, Canada, a lot of Western Europe, Japan and so on. And is China's goal.

    2.The income level should be enough for an individual to have food and a roof over their head providing for the basic needs.

    3.With the safety net of the guaranteed income it allows more people to remove themselves from the corporations leading a possible increase in small business and entrepreneurship.

    4.Increases the ability of single income families to function. Marriage does not remove your own personal income. It also allows for a percentage based income for the children up to the age of emancipation. This last part is important, so if a kid is emancipated at say 15 due to a harsh living environment they receive the full income. Otherwise say 18? I was thinking 21.

    5.Removes the current welfare system that is designed for an employment system that came around under the previous economic system which I think we are moving away from. Some are easy like medicade is gone thanks to national healthcare but stuff like SNAP though might also be removed or weakened as the income is suppose to provide enough that an individual should not need it to eat. Devil's in the details but overall should be less in welfare cost.

    Some issues:
    1.Inflation. I don't think this is an issue as we think of it. But I know someone will argue it.

    2.People won't work if we give them money. Not true because people want a better life and having a basic income provides a basic level of support not what I would call a high quality of life. You aren't starving, freezing or unable to provide for yourself but you also are not buying that Xbone with it.

    3.Complex cost of living map of the US. This is a detail that should be worked out for distribution and total. A median basic income in NYC would be middle class in butt fuck Mississippi.

    Conclusion(Holy shit this got long, maybe I should just change this to a bigger post as an op or something).

    At this point with the changes in the economy and how it is shifting I think we should be moving towards a more basic income style system not so much what we see as a traditional welfare system. Along with this comes the acceptance that our economy has radically changed and we cannot go back to the time where an unskilled worker will be able to move into the middle class without either help or by developing in demand skills in a economy with a shrinking demand for labor as technology and productivity of that technology alter it.

    goals #1 and #2 are problematic. it is questionable that you increase consumption at all, it is questionable that you increase domestic consumption at all, it is questionable that either is obviously desirable. #2 forgets that costs of living have intrinsic material-welfare values; places have high CoLs because they are appealing to live in.

    #1 and #3 are somewhat contradictory (national consumption and national investment need to add up...). #4 is probably in reverse - I think it would favour marriage, due to inherent stability of young male (basic) income.

    I cover Cost of Living in the problems. This is a devil in the details. In say the US that Cost of Living probably has be localized. Problem of a country where a CoL is so varied by region. This even as a brain worm is still way above policy level but I would say that just because these place are more desirable it doesn't negate the idea if you can develop a system to adjust for those difference. This was actually one of my original arguments against basic income but I think it can be overcome.

    Increase in consumption would be minimal but is something a lot of countries are trying to do right now. It is a basis of China's new reform and Abenomics. I do think one could argue by handing a bi-weekly paycheck to a person there is an increase in consumption even with basic income. I would say it is more questionable atm with economist more than say policy makers.

    Basic safety nets do allow people to take more risks. A small increase with in people taking a risk on their own do to this can be consider a net good if you view such moves as a good. There is already a move that many of these people maybe phased out anyway because of how many of the large, especially globalized companies. This could allow more folks to be productive. It is part of the idea behind things such as unemployment insurance.

    Your argument on part 4 isn't contradicting what I am saying. I am not saying it favors single people but single income households become more feasible. That means married but only one works.

    the point is that adjusting for differences at all is problematic, because it subsidises living in an expensive, desirable area for no reason. Which has a predictable impact on the area remaining expensive and desirable.

    You can argue that people take on more risks, but that straightforwardly contradicts the hypothesis that they consume more as well. Consumption and investment have to add up to the same national income less net capital movement.

    Agree re #4, I misinterpreted your original post. Yeah I can see a move toward single income families.

    I think this is why it can be so problematic instituting. This is more a detail but I figure something along this route.

    Each state receives money based on the population and the median basic income for the state. This should not full incentive living in more expensive areas due to taking the medium not the mean income for the state or say city by city. People in more expensive areas it might not cover everything but in lower income areas it would increase purchasing power. So people would be taking a higher risk if they no other income living in more expensive parts of the state. This isn't much different that today with welfare which again probably would be abolished for this system.

    The point isn't so to reduce people living in expensive areas but to take that into account when developing the system as a policy.

    if you're not COLAing within a state as diverse as New York or California, then I fail to see why COLAing between the states matters at all

  • TavTav Registered User regular
    I rarely drive steamboats, Dad.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Cinders wrote: »
    A nativity scene? Gasp
    Looks good and festive in your house.

    Of note, and something LFE didn't notice I had done until it was too late, is the tiny Santa hanging out with the wise men.

