As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Pardon my French [Canadian Politics Thread]

178101213100

Posts

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    What do you mean by "...fold in a TON or possibly even every other related program"?
    EI, Welfare, Possibly even Canada Pension. There are a TON of support programs that would be made redundant if done right.

    Phyphor that's above my pay grade, but did I read that right? That is PRO UBI, right?

    Technically it's anti that specific level of UBI. It is technically possible to do but it requires punishingly high marginal rates kicking in really low and assumes no behavioural modification - no high paying jobs leave, no high paid people decide to just retire, no sole proprietors decide to corporation up, etc

    It's also not really "universal" in that you would have to claw the entire thing back from well over 60% of the country on top of the increased taxes on the majority of the country

    Ironically the problem is that there's just so much less top end income to tax. Top 0.1% is around 750k, there's only 30000 people at or above that level. The US 1% have roughly 20% of all income, in Canada it's around 10%

    ShadowBladeCanadianWolverine
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    If you did a complete redistribution of all income in the country to every person, after funding the government at current levels there's $39300 per person (16+) available, that's the limit. The closer your UBI gets to that magic number the higher the tax brackets shoot up and the lower they have to start going up

    ShadowBladeCanadianWolverine
  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-government-handpicks-new-school-curriculum-advisers-1.5684413?cmp=rss

    Hey how about an all male curriculum advisory council and let’s make sure on of them doubts residental school survivors at that. Oh yea! Mmmmm soak me in that UCP.


    Switch SW-6182-1526-0041
  • BouwsTBouwsT Wanna come to a super soft birthday party? Registered User regular
    darkmayo wrote: »
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-government-handpicks-new-school-curriculum-advisers-1.5684413?cmp=rss

    Hey how about an all male curriculum advisory council and let’s make sure on of them doubts residental school survivors at that. Oh yea! Mmmmm soak me in that UCP.


    PC's were bloated and incompetent, the UCP's are literally fucking evil. I've never even considered moving away from my home province until these clowns came to power.

    Between you and me, Peggy, I smoked this Juul and it did UNTHINKABLE things to my mind and body...
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • ShadowBladeShadowBlade Registered User regular
    edited August 2020
    Phyphor wrote: »
    If you did a complete redistribution of all income in the country to every person, after funding the government at current levels there's $39300 per person (16+) available, that's the limit. The closer your UBI gets to that magic number the higher the tax brackets shoot up and the lower they have to start going up

    So, I am about as far from an economical expert as one can get and my broader math skills are... sufficient at best, so I tend to approach this from more of a philosophical point of view. That does not mean I bend that view outside of reality. I live there too, unfortunately. So, I want to ask some more philosophically (if that is the right word here) leaning Qs so that someone can maybe explain the economics.

    Based on the math I am seeing here, philosophically we CANNOT function this way. I mean, actually that is keeping real, we literally are failing millions of people. Every time I read anything against UBI only using math, I read, mathematically, some people don't matter. I don't think that is what is being said or written here, but that is how it reads. I know, for myself, I don't think UBI is the ONLY option, but I think it is an avenue that can be explored, especially incrementally.

    I am a huge subscriber to the mindset that money is not real. I mean, it kind of literally is not. So my, and I assume many others who propose UBI as a solution are doing so to play within the game as it exists now where this easily corruptible concept that money is real or matters. Fine, we're keeping money? Ok, money for everyone. But there is a middle ground there too and steps. Pricing on everything is determined, at the end of the day, fairly arbitrarily. Supply and demand becomes moot the more supply becomes easier (we are approaching post scarcity on many things). So can we make UBI work if we declare all essentials as if they exist outside of, let's say for lack of a better word, the luxury economy. If housing, food, and all forms of medical treatment (Medicine, Dental, Optical etc.) were declared to be free of any and all economic restraints or devalued to the point that the principal was the same, how much "money" does anyone need after that? So long as there is any scarcity, an economy will be needed, but again, I cannot get past the notion that is often presented knocking UBI as if the millions without homes just don't matter.
    Again, no one is saying this here, but people who do say it use these arguments and using them ourselves, without offering real alternatives, perceptually turns any argument against UBI (minus alternative offers) into a debate of who matters.

