2021.12.04 13:42 MaryKMcDonald What Do Race, Reading, Billy Joel, and Jeopardy Have in Common with our Nation’s Students?
|submitted by MaryKMcDonald to FlyingCircusOrchestra [link] [comments]|
2021.12.04 13:42 Me7a1hed Couple BB9 questions
I've been using the BB9 with the Grav mini sphere bubbler for a while. I just got a bigger water piece that takes 14mm so I got a glass adapter for it to use with my BB9. Everything fits but I noticed that sometimes the BB9 feels stuck on the adapter and is hard to separate. I usually gently twist while pulling up and it eventually separates. Any suggestions on that?
Also, any suggestions on a way to keep the BB9 carb hole plugged without using my fingers? I feel like it would just make using it with my piece a little simpler. Much appreciated.
submitted by Me7a1hed to Dynavap [link] [comments]
2021.12.04 13:42 chernobylfloppa Are you able to get on the roof of block 3 of Chernobyl NPP?
2021.12.04 13:42 throwawaayyyyy19 Salmon with a pumpkin seed crust, fingerling potatoes, sautéed spinach, and a parsnip purée.
2021.12.04 13:42 themariocrafter foggy-school.bmp
|submitted by themariocrafter to LiminalSpace [link] [comments]|
2021.12.04 13:42 RaidenGZT Out of the game for a good few years, are pendulum magicians still viable?
2021.12.04 13:42 _HeyMcFly_ maybe it’s a lesbian character in a video game sorta thing?
|submitted by _HeyMcFly_ to Overwatch [link] [comments]|
2021.12.04 13:42 AeroAesthetic Used all my luck for the month
|submitted by AeroAesthetic to DuelLinks [link] [comments]|
2021.12.04 13:42 AnnieGrant031 So what does "no nonsense" mean?
In another thread today, about the I Write Like (iwl.me) website, a lot of people were likened to Agatha Christie, me included. I don't care for Christie, but I do like the idea of "no nonsense," but I'm not sure what it means. It just feels good. Can someone give some examples of writing which does incorporate "nonsense?"
submitted by AnnieGrant031 to writing [link] [comments]
2021.12.04 13:42 Aggravating_Can_7916 Maya (to Maya Gabeira/Lou Herr Band)
|submitted by Aggravating_Can_7916 to rock [link] [comments]|
2021.12.04 13:42 MPZ9 Nipok, my new display inspired by Pricedown and groovy aesthetics :)
|submitted by MPZ9 to fonts [link] [comments]|
2021.12.04 13:42 roguewolf_01 Warrior Elsa
|submitted by roguewolf_01 to Frozen [link] [comments]|
2021.12.04 13:42 YummiGD6 Is Volga Bulgaria existent in any of the 2 timelines because I can't find it anywhere?
2021.12.04 13:42 ngjsp Raeesah was right, after tearing down the entire party around her, she'll still come out stronger. What a survivor...
After lying, now she's trying to bring down everyone with her to show she's taking some personal responsibility.
That is definitely some strong survivor instinct.
submitted by ngjsp to singapore [link] [comments]
2021.12.04 13:42 jbellas 🔥 Large eruption of the Semeru volcano in Indonesia
|submitted by jbellas to NatureIsFuckingLit [link] [comments]|
2021.12.04 13:42 IluvBsissa Why We Should Give Free Money To Everyone
London, May 2009 – An experiment is under way. Its subjects: thirteen homeless men. They are veterans of the street. Some have been sleeping on the cold pavement of the Square Mile, Europe’s financial center, for going on forty years. Between the police expenses, court costs, and social services, these thirteen troublemakers have racked up a bill estimated at £400,000 ($650,000) or more.
Per year. The strain on city services and local charities is too great for things to go on this way. So Broadway, a London-based aid organization, makes a radical decision: From now on, the city’s thirteen consummate drifters will be getting VIP treatment. It’s adiós to the daily helpings of food stamps, soup kitchens, and shelters. They’re getting a drastic and instantaneous bailout. From now on, these rough sleepers will receive free money. To be exact, they’re getting £3,000 in spending money, and they don’t have to do a thing in return.
How they spend it is up to them. They can opt to make use of an advisor if they’d like – or not. There are no strings attached, no questions to trip them up.
The only thing they’re asked is: What do you think you need?
“I didn’t have enormous expectations,” one social worker later recalled.
