Or that people who have the most wealth are more “productive”. I’m not sure inheriting millions of dollars makes you more productive than someone working two jobs.
You could make the argument for a difference in value from a purely amoral standpoint, but even that argument for nonassistance to the needing falls apart under the reality that providing a basic standard of living to those who need it comes at such a small proportional cost to the ‘productive’ population that refusing it borders on absurdity, considering the social and economic costs of refusing to do so.
I’ve said for a long time, you can either fund education and social services or you can fund police and prisons, but one way or another the disadvantaged will cost something to be dealt with.
providing a basic standard of living to those who need it comes at such a small proportional cost to the ‘productive’ population
Not to mention that in the vast majority, providing that support allows these people to find work in the first place, or to get a better job. This in turn results in more income and sales tax revenue, meaning that the initial investment is repaid.
This has been proven out over several different social assistance schemes, not just blanket UBI - though UBI is still the best option.
Another great example of this in the specific context of Elmo is his antagonistic stance towards all public transportation. Building out more is an economic value add but it’s a threat to his business model so he’ll always actively attempt to hinder it.
He’s the one guy everyone knew growing up whose dad “works for Nintendo” that somehow actually became successful; all of it built on a mountain of bullshit.
The fundamental flaw in his thinking here is that people who need assistance through no fault of their own are somehow less valuable.
Or that people who have the most wealth are more “productive”. I’m not sure inheriting millions of dollars makes you more productive than someone working two jobs.
You could make the argument for a difference in value from a purely amoral standpoint, but even that argument for nonassistance to the needing falls apart under the reality that providing a basic standard of living to those who need it comes at such a small proportional cost to the ‘productive’ population that refusing it borders on absurdity, considering the social and economic costs of refusing to do so.
When the food wars hit, Elon is top of my list for oligarchs to consume. Look at him, bet his flesh is tender and marbled with fat.
I’ve said for a long time, you can either fund education and social services or you can fund police and prisons, but one way or another the disadvantaged will cost something to be dealt with.
Not to mention that in the vast majority, providing that support allows these people to find work in the first place, or to get a better job. This in turn results in more income and sales tax revenue, meaning that the initial investment is repaid.
This has been proven out over several different social assistance schemes, not just blanket UBI - though UBI is still the best option.
Another great example of this in the specific context of Elmo is his antagonistic stance towards all public transportation. Building out more is an economic value add but it’s a threat to his business model so he’ll always actively attempt to hinder it.
He’s the one guy everyone knew growing up whose dad “works for Nintendo” that somehow actually became successful; all of it built on a mountain of bullshit.
Everyone did not grow up knowing someone who lied about (or claimed to) “work for Nintendo”.
Maybe not that specific lie, but I’m sure you encountered some form of pathological liar growing up
Well, yes.
PS. I’m pretty sure your name is RICK.
So, he’s talking genetics and societal roulette! Survival of the fittest* whites.
*fittest != healthwise
(prolly equates instead to $$)
Or people that don’t share his actual chromosomes.