• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you quit your job?

If you were guaranteed a $25,000 income would you quit your job and stay unemployed?


  • Total voters
    103
Don't tempt me...

Would you really want to live on such low income? What would you do with all that spare time you have? With no car, no insurance, no money, living in a dangerous ghetto, what would you do? I mean, aside from frantically searching for a job to get the hell out of that life.
 
If you were guaranteed a $25,000/year income by the government would you quit your job and stay unemployed?

I know I wouldn't, how about you?

Meh, that's about as much as I made as a grad student (even a bit more). Perhaps not the worst thing ever. But I like the ability to buy extra stuffs, so likely not.
 
Would you really want to live on such low income? What would you do with all that spare time you have? With no car, no insurance, no money, living in a dangerous ghetto, what would you do? I mean, aside from frantically searching for a job to get the hell out of that life.

Why would I have to move out of my house?
 
Would you really want to live on such low income? What would you do with all that spare time you have? With no car, no insurance, no money, living in a dangerous ghetto, what would you do? I mean, aside from frantically searching for a job to get the hell out of that life.
$25k per year is plenty of money to have a decent car+insurance+a decent place to live. It's no surprise that a limousine liberal such as yourself has now idea how to live well with a $25k budget.
 
$25k per year is plenty of money to have a decent car+insurance+a decent place to live. It's no surprise that a limousine liberal such as yourself has now idea how to live well with a $25k budget.

Where in the heck do you live?
 
Do you seriously believe that those getting SS, UI or welfare (in all of its many forms) are not doing that now?

And this has what to do with the OP or my post?
 
Then I don't need to answer your inquiries as you already know the answer. Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to? Just to waste time or for something to pick at? I'm guessing the later.

Just looking for confirmation and honesty, Henrin. Two things that are often in short supply. And since you feel you have no need to answer my inquiries, I suppose we are done here.
 
Nope. You work you violate the conditions of the OP.

Wrong. You have to remain unemployed. That is not the same as "performs zero labor". People who occasionally do handy-man jobs, mow their neighbors lawn, do a day labor position on a roof for a couple of days, etc, remain "unemployed" as it pertains to the receipt of government benefits, which this $25,000 would be.

And I would argue that it isn't, but I think we SHOULD ask him and settle this once an for all. It would resolve what he meant by his OP: was it open ended as you seem to believe, or closed as I do?

Indeed - let's ask.

No. Their difference is that people would make the decision based on their CURRENT or PAST situation, not on what would/could happen in the future. For example, if they ALREADY cohabited, that could play into their decision, as I said. I said nothing of future changes which has nothing to do with the OP.

:shrug: if I'm a single young male, then my current situation is that I could easily shack up with my girlfriend and we could live off of 50K. There is no qualifier ever presented whatsoever that would justify your argument here - nothing is mentioned ever about how people would go about using their $25,000, or arranging their lives in order to make that income work better for them.

I would submit that these would be introverts.

1. I realize I'm arguing on your turf here, but
2. Introverts would watch others argue over that.

Take a look at the times we've done the Briggs-Meyers/etc threads ; do we match the general populace?

Political knowledge is really not an issue in this question. It is more philosophical than political.

The two intertwine - the more politically aware you are, the more you focus on political value sets and arguments. The more you do so, the more likely you are to be guided by them. The populace of those who explicitly daily make the argument against government handouts are going to be less likely than general pop to take them, even if they rate them (many still will, but the portion will be fewer), just as those who defend such programs will be more likely to feel justified in accessing them when they can.

Here's the problem with your analysis. Those who voted "yes" were not taking a loss of living standards into consideration or didn't believe it would affect their living standards. So, unless you believe it would, your analysis doesn't apply.

You are impugning a poor decision-making process onto them that you have no way of verifying or even demonstrating. You are literally just making something up and declaring it to have occurred.
 
Any change alters the impact of employment vs. $25,000.

Which is irrelevant to the actual question except inasmuch as it allows people to shift from "no" to "yes" or back again.

