and just when hungry -
alright thanks dave - there are about 10 additional ideas there. ✌🏻
well i hope they do that - seems like a solid plan if that's what they really intend to do.
but that's not the main concern of the rhetoric anyway surround that topic anyway dave.
is that why governments all around the world keep building them in the first place and sharing them? because they're dangerous and they're trying to get rid of them?
the ukraine narrative, iran, africa and energy sovereignty, china and russia relations - south and central american sovereignty, migration, citizenship, stripping of citizenship rights on black sites, tracking and tracing models, energy theft and data mining of unprotected migrants...
equal pay for equal work, womens reproductive health, drugs, domestic violence, financial institution insolvency, double dip mortgage leasing schemes, Bitcoin hijacking, international council of cyber relations, the eu surveillance model in the schengen ...
food, pollution of air water and soil, overfunded military, black sites, shadow funded campaigns, voting, sports and gambling, online education and security, smart technology, radiation therapy, biotech funding and research...
i am a policymaker.
thanks dave.
now. let's finish the list -
immigration, abortion, childcare, sexual identity, policing, filibuster, superconductors, masking, standardised tests, cost of college, preschool.
universal basic income is a model which overlooks the necessity to compensate workers for their actual jobs. there is no incentive for workers to be abused by employers for no wages if they are provided a free stipend. if however these two concepts are combined, quality of living improves dramatically.
they are not high wages if they are fair based on cost of living.
government subsidised payroll is a cop out for corporations and business models to maximise their profits while minimising their responsibility for paying for work completed for them. in a capitalist model which corporations adhere to while it benefits them, if a business cannot sustain itself while managing their costs (just like cost of living for an individual!) they fail. it's that simple. the plus side of this system is: something else will always take its place which is sustainable. that's supply and demand.
the first two paragraphs are contradictory dave. if someone is doing work, they should be fairly compensated for their work done. the end. if a business is unable to sustain themselves, and they fail, that's the nature of a capitalist system: workers do not carry the burden of a business's viability. they are simply there to complete work.
so you're saying employers who cannot pay their employees should ignore the basic cost of living and underpay their employees so they can make more profit? that's like indentured servitude.