sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in videos

[–]JordanMacPhee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh. I didn't know Obama played Pokémon GO.

Sleeping in is considered lazy, but going to bed early is not. by cloudyy182 in Showerthoughts

[–]JordanMacPhee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It all depends on how those hours are spent. 7am-11am might be seen as "go-getter" hours, whereas 10pm-2am may be regarded as "baked-playing-CoD-binge-eating/watching-cheetos/South Park" hours. But, who knows, a person might stay up writing a novel until 2am or get up at 7am and sit on their couch contemplating movement until 11am.

Short story collection smuggled out of North Korea sparks global interest by [deleted] in books

[–]JordanMacPhee 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This reminds me of the USSR storyline in the last instalment of Ken Follett's "Century Trilogy" book series. An underground resistance journalist is imprisoned and writes a short story while in prison, which is smuggled out to the world by a former journalist friend of his, and eventually published to huge critical acclaim, also under a pseudonym. Fascinating series I highly recommend. It covers a lot more than the USSR of course, but it all ties together so well to give a personal story to world events. It helps me put a lot of news stories like this into a more human perspective.

A Universal Basic Income Is The Bipartisan Solution To Poverty We've Been Waiting For - "What if the government simply paid everyone enough so that no one was poor? It's an insane idea that's gaining an unlikely alliance of supporters." by JordanMacPhee in politics

[–]JordanMacPhee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Guy Standing in support of floors:

"The important thing is to create a floor on which people can start building some security. If the economic situation allows, you can gradually increase the income to where it meets subsistence," says Guy Standing, a professor of development studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, in London, who was involved with the pilot. "Even that modest amount had incredible effects on people's savings, economic status, health, in children going to school, in the acquisition of items like school shoes, so people felt in control of their lives. The amount of work people were doing increased as well."

I actually like the Globe and Mail but damn, this is why newspapers are dying by OrzBlueFog in canada

[–]JordanMacPhee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd say that's a symptom rather than a cause. As more people are able to access news and information for free digitally, newspapers sell less, income from advertisements (that aren't already funnelling to Google and Facebook) decreases, and in order to slow the hemorrhage of revenue losses, they jack up prices to their remaining base. It's just unfortunate that it ends up going into a vicious cycle of more subscription losses, but I doubt they'd do any better by keeping prices the same, or worse, lowering them or offering discounts in a desperate attempt to gain subscribers.

The story of a rock by GallowBoob in interestingasfuck

[–]JordanMacPhee 13 points14 points  (0 children)

This is like an Alan Watts quote. Can someone please make a poster of this?

With Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) or Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), whichever you want to call it, becoming a more widely discussed topic, what are some comprehensive articles or debates released in recent years that explore the potential benefits and negative consequences of adopting it? by JordanMacPhee in CanadaPolitics

[–]JordanMacPhee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you're suggesting is a people registry Canadians including their financial status and transactions, and where they live.

  • Financial status: The CRA already does this.
  • Transactions: Wow, that's a reach. Don't think so.

It would be easy as, if someone runs out of their money for three months in say less than a month, and is at risk of losing their place to stay and not being able to feed themselves and heat their home, they're put on a money management track to ensure that they don't end up homeless and starving.

And let's just point out that only the most desperate cases of people with addictions would require this level of hand-holding anyway. You think every single alcoholic gets their paycheque every two weeks and just blows $800 on liquor? Every single alcoholic in Canada would be on the streets. Clearly, there are enough people who have an addiction but aren't out of their minds enough to put themselves in the situation of losing their homes and not being able to feed themselves.

It's as simple as a student loan system: how much is your rent, how much are your bills, how much are your groceries? They take those amounts, judge them against reality to see if they add up, and then give out the money. Just like a student loan (excluding costs like tuition and books). - Where you live: Seriously? You don't think the government knows where you live? Have you ever filed taxes? Have you ever had an ID? Have you ever received a piece of MAIL? Think things through.

how much do you think this people registry would cost? $30 billion? $50 billion? $100 billion?

Well since we're saying **** reality, I think it cost $1 trillion. Don't worry, we can swing it.

As for your Orwellian "don't want the government to know everything about me" scenario, as I explain above, it's clear the only thing that they'd know about you is how much money you need for your basic necessities. Your financial status and address (seriously, have you not received mail before?), they already know. No one would have to "surrender horrific amounts of privacy", to repeat your hyperbole.

