-->
@3RU7AL
belief and desire - and one is intrinsically unrealistic, while the other is simply yearning
Universal Basic Income
Posts
Total:
314
-->
@Theweakeredge
belief and desire - and one is intrinsically unrealistic, while the other is simply yearning
How realistic was it for oprah winfrey to maintain an ambition to become an international media mogul when she was growing up in a poor family?
How do you propose we QUANTIFY "realistic" versus "unrealistic" ambition?
-->
@3RU7AL
The likelihood of an individual to reach a station that high in the highly oppressive environment that America is. There are of course the outliers, but that's similar to the few smokers who say, "I've smoked for years, not a single thing wrong with me." I would expect you to have something more substantial than anecdotes.
-->
@3RU7AL
@Theweakeredge
The likelihood of an individual to reach a station that high in the highly oppressive environment that America is.
Here is crux of this issue, that all of you miss.
1} 'individual' needs to translate into nation,
2} and nation needs to translate into global humanity problem { issue } and how many years does humanity have to figure this out?
None of us can see the future, ergo, none of us know what technoligical innovations, along with long term global planning initiatives, initiated by;
..1} single individual, ---Einstein that led nuclear everything---
...2} a non-profit or profit group, --ex United Nations---
...3} for profit corporation ---Apple?---
....4} nation that sees one, few possible Universal Income models for humanity and then is able to convince all other nations that one of these plans has highest percentage potential to succeed,
....5} teh above #4 nation or group of nations attempt to force the changes onto humanity at all costs, because, the alternative may be modeled to lead to end of humanity if some direction forward for all of humanity is not taken.
Humanity needs global planning options going forward. How do those global planning options appear to us here and elsewhere?
-->
@Theweakeredge
How do you propose we QUANTIFY "realistic" versus "unrealistic" ambition?
-->
@ebuc
Humanity needs global planning options going forward. How do those global planning options appear to us here and elsewhere?
WE MUST DEMAND HOLACRACY + RCV.
-->
@3RU7AL
WE MUST DEMAND HOLACRACY + RCV.
I used to have an RCA and I'm I currently living in a and RV, but never owned and RCV nor a holacracy.
Again, if we find two or more parties who have access to those two items, they could get together and their synergy may produce a model/plan for global humanity to survive beyond 2232. Only time will tell the future story of humanity.
Fuller and Carl Sagan gave both positive and negative outlook in the latter days.
Admiral Rickover state in the movie about him, that he thought nuclear lead to the destruction of humanity.
Then there are those who see nuclear ---3RU--- as the only possible way forward for humanity.
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you literally fail to read my last post? I'm not repeating it. Read what I respond to you with
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm abandoning my "example" that you found objectionable and I'm asking you if you can answer the question that you failed to address.
How do you propose we QUANTIFY "realistic" versus "unrealistic" ambition?
-->
@3RU7AL
Takes all kinds. What one lacks in parentage should not deter one from being able to look in the mirror and say, "Not me, Jack. Go hold back somebody else." Nothing like taking personal responsibility. Going to find some excuse for lacking that?
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you really think the corporations are going to want to keep people alive if they DON'T NEED WORKERS?
How many (for profit) corporations currently provide food and shelter for the homeless?
[IFF] corporations don't try to keep people alive in the future and [IFF] corporations are not trying to keep people alive in the present [THEN] the future is the same as the present.
[IFF] the future is the same as the present [THEN] it is weird to imply that the future will be worse than the present.
-->
@Theweakeredge
What's anecdotal is the myth that nobody has a path out of failure and poverty. Does it take more than one? But, to satisfy your lack of interest to do your own reasearch:
Billionaires who grew up poor, in no particular order:
Oprah Winfrey
Howard Schultz [Starbucks]
Ralph Lauren [fashion]
Larry Ellison [Oracle]
Finis Conner [Seagate, Conner Peripherals - who I personally worked for]
Sheldon Adelson [las Vegas hotelier]
J.K. Rowling [author]
Alan Gerry [Cablevision]
Kenny Troutt [Excel Comm]
George Soros [investor]
How about from ordinary middle class:
Stephen Jobs
Bill Gates
Jeff Bezos
Elon Musk
Andrew Carnegie
Pierre Cartier
-->
@fauxlaw
This is a little technique I like to call counting the hits and ignoring the misses:
- 9 out of 10 startups fail (source: Startup Genome - the 2019 report claims 11 out of 12 fail).
- 7.5 out of 10 venture-backed startups fail (source: Shikhar Ghosh).
- 2 out of 10 new businesses fail in the first year of operations (source: Bureau of Labor).
https://indicators.kauffman.org/indicator/startup-early-survival-rate - backs this up with a 78.8% start-up survival rate - that's the rate of businesses that don't crash and burn, not even the ones that become successful.
"The Rate of New Entrepreneurs of 0.31 percent means that310 out of every 100,000 adults became new entrepreneursin a given month. This number translates into approximately540,000 new business owners each month during the year."
That means that 108,000 people straight up fail right out the gate - this doesn't bring up at 5 years the survival rate is only half:
"About two-thirds of businesses with employeessurvive at least 2 years and about half survive atleast 5 years."
