In places that consist of many people with subsidized incomes, like elderly housing complexes, why aren't local grocery stores and gas stations higher than elsewhere?
Also, aside from that question, prices will only rise if there's no competition. In a working market, if more people can afford a higher rent more apartments will be built.
Because the subsidies aren't on top of base income?
The subsidy isn't the problem per se, it's the net increase in income.
It is obviously self-evident everywhere that high incomes create high cost of living, which can be traced through higher costs all the way down to the land rents (the rent someone is willing to pay to have market access to the high local incomes).
I don't see why UBI would necessarily be an increase of income for everyone. It could be that, but it could also be a decrease in hours worked, or a more equal distribution of wealth, or any combination of these.
I don't want a higher income, I want to benefit from the productivity gains I and everyone else made happen by having more time to do things I like.
> Why don't you just do that now and work half the amount of hours you're currently working?
Show me the job like mine where this is an option, and I'll take it in a second. Hire another me and we'll split duties.
These sorts of "professional job that pays a professional hourly rate but is for 20 hours a week" are exceedingly rare. You'll usually be taking far less than 50% pay - far worse if you include benefits in the calculation.
I've been halfway keeping my eye open for such an opportunity so I could fund the basics of my life, plus have time to do personal projects with utterly no chance of monetary payback. Just stuff like paint the house, teach myself how to weld, work on backyard art, volunteer, etc.
I could certainly find a job that pays 50% of what I get now for working the same number of hours though. Perhaps moderately less stress and no "off hours" chance of being called in for an emergency. But that's not a great tradeoff since I'm looking to trade money for time.
This may not be the point you're making, but it really is sort of frustrating this isn't an option. I get why - I employ folks too and understand the overheads involved - but man it's the dream!
If we worked fewer hours for the same pay, our purchasing power would remain the same. I'm not saying there won't be any disruption at all, but we did it before with the five-day work week.
If "we" means everyone, yes. But the reality is there is a sufficient number of people willing to work more to earn more, and therefore they will raise prices of everything which destroys your purchasing power.
Your purchasing power is defined in a competitive equilibrium with your peers.
If you're assuming you can band everyone together to all decide to work fewer hours for the same pay, fine, but you just invented a union, not an improvement to UBI.
There are people working 80-hour weeks now. I don't think "some people want as much money as possible" is the basis of how we should think of labour. Plenty of middle-class workers will be happy to work fewer hours if they can maintain their current lifestyles.
> If you're assuming you can band everyone together to all decide to work fewer hours for the same pay, fine, but you just invented a union, not an improvement to UBI.
Why should this come solely via unions? I elect people to represent me, and I want those people to tax AI/tech companies and their beneficiaries, and return some of the wealth they've generated to the people it's been extracted from. The entire point of UBI is that it's universal, including in industries poorer and more vulnerable workers who can't self-organise work in.
So ... why work or have a career then? If we're damned if we do (UBI=higher inflation=no advantage in costs) and don't (work hard to increase income=no advantage in costs) then it seems UBI will clear the field for those who like to work because they enjoy it.
Is the problem that money is becoming worthless and relationships are what matter? I'm not wealthy, and never have been, but I suspect relationships and not wealth-as-in-dollars matters after $500 million net worth or so.
Because it’s good to have shelter and food, and other people are willing to compete for those resources so you must (to a greater or lesser degree per your priorities) compete as well.
The trick though is that you aren't really increasing net income. You are just adjusting the way you provide your safety net while increasing the volume of money and the "velocity" of that money.
A Universal Basic Income gives everyone a flat monthly or bi-weekly income. Whatever jobs you work on top of that also provide you income.
As a standard W-2 employee (in US terms) this UBI payment would be factored into your W-4 paperwork (income tax withholding). As your wage increases your withholding increases as well and at the end of the year ideally your return has a clean net 0 under/overpaid.
Below some income threshold your total income tax contribution would be less than the UBI payments and so you'd be receiving a prorated negative income tax throughout the year. You could also call it a prorated tax credit or fixed disbursement social welfare grant or whatever.