But the drifters’ desires proved eminently modest. A telephone, a dictionary, a hearing aid – each had his own ideas about what he needed. In fact, most were downright thrifty. After one year, they had spent an average of just £800. Take Simon, who had been strung out on heroin for twenty years. The money turned his life around. Simon got clean and started taking gardening classes. “For some reason, for the first time in my life, everything just clicked,” he said later. “I’m starting to look after myself, wash and shave. Now I’m thinking of going back home. I’ve got two kids.” A year and a half after the experiment began, seven of the thirteen rough sleepers had a roof over their heads. Two more were about to move into their own apartments.
All thirteen had taken critical steps toward solvency and personal growth. They were enrolled in classes, learning to cook, going through rehab, visiting their families, and making plans for the future. “It empowers people,” one of the social workers said about the personalized budget. “It gives choices. I think it can make a difference.” After decades of fruitless pushing, pulling, pampering, penalizing, prosecuting, and protecting, nine notorious vagrants had finally been brought in from the streets. The cost? Some £50,000 a year, including the social workers’ wages. In other words, not only did the project help thirteen people, it also cut costs considerably.
Even the Economist had to conclude that the “most efficient way to spend money on the homeless might be to give it to them.”
"But...but...poor people can’t handle money !"
This seems to be the prevailing sentiment, almost a truism. After all, if they knew how to manage money, how could they be poor in the first place? We assume that they must spend it on fast food and soda instead of on fresh fruit and books. So to “help,” we’ve rigged up a myriad of ingenious assistance programs, with reams of paperwork, registration systems, and an army of inspectors, all revolving around the biblical principle that “those unwilling to work will not get to eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10).
In recent years, government assistance has become increasingly anchored in employment, with recipients required to apply for jobs, enroll in return-to-work programs, and do mandatory “volunteer” work. Touted as a shift “from welfare to workfare,” the underlying message is clear: Free money makes people lazy. Except that, according to the evidence, it doesn’t.
Meet Bernard Omondi. For years he earned $2 a day working in a stone quarry in an impoverished part of western Kenya. Then, one morning, he received a rather peculiar text message. “When I saw the message, I jumped up,” Bernard later recalled. A sum of $500 had just been deposited in his bank account. For Bernard, this was almost a year’s wages. Several months later a journalist from the New York Times visited Bernard’s village. It was as though the entire population had won the lottery: The village was flush with cash. Yet no one was drinking their money away. Instead, homes had been repaired and small businesses started.
Bernard invested his money in a brand-new Bajaj Boxer motorcycle from India and was making $6–$9 a day ferrying people around as a taxi driver. His income had more than tripled. “This puts the choice in the hands of the poor,” says Michael Faye, founder of GiveDirectly, the organization behind Bernard’s windfall. “And the truth is, I don’t think I have a very good sense of what the poor need.”
Faye doesn’t give people fish, or even teach them to fish. He gives them cash, in the conviction that the real experts on what poor people need are the poor people themselves. When I asked him why there are so few peppy videos or pictures on GiveDirectly’s website, Faye explained that he doesn’t want to play on emotions too much. “Our data are hard enough.”
He’s right: According to a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, GiveDirectly’s cash grants spur a lasting rise in incomes (up 38% from before the infusion) and also boost homeownership and possession of livestock (up 58%), while reducing the number of days that children go hungry by 42%.
Furthermore, 93% of every donation is placed directly in the hands of recipients. Presented with GiveDirectly’s figures, Google soon handed over a $2.5 million donation. But Bernard and his fellow villagers haven’t been the only ones to luck out.
In 2008, the government of Uganda decided to distribute almost $400 to some 12,000 sixteen-to-thirty-five-year-olds. The money was all but free; the only thing they had to do in return was submit a business plan. Five years later, the effects were staggering. Having invested in their own education and business ventures, the beneficiaries’ incomes had gone up nearly 50%. And their odds of getting hired had increased more than 60%. Another Ugandan program distributed $150 to over 1,800 poor women in the country’s north, with similar results: Incomes shot up by almost 100%.
Women who received support from an aid worker (cost: $350) benefited slightly more, but researchers subsequently calculated that it would have been much more effective to lump the aid worker’s salary in with the grants. As the report dryly concluded, the results imply “a huge change in poverty alleviation programs in Africa and worldwide.”
