You’re conflating human rights with a human need as if through sheer force of ideology you can make food magically poof into existence.
In the past, million of people starved because of this way of thinking.
Sorry, but producing food requires people to do work. When you try to make something that involves work into something purely about ideology, bad things happen.
Maybe, have you considered? that access to food is already decoupled from work because of ideological factors? Perhaps the idea that it is OK for people to go hungry if they’re not working is in itself an ideological posture. Just speed balling ideas here, maybe if people weren’t hungry, perhaps they will have the strength and will to work harder and more efficiently. I don’t know, it just came to me, I’m sure nobody has done any serious writing about it. We should go to the internet together and see if any of those scientists have ever done any study on that. Wild idea, maybe when people have their basic needs met they are more likely to be productive members of society. I’m sure that’s not revolutionary or anything and just common sense. Or not, I’m not a social scientist, I mean, I am, but maybe there’s something we are missing here.
Millions of people starved because of his writings.
What you’re missing is the fact that someone’s gotta plow the fields, plant the crops, harvest the crops, and someone has to get the food to you. If you think in terms of the food just magically appearing in the grocery store, you’re might start thinking “why can’t this just be free?” It’s not free because there’s a lot of work that happens before you you see food on the shelf at the grocery store.
There’s the whole field of economics that’s about this. You might reject this because you think economics is about money. It’s not. Economics is about work and resources. Being ignorant of the real work that’s involved in food production and thinking that through ideology you can factor it all out is disrespectful to workers.
The things you’re talking about have been tried before, the result was a lot of people starved. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Someone somewhere always has to do work to make that lunch. They need to be compensated for their labour like everyone else.
Very interesting. If only there were more recent scientific studies that weren’t the fever dreams of a psychotic pseudoscientific anti-evolution tankie from the soviet era.
Oh, would you look at this. There is science after the soviet union, after all. It’s almost like time has passed and we have more complex and nuance understanding of the world since the fucking 50’s.
Overall, evidence consistently demonstrates that unconditional cash in low- and middle-income countries leads to a measurable decrease in poverty.
There is good evidence to demonstrate that an injection of cash increases household expenditures. Results are positive for food expenditure in all country contexts. and the purchase and ownership of assets such as livestock in low-and middle-income countries.
The evidence from diverse interventions in low-, middle-, and high-income contexts indicates minimal impact on aggregate measures of labor market participation, with some studies reporting an increase in work participation. When reductions do occur, time is channeled into other valued activities such as caregiving.
When people can eat, they can work. Wow!
Clear and significant impacts are well-documented for educational outcomes that would be expected in the short term, such as school enrollment and attendance.
There is consistent evidence across contexts for improvements to health status and to the myriad behavioral and social factors that are
linked to leading causes of premature ill-health, disability, and death.
It’s almost like people who don’t have to scramble for survival can actually become better persons and be an overall positive force in society. Weird what this science stuff has to say when we drop the ideological blinds.
Anyways, Lysenko makes for a pretty straw man. But it has no bearing on this discussion.
I don’t trust studies about UBI since that shit is being pushed by corporations that want taxpayers (which obviously isn’t them) to pay their workforce instead of them having to pay for it. They somehow scammed leftists into thinking it’s a good idea for the working class to be paying the working class so the corporations can just become feudal lords that collect money and pay nothing.
It’s mostly just a smokescreen to distract from real policies like increasing minimum wage. And it works. So great keep talking about UBI while while minimum wage isn’t a living wage. Even if you get UBI, the corporations win, because they won’t need to pay their workforce, and they don’t pay any fucking taxes.
There is good evidence to demonstrate that an injection of cash increases household expenditures.
When people can eat, they can work. Wow!
Yeah, no shit. Do you need a study to tell you the sky is blue?
Once again, I go back to “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” The question isn’t about whether people people need food FFS. The question is, who should pay for it?
I think the company you work for should pay you enough money that you can afford to eat whatever the fuck you want. I don’t even know what you want, just some vague idea that food should just magically exist for free. This is why it’s so difficult to get people onboard with raising minimum wage, making corporations and the wealthy pay their fucking taxes, trust-busting corporations when they get to big so there’s competition. You know, policies that actually work?
But sure keep on not voting because you want some magical world where food is free, money just pops into your bank account somehow, and nobody has to work. Maybe just spray some Brawndo on the plants so you can have free food. It’s got what plants crave!
I want the same as you, except, I don’t think that people should suffer because they don’t conform to my concept of moral value. And thus I act with that intention. How about we work towards a kinder world to exist instead of wishing harm upon others just because they are different.