    ShadowBlade on
    This world needs a new philosophy. No more, "Could be worse..." I say SHOULD BE BETTER!
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    If you did a complete redistribution of all income in the country to every person, after funding the government at current levels there's $39300 per person (16+) available, that's the limit. The closer your UBI gets to that magic number the higher the tax brackets shoot up and the lower they have to start going up

    So, I am about as far from an economical expert as one can get and my broader math skills are... sufficient at best, so I tend to approach this from more of a philosophical point of view. That does not mean I bend that view outside of reality. I live there too, unfortunately. So, I want to ask some more philosophically (if that is the right word here) leaning Qs so that someone can maybe explain the economics.

    Based on the math I am seeing here, philosophically we CANNOT function this way. I mean, actually that is keeping real, we literally are failing millions of people. Every time I read anything against UBI only using math, I read, mathematically, some people don't matter. I don't think that is what is being said or written here, but that is how it reads. I know, for myself, I don't think UBI is the ONLY option, but I think it is an avenue that can be explored, especially incrementally.

    I am a huge subscriber to the mindset that money is not real. I mean, it kind of literally is not. So my, and I assume many others who propose UBI as a solution are doing so to play within the game as it exists now where this easily corruptible concept that money is real or matters. Fine, we're keeping money? Ok, money for everyone. But there is a middle ground there too and steps. Pricing on everything is determined, at the end of the day, fairly arbitrarily. Supply and demand becomes moot the more supply becomes easier (we are approaching post scarcity on many things). So can we make UBI work if we declare all essentials as if they exist outside of, let's say for lack of a better word, the luxury economy. If housing, food, and all forms of medical treatment (Medicine, Dental, Optical etc.) were declared to be free of any and all economic restraints or devalued to the point that the principal was the same, how much "money" does anyone need after that? So long as there is any scarcity, an economy will be needed, but again, I cannot get past the notion that is often presented knocking UBI as if the millions without homes just don't matter.
    Again, no one is saying this here, but people who do say it use these arguments and using them ourselves, without offering real alternatives, perceptually turns any argument against UBI (minus alternative offers) into a debate of who matters.

    How do you declare housing and food free? What would that even mean?

    Food prices are vastly different. You can buy calories very, very cheaply with bulk flour, rice and veggies. Or you can buy a nice steak and get one meal for the same price. Either you have essentially a WWII ration book to let you get X points worth of food of different types, or you have money to abstract the costs of producing that food

    And housing? Who gets to live in the desirable areas? Who is paying people to build these buildings if they are free? You could do public housing and have that as an option, but that's largely equivalent to just paying a basic rent

    Money is real in the sense that basically the entire world agrees that it is real and it has been with us in one form or another for thousands of years. It's a polite fiction, but we need a way to buy widget A from another country and sell widget B to a different country and we need a way to exchange goods and services for other goods and services internally

    RichyAridholShadowBladefinnithCanadianWolverineshrykeInvectivusForarShadowhope
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited August 2020
    Phyphor wrote: »
    If you did a complete redistribution of all income in the country to every person, after funding the government at current levels there's $39300 per person (16+) available, that's the limit. The closer your UBI gets to that magic number the higher the tax brackets shoot up and the lower they have to start going up

    So, I am about as far from an economical expert as one can get and my broader math skills are... sufficient at best, so I tend to approach this from more of a philosophical point of view. That does not mean I bend that view outside of reality. I live there too, unfortunately. So, I want to ask some more philosophically (if that is the right word here) leaning Qs so that someone can maybe explain the economics.

    Based on the math I am seeing here, philosophically we CANNOT function this way. I mean, actually that is keeping real, we literally are failing millions of people. Every time I read anything against UBI only using math, I read, mathematically, some people don't matter. I don't think that is what is being said or written here, but that is how it reads. I know, for myself, I don't think UBI is the ONLY option, but I think it is an avenue that can be explored, especially incrementally.

    I am a huge subscriber to the mindset that money is not real. I mean, it kind of literally is not. So my, and I assume many others who propose UBI as a solution are doing so to play within the game as it exists now where this easily corruptible concept that money is real or matters. Fine, we're keeping money? Ok, money for everyone. But there is a middle ground there too and steps. Pricing on everything is determined, at the end of the day, fairly arbitrarily. Supply and demand becomes moot the more supply becomes easier (we are approaching post scarcity on many things). So can we make UBI work if we declare all essentials as if they exist outside of, let's say for lack of a better word, the luxury economy. If housing, food, and all forms of medical treatment (Medicine, Dental, Optical etc.) were declared to be free of any and all economic restraints or devalued to the point that the principal was the same, how much "money" does anyone need after that? So long as there is any scarcity, an economy will be needed, but again, I cannot get past the notion that is often presented knocking UBI as if the millions without homes just don't matter.
    Again, no one is saying this here, but people who do say it use these arguments and using them ourselves, without offering real alternatives, perceptually turns any argument against UBI (minus alternative offers) into a debate of who matters.