A Southerly Revolution Studies from all over the world offer proof positive: Free money works. Already, research has correlated unconditional cash disbursements with reductions in crime, child mortality, malnutrition, teenage pregnancy, and truancy, and with improved school performance, economic growth, and gender equality. “The big reason poor people are poor is because they don’t have enough money,” notes economist Charles Kenny, “and it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that giving them money is a great way to reduce that problem.”
In their book Just Give Money to the Poor (2010), scholars at the University of Manchester furnish countless examples of cases where cash handouts with few or no strings attached have worked. In Namibia, figures for malnutrition took a nosedive (from 42% to 10%), as did those for truancy (from 40% to virtually nothing) and crime (by 42%). In Malawi, school attendance among girls and women surged 40%, regardless of whether the cash came with or without conditions. Time and again, the ones to profit most are children. They suffer less hunger and disease, grow taller, perform better at school, and are less likely to be forced into child labor.
From Brazil to India, from Mexico to South Africa, cash-transfer programs have become all the rage across the Global South. When the United Nations formulated its Millennium Development Goals in 2000, these programs weren’t even on the radar. Yet by 2010, they were already reaching more than 110 million families in forty-five countries.
Back at the University of Manchester, the researchers summed up these programs’ benefits: (1) households put the money to good use, (2) poverty declines, (3) there can be diverse long-term benefits for income, health, and tax revenues, and (4) the programs cost less than the alternatives. So why send over expensive white folks in SUVs when we can simply hand over their salaries to the poor (Looking at you, my dear useless overpayed NGO's Tunis parasites :) - IluvBsissa)
Especially when this also takes sticky civil service fingers out of the equation. Plus, free cash greases the wheels of the whole economy: People buy more, and that boosts employment and incomes. Countless aid organizations and governments are convinced that they know what poor people need, and invest in schools, solar panels, or cattle. And, granted, better a cow than no cow. But at what cost? A Rwandan study estimated that donating one pregnant cow costs around $3,000 (including a milking workshop). That’s five years’ wages for a Rwandan.
Or take the patchwork of courses offered to the poor: Study after study has shown that they cost a lot but achieve little, whether the objective is learning to fish, read, or run a business. “Poverty is fundamentally about a lack of cash. It’s not about stupidity,” stresses the economist Joseph Hanlon. “You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no boots.”
The great thing about money is that people can use it to buy things they need instead of things that self-appointed experts think they need. And, as it happens, there is one category of product which poor people do not spend their free money on, and that’s alcohol and tobacco. In fact, a major study by the World Bank demonstrated that in 82% of all researched cases in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, alcohol and tobacco consumption actually declined.
But it gets even stranger. In Liberia, an experiment was conducted to see what would happen if you give $200 to the shiftiest of the poor. Alcoholics, addicts, and petty criminals were rounded up from the slums. Three years later, what had they spent the money on? Food, clothing, medicine, and small businesses. “If these men didn’t throw away free money,” one of the researchers wondered, “who would?”
Yet the “lazy poor people” argument is trotted out time and again. The very persistence of this view has compelled scientists to investigate whether it’s true. Just a few years ago, the prestigious medical journal the Lancet summed up their findings: When the poor receive no-strings cash they actually tend to work harder.
In the final report on the Namibian experiment, a bishop offered this neat biblical explanation. “Look in depth at Exodus 16,” he wrote, “the people of Israel in the long journey out of slavery, they received manna from heaven. But,” he continued, “it did not make them lazy; instead, it enabled them to be on the move…”
Utopian Free money: It’s a notion already proposed by some of history’s leading thinkers. Thomas More dreamed about it in his book Utopia in 1516. Countless economists and philosophers – Nobel Prize winners among them – would follow.
Its proponents have spanned the spectrum from left to right, all the way to the founders of neoliberal thought, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.
And Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) promises that, one day, it will come. A universal basic income. And not merely for a few years, or in developing countries alone, or only for the poor, but just what it says on the box: free money for everyone. Not as a favor, but as a right. Call it the “capitalist road to communism.” A monthly allowance, enough to live on, without having to lift a finger. The only condition, as such, is that you “have a pulse.”
No inspectors looking over your shoulder to see if you’ve spent it wisely, nobody questioning if it’s really deserved. No more special benefit and assistance programs; at most an additional allowance for seniors, the unemployed, and those unable to work.
