Coronavirus

[OldTimeHockey]

I think some people will have to still make Life choices. Should you be unable or unwilling to work to go with your UBI maybe you just can't live in Toronto or Vancouver or wherever.

That right there is the biggest issue with "free money".
People currently don't make the right life choices. In many cases, that's why they continue to live in poverty. In Sudbury, a relatively cheap place to live in comparison to Toronto or Vancouver, many children go without food every morning. Many kids go without the basic necessities to stay clean. But, every one of their parents have an iPhone 11 and every family has an Xbox or Playstation with the best and greatest games.

The bottom line is, people don't make the right decisions. This isn't only true of the lower income families. Many people making well into the multi hundred thousand a year family incomes, live pay cheque to pay cheque. They purchase the house that they can't afford. The car they can't afford. Etc; 

People who "CHOOSE" not to work should not receive free money

 

[Kin]

That right there is the biggest issue with "free money".
People currently don't make the right life choices. In many cases, that's why they continue to live in poverty. In Sudbury, a relatively cheap place to live in comparison to Toronto or Vancouver, many children go without food every morning. Many kids go without the basic necessities to stay clean. But, every one of their parents have an iPhone 11 and every family has an Xbox or Playstation with the best and greatest games.

The bottom line is, people don't make the right decisions. This isn't only true of the lower income families. Many people making well into the multi hundred thousand a year family incomes, live pay cheque to pay cheque. They purchase the house that they can't afford. The car they can't afford. Etc; 

People who "CHOOSE" not to work should not receive free money

Leaving aside that I don't think that much of this is true, it ignores one of the basic elements behind the thinking of a UBI. Whether or not these people spend money in ways you approve of(and many, many people have made a compelling case that a smartphone is actually one of the better ways a low-income person can spend their money) this is still money that is being spent in the community. Canadian businesses sell smartphones and video games. That money feeds into the economy with a high-dollar velocity even if you think they're luxuries that these people don't deserve.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

That money feeds into the economy with a high-dollar velocity even if you think they're luxuries that these people don't deserve.

He didn't say a smartphone was a luxury. He said a top of the line, $1100 smartphone was.

He particularly referenced "best and greatest games" in terms of video game systems. Companies in Canada also sell used titles from past years and older systems. Options for all budgets.

 

[Kin]

He didn't say a smartphone was a luxury. He said a top of the line, $1100 smartphone was.

He particularly referenced "best and greatest games" in terms of video game systems. Companies in Canada also sell used titles from past years and older systems. Options for all budgets.

Right but this is where we would have to get into the "I don't think much of this is true" part of what I wrote.

But, again, it doesn't really matter to the central point. It's still money being passed around the Canadian economy.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

That right there is the biggest issue with "free money".
People currently don't make the right life choices. In many cases, that's why they continue to live in poverty. In Sudbury, a relatively cheap place to live in comparison to Toronto or Vancouver, many children go without food every morning. Many kids go without the basic necessities to stay clean. But, every one of their parents have an iPhone 11 and every family has an Xbox or Playstation with the best and greatest games.

The bottom line is, people don't make the right decisions. This isn't only true of the lower income families. Many people making well into the multi hundred thousand a year family incomes, live pay cheque to pay cheque. They purchase the house that they can't afford. The car they can't afford. Etc; 

People who "CHOOSE" not to work should not receive free money

Leaving aside that I don't think that much of this is true, it ignores one of the basic elements behind the thinking of a UBI. Whether or not these people spend money in ways you approve of(and many, many people have made a compelling case that a smartphone is actually one of the better ways a low-income person can spend their money) this is still money that is being spent in the community. Canadian businesses sell smartphones and video games. That money feeds into the economy with a high-dollar velocity even if you think they're luxuries that these people don't deserve.

While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think that's what Bates was arguing for in regards to UBI.

I'm not quite sure what you feel isn't true. With a spouse that is in administration in the local public school board, I can give you first hand accounts of families spending their cheques on the wrong things(Video games, technology, cell phones, booze, etc; ). It's not a one off. You'd be alarmed at the high amounts of people choosing themselves over their children. It's disheartening and disturbing.