All of this is to say is that even these people aren't especially likely to succeed in America, how about upward economic mobility, surely there's gotta be a high chance of that, right?
"Increasingly, an individual’s chances in life are determined by their starting point (socio-economic status at birth, where they were born, etc.), resulting in economies and societies that too often reproduce rather than reduce historic inequalities. Across most socio-economic systems today—a person’s background often predetermines the level of education they will attain, the type of work they will do and the level of income they will earn. This “lock-in” from birth has consequences for growth, cohesion and innovation across societies. "
Wait, so its not just a thing that happens, its a thing that is happening more?
So no, those few examples persuade me of nothing aside from your ability to cherry pick - I expected a bit more. My conclusions don't come from my "inability to research", instead they come FROM my research
-->
@fauxlaw
What about the other 200 million people or so who didn't succeed? Are we just ignoring those people?
-->
@fauxlaw
Nothing like taking personal responsibility.
Blame the player for losing a rigged game.
That makes sense.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Do you really think the corporations are going to want to keep people alive if they DON'T NEED WORKERS?How many (for profit) corporations currently provide food and shelter for the homeless?[IFF] corporations don't try to keep people alive in the future and [IFF] corporations are not trying to keep people alive in the present [THEN] the future is the same as the present.[IFF] the future is the same as the present [THEN] it is weird to imply that the future will be worse than the present.
Excellent work.
The key difference between now and 2030 is that humans are not yet OBSOLETE (specifically as business assets).
-->
@3RU7AL
Okay... so then what happens?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay... so then what happens?
I think we might want to perhaps maybe start caring slightly more about homeless people.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay... so then what happens?
No one knows the future unfolding story. What we do know is that;
1} humans have the access to most complex, Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concepts,
2} complex mind discover patterns of design organization to benifit standard of living,
3] side effect of #3, is humans have proliferated, with enough consideration for ecological environment that sustains their existence,
4} computers have the ability to do massive binary number crunching ergo they can pop out models/plans/scenario options for humans to choose going forward,
5} human could get together with their models/plans and their synergy may produce a many more new options based on new technologies for global humanity to survive beyond 2232. Only time will tell the future story of humanity.
Fuller and Carl Sagan gave both positive and negative outlook in the latter days.
Admiral Rickover state in the movie about him, that he thought nuclear lead to the destruction of humanity.
Then there are those who see nuclear ---3RU--- as the only possible way forward for humanity,
6} Synergetics principle is that no system can create something more complex than itself, Ex a human cannot create anything more complex than a human ergo a computer { created by humans } can never create another more complex computer. A computer is just very fast number cruncher, nothing more, Universe cannot create anything more complex than itself,
7} From Fulles book Synergetics..." Rudyard Kipling labored under the only-you-or-me philosophy, but he was inspired by thoughts that it might some day be otherwise:
....'And no one will work for money and no one will work for fame But each for the joy of working, and each in his separate star,Shall draw the Thing as he sees It for the God of Things as They are!'- from When Earth's Last Picture Is Painted
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Landlord homeless, unable to evict ‘deadbeat’ tenant thanks to COVID law
For every one example of this, there are thousands of successful evictions.
A new startup is recruiting gig workers to help landlords evict people from their homes, calling it the fastest-growing moneymaking gig because of COVID-19 [LINK]
Universal = global humanity --in this thread--- and anything less is not all-for-one and one-for-all policy/agreement/standard/spiritual.
22 days later
-->
@3RU7AL
If we were a truly caring society, then what point money anyway?
If we were truly caring we would realise that money is a tool of human hierarchy and selfishness.
Universal Basic Income......But don't take a slice of my pie, as Mr Waters wrote.
When push comes to shove....Who actually cares about you, and who do you actually care about, when it impacts upon your pockets?
And being seen to be caring or being paid to be caring......And actually being caring......Are two separate things entirely.
Money....... Survival of the fittest without the big stick I suppose.....Not that that can be guaranteed.
-->
@zedvictor4
In your resource-based economy, how do you decide who deserves more or less?
@RatMan.
Well, I don't prescribe anything new.
I run with the current system, and care relative to my ability to care, as defined by my status within said system.
I was pointing out to 3RU7AL, that caring is just fine, but a society based on caring rather than a society based upon money isn't where we live or ever likely to be where we live.
Well, certainly not for the foreseeable future.
-->
@zedvictor4
I have an issue with communism and 'pure socialism' even in theory, not just practise.
There is not an issue with the notion of the capable providing for the needy, instead the issue is with how we go about doing it (even in theory). Who has the needs that matter more when resources are limited and who has the abilities that they should be forced to utilise?
How do you value art and subjective things like 'good food' in your RBE?
-->
@RationalMadman
how do you decide who deserves more or less?
Revolutionary idea... why not just consider everyone equally deserving?
-->
@secularmerlin
okay so someone who is working twice as hard and four times as effectively as another at the same job gets the same reward?
-->
@RationalMadman
We are not discussing their work only the degree to which they deserve basic human necessities.
-->
@secularmerlin
I see and who deserves more than that, considering that in the current society that's determined by who has the disposable income to do so?