> In the end, it will lead to a grossly impoverished class of UBI recipients who will work 6 days a week for $3.25 an hour to supplement their meagre UBI.
I don't know how to break this to you, but surely you know there is already a grossly impoverished group of people working 6 days a week for $3.25 an hour without UBI.
If you add the UBI to their income they'll be hugely better off and they might even be able to choose between working those 6 days or staying at home and looking after their children, or caring for an elderly relative without the risk of being made homeless, or being unable to afford food for their family.
> If you add the UBI to their income they'll be hugely better off and they might even be able to choose
Maybe, maybe not.
For clarity, I am a fan of UBI. But I'd like to run through a hypothesis about an adverse effect.
If you add the UBI and costs go up accordingly, the real, marginal benefit they can obtain by working for $3.25 an hour will actually decrease.
This means someone who is in circumstances where they can currently earn a meagre income to tip the balance to being able to make ends meet in that circumstance, will find their ability to work the same amount in a UBI world will not tip the balance to being able to make ends meet.
In other words they will be pushed to change circumstance, towards more work and/or lower cost. E.g. move somewhere cheaper, work more hours.
This does not sound like a net benefit for the already impoverished. It sounds like a trap, because low-wage working will provide less marginal benefit to change what people can afford when they are stuck.
If someone is making ends meet by working at your (illegally low) wage, then having that wage _plus_ UBI means that they are UBI rate / existing wage times better off.
The wage's percentage of total income dropping is a red herring.
No one will be pushed to work more when they have _more_ resources at hand.
You have to understand that a sufficiently high UBI is very expensive. It either costs trillions of dollars or will be so low that poor people may be worse off than now due to lack of other welfare. Realistically affordable UBIs would amount to less that what jobless people get on social welfare, e.g. around 200-300 EUR in my country. I've seen the figures, and those were the ones of proponents of UBI. Do your own calculations and you will see what I mean.
If you want to help poor people, start with radically capping and reducing rents per m^2 everywhere. And by "radically" I mean radically, not just halving them. That's one of the biggest problems in almost every country and it will get worse and worse if current trends continue.
Expensive is okay, we're talking about eradicating poverty, as first world nations we should be judged on how well we look after the most vulnerable in society, not on how wealthy the 1% can get.
US population is what, 300 million, ~75% of that are adults, multiplied by something like $35,000 is what, 8 trillion? The top 1% have a wealth of 35 trillion, US GDP is around 24 trillion - is it acceptable to spend 1/3rd of your GDP on eradicating poverty and creating a more equal society?
We're not ignoring the issue, we just don't think the issue is the same one you do.
The main issue in the world at the moment is income inequality, the things that you are listing stem from that, you can't fix education inequality without first addressing the income issue - UBI proposes that we tackle the source of the problem rather than trying to patch things up downstream
You cannot fix wealth inequality by giving the paltry amount of monthly stipend UBI is discussing. To address wealth inequality you need to educate the public better and you need to regulate capitalism better. Simply giving people UBI is a gift to the educated capitalist who will simply raise prices while simultaneously paying lobbyists to insure raising their prices is legal.
What paltry amount are we discussing? The concept of UBI is that it pays a living wage, enough to feed, clothe and house someone. It might not eradicate wealth inequality but it definitely narrows the gap/reduces it.
I'm assuming you accept that the poor are getting poorer and the wealthy are getting wealthier - how do you propose to stop that without UBI?
UBI alone is not a solution, it needs to be accompanied with access to adequately funded education and affordable housing and healthcare. Education is the #1 driver of success, and at minimum a better commitment to education by the United States will pay back multiple times over. Additionally, what leads you to believe UBI will allow an individual enough to feed, clothe and house themselves? Sure, that's the "idea" but in this world you think that would become a reality? No way. UBI as implemented will be watered down and it's effect will be a net zero, triggering the conservatives to cry "see! it does not work!"
My Dad was once gifted a Silva compass which he gave to me to take on a Boy Scout expedition, everyone was baffled by the fact it had 400 "degrees" marked on it.
There is still another circle measurement, the mil which is 6400 for one turn.
But I just learned by reading the wikipedia page, that there is not only the 6400 NATO mils I knew, but also 6000 Warsaw Pact mils or 6300 Swedish "streck"
I remember doing this too, it unlocked the multiplier which they locked at the factory by slicing through some metal blocks with a laser. My Duron 600 would run at 800 with a normal cooler & fan, then I added a really loud Delta fan and a copper heatsink and it was stable at a magical 1Ghz. Eventually I got cocky enough to solder a resistor between a certain pin on the motherboard and earth which effectively increased all the voltage settings in the BIOS so I could push enough voltage through it to run at 1.2Ghz - it ran like this for years as my only PC. Good times :)
I think the GP is referring to the use of interfaces with only one implementing class, rather than interfaces with no implementing class. i.e. you end up creating a UserProvider and UserProviderImpl for every service class you write.
OP is probably referring to the JDK Proxy support which is used by Spring and requires classes to implement at least one interface.
I had a similar experience when making a much less serious 999 call for a drunk dude we found passed out in the middle of a car park, it was only after I hung up that I noticed Google have some sort of feature which knew I was making a 999 call and was offering me information about my current location on screen - had no idea they did that though so didn't think to look at my phone screen...
Interesting. The pilot makes some really close passes over the track, doesn't the downwash interfere with the cars' aerodynamics? F1 performance depends on it quite a lot, and the downwash from a heli can be really powerful.
If it made any difference whatsoever, the Drivers would complain and whine about it relentlessly - so no. They either plan it well, or the wash is negligible
>If it made any difference whatsoever, the Drivers would complain and whine about it relentlessly
While that's a pretty accurate characterisation of pretty much every single pilot that has ever driven in F1, I wonder if they have clauses in the contract saying that they cannot publicly criticise the FIA/F1 organisers about stuff like that.
Actually, they do get to complain about the weight of cameras on board. Back in the 90’s, before there was a camera on every car, they put dummy cameras of the same size and weight on every car that didn’t have a real camera on it, so there was no weight or aero advantage either way.
Guess the point I was trying to make is that as long as everyone experiences the same disadvantage on average, then it’s okay because this is a spectator sport not a “Lets make the fastest lap times” kind of thing.
Cameras are pretty light now but I’m sure you could make a case that cars would be faster/better without them.
The weight of the cameras doesn't really make a difference, because everyone has to carry them and so nobody is put at a disadvantage. What does matter is the aerodynamics of the camera pods - the rules give manufacturers some degree of latitude with regards to the design and placement of the outboard camera pods, so they can be manipulated to provide a tiny aerodynamic advantage.
It doesn't work like that. The effect of the downwash would be minimal in terms of added weight on the tires. But it would seriously disrupt the "clean" air that the car wings need to generate maximum down-force.
They need clean air in mid to high speed corners (where donw-force is of the essence to keep the speed). In fact one of the current problems that makes F1 boring (as in less overtakes) is that cars cannot follow each other closely for extended periods.
If a car follows another closely for 3 or 4 laps, the tires start suffering from overheating (due to the reduction in down-force caused by the disturbed air the tires have less downward pressure and grip making them slide more). After 3 to 4 laps following closely, the chasing car is forced to slow down to cool the tires and avoid damaging them.