And while I think that technology can be a helpful tool(in reference to your smart phone comment), it is not a helpful tool if you're not feeding your children. It is a waste of money. If that phone is a necessity of survival, perhaps getting a $150 a month data package + the best cell phone on the market isn't the right choice. Perhaps getting a small data package with a $100 used smart phone is the better choice. Perhaps sticking with your Xbox 360 or your playstation 3 is the better choice than upgrading the second the new model comes out. People live in a gimme gimme world, and I fear that throwing an extra $1000 at them just feeds their gimme needs as opposed to feeding their real needs. Their dependents.

Really, this is a discussion for another time. I just felt the need to jump in and take issue with the idea that the people struggling to make ends meet in Sudbury, Owen Sound, or Toronto will suddenly make the right decisions because they have an extra grand to burn. Perhaps I mistook Bates' point.

 

[Kin]

I'm not quite sure what you feel isn't true. With a spouse that is in administration in the local public school board, I can give you first hand accounts of families spending their cheques on the wrong things(Video games, technology, cell phones, booze, etc; ). It's not a one off. You'd be alarmed at the high amounts of people choosing themselves over their children. It's disheartening and disturbing.

I am sure your spouse has anecdotal evidence of that. I would assume that's largely because they would only be privy to information like that in the cases you're talking about but wouldn't be informed of the situations where lower income families are making what you would consider to be "better" decisions. So while I'm sure it can happen, what I don't think is true is that "every one" of the parents of needy children has the luxuries you're talking about or even a majority of them.

And while I think that technology can be a helpful tool(in reference to your smart phone comment), it is not a helpful tool if you're not feeding your children. It is a waste of money. If that phone is a necessity of survival, perhaps getting a $150 a month data package + the best cell phone on the market isn't the right choice. Perhaps getting a small data package with a $100 used smart phone is the better choice. Perhaps sticking with your Xbox 360 or your playstation 3 is the better choice than upgrading the second the new model comes out. People live in a gimme gimme world, and I fear that throwing an extra $1000 at them just feeds their gimme needs as opposed to feeding their real needs. Their dependents.

You can't legislate responsible behaviour and, like you say, bad financial decisions exist with people regardless of income bracket. The prior financial crisis to this one was caused by millionaire bankers being reckless with money, after all. That's why, as it relates to poorer people, I've said that a UBI couldn't just replace the broader social framework that would try to make sure that government still exists to take care of people who, through no real fault of their own, need assistance above and beyond whatever direct financial aid they or their parents receive.

But, again, the responsibility of these purchases is a separate question to just the economic one. Stimulus should be directed at people who will spend the money locally if you want the most bang for your buck.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I'm not quite sure what you feel isn't true. With a spouse that is in administration in the local public school board, I can give you first hand accounts of families spending their cheques on the wrong things(Video games, technology, cell phones, booze, etc; ). It's not a one off. You'd be alarmed at the high amounts of people choosing themselves over their children. It's disheartening and disturbing.

I am sure your spouse has anecdotal evidence of that. I would assume that's largely because they would only be privy to information like that in the cases you're talking about but wouldn't be informed of the situations where lower income families are making what you would consider to be "better" decisions. So while I'm sure it can happen, what I don't think is true is that "every one" of the parents of needy children has the luxuries you're talking about or even a majority of them.

And while I think that technology can be a helpful tool(in reference to your smart phone comment), it is not a helpful tool if you're not feeding your children. It is a waste of money. If that phone is a necessity of survival, perhaps getting a $150 a month data package + the best cell phone on the market isn't the right choice. Perhaps getting a small data package with a $100 used smart phone is the better choice. Perhaps sticking with your Xbox 360 or your playstation 3 is the better choice than upgrading the second the new model comes out. People live in a gimme gimme world, and I fear that throwing an extra $1000 at them just feeds their gimme needs as opposed to feeding their real needs. Their dependents.

You can't legislate responsible behaviour and, like you say, bad financial decisions exist with people regardless of income bracket. The prior financial crisis to this one was caused by millionaire bankers being reckless with money, after all. That's why, as it relates to poorer people, I've said that a UBI couldn't just replace the broader social framework that would try to make sure that government still exists to take care of people who, through no real fault of their own, need assistance above and beyond whatever direct financial aid they or their parents receive.

