667
Gen Z are dipping into their retirements, skipping meals and selling their belongings just to get by, new reports find (fortune.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
220 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Paywall removed: https://archive.is/KNzH9

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I don't know if universal basic income would really do anything in the long run. I don't think it would lead to overall run off inflation, but I dont doubt for a second that landlords would immediately increase rent.

We don't really need more money supply, we need more protections in areas of economics that should rightfully be considered natural monopolies.

If we didn't have to spend so much on essentials that should be subsidized or price controlled by the government like housing, food, utilities, and healthcare, then we'd have more to stimulate other areas of the economy.

Increasing the money supply without implementing mechanisms for regulation is just a complicated economic stimulus for landlords, produce markets, and utility companies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    if you tax the rich, they need to ask for higher prices of the products they sell to still make a profit. this is a partial inflation.

    however, small companies run by non-billionaires, like worker cooperatives and local businesses, would be exempt from the taxes and therefore have a competitive advantage. this is my goal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    they need to ask for higher prices of the products they sell to still make a profit.

    That's bullshit, they'd make a profit anyway, but it would be less of a profit, the poor souls... and they'd still hike prices anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    They have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder and therefore will act in a way that maximizes profits. It's just what they do as a consequence of what they are. In candyland this leads to overproduction as companies race for existing markets and seek to penetrate new ones, and as a consequence they end up making a hell of a lot more than what they need, which leads to better access and lower prices for the consumer. In the real world? The classic example of something capitalism is really good at making is a pencil, and you have to hand it to them. Pencils are in fact cheap as hell and very readily available. Food, shelter, and medicine, on the other hand...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I really want to see a change to that fundamental shareholder law, that allows for things like:
    A) A company is structured around a particular mission, which may have nothing to do with money in particular, just set up as a "shared goal"
    B) Any profit motivations must acknowledge both short-term and long-term. If a company wants to replace their flour with sawdust, then a board member can readily explain this will likely lead to a long-term dropoff in customers and that such an action should be legally barred.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    A and B are both technically already possible.

    Case A is possible if the organization's mission/goal is written in the organization's charter. The mission has to be set at the organization's founding, however. Changing the mission later is difficult or close to impossible. Note that such an organization might not be profit-oriented, and therefore might have difficulty finding investors, which means it will have a difficult time to start and operate in the world, because investors are typically looking for companies that return a profit at some point in the future. So, the difficulty is really more about finding investors than running a non-profit company. If you can find investors though, you're golden.

    Case B is technically already the case. The board of shareholders decides on the company's strategy, and they can decide to favor long-term profit over short-term profits. The reason they often don't do that is because in today's world, there's a lot of structural changes in the world around us all the time (think of all the technology that was developed in the last 50 years alone), and so it's very difficult for a company to keep to a long-term plan at all, so they often make short-term plans instead, which leads to the short-sightedness that you already mentioned. If the world around us was more stable and provided more consistent operating conditions for companies for long-term planning, companies could rely on that and settle down on a long-term strategy. Which has simply not been the case in the last 50 years or so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    however, small companies run by non-billionaires, like worker cooperatives and local businesses, would be exempt from the taxes and therefore have a competitive advantage. this is my goal.

    What makes a large business more competitive compared to a small one isn't taxation, it's the economics of scale in regards to logistics and production. All of a corporation's activities are already exempt from most taxation, the only thing we tax a corporation for is on their profit.

    Being a non profit doesn't automatically make you more competitive, operating at lower cost with higher productivity is what makes you competitive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Porque no las dos

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I mean you could, but what would be the point if housing, healthcare, and food security were a right? UBI is just a bandage some billionaires advocate for just so they don't have to pay for a working healthcare system

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Did you mean to say if they weren't a right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    I meant if housing, healthcare, and food were guaranteed, what would be the point of UBI?

    Politicians currently advocating for UBI are doing so as a replacement for things like universal healthcare, not in conjunction with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    So that goes back to my original comment, porque no las dos?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    And that would go back to my response.... What would be the point?

    A basic income is supposed to cover basic necessities, if those are already covered what is the point other than driving inflation and driving down productivity?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    It's amazing to me how some people fight so hard against something that would benefit them. Like, if I offered to send you $500 a month no strings attached, would you really be against it?