    In what sense are we "approaching post-scarcity" on anything, most importantly of all food, housing and healthcare?

    Farming still requires skilled manual, physical labour, and that shit is both scarce and expensive. Then there's processing and distribution for raw produce (not free), and transformation for other goods along with the manufacturing of packaging materials. Then the rent, electricity, and salaries for the stores you buy it from. And of course health inspection costs, unless you plan on blindly trusting producers and sellers that the food is good.

    Housing requires building housing, which is a huge investment by real estate developers to purchase land (scarce resource, especially when location matters), materials (along with shipping) (also scarce, as the surge in home renovations resulting from the covid stay-at-home orders showed), and pay highly-specialized trades professionals (scarce). Rolling in again health and safety inspection costs.

    Healthcare requires an insane investment in construction of facilities and acquisition of equipment (scarcity of space and number of patients that can be handled), as well as constant payment to replenish non-reusable equipment. Then of course there's the salaries of medical professionals of all trades (MDs, nurses, radiologists, anesthetists, etc.) and support staff (administrative, cleaning crews, etc.) (scarcity of qualified labour). And since these people aren't born knowing these trades, you have to factor in education and training costs, and life-long training and learning so they remain up-to-date and qualified.

    All these have massive amounts of costs and labour go into them. We are not post-scarcity on them. We choose to make some of it free or affordable to all, with partial universal healthcare, affordable housing, and tax-exempt food items, but that's done by passing on the cost from individuals to society, not because we figured out some endless free source of them.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
    ShadowBladeCanadianWolverineGnome-InterruptusshrykeGiantGeek2020
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited August 2020
    Money is "real" in the sense that it is a system we use to allocate resources. Allocating resources is not trivial, at all, and attempts to centrally control resources are fraught. The problem with allocating resources fairly and abolishing poverty is not simply ideological opposition. It's that effectively allocating resources is the supreme economic and political challenge even for a society operating in good faith and with good intent. People have tried just declaring things free with disastrous results.

    That said, I support exploring UBI as an effective means of redistribution. But there are major concerns! It is not a trivial policy to enact. Immediate issues that I am not qualified to address, though I'm sure they have been discussed at great length:

    - how do we stop immediate inflation?
    - how do we stop rents from spiking in response, and if we do, how do we stop housing supply from contracting immediately in response to that (as price controls always reduce supply)?
    - how does UBI interact with other programs — payroll tax, EI, health insurance, existing pension plans, CPP, etc?
    - if it replaces those programs, how do we protect it? One of the concerns is that unifying the welfare state's instruments into one also makes it more vulnerable. It's easier and simpler to cut, restrict or pervert that program when someone who opposes redistribution enters office.

    Automation is not likely to be what drives us to UBI, though, not in the way that is often assumed. Intuitively it seems like it would, but AFAIK automation doesn't tend to really reduce the number of jobs, just shift them into different sectors. But UBI would support people making the transition between sectors and learning new skills for new work.

    What drives the need for UBI is the wealth gap and the failure of redistributive systems, I think. We don't have to give everyone exactly 40k, but we could at least make sure people are housed, fed, and healthy

    Evil Multifarious on
    BrolomrondeauRichyShadowBladeCanadianWolverine
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Based on the math I am seeing here, philosophically we CANNOT function this way. I mean, actually that is keeping real, we literally are failing millions of people. Every time I read anything against UBI only using math, I read, mathematically, some people don't matter. I don't think that is what is being said or written here, but that is how it reads.

    Also, this right here is an appeal to emotion and a false dichotomy fallacy. We shouldn't care about the math of UBI because "oh won't you think of the people!", and either we support UBI or we believe people failed by the current system don't matter.

    sig.gif
    ShadowBladeAridholGnome-Interruptus
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    The one advantage of UBI re: automation, is that if automation actually reduce the need for labour, a good UBI would limit wealth concentration. Problem is that this is an "if", at least for now.

