it’s because Linear Algebra has tables and matrices aplenty and using/calculating them is pretty concise and well recorded mathematically, so there are no secrets under the table 
I’ll admit that it was not a very good joke to begin with, but explaining it made it even worse 
I must admit I didn’t get it either. I don’t think the terminology “table” is standard in linear algebra.
I guess it might be more common for people learning this from a computer science background, where matrices and tables are kind of a similar data structure, as are vectors and lists.
This is one of the biggest problems I have with UBI. It is kind of like (if not spot) the idea that we should all receive the exact same income regardless of what we do with our lives or our personal situation. The issue stretches out so far that it would actually be counter-productive for progress in society. Think about it, if you are a cashier making almost as much or as much money as a doctor, do you think that more people would want to be doctors or cashiers? I am not saying everyone thinks this way, wanting to do the easiest task for the most amount of money, but people by their nature tend to want to do what is easiest, especially if they will still be making “good” money. And the fact of the matter is that we need both cashiers and doctors in society right now. Yes, I am sure that even in this scenario there will be some doctors, because life is not all about money and ease of life for all people but for too many it is. So thus there would be an imbalance in society.
I have always looked at economic models this way: People are versatile and different from one another. People don’t behave perfectly and often don’t want to behave perfectly. So a perfect system is by nature impossible. What we want is a system that can benefit the most people in the best way possible, but without benefitting everyone. That sounds like a horrible thing, but if we try to benefit everyone, then people are categorized as what they are not, either better or worse than they are, or both. People are imperfect by nature, so systems must have that consideration built in. This does not mean that I think the system we have now is a good as it could be, there are always improvements that can be made. The real question is how best to go about it, and that is often a very challenging question.
Did some of us misunderstand the definition of UBI? I thought that UBI means: everybody receives the same amount of money (say 800$ / month) but if you work, you get your salary in addition.
I think comparing UBI to the extreme of equal income for everyone is a flawed way to consider it. That’s certainly not what it is.
Ultimately, such proposals come no where near that, and instead aim to provide a very basic level of income that may only partially cover basic necessities. Hence, people would still be incentivized to seek more income on top of that.
The point is to reduce poverty levels, which may even have a positive impact on workforce participation, by giving people a safety net to flexibly pursue different career choices, such as by seeking advanced trained, like for becoming a doctor.
Frankly but friendly saying you like to analyse things in some pure,extrem dichotomy which is not really leading to positive progress.
The idea of providing some minima money is not to make everyone rich. Just to avoid extrem situation of misery due to whatever (family loss, bad year harvest, mental deficiency, whatever) and let people have a life and even maybe more.
I’m not sure who explained UBI to you, but this isn’t UBI. Any money that you earn will be yours: if you’re working at MacDonald’s that will be around minimum wage, if you’re a CEO it may be 5 digits. UBI just means you get a monthly sum of money no strings attached on top of that.
Of course, to provide that money to everyone, taxes need to be raised. If you earn little, it will be worth it, since the raise in taxes will be less than the amount of money you get back for it. If you earn a lot, you’ll have to pay more taxes than you get back, but that’s the whole point: people who are rich enough to own multiple houses have to pay more taxes which will be distributed to the poorest of the society. Note that taxes are a percentage: if you’re earning 5 digits, you’ll still be earning 5 digits after taxes, so the rich will stay relatively rich anyways. By design, most people will benefit from UBI, since most people don’t earn enough (there’s a lot more poor people than rich people, and the very rich are very very rich)
The good thing, is that poor people suddenly get to actually live their life normally.
I don’t think people will stop working either: living off only UBI will not get you anywhere better than how most student’s live: in a tiny apartment, with barely enough money to buy vegetables. Most people will want to do something anyway against the boredom. And finally, there’s just the wish to be rich. Most bankers can easily retire in their mid 30’s, and live in a trailer park until their death, but they don’t, because why would they?
I have heard some people define it both ways. But yes, I am probably mistaken in the sense that it usually refers to having a work salary but with the additional money. So my explanation before could be too extreme, but I nonetheless would say that it approaches the same criteria and then the question becomes, where should that money come from? My taxes? High taxes on the rich? Both? Even 800 dollars a month for everyone is a lot of money when you think about it. I would still say that would be likely to have many startling side effects on the economy and society as a whole.
You might be able to correct my understanding of UBI.
I was under the impression it was a low amount, around a few hundred a month, to help ensure families wouldn’t need to pick up a part time job and could spend more time reading kids and have less stress? I heard second hand that it also helped young couples save for long term things like a car, or build an emergency savings.
