JDiculous
In NYC there are many vacant commercial spaces because landlords hold out for the highest paying tenants. You're overestimating the desperation of landlords.
Yes that is the problem. I believe that the Fed's powers should be expanded to allow giving that money directly to the people, instead of only to banks and financial markets.
If we really cared about minimizing unemployment beyond simply paying lip service to it, we'd institute a job guarantee.
The state of student loans in the U.S. obviously isn't even remotely as despicable as chattel slavery, but it's still deeply immoral and not far removed from loan sharking + debt slavery. Ignoring the moral aspect, it's just wildly counterproductive and detrimental to society (particularly since the generation who allowed this to happen - the baby boomers - never had to deal with this themselves.
> People that have the tendency be homeless are people that don't find their place in society, the lack of order actually brings them relief.
What an insulting generalization of homeless people. Is that how you rationalize it in your head - these people find "relief" in sleeping on the sidewalk because they couldn't find their place in society?
Did you ask those homeless people why they didn't want to go to the shelter? I remember speaking with a 60+ year old homeless woman in NYC once who told me she refused to go to the shelter because it was filled with crazy people. Also you have to check out of the shelter every day, and if you don't check back in by a certain time, then they can't let you in. It shouldn't come as a surprise that many would prefer to sleep on the streets than deal with that.
> Best solution so far is a social one where people help them find a new sense of achievement and a place in society.
This is why I'm a proponent of a jobs guarantee. Anyone who wants to work should not be denied the opportunity to do so.
> Drugs is also a big problem and probably where all the money from universal income would go to.
Yes, because all homeless people are drug addicts right? /s
Given that UBI increases would be coupled with tax increases, I don't actually see that being the case.
How many of the homeless in SF/NYC that you see have kids with them?
The mental gymnastics people go through to justify homelessness and poverty is sickening.
https://www.kqed.org/news/10737399/nevada-to-pay-san-francis...
UBI isn't just about liberty and accelerating ourselves forward (though it's also about that), it's a statement that no matter how dire your circumstances, no matter how useless you are seen to our corporate overlords and private employers, that you belong to society, you are deserving of a modest respectable standard of living, and you are entitled to some of the proceeds of the wealth generated by the land with which you've been excluded.
So long as we have a two-party system, we will have dumbed down political policies pandering to the brainless masses with little room for innovative progressive ideas.
I'd say having a higher standard of living is more important than being the "innovation engine of the world", however arbitrarily defined that is.
You mention Venezuela which is a totally different scenario. They had an economy overly dependent on imports paid for by the revenue from oil exports, so when the price of oil crashed, so did their economy along with it. With resulting large amounts of foreign denominated debt, their only options were to 1. default 2. print money to pay off those foreign-denominated debts. They went with option #2, and their currency collapsed. Furthermore their country has extremely weak property rights (eg. businesses being seized by the government), enormously high levels of corruption, and ridiculous price controls.
Now what does any of that have to do with UBI?
As opposed to what, private undemocratic unaccountable authoritarian institutions controlling peoples' lives?
> nce UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival.
Anybody who's dependent on their employers' paycheck is dependent on their employer for survival. How is dependence on the government any more dangerous than being dependent on a corporation?
We already have UBI, but only old people can qualify for it, and the dividend amount is proportional to how much money you made in your lifetime. It's called social security.
Extending this dividend to the rest of the population is the next logical extension of this.
I don't think anybody is claiming this. The argument is more that WFH is best for people who prefer to WFH and are able to do so effectively.
Last time I checked, most big tech companies have little tolerance for WFH, only allowing workers to WFH at most once or twice per week. There's clearly a middle ground between "no remote workers" and "WFH is the best option for everyone".
Why is that the assumption?
Funny though as I write this I'm actually waking up very early, but that's because this week I flew somewhere 5 timezones earlier. Not sure how long this will last.