If I move from a mansion with a $6,000/month mortgage to a one-bedroom apartment rental that's $800/month, I've altered the parameters and rendered the OP question meaningless.

On the contrary, nothing about the parameters proposed by the question have changed.

No, you have added extra variables to the OP effectively altering it

On the contrary, I have added no new requirements, no new parameters.
 
Wrong. You have to remain unemployed. That is not the same as "performs zero labor". People who occasionally do handy-man jobs, mow their neighbors lawn, do a day labor position on a roof for a couple of days, etc, remain "unemployed" as it pertains to the receipt of government benefits, which this $25,000 would be.

Government benefits are irrelevant to the point of employment. If you work, you are employed.

Indeed - let's ask.

He doesn't seem to have revisited the thread.

:shrug: if I'm a single young male, then my current situation is that I could easily shack up with my girlfriend and we could live off of 50K. There is no qualifier ever presented whatsoever that would justify your argument here - nothing is mentioned ever about how people would go about using their $25,000, or arranging their lives in order to make that income work better for them.

Without boundaries surrounding the scenario, the OP is completely meaningless. Of COURSE there are qualifiers. Without qualifiers, answering the question would be like dividing by zero. In order to get a reasonable response, parameters must be set.

1. I realize I'm arguing on your turf here, but
2. Introverts would watch others argue over that.

No, an introvert is not necessarily an observer. Internet message boards are boons for introverts. Introverts are less likely to enjoy socializing, face-to-face.

Take a look at the times we've done the Briggs-Meyers/etc threads ; do we match the general populace?

I've actually never taken a look at them. I am currently pursing training in advanced Myers-Briggs assessments.

The two intertwine - the more politically aware you are, the more you focus on political value sets and arguments. The more you do so, the more likely you are to be guided by them. The populace of those who explicitly daily make the argument against government handouts are going to be less likely than general pop to take them, even if they rate them (many still will, but the portion will be fewer), just as those who defend such programs will be more likely to feel justified in accessing them when they can.

Actually, if you take a look at the poll numbers... from an ideological standpoint, we see the exact opposite of what you are saying. I don't see anyone on the ideological left voting "yes". Yet, I see a lot of libertarians voting "yes"... or challenging the "no's". Just goes to my theory that some have tried to turn this into some sort of "trap" thread.

You are impugning a poor decision-making process onto them that you have no way of verifying or even demonstrating. You are literally just making something up and declaring it to have occurred.

Well, there are two possibilities. Either I am right... or I am right about the "trap" based on the ideology of those who voted "yes" when one looks at what you said about the ideologies of how people would vote. Either way, I'm right.
 
Which is irrelevant to the actual question except inasmuch as it allows people to shift from "no" to "yes" or back again.

Which negates the point of the OP, rendering it equivalent to dividing my zero.

On the contrary, nothing about the parameters proposed by the question have changed.

Absolutely has. The OP is either or. Change the parameters and you render it pointless.

On the contrary, I have added no new requirements, no new parameters.

Of course you have.
 
Which negates the point of the OP,

What? no it doesn't. People have the ability to make rational decisions based on rational assumptions about the future - this isn't a static scoring here.

Absolutely has. The OP is either or. Change the parameters and you render it pointless.

There is no "either or" language presented in the OP. The only requirements presented are A) quit your job and B) remain unemployed to C) get $25K. Those are the only requirements.


Interesting left/right breakdown here. Are all things allowed except those forbidden by the controlling Authority, or are all things forbidden except those explicitly allowed by the controlling Authority?

Of course you have.

On the contrary, I have not. In one case I better defined the language, you pointed it out, and so I stopped but continued to make the case that it was implicit and we agreed to ask the OP.
 
What? no it doesn't. People have the ability to make rational decisions based on rational assumptions about the future - this isn't a static scoring here.

Future consideration are not part of the OP. YOU and others have created that addition.

There is no "either or" language presented in the OP. The only requirements presented are A) quit your job and B) remain unemployed to C) get $25K. Those are the only requirements.