    Lh96QHG.png
    CindersChanus
  • EddyEddy Gengar the Bittersweet Registered User regular
    I shall read it with a scornful eye, much like a low paid teacher

    to conspire, however marginally, whenever possible, against power and indifference
  • MazzyxMazzyx I can dig it. Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So had a brainworm with my earlier comments on the changing economy and basic income so I might as well continue it with ideas that have processed more. I am @ ing a bunch of people, so if you quote please remove them. This is from some of the earlier post and the discussions about the poor and such and well like I said brainworm. Like an earworm but more theory based.

    Okay long list of @'s there. Some folks I am bugging because I like you.

    So basic assumptions with this train of though, feel free to rip them up if you want.

    1.Most post-industrial and many developing countries such as China are coming to the realization due to the movement of technology and its effects on production the mass use of unskilled labor is becoming less and less efficient and more expensive leading to a reduction the post industrial revolution standard entrance of the middle class through unskilled manufacturing work. Basically what we think of the US economy in the 1950's though this isn't 100% true.

    2. This is leaving a glut of workers young and old who displaced in these new economies not making what we would consider a basic wage especially with the rise of what we call the service based economy. This is part of the reason we are getting wage stagnation. Not all of it, that is complex but for this assumption let's just say that the current unskilled labor work is being paid less than previous routes into the middle class.

    3. This will get worse with more technology making manufacturing a more skilled semi-skilled job and there will be an increasing number of unskilled workers who will take low wage employment or unable to find employment in the marketplace. And no matter what we like to tell ourselves it isn't getting better for a lot of the college educated due to changes in the market as well.

    With this in mind and the assumption there will be more people permanently out of work or looking for work if we don't change we bring in the idea of basic income. This again also requires one other change in the US, a national healthcare system to take care of something basic income I believe does not cover adequately.

    This basic income does a few things:
    1.Increase the ability for the country to purchase which is incredibly important for consumer based economies which include the US, Canada, a lot of Western Europe, Japan and so on. And is China's goal.

    2.The income level should be enough for an individual to have food and a roof over their head providing for the basic needs.

    3.With the safety net of the guaranteed income it allows more people to remove themselves from the corporations leading a possible increase in small business and entrepreneurship.

    4.Increases the ability of single income families to function. Marriage does not remove your own personal income. It also allows for a percentage based income for the children up to the age of emancipation. This last part is important, so if a kid is emancipated at say 15 due to a harsh living environment they receive the full income. Otherwise say 18? I was thinking 21.

    5.Removes the current welfare system that is designed for an employment system that came around under the previous economic system which I think we are moving away from. Some are easy like medicade is gone thanks to national healthcare but stuff like SNAP though might also be removed or weakened as the income is suppose to provide enough that an individual should not need it to eat. Devil's in the details but overall should be less in welfare cost.

    Some issues:
    1.Inflation. I don't think this is an issue as we think of it. But I know someone will argue it.

    2.People won't work if we give them money. Not true because people want a better life and having a basic income provides a basic level of support not what I would call a high quality of life. You aren't starving, freezing or unable to provide for yourself but you also are not buying that Xbone with it.

    3.Complex cost of living map of the US. This is a detail that should be worked out for distribution and total. A median basic income in NYC would be middle class in butt fuck Mississippi.

    Conclusion(Holy shit this got long, maybe I should just change this to a bigger post as an op or something).

    At this point with the changes in the economy and how it is shifting I think we should be moving towards a more basic income style system not so much what we see as a traditional welfare system. Along with this comes the acceptance that our economy has radically changed and we cannot go back to the time where an unskilled worker will be able to move into the middle class without either help or by developing in demand skills in a economy with a shrinking demand for labor as technology and productivity of that technology alter it.

    goals #1 and #2 are problematic. it is questionable that you increase consumption at all, it is questionable that you increase domestic consumption at all, it is questionable that either is obviously desirable. #2 forgets that costs of living have intrinsic material-welfare values; places have high CoLs because they are appealing to live in.

    #1 and #3 are somewhat contradictory (national consumption and national investment need to add up...). #4 is probably in reverse - I think it would favour marriage, due to inherent stability of young male (basic) income.

    I cover Cost of Living in the problems. This is a devil in the details. In say the US that Cost of Living probably has be localized. Problem of a country where a CoL is so varied by region. This even as a brain worm is still way above policy level but I would say that just because these place are more desirable it doesn't negate the idea if you can develop a system to adjust for those difference. This was actually one of my original arguments against basic income but I think it can be overcome.

