this is great

[scottw]

universal income....in a commencement speech

what will they think of next???


Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called on the need to consider universal basic income for Americans during his Harvard Commencement Speech.

Zuckerberg's comments reflect those of other Silicon Valley bigwigs, including Sam Altman, the president of venture capital firm Y Combinator.

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."

[Slipknot]

sorry to burst your bubble Mark, we are people not robots, this is America. Don't let these power hungry control freaks change our society to fit them. FU, make your choices, work hard and get paid for it. You have to earn it, and when you are done earning it, if you make a choice to share your good fortune with others who are less fortunate and in need of assistance, then fine. What is wrong with how it has been?

Don't fall asleep America

[scottw]

thinks about the possibilities though!!!


millions of Americans being paid by the government to sit around and think about "stuff"....if one or two come up with an idea ...it's a BIG win...and like... totally worth the "investment"

this must be very appealing to a kid graduating with 100k+ in student loan debt and a psychology degree

[wdmso]

He is a Billionaire Sounds like a page from the Trump Campaign Spew BS to those who you want to support you (now with FB and maybe later)

universal income has as much chance as coal and manufacturing jobs coming back and cheaper better health care

A populist message for separate demographic

[scottw]

I don't know...sure sounds like a solid foundation for another democrat voter registration drive

[Got Stripers]

All that would promote is lazy unproductive fat couch potatoes.

[Slipknot]

Who brought race into this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Who brought race into this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just identifying the current crop of couch Potatoes

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Welfare Demographics

The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.

• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%

Curious - who did you order sort?

A-B:

• Asian – 2.4%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• White – 38.8%

Numeric:

• Black – 39.8%
• White – 38.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• Asian – 2.4%

What other sorts can we use?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Curious - who did you order sort?

A-B:

• Asian – 2.4%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• White – 38.8%

Numeric:

• Black – 39.8%
• White – 38.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• Asian – 2.4%

What other sorts can we use?

Sort this how ever you what .. facts are the facts . And people will always be on wellfare regardless of race and there will never be universal income

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Sort this how ever you what .. facts are the facts . And people will always be on wellfare regardless of race and there will never be universal income

Universal income exists for the wealthy. It's called dividends. 6% dividend returns on a million dollars invested will pay out 60 grand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Curious - who did you order sort?


What other sorts can we use?

We can sort based on the % of each ethnicity on welfare, relative to each race's makeup of the general population. He won't like that sort one bit.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We can sort based on the % of each ethnicity on welfare, relative to each race's makeup of the general population. He won't like that sort one bit.

Yes we can
and by %0f population Black 1,448,636 on welfare and white would be % 7,519,079

feel better..

[Nebe]

But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes. Pay no attention to the corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth who pays people to tell the middle class/blue color crowd that the real threats to their life style are beneath them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes. Pay no attention to the corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth who pays people to tell the middle class/blue color crowd that the real threats to their life style are beneath them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes"

Who is saying that, exactly? MSNBC likes to claim that the GOP is saying that, but who in the GOP is actually saying that? We think bad public policy is harming the country, not minorities.

Sorry to interrupt a good liberal rant.

Nebe, a sincere question...if the GOP dislikes blacks and the poor, why do we tend to support school choice? Why do we give similar (slightly more actually, but that's besides the point) to charity than liberals?

[Raven]

running for president 2020

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes. Pay no attention to the corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth who pays people to tell the middle class/blue color crowd that the real threats to their life style are beneath them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What you say is interesting. But I wonder how you arrived at your picture of how it is.

As far as the GOP goes, I don't get from what it says that it is the "poor, illegal aliens, Muslims, and blacks" who are responsible for "this country going down the tubes." I hear arguments from the GOP, with which I agree, that the replacement of our Constitutionally limited government by a so-called "Progressive" system of government is the cause. I hear arguments from Trumpists that stupid politicians who promote stupid policies (especially economic and foreign policies) are the cause. And I hear the perpetual argument from establishment Republicans that the Democrat Party is the cause.