Basic income: It’s an idea whose time has come. In a warehouse attic in Winnipeg, Canada, nearly 2,000 boxes lay gathering dust. The boxes are filled with data – graphs, tables, reports, interviews – about one of the most fascinating social experiments in post-war history. Mincome. Evelyn Forget, a professor at the University of Manitoba, first heard about the records in 2004.
For five long years she tried to find them, until finally, in 2009, she discovered the boxes in the National Archives. “[Archivists] were in the process of wondering whether, in fact, they could throw them out because they took up a lot of space and nobody seemed interested in it,” she later recalled.
Stepping into the attic for the first time, Forget could hardly believe her eyes. It was a treasure trove of information on the real-world implementation of Thomas More’s dream from five centuries before. One of the nearly 1,000 interviews packed away in those boxes was with Hugh and Doreen Henderson. Thirty-five years earlier, when the experiment began, he had been a high-school janitor and she a homemaker taking care of their two kids.
The Hendersons didn’t have it easy. Doreen kept a garden and raised chickens to ensure they’d have enough to eat. Each dollar was stretched “until it snapped.” Until, on one ordinary day, two sharply dressed men appeared on their doorstep. “We filled out forms, they wanted to see our receipts,” Doreen recalled.
And then, just like that, the Hendersons’ money troubles were a thing of the past. Hugh and Doreen were signed up for Mincome – the first large-scale social experiment in Canada and the largest basic income experiment in the world, ever. In March 1973, the provincial governor earmarked a sum of $83 million in modern U.S. dollars for the project.
He chose Dauphin, a small town of 13,000 northwest of Winnipeg, as the location of the experiment. Everybody in Dauphin was guaranteed a basic income, ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line. In practice, this meant 30% of the town’s inhabitants – 1,000 families in all – got a check in the mail each month.
A family of four received what would now be around $19,000 a year, no questions asked. At the start of the experiment, an army of researchers descended on the town. Economists would monitor whether its inhabitants worked less, sociologists were there to scrutinize the effects on family life, and anthropologists ensconced themselves in the community to see firsthand how residents would respond.
For four years, all went well, but then elections threw a wrench in the works. A conservative government was voted into power. The new Canadian cabinet saw little point to the expensive experiment, for which the national government was footing three-quarters of the bill. When it became clear that the new administration wouldn’t even fund an analysis of the experiment’s results, the researchers decided to pack their files away in some 2,000 boxes. In Dauphin, the letdown was huge.
On its launch in 1974, Mincome had been seen as a pilot program that would quickly be rolled out nationwide. Now, it seemed destined to be forgotten. “Government officials opposed [to Mincome] didn’t want to spend more money to analyze the data and show what they already thought: that it didn’t work,” one of the researchers recounted. “And the people who were in favour of Mincome were worried because if the analysis was done and the data wasn’t favourable then they would have just spent another million dollars on analysis and be even more embarrassed.”
When Professor Forget first heard about Mincome, no one knew what, if anything, the experiment had actually demonstrated. But as coincidence would have it, Canada’s Medicare program was introduced around this same time, in 1970. The Medicare archives presented Forget with a wealth of data to compare Dauphin with nearby towns and control groups. For three years, she rigorously subjected the data to all manner of statistical analysis. No matter what she tried, the results were the same every time. Mincome had been a resounding success. From Experiment to Law “Politically, there was a concern that if you began a guaranteed annual income, people would stop working and start having large families,” says Forget.
What really happened was precisely the opposite. Young adults postponed getting married, and birth rates dropped. Their school performance improved substantially: The “Mincome cohort” studied harder and faster. In the end, total work hours only notched down 1% for men, 3% for married women, and 5% for unmarried women. Men who were family breadwinners hardly worked less at all, while new mothers used the cash assistance to take several months’ maternity leave, and students to stay in school longer.
Forget’s most remarkable finding, though, was that hospitalizations decreased by as much as 8.5%.
Considering the size of public spending on healthcare in the developed world, the financial implications were huge. Several years into the experiment, domestic violence was also down, as were mental-health complaints. Mincome had made the whole town healthier. Forget could even trace the impacts of receiving a basic income through to the next generation, both in earnings and in health. Dauphin – the town with no poverty – was one of five guaranteed income experiments in North America. The other four were all conducted in the U.S.