At that income threshold you are receiving an interest free loan from the government for the year with loan disbursment on a fixed schedule throughout the year. And of course you promise to pay back in full by the tax deadline (either via withholding and/or with a lump sum at the end of the tax year).
Above that income threshold you are still receiving that fixed disbursement schedule interest free loan from the government but you also start paying additional income taxes on top of that loan. This is of course all still handled via W-4 deductions during payroll and nobody touches your regular UBI disbursement that shows up in the bank as a direct deposit or as a check in the mail. It still shows up every 2 weeks or every month.
But importantly this system is resilient to sudden changes in income. If your income suddenly increases, you factor that in via your W-4 and nothing changes. But if you suddenly lose your job or you move to a much lower paying job, you keep receiving your UBI disbursements on that fixed interval and you aren't left with a tax burden for it at the end of the year.
And so UBI as a system is purely an implementation detail. If we took existing welfare systems. Housing subsidies, food security subsidies (SNAP, etc), insurance subsidies, etc. We factor their per person cost/payout and roll it all together into one fixed interval UBI check. We keep income tax rates the exact same as they are now but shifted to factor in this UBI income (i.e. start everyone at a negative income floor that slowly gets filled to 0 dollars once every UBI check for the tax year pays out). The taxes paid and the net incomes for everyone stays identical (more or less due to variations in thresholds for existing benefits programs).
So at the end of the day your income stays the exact same but there's more money moving around and more consistency for the tax payer/citizen/resident even when suddenly life events change their financial situation.
I'm assuming there's tracking on the invites. So a recursive kick on X and all who X invited would still do the trick. If an IP address appears more than 5 times in an invite tree, ban the /24 or ASN if not from a friendly country for 10 minutes or other reasonable timeframe.
Getting unique IPs in any country you want is trivial for anyone but people building toy bots.
How far up the tree do you kick? Going too far up makes it so malicious people can "sabotage" by botting to get huge swatch of legitimate users banned.
Going to shallow means I just need to create N+1 distance between myself and my bot accounts
That's fine. If it is understood that you might be permanently banned because someone you invite starts doing bad stuff, maybe you'll be careful about who you invite.
Inviting people who invited bots chould also hurt your "social credit" score in various ways.
Your tree could for instance be pruned - you can still invite people, but the people you invited can no longer invite people.
There are not a lot of sites which have tried this and failed. Those which have tried to be even a little bit clever about it, have succeeded pretty well (Advogato was a really early example).
What there have been, are sites which rejected such restrictions after a while, because they would rather have a big number to show to investors than real people. Many have even run the fake accounts themselves (e.g. Reddit).
The one abstraction you would have to keep in mind with assembler (writing more than reading tho) is the cache hierarchy. The days of equal cost to read/write any memory location are ancient. Even in the old 8 bit days some memory was faster to access than others (e.g. 6502 zero page).
The flags are another abstraction that might not mean what it says. The 6502 N flag and BPL/BMI instructions really just test bit 7 and aren't concerned with whether the value is really negative/positive.
For DVDs: Walmart still sells a USB reader/burner for $30. Also I'd bet something will be able to read recordable disks in the future even without drives. Maybe a super super high resolution (compared to now) picture can simply be used to get the data from it visually in 30-40 years.
Meta and Google time-spent growth is probably people watching Reels and YouTube. They're both becoming Tiktok and most of the accounts on Tiktok when I was on it for a while did not look like people's real name. So with regard to Meta/Google "growth" idk if there's anything too social about that.
sure, call it entertainment rather than social. very fair comment, but that is not a distinction this paper is making. the paper is also talking about tiktok too which falls into the same entertainment category.
What if people are moving to "No App"? Social media is becoming uncool, especially with all the government involvement lately. I wouldn't bet a small sum that many of those quitting Tiktok are done with social media.
"No App" is still a completely acceptable result, they didn't buy tiktok to make money, they did it to stop people talking about things that the owners disagree with.
