[FRIAM] The case for universal basic income UBI

Tue May 4 23:04:23 EDT 2021

It's hard to imagine UBI in the United States, when you (we, before I left)
can't even get a universal health care system.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 6:47 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/
>>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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/20210504/997e8825/attachment.html>