As someone who actually owns rentals in poor black neighborhoods, UBI is the most retarded ivory tower idea I've seen gain traction. All the black families on my street have section 8 vouchers, so they basically have no debt service. What do they do with all this free time? Deal drugs, look for marks to mug, break into vacant apartments, wake up at 2 pm, etc. Drive through my street around noon and count the number of able bodied men doing absolutely nothing productive and you'll lose count. They're hopeless.
Section 8 vouchers are a means-tested benefit program where the net benefit decreases with outside income, and, as such, create a disincentive (especially since people qualified for them also, nearly invariably, are on other means-tested benefit programs whose benefits also decline with additional income -- sometimes, in aggregate, leading to a greater than 1:1 decline in benefits compared to increased income) to productive activity.
This is precisely one of the problems with means-tested benefit programs, especially with an uncoordinated collection of such programs, that UBI, with its unconditional nature, is designed to solve. I don't see how that description of the effect of Section 8 vouchers (even if it is assumed to be both accurate, and generalizable) illustrates that UBI is a "retarded ivory tower idea".
This is the thing I really don't get about UBI. It really, really doesn't remove means testing. Your tax burden is still means based, and that determines whether your ubi is net positive or net negative. So again, your net benefit decreases with increased outside income, because you're paying more in taxes.
It's not means testing that's the problem. The problem is that a linear combination of benefit programs with a below-unity benefit-to-income slope has an above-unity slope, which means that making an additional dollar disqualifies you from more money than the dollar gives you. The benefit programs as a whole aren't designed holistically to avoid this (and other) traps, so any welfare overhaul that consolidates multiple independent programs into a systematic whole should solve these problems.
> This is the thing I really don't get about UBI. It really, really doesn't remove means testing. Your tax burden is still means based
There's a degree to which this is true, but there is a radical difference between tax system "means testing" and that with existing means-tested public benefit programs. With existing poverty support programs, its quite possible to lose nearly (and in some cases even more than) $1 in public benefits for each $1 in outside income (and much more at certain breakpoints), and to do so while your total income is under the federal poverty level.
OTOH with stae and federal income and payroll taxes together, you can -- in a relatively high income tax state like California -- currently reach a maximum marginal rate (including the employer share of medicare taxes, and assuming that payroll taxable income and income taxable income are equal, which both overstates the tax rate on nominal income and ignores minor differences between the income those two taxes apply to) of 55.8%, but it takes $1 million in taxable income to reach that point (some UBI proposals would add higher maximum marginal rates, at even higher income levels.)
So, sure, the tax system reduces the incentive for earning additional income, especially at higher income levels; the problem UBI address is that existing poverty support programs do much more to reduce the benefit for earning additional -- or even any non-benefit -- income, and they do it at poverty levels.
(And, on top of that, they add -- with each program -- additional layers of bureaucracy to enforce those rules, rather than letting the tax system be the single point in which means are considered.)
With any kind of percentage based tax you're paying more taxes with more income. That's by design and it would still apply if we didn't have any kind of welfare system.
And they are hopeless because they are section 8 vouchers. There is rampant evidence welfare systems in place stratify society in the exact same way that literal walls built decades ago to segregate neighborhoods worked. If you are on welfare, you are operating in entirely different socioeconomic circles from people with access to capital and thus upward mobility.
If you grow up surrounded by people who subsist on poverty-wage welfare checks and you are literally isolated to that community because you parents are a part of it, how in the universe are you ever meant to obtain aspiration or escape it? There is no special snowflake effect here, people are the product of their circumstances (another important sociological observation the last two decades of post-cold-war-propaganda has presented ample evidence towards) and if you have a society built on a foundation of traditional racism and segregate people on that basis you should not be surprised when the members of that group lack strong work ethic or an attitude of improvement. They are put in a cultural cell with iron bars on the windows and while you can with effort escape it you are in a prison with all your friends, family, and everyone you have ever met, so when even given the option to escape, you often do not. It is why prison recidivism is so high with long-term incarcerated, and why particularly ostracized minority groups show less economic mobility.
There is a wonderful article about effects of poverty in nautilus about Eastern Cherokee Indians post-casino prosperity and how their health and academic performance improved.I do not know of UBI will yield that, but effectively these native americans were getting checks for no work in exchange.
When there is no hope, there is no plan esp. long term plan, life becomes day to day exercise of attaining happiness now!!!
What's the avg. yield on those properties? There obviously must be an incentive to invest there, if there's low income potential + lots of potential hassle with tenants etc
Unconditional Basic Income is unconditional, not means-tested like Section 8. Section 8 creates a strong disincentive to work (legally) because you will lose your benefits if you make too much. Section 8 is not a program designed to help the poor, it is a program designed to subsidize landlords.
This is basically exactly what I would expect someone who has gotten rich from exploiting poor people to say. We need fewer people like you in the world.