Those are THE requirements. When you add anything, you alter the parameters. Since alterations were not mentioned, there is no reason to do them.
Interesting left/right breakdown here. Are all things allowed except those forbidden by the controlling Authority, or are all things forbidden except those explicitly allowed by the controlling Authority?

That's one way to look at it. Or does one fit their answers inside the rules or does one fit the rules inside their answers?

On the contrary, I have not. In one case I better defined the language, you pointed it out, and so I stopped but continued to make the case that it was implicit and we agreed to ask the OP.

I also defined a better OP and we both DID agree to ask the OP. So, we can either continue to argue semantics, cease this silly bickering where neither of us will back down, or move on to a far more interesting point... the one you made in the left/right breakdown. Your choice. I'll be logging off soon, so I can do either of the three.
 
Future consideration are not part of the OP. YOU and others have created that addition.

The ability to consider the future is already endemic in the individual being questioned. There is no addition, as it is pre-existent.

Those are THE requirements. When you add anything, you alter the parameters. Since alterations were not mentioned, there is no reason to do them.

Since no parameters for any of those items were included, there is no alteration occurring. It's as if you were to argue that if one were to take this deal, they could not then dye their hair a different color.

That's one way to look at it. Or does one fit their answers inside the rules or does one fit the rules inside their answers?

The dispute is over what the rules are. Is this a trade that, unlike any other in human society, forever imprisons all action? Or is it one that is (what it obviously is) an addition/modification/proposal in the context of a welfare state, which does not unless explicitly drawn out.

I also defined a better OP and we both DID agree to ask the OP. So, we can either continue to argue semantics, cease this silly bickering where neither of us will back down, or move on to a far more interesting point... the one you made in the left/right breakdown. Your choice. I'll be logging off soon, so I can do either of the three.

Yeah. 0230 is too late to be arguing about this stuff.

The left/right breakdown I find interesting for two reasons:

1. As described above, the assumption about the nature of freedom of action - is all action free that is not restricted, or is all action restricted that is not freed?

2. There seems to be a need of some here on the left to deny people the ability to make rational decisions if those rational decisions then leave them taking advantage of the welfare state. Why can we not discuss how people interact with the welfare state honestly - that they do so based (most usually) on their own self-interest?
 
Government benefits are irrelevant to the point of employment. If you work, you are employed.

No - if you are unemployed, you have a job. Somewhere that you are going to show up to for some time and get paychecks from. If you took $50 from someone to mow their lawn, you are not employed, and not counted as employed. If you claim to be looking for work, and take $50 to mow a lawn, you still count as unemployed. The receipt of benefits (in this case, a $25K monetary transfer) is dependent upon a definition of unemployment different than the one you are seeking to have applied.

He doesn't seem to have revisited the thread.

PM? Threaten to speak sarcastically about him downstairs if he doesn't make a ruling?

Without boundaries surrounding the scenario, the OP is completely meaningless. Of COURSE there are qualifiers. Without qualifiers, answering the question would be like dividing by zero. In order to get a reasonable response, parameters must be set.

Correct - and the OP sets two: 1. quit your current job and 2. remain unemployed. Those are the only restrictions.

No, an introvert is not necessarily an observer. Internet message boards are boons for introverts. Introverts are less likely to enjoy socializing, face-to-face.

I've actually never taken a look at them. I am currently pursing training in advanced Myers-Briggs assessments.

:shrug: it's very possible I'm projecting - as an ENTP, I love the variety and cut-and-thrust of the place, as well as the ability to develop expertise. But I had thought that introverts were also less likely to engage in conflict?

Actually, if you take a look at the poll numbers... from an ideological standpoint, we see the exact opposite of what you are saying. I don't see anyone on the ideological left voting "yes". Yet, I see a lot of libertarians voting "yes"... or challenging the "no's".

