~ archived since 2018 ~

Universal basic income; becouse the majority of homeless are men, and $50k is less then $400k.

Lrellok

May 24, 2016

27 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Universal basic income; becouse the majority of homeless are men, and $50k is less then $400k.
Author	Lrellok
Upvotes	27
Comments	41
Date	May 24, 2016 7:54 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4kvp0o/universal_basic_income_becouse_the_majority_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/universal-basic-income-becouse-the-majority-of.948910 https://theredarchive.com/post/948910

Comments

[–]Rethgil 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anon_and_on 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]unkleman 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]anon_and_on 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]unkleman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never claimed otherwise. We all benefit from the advantages of having the internet, modern phones, advanced medical technology, etc. We can find information in the palms of our hands in a minute that would have taken hours of effort (including a trip to the library) just a couple of decades ago.

But we still need the basics to live. The ability to Skype with someone on the other side of the planet isn't too useful to someone who isn't able to earn food, shelter, and clothing even though he's willing to work.

It's just a fact about how the future is going to work... many jobs have been automated, and many more will be. So are we going to change our economic system so that people willing to work don't get screwed over because of our advanced technology, or are we just going to sit here and tell a growing part of our population "sucks to be you"?

[–]leftajar 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]leftajar 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, generally the term "socialism" refers to governmental level of course. I just use it more broadly because the reason people feel socialism is good is the same as the instinct to help each other out.

That's why when you argue against socialism, they think you're arguing against helping each other. So it's perhaps more effective to try to channel that instinct and redirect it.

The ironic thing is, people have a stronger sense of helping each other out, when you allow them more freedom to do so on their own terms. The less government forces people to care about each other, the more they do. And vice versa.

I think what I'm saying is, the enemy is authoritarian government, even if it acts under the guise of helping.

Kind of. It's just people vote on instinct. That instinct isn't wrong or bad, it just doesn't work on a large scale (and does the opposite in fact). Take the minimum wage for example. Applying it universally is like having a village with 100 inhabitants, 1 pharmacy and 50 bakeries and ensuring that all 50 bakeries pay their employees as much as the pharmacy pays its employees.

The other reason to argue for smaller government is because, unless you do, government will grow. Growing is its default state and, even if you don't want it to shrink, you still should argue for that just to keep it from growing more. It's an apparatus with no face or personality and no direct accountability. Even politicians aren't really much more than cogs in the machine. They're not leaders and they're not in charge of anything. They're just the face that gets held up in front of the cameras. Have a nice day!

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iamwomper -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]unkleman 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iamwomper -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]unkleman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Imagine a future where fully half of the jobs are automated. Technology has advanced so far that there just isn't enough employment available for all of the people who want to work. How would you manage the economy?

There are a limited number of options.

1) UBI (which replaces welfare and food stamps). The advancement of society shouldn't mean that half of the population is doomed to poverty just because there aren't a lot of jobs anymore.

2) Keep the current system. Half the country is in poverty, relying on welfare and food stamps, with no hope of employment. Crime could become more of a problem, and it's not cheap to keep people in prison either.

3) Restrict jobs to 20 hours a week maximum. Inefficient, hard to enforce, and some of the top 50% of workers will take up a second job for another 20 hours. Could be workable, but messy.

4) Current system, but make further cuts to welfare. People starve and die, or turn to rampant crime. Either the country falls apart, or a huge portion of the population ends up in prison, which is massively expensive and wasteful.

5) Kill all the extra people. This plan wouldn't get very far.

Which would you pick? Or do you have any other ideas? Sorry, but hoping for the best and encouraging people to try harder (bootstraps, etc.) isn't a solution when there are more people than jobs, and we are headed further into that situation.

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pariahdog119 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]autotldr 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot)

In their book Just Give Money to the Poor, scholars at the University of Manchester furnish countless examples of cases where cash handouts with few or no strings attached have worked.

