StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 03:11 PM) Rent $680/month (i'm sure you could find cheaper) http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/apa/4206018407.html Utilities - $60-80 Food - $100 (could easily be done for less) Cheap healthcare plan - $50/month as we learned today and no deductible What else? Misc expenses, call it $100 bucks. So there's $1000 bucks a month with an extra $250/month for the year to spend on other things (public transit, clothes, whatever). Absolutely doable. As I said about 10 times, this is a LIVING wage, not a luxury lifestyle. Your turn. Give me that number. Back up your claim that a universal base income is the way to go. $15k might be a good universal basic income level if those numbers are truly representative of an average individual's minimal budget. I don't know why you always assume that I or anyone else actually envisions a luxurious lifestyle as the bare minimum. I support a universal basic income (different from a minimum wage) for a variety of reasons, but the most important is that I don't believe that people should be forced into wage-labor for others' profits as generally their only means of subsistence. The power balance is titled heavily in the favor of the wealthy when you must work for them or live in destitution. A universal basic income would provide for a minimal, spartan life. Because of this, you wouldn't be forced to take a job for a pittance in horrible work conditions with bosses/companies that treat you like disposable garbage. I believe that an overwhelming majority of people would still work and be productive members of society, and there have been studies and experiments that have borne this out. Most people want to feel productive, to be doing something for themselves and for those around them. You don't need the threat of starvation and homelessness to motivate you to work.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 03:00 PM) Please provide me with a number for your "base income" instead of "more than what they get now." HH has a good starting point with his. No, you made the $15k claim. Support your claim.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 02:18 PM) Most places in Indiana. Ah, right, silly of me to neglect rural poverty, I was only thinking of urban/suburban poverty.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 02:14 PM) It does at first, because of how damn sharp they are. And when I mean sharp, I mean actually for really real razor sharp. By comparison, other "razor blades" shouldn't be called razor anythings, because they're dull and tend to pull hair vs slicing through it like butter. It's so sharp, that you can put the razor against your cheek and allow the weight of the razor itself to shave you...as a matter of fact, pressing down is how you cut your face off. Now that I've been doing it for a few years it's about the same. The reason I actually tried these was because traditional disposables and electrics gave me severe burn/bumps. I have sensitive skin on my face/neck, and this solved that problem for me. I've been doing this for a couple of years, too. Sliced my cheek a bit once or twice, but otherwise much preferred over the cheap disposables I was using.

I'd check into how much liability you open yourself up to.

