I wasn't saying that they send back a "significant portion" …. the guys I worked with each took back about $3000 for a 9 month stay. That's not a whole hell of a lot of money to most of us but south of the border , especially those way down south , that's a small fortune. I spent many years of my youth in Mexico , it was my summer playground for nearly a decade … been to literally every part of the country traveling on motorcycles - many places didn't have paved roads back then. Everyone treated us great , often better than in the US … but that was before the cartels took over. I haven't been back since the early 90's.
Same for me, as a kid spent every summer visiting and staying with my family. sadly stopped going as i got older and life happened but still visit occasionally.
Ah I see. Yes, I was being a bit hyperbolic. I was trying to make a generalization that rewards go to those who work. Those who want UBI want something for nothing, IMO. That's what I was trying to say. Part of my problem -- in this thread and others -- since I cannot always come here everyday, is that I sometimes forget what I said. Hey, I'm human too.
Isn't money sent back to Mexico in the top three (or so), in terms of revenue sources for Mexico/people living in Mexico?
Totally agree, and this is why (or one of the main reasons why) the Dems and a lot of the Repubs actually want illegal immigration. They need more workers paying into the system. Same is true in Europe.
I won't pretend to be uber-expert on this, but I just don't see how computers can replace long haul drivers. There's too many situations on the road that require a human's ability to change course, slow down, speed up, change lanes, veer left/right etc. And even if a computer could do a lot of these things, one would fail at some point; and the political outcry would be significant. Yes, I know human truck drivers make mistakes too. I do agree with your post in general.
Another very thoughtful, intelligent, and well written post. (thumbs up) I think here is the heart of our disagreement (your statement above). Life expectancy has been going up for decades now. You're citing a very recent trend, from just a few years. To me, if someone is going to "off" themselves, that is their decision and no one else's (of course a parent with dependent children should not do this). Now, we can look at the reasons and try to change them. BTW, men who get cleaned out in a divorce are one of the biggest examples of people who commit suicide. So, yes, in that case, we ought to look at divorce laws. To me that's probably a bigger source/reason for men offing themselves than job loss. Of course, all this may intertwine. All this talk about the "opioid crisis" is amusing to me. It's portrayed like a hurricane that comes in, damages everything, and no one can control it. But the truth is, no one has to swallow that pill (or whatever form it's in). When did we absolve people of personal responsibility? Here is where I think our key differences is/are: I think Darwinism/Social Darwinism is a good thing. Darwinism, I believe, is not "the strongest survive" -- it's "those who adapt survive." And that's what we are talking about: adapting to changing circumstances. I think it can happen much quicker than you are allowing. I'm in that demographic you mention (40-60 YO). In the business I'm in, we are constantly having to change and adapt to a changing marketplace. So, yes, I'm in that age group, and I'm adapting all the time. At a certain point, it becomes a mindset, a way of life. You expect it. So, it's kind of hard for me to see why others can't adapt.
You need to research the technology. Self driving cars can do all of that much more accurately. Its silly to believe we shouldn't use automated cars because they are not perfect.
I admitted that I was not an expert. But just wait until the first automated truck kills someone in a crash. The lawsuits and the subsequent insurance will make it prohibitive. I really don't have a dog in this hunt, except for the fact that "automated long haul trucks" are being used as a mechanism to argue for UBI.
Ok finally had a chance to read this in depth, and the above is sufficient reason for me to disagree with the UBI concept. I disagree with increasing taxes. We're taxed enough. I assume you are familiar with the Laffer curve. No, the debt will be solved by cutting spending significantly. You are right about one thing; the GOP is very cowardly in cutting spending. So they do the only thing they feel they can do, cut taxes. I'm grateful for that at least. If you raise taxes and give the govt more money, the govt doesn't reduce the debt. They find new ways to spend the money. The heart of my difference with those who support UBI, Medicare for all, Obamacare and the like, is that supporters of these programs seem to think that the govt can magically print money. In a sense, they are right about this. Since we left the gold standard (many decades ago), the govt *can* magically print money. The problem is that printing money/creating new social programs blows up the deficit, creates inflation, and will ultimately raise interest rates (yes, higher interest rates do benefit people who save money; but they are seen as a bad thing by many). I'm not Ok with the debt increasing. I'm not Ok with higher taxes. For these reasons, and others, I don't support UBI. People need to adapt. if they don't or won't or can't adapt, that is on them. The rest of us who have adapted should not be called upon to save those who cannot or will not adapt.
There was a video on YT that spoke to the problem of UBI perfectly. I can't find it now, but the speaker basically said that when he was 18-19, all he wanted to be was a skateboarder, perhaps with the aim of becoming a professional skateboarder. But he didn't work very hard at it. But because he had to get a real job -- ie, something the market wanted -- he became something like a plumber or an electrician; he was forced to do something that benefited society. If there had been UBI, he would have been happy to live off that small amount, and just be a skateboarder. But since there wasn't, he had to take a job that maybe he didn't like, but benefited society (and as a result) paid well. And that, to me, is a key component of this. Defenders of UBI say "someone shouldn't have to do what they don't want to do." But will it be a good thing if we have 20 skateboarders to every one plumber? The question answers itself. These are some other good videos that speak to this sort of thing:
reminds me that the classic paper on UBI is Philippe Van Parijs's "Why Surfers Should be Fed" which starts with the real-life case of surfers flocking to Hawaii and taking advantage of that state's social welfare programs. (That paper is online at https://cdn.uclouvain.be/public/Exports reddot/etes/documents/1991l.Surfers.pdf if anyone is curious to read it.)
Welfare Surfers in Hawaii were the downfall of Western Civilization? Because if they were not, UBI (or it current equivalent in Hawaii) turns out to not be a BFD.
I am not a fan of UBI. I do not agree with the proposition that automation will lead to staggering unemployment. People survived the Industrial Revolution; people should be able to survive this. UBI is also a very tough sell to Conservatives, since they loath all income redistribution. Unemployment for unskilled workers is an issue that neither political party appears to have a solution. I do believe the Republican solution (for any and all problems), which is tax breaks for the uber rich, is laughably bad. I am unsure what the Democrat solution is, discounting Yang's UBI proposal which is a decidedly minority opinion among Democrats. Sanders wants free college, which unskilled workers may be very reluctant to pursue. Thus, we have a problem, unemployment for unskilled workers, with no viable political solution(s). That said, I could see myself voting for Andrew Chang. UBI is not his only idea. He has well thought out on other major issues like school loans, universal health, etc. A Yang Presidency would not mean that all of his ideas would be implemented, but some would and the rest would be seriously discussed.
We need to stop selling 4 year colleges as the end all be all and we need to have more vocational and technical schooling like Germany. Our education system is too much based around the liberal arts structure. We need to prepare people to be part of a highly skilled/trained work force. Somehow in this country techincal schools have become sort of a joke and for most people are nothing more than late night tv infomercials.
I could not agree more. Vocational training at junior or community colleges should be free. To this end, my preference would be for the Democrats to back free college for the first two years, versus four free years.
