Democratic Socialist Demands Free Housing
- Thread starter CBHype
- Start date
I liked several of his stories. Sweet Thursday, East Of Eden, Of Mice and Men, Grapes Of Wrath, and Tortilla Flat. He had a huge and varied career.
John Steinbeck - Wikipedia
Re 'Cannery Row" ...
Ed Ricketts
In the 1930s and 1940s, Ed Ricketts strongly influenced Steinbeck's writing. Steinbeck frequently took small trips with Ricketts along the California coast to give himself time off from his writingand to collect biological specimens, which Ricketts sold for a living. Their coauthored book, Sea of Cortez (December 1941), about a collecting expedition to the Gulf of California in 1940, which was part travelogue and part natural history, published just as the U.S. entered World War II, never found an audience and did not sell wellHowever, in 1951, Steinbeck republished the narrative portion of the book as The Log from the Sea of Cortez, under his name only (though Ricketts had written some of it). This work remains in print today.
Although Carol accompanied Steinbeck on the trip, their marriage was beginning to suffer, and ended a year later, in 1941, even as Steinbeck worked on the manuscript for the book. In 1942, after his divorce from Carol he married Gwyndolyn "Gwyn" Conger.
Ricketts was Steinbeck's model for the character of "Doc" in Cannery Row (1945) and Sweet Thursday (1954), "Friend Ed" in Burning Bright, and characters in In Dubious Battle (1936) and The Grapes of Wrath (1939). Ecological themes recur in Steinbeck's novels of the period.
Steinbeck's close relations with Ricketts ended in 1941 when Steinbeck moved away from Pacific Grove and divorced his wife Carol.<Ricketts's biographer Eric Enno Tamm opined that, except for East of Eden (1952), Steinbeck's writing declined after Ricketts's untimely death in 1948.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
But that defeats the purpose of government!
Yakuda
Verified User
I said one must work and not get hand outs from the govt. Govt mandated minimum wage is a hand out.
The idea Ive always suggested is, if you work you can get some assistance from the govt but you have to a valid above board job. None of that under the table shit. Then I'd get rid of income tax as taxing people for their work is a disincentive. Tax purchases not income.
Working much less for the necessities of life is a pipe dream in my opinion.
In order for constitutionality of a law to be a convincing argument you would have to show that constitutionality of laws = efficacy and i seriously doubt you can show evidence of that. Minimum wage laws may be constitutional but they dont come anywhere near close to solving the problem they say they want to solve.
Yes you did...sorta. But so what. I said everyone's needs must be met.
Do you agree with me simply because I said it? (I'm guessing you don't.) And I do not agree with you simply because you said it.
Okay. And I have said that some people will help our productivity (which we agreed should be maximized) by staying the hell out of the way. There are some people who, if they want to help...should not help.
Not in mine. Do I have to accept your way? Do you have to accept mine?
Allowing entrepreneurs to pay whatever they want won't solve it either.
Try to understand that.
We have got to work FAR OUTSIDE THAT BOX.
Yakuda
Verified User
People should work to get their needs met. If they dont its not anyone elses responsibility but theirs to fix it. Get another job. Get more training. Make yourself more marketable.
Stay out of the way and dont eat. Its not my responsibility to take care of people whose best talent is staying the hell out of the wya
You dont have to accept anything.
so if you dont let business owners decide who should decide? The only other option is government and you said they shouldnt be involved. The third way is dont take job that you dont think pass you a sufficient wage. If business owners cant get people to take their jobs for lesser pay theu will have choices to make.
Oh I understand it more than you know.
Well, he never said he wanted it, he just said it would be a lot cheaper. I forget the two Congressmen who sponsored a Bill to do that, it was a long time ago, but of course it never passed. It was one form each Party, as they all were back then. He continued to publish his estimates of what individuals would receive under such a plan for decades afterwards. They seemed to hew close to minimum wage adjusted for real inflation most often; I never looked at his math so don't know if that was deliberate or not.
Abstract
This paper explores the intellectual history of Universal Basic Income (UBI), specifically focusing on Milton Friedman’s Negative Income Tax (NIT) as a precursor. Examining Friedman’s work in the 1940s, the study reveals the polysemic nature of early NIT proposals and underscores the significance of Friedman and Stigler’s engagement with concepts like Abba P. Lerner’s Social Dividend and Kenneth Boulding’s adjustable tax plan, the latter often overlooked in the literature. Contrary to the prevailing view of NIT as solely a poverty alleviation policy, this research also positions it, at this moment, as a macroeconomic steering mechanism. Drawing on Reinhart Koselleck’s categories, theoretical analysis emphasises the importance of exploring diverse “layers of meaning” in early NIT debates, shedding light on nuances that echo contemporary discussions on UBI.
So...you just want people to work. Apparently you do not see any other contribution to productivity that a person can do to "get their needs."
Let me respectfully ask why you are so dismissive of my suggestion that one of the most effective contributions some people can make to our productivity effort...is to stay out of the way? Why are you so dismissive of my suggestion that the BEST WAY some people can help...IS BY NOT HELPING?
Have you honestly not known someone like that during your work history?
In other words, if you contribute to our general productivity in the most effective way you can...you will be rewarded by starving death...or freezing to death without shelter??? Yakuda, that makes no sense.
Well it may be the responsibility of government to do that.
It seems to me that you are not at all concerned with productivity...but are just interested in people toiling. It seems to me from what you are saying that if a person cannot help by working (taking jobs away from more productive humans or machines)...that you would have them dig holes in the ground and fill them up so that they can dig them up again the next day. Otherwise they starve or freeze.
You just seem, for some reason, to want that humans work as much as possible rather than work less if possible and get to enjoy more leisure time...or to tend to their house, lawn, garden or car...or just getting exercise doing other physical things.
I do not understand it. It sounds to me that if a politician were to campaign saying, "I will attempt to make life easier for everyone...to make them work less and to allow them more leisure time"...that you would strive to get that politician to lose, because you see an easier life for everyone to be something objectioinable.
Talk to me a bit more about that.
Yakuda
Verified User
No I dont unless you have an example.
Im not dismissive of people who contribute by staying out of the way im dismissive of the idea that anyone else should have to take care of them. Not the same at all.
Every place Ive ever worked has someone who pissed and moaned that they didnt get paid enough so they slacked off. I have sympathy for them and feel no obligation to take care of them.
Thats not the most effective way they can contribute. stop it
The govt has no constitutional authority to make sure people have "sufficient" and do you REALLY want the govt having that much power over its citizens??????
With all due respect youre very confused. I dont want people to work as much as possible and Im thrilled if someone can work one hour a year and have all their needs and more met. What im not thrilled about is being held responsible by the govt at "gunpoint" (laws) for caring for people who dont contribute. why should I be more concerned about their freezing to death then they are? Thats a question you need to answer.
Im all for people having the easy life if they've earned it not because I was held repsonsible by govt fiat to support them
Thank you, Yakuda. Obviously we are not going to agree...and I guess that we both knew that when we started our conversation. But the fact that we were able to have such a discussion with both of us respecting certain norms for a reasonable discussion was extremely satisfying for me. T. A. Gardner and I had a similar discussion in another thread...and that was also very satisfying.
I hope you and he both were pleased with the way things went.
Perhaps there is hope for the world.