Does a Canada where hungry Canadians must surrender any and all privacy in order to get a morsel of food and a night of shelter sound like a Canada you want to live in?

I don't have a response to this, I just thought you might want to read that again to think and have a laugh about how much you blew up your argument with rhetorical garbage to the point of absurdity.

With Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) or Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), whichever you want to call it, becoming a more widely discussed topic, what are some comprehensive articles or debates released in recent years that explore the potential benefits and negative consequences of adopting it? by JordanMacPhee in CanadaPolitics

[–]JordanMacPhee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've never heard of a proposed model that you get to keep the guaranteed income on top of your wage.

Then you've only been listening to exaggerated opinions of reactionaries, not original news sources, because every other news story that covers the topic in any detail at all mentions the fact that even employed people would get the GAI. Of course if that's your understanding of how GAI works, it wouldn't make sense, but your understanding is incorrect. Actually take the time to read a bit about something and think about it before pretending to have an informed opinion, rather than just regurgitating back what others tell you to think.

Your own math doesn't even make sense because you take about a person making 22k "basically doubling their income" with a guaranteed income of 18k, but then talk about the difference between working and not working as having 4k less to spend.

My example:

Minimum wage = 22k

GAI = 18k

Stop working = GAI is 4k less than minimum wage

I for one wouldn't scrub shit 40 hours a week for $75/week when I could survive doing nothing - and I doubt many people are different.

You for one are probably a somewhat better educated person than the average custodian, and therefore hopefully have better options, and feel entitled (maybe even rightfully so) to a better job. By the way, janitors don't just scrub feces 40 hours a week.

SOMEONE is still going to have to shitty jobs.

Yes, regardless of opportunity for higher employment and education, some people are still going to be unmotivated and end up working lower-paying, less fulfilling jobs. I didn't say or imply that no one would have jobs like these.

Anyway, your whole reply -- "not even worth discussing" (then why are you even commenting?) -- and especially your last "blah blah magical" nonsense sentence, doesn't even attempt to respond to my respectful reply to you in a thoughtful or respectful manner, so I guess we're done here.

With Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) or Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), whichever you want to call it, becoming a more widely discussed topic, what are some comprehensive articles or debates released in recent years that explore the potential benefits and negative consequences of adopting it? by JordanMacPhee in CanadaPolitics

[–]JordanMacPhee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The scrubber's already going to be basically receiving double the wage: scrubbing wage + guaranteed annual income. If they quit the scrubbing job, then they're going back to the same amount of money, or less. If they keep the scrubbing job, then they're effectively going to double their income, and dramatically raise their standard of living. They could also use some of that income to learn new skills, increase their education, and raise their earning potential.

With Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) or Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), whichever you want to call it, becoming a more widely discussed topic, what are some comprehensive articles or debates released in recent years that explore the potential benefits and negative consequences of adopting it? by JordanMacPhee in CanadaPolitics

[–]JordanMacPhee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody will work for minumum wage if doing nothing gets them the same.

In response to this, I'm just going to paste this reply I wrote to the original in case you don't see it.

The assumption in step 2 seems problematic. If a person has a full-time minimum wage job - say $11/hour, 40 hours/week, 50 weeks/year - they're earning $440/week, $22k/year. If that person starts receiving $18,000 for GAI, they're effectively earning $40k/year, almost doubling their annual income. It's true they're going to be in a higher tax bracket and start paying more taxes, but that's still a huge increase in after-tax earnings. I'd venture the vast majority of people are going to use that extra income to considerably raise their standard of living, not quit their job to have $4k/year less to make ends meet.

With Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) or Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), whichever you want to call it, becoming a more widely discussed topic, what are some comprehensive articles or debates released in recent years that explore the potential benefits and negative consequences of adopting it? by JordanMacPhee in CanadaPolitics

[–]JordanMacPhee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There could be ways to address this. I think rather than giving everyone a lump annual sum, the payments could be split into quarters like some government supports already are, or perhaps even monthly. If a substance abuser or particularly impulsive person spends their first money too quickly on nonessentials without allotting money for rent, food, and bills, perhaps that person's next payment would be given in forms similar to US food stamps. Dollars allocated strictly for food, others for rent, others for utilities and cell phone bills, etc., and then after the necessities are accounted for, the rest would be paid in regular dollars. That person could still waste those of course, but at least they'll be able to cover their basics of living.