    They have done a lot of studies and test runs with UBIs, they seem to work pretty well and most people use them to pay off debts, save up some, educate themselves and still work. Iirc employment actually went up and people were more productive because they didn't have to worry as much. (Not that productivity should like, be a goal that magically makes something valid to exist and if it isn't should be scrapped) You've probably seen a bunch of stuff online about it so I doubt I'd convince you of anything at this point.

    As for inflation, looks like people can price gouge their way to hyper inflation just fine without a ubi, so yeah, not sure why you'd be against a check every month.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    It's amazing to me how some people fight so hard against something that would benefit them. Like, if I offered to send you $500 a month no strings attached, would you really be against it?

    Because there are always strings attached..... Just because you don't know enough about macroeconomics to foresee any potential negative outcomes doesn't mean there won't be any.

    They have done a lot of studies and test runs with UBIs, they seem to work pretty well and most people use them to pay off debts, save up some, educate themselves and still work.

    And these studies are operating in our current economy, not one where basic needs have already been met. In the theoretical scenario where the government is insuring basic needs like housing, food, medical, and education are already being paid for, adding an additional UBI would just be an additional revenue burden.

    If we're already raising taxes enough to guarantee the populations basic needs are taken care of, UBI would be that much harder to secure funding for.

    Iirc employment actually went up and people were more productive because they didn't have to worry as much. (Not that productivity should like, be a goal that magically makes something valid to exist and if it isn't should be scrapped)

    Again, this would already be a problem addressed by the just securing people's basic needs.

    As for inflation, looks like people can price gouge their way to hyper inflation just fine without a ubi, so yeah, not sure why you'd be against a check every month.

    Yeah......you want to extrapolate that thought just a little more? Price gouging is only possible if people have the money to still pay for the items.

    One of the reasons why prices shot up during/after the pandemic is because of the covid checks. Don't get me wrong, for the amount of people who were temporarily out of work we needed to increase the money supply. However, a natural response to an increase of money supply without an increase of production is inflation/price gouging. The demand isn't being met by supply, this increases the price of the current supply to what the market is willing to pay. When you increase theoney supply, it increases what the market is willing to pay.

    You can't just increase the money supply from thin air for nothing in return. Macroeconomics is a careful balance between spending, revenue, and productivity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Whatever man if you care more about macroeconomics than actually helping people that's a pretty sociopathic take. We could easily pay for a ubi with tax reform and it is one of those things that generates more money than we put into it, but what do I know, I'm someone you assume is an idiot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Whatever man if you care more about macroeconomics than actually helping people that's a pretty sociopathic take.

    If you think you can help people at a national scale without macroeconomics then you are a moron.

    We could easily pay for a ubi with tax reform

    Again, under the original premise tax reform would already be occurring to pay for people's basic needs....you know, the thing that UBI is supposed to partially cover.

    it is one of those things that generates more money than we put into i

    In our current economy.....not in one where people's basic needs are already being met.

    The theory of UBI generating more money than it cost relies on the fact that covering some people's basic needs increases their productivity. In the economic theory we were talking about their needs would already be fully covered. Meaning there wouldn't be an increase in productivity, meaning UBI would not generate more money than it cost.

    but what do I know, I'm someone you assume is an idiot.

    In all fairness, what you are claiming is pretty idiotic.

    Even in communist countries where people's most basic needs are fully covered by the government, they don't the receiver free checks from the government, in fact in most of them it's illegal to be unemployed for long periods. Arguably productivity is even more important in planned and centralized economies, and a UBI with a socialized system would just motivate people not to work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    That's pretty fucking stupid since people worked on stuff outside of subsistence farming well before money existed. You're so wrapped up in how things are and how you think things should work you're not seeing anything potential. In your bleak worldview humanity must enslave itself. Maybe if you had a perspective that was more focused on the happiness and well-being of humans you could use that oh-so-massive big brain of yours to figure out a way for people to have their needs met and have a functioning society, but your motivations are clearly set in a different direction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    That's pretty fucking stupid since people worked on stuff outside of subsistence farming well before money existed.

    Economics existed before capitalism....... Macroeconomics does not solely consist of the evaluation of currency. You can do a modern economic evaluation of subsistence farming communities, or a historical macroeconomic evaluation of previous societies.

    Macroeconomics studies large scale forces of the economy, like a population's effect on productivity, labor policy, government type, taxation, or even how weather will affect food growth.