Few people today are aware that the U.S. was just a hair’s breadth from realizing a social safety net at least as extensive as those in most Western European countries. When President Lyndon B. Johnson declared his “War on Poverty” in 1964, Democrats and Republicans alike rallied behind fundamental welfare reforms. First, however, some trial runs were needed.
Tens of millions of dollars were budgeted to provide a basic income for more than 8,500 Americans in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Indiana, Seattle, and Denver in what were also the first-ever large-scale social experiments to distinguish experimental and control groups.
The researchers wanted answers to three questions: (1) Would people work significantly less if they receive a guaranteed income? (2) Would the program be too expensive? (3) Would it prove politically unfeasible? The answers were no, no, and yes. Declines in working hours were limited across the board. “The ‘laziness’ contention is just not supported by our findings,” the chief data analyst of the Denver experiment said. “There is not anywhere near the mass defection the prophets of doom predicted.”
The reduction in paid work averaged 9% per family, and in every state it was mostly the twentysomethings and women with young children who worked less. Later research showed that even 9% was probably exaggerated. In the original study, this was calculated on the basis of self-reported income, but when the data was compared with official government records, it turned out that a significant portion of earnings had gone unreported.
After correcting for this discrepancy, the researchers discovered that the number of hours worked had scarcely decreased at all. “[The] declines in hours of paid work were undoubtedly compensated in part by other useful activities, such as search for better jobs or work in the home,” noted the Seattle experiment’s concluding report. For example, one mother who had dropped out of high school worked less in order to earn a degree in psychology and get a job as a researcher.
Another woman took acting classes; her husband began composing music. “We’re now self-sufficient, income-earning artists,” she told the researchers.
Among youth included in the experiment, almost all the hours not spent on paid work went into more education. Among the New Jersey subjects, the rate of high-school graduations rose 30%.
And thus, in the revolutionary year of 1968, when young demonstrators the world over were taking to the streets, five famous economists – John Kenneth Galbraith, Harold Watts, James Tobin, Paul Samuelson, and Robert Lampman – wrote an open letter to Congress. “The country will not have met its responsibility until everyone in the nation is assured an income no less than the officially recognized definition of poverty,” they said in an article published on the front page of the New York Times. According to the economists, the costs would be “substantial, but well within the nation’s economic and fiscal capacity.”
The letter was signed by 1,200 fellow economists. And their appeal did not fall on deaf ears. The following August, President Nixon presented a bill providing for a modest basic income, calling it “the most significant piece of social legislation in our nation’s history.” According to Nixon, the baby boomers would do two things deemed impossible by earlier generations. Besides putting a man on the moon (which had happened the month before), their generation would also, finally, eradicate poverty. A White House poll found 90% of all newspapers enthusiastically receptive to the plan.
The Chicago Sun-Times called it “A Giant Leap Forward,” the Los Angeles Times “A bold new blueprint.”
The National Council of Churches was in favor, and so were the labor unions and even the corporate sector.
At the White House, a telegram arrived declaring, “Two upper middle class Republicans who will pay for the program say bravo.”
Pundits were even going around quoting Victor Hugo – “Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come.” It seemed that the time for a basic income had well and truly arrived. “WELFARE PLAN PASSES HOUSE … A BATTLE WON IN CRUSADE FOR REFORM,” headlined the New York Times on April 16, 1970.
With 243 votes for and 155 against, President Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan (FAP) was approved by an overwhelming majority. Most pundits expected the plan to pass the Senate, too, with a membership even more progressive than that of the House of Representatives. But in the Senate Finance Committee, doubts reared up. “This bill represents the most extensive, expensive, and expansive welfare legislation ever handled,” one Republican senator said.
Most vehemently opposed, however, were the Democrats (oh the irony). They felt the FAP didn’t go far enough, and pushed for an even higher basic income. After months of being batted back and forth between the Senate and the White House, the bill was finally canned. In the following year, Nixon presented a slightly tweaked proposal to Congress. Once again, the bill was accepted by the House, now as part of a larger package of reforms. This time, 288 voted in favor, 132 against. In his 1971 State of the Union address, Nixon considered his plan to “place a floor under the income of every family with children in America” the most important item of legislation on his agenda.
But once again, the bill foundered in the Senate. Not until 1978 was the plan for a basic income shelved once and for all, however, following a fatal discovery upon publication of the final results of the Seattle experiment. One finding in particular grabbed everybody’s attention: The number of divorces had jumped more than 50%. Interest in this statistic quickly overshadowed all the other outcomes, such as better school performance and improvements in health. A basic income, evidently, gave women too much independence. Ten years later, a reanalysis of the data revealed that a statistical error had been made; in reality, there had been no change in the divorce rate at all.
