i’m honestly so glad to see misha at sdcc being appreciated and loved because of who he is and the amazing things he does, and not just because of spn
Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.
Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.
"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!"
"But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”
I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!
The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.
reblogging for more top commentary
They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.
The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.
You know if Arizonans actually had proper sex education maybe this wouldn’t have happened.
100% of people who tell you you’re too sensitive are saying it because they don’t want to be held responsible for your reaction when they mistreat you
actual footage of gays destroying the sanctity of marriage
How dare those gays raise happy children in a loving home. it’s disgusting.
SPN FANDOM TRADITION: ALWAYS. REBLOG. ON. TUESDAY.
DO WANT THIS TRADITION TO STAY FOREVER IN THIS FANDOM
FANDOM LAW YOU MUST ABIDE
Came on specifically looking for this post. It’s Tuesday. I hate Tuesdays
When I was a kid I thought your 20s were supposed to be fun, not filled with perpetual anxiety about financial stability and constantly feeling like an unaccomplished piece of shit.
That’s because it was fun for baby boomers and they basically gave us this impression it would always be like that, but then they ruined the economy.
(submitted by martiantea)
GOOD MORNING TUMBLR IT’S TUESDAY!!
She can only carry one man’s child at a time, but you can knock up as many bitches as you want. That’s why they’re all worthless and replaceable to us, but every cock means the whole world to them. People have known it since the dawn of time. Bitches have known it too.
HAHAHA. Yes, you’re right, women can only carry one man’s child at a time. Men can fertilize many at a time. But you DO realize that that’s actually why nature treats MEN as the more DISPOSABLE sex, right?
It’s (part of the reason) why women live longer. Men have a harder time surviving throughout all stages of life. Even in the womb, boys are more likely to have problems and/or be miscarried. 150 boys are conceived per every 100 girls, but by the time of birth, it’s roughly 1 to 1.
"Women may have a biological advantage because the female role in reproduction is vital to survival - not only do women give birth, but they nurse their babies and care for them during their early years. Men’s role in reproduction is limited and, for that reason, longevity in men may not be as vital to the continuation of the species.”
"Being male is now the single largest demographic risk factor for early mortality in developed countries."
Although men are physically stronger, women seem to have better immunity etc. and survive for longer periods of time, even in the womb.
The woman has to survive 9 months of pregnancy, plus (evolutionarily) a few months of breastfeeding. A man can just drop dead right after intercourse, but the baby would be born just fine.
If you had 1 man and 10 women, you can have 10 kids a time. If you have 10 women and 1 man, good luck. You need more women surviving than you need men. That basically means that you can keep a society going with 1,000 men and 100,000 women. In other words: a mainly female society.
If we’re going to strip away everything except for the sole required functions of species survival - food, water, procreation - it’d actually make more sense to say that men are solely sperm donors than that women are solely birth givers. Evolutionarily speaking, women are the ones directly in the process of giving birth, nurturing, etc. That’s not to say that men are just there for sperm, but THAT would make more sense than saying women were just there to give birth. As for everything else that happens throughout life, such as hobbies and jobs, women are just as capable as men.
I never understood why people said things like “women were made as helpers to men” but then said “women’s role is to care for the kids & men’s role is to protect women and children.” like, um? who’s the helper in that situation if, according to you, the male is a secondary person protecting other people?
So yeah. You’re trying to use pregnancy as a way to say that women are inferior to men, but you’re sadly mistaken.
That was a READ 👓