I am under 35, but I'm older than most of the people I've worked with. I hear mutterings of age discrimination on occasion throughout the community but I don't have any reason to believe that is happening to me.
I'm notoriously bad at gauging age by looks. I believe some of the interviewers are younger than me but most seem roughly my age. The teams themselves do tend to be younger.
Before you become honest, make sure you understand the politics of your team. I worked with a 40 something obese, single, just plain miserable neckbeard who got off on hazing new employees. I mentioned this in the one on one to our manager and the day after, both manager and neckbeard conspired to make my life hell. And they won, I resigned.
And when hiring, it's important to avoid hiring folks who think it's appropriate to recount a problem by saying the other person was old, fat, single, and a "miserable neckbeard" before they mention a single word about the problem.
That's poisonous behavior, and if you let that sort of cancer into your company, you won't get it out. Attacking behaviors is great, attacking people is garbage.
Yup, there's an art to it. You have to make sure your manager is actually on your side first. Good managers are, bad managers pay lip service to the idea. In between there are many well intentioned managers who haven't figured out the skill of encouraging openness.
Red states are wrong about many issues but gun control isn't one of them. Cops think twice when they know there's an equalizer in the equation. If you live in a part of the country where the populace is disarmed, don't be surprised that police are beating the shit of you, or terrorists are targeting your gun-free zones. Exercise your 2nd amendment rights, and open carry that AR15 with 30 round magazines proudly.
> Cops think twice when they know there's an equalizer in the equation.
What exactly do you mean by that?
The reason I'm asking is that everything I've read or heard from law enforcement acquaintances is that cops are much more likely to draw their weapon in situations where they think guns are present. That is, they might be less likely to "beat the shit [out] of you", but they are much more likely to shoot you. If a cop is bent on subduing me or doing me harm, I'd much rather they rough me up than shoot me.
Also, I just have to say that if you feel the only thing standing between you and police brutality is your gun, you must inhabit a very different mental space than I do. I grew up with guns (in rural Alabama), and I'd probably have one now, if my wife weren't against having one with a child in the house. I can think of many reasons to own a gun. Protecting myself from the police is not one of them.
I really don't get people who think their guns will protect them from the government. Ultimately we, the people, are the government. What protects us from overreach and abuse of power these days is strong encryption and better transparency laws.
Crime is at an all-time low these days, and very few people hunt for food. You're probably much more likely to be killed or assaulted by a cop than anyone else, so it seems to make perfect sense that someone would want a gun to protect them from the cops.
Stats show you're much more likely to be killed by someone you know, not a random cop walking the beat.
Everyday crime prevention and hunting for food aren't the only other reasons to own a gun. They can be used for sport, like target shooting. And home protection doesn't just mean stopping a home invasion. For example, I've lived through hurricanes where my community was without electricity for multiple days, and I've seen looting firsthand. In that type of situation, having a gun can be a beneficial deterrent.
Honestly, I find this whole idea of protecting yourself from cops with a gun to be asinine. I'm not saying it would never happen, but in general, the second you pull a gun on a cop you've dramatically increased your chances of getting shot, repeatedly. Any other cop who comes on the scene will shoot first and ask questions later.
I don't have hard stats to back that up, but I do know that if you get into a confrontation with a cop, your best bet is to practice de-escalation techniques. Be calm and respectful until their adrenaline levels have dropped. Mentioning or drawing a weapon will escalate the situation.
Heh, pulling out deadly weapons to scare off looters? That's such an overreaction. They're people, and at worst they're thieves. Nothing in that deserves having a weapon fired or pointed at you.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, having a hard time interpreting your tone. I agree though, shooting at looters to scare them off would be an overreaction, and I was raised to never point a gun at a human (or animal) unless you intend to shoot them.
What I remember is my dad, with his shotgun in a pocket/cradle position (muzzle pointed at the sky, a common field carry), going out to talk to people rummaging through the debris in our back yard, collecting tools and supplies blown out of our barn/toolshed, i.e., pretending to be reclaiming their stuff but actually stealing ours.
The normal protocol in that situation is to knock on the door and ask the owner's permission to reclaim your stuff, show them what you think is yours, etc. If somebody is violating that protocol, I think it's okay to take a defensive posture with them. Shooting at them or running out with your gun pointed at them would be a ridiculous overreaction and terribly unsafe.
The rules of engagement are similar. You still want to practice de-escalation techniques. You don't know if one of those boys in your yard (I remember mostly groups of 2-3 older teenagers doing this looting) is carrying a weapon. You don't run out guns blazing, shouting "get off my lawn." You walk out calmly and ask if you can help them find something. You're just trying to communicate that somebody lives here, we see that you appear to be stealing our property, and we have the means to defend our property if necessary. So move along – or explain what you're doing here.