Maybe now the time has come that we can finally be rid of the major misconception that we almost managed to dispel some 40 years ago: the fallacy that a life without poverty is a privilege you have to work for, rather than a right we all deserve.

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".

Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top keywords: work^#1 income^#2 year^#3 experiment^#4 money^#5

[–]Klytemaestra 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lrellok[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lrellok[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lrellok[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

"Your ad hominems aside"

What ad hominems, exactly? Do you even know what that word means?

"my bad news is that quite a few people here are socialists"

I can work with just about anyone, including socialists, until they start trying to shove their political opinions down my throat or fundamentally change the movement. This is men's rights, not marxism 101. If you want to try to get a better deal for fathers who lose custody, great. I will work with you. If you start spouting SJW propaganda and trying to turn the rest of us into socialists, then you've got a big fight on your hands. At that point, I am your enemy.

"the majority of working people historically being men."

Yeah, cut the marxist propaganda and use your fucking brain, asshole. The problem here isn't class warfare, the problem is widespread culturally accepted misandry. So stop with the nonsense.

[–]Lrellok[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Apologies for the delayed response, i work 12-14 hours a day.

What ad hominems, exactly? Do you even know what that word means?

this

Yeah, cut the marxist propaganda and use your fucking brain, asshole.

Now, if you are willing to listen to logic and reasoned argumentation, i will explain why the problem is entirely class warfare. First, let us begin with 101 level economics. When the supply of a commodity increases its price falls. This is the reason that the "hard work equals success" narrative is scorned by socialists, as the more hours you sell the less each will be worth. Yes, hours worked is a commodity supplied. This is easly demonstrated by the following;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio#/media/File:Goodwin2_fredgraph.png ANd http://i.imgur.com/NXyCio7.gif

SO, we can clearly see that the increase in the number of workers tanked wages. But who did this decline impact? Before we precede i would like to state that i agree with ancaps that measuring value with green bits of paper us pointless, i simply disagree that gold is any better. The correct measure of wages is the portion of their productivity the workers themselves receive. Measured this way, who did this decline impact? Overwhelmingly men.

http://imgur.com/a/H5Q5u

Now, a marxist understanding of marriage is a division of labor. That is because capitalism can only produce jobs for half the people while maintaining wages at anything approaching incentive levels, the portion of the population that cannot find work must be fed, clothed and housed by the portion of the population that can. This was the foundation of the assumption that as prosperity increased under communism, marriage would gradually disappear. Now, under this construction, women expect to be provisioned by men. SO what do we observe about marrage rates?

https://scottlong1980.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/marriage_rate_usa.gif

https://www.blue-point-trading.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/marriage_and_divorce.gif

Would you look at that, marriage rates are tracking perfectly with the portion of the social product received by men. WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE!

As the means of production are still in the hands of the few, women still expect men to perform division of labor. However, because feminists defined division of labor as "Oppression" women think men should have to perform their half while women have no obligation to reciprocate. So, despite driving men out of universities, high paying jobs and any hope of a stable relationship 84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to. This is a direct contradiction of core socialist principles, those of mutual and reciprocal obligation.

Under actual socialism, any obligation imposed upon someone must be matched by all the resources necessary to achieve it. If men are expected to provision women, then men are entitled to a pay scale directly proportional to the increased expectations, that is, if men have to bring in $45,000 for a family, men get paid $45,000 more then women even if they are working the same job. Which is the marxist understanding of the wage gap, btw.

In short, the feminist movement is a gang of petty bourgeoisie princesses sobbing hysterically that it is their turn to oppress the laboring class. Oh, and before your obvious quipe, the very first decision reached by the very first group of communists at their very first meeting was "The emancipation of the laboring class can only be achieved by the laboring class itself, without the assistance of the government." Please stop confusing the elitist shit show that was russia and china with actual communism, if the workers did not vote on the production quotas by referendum, there was no communism.

[–]Klytemaestra 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lrellok[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lrellok1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link