But, again, the responsibility of these purchases is a separate question to just the economic one. Stimulus should be directed at people who will spend the money locally if you want the most bang for your buck.

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing Nik.
I took issue with Bates saying that people need to make life choices. My point is, many people are incapable of making those decisions. Many people can't see past the end of their nose.

 

[Bates]

I'm not quite sure what you feel isn't true. With a spouse that is in administration in the local public school board, I can give you first hand accounts of families spending their cheques on the wrong things(Video games, technology, cell phones, booze, etc; ). It's not a one off. You'd be alarmed at the high amounts of people choosing themselves over their children. It's disheartening and disturbing.

I am sure your spouse has anecdotal evidence of that. I would assume that's largely because they would only be privy to information like that in the cases you're talking about but wouldn't be informed of the situations where lower income families are making what you would consider to be "better" decisions. So while I'm sure it can happen, what I don't think is true is that "every one" of the parents of needy children has the luxuries you're talking about or even a majority of them.

And while I think that technology can be a helpful tool(in reference to your smart phone comment), it is not a helpful tool if you're not feeding your children. It is a waste of money. If that phone is a necessity of survival, perhaps getting a $150 a month data package + the best cell phone on the market isn't the right choice. Perhaps getting a small data package with a $100 used smart phone is the better choice. Perhaps sticking with your Xbox 360 or your playstation 3 is the better choice than upgrading the second the new model comes out. People live in a gimme gimme world, and I fear that throwing an extra $1000 at them just feeds their gimme needs as opposed to feeding their real needs. Their dependents.

You can't legislate responsible behaviour and, like you say, bad financial decisions exist with people regardless of income bracket. The prior financial crisis to this one was caused by millionaire bankers being reckless with money, after all. That's why, as it relates to poorer people, I've said that a UBI couldn't just replace the broader social framework that would try to make sure that government still exists to take care of people who, through no real fault of their own, need assistance above and beyond whatever direct financial aid they or their parents receive.

But, again, the responsibility of these purchases is a separate question to just the economic one. Stimulus should be directed at people who will spend the money locally if you want the most bang for your buck.

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing Nik.
I took issue with Bates saying that people need to make life choices. My point is, many people are incapable of making those decisions. Many people can't see past the end of their nose.

And for those folks you can only provide so many safety nets. This program would be for the greater good of the vast majority.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I'm not quite sure what you feel isn't true. With a spouse that is in administration in the local public school board, I can give you first hand accounts of families spending their cheques on the wrong things(Video games, technology, cell phones, booze, etc; ). It's not a one off. You'd be alarmed at the high amounts of people choosing themselves over their children. It's disheartening and disturbing.

I am sure your spouse has anecdotal evidence of that. I would assume that's largely because they would only be privy to information like that in the cases you're talking about but wouldn't be informed of the situations where lower income families are making what you would consider to be "better" decisions. So while I'm sure it can happen, what I don't think is true is that "every one" of the parents of needy children has the luxuries you're talking about or even a majority of them.

And while I think that technology can be a helpful tool(in reference to your smart phone comment), it is not a helpful tool if you're not feeding your children. It is a waste of money. If that phone is a necessity of survival, perhaps getting a $150 a month data package + the best cell phone on the market isn't the right choice. Perhaps getting a small data package with a $100 used smart phone is the better choice. Perhaps sticking with your Xbox 360 or your playstation 3 is the better choice than upgrading the second the new model comes out. People live in a gimme gimme world, and I fear that throwing an extra $1000 at them just feeds their gimme needs as opposed to feeding their real needs. Their dependents.

You can't legislate responsible behaviour and, like you say, bad financial decisions exist with people regardless of income bracket. The prior financial crisis to this one was caused by millionaire bankers being reckless with money, after all. That's why, as it relates to poorer people, I've said that a UBI couldn't just replace the broader social framework that would try to make sure that government still exists to take care of people who, through no real fault of their own, need assistance above and beyond whatever direct financial aid they or their parents receive.