I can’t recall it ever being proposed as a means to replace a living income.
Setting up UBI implies suppressing most welfare, so the cost wouldn’t be so high. It would reduce administration costs, since you don’t need to determine who deserves or not to get UBI.
Let’s do some calculation. According to this site, the total amount of income earned in 2019 in the US is $8,790,916,517,299.59, that’s about 8.7 trillion USD. Dividing that by the total adult population, we get roughly 34,000$ per year on average. We need 9,600$ per year to give every adult 800$ per month, which means 28% tax per person on average.
Now, let’s see what this means: if you earn around 34,000$ per year, UBI will have no influence whatsoever on you. If you earn less, you will benefit, and if you earn more, it will cost you a bit. For the lowest 30% of incomes, which are at 10,000$ per year or less (side-note, Jesus, that number… 30% of US citizens earn less than 10,000 a year?!) UBI will roughly double to triple their income, if not more. Only for the 30% richest US citizens does it really cost a significant amount of money, but that’s relative: if you earn 200,000$ a year, you will still earn 150,000$ a year afterwards: you’d still be rich as f***
Stay at home moms, young adults living at home, older people with part time jobs, students with part time jobs, etc.
I think someone with a small home business that lives with others would also count as under 10, possibly?
Hmm, yeah, thanks, I forgot about that.
So things aren’t as bad, then 
It’s just a general concept with a long history of discussion. Some proposals aim for providing enough income to fully meet basic needs, while others aim at only partially meeting those needs.
A lot more information can be found via the Wikipedia article
Not really. A “BASIC universal income” (do note the word “basic”) or a “MINIMUM guaranteed income” is designed to provide a BASIC/MINIMUM amount of money to all citizens that NEED help to achieve said income. The idea is that if, for some reason, you end up being unemployed or ill or unable to work for some time, you should not end up homeless and starving as well.
Ergo the whole concept, as I understand it, is that IF and ONLY IF you can prove that you are BELOW that threshold, then the state provides you with a boost to reach it.
For example. Here in Greece that amount of money is, iirc, around 200 euros.
If you make 150 euros, the state does not provide you with 200 euros EXTRA, but it gives you 50 euros to reach the 200 euros that the BASIC/MINIMUM requires.
Now, that is a much more cost effective idea than dishing out standard amounts of money to everyone, even if they do not need said money. It helps the people in NEED and while it is arguably a very small amount of money, it is SOMETHING.
So, this is where the argument I mentioned earlier fails a bit and pushes it towards the “propaganda spectrum”. Noone is “splurging” with “your tax money” … everyone knows that you cannot probably survive on 200 euros let alone “splurge” or being loose with your money. There are, of course, some loopholes with other kind of stimuli the government provides, but let’s not get into the madness of our local technicalities
Now, I understand that this topic is practically taboo in the States, where even the raising of the “minimum WAGE” (which is something you ACTIVELY work for and it is NOT a hand-out) is deemed as anathema and “socialism”, but I would ask you this question:
What would you propose as a solution for homelessness other than providing those people a small income that would help them get back on their feet? Financially it is sound (those people living in crates and tents in the streets of the state capitals do cost money to the state anyway), so why not do it?
Then I would ask the SAME question not from the stand-point of economics, but from the stand-point of the values, culture and religion that your country claims that wants to uphold. Last time I checked, those were the Christian values (remember that motto from that think-tank you had sent me last year? 
) and I am pretty certain that Jesus was very clear about helping the poor and very clear about the punishments of not doing so.
For those not aware of the passages, here is some scripture:
Matthew 25:
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life eternal .
I mean how your pastors get around that is beyond me, but they must be pretty good fast talkers if they have convinced a whole nation to ignore the direct command of their own God
Anyway, so the whole idea is economically sound and it also helps those in need, which is also culturally, ethically and religiously sound. So, yes, there are indeed quite a few merits in the whole concept.
Yeah, but this is the disingenious part of the people that talk against the idea. Noone is going to guarantee you the money a doctor makes.
I do not see how the concept “let’s help people so they do not starve” can be stretched to “massive passive income let’s all go to Hawaii for surfing”
That is correct.
But this is a prime example how a correct assumption can lead to a variety of results and some of them quite faulty.
If you mean that EVENTUALLY no system can benefit everyone, then that is TRUE.
If you mean that “since we cannot make it benefit everyone, then we will ACTIVELY design it to benefit the ones we like”, then that is FALSE.
Because, who gets to decide who will get benefitted?
