Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: Python, javascript, HTML, CSS, SQL, Git, Linux
Resume: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_n1lBazyaQQLW9mODd6Q3Rkczg/edit?usp=sharing
Email: its.matthew.c@gmail.com
I've been an admin for 8 years and I'm looking to write code full-time. Looking for a junior position where I could put my Python skills to use, preferably doing back-end web stuff.
most people keep their phone on them most of the day, especially those willing to grocery shop online. i don't feel like finding a phone and pressing maybe, 3 buttons, is any slower than finding some other gadget tucked in a drawer somewhere in your house, and pressing one button. i don't see the point of the hardware here, even though finding an app on my phone is apparently 4 steps.
Moms do the lion's share of household grocery shopping, and are less likely to have functional pockets than men. This gizmo is going to be hanging on the pantry door.
Amazon is creating services and products based on observed behaviors and needs in households with multiple people. You're making claims about what other people want based on how you feel.
Creating things people want and are willing to give you money for requires paying attention to what they actually do and use -- not just what they say they do, nor how you feel they should be acting.
Taxes? I'm not proposing anything by the way, just explaining that mincome isn't a proposal to print a bunch of new money. I think the idea is that it replaces current welfare programs.
That's absurd, of course people will work. Why does anyone work right now when there are already welfare programs?
By your logic there would be no sense in companies paying bonuses--if you already have a guaranteed salary why would you do anything more than the minimum?
This is not welfare. This is giving money to every single person, and you cannot do that without negatively impacting the value of the currency. Reality sucks, but we still have to live in it.
How is it not welfare in your estimations? It's nearly the dictionary definition of welfare.
Why would it negatively impact the value of the currency and how is that any different than the current state of welfare (where only some people receive it)?
Because welfare, being given to only a small percentage of the population, can be funded out of taxes from the much larger pool of people not receiving welfare. But if everyone were suddenly on welfare, the system would quickly run out of money. We would then have to print more money.
Your argument seems to rest on the false assumption that (like welfare) anyyone who receives the basic income is not paying taxes.
In fact, a lot of people would pay considerably more taxes than the basic income they're getting. Yes, that's not perfectly efficient, but still more efficient than the bad-incentive-riddled beaurocracies that exist to ensure that welfare goes only to the "deserving poor".
You seem to be under the impression that this is not being done already. That impression would be wrong. The treasury creates trillions of new dollars every year.
People won't accept full-time low-wage shitty-manager jobs, because they won't accept their lives being poisoned by shitty managers, and they will have the choice.
But most shitty managers are shitty because they have power over their low-education personal (which can be easily replaced, and job market is not good these day). Those workers will take part-time ok-manager jobs, mostly because they want to contribute to society, also because they might get bored.
Also, in most of Europe, University cost is quite low (like, less than 1k€ / year, instead a life-long debt like 'some' country can pull out), so universal income could bring interesting trends in education.
Not everyone would go back to school, maybe almost no one at first, but I would expect views to change rather quickly on that subject.
I answered this in my reply to pgcsmd, but additionally: I don't have kids but my taxes supplement education. I don't drive, but my taxes supplement roadworks. Likewise, my taxes also supplement justice.
Now the US prison system has become a corrupt business - and that's a separate and awful issue. But the fundamental ethical basis for punishment stands: you steal money, you pay it back - you deal emotional trauma, you pay it back.
Money and emotional trauma are not equivalent. When a thief is forced to give back the money they stole, the victim tangibly benefits. Torturing murderers doesn't tangibly benefit the victim's surviving family members, because emotion isn't transferable capital.
Thus, our goal should be the lowest possible crime rate, and I'm not sure punishment for vengeance's sake is ultimately compatible with that goal.
> When a thief is forced to give back the money they stole, the victim tangibly benefits [... while] emotion isn't transferable capital
I propose that you would feel differently if someone had emotionally assaulted you or your loved ones via rape or violence. Perhaps this is a difference in personal ethics, but I despise such assaults more than property damage; at the very least I hope we can agree that such crimes deserve to be redressed.
I remember getting unlimited texting for $5 a month from Verizon circa 2005, and it was $0.10 per text without the plan. Why are phone plans just getting worse...
Are you hosting a personal file server that shifts ~20GB/month with the odd FTP connection, or a major website shifting 1TB/month with thousands of concurrent HTTP connections?
