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.densm...@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.densm...@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 <wimber...@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 ↙↙↙ <geprope...@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/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/