    Still, it would be a good idea to test UBI before we actually need one, because when that happens, we would need a solution ASAP, and testing carefully would not be possible.

    ShadowBladeCanadianWolverineGnome-Interruptus
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Based on the math I am seeing here, philosophically we CANNOT function this way. I mean, actually that is keeping real, we literally are failing millions of people. Every time I read anything against UBI only using math, I read, mathematically, some people don't matter. I don't think that is what is being said or written here, but that is how it reads.

    Also, this right here is an appeal to emotion and a false dichotomy fallacy. We shouldn't care about the math of UBI because "oh won't you think of the people!", and either we support UBI or we believe people failed by the current system don't matter.

    The problem here is that you're sounding like "the math of UBI" is trivial, like we just have a fixed amount of money or resources to divide amongst X number of people.

    The economics of a country are significantly more complex, and I won't pretend to be an expert, but UBI comes along with central bank policy that injects money into the economy. As far as I've seen, strident critics of this monetary policy tend to be gold-standard libertarians who think modern economics is dark sorcery, or their allies. Hyperinflation doesn't come from this kind of policy — historically it comes from foreign currency strains during war, not domestic spending.

    A nation's economy has to be thought of as non-stable credit system, with money being generated and extinguished by loans and the servicing of debt, on which consumers are chronically in debt. Proponents of UBI argue that, especially given the financialization of the economy (with profits and investments being focused on financial returns rather than invested in production) injecting money through UBI will actually help address consumer debt, meaning there's a lot of headroom for injection before it would produce inflation. So effectively, we have a lot more potential money to distribute than just the current number of dollars in the economy, and doing so would help us as people and as a country.

    For reference, e.g., https://basicincometoday.com/how-and-why-a-fed-financed-ubi-would-not-lead-to-inflation/

    and a paper it references,

    http://michael-hudson.com/2012/08/financial-predators-v-labor-industry-and-democracy/

    ArcticLancerCanadianWolverine
  • ShadowBladeShadowBlade Registered User regular
    Good replies all. This is not my area of expertise, but I have a serious horse in the game.

    The "not caring" comments are all about optics. I don't believe anyone here thinks that, but what is the alternative? If we won't explore something, how do we fix anything, economically especially now?

    For post scarcity, we produce more than we need on food every single day. We have tons of empty housing. As to what everyone eats or where they live, that is a valid concern but to continue to waste to maintain the system as is sure seems like a great waste of those resources.

    As to the numbers, why does everyone need the full $40K if we also still have jobs? What if there was a scale? What is the solution if not UBI?


    This world needs a new philosophy. No more, "Could be worse..." I say SHOULD BE BETTER!
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    I'm not so worried about general inflation, especially with a smaller UBI. Rent inflation is a potential worry though

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Good replies all. This is not my area of expertise, but I have a serious horse in the game.

    The "not caring" comments are all about optics. I don't believe anyone here thinks that, but what is the alternative? If we won't explore something, how do we fix anything, economically especially now?

    For post scarcity, we produce more than we need on food every single day. We have tons of empty housing. As to what everyone eats or where they live, that is a valid concern but to continue to waste to maintain the system as is sure seems like a great waste of those resources.

    As to the numbers, why does everyone need the full $40K if we also still have jobs? What if there was a scale? What is the solution if not UBI?


    I mean if you want to talk about optics, that post mostly just made me think you're kind of a dick and didn't move the needle on my opinion on UBI at all.

    RichyAridhol
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    darkmayo wrote: »
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-government-handpicks-new-school-curriculum-advisers-1.5684413?cmp=rss

    Hey how about an all male curriculum advisory council and let’s make sure on of them doubts residental school survivors at that. Oh yea! Mmmmm soak me in that UCP.

    If this is representative of the council members' communications skills Alberta's toast.

    CanadianWolverine
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    We certainly do grow more food than we need. But why would the farmers continue growing so much food? And if they do why wouldn't they send it overseas if we won't pay a reasonable market rate? Exports are good for the country after all

    ShadowBladeGnome-Interruptus
  • ShadowBladeShadowBlade Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Good replies all. This is not my area of expertise, but I have a serious horse in the game.

    The "not caring" comments are all about optics. I don't believe anyone here thinks that, but what is the alternative? If we won't explore something, how do we fix anything, economically especially now?