I do hear the same arguments from the Democrat party, but applied in reverse to the Republican party. As well, I hear from the Democrat Party, especially Bernie types, that the Republicans blame the "poor, illegal aliens, Muslims, and blacks" for being responsible for the country's downslide. Perhaps, it's from that and from Progressive media (like Salon, etc.) that you get your perspective?

"[T]he corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth" have been hanging around in this country from its inception. Even through all the great years of expansion and creation of wealth and power which the world had rarely, if ever, seen. Maybe it would have been even better if none of our politicians and bankers had not been crooked. Maybe it would have been better if we had never allowed anyone to garner great wealth (I doubt that)--but I don't hear many, if any, with great wealth blaming poor people for destroying the country. I don't hear much from wealthy people that the country is going down the tubes. They seem to be interested in getting more money rather than bitching about poor people.

At any rate, per the topic of this thread, on the one hand, universal income, as Zuckerberg proposes it, didn't exist all those "great" years so therefor didn't contribute to nor create great wealth or the "middle class." On the other hand, there has always been some sort of universal income in the form of welfare or transfer payments. A large segment of our population is, as of now, receiving some sort of sustained government distributed income. It seems that the number of such folks has steadily increased over the past 100 years, give or take. And the increase seems to have taken a sharp turn up in the latter part of that 100 years. And the much beloved and sought after "middle class" is said to have shrunk during that increase. Do you see any connection?

Or, as is the constant Progressive refrain, not enough transfer of wealth has occurred which is necessary to reach that massive number of those in the greatly desired and admired "middle class."

Would it stop the country from "going down the tubes" if the government guaranteed everyone a universal "middle class" income? That's an interesting question, to me. And I'd like to hear if and how that would work.

Probably, some factors would be one's definition of "going down the tubes." And one's definition of class structure, of "middle class," of "social justice," and of "great."

People forget how "Progressive" Nixon really was. No doubt, the Dems didn't want folks to see that. That would have created a formidable competition against their own desire for power. But Nixon did propose a universal income scheme. It was very attractive to the more socialist minded. Many Dems supported his proposal. But he was given a lesson in history in where it had been tried in England in the mid 19th century and miserably failed. So he watered the idea down. Of course, he was impeached and resigned, so the Progressives eliminated any threat he might have imposed as an opposition candidate.

Some, Marxist oriented folks, argue that the English experiment was not, actually, a failure.

Are you saying, however, that insuring there are none in poverty, and that allowing illegal aliens, would stop the country from "going down the tubes", then how explain the original creation of wealth and power? And if we say that it takes an oppressed lower class to create wealth, then what happens to wealth if there is no such class? And without wealth, what happens to the "lifestyle" that you think we should all have?

Could it be that wealth is created by free people who are not encumbered from doing so, regardless if there is poverty, or if there are some forms of the inevitable crookedness that lurks in human nature? And that "poverty" in a free society is usually better than being in the middle classes in dictatorial societies.

Could it be that individual freedom is the greatest reason for lifting the "lifestyle" of societies, and that the suppression of freedom causes a form of "going down the tubes"?

[PaulS]

Yup, liberals are the racist

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yup, liberals are the racist

(1) is there any discernible connection, between the fact that a) people who live in urban cities are doing horribly, and b) urban cities are almost unanimously hard core liberal?

(2) if the answer to question (1) is yes, and of course it is...then what would motivate anyone to look at how blacks are faring in our cities, and not conclude that we need to try something different?

Not all liberals are racist Paul, obviously. But the ideology of liberalism, has been an abject disaster for blacks. I say they deserve better. I presume that liberals, by virtue of identifying as liberals, believe that liberalism is working for blacks. Right?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Sort this how ever you what .. facts are the facts . And people will always be on wellfare regardless of race and there will never be universal income

True. Parse stuff down to facts and remove the happy snowflake talk and try to get people to work together. Then stop turning a blind eye to importing the competition of those lower paying, lower skilled "workers" and increasing the pressure at the bottom. We should offer assistance to those that need it but it should be assistance on top of earned, not in place of (with limited exceptions). We can then tune and allow for more legal immigration.

