[_andromeda_]

It really isn't a question of the rentier class vs proletariat. Capitalism solved that problem a long time ago. Surely, capitalism has lifted billions from poverty.

Anyone can make it if they apply effort. Anyone. There is no discrimination against hard work, smart work.

A non-producer simply means, someone who is not providing a good or service of value to a willing buyer.

[aninhumer]

>It really isn't a question of the rentier class vs proletariat. Capitalism solved that problem a long time ago.

How exactly did Capitalism solve that problem? We still have stark class divisions between people who make the majority of their money from capital ownership and people who have to work to survive.

[_andromeda_]

>We still have stark class divisions between people who make the majority of their money from capital ownership and people who have to work to survive.

It is true that there are divisions, but anyone can now participate in the acquisition of wealth and resources. You can save and reinvest until you attain your goals in life but most people are engaged in the consumption of capital goods such that even if they wanted to set up a small business, it gets to be increasingly difficult.

I also don't look at it in the sense that people HAVE to work to earn a living, I see it as people GET to work to earn a living. Your entire outlook on work is flawed and needs to be reevaluated. Work is good. Work allows us to eat, get shelter, clothing and move civilisation forward while at it.

[aninhumer]

>Work is good. Work allows us to eat, get shelter, clothing and move civilisation forward while at it.

Work may currently be necessary, but it is not "good". For most people it is boring and unpleasant, and a world where they could do something else would be a better world. Telling people who spend the majority of their lives working two jobs and still live in poverty that they "don't HAVE to work, they GET to work" is a hollow joke.

[_andromeda_]

Oh please, there are many a people even on the Forbes list who worked multiple jobs in the beginning. That did not stop them from achieving their goals and being in possession of abundant resources in the long run. Now please don't take that to mean that all people will be on a Forbes list. The point here is that you can start out doing multiple menial jobs but with discipline, hard work and a culture for savings, YOU WILL SUCCEED.

[labster]

Wow, such naïevité. And such arrogance.

Some people just have bad luck. They can do all the right things, but never get the break they need to succeed. Others are born women in cultures that will simply not allow them to succeed. People can work harder than you their entire lives, and make better choices than you, and still not be economically successful.

This kind of self-righteousness from the lucky is so annoying.

[_andromeda_]

>This kind of self-righteousness from the lucky is so annoying.

You are the one making a naive assumption here my friend. I've seen and been through worse things than you can imagine. I know scarcity. I've stared it in the face. But I also know that the best way out of a bad fiscal situation is to simply get off your ass and get some work done. Whatever kind of work. Just do it and apply principles of wealth creation such as compounding currently available resources however little and repeat as frequently as possible.

I would much rather provide indigents with tools and methods to do their own fishing as opposed to what you're doing; proposing to them that life is a lottery and your life is not in your hands. Can't you see you're being evil?! Why do you want someone to live off your peanuts as opposed to them applying themselves and living a dignified life based on their own sweat? I'm tired of this mindset and that's why I've decided to voice my concerns regarding this and similar initiatives.

I don't know your background but if I was a betting man I'd say, you're spoilt and you think that money grows on trees so it can be printed out and handed out to people who don't want to work or think. If you truly understood scarcity, you would ask deep questions about money and arrive at a simple conclusion; it is simply a representation of created value within a society and the moment you dilute it, you dilute the need to work, create future value and subsequently move civilization forward.

[tmnvix]

> Surely, capitalism has lifted billions from poverty.

True. And while I think capitalism is generally a good thing, lifting people out of poverty doesn't make it a good thing necessarily. By that measure communism in China would be a good thing - after all, Mao also lifted millions out of poverty. Many dictators have done the same.

> Anyone can make it if they apply effort.

Not at all. You can be disabled, held back by family obligations or even by a harmful family, be remarkably unintelligent, mentally ill, or otherwise be unlucky in any number of ways.

> A non-producer simply means, someone who is not providing a good or service of value to a willing buyer.

According to you. To me a non-producer is someone whose income is unearned[1].

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearned_income Unearned income refers to income received by virtue of owning property (known as property income), inheritance, pensions and payments received from public welfare. The three major forms of unearned income based on property ownership are rent, received from the ownership of natural resources; interest, received by virtue of owning financial assets; and profit, received from the ownership of capital equipment.[1] As such, unearned income is often categorized as "passive income".

[rbg246]

Your opinions are so ideological that it leaves no room for things not being binary.

Human interactions and behaviours are anything but binary. there are so many reasons why humans behave the way they do that it cannot be wrapped up so neatly as by one theory of economics.

[_andromeda_]

It is an important issue at hand. Important issues often have binary outcomes IMO. You can either make an a priori argument for or against UBI or you can make an empirical argument. We don't need to discuss previous experiences with such initiatives. They've had calamitous outcomes majority, if not all, of the times.

It does seem as though people want to try out variants of the same thing (socialism) while branding it with new terms such as UBI or social democracy. I'm simply calling out the BS and saying, it is socialism. It has been tried over and over again and I promise you that just because you've not lived through it, historical context should make you very wary of it.