    In your bleak worldview humanity must enslave itself.

    Lol, even in economies where people equally own the means of production, individual people still have to be productive......

    You are just a lazy ass who wants to receive the benefits of a socially and economically equitable society without labouring for it.

    figure out a way for people to have their needs met and have a functioning society, but your motivations are clearly set in a different direction.

    I started this conversation by arguing we should have a system that already insured our needs were met..... You just want your needs met and then extra money so you can be a lazy ass and not contribute anything to society.

    UBI is a scam that billionaires put forward because they know cutting a check for 500 bucks every month is a hell of a lot cheaper alternative than providing food, education, housing, and healthcare.

    Maybe learn a iota about the economy before you start gargling Andrew Yang's ballsack.....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Like I said before, amazing how people will argue against their better interests. Really bold of you to assume I'm just lazy, too.

    It's really funny that you got this bent out of shape when someone just asks "why not both"

    Ah well can't help everyone, especially when they won't bother trying, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Like I said before, amazing how people will argue against their better interests.

    Lol, arguing something will not work because it disregards very simple economic principles is not "arguing against my own interests".

    Really bold of you to assume I'm just lazy, too.

    I mean, you're obviously too lazy to apply yourself to learn basic concepts....so yeah, lazy asshole.

    It's really funny that you got this bent out of shape when someone just asks "why not both"

    My dude, dunking on lazy idiots online is fun......

    Ah well can't help everyone, especially when they won't bother trying, right?

    The irony...... Coming from the idiot who thinks we could provide housing, medical care, education, food and give everyone $500 a month by just by changing taxes.....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Considering how the government spends money on so much other shit, it would cost a pittance in comparison, and generate more flow in the economy.

    I'm not last, I'm just gonna take advice from someone who probably stabs homeless people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Considering how the government spends money on so much other shit

    Again.... You have no idea what you are talking about, and have no clue how much healthcare cost.

    The federal government's largest expense is social security (22%), Medicare (14%), and Medicaid(10%). That's nearly half of the entire federal budget to cover some of the cost of living and healthcare for a minority of the country.

    Granted our system is wasteful and inefficient, but not to the point where we wouldn't have to vastly increase revenue to cover the entire populations healthcare, food, housing and education. We would have to reshape the entire economy to do so, and I think there is a moral imperative to do so. However, once that is accomplished, I do not see a reason to implement UBI, a plan that would just further increase the need for revenue that's already being spent for better purposes.

    I already explained why UBI would not stimulate the economy under a the economic conditions we were discussing. There's a reason no communist country has implemented a UBI. You are just too dense to actually understand anything we're talking about. You don't even understand the reason UBI is a scam in our current economic system let alone a hypothetical one.

    not last, I'm just gonna take advice from someone who probably stabs homeless people.

    Lol, I advocate for universal housing, education, nutrition, and healthcare..... But because you don't understand basic economics, it means I want to murder homeless people?

    Also I imagine you meant to say "I'm not lazy, I'm just not gonna take advice....?

    It's almost like you're too lazy to even read your own responses........

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Ah, I see where the problem lies.

    You were so wrapped up in the current situation that your very limited imagination couldn't comprehend changing it, and you're myopically focused on the world as it is instead of what it could be. I can understand someone who isn't very creative having a hard time thinking outside of what's put in front of them, so I'm sorry I was trying to introduce a hypothetical that was so over your head that you clearly got frustrated with the situation.

    You were clearly thinking from a "how could we work this ass things are" situation because of your mental limitations, and I was casually thinking of hypotheticals and being goal first oriented, thinking of the optional situation and willing to work backwards.

    So yes, of course my cavalier suggestion wouldn't work in the economic system we have now, and since you're not really able to look outside of that, you, like a frustrated child, see it as an impossibility and lashed out.

    I think it would certainly be a noble goal and something to work towards, humanity having it's basic needs met with a small stipend on top of that, and what a pity there's people who would fight tooth and nail against such an idealized situation.

    I suppose you're very much wrapped up in the puritanical thought of life without work is sinful and should be avoided, especially with your repeated accusations of laziness directed at me, so such a future would be a nightmare for you. I only assume you never plan on retirement and view retired people with contempt for their lack of toil. It's why I assume you wish to stab homeless people, for their sloth. You say you're for nationalized education, housing, good and healthcare but honestly I don't think your heart is in it if one of your big arguments against ubi is the same one being used against all those things, the horrible idea that some people might not work when they could.