    For post scarcity, we produce more than we need on food every single day. We have tons of empty housing. As to what everyone eats or where they live, that is a valid concern but to continue to waste to maintain the system as is sure seems like a great waste of those resources.

    As to the numbers, why does everyone need the full $40K if we also still have jobs? What if there was a scale? What is the solution if not UBI?


    I mean if you want to talk about optics, that post mostly just made me think you're kind of a dick and didn't move the needle on my opinion on UBI at all.

    I assure you it was not my intention to come across that way and I apologize if I offended anyone.

    This world needs a new philosophy. No more, "Could be worse..." I say SHOULD BE BETTER!
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Good replies all. This is not my area of expertise, but I have a serious horse in the game.

    The "not caring" comments are all about optics. I don't believe anyone here thinks that, but what is the alternative? If we won't explore something, how do we fix anything, economically especially now?

    For post scarcity, we produce more than we need on food every single day. We have tons of empty housing. As to what everyone eats or where they live, that is a valid concern but to continue to waste to maintain the system as is sure seems like a great waste of those resources.

    As to the numbers, why does everyone need the full $40K if we also still have jobs? What if there was a scale? What is the solution if not UBI?


    I mean if you want to talk about optics, that post mostly just made me think you're kind of a dick and didn't move the needle on my opinion on UBI at all.

    I assure you it was not my intention to come across that way and I apologize if I offended anyone.
    I think anyone giving you flak for this comes off as a much bigger dick than you did, but I could be biased.

    ShadowBladeOmnomnomPancakeAnalogWarlord
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Good replies all. This is not my area of expertise, but I have a serious horse in the game.

    The "not caring" comments are all about optics. I don't believe anyone here thinks that, but what is the alternative? If we won't explore something, how do we fix anything, economically especially now?

    For post scarcity, we produce more than we need on food every single day. We have tons of empty housing. As to what everyone eats or where they live, that is a valid concern but to continue to waste to maintain the system as is sure seems like a great waste of those resources.

    As to the numbers, why does everyone need the full $40K if we also still have jobs? What if there was a scale? What is the solution if not UBI?


    I mean if you want to talk about optics, that post mostly just made me think you're kind of a dick and didn't move the needle on my opinion on UBI at all.

    That's not a fair read at all.

    They are clearly battling with conservative media narratives of austerity and cuts to social programs here, not specifically trying to be a dick to anyone. It shouldn't come as that big of a surprise to us that those of us who comment here are often not professional writers on politics and its something we need to practice, so we stumble with how to discuss in good faith when mimicking what has been learned in other media spheres, we only end up not being as bad as other commenting sections about Canadian politics by careful, diligent moderation and taking the opportunity to use these moments by cutting each other a bit of slack as learning moments rather than as opportunities to cut each other down for stepping out of line.

    Its not like they were trying to defend a Nazi War Monument or something, they were haphazardly, emotionally wondering if UBI could work when they are wondering how they could get financial help for their family, a little bit of chill with the obvious new guy might not go amiss.

    steam_sig.png
    ApogeeShadowBladeAnalogWarlordBouwsT
  • ShadowBladeShadowBlade Registered User regular
    UBI could work when they are wondering how they could get financial help for their family, a little bit of chill with the obvious new guy might not go amiss.

    Appreciate that. Far from new, just a long time lurker who pops in every now and then cause I like the discussions in here. I prefer to read as opposed to write when it comes to opinions in a space like this. If, as per this topic, I feel strongly enough, I do like to toss my 0.02 in.

    In the spirit of further discussion, I am genuinely asking what is the alternative to UBI? The system as it stands now was already literally fatally terrible. Considering what the pandemic has worsened, how do we find a way to take care of everyone? The passion and misreading is likely coming from the fact that I do not believe it is even remotely impossible. Insanely difficult, sure, but most of the best things we have ever done were. So, many of y'all don't "believe" in UBI. Fine, what do you have as an alternative? Pie in the sky. Let's discuss.

    This world needs a new philosophy. No more, "Could be worse..." I say SHOULD BE BETTER!
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    We certainly do grow more food than we need. But why would the farmers continue growing so much food? And if they do why wouldn't they send it overseas if we won't pay a reasonable market rate? Exports are good for the country after all

    A lot of that food is also not necessarily for human consumption either.

    InvectivusFencingsaxGnome-InterruptusGiantGeek2020
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    The alternative to UBI is the kind of redistributive measures and labour right laws we already have.
    Yes, we need to improve them, but, unlike UBI, this is not untested, and it is easier to get pass the voters.

