That’s ridiculous. Existence doesn’t grant you a claim to others’ lives or products from their lives.
I think you are overestimating the amount of cars that would be needed. According to this link
the average car sits parked 95% of the time. Granted they are counting nighttime hours as well, when very few cars could service those who need them, as opposed to much greater demand in the day.
Still, even using your figures, given an average of 50,000 billable miles per year for each car and a five year lifespan, that would amount to eight cents per mile. Tack onto that amount the standard federal milage figure and there you get the rental price for the break-even amount to charge the riders. Poor riders could get a monthly “milage allowance” to subsidise this cost, whereas the rest of us could pay out-of-pocket.
The easy answer would be to charge a price based both on milage and time-of-use, similar to a taxi ride. Then you could park your car at the places you need to visit and it would still be there waiting for you when you get back.
I believe in a basic income (everyone gets enough for food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare, unconditionally).
I wouldn’t so much put it as “Existence granting you a claim to other lives or products from their lives.” That’s a woo woo metaphysical claim that as an agnostic I don’t buy in to. But I think it would be a good public policy. In our advanced technological society there’s plenty to go around. Nobody should be forced into wage slavery.
Wage slavery is pretty insulting to anyone who was ever actually a slave. Your link seems to indicate it’s essentially a poorly paying unfulfilling job, like every summer high school job ever.
I’m for some form of basic income. Not as generous as your proposal though! And mine would have conditions.
Isn’t minimum wage a “basic income?”
Do we just need to raise it or do we need to guarantee food, shelter, and means of transportation regardless of whether someone is willing to work?
I would wager if we implemented the latter we’d see unemployment sky-rocket and all the money that pays for this “basic income” would dry up real quick.
Not anymore.
In most places in the US, particuarly urban areas, which is where most people live these days, minimum wage is not sufficient to allow an adult to be self-supporting. I’ve known a number of people who work full time and yet spent time in homeless shelters or living in their cars because minimum wage wasn’t enough to allow them to keep a roof over their head, even as a roommate.
That’s why “we need affordable housing” is heard about as often as “we need to raise the minimum wage”.
Raising minimum wage would be a good start. I don’t that we need to raise it to $15/hour as some suggest, but increasing it to some extent would be highly beneficial. It’s not like the poor people are going to be squirreling it away in a mattress, any such wages will be promptly recycled back into the economy. You also want to raise it incrementally to avoid shocks to the system but yes, I do believe it should be raised.
However, what many people of your “people should work, dammit!” team aren’t considering is that automation will continue to replace many more jobs in the future. This will result in people willing to work, but unable to find work. What are you going to do about them? Simply starving them to give them incentive to find a job isn’t going to work if there are no jobs available.
If you make getting basic needs fulfilled contingent upon working them maybe we’ll have to make the standard 30 hours a week or even 20 so there are enough jobs to go around (this will also have the bonus of making it easier for some to hold down a job, there are people who find working 40 hours a week difficult but could much better manage 20).
Don’t get me wrong - I’m in favor of working, do it myself, actually planning to retire later than most - but the problems were discussing here are a bit more complex than anyone would like.
If a basic income ever gets implemented somewhere, and this does indeed happen as you fear, I will be happy to admit my error. One of my core values as a liberal is the willingness to change my mind when confronted with new information.
I personally think it would provide a cushion against economic recessions, because the people at the bottom end of the economic spectrum spend virtually every penny of what they take in. Consumer spending is what keeps the economy going. With an absolute guarantee of living above the poverty line, people will be less inclined to hoard their money during an economic downturn.
What you’re describing sounds a lot like today’s local bus system. How do (presumably more expensive and lower capacity) self-driving cars make it better / financially sustainable?
In your opinion, has no one in the history of the world tried something close to the basic income you advocate for?
I don’t believe it’s possible to provide “an absolute guarantee of living above the poverty line”. I believe Venezuela tried it most recently, and appears to be failing.
It appears that Finland is experimenting with a UBI. More of a trial period at the moment - and then will look at the findings to see if it should be expanded for the country. It’ll be interesting to see what they find.
No, typically a “basic income” policy means that everybody gets minimal means of support whether they’re working or not. Like in the Star Trek Federation system: the society has enough resources to provide basic support to everybody, so basic support is decoupled from earning or “deserving”.
There are beneficiaries of Universal Basic Income all around you. They’re called adult children living at home, and their parents are generally pretty unhappy about the situation. Countless forums have parents asking how do I get my child off his ass and onto doing something with his or her life.
No, no, I’m not talking about the child who is the victim of misfortune. I’m talking about the 30 yo who plays video games all day and smokes pot.
[quote=“Broomstick, post:96, topic:751287”]
They’re not ID cards. There is no identifying information on them other than a name. They can not be used as ID’s. I am baffled why you think they’d be an adequate substitute, particularly since, in my state, you get ONE issued for the entire household. Soooo… only the person who usually does the grocery shopping gets to vote?
[quote]
I thought there was one for each adult. My mistake, a website claims that you can use your TANF card to establish identity to qualify for some federal programs. But for the sake of argument, lets say that they issue one to each adult.
How do you think they determine the identity of voters inn places with a photo ID voting requirement?
Then I’m going to guess your state doesn’t have a photo ID requirement to vote.
You’re looking at it backward. If you got hit, your insurance doesn’t go up, unless you file a claim. Which is what happens if the OTHER guy doesn’t have insurance in that case.
So your situation would have only been problematic in terms of premiums going up, if the other guy wasn’t responsible enough to carry liability insurance.
Which is my exact point for the thread. That lady that hit you WAS responsible. You should be glad she had cash, as she could be responsible and make it right. What if it had been some illegal alien driving a beater from 1989 who rear-ended you and didn’t have insurance?
Rich or poor doesn’t come into it- it’s a question of responsibility, which in this case is carrying liability insurance so you can pay for your own mistakes.
Do you have a cite for that because it sounds like bullshit.
It becomes less of a stigma when we have millions of people in jail and when up to a third of adults have an arrest record and about half that have a criminal record.
I googled democrats suppress vote and this was the first thing that came up.