    Increase in consumption would be minimal but is something a lot of countries are trying to do right now. It is a basis of China's new reform and Abenomics. I do think one could argue by handing a bi-weekly paycheck to a person there is an increase in consumption even with basic income. I would say it is more questionable atm with economist more than say policy makers.

    Basic safety nets do allow people to take more risks. A small increase with in people taking a risk on their own do to this can be consider a net good if you view such moves as a good. There is already a move that many of these people maybe phased out anyway because of how many of the large, especially globalized companies. This could allow more folks to be productive. It is part of the idea behind things such as unemployment insurance.

    Your argument on part 4 isn't contradicting what I am saying. I am not saying it favors single people but single income households become more feasible. That means married but only one works.

    the point is that adjusting for differences at all is problematic, because it subsidises living in an expensive, desirable area for no reason. Which has a predictable impact on the area remaining expensive and desirable.

    You can argue that people take on more risks, but that straightforwardly contradicts the hypothesis that they consume more as well. Consumption and investment have to add up to the same national income less net capital movement.

    Agree re #4, I misinterpreted your original post. Yeah I can see a move toward single income families.

    I think this is why it can be so problematic instituting. This is more a detail but I figure something along this route.

    Each state receives money based on the population and the median basic income for the state. This should not full incentive living in more expensive areas due to taking the medium not the mean income for the state or say city by city. People in more expensive areas it might not cover everything but in lower income areas it would increase purchasing power. So people would be taking a higher risk if they no other income living in more expensive parts of the state. This isn't much different that today with welfare which again probably would be abolished for this system.

    The point isn't so to reduce people living in expensive areas but to take that into account when developing the system as a policy.

    if you're not COLAing within a state as diverse as New York or California, then I fail to see why COLAing between the states matters at all

    In reality I don't think in-state CoL adjustment would pass if you got this through just because of how Americans view such places. But for simplicity sake I would say state based adjustment would probably work in a general first wave sense.

    03x29di.png
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    ronya-chan i see you in the vent lobby

    why do you spurn me so

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    a while ago, someone shared tips for finding porn where the people involved seem to be enjoying it and also generally happy and pleasant

    dunno why I thought of that, but I can't remember said tips

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    I'm waiting for Dropbox to actually upload the pictures so I can post in the SS thread but god damn my Secret Santa nailed it out of the park.

    Rear Admiral Choco
  • Rear Admiral ChocoRear Admiral Choco Registered User regular
    a while ago, someone shared tips for finding porn where the people involved seem to be enjoying it and also generally happy and pleasant

    dunno why I thought of that, but I can't remember said tips

    I think there's a site called passionx for that but it's probably for pay

    2WJtdLD.png
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So had a brainworm with my earlier comments on the changing economy and basic income so I might as well continue it with ideas that have processed more. I am @ ing a bunch of people, so if you quote please remove them. This is from some of the earlier post and the discussions about the poor and such and well like I said brainworm. Like an earworm but more theory based.

    Okay long list of @'s there. Some folks I am bugging because I like you.

    So basic assumptions with this train of though, feel free to rip them up if you want.

    1.Most post-industrial and many developing countries such as China are coming to the realization due to the movement of technology and its effects on production the mass use of unskilled labor is becoming less and less efficient and more expensive leading to a reduction the post industrial revolution standard entrance of the middle class through unskilled manufacturing work. Basically what we think of the US economy in the 1950's though this isn't 100% true.

    2. This is leaving a glut of workers young and old who displaced in these new economies not making what we would consider a basic wage especially with the rise of what we call the service based economy. This is part of the reason we are getting wage stagnation. Not all of it, that is complex but for this assumption let's just say that the current unskilled labor work is being paid less than previous routes into the middle class.

    3. This will get worse with more technology making manufacturing a more skilled semi-skilled job and there will be an increasing number of unskilled workers who will take low wage employment or unable to find employment in the marketplace. And no matter what we like to tell ourselves it isn't getting better for a lot of the college educated due to changes in the market as well.

    With this in mind and the assumption there will be more people permanently out of work or looking for work if we don't change we bring in the idea of basic income. This again also requires one other change in the US, a national healthcare system to take care of something basic income I believe does not cover adequately.

    This basic income does a few things:
    1.Increase the ability for the country to purchase which is incredibly important for consumer based economies which include the US, Canada, a lot of Western Europe, Japan and so on. And is China's goal.

    2.The income level should be enough for an individual to have food and a roof over their head providing for the basic needs.

    3.With the safety net of the guaranteed income it allows more people to remove themselves from the corporations leading a possible increase in small business and entrepreneurship.

