atopfourthwall:

therobotmonster:

tank-grrl:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!""But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.

Assuming society doesn’t collapse in the next 15 years, this is going to become a necessity, due to a number of technologies:
3d Printing - This is getting more and more flexible, inexpensive and impressive. 3d Printing has the potential to completely alter how manufacturing, and thus retail, works. While we’re centuries off from a full on Star Trek style replicator, all manner of minor utility items and luxury goods are already printable. This will heavily alter not just the manufacturing landscape, but the retail landscape as well.
Automation. Those things that are still cheaper to mass produce rather than print will continue to be increasingly produced by robots. This will further erode manufacturing’s position as a major employer. This will also start affecting retail environments and even food service. 
Power. So the retail jobs, food service jobs and manufacturing jobs are all obsolete. At least there’s still value in electricity to run all that, right? Well, while computers compound her computing power solar energy divides its cost per kilowatt-hour. It doesn’t have to be efficient if its cheap enough, and there’s no sign of this trend stopping.
So in the next few decades we can see a potential landscape wherein entire sectors of employment vanish to automation and the power needed to run that automation becomes essentially free. Suddenly we hit a conundrum: can we continue to value people based on their labor when there literally isn’t enough labor to go around? 
This is basically the Star Trek: TNG conundrum. If power can be turned into stuff, and there’s no shortage of power, then stuff has no value. This is the “post-scarcity” economy, which our current economic principles cannot handle. We won’t hit post-scarcity in the next few decades, but we’ll start getting close enough that the cracks in the system will start to show.
Once you hit that point, or even approach it, you have a choice: either people have to be valued as people and given a certain level of comfort and security so that they can pursue their interests and abilities (STTNG), or you have labor-as-value in a world with a vastly decreased need for labor resulting in a massive poverty-class and a small wealthy over-class (Hunger Games). There is a third option, but is a weird sort of ‘make work’ situation, where people are made to do meaningless tasks to ‘earn’ their living despite the tasks being essentially theater to make sure no one gets ‘a free ride’. 
Imagine a hunter-gatherer society where a small fraction of the hunters can feed the whole tribe, but the ones who don’t have to hunt go on pretend-hunts that net no game and do nothing but occupy their time in order to get their share. 
Even if you accept Capitalism as the best answer in a zero-sum economic game it becomes a moral and ethical sinkhole when the economy is no longer zero-sum. At that point the existence of poverty isn’t about an uneven distribution of limited resources. It is about the denial of distribution of nigh-unlimited resources. 

Oooooor, just throwing this out there, manufacturing jobs shift more and more towards the service sector, which they’ve been doing for a while anyway. Manufacturing is not the only type of job out there. Not to dispute the other stuff you’re saying, I’m just saying we need not fear for TNG’s rather bizarre economy or the Hunger Games - just that the employment landscape will continue to change as it has been for a while and we will adapt.

atopfourthwall:

therobotmonster:

tank-grrl:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.

The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.

But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!"

"But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”

"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)

And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!

Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.

And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.

Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.

And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.

The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?

TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 

But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.

Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.

Assuming society doesn’t collapse in the next 15 years, this is going to become a necessity, due to a number of technologies:

  • 3d Printing - This is getting more and more flexible, inexpensive and impressive. 3d Printing has the potential to completely alter how manufacturing, and thus retail, works. While we’re centuries off from a full on Star Trek style replicator, all manner of minor utility items and luxury goods are already printable. This will heavily alter not just the manufacturing landscape, but the retail landscape as well.
  • Automation. Those things that are still cheaper to mass produce rather than print will continue to be increasingly produced by robots. This will further erode manufacturing’s position as a major employer. This will also start affecting retail environments and even food service. 
  • Power. So the retail jobs, food service jobs and manufacturing jobs are all obsolete. At least there’s still value in electricity to run all that, right? Well, while computers compound her computing power solar energy divides its cost per kilowatt-hour. It doesn’t have to be efficient if its cheap enough, and there’s no sign of this trend stopping.

So in the next few decades we can see a potential landscape wherein entire sectors of employment vanish to automation and the power needed to run that automation becomes essentially free. Suddenly we hit a conundrum: can we continue to value people based on their labor when there literally isn’t enough labor to go around? 

This is basically the Star Trek: TNG conundrum. If power can be turned into stuff, and there’s no shortage of power, then stuff has no value. This is the “post-scarcity” economy, which our current economic principles cannot handle. We won’t hit post-scarcity in the next few decades, but we’ll start getting close enough that the cracks in the system will start to show.

Once you hit that point, or even approach it, you have a choice: either people have to be valued as people and given a certain level of comfort and security so that they can pursue their interests and abilities (STTNG), or you have labor-as-value in a world with a vastly decreased need for labor resulting in a massive poverty-class and a small wealthy over-class (Hunger Games). There is a third option, but is a weird sort of ‘make work’ situation, where people are made to do meaningless tasks to ‘earn’ their living despite the tasks being essentially theater to make sure no one gets ‘a free ride’. 

Imagine a hunter-gatherer society where a small fraction of the hunters can feed the whole tribe, but the ones who don’t have to hunt go on pretend-hunts that net no game and do nothing but occupy their time in order to get their share. 

Even if you accept Capitalism as the best answer in a zero-sum economic game it becomes a moral and ethical sinkhole when the economy is no longer zero-sum. At that point the existence of poverty isn’t about an uneven distribution of limited resources. It is about the denial of distribution of nigh-unlimited resources. 

Oooooor, just throwing this out there, manufacturing jobs shift more and more towards the service sector, which they’ve been doing for a while anyway. Manufacturing is not the only type of job out there. Not to dispute the other stuff you’re saying, I’m just saying we need not fear for TNG’s rather bizarre economy or the Hunger Games - just that the employment landscape will continue to change as it has been for a while and we will adapt.

(via witheyeslikestars)

eclecticvoyage:

Westboro Baptist Threatens To Protest Robin Williams’ Funeral… One Comedian Responds.

O, but they say the tongues of dying men
Enforce attention like deep harmony:
Where words are scarce, they are seldom spent in vain,
For they breathe truth that breathe their words in pain.

Gaunt (Richard II, Act II scene i)

(Source: dailyshakespeare, via dailyshakespeare)

awesomeheirsofdurin:

thegreatbigfour:

The only couple needed in Brave.

They love each other so much.

(Source: briannathestrange, via vexing-wren)

mechinaries:


what if cap met supes

meanwhile, somewhere else:
batman: you can not imagine the tragedy which has shaped me
bucky: OH YOU WANNA PLAY THIS GAME

mechinaries:

what if cap met supes

meanwhile, somewhere else:

batman: you can not imagine the tragedy which has shaped me

bucky: OH YOU WANNA PLAY THIS GAME

(via fandumbsandfeminism)

daftlypunk:

i hit my coworkers shoulder lightly and he was like “you’re going to make me cry like a girl” and i was like “what’s wrong with being a girl?” and he was quiet for a moment then he looked into the distance and whispered “the social standards they’re forced to live by”

(via fandumbsandfeminism)

But What About the Men?

If you’ve ever tried to talk about feminism to anyone, you’ve probably heard this line: “If feminism is really about equality, then why does it only focus on women’s issues? What about men?”

Here to dispel some misconceptions about what feminism really means is vlogger Marina Watanabe. Watch her no-nonsense summary of why, no, feminism is not in fact sexist.

(Source: mseverdeenes)