But, again, the responsibility of these purchases is a separate question to just the economic one. Stimulus should be directed at people who will spend the money locally if you want the most bang for your buck.

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing Nik.
I took issue with Bates saying that people need to make life choices. My point is, many people are incapable of making those decisions. Many people can't see past the end of their nose.

And for those folks you can only provide so many safety nets. This program would be for the greater good of the vast majority.

I agree.

 

[bustaheims]

https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2020/03/ontario-orders-the-mandatory-closure-of-all-non-essential-workplaces-to-fight-spread-of-covid-19.html

TORONTO ? To further contain the spread of COVID-19, the Ontario Government will order the mandatory closure of all non-essential workplaces effective as of Tuesday, March 24th at 11:59 p.m. This closure will be in effect for 14 days with the possibility of extending this order as the situation evolves. A full list of businesses that are permitted to stay open will be released tomorrow.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2020/03/ontario-orders-the-mandatory-closure-of-all-non-essential-workplaces-to-fight-spread-of-covid-19.html

TORONTO ? To further contain the spread of COVID-19, the Ontario Government will order the mandatory closure of all non-essential workplaces effective as of Tuesday, March 24th at 11:59 p.m. This closure will be in effect for 14 days with the possibility of extending this order as the situation evolves. A full list of businesses that are permitted to stay open will be released tomorrow.

Here's what's going to be on that list according to Ford:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-covid19-canada-latest-updates-190048955.html

Ontario Premier Doug Ford said all non-essential businesses in the province must close. This excludes manufacturers, grocery stores, LCBO shops, pharmacies and take-out restaurants.

Also:

?The kids won?t be going back to school on Apr. 6,? Ford said. ?The reality is April the 6th is not realistic right now.?

Not that that's shocking

 

[Arn]

U.K. on compete lock down now too. No gatherings of more than 2 people. Only leave the house to shop for essential items. Leave the house for once per day to exercise alone.

Surreal and unprecedented times.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Prime Minister Trudeau?s message to Canadians:

You all think you?re invincible. You?re not. Enough is enough,? he warned in an address to Canadians on Monday from Rideau Cottage, where he is currently in self-isolation.

?Go home and stay home.?

Rightly so.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6716919/trudeau-canada-update-coronavirus-march-23/

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Prime Minister Trudeau?s message to Canadians:

You all think you?re invincible. You?re not. Enough is enough,? he warned in an address to Canadians on Monday from Rideau Cottage, where he is currently in self-isolation.

?Go home and stay home.?

Rightly so.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6716919/trudeau-canada-update-coronavirus-march-23/

He said all that in his stern teacher voice but then when asked how to enforce it, he said, I'm leaving that up to the province.
Someone needs to take charge here. Stop using half measures and start taking control. Don't worry about lost votes. Worry about today, and tomorrow, and next week.

Ford's list of "essential" businesses is also a farce. Just about every business in Canada can find a spot they fit on that list. So far Ontario has basically closed barber shops, brothels and schools.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Disgracefully irresponsible dumbells:

[tweet]1240383903136919555[/tweet]

 

[L K]

In fairness to this kid.  Make no mistake, he's an absolute <Insert several verbose explitives> moron but his grandparents generation isn't exactly screaming reasonable through all this.

Trump is mulling lifting restrictions to help the economy.  The Lt Governor of Texas is literally advocating for sacrifice to Supply Side Jesus.

 

[Kin]

It's pretty hard to give too much crap to anyone raised in this society that thinks that "Eff you, I got mine" is a perfectly acceptable way of thinking of things. If you want college kids to think that putting collective good ahead of individual desires is the way to go, you can't wait until global pandemics pop up to try and get the message across.

 

[Highlander]

Hopefully when he gets home, there is a sleeping bag on the porch and a sign on front door saying "see you in 2 weeks Buddy"

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Hopefully when he gets home, there is a sleeping bag on the porch and a sign on front door saying "see you in 2 weeks Buddy"

I severely doubt it.

 

[Highlander]

Me too, but a nice thought.
Of course his parents would have 55" TV, game controls, cooler and bbq set up for Bobby. And a big down comforter so he doesn't get to cold at night and of course his bong will be all cleaned up for him.