    4.Increases the ability of single income families to function. Marriage does not remove your own personal income. It also allows for a percentage based income for the children up to the age of emancipation. This last part is important, so if a kid is emancipated at say 15 due to a harsh living environment they receive the full income. Otherwise say 18? I was thinking 21.

    5.Removes the current welfare system that is designed for an employment system that came around under the previous economic system which I think we are moving away from. Some are easy like medicade is gone thanks to national healthcare but stuff like SNAP though might also be removed or weakened as the income is suppose to provide enough that an individual should not need it to eat. Devil's in the details but overall should be less in welfare cost.

    Some issues:
    1.Inflation. I don't think this is an issue as we think of it. But I know someone will argue it.

    2.People won't work if we give them money. Not true because people want a better life and having a basic income provides a basic level of support not what I would call a high quality of life. You aren't starving, freezing or unable to provide for yourself but you also are not buying that Xbone with it.

    3.Complex cost of living map of the US. This is a detail that should be worked out for distribution and total. A median basic income in NYC would be middle class in butt fuck Mississippi.

    Conclusion(Holy shit this got long, maybe I should just change this to a bigger post as an op or something).

    At this point with the changes in the economy and how it is shifting I think we should be moving towards a more basic income style system not so much what we see as a traditional welfare system. Along with this comes the acceptance that our economy has radically changed and we cannot go back to the time where an unskilled worker will be able to move into the middle class without either help or by developing in demand skills in a economy with a shrinking demand for labor as technology and productivity of that technology alter it.

    goals #1 and #2 are problematic. it is questionable that you increase consumption at all, it is questionable that you increase domestic consumption at all, it is questionable that either is obviously desirable. #2 forgets that costs of living have intrinsic material-welfare values; places have high CoLs because they are appealing to live in.

    #1 and #3 are somewhat contradictory (national consumption and national investment need to add up...). #4 is probably in reverse - I think it would favour marriage, due to inherent stability of young male (basic) income.

    I cover Cost of Living in the problems. This is a devil in the details. In say the US that Cost of Living probably has be localized. Problem of a country where a CoL is so varied by region. This even as a brain worm is still way above policy level but I would say that just because these place are more desirable it doesn't negate the idea if you can develop a system to adjust for those difference. This was actually one of my original arguments against basic income but I think it can be overcome.

    Increase in consumption would be minimal but is something a lot of countries are trying to do right now. It is a basis of China's new reform and Abenomics. I do think one could argue by handing a bi-weekly paycheck to a person there is an increase in consumption even with basic income. I would say it is more questionable atm with economist more than say policy makers.

    Basic safety nets do allow people to take more risks. A small increase with in people taking a risk on their own do to this can be consider a net good if you view such moves as a good. There is already a move that many of these people maybe phased out anyway because of how many of the large, especially globalized companies. This could allow more folks to be productive. It is part of the idea behind things such as unemployment insurance.

    Your argument on part 4 isn't contradicting what I am saying. I am not saying it favors single people but single income households become more feasible. That means married but only one works.

    the point is that adjusting for differences at all is problematic, because it subsidises living in an expensive, desirable area for no reason. Which has a predictable impact on the area remaining expensive and desirable.

    You can argue that people take on more risks, but that straightforwardly contradicts the hypothesis that they consume more as well. Consumption and investment have to add up to the same national income less net capital movement.

    Agree re #4, I misinterpreted your original post. Yeah I can see a move toward single income families.

    I think this is why it can be so problematic instituting. This is more a detail but I figure something along this route.

    Each state receives money based on the population and the median basic income for the state. This should not full incentive living in more expensive areas due to taking the medium not the mean income for the state or say city by city. People in more expensive areas it might not cover everything but in lower income areas it would increase purchasing power. So people would be taking a higher risk if they no other income living in more expensive parts of the state. This isn't much different that today with welfare which again probably would be abolished for this system.

    The point isn't so to reduce people living in expensive areas but to take that into account when developing the system as a policy.

    if you're not COLAing within a state as diverse as New York or California, then I fail to see why COLAing between the states matters at all

    In reality I don't think in-state CoL adjustment would pass if you got this through just because of how Americans view such places. But for simplicity sake I would say state based adjustment would probably work in a general first wave sense.

    it would work but I still don't get why you want to do it

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck the search for the means to put an end to things an end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    I'm waiting for Dropbox to actually upload the pictures so I can post in the SS thread but god damn my Secret Santa nailed it out of the park.

    it was me

    an impostor may claim it was them but it was definitely me

    i know because i am also jesus

    obF2Wuw.png
This discussion has been closed.