Also, stop fucking projecting your violence into me. You have like 6 different wrong assumptions about my character, values and arguments (straw men are pretty, but ultimately useless) that I have never expressed anywhere. You really need to stop spreading your selfhate towards others.
Yeah, those people doing the work to produce food are starving. What is your point?
You’re conflating human rights with a human need as if through sheer force of ideology you can make food magically poof into existence.
In the past, million of people starved because of this way of thinking.
Sorry, but producing food requires people to do work. When you try to make something that involves work into something purely about ideology, bad things happen.
There’s people working 60+ hours a week and also starving. Again, what is your point?
Nobody is stopping you from donating to the food bank and volunteering your time at a soup kitchen. What’s your point?
Maybe, have you considered? that access to food is already decoupled from work because of ideological factors? Perhaps the idea that it is OK for people to go hungry if they’re not working is in itself an ideological posture. Just speed balling ideas here, maybe if people weren’t hungry, perhaps they will have the strength and will to work harder and more efficiently. I don’t know, it just came to me, I’m sure nobody has done any serious writing about it. We should go to the internet together and see if any of those scientists have ever done any study on that. Wild idea, maybe when people have their basic needs met they are more likely to be productive members of society. I’m sure that’s not revolutionary or anything and just common sense. Or not, I’m not a social scientist, I mean, I am, but maybe there’s something we are missing here.
deleted by creator
This guys wrote a lot that was along your lines of thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
Millions of people starved because of his writings.
What you’re missing is the fact that someone’s gotta plow the fields, plant the crops, harvest the crops, and someone has to get the food to you. If you think in terms of the food just magically appearing in the grocery store, you’re might start thinking “why can’t this just be free?” It’s not free because there’s a lot of work that happens before you you see food on the shelf at the grocery store.
There’s the whole field of economics that’s about this. You might reject this because you think economics is about money. It’s not. Economics is about work and resources. Being ignorant of the real work that’s involved in food production and thinking that through ideology you can factor it all out is disrespectful to workers.
The things you’re talking about have been tried before, the result was a lot of people starved. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Someone somewhere always has to do work to make that lunch. They need to be compensated for their labour like everyone else.
Very interesting. If only there were more recent scientific studies that weren’t the fever dreams of a psychotic pseudoscientific anti-evolution tankie from the soviet era.
Oh, would you look at this. There is science after the soviet union, after all. It’s almost like time has passed and we have more complex and nuance understanding of the world since the fucking 50’s.
When people can eat, they can work. Wow!
It’s almost like people who don’t have to scramble for survival can actually become better persons and be an overall positive force in society. Weird what this science stuff has to say when we drop the ideological blinds.
Anyways, Lysenko makes for a pretty straw man. But it has no bearing on this discussion.
I don’t trust studies about UBI since that shit is being pushed by corporations that want taxpayers (which obviously isn’t them) to pay their workforce instead of them having to pay for it. They somehow scammed leftists into thinking it’s a good idea for the working class to be paying the working class so the corporations can just become feudal lords that collect money and pay nothing.
It’s mostly just a smokescreen to distract from real policies like increasing minimum wage. And it works. So great keep talking about UBI while while minimum wage isn’t a living wage. Even if you get UBI, the corporations win, because they won’t need to pay their workforce, and they don’t pay any fucking taxes.
Yeah, no shit. Do you need a study to tell you the sky is blue?
Once again, I go back to “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” The question isn’t about whether people people need food FFS. The question is, who should pay for it?
I think the company you work for should pay you enough money that you can afford to eat whatever the fuck you want. I don’t even know what you want, just some vague idea that food should just magically exist for free. This is why it’s so difficult to get people onboard with raising minimum wage, making corporations and the wealthy pay their fucking taxes, trust-busting corporations when they get to big so there’s competition. You know, policies that actually work?
But sure keep on not voting because you want some magical world where food is free, money just pops into your bank account somehow, and nobody has to work. Maybe just spray some Brawndo on the plants so you can have free food. It’s got what plants crave!
I want the same as you, except, I don’t think that people should suffer because they don’t conform to my concept of moral value. And thus I act with that intention. How about we work towards a kinder world to exist instead of wishing harm upon others just because they are different.
Also, stop fucking projecting your violence into me. You have like 6 different wrong assumptions about my character, values and arguments (straw men are pretty, but ultimately useless) that I have never expressed anywhere. You really need to stop spreading your selfhate towards others.