You'll just get more and more people believing all work is exploitation and they'll stop working. Then the people still working will have higher taxes, feel that they're being exploited by the people not working, and soon everybody will be unemployed and nobody will be exploited and it'll be paradise.
> You'll just get more and more people believing all work is exploitation and they'll stop working.
Which means less labor supply, which means higher labor prices, which means greater incentive for people to work (since wages would no longer be suppressed by the "either I take this predatory offer or I starve to death" effect).
> Then the people still working will have higher taxes
Not necessarily. That depends on who and what you tax. A land value tax + a tax on income or wealth after a certain point (say, $1m/year) would readily pay for UBI without putting any tax burden on the working class. The other benefits of LVT (like incentivizing denser urbanization and penalizing land speculation) are nice cherries on top.
>Which means less labor supply, which means higher labor prices...
...which means higher prices of good and services, which means that the basic income you had previously settled on is no longer sufficient to survive on. How sure are we that there's a stable equilibrium?
Only if automation never happens. Clearly that ain't the case, per this very comment section and the topic thereof.
Indeed, automation's going to continue anyway, because as automation costs fall they'll eventually undercut labor costs - even those artifically suppressed through coercive means, as is currently the case in any (capitalist or otherwise) society lacking a socioeconomic safety net like UBI. So sooner or later something like UBI is necessary either way (that, or making people do pointless busy work, which is both paternalistic and grossly inefficient).
Almost yes, except wages for the stuff that needs to be done will rise to the point that you actually earn almost what your labor is worth :-) some of the most important jobs in the world (nurses?!) pay much less than my hobby of sitting in front of a computer and making pretty plots. That's fucked up
Quite the unsupported fantasy you've put forward - sounds similar to the argument that once people have enough money they'll stop working, so better pay them only enough to survive - until you include billionaires into the equation, who don't stop working when they have enough to live for 1,000s of years.
Right, billionaires will do whatever they can to earn more, including leaving a country with high tax rates.
But a lot of people if guaranteed a minimal quality of living would just stop working and do things that they like (that don't necessarily make money) and that's the whole point of UBI.
Doing things that they like would still be working. They just don’t have to engage in rat race jobs anymore. They can have the dignity a billionaire has.
I got really pissed off with US Bank because I kept overdrafting my account even though I opted out, and the same thing happened with my credit union when I got a debit card.
Now whenever I get paid I go preorder a whole shitload of games. Whenever I need money, I go to the nearest gamestop and ask for my money back on a game I don't want and make a withdrawal. The lines are shorter at gamestop than at the bank and I can trade in old games and have money go straight to my savings account. Gamestops are just as prevalent as banks in my town and I work at a mall so it's even more convenient than running an errand to the bank or using an ATM and getting charged
The gamestop people are starting to catch on that I'm just moving money around and only buying one preordered game a year, if that, but there isn't shit they can do about it. The best part is, since I always preorder every game coming out I'm still guaranteed to get all the exclusive content whether or not I'm sure I want a certain game. It's like they're rewarding me for banking with them."
They might be exposed to legal risk if they don’t clamp down on this. As a non-bank they do not have the KYC and AML laws in place to actually comply with federal regulation, and you might be accidentally turning them into a money transmitter.
I find that vim really shines in editing text on touch screens with on-screen keyboards. I can do complicated commands without doing too much typing out digging through menus or using ctrl alt whatever keys.
Aren't you taking a stretch here? Plotwise, both protagonists have different reasons to attain their goals. And besides the plot, don't they handle different topics?
They're both about wealthy enigmatic characters (albeit the count of monte cristo book doesn't keep the count's purposes a mystery) who throw extravagant parties. Both characters seem emotionally distant and turn out to be excessively obsessed with the past. They both feature a lot of tragedy and revenge and the titular character meets their love from long ago who is now married to someone else.
They both have connections to the criminal underground, they both anger the husband of their love causing death.
Not exact duplicates by any means, but the similarities are there.
Having similarities doesn't mean something is a crappy version. What's behind the similarities is different as well, for example the reason for their obsession with the past. I'm sure you can find similarities between many stories when you do it in such a vague way.
Besides that, there's more to those books than the main plot. I always assumed that TGG is this well regarded because of themes it handles and how they're presented by the story of Gatsby. The same goes for The Count of Monte Cristo. I find them to be too different to call on even a version of the other, let alone a crappy one.
I think that revenge and intricate interpersonal plots should just be avoided unless someone intends on outdoing the count of monte cristo. Maybe it's unreasonable but that's how I see it. I guess really the only things I appreciate in the great gatsby are the things in it that remind me of the count.
Orwell reviewed That Hideous Strength and said it had some good points. But it's definitely the weakest in the trilogy, and definitely did not influence 1984 in any obvious way. Still worth reading, though.
If the goal is to remove carbon from the system, then the best thing we can do is waste as much paper and throw it in the trash where it goes to a landfill and never decays back into the air.
If we recycle it we're keeping that carbon in play. But by wasting mass amounts of paper over and over again, we can remove a lot of carbon from the air. As we chop down more and more trees to make paper and bury the paper in a landfill, new trees grow up which get turned to paper which gets buried and taken out of the system.
So waste paper if you want to save the planet, because paper may kill a tree, but that tree will grow back, and the paper will sit in a landfill petrified.
Paper mostly comes from massive tree farms that are close to mills and close to market on managed, easy to transit tracts of land close to shipping lanes. Take a look at aerials of the wooded areas surrounding Panama City, FL, miles and miles of rows of tree farms. What’s happening in the Amazon is terrible mismanagement, but it’s not the sole source of paper
Right, I have dry earwax and have never worn deodorant. I shower once or twice a week, but I never start to stink. My clothes don't even stink if I get them all sweaty every day without changing them.
I don't sniff my armpits because they've never smelled in my life.
I have a genetic defect where I don't produce apocrine sweat (the kind that causes bacteria to produce odor) but still maintain the eccrine sweat that cools me down.
This trait is associated with dry earwax.
I've worn a shirt for a week straight and had a relative with a sensitive nose smell it and another shirt that had not been worn a day. They incorrectly guessed which shirt I had worn and which one I hadn't.