The "or explain yourself" part is important too. It's central to my whole argument really. You don't know somebody's intentions just from looking at them. I remember one incident where a guy was looking for some tarps to cover a big hole in his roof. He appeared to be some rascal taking our shit – and he was, kind of – but it was more like somebody digging through your garbage for scraps to feed his family. So my dad came in and got me, and we spent the next hour pulling some of the plywood off our windows and helping him strap it (precariously) to the back of his ATV.
The difference between interacting with suspected looters and interacting with cops is that cops are agents of the state. If a cop feels threatened, he can give you a lawful order to lie on the ground, surrender your weapon, etc., and if you disobey, you're breaking the law. Now, exactly what constitutes a lawful order versus a "request" is debatable and depends on the situation, but I doubt there's a judge or jury in the US who would question the cop saying he felt legitimately threatened if you draw your weapon or point it at them.
I've seen your post go through substantial edits, so I'm a little wary about replying at all--it might change significantly again. That said...
No, I'm not sarcastic. Bringing out a gun to show people you'll shoot them over possessions is a serious overreaction.
Your story seems to describe a childhood event, and to be honest it sounds like a child's interpretation of the events: things are cast in black-and-white terms with your dad playing the role of the classic "good guy with a gun", there's clear-cut justice where he helps out another family in need, the villains are obviously just villains and thieves. That's all fine, and I have no doubt that you vividly remember these events and that they played out that way.
However, the reality is that, despite what you say, bringing out a gun is an instant escalation-to-the-top technique. Showing someone you're ready to shoot them (and that's exactly what walking up to a stranger with a gun in your hand is doing) is not de-escalation, it's escalation, it's raising the stakes to the highest point.
I mean, they're, in your own words, older teenagers. If they're not supposed to be there, use words! "Hey, that's not your stuff! Go home!" Brandishing a weapon, adding a gun to the mix is dangerous, because immediately and very clearly life is at risk.
If one of those older teenagers thought the same thing--"guns are a good way to go and get my tools back from that crazy guy who's been looting and hauling our stuff back to his barn"--and was walking around with their own gun, what's he or she going to do if some crazy guy with a shotgun comes up and starts yelling at him? All of a sudden, oh shit, the crazy guy's here with his gun and he could point it at me!
Because you're right, you don't know someone's intentions just from looking at them, whether it's the teenagers who you're afraid are picking over your wreckage (your perspective), or the guy who came up to them with a gun in his hand (their perspective).
Yeah, sorry, remembering one event led to other memories bubbling up after the initial post. The only substantial edit was to add the paragraph highlighting the point about perspective, not knowing others' intentions – I think. I haven't edited it since your reply, FWIW.
Anyway, I think I hear what you're saying. Some of it is contextual though, right?
If I were to walk up to one of my neighbors in my little suburban, sidewalked neighborhood with a shotgun, even muzzle-up leaned on my shoulder, that would be atypical for this community, and I agree that would absolutely be interpreted as aggressive, escalating, etc., in this context. I would certainly be leery of a neighbor walking around holding a gun.
However, I grew up in a farming community. It was common to see people driving pickups with guns mounted on a rack in the back of the cab. It was common to see teenagers (myself included) exploring the woods by our house with a .22 rifle hanging from their shoulder or strapped to their bicycle as they rode past our house. If you bumped into a neighbor at the edge of your land, there was a (estimating here) 20% chance they'd have a rifle on them. My point is just that guns were prevalent in that context. So, carrying a gun in that context is not the same as brandishing it (technically to hostilely shake or wave) or indicating that you're ready to shoot someone.
EDIT: But yes, walking up to strangers on your land carrying a gun does carry an implied threat. I'm just saying it's much less of an escalation in that context.
Brandishing a weapon (carrying it openly and aggressively) will get your permit revoked in most states. Showing it, waving it, even mentioning that you are carrying are all classed as brandishing. The accusation of brandishing is often enough to lose the permit.
So the only sure way to carry is concealed. And never mention that you are doing it.
I'm not up on this area of law, as it's been over a decade since I've owned a gun.
Are you saying that carrying/showing/mentioning (let's say non-aggressively) a gun on your own private property can be classified as brandishing? I've never heard that, but I really don't know.
EDIT: Also, what permit are you talking about? I don't know how things are now, but when I was growing up in AL (~20 years ago), you didn't need a permit to own a rifle or carry it on your own land.
Every state does it differently. Some allow open carry, but have a permit for concealed. Some allow concealed unrestricted, but a permit for open. Iowa requires a permit to carry in any way.
I have 3 permits, first Iowa and then two more to cover (most) of the other states. Still can't carry in Illinois or the People's Republic of California.
Not sure about brandishing vs private property. I'd guess anywhere you need a permit, you could be accused of brandishing.
Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it. I'm always a little wary of big edits on sites that don't show an edit history. (HN devs, why not??)
I agree that context matters. You're describing a different time and place, pretty far removed from the vast majority of Americans now: rural life, probably a couple decades ago.
In 2010, over 80% of us lived in cities. Six years ago, less than one in five of us lived in rural America--now I'm quite sure it's even fewer. The context of "let's walk around with guns" is basically missing from the vast, vast majority of our lives.
Like you said, living in a city, you'd be sketched out if you saw someone with a gun. And, indeed, we see this play out again and again. People going into restaurants with AR-15s, people wandering around neighborhoods with those big guns on their shoulders. Pretty consistently, someone calls the cops, because, in context of "I live in a city" that applies to 80% of us, this is sketchy behavior.
This is what gets me about the people that want to import gun attitudes from another time and place--from what is basically a distant and foreign culture for most of us--into modern city life.
As a thought experiment, let's not say "the rural American landowners who wrote the constitution 250 years ago felt a certain way about guns, so let's keep on going with that". Let's start from "most of us live in cities, what do we want city life to be like?" And it sounds like neither you nor I particularly want to see random people walking around with guns.
Heh, as a good for-example, yesterday I was downtown, at lunchtime, in a crowded part of the downtown area. Lots of food cards, hundreds of people gathered around. Out of nowhere, a mentally disturbed guy started harassing some lady's daughters. A bunch of us immediately started yelling at him to back off, and started putting ourselves physically between him. The dude was obviously mentally ill, but also possibly a threat to someone, just from flailing his limbs around like a crazy dude.
Well, we kept him separated from the lady and her daughters--just with our voices and our bodies--and he continued to have a freakout, yell, and after 2-3 minutes the cops on bikes showed up to keep him contained until, I'm guessing, some cop in a car could haul him to some kind of lockup. I'm sure, if he'd gotten more aggressive, me and a few other people (heh, even some in business suits) would have tackled him and sat on him.
What's scary to me is...what if someone had a gun and thought they'd be a hero? Best case is, they suppress that thought, pretend they don't have a gun, and we get the outcome like we had, with minimal damage to all. Worst case is, they start firing, and either shoot the crazy dude, or even worse, they shoot some bystanders. Odds are, here in the city (where 80% of us work and live), guns won't make ordinary people into heroes, they'll just make tense situations deadly.
Yeah, I really detest the idea that more people carrying guns will make us safer. I mean, just look at how often cops make mistakes. I believe most cops have good intentions, but the urgency of an apparent life or death situation triggers that good ol' fight or flight response and spikes adrenaline. This inevitably leads to accidents and bad judgments in the moment.
The self-reported hit rate for bullets fired from police weapons is only 30-40%, in the US. Some 3rd party estimates put it around 20%. That means at least 60% of bullets fired by cops miss their target – and these people are generally well trained with firearms (if not other parts of policing), usually required to re-certify their marksmanship multiple times a year, etc.
I personally do not want to trust some rando with a gun to a) make the right decision about when lethal force is prudent and b) execute that decision competently.
Anyway, I'm preaching to the choir here. I'm sure gun people can raise counterexamples of where some citizen with a gun saved the day. So, I know I'm just wasting keystrokes.
On that note, I think I'm done with Internet comments for the day. :) Have a happy new year.
How do you know if he will just "rough" you up? Maybe Ian thought the same too. Expecting mercy from a criminal is like hiring a pedo to babysit your kids.
I was pulled over once while carrying and the cop went from asshole to polite in a millisecond once I informed him I was legally carrying at 4 o'clock. Ultimately if a cop is going to draw on me with criminal intentions, then I will defend myself as if he were a criminal.
How do you know he's drawing on you with criminal intentions?
So, you had an experience where you perceived a cop's attitude to change. That's fine. Maybe next time the cop asks you to get out of the car. Maybe he says you match the description of a suspect and tries to handcuff you, confiscate your gun. At what point are you going to draw your gun and defend yourself? It's not like the very, very small percentage of cops who are "criminals" have some flashing sign to alert you. By the time you realize some shit is going down, it's going to be too late.
And who said anything about expecting mercy from a criminal? Do you know any cops? If not, you should make an effort to get to know some, at least the community officer assigned to your neighborhood, if that applies to your locale. Most are decent folks trying to do good. Most are not "criminals".
Your contributions aren't that important. What is important is how much you pander to the senior members of your team and other teams. Your manager will consult with them to determine your worthiness. If the senior engineers think you're "smart" and a "good fit", you're on the trajectory to career advancement.
The sooner the better. The added bonus is you'll get more quality work out of your engineers for the next month or so until they fall into their "tests are running" routine again.
Even if the ones perpetrating these crimes have no gun permits, the existence of gun permits itself makes gun ownership commonplace, allowing the "crazies" easier acquisition and possession of guns
