Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
LSemmens

[*] posted on 3-1-2018 at 00:47
There will always be those for whom the capacity to work is beyond their control. It is not those to whom my comments referred.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 2-1-2018 at 03:17
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
... Whether that is paid work or voluntary is irrelevant, as long as you have "worked" for your benefit.


I don't have the numbers, but there is more than a few individuals who have never worked, and "suffer" from both a very low IQ as well as mental "disturbances" [but not to a degree that they "need' in-patient care]. They are mostly non-violent. They live in SRO (single room occupancy) quarters, and some in licensed HFA (homes for the aged, where in practice age for admission is irrelevant--they are in fact glorified boarding homes where no one is related to anyone). Some of them have a fairly large population AKA census. They have not waived any of their civil or legal rights to live in such places. The costs are born by the state which in turn a portion is reimbursed by the federal govt, and each one gets a very small stipend. Their "award" includes health insurance. Some towns have "activity" centers for them. They are oriented to time and place and don't seem to ever get lost as they go about. I suppose they could do menial work, but they're not interested and the state is not very proficient at organizing and motivating (and all important follow up) such individuals. I'm not current on their 'typical' family involvement (if they have any) and I will leave out that important information; clearly some of them with families want nothing to do with them, AND, most importantly, I suspect their siblings tend to be dysfunctional, and any attempt at reuniting them is fraught with peril, i. e., it's no accident that they've lost touch with one another.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 2-1-2018 at 00:38
Every country has those groups, Jack. Though Americans do seem to figure in people's thinking when that sort of thing is mentioned, so you may have a preponderance of such "invisible" people. Which is anachronistic in its own right because "those" people seem to take great delight in advertising their "invisibility".

MY thinking, re government payments, is that you must have contributed by being in the work force for a pre-determined time before qualifying. Whether that is paid work or voluntary is irrelevant, as long as you have "worked" for your benefit.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 1-1-2018 at 22:03
There is a group of individuals/families in the USA whose numbers amount to nothing more than a guess who are not about to ever give the govt a bona fide mailing address for the 'stipend', or as an alternative, a direct deposit bank account. Included in this are those who would see such a program as a way of govt tracking their citizens.

Govt has a very traditional preconceived view/notion (and naïve) of individual and family life, and the values by which such people live by. I would add that on the periphery of this group are family members who no one has any idea where they are, to include whether they are dead or alive.

The "people" who conceive (and administer) such programs don't come from such groups, and don't ever interact with them in their private lives; furthermore they find it inconceivable (beyond belief) that anyone would want to live like that.

And I'm not just talking about so called "homeless" people either. I think "alienated" would be a more appropriate label.
scholar

[*] posted on 1-1-2018 at 02:24
I know quite a few people who left the earn-your-way model of living and have become slaves to drugs, drunkenness, and sex. Video games and television fill large blocks of time for some people, who otherwise could be doing something that would be helpful to others.

A work schedule does a lot of good for people. It generally requires some personal hygiene, some standard of clothing, some discipline to regulate your schedule with respect to sleep and wakefulness, some self-control with respect toward treating your boss and fellow workers with some decency, some exercise (even if only to get to work and return home).

Some of us are too broken to keep most jobs. But, for those who can do one, it can be quite beneficial.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 31-12-2017 at 17:50
Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
Tell you what. With the increasing acceleration of Artificial Intelligence, we will need to think of a way to keep the unemployed from revolting against the system. We all have a right to live. To eat. To have a comfortable shelter etc etc. And if take away their means of earning it, we will either have to pay them to stay at home or face conflict and anarchy.


Then there is the right to execute everyone over age 30 alternative.
John_Little

[*] posted on 31-12-2017 at 13:35
Tell you what. With the increasing acceleration of Artificial Intelligence, we will need to think of a way to keep the unemployed from revolting against the system. We all have a right to live. To eat. To have a comfortable shelter etc etc. And if take away their means of earning it, we will either have to pay them to stay at home or face conflict and anarchy.
marymary100

[*] posted on 31-12-2017 at 11:22
I think it is more about facing up to the fact that very few people will be able to work once things become fully done by AI. There's hardly a job that is safe. If the wealth that is available is evenly distributed then it could act as a spur to join the gigging economy or to go to learn new things without being worried about falling out of the benefit system. Obviously folk like me who have worked for decades would be raging if we lost out on future pensions for example but cognisance needs to be taken of other ways of doing things. Pilot schemes are the only way to see if things get better or worse. Finland has been trying this for a while but the jury is still out.

And Leigh, the beggar's wage idea has been round since the year quoted in the OP. It is trialling it that is new.
Nimuae

[*] posted on 31-12-2017 at 10:11
Frankly I think it is a silly idea - there are enough people who think the world owes them a living already. Why add more? I would review the whole 'benefit' system - kick out some of the idle scroungers and make them earn their hand-outs by sweeping street, weeding parks etc., Restore the idea that money has to be worked for !!
LSemmens

[*] posted on 31-12-2017 at 05:17
I haven't read the entire article, but this has been around the block a few times, even down here. In theory, the idea is good, in practice, I wonder. For those who need it, it may not be enough, for those who don't, why should they get it? The intent is to allow those on low incomes to survive. In theory, that is good, but given that all will be given the "assistance", cuts to other govt services may well occur, to the detriment of those who truly need it. I dare say that prices will also rise across the board to "maintain the status quo".
marymary100

[*] posted on 30-12-2017 at 22:24
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41832065



Quote:

...What is a basic income system?
The basic income system is a radical redesign of tax and welfare - completely redrawing the relationship between the state and the citizen.
Under such a system, every individual would be given a cash payment at regular intervals, without any requirement to work or demonstrate a willingness to work. Several different figures have been suggested, mostly in the rough area of £100 a week for adults.
As the name suggests, it would be universal - paid out to every citizen regardless of their wealth, employment or personal status - and would be enough to cover the basics of life. It would serve as a replacement for existing benefits payments such as jobseeker's allowance.
The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA), a charity which has undertaken extensive studies about basic income, call it "a basic platform on which people can build their lives - whether they want to earn, learn, care or set up a business".
Enthusiasm about the possibilities of a basic income has sprung up in several countries in recent years, but it is by no means a new idea. References to such a scheme date back as far as 1516, and have been debated by political theorists and philosophers ever since...