    Like, even if we seize the means of production and establish a nicely democratic dictatorship of the Proletariat, we would still have to deal with people who are not working, or cannot work, or have a really bad worker council, etc.
    Inequalities are only part of the problem, especially in Canada. We are not the USA, our curve is not as insane as theirs.

    I’m actually in favour of UBI, but I can see quite a few failure modes, and, like everything, it’s a tool, not a goal.
    It should be tested, then implemented gradually because it would be a major change to our society, and we should make sure it actually does what it’s supposed to do (preliminary tests say “yes”), and that it does not have unfortunate side effects (unknown without larger tests.) For example, someone need to collect garbage or we all die. We need to make sure it still get done without creating an underclass.
    It would be kinda pointless to setup a new system intended to address the existence of informal (economic) underclasses, and then end up, at best, only renaming things.

    ShadowBladeRichyGnome-InterruptusshrykeCanadianWolverineGiantGeek2020
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    The alternative to UBI is the kind of redistributive measures and labour right laws we already have.
    Yes, we need to improve them, but, unlike UBI, this is not untested, and it is easier to get pass the voters.

    Like, even if we seize the means of production and establish a nicely democratic dictatorship of the Proletariat, we would still have to deal with people who are not working, or cannot work, or have a really bad worker council, etc.
    Inequalities are only part of the problem, especially in Canada. We are not the USA, our curve is not as insane as theirs.

    I’m actually in favour of UBI, but I can see quite a few failure modes, and, like everything, it’s a tool, not a goal.
    It should be tested, then implemented gradually because it would be a major change to our society, and we should make sure it actually does what it’s supposed to do (preliminary tests say “yes”), and that it does not have unfortunate side effects (unknown without larger tests.) For example, someone need to collect garbage or we all die. We need to make sure it still get done without creating an underclass.
    It would be kinda pointless to setup a new system intended to address the existence of informal (economic) underclasses, and then end up, at best, only renaming things.

    Creating an underclass?

    What do you think is happening right now?

    Example: Here in AB we can either send our kids to school to possibly die or learn from home. If you have a white-collar job that also lets you WFH you have a choice.... If you work at Walmart your choices are either lose your job or risk your kid. How is that not baked in inequality?

    All these"essential workers" are essential until you have to actually compensate them or god forbid treat them like valued resources.

    Late-stage capitalism is a trap and they have us all fighting for crumbs while the 1% live like old school god-kings.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    ShadowBladeThe Cow KingShadowhopeAnalogWarlordZibblsnrtShadowenEl Mucho
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    The alternative to UBI is the kind of redistributive measures and labour right laws we already have.
    Yes, we need to improve them, but, unlike UBI, this is not untested, and it is easier to get pass the voters.

    Like, even if we seize the means of production and establish a nicely democratic dictatorship of the Proletariat, we would still have to deal with people who are not working, or cannot work, or have a really bad worker council, etc.
    Inequalities are only part of the problem, especially in Canada. We are not the USA, our curve is not as insane as theirs.

    I’m actually in favour of UBI, but I can see quite a few failure modes, and, like everything, it’s a tool, not a goal.
    It should be tested, then implemented gradually because it would be a major change to our society, and we should make sure it actually does what it’s supposed to do (preliminary tests say “yes”), and that it does not have unfortunate side effects (unknown without larger tests.) For example, someone need to collect garbage or we all die. We need to make sure it still get done without creating an underclass.
    It would be kinda pointless to setup a new system intended to address the existence of informal (economic) underclasses, and then end up, at best, only renaming things.

    Creating an underclass?

    What do you think is happening right now?

    Example: Here in AB we can either send our kids to school to possibly die or learn from home. If you have a white-collar job that also lets you WFH you have a choice.... If you work at Walmart your choices are either lose your job or risk your kid. How is that not baked in inequality?

    All these"essential workers" are essential until you have to actually compensate them or god forbid treat them like valued resources.

    Late-stage capitalism is a trap and they have us all fighting for crumbs while the 1% live like old school god-kings.

    Sorry, a was struggling a bit with the wording. There’s, indeed, already an underclass.
    That’s kinda the point of having an UBI. “Replacing” would kinda work, but I was thinking more “welp, garbage is not being collected, let’s conscript people. No need to pay them, they have an UBI.”