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yup, liberals are the racist

Sometimes they are. The Diversity Industry at large

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

True. Parse stuff down to facts and remove the happy snowflake talk and try to get people to work together. Then stop turning a blind eye to importing the competition of those lower paying, lower skilled "workers" and increasing the pressure at the bottom. We should offer assistance to those that need it but it should be assistance on top of earned, not in place of (with limited exceptions). We can then tune and allow for more legal immigration.





Sometimes they are. The Diversity Industry at large

John Blind eye?? you say this as if importing the competition hasn't been going on for 100 years .. it has zero impact on Jobs losses in America .. or whos on welfare it comes down do wage per hour and expect people to work 80hrs a week at 8-15 dollars an hour, pay rent buy food is unrealistic, while corporate America fleeces America and its worker ...


Most US manufacturing jobs lost to technology, not trade
https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-...5-95d1533d9a62

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

corporate America fleeces America and its worker ...

What do you base that on? have you ever worked in corporate America?

I have worked at Aetna, Travelers, The Hartford, and 2 small companies. Those companies creates thousands and thousands of good, middle class, white collar jobs, with good, dependable benefits.

Is corporate America perfect? Far from it. Is there widespread "fleecing" of the employees? Not even close.

As to the welfare stats. Most people thought you put whites first to imply that whites are the biggest welfare drain based on absolute numbers. I'd bet money that's what you were trying to convey, but I can't know. Many people feel that you need to look at how many welfare recipients there are for a given race, relative to the proportion that race make sup of the entire population. If whites make up X% of the general population, but more than X% of those on welfare, that whites are disproportionately on welfare. I don't think I said that well, hopefully it made sense.

I wasn't just trying to say that blacks are disproportionately poor, I tried to say other things too.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What do you base that on? have you ever worked in corporate America?

I have worked at Aetna, Travelers, The Hartford, and 2 small companies. Those companies creates thousands and thousands of good, middle class, white collar jobs, with good, dependable benefits.

Is corporate America perfect? Far from it. Is there widespread "fleecing" of the employees? Not even close.

As to the welfare stats. Most people thought you put whites first to imply that whites are the biggest welfare drain based on absolute numbers. I'd bet money that's what you were trying to convey, but I can't know. Many people feel that you need to look at how many welfare recipients there are for a given race, relative to the proportion that race make sup of the entire population. If whites make up X% of the general population, but more than X% of those on welfare, that whites are disproportionately on welfare. I don't think I said that well, hopefully it made sense.

I wasn't just trying to say that blacks are disproportionately poor, I tried to say other things too.

Its called History .. if you think there isn't widespread fleecing of workers you need to expand your search . 1 or 2 examples of Good business are no longer the norm they are the exception ..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

John Blind eye?? you say this as if importing the competition hasn't been going on for 100 years .. it has zero impact on Jobs losses in America .. or whos on welfare it comes down do wage per hour and expect people to work 80hrs a week at 8-15 dollars an hour, pay rent buy food is unrealistic, while corporate America fleeces America and its worker ...


Most US manufacturing jobs lost to technology, not trade
https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-...5-95d1533d9a62

WDMSO, do you think that every single job in our economy, should pay a wage that can support a family in minimum comfort? Tell that to a guy who owns a small pizzeria, that he needs to pay his bus boys and cashier $40k a year.

Some jobs just don't add that much value to the business. They just don't, not even close. But businesses need people in those roles. And it's still a good thing to put people in those jobs, as an entry level experience to learn basic skills.

I don't want anyone trying to raise a family on $12 an hour. But SOME jobs cannot pay more than that. It's not about what we want for the individual (we all want them to thrive)...if the job is in the private sector, then the pay must be connected to the economic value added by the person in that role. That's how the private sector works. And it's not all bad.

We can't all work in public labor unions. Most of us have to work in the private sector, and in the private sector (unlike public labor unions) we must get our customers to freely choose to exchange their money for our services. And to do that, the customer has to feel like he's getting his money's worth. Which means that business owners can't pay more than the economic value (as perceived by the customer) for each job.

WDMSO, if I owned a pizzeria and paid everyone who works for me at least $40k a year so they could support a family, how much am I going to then need to charge for a large pie? Are you going to pay $50 for a large pie so that I can pay my cashier $40k a year?

Your idea (pay every single person a livable wage regardless of the job they are in) sounds great. It's not remotely possible in the real world.

Liberals seem to think that every single business owner is fabulously wealthy, and can easily absorb the impact of paying every single employee a wage that a family can survive on. It's just not so. If that were the case, I would be screaming at the top of my lungs that minimum wage should be $20 an hour. But if we made that the minimum wage, huge numbers of businesses would go out of business, and millions of people would be unemployed. And many businesses that remained, would have to triple their prices.

I think you've spent too much time in the public union sphere, and not nearly enough time in the private sector. The next time you go out to eat, ask the restaurant manager what would happen if he had to pay everyone 40k a year, or whatever it would take to support a family the way you think they should be supported.

The liberals aren't putting any thought into this. It's not even close to being realistic. Part of me says, fine, let's make minimum wage $20 an hour, and then watch what happens, just so liberals can't claim that there's no downside. Part of me wonders if they propose these idiotic things on purpose, knowing that conservatives will oppose it, just so libs can say "see, I want to pay everyone a fair wage, but that mean white guy over there is opposed to it. So vote for me, hooray!!"

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yup, liberals are the racist

How does that Lyndon Johnson quote go about keeping blacks voting Democrat for the next 200 years ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

How does that Lyndon Johnson quote go about keeping blacks voting Democrat for the next 200 years ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lyndon Johnson, it turns out, was correct. So was Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a diehard liberal) when he predicted what it would do to the black culture.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Lyndon Johnson, it turns out, was correct. So was Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a diehard liberal) when he predicted what it would do to the black culture.

It's not so much a prediction, he was stating the lefts game plan.
It is pretty well documented he was as big a racist as they get.
He used the N word the way a lot of people talk today and every sentence includes the word f***
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

It's not so much a prediction, he was stating the lefts game plan.
It is pretty well documented he was as big a racist as they get.
He used the N word the way a lot of people talk today and every sentence includes the word f***
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He made a prediction that the Democrats would secure that vote for 200 years if they expanded welfare, and so far, he was correct.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

John Blind eye?? you say this as if importing the competition hasn't been going on for 100 years .. it has zero impact on Jobs losses in America .. or whos on welfare it comes down do wage per hour and expect people to work 80hrs a week at 8-15 dollars an hour, pay rent buy food is unrealistic, while corporate America fleeces America and its worker ...


Most US manufacturing jobs lost to technology, not trade
https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-...5-95d1533d9a62

Yes. The immigrants coming here illegally are not taking up large swaths of middle class or upper class jobs. Surely they are working somewhere, right?

So then where are they working? I am talking about lower skilled jobs which includes some manufacturing but we are now more a service economy which means they are taking service jobs in addition to some manufacturing.

Yes, this has been going on for 100 years but break that down into legal and illegal immigration, please.

As for the wages, I worked for under 3 in HS, 4-6 in my late teens, and commission for years after that had lower hourly pay then asking if you want extra salt with your fries. But I worked my way out of that and chased skills and positions that allowed me to grow.

Grow so I would not have a family in the projects or on welfare. So yes, I know precisely what this is about.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

How does that Lyndon Johnson quote go about keeping blacks voting Democrat for the next 200 years ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you point me to something showing me where he said that bc I know I have heard that previously (except he used the N word) but everytime I try finding that quote it is always in stories on like Alr right websites or by the KKK, etc.?

I know he did say when the civil rights act was passed that he thought they just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.

What do you suppose he meant by that?