Australia's minimum wage is somewhere around $15 or $16. I wonder if they've seen that effect.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:15 PM) Right, which is why it makes no sense. How can we be spending so much on education in this country if one of the most important factors in educating people (teachers) are being paid LESS than the OECD average? That money is going somewhere, and I'm betting if you followed the trail, it'd lead to a bunch of politicians bank accounts, or the bank accounts of their friends. One place it isn't going, for sure, is to teachers or modernizing a lot of these classrooms, who STILL have limited or no access to modern computers or the Internet. It's ridiculous. This depends greatly on what school district you're talking about. New Trier and Nequa Valley spend assloads of money and have all sorts of resources. They pay their teachers well. They can do this because our schools are funded at the local level in large part, and these wealthy areas have the tax base. We spend a lot, but we don't spend it equally. All of the "broken" parts of our education system aren't really the ones with high funding levels.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:14 PM) Depends on where in America. I could do it here pretty easily. Rent+utilities for a modest 1BR apartment is about $7000 per year. If you're willing to have a roommate and/or live in a more questionable area, you can do it for $4000/year. Groceries are about $1600 per year. Car payments for a reliable used car are about $1800 per year. Gas for a commute of about 20 miles each way is about $2000 per year. Clothes are about $600 per year. Doesn't leave a lot left over for entertainment, but it's still doable. That's not to say that the minimum wage shouldn't be higher, but it's not at all impossible to live in $15-17K in a lot of areas. Where are you getting rent + utilities for $583/month for a 1BR?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:14 PM) Don't buy any luxury items that Americans think are rights and it's pretty easy. We're talking about a living wage - what you need to provide you with life essentials. 15k is MORE than enough. Please provide an actual budget instead of just assertions about what you think people spend their money on.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:12 PM) It would make wages 1000 times more complicated than they are now. What if you are working while still living at home with your parents and you move out on your own and get married Do you get a raise? What if you have a set of twins. Do you get another raise? The circumstances that define the monentary amount a person "needs" to live vary too drastically to try to nail it down to a single number. A universal basic income would simplify it greatly, and it would be a check from the government, not wage restrictions on an employer. Every single person would be entitled to $X, and that could vary based on location. We sort of do that with the Earned Income Tax Credit already.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:04 PM) We're throwing money into the wrong things at schools. Money needs to be spent on (1) making sure the kids get to school (2) making sure they have a safe environment in which to learn (3) having teachers they can connect with. In the worst of the bad neighborhoods, you need one person for every 50 students whose full time job is to follow up on kids who are absent from school and keep in touch with their parents. I'm not aware of any schools that have this to that extent. When I taught, we had one such person for the entire school of 600 kids. Most of the problems with education are really problems with poverty in the first place.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 12:56 PM) We already have dramatically high education spending. Higher than anyone in the world. A lot of good it's doing. ...and what the hell is the "cost of living", anyway? That spending isn't equalized, though.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 12:14 PM) Senate just passed the "nuclear option" (though not really) to change the cloture rules. Only 51 votes now needed to invoke cloture on votes for all nominees except Supreme Court. No change to the cloture rules regarding votes on legislation. About damn time. The Senate gets slightly more functional.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 12:14 PM) Senate just passed the "nuclear option" (though not really) to change the cloture rules. Only 51 votes now needed to invoke cloture on votes for all nominees except Supreme Court. No change to the cloture rules regarding votes on legislation. About damn time. The Senate gets slightly more functional.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 12:00 PM) Yea, we dont need an entire generation filling that quota. There's not an entire generation that wants to be actors, though. Implicit in your argument is that we have and should support an economic system that forces people to give up substantial portions of their lives doing things they get no enjoyment or fulfillment out of just to survive, at the same time as others are enriched by their efforts. I believe that economic systems should serve humanity, not the other way around.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 11:56 AM) It's not possible. There are way too many factors to consider. Family size, married or single, lifestyle, where you live, etc... There is no one-size-fits-all "living wage". It's not impossible to define. We already define per diem by county across the entire country, and look at taxes and other differently based on number of children,etc. Alternatively, we could simplify with a non-means-tested universal basic income.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 11:46 AM) Im going to try my best here to not be insulting. We really dont need you. At all, even if I were using the term "you" broadly to address the many others living near identical lives. We need lawyers (sadly), geologists, truck drivers and sad office drones. We dont need dreamchasing actors. America would keep chugging along in their absence. Theres really no nobility to it either. But if I go further down that road Im afraid Ill have no choice but to insult so Ill stop here. Culture and the arts are worthless. Humanity should only focus on production and consumption of tangible goods.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 11:43 AM) I'd like to know what a "basic income" would entail. Because you know as soon as you set that line, that hand will be out flat again asking for more. I know, you say this same thing every time. You can read more about basic income if you want, there's lots of literature out there. The city of delphine ran an experiment a while back and found positive results.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 11:23 AM) And cell phones and xbox 360's and cars and houses and kids they can't afford and... what else should every American get? Noted socialist Fredrick Hayek and communist Milton Friedman endorsed universal basic income. And a ps4 for every American.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 11:16 AM) I can't believe I'm about to say this, but... I actually agree with the core point of what Duke is saying. I despise the way he is saying it, but, the idea that people are able to intentionally choose a life that requires extra government support does bother me. In Reddy's case, he chooses to make some money to live on freelancing and go after an acting career - which is 100% fine of course - but he's being given taxpayer dollars for that privilege. It shouldn't work that way. Here though is where Duke's philosophy hits the brick wall of reality. How do you determine a Reddy vs a poor family who don't have the skills/tools/education to make any more than that? He knows there is no easy way to do so. Therefore he chooses the path of intellectual simplicity - since we can't tell who is who, screw 'em all. For me, I would much rather provide a program that helps a lot of people who truly need it... and then attempt to make small steps as we go on to try to weed out some of the abusers. And for that matter, Reddy isn't much of an abuser, relatively speaking. I am aware this means I will pay more, because some people will get my money that should not. But I can live with that and sleep at night. I can't do that taking Duke's approach. I find his approach to the problem to be immoral and sad. But as I said, I fully understand his frustration with certain individual cases. One other note to Duke: there is really no need for you to insult people while making these points. Please stop that. I think it's a good thing if society can allow for people to pursue engaging and rewarding careers instead of having to take whatever grudging job they can just to subsist. Universal health care and a basic income for everyone.

Your not really making coherent arguments, it's just a bunch of weird assertions. It's also the conservatives and gun rights advocates who talk about "mental health" whenever there is a shooting to deflect away from discussion of broader gun control. You just seem to be stringing random ideas together while still insulting the people you claim to be standing up for.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 11:07 AM) Im less repulsed by the ones who fancy themselves charitable spending other peoples money. Taxation is slavery!

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 11:01 AM) Oddly enough it is liberals and lefties who cry foul when they have the same rights or the evil organizations that oppress them get defunded. The more mentally ill you have the more people you vab disenfranchise and eventually get rid of, genius! Oh, ok.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 09:28 AM) Because nobody gives a s*** about them. It takes absolutely no courage to stand up for blacks, gays or women. Zero. Theyve got all the rights we do except gays cant marry in most states. Excuse me while I hold off outrage over that while millions are told none of the legal protections afforded to us apply to them. Like I said earlier, gays, women and minorities vote Democrat. The mentally ill dont, so they dont count in the big tolerant society vision. Mental health is an important part of the social justice movement. It's not liberals and lefties that typically deny that things like depression are real illnesses.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 09:46 AM) So its ok for you to get his money because he works harder than you? Damn right you appreciate it man, hes allowing your parasitic lifestyle. The mentality of the poor is so annoying. If you actually worked as hard as the rest of us you wouldnt be so willing to pay more. You just dont have any concept money because like some teenager from Wilmette driving a German luxury sedan to New Trier, you dont have any idea what goes into making that wealth just that youre entitled to a cut. Youre not allowed to say youd pay more if you could, you cant. You cant relate to the rest of us who support you. Pretty sure I make more than you. I relate to reddy's position and think yours is appallingly immoral, but keep on kicking poor(er) people if it helps you sleep at night.