Grendel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 298
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Don't tempt me...
If you were guaranteed a $25,000/year income by the government would you quit your job and stay unemployed?
I know I wouldn't, how about you?
Would you really want to live on such low income? What would you do with all that spare time you have? With no car, no insurance, no money, living in a dangerous ghetto, what would you do? I mean, aside from frantically searching for a job to get the hell out of that life.
$25k per year is plenty of money to have a decent car+insurance+a decent place to live. It's no surprise that a limousine liberal such as yourself has now idea how to live well with a $25k budget.Would you really want to live on such low income? What would you do with all that spare time you have? With no car, no insurance, no money, living in a dangerous ghetto, what would you do? I mean, aside from frantically searching for a job to get the hell out of that life.
$25k per year is plenty of money to have a decent car+insurance+a decent place to live. It's no surprise that a limousine liberal such as yourself has now idea how to live well with a $25k budget.
Do you seriously believe that those getting SS, UI or welfare (in all of its many forms) are not doing that now?
Around here is more expensive than Los Angeles, by a significant margin? Doubtful.
Then I don't need to answer your inquiries as you already know the answer. Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to? Just to waste time or for something to pick at? I'm guessing the later.
Nope. You work you violate the conditions of the OP.
And I would argue that it isn't, but I think we SHOULD ask him and settle this once an for all. It would resolve what he meant by his OP: was it open ended as you seem to believe, or closed as I do?
No. Their difference is that people would make the decision based on their CURRENT or PAST situation, not on what would/could happen in the future. For example, if they ALREADY cohabited, that could play into their decision, as I said. I said nothing of future changes which has nothing to do with the OP.
I would submit that these would be introverts.
Political knowledge is really not an issue in this question. It is more philosophical than political.
Here's the problem with your analysis. Those who voted "yes" were not taking a loss of living standards into consideration or didn't believe it would affect their living standards. So, unless you believe it would, your analysis doesn't apply.
Any change alters the impact of employment vs. $25,000.
If I move from a mansion with a $6,000/month mortgage to a one-bedroom apartment rental that's $800/month, I've altered the parameters and rendered the OP question meaningless.
No, you have added extra variables to the OP effectively altering it
Wrong. You have to remain unemployed. That is not the same as "performs zero labor". People who occasionally do handy-man jobs, mow their neighbors lawn, do a day labor position on a roof for a couple of days, etc, remain "unemployed" as it pertains to the receipt of government benefits, which this $25,000 would be.
Indeed - let's ask.
:shrug: if I'm a single young male, then my current situation is that I could easily shack up with my girlfriend and we could live off of 50K. There is no qualifier ever presented whatsoever that would justify your argument here - nothing is mentioned ever about how people would go about using their $25,000, or arranging their lives in order to make that income work better for them.
1. I realize I'm arguing on your turf here, but
2. Introverts would watch others argue over that.
Take a look at the times we've done the Briggs-Meyers/etc threads ; do we match the general populace?
The two intertwine - the more politically aware you are, the more you focus on political value sets and arguments. The more you do so, the more likely you are to be guided by them. The populace of those who explicitly daily make the argument against government handouts are going to be less likely than general pop to take them, even if they rate them (many still will, but the portion will be fewer), just as those who defend such programs will be more likely to feel justified in accessing them when they can.
You are impugning a poor decision-making process onto them that you have no way of verifying or even demonstrating. You are literally just making something up and declaring it to have occurred.
Which is irrelevant to the actual question except inasmuch as it allows people to shift from "no" to "yes" or back again.
On the contrary, nothing about the parameters proposed by the question have changed.
On the contrary, I have added no new requirements, no new parameters.
Which negates the point of the OP,
Absolutely has. The OP is either or. Change the parameters and you render it pointless.
Of course you have.
What? no it doesn't. People have the ability to make rational decisions based on rational assumptions about the future - this isn't a static scoring here.
There is no "either or" language presented in the OP. The only requirements presented are A) quit your job and B) remain unemployed to C) get $25K. Those are the only requirements.
Interesting left/right breakdown here. Are all things allowed except those forbidden by the controlling Authority, or are all things forbidden except those explicitly allowed by the controlling Authority?
On the contrary, I have not. In one case I better defined the language, you pointed it out, and so I stopped but continued to make the case that it was implicit and we agreed to ask the OP.
Future consideration are not part of the OP. YOU and others have created that addition.
Those are THE requirements. When you add anything, you alter the parameters. Since alterations were not mentioned, there is no reason to do them.
That's one way to look at it. Or does one fit their answers inside the rules or does one fit the rules inside their answers?
I also defined a better OP and we both DID agree to ask the OP. So, we can either continue to argue semantics, cease this silly bickering where neither of us will back down, or move on to a far more interesting point... the one you made in the left/right breakdown. Your choice. I'll be logging off soon, so I can do either of the three.
Government benefits are irrelevant to the point of employment. If you work, you are employed.
He doesn't seem to have revisited the thread.
Without boundaries surrounding the scenario, the OP is completely meaningless. Of COURSE there are qualifiers. Without qualifiers, answering the question would be like dividing by zero. In order to get a reasonable response, parameters must be set.
No, an introvert is not necessarily an observer. Internet message boards are boons for introverts. Introverts are less likely to enjoy socializing, face-to-face.
I've actually never taken a look at them. I am currently pursing training in advanced Myers-Briggs assessments.
Actually, if you take a look at the poll numbers... from an ideological standpoint, we see the exact opposite of what you are saying. I don't see anyone on the ideological left voting "yes". Yet, I see a lot of libertarians voting "yes"... or challenging the "no's".
Just goes to my theory that some have tried to turn this into some sort of "trap" thread.
Well, there are two possibilities. Either I am right... or I am right about the "trap" based on the ideology of those who voted "yes" when one looks at what you said about the ideologies of how people would vote. Either way, I'm right.
I live here. I'm pretty sure I'm aware of the costs.
Apparently not since I'm getting by just fine on not much more money than this.
$25k per year is plenty of money to have a decent car+insurance+a decent place to live. It's no surprise that a limousine liberal such as yourself has now idea how to live well with a $25k budget.
Why would I have to move out of my house?
housing vouchers, etc.?
Well I guess that makes me insane. I like to keep busy and feeling productive
In this area, you can't get a house for that. Just renting a room from someone is at least $500/month.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?