“It Can Be Done! Conquering Poverty in America by 1976,” Nobel Prize winner James Tobin confidently wrote in 1967. At that time, almost 80% of Americans supported a guaranteed basic income.
Years later, Ronald Reagan would famously sneer, “In the sixties we waged a war on poverty, and poverty won.” The great milestones of civilization always have the whiff of utopia about them at first. According to the renowned economist Albert Hirschman, utopias are initially attacked on three grounds: futility (it’s not possible), danger (the risks are too great), and perversity (it will degenerate into dystopia). But Hirschman also wrote that almost as soon as a utopia becomes a reality, it often comes to be seen as utterly commonplace.
Not so very long ago, democracy still seemed a glorious utopia. Many a great mind, from the philosopher Plato (427–347 B.C.) to the statesman Edmund Burke (1729–97), warned that democracy was futile (the masses were too foolish to handle it), dangerous (majority rule would be akin to playing with fire), and perverse (the “general interest” would soon be corrupted by the interests of some crafty general or other). Compare this with the arguments against basic income. It’s supposedly futile because we can’t pay for it, dangerous because people would quit working, and perverse because ultimately a minority would end up having to toil harder to support the majority. But … hold on a minute. Futile?
For the first time in history, we are actually rich enough to finance a sizable basic income. We can get rid of the whole bureaucratic rigmarole designed to force assistance recipients into low-productivity jobs at any cost, and we can help finance the new simplified system by chucking the maze of tax credits and deductions, too. Any further necessary funds can be raised by taxing assets, waste, raw materials, and consumption. Let’s look at the numbers. Eradicating poverty in the U.S. would cost only $175 billion, less than 1% of GDP.
That’s roughly a quarter of U.S. military spending. Winning the war on poverty would be a bargain compared to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which a Harvard study estimated have cost us a staggering $4–$6 trillion.
As a matter of fact, all the world’s developed countries had it within their means to wipe out poverty years ago.
And yet, a system that helps solely the poor only drives a deeper wedge between them and the rest of society. “A policy for the poor is a poor policy,” observed Richard Titmuss, the great theoretician of the British welfare state. It’s an ingrained reflex among those on the left to make every plan, every credit, and every benefit income dependent. The problem is, that tendency is counter-productive. In a now famous article published in the late 1990s, two Swedish sociologists showed that the countries with the most universal government programs have been the most successful at reducing poverty.
Basically, people are more open to solidarity if it benefits them personally. The more we, our family, and our friends stand to gain through the welfare state, the more we’re willing to contribute.
Logically, therefore, a universal, unconditional basic income would also enjoy the broadest base of support. After all, everyone stands to benefit.
Dangerous? Certainly, some people may opt to work less, but then that’s precisely the point. A handful of artists and writers (“all those whom society despises while they are alive and honors when they are dead” – Bertrand Russell) might actually stop doing paid work altogether. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the vast majority of people actually want to work, whether they need to or not.
In fact, not having a job makes us deeply unhappy.
One of the perks of a basic income is that it would free the poor from the welfare trap and spur them to seek a paid job with true opportunities for growth and advancement. Since basic income is unconditional, and will not be taken away or reduced in the event of gainful employment, their circumstances can only improve.
Perverse? On the contrary, it is the welfare system that has devolved into a perverse behemoth of control and humiliation. Officials keep tabs on public assistance recipients via Facebook to check whether they’re spending their money wisely – and woe betide anyone who dares to do unapproved volunteer work.
An army of social services workers is needed to guide people through the jungle of eligibility, application, approval, and recapture procedures. And then the corps of inspectors has to be mobilized to sift through the paperwork. The welfare state, which should foster people’s sense of security and pride, has degenerated into a system of suspicion and shame. It is a grotesque pact between right and left. “The political right is afraid people will stop working,” laments Professor Forget in Canada, “and the left doesn’t trust them to make their own choices.”
A basic income system would be a better compromise. In terms of redistribution, it would meet the left’s demands for fairness; where the regime of interference and humiliation are concerned, it would give the right a more limited government than ever.
Talk Different, Think Different !