An ancient saying goes: "The wife of Ceasar should be as much free from suspicion of a crime as she is from a crime itself.”
You cannot build a system where it is openly admitting that it is going to fail and take sides. Then you have a power-struggle to be on the “good side”. I do not think that I have to explain this too much and how DIVISIVE that can be. Look around you, this is the system you currently have and, currently, that blatant power struggle I am describing is happening.
I am not sure I understand the issue with that problem and why is it SO important that a whole nation should forego any pretense of trying to be fair.
I thought that in your predge of allegiance it mentions “Justice for ALL” not “well, who can have justice in such an imperfect world, so screw it, amIrite? eh?”
I am fairly certain that it does not say that
I was not aware of that possible definition/implementation to be honest. Very interesting.
Two issues with this:
a) Those might seem like an insane amount of money to a lot of us, but of what I’ve gathered, the cost of life in some states/cities is so high that if you have a four member family, 150.000 dollars are the money were you break even if you factor in rent, cost of living, healthcare, utilities and extra costs for your children (e.g. tutors or activities or a private school) and you are definitely not rich (though undoubtedly it is a high standard way of living).
b) Even if you live elsewhere and do not have a family and kids and indeed you get to save a lot of that money, THEN I think that you will agree that the thought of “I just gave to the tax collector a brand new Mercedes C-Class Sedan” is not something that you will keep you happy company when you try to sleep at night It IS a lot of money to part with, especially if, at the end of the day, you do not have enough money saved to afford to buy such a car for yourlself.
The drawback of that system is that if you can only find a part-time job with a 150€ salary, then you may prefer not to work since you get 200€ anyway, regardless of whether you work or not. Whereas if the state gives you 200€ without condition, then you still have an incentive to take the 150€ job.
The other advantages I already mentioned are:
This is true. It does seem like a much better system this way, but I think that ideas like that need the “baby steps” approach until people get used to them. First it is paramount that people understand and accept the idea and then you can go on and say “well, we are already doing this, so why not make it more simple, fair AND cost-effective”
What you mentioned is - I think - in the works of happening here as well. They already changing the name from “social income benefits” to “minimum guaranteed income” which is a small step on improving the system.
I’m not sure this is sufficient. Traditionally, authorities and in-power groups change the names of things without changing the mindsets or solving the problem. Most efforts start and finish with changing the labels.
For example, the term “differently abled person” for a blind person living in 2021 sounds better than a “disabled person” from 1981 or a “blind person” from 1921. However, this person is still unable to access basic services in daily life in 2021.
Another example: workplace vocabulary. We don’t work, we produce value. We don’t hide complaints, we de-escalate customers. We don’t get short contracts with low insurance, we are contingent staff. We don’t have performance comparisons, we have team appreciation events. Etc etc.
Well, of course it is not. 
I totally agree with your point of changing the names of stuff and I love Carlin’s presentation of it here:
and here:
However , there are two points I’d like to make:
a) All this euphemistic name-changing arguably WORKS, which is why everyone is scrambling to take part in it. Maybe the most famous example of that kind of wizardry is the Obamacare/Affordable Care Act where the SAME people would tell you that they “hate Obamacare” but “Love the ACA”, even though they were exactly the same thing So, if someone is changing a term, then there is usually a good reason/goal behind it.
b) In this country we have a saying that goes “never change a winning team” and it is indeed usually proven true on so many things, this measure included. It was tentatively added under the name of “enhancement benefits” if I remember correctly, and then when they wanted to expand it they renamed it to the quite illustrious name of “Social Benefit of Solidarity” … The core of the whole thing remains the same, of course, but a name-change usually signifies here that some thought has gone into it because they want to market some change about it (do note that I said change and not improvement … they might be changing its name to reduce the benefits for all we know ). If nothing was going to happen, however, they would probably not have bothered with changing the name (because, as I said, that’s how we usually roll).
For example, we used to have a “ministry of work/jobs” … right before they wanted to hatchet a lot of things and make things more difficult for the workers they changed the ministry’s name to “ministry of employment” because having a job and being employed has a slight, sublime, yet very definitive difference (at least in our language - in english the implication lies mostly to the “having” and “being”).
Having a job implies that it is something you “do for a living” and thus it provides you with living wages.
Being employed is something that you “just do” and earns you an income, that it no way implies that it should be adequate to your needs.
By changing the name of the ministry they made a very subtle bid to get out of any responsibility to care about jobs and only care about “employment”. And of course they didn’t just stick to the name … they went on to change things for the worse.
Migrants continue camping at Belarus-Poland border, hoping to cross into EU