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    The alternative to UBI is the kind of redistributive measures and labour right laws we already have.
    Yes, we need to improve them, but, unlike UBI, this is not untested, and it is easier to get pass the voters.

    Like, even if we seize the means of production and establish a nicely democratic dictatorship of the Proletariat, we would still have to deal with people who are not working, or cannot work, or have a really bad worker council, etc.
    Inequalities are only part of the problem, especially in Canada. We are not the USA, our curve is not as insane as theirs.

    I’m actually in favour of UBI, but I can see quite a few failure modes, and, like everything, it’s a tool, not a goal.
    It should be tested, then implemented gradually because it would be a major change to our society, and we should make sure it actually does what it’s supposed to do (preliminary tests say “yes”), and that it does not have unfortunate side effects (unknown without larger tests.) For example, someone need to collect garbage or we all die. We need to make sure it still get done without creating an underclass.
    It would be kinda pointless to setup a new system intended to address the existence of informal (economic) underclasses, and then end up, at best, only renaming things.

    Creating an underclass?

    What do you think is happening right now?

    Example: Here in AB we can either send our kids to school to possibly die or learn from home. If you have a white-collar job that also lets you WFH you have a choice.... If you work at Walmart your choices are either lose your job or risk your kid. How is that not baked in inequality?

    All these"essential workers" are essential until you have to actually compensate them or god forbid treat them like valued resources.

    Late-stage capitalism is a trap and they have us all fighting for crumbs while the 1% live like old school god-kings.

    Sorry, a was struggling a bit with the wording. There’s, indeed, already an underclass.
    That’s kinda the point of having an UBI. “Replacing” would kinda work, but I was thinking more “welp, garbage is not being collected, let’s conscript people. No need to pay them, they have an UBI.”

    Yeah... That's called communism.

    And in a land of equals, there are always some more equal than others

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    The alternative to UBI is the kind of redistributive measures and labour right laws we already have.
    Yes, we need to improve them, but, unlike UBI, this is not untested, and it is easier to get pass the voters.

    Like, even if we seize the means of production and establish a nicely democratic dictatorship of the Proletariat, we would still have to deal with people who are not working, or cannot work, or have a really bad worker council, etc.
    Inequalities are only part of the problem, especially in Canada. We are not the USA, our curve is not as insane as theirs.

    I’m actually in favour of UBI, but I can see quite a few failure modes, and, like everything, it’s a tool, not a goal.
    It should be tested, then implemented gradually because it would be a major change to our society, and we should make sure it actually does what it’s supposed to do (preliminary tests say “yes”), and that it does not have unfortunate side effects (unknown without larger tests.) For example, someone need to collect garbage or we all die. We need to make sure it still get done without creating an underclass.
    It would be kinda pointless to setup a new system intended to address the existence of informal (economic) underclasses, and then end up, at best, only renaming things.

    Creating an underclass?

    What do you think is happening right now?

    Example: Here in AB we can either send our kids to school to possibly die or learn from home. If you have a white-collar job that also lets you WFH you have a choice.... If you work at Walmart your choices are either lose your job or risk your kid. How is that not baked in inequality?

    All these"essential workers" are essential until you have to actually compensate them or god forbid treat them like valued resources.

    Late-stage capitalism is a trap and they have us all fighting for crumbs while the 1% live like old school god-kings.

    Sorry, a was struggling a bit with the wording. There’s, indeed, already an underclass.
    That’s kinda the point of having an UBI. “Replacing” would kinda work, but I was thinking more “welp, garbage is not being collected, let’s conscript people. No need to pay them, they have an UBI.”

    Yeah... That's called communism.

    And in a land of equals, there are always some more equal than others
    Almost as if “ownership” was less the problem than “control”, and the vanguard party tend to be very much in control. For the good of the proletariat, of course; the dachas are purely for work purpose.

    Disco11shrykeGiantGeek2020
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    In other news, Manitoba Covid cases are spiking again, with over 200 active cases currently.

    It really breaks my heart because we were down to just 4 cases a month or 2 ago.

    Almost all the contact tracing for the Capitol region points to international travel being the source, but in the outlying rural regions, they are having major problems with community transmission due to not taking the issue seriously and local controls not locking things down again.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    CanadianWolverineInfidelShadowenEl Mucho
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    In other news, Manitoba Covid cases are spiking again, with over 200 active cases currently.