It’s been said before. We’re saddled with a welfare state from a bygone era when the breadwinners were still mostly men and people spent their whole lives working at the same company. The pension system and employment protection rules are still keyed to those fortunate enough to have a steady job, public assistance is rooted in the misconception that we can rely on the economy to generate enough jobs, and welfare benefits are often not a trampoline, but a trap. Never before has the time been so ripe for the introduction of a universal, unconditional basic income.
Look around. Greater flexibility in the workplace demands that we also create greater security.
Globalization is eroding the wages of the middle class. The growing rift between those with and those without a college degree makes it essential to give the have-nots a leg-up. And the development of ever-smarter robots could cost even the haves their jobs.
In recent decades the middle class has retained its spending power by borrowing itself into ever-deeper debt. But this model isn’t viable, as we now know. The old adage of “those unwilling to work will not get to eat” is now abused as a license for inequality. Don’t get me wrong, capitalism is a fantastic engine for prosperity. “It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals,” as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote in their Communist Manifesto.
Yet it’s precisely because we’re richer than ever that it is now within our means to take the next step in the history of progress: to give each and every person the security of a basic income. It’s what capitalism ought to have been striving for all along. See it as a dividend on progress, made possible by the blood, sweat, and tears of past generations. In the end, only a fraction of our prosperity is due to our own exertions. We, the inhabitants of the Land of Plenty, are rich thanks to the institutions, the knowledge, and the social capital amassed for us by our forebears. This wealth belongs to us all. And a basic income allows all of us to share it.
Of course, this is not to say we should implement this dream without forethought. That could be disastrous. Utopias always start out small, with experiments that ever so slowly change the world. It happened just a few years ago on the streets of London, when thirteen street sleepers got £3,000, no questions asked. As one of the aid workers said, “It’s quite hard to just change overnight the way you’ve always approached this problem. These pilots give us the opportunity to talk differently, think differently, describe the problem differently…”
And that’s how all progress begins.
Rutger Bregman - Utopia for Realists.
submitted by IluvBsissa to antiwork [link] [comments]
2021.12.04 13:42 arbyinyabish18 Dna fraud how corrupt are state and federal gov when it comes to dna testing
2021.12.04 13:42 jsmithers0002 Zekrom 3648 5317 9116
2021.12.04 13:42 scinfeced2wolf Are there pc mods that improve this game?
I'm talking things like getting rid of the shitty honor system, making the game stop forcing me to use guns I don't want and having my horse come right up to me when I whistle.
submitted by scinfeced2wolf to reddeadredemption2 [link] [comments]
2021.12.04 13:42 edpolan [EUNE] Supp looking for clash team tier 4-3
2021.12.04 13:42 DexgLND Adele - Easy On Me (When We Were Young (Remix)
|submitted by DexgLND to CountryMusicStuff [link] [comments]|
2021.12.04 13:42 DumpsterGravy Finally got season tickets to the habs!
After years of being on the waiting list, I finally got season tickets last week. It's been a goal of mine for so long. I'm never letting this pair go!
submitted by DumpsterGravy to Habs [link] [comments]
2021.12.04 13:42 TX908 Prefab Geodesic Dome Home Design, Denmark
|submitted by TX908 to prefab [link] [comments]|
2021.12.04 13:42 tendencyofbattle Mods please explain
|submitted by tendencyofbattle to shitposting [link] [comments]|
2021.12.04 13:42 TheMindOfJawz Separating from my Wife
Hi, yesterday my wife(28) and I(28M) decided that we wanted put our relationship on hold. We are high school sweethearts. We meet at 15 and we have been married 7 years. We have a 18 months old daughter together.
The reasons for that separation are many but we both hold responsibility for it and we came to the conclusion that fixing our issues is a huge slope that we would have to climb.
That being said. We do not want to divorce(just yet) because we do believe that with enough effort and time we can maybe sort things out.
Here is the issue:
I don't want to live in a house with someone I dont get along with. I'd rather leave. But she argues that it will be devastating for our daughter and that me leaving would make it harder for me to take care of her. Her solution is for us to live together married but not be in a relationship. Also she dosen't plan on seeking elsewhere but dosen't care what I do.
I also realise the financial burden of leaving my wife alone in a house.
I dont know what to do, should I stay or should I go?
Tldr: I'm separating from my wife but I dont know if I should stay for the sake of my daughter or just leave the house.
submitted by TheMindOfJawz to relationship_advice [link] [comments]