    Ah well, have fun working towards humanity having to do perpetual labor forever, I'm sure that's a great idea. Wouldn't want too many idle hands and all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    You were so wrapped up in the current situation that your very limited imagination couldn't comprehend changing it, and you're myopically focused on the world as it is instead of what it could be.

    Do you have reading comprehension issues? We are already imagining a world where all basic needs are being subsidized by the government...... Which is not the curt status quo the last time I checked.

    introduce a hypothetical that was so over your head that you clearly got frustrated with the situation.

    We were already talking about the likelihood of a hypothetical when you further proposed ubi on top of it.

    thinking from a "how could we work this ass things are" situation because of your mental limitations,

    Again...... We were already talking about a hypothetical That is different from the current status quo. Just because I don't think UBI is compatible with that hypothetical doesn't mean anything but your inability to understand economics.

    wouldn't work in the economic system we have now, and since you're not really able to look outside of that, you, like a frustrated child, see it as an impossibility and lashed out

    Again....can you not retain what you read? We were already talking about an economic system that is not our current system. UBI is only compatible with our current system, because it's a ploy from billionaires to stop paying for things like social security and Medicare.

    small stipend on top of that,

    For what reason.....? You haven't validated your reasoning other than falsely claiming that it drives the economy. Which I already explained why it would not happen in this hypothetical economic scenario.

    puritanical thought of life without work is sinful and should be avoided, especially with your repeated accusations of laziness directed at me

    I honestly don't care if you wanted to work or not in this scenario, you aren't going to starve, you will have the right to higher education, and will have a roof over your head. What I don't want is for the system to further incentive people like you to do nothing but goon all day and take from the system without ever giving anything back to society.

    If that is possible the system will not be productive enough to provide for everyone. Socialism just doesn't mean you can be a lazy ass and get a free check, quite the opposite. It means we're all responsible for providing enough to insure the people who lack the ability to contribute don't go without.

    I only assume you never plan on retirement and view retired people with contempt for their lack of toil. It's why I assume you wish to stab homeless people, for their sloth.

    Lol, I plan on retiring early and am on track to do so..... We don't currently live in a socialized economy, so I really do not care if you aren't being productive, it's no skin off my back. Though I would advocate that you still deserve food, healthcare, and a roof over your head.

    but honestly I don't think your heart is in it if one of your big arguments against ubi is the same one being used against all those things, the horrible idea that some people might not work when they could.

    Again, you really need to take a course at the community college or something for reading. In our current economy, I wouldn't mind UBI so long as it wasn't a veiled attempt to lower social security or Medicare funding. However, in the hypothetical scenario new were talking about, UBI would be unnecessary and would likely increase the funding requirements while simultaneously lowering productivity....which is why no socialist government has done any sort of UBI in the past.

    Ah well, have fun working towards humanity having to do perpetual labor forever, I'm sure that's a great idea. Wouldn't want too many idle hands and all.

    This is the reason I call you out for being a lazy fuck. Because that seems to be the only thing you really care about. You seem to be in hysterics over the thought that you might have to be a productive member of a socialized society, even though it would mean having universal housing, education, food security, and healthcare. Again providing for all society is not free, I'm sorry to burst your little imagination land bubble. Please learn to read, it might help some of these ideas seep through your thick lazy skull.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Heh, figured you wouldn't get it. Funny you rant about reading comprehension but can't really comprehend what's being put in front of you. Love the assumptions, too. For someone who doesn't like laziness you really do not make the effort to think much, and for someone who claims to care about people you really are dismissive and unemphatic. It's kinda sad to see someone who's head is up their ass thinking they have clear vision.

    That's fine though, you work towards that society you want and eventually you'll catch up to me and we can work towards mine. You're only a stepping stone after all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Heh, figured you wouldn't get it.

    Heh, figured you couldn't even begin to explain your assertions. All you have done is reassert a claim that's already been disputed without responding to the dispute itself. It's obvious you are just avoiding engaging in any kind of dialogue because you don't know enough about the topic to respond.

    That's fine though, you work towards that society you want

    A functional sustainable society that provides all basic needs for every citizen? How awful of me....