In this poll yes - as I pointed out above, those on the left seem to have an ideological vested interest in demonstrating that people will not cheat a social welfare system, whereas those on the right have a vested interest in demonstrating precisely that fact. In RL, very few are trying to make that precise argument with their own individual choices, and those who morally or ideologically are suspicious or oppose a welfare state are less likely to seek to leverage it than those who approve and encourage it, which is one of the reasons why I argue that this place is not representative. Over the years I've given up thousands of dollars because I felt obliged to stick to my beliefs in my personal life.

Just goes to my theory that some have tried to turn this into some sort of "trap" thread.

Wait - that wasn't clear from the first post?

Well, there are two possibilities. Either I am right... or I am right about the "trap" based on the ideology of those who voted "yes" when one looks at what you said about the ideologies of how people would vote. Either way, I'm right.

Or I am correct for the reasons described above - that DP is not representative of GP.
 
A better way to have worded the poll would be would you quit your job if you received more money for not working?
 
Apparently not since I'm getting by just fine on not much more money than this.

Well that depends on your expenses. Do you have a car payment, credit cards, etc.? There are all kinds of variables that would effect your ability to survive on that amount of money, and I have to say it would be very difficult to survive in my part of the country on that small amount of money too.
 
$25k per year is plenty of money to have a decent car+insurance+a decent place to live. It's no surprise that a limousine liberal such as yourself has now idea how to live well with a $25k budget.

Maybe it's because I don't live in the woods. Maybe not everyone lives in a depressed area of the country. Maybe where I live, the average price for a one bedroom is $1,395/month, and it's illegal to have more than two people + 1 infant living in it. I couldn't make that, plus food, thrift-store clothing, misc expenses, any kind of medical care, at all, electric bills, and still get a car that would pass inspection, plus fees, taxes, insurance and still be able to put gas in it. And the less spent on the car, the more on repairs. I've lived in destitution. That is destitution in this area. I wouldn't take that just to have a long vacation. Not on your life. Bring it up to $50k and I'd take it -- spend that time getting an advanced degree, one class at a time.

A single mom with children would be lucky to find a 2 bedroom, even in a bad neighborhood, for less than $1200/month. That alone is 14,400 out of your 25k, leaving you with 12 k to feed & cloth herself and the two kids, get medication for them when they're sick, and find a car, gas and insurance. Food will cost you at least 2k for the year, bringing it down to 10k. Even at thrift stores, clothing for an adult and 2 kids will be at least 500/year, leaving you with 9.5. Healthcare for the two kids would be around a grand a year, so 8.5.

And if anything goes wrong, you're screwed because you could possibly save on that.
 
Liquid cash or ebt and housing vouchers, etc.?
 
Well I guess that makes me insane. I like to keep busy and feeling productive

You don't have any hobbies or passions? Gardening? Working with rescue animals? Exercising like we all know we should but usually don't take the time to? Home projects, like fixing the deadbolt that won't lock? Fixing up the house doing all the things we never get around to, like painting? Golf? Bowling league? A walking or hiking group? Tennis? Lectures by the Sierra Club? Sierra Club members also take excursions together that aren't expensive. Karate lessons? Getting a gun & learning to shoot at the target range? Spending more time with your dogs, either at home or the dog park or walking them? Time to clip coupons or search out deals to put a serious dent in your monthly grocery/household expenses? Once a month dinner out with friends? Once a month or more movies with friends? Reading for free (Kindle, library). Research on investing. Watching Judge Judy on tv? Standing in the back yard soaking up the sun on a beautiful day that you would normally have been on work?

If you can afford it, lots of help is needed in various volunteer areas. You could volunteer any sort of service, whatever your skill is, or no skill at all. You can even get a job earning next to nothing working at polling places for elections. Most of those poll workers are retired people who are getting paid a miniscule amount. They perform an invaluable service to all of us. Goodwill, Salvation Army, animal rescue organizations, domestic abuse shelters...all sorts of places need volunteer help.
 
In this area, you can't get a house for that. Just renting a room from someone is at least $500/month.

I own my house. It is paid off. Why would I have to move out of my house, or sell my car, for that matter. If I quit my job I would keep them.
 
Back
Top Bottom