    It really breaks my heart because we were down to just 4 cases a month or 2 ago.

    Almost all the contact tracing for the Capitol region points to international travel being the source, but in the outlying rural regions, they are having major problems with community transmission due to not taking the issue seriously and local controls not locking things down again.

    Staying away from Brandon. :lol:

    OrokosPA.png
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    The CRA is reporting that 5000ish accounts have been compromised by credential stuffing and used to fraudulently apply for CERB etc. Probably worth changing passwords if you're hooked up with a CRA account.
    Notably, it sounds like this also affects GCKey, which many people (myself included!) use to access other government services, like, say, immigration and citizenship applications. So if you don't have a CRA account but you do have a GCKey account, I'd suggest checking that one too.

    (cc @Shivahn who was the only other person I could think of off the top of my head that might be affected by the GCKey thing)

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited August 2020
    Ahhh shit, thank you. I'll check it out, I obviously did use that for the immigration applications.

    e: it's a "credential stuffing" attack, apparently, so I think we're good. Use password managers, everyone!

    Shivahn on
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Ahhh shit, thank you. I'll check it out, I obviously did use that for the immigration applications.

    e: it's a "credential stuffing" attack, apparently, so I think we're good. Use password managers, everyone!

    Yeah, that’s what I used it for, too! If you’re using a password manager and generating unique passwords, you’re probably fine (and if you’re not, definitely don’t tell the internet). But it’s still worth checking, just to be safe.

    GCKey people: On sign in, it will tell you when your last sign in was. As long as that’s correct, go about your business with a light heart.

    Ferrous
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited August 2020
    Just as a follow up to the above, it looks like the GCKey attack, at least, was more serious - or at least more pervasive - than first thought. The CRA has shut down its online portal, which means you won't be able to access any of their services, including applying for CERB, via the portal until it's back up, probably Wednesday.

    CroakerBC on
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    Just as a follow up to the above, it looks like the GCKey attack, at least, was more serious - or at least more pervasive - than first thought. The CRA has shut down its online portal, which means you won't be able to access any of their services, including applying for CERB, via the portal until it's back up, probably Wednesday.

    How so? Didn't get to check out the government update on it but this is still the impact as reported, no?

    They just are now shutting it off because the risk to individuals is pretty big.

    OrokosPA.png
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited August 2020
    Infidel wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    Just as a follow up to the above, it looks like the GCKey attack, at least, was more serious - or at least more pervasive - than first thought. The CRA has shut down its online portal, which means you won't be able to access any of their services, including applying for CERB, via the portal until it's back up, probably Wednesday.

    How so? Didn't get to check out the government update on it but this is still the impact as reported, no?

    They just are now shutting it off because the risk to individuals is pretty big.

    It looks like it was a credential stuffing issue (hurrah! Kinda!), so low risk, but the number of impacted accounts was higher than initially reported. Initially it was 5000 total accounts, now it's 9000 GCKey accounts.

    The other impact, for everyone not directly impacted, is not being able to use the online portal for services for a couple of days.

    CroakerBC on
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    Forgive the dumb question, but if I've never had a GCKey account before... this is not something I need to be looking into, is it?

  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Forgive the dumb question, but if I've never had a GCKey account before... this is not something I need to be looking into, is it?

    I have personally found it helpful over the years.

    steam_sig.png
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    I use their partner thing to sign in through my bank, works well enough

    ArcticLancerAegisBouwsTImperfectInfidel
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    Andrew Scheer's greatest achievements list is up on the Beaverton; it's exactly what you think it is.

    RichyGnome-Interruptus
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    Andrew Scheer's greatest achievements list is up on the Beaverton; it's exactly what you think it is.

    I thought the list was unfair. Scheer has lots of accomplishments:
    • Implementing an original and ingenious plan to save money on private school tuition costs.
    • Drinking the most glasses of milk on the campaign trail of any party leader in Canadian history.
    • Reminding Canadians everywhere that the fight for abortion rights and women rights in Canada is far, far from over.
    • Defeating Maxime Bernier twice.
    And most importantly:
    • Protecting Canadians from the horrors of an Andrew Scheer government.

    sig.gif
    shrykemrondeauArcticLancerApogeeGnome-InterruptusAegisfinnithCanadianWolverineShadowenBionicPenguinFencingsaxGiantGeek2020
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
This discussion has been closed.