    Again, an obvious attempt of constructing a strawman argument that portrays me as advocating for the current status quo.

    You're only a stepping stone after all.

    Again..... Where is the production that allows for funding for UBI coming from in this scenario? If basic needs are already met, and providing for some of those basic needs is how UBI traditionally claims to improve production...... How does UBI "pay for itself"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    You've mistaken my disinterest for ignorance.

    So let me ask you this: if there was a society that every person's needs are met, they didn't have to work if they didn't want to, and everyone there was pretty happy and educated and fulfilled, would you want to live there? No sneaky sci-fi bullshit where it's the matrix or aliens or whatever, it's genuinely a society like that on a global scale.

    Yes or no please.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    You've mistaken my disinterest for ignorance.

    Just because we are arguing about the validity of a hypothetical scenario, does not mean you can introduce the fantastical to aid your argument. Socialism is achievable in the foreseeable future, post scarcity dream world where productivity doesn't matter does not.

    Yes or no please.

    Are you incapable of making a rebuttal without the use of a logical fallacy? Why would I agree to debate within the framework of a false dicotomy?

    No sneaky sci-fi bullshit where it's the matrix or aliens or whatever, it's genuinely a society like that on a global scale.

    You are dreaming of a post scarcity society when in reality we are entering an era that is going to be dictated by climate change, mass migration, and dwindling natural resources. Of course everyone would love to live in a post scarcity society..... but that's not a possibility in the foreseeable future outside of alien intervention nor some sci-fi scenario.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Ah, so not only do you resort to childish insults but you're incapable to actually answer a simple yes or no question. I wonder why you're afraid to answer, but that's your business.

    Since you obviously don't respect me, as evident from the above points, I don't really see a point in trying to defend my position. You wouldn't listen to anything I had to say, any facts or studies you'd dismiss as a scam, and you won't even bother trying to get to understand my position enough to argue against it.

    You've already decided that, because I had even a slightly different position than you, not even against you just different, that you're smarter, more hard working, and better than me and therefore I deserve, earned even, insults and dismissal.

    So this long since hasn't been an argument in good faith.

    Which is really disappointing, I would've actually enjoyed having a discussion on the validity of a ubi in a socialist society with someone, but that someone clearly wasn't going to be you, and never was going to be.

    The worst part I feel is how much damage you're doing to the position of universal healthcare, housing, education and food, by being so venomous. Do your position and your movement a favor and please, don't engage with people about the subject. You're doing the same the the WBC does for Christianity, and giving everyone on our side a bad name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Ah, so not only do you resort to childish insults but you're incapable to actually

    Accurately accusing you of using logical fallacies = childish insults? Maybe try not using a logical fallacy as a rebuttal for once?

    answer a simple yes or no question. I wonder why you're afraid to answer, but that's your business.

    Because I disagree with the inherent premise of the question, and the reasoning that answering it would bring any substance to the dispute.

    Since you obviously don't respect me, as evident from the above points, I don't really see a point in trying to defend my position.

    Lol, convenient timing...... You obviously don't respect me either, I just don't try to virtue signal my way out of an argument.

    You wouldn't listen to anything I had to say, any facts or studies you'd dismiss as a scam

    You haven't given any facts or studies, or even logical explanations that support your opinion. You have just made the same easily disputed claims over and over again without addressing my rebuttals to them.

    You've already decided that, because I had even a slightly different position than you, not even against you just different, that you're smarter, more hard working, and better than me and therefore I deserve, earned even, insults and dismissal.

    And now we're pityfishing.... You know, this might have an iota of weight behind it if you didn't accuse me of wanting to murder homeless people because I have a slightly different position than yours.

    I would've actually enjoyed having a discussion on the validity of a ubi in a socialist society with someone

    I have been asking you to justify your position on this the whole time....

    The worst part I feel is how much damage you're doing to the position of universal healthcare, housing, education and food, by being so venomous.

    Trying to explain basic economic realities to a moron.....so venomous!

    You know I didn't actually start insulting you until you accused me of being an asshole for trying to explain the flaws in your claim.

    giving everyone on our side a bad name.

    I don't think for a second you actually care about anyone but yourself. No one who seriously wants to enact socialism cares about UBI. It is literally a ploy billionaires have been lobbying for about a decade.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •