[FRIAM] The case for universal basic income UBI

[Gillian Densmore]

We have a globe getting pimp slapped by a virus. People getting shit canned
for no other reason than breathing. WAstate and one other was/is back to
full lockdown, Canada still is.
The question isn't reely is UBI a good/bad idea but how fucking fast do we
make it happen? and for how much. I'd submit that a UBI musti be at 70k a
year min, and tied to the trust costs of living and inflation. That's 30 an
hour and the low end of 'upper middle clast' from the 80s. Plus a bit for
savings and fun.

Probably should be pegged at the true costs of living for the most
expensive place in the US to live, for a house hold of 3. So that a lot of
people are covered. Because as is how many people are paycheck to paycheck
for no other reason than luck? a lot. between lobyests, a fucking toxic why
should we mediacrity penny ante mentality min wage was and is still
contorted to the least we can legall get away with. We call that
wage-slavery. So good chance that someone who gets  a 5k a month check
would then be able to pay off  debts. Invest in some stocks and themselves.
IMO that sounds fucking amazing to me.
San Franciscos costs of living, true costs of living waaay the F back in
the 90s was 80k a year. it's now about 200k. As reported by any source
thats reputable, and yet wages their haven't gone up more than 9.75-12 an
hour. A single room BRM appartment their at 15% bellow average market rate
can easily average 2k a month.
As it is now a single person just would not be able to afford that.
Ergo UBI would keep them housed.

Some massively large percent of the 30+ generation right now can't even
save,, have to work 2+ jobs. Go make conversation with anyone at Smiths. a
lot of those people have to work 3 jobs.  Why should UBI be a question? the
reel question must be not if, but when, and how much.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:27 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The simplest case for a UBI is current and past pandemics.  Simply put
> that for some asinine reason our sense of maslow's hierarchy of needs has
> gone tits up fucked.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:23 PM Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A couple of facts that relate to some of the points raised.
>>
>> I was following a car that had a bumper sticker that said, "Eat the Rich".
>>
>> A man paid $50 million for a penthouse (5 story) in Manhattan.  He
>> committed suicide when he couldn't sell it for $35 million.  His wife
>> wanted to live where she could have horses.  If anyone cares i can tell you
>> who he was.
>>
>> ---
>> Frank C. Wimberly
>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>
>> 505 670-9918
>> Santa Fe, NM
>>
>> On Tue, May 4, 2021, 3:42 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I agree. But as the miscommunication about the dimension of
>>> simplices vs. orthogonal dimensionality seems to indicate, reduction need
>>> not imply linearity, and if reduction is used iteratively to discover
>>> interestingness, that provenance/method/algorithm need not be lost (1st
>>> order Markovian). A practical example might be
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_pursuit
>>>
>>> Like abstraction <-> concretization, there's de-objectification that's
>>> part of a complete skill set. Competent objectifiers retain enough history
>>> to at least approximate the starting point.
>>>
>>> On 5/4/21 1:37 PM, jon zingale wrote:
>>> > """
>>> > Reduction is a triumph if it captures what you're looking for.
>>> > """
>>> >
>>> > When reductions capture what one is looking for then the resulting
>>> > categories
>>> > make for powerful rhetoric. IMO, it is exactly that reductions to crisp
>>> > objects
>>> > capture what *some* want, while obfuscating the desired objects of
>>> others,
>>> > that
>>> > makes the whole reduction-objectification game so insidious in
>>> practice (a
>>> > kind
>>> > of conceptual imperialism?). Sometimes objects can be presented with
>>> such
>>> > clarity
>>> > and precision that it becomes difficult to imagine any others, to
>>> dislodge
>>> > unproductive beliefs or practices, or to remember that the objects are
>>> > fantastic
>>> > shorthands.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>>>
>>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210504/101ddee4/attachment-0001.html>