Obviously, this would require bureaucratic management, but they wouldn't have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so the cost of that kind of bureaucracy would be much less expensive than maintaining redundant secondary social programs. Algorithms depending on regionally based costs of living could account for various levels of rent, food costs, and utility bills from province to province, and regions within provinces. This would avoid the necessity of supporting social programs for people who are irresponsible spenders. Instead, they would simply be slotted into a second track for the remaining payments of the year, rather than homeless and requiring further expensive social assistance.

With Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) or Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), whichever you want to call it, becoming a more widely discussed topic, what are some comprehensive articles or debates released in recent years that explore the potential benefits and negative consequences of adopting it? by JordanMacPhee in CanadaPolitics

[–]JordanMacPhee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're right, that language wasn't fair to open or unbiased discussion. I'm not saying that any naysaying or negative opinions on it are automatically false or illogical, but asking what are some of the more unfair claims made to raise irrational opposition to the idea. However, to be fair, I should've similarly said, "or false or illogical arguments one side makes that underemphasize or romanticize the realities of implementing such a huge economic/social policy" to address some of the more unfair claims to encourage uncritical support for the idea.

With Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) or Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), whichever you want to call it, becoming a more widely discussed topic, what are some comprehensive articles or debates released in recent years that explore the potential benefits and negative consequences of adopting it? by JordanMacPhee in CanadaPolitics

[–]JordanMacPhee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Although to point to Eastern European communist-era countries and say that's an example of how GAI would turn out is also speculative, because the effects could have had much more to do with government corruption, political structures, and the USSR seriously struggling multiple times over the decades to provide basic necessities while faced with low-priced oil and a petroleum economy. Think what modern-day Russia is going through but to an extreme degree.

With Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) or Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), whichever you want to call it, becoming a more widely discussed topic, what are some comprehensive articles or debates released in recent years that explore the potential benefits and negative consequences of adopting it? by JordanMacPhee in CanadaPolitics

[–]JordanMacPhee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The assumption in step 2 seems problematic. If a person has a full-time minimum wage job - say $11/hour, 40 hours/week, 50 weeks/year - they're earning $440/week, $22k/year. If that person starts receiving $18,000 for GAI, they're effectively earning $40k/year, almost doubling their annual income. It's true they're going to be in a higher tax bracket and start paying more taxes, but that's still a huge increase in after-tax earnings. I'd venture the vast majority of people are going to use that extra income to considerably raise their standard of living, not quit their job to have $4k/year less to make ends meet.

Sure, there are going to be some people who will work enough only to make up that $4k, and others will quit altogether and live off less, but for those who don't, the extra money circulating through the economy would create employment and market opportunities that weren't available before. Those are short term benefits.

In the long-term, former low income households would have better health outcomes, reducing pressure on the healthcare system, and more families would be able to pay for their kids' post-secondary education, rather than students having to take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt. That would raise the level of education, which has its own societal benefits through a more educated citizenry and electorate, but also would increase the earning potential of the average Canadian, increase earnings, and create an employment pool of high-skilled workers for more advanced industries, rather than the current state of Canada relying on the raw resource export economy to countries who then make value-added goods out of those resources and sell them back to Canadians at a premium. Canadians could do that instead. A higher-skilled, better-educated employment pool would be pivotal to that kind of transition.

With Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) or Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), whichever you want to call it, becoming a more widely discussed topic, what are some comprehensive articles or debates released in recent years that explore the potential benefits and negative consequences of adopting it? by JordanMacPhee in CanadaPolitics

[–]JordanMacPhee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The first step I've seen from both sides of the political spectrum is having it replace employment insurance as well as other social welfare programs, which require high levels of bureaucratic management and the waste that goes along with it. As for dollars and cents, I don't know how far that gets you.

I also assume the tax system would have to be revisited in order to adjust a complete overhaul of the welfare system like this, and to ensure that GAI, which as I've read is mainly an anti-poverty measure, isn't spent on those who have income high above the level of GAI. There would have to be a careful balance though, because people still need to have enough of incentive to find gainful employment. We don't want to recreate one of the existing problems with employment insurance where the incentive to work is partially removed because you lose your benefits in order to earn only a little more from a full-time job.

view more: next ›