Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think people know that millionaire means 1 million in net worth.
No when people talk about millionaires they are usually referring to people who make a personal income of a million or more dollars. But even if you go less then that say half 500,000 that is more then enough to live on unless you are irresponsible financially.
No when people talk about millionaires they are usually referring to people who make a personal income of a million or more dollars. But even if you go less then that say half 500,000 that is more then enough to live on unless you are irresponsible financially.
No. It most definitely refers to net worth as it always had
No. It most definitely refers to net worth as it always had
Which would completely change the meaning. Originally it represented a "really rich person". that is no longer true. The term millionaire was first used in 1719. Even 100 years ago a million $ was worth 30x what it is now.
Which would completely change the meaning. Originally it represented a "really rich person". that is no longer true. The term millionaire was first used in 1719. Even 100 years ago a million $ was worth 30x what it is now.
It literally means a person who has 1,000,000 dollars. It doesn't have to mean a "really rich person"
Noted capitalist Bill Gross wants the Federal Reserve to print money and just hand it out to ordinary citizens, regardless of whether they are productive members of society or drug-addled bums.
That’s right, in his latest investment outlook the bond king has endorsed a radical proposal that is being embraced in some circles on both the left and the right, called universal basic income.
Here's a test of basic intelligence to go with "basic income."
In one group, [A] everyone is EQUALLY WEALTHY. No one "needs money," so no one bothers to go work, sweat, strain, make an effort, mine, farm, fabricate, transport and trade usable goods and services.
In the other group, [b] everyone is prodigiously productive, producing, trading and enjoying surplus usable goods and services.
Which one will survive?
Obviously Group [b].
Group [A] has gone extinct, unless everyone wakes up and gets productive despite not needing money (nor a "basic income").
Here's a test of basic intelligence to go with "basic income."
Neither of your scenarios is remotely close to describing the real world, now or in the future, and it appears you are unaware of the reasons why a BI would be desirable. So what is the point of your straw man?
Here's a test of basic intelligence to go with "basic income."
In one group, [A] everyone is EQUALLY WEALTHY. No one "needs money," so no one bothers to go work, sweat, strain, make an effort, mine, farm, fabricate, transport and trade usable goods and services.
In the other group, [b] everyone is prodigiously productive, producing, trading and enjoying surplus usable goods and services.
Which one will survive?
Obviously Group [b].
Group [A] has gone extinct, unless everyone wakes up and gets productive despite not needing money (nor a "basic income").
You're missing the part where people are still motivated by extra wages (likely large wages due to improved bargaining power) under a UBI. And that robots are/will be doing a ton of that work very soon.
And then there's the possibility that once they start missing their food and resources, they might start mining and farming instead of just rolling over dead. Once upon a time, humans did this without money. Why? Because they wanted stuff.
Are you worried about society collapsing? Just imagine mass unemployment without welfare.
All other social programs would need to be cut to fund basic income. However, they won't be because too many people are profiting from that model. The worry is that the UBI amount will be the new poverty floor, keep those programs in business.
Here's a test of basic intelligence to go with "basic income."
In one group, [A] everyone is EQUALLY WEALTHY. No one "needs money," so no one bothers to go work, sweat, strain, make an effort, mine, farm, fabricate, transport and trade usable goods and services.
In the other group, [b] everyone is prodigiously productive, producing, trading and enjoying surplus usable goods and services.
Which one will survive?
Obviously Group [b].
Group [A] has gone extinct, unless everyone wakes up and gets productive despite not needing money (nor a "basic income").
And then theres factual REALITY where data indicates you don't understand things at all, all the while saying anyone with "basic intelligence" should.
Google the manitoba experiment-it has actual data from a Canadian experiment in basic income. Turns out we are pretty motivated even when our basic needs are met. I'm often amused by people who talk about how everyone would quit....when asked they often indicate "Oh no, not me, I would keep working". Yes, you're not special. The vast majority of us would keep working. SURPRISE!
Your analogy is false.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
