No one wants to go back to WORK or to stop working form HOME.

appleswan wrote:

Quantum theorem wrote:

No dingus. You buying coffee or dinner or a sofa is not wealth distribution, that is called economics. You are paying for a good and service that you deign to be worthwhile.

Wealth redistribution can be forced, no argument there.

It can also be achieved through economics.

Wealth distribution is forcibly taking someone's money or assets, stuff that they have earned, and giving it to somebody that has not earned it.

How would rent fit into your definition? Money is taken from me (which I’ve earned at work) and given to my landlord (someone that's not earned that money).

Can it not be redistribution from poor to wealthy?

Landlord has not earned it, huh? How is that possible? They provided you with a reliable shelter, a roof over your head, a place for you to relax and sleep and bring girls home to. That is worth $$$. Can you build your own shelter? They built it for you and/or already paid for it. All you had to do was move in with your s$it.

We were already doing it. They have 2 connected buildings and just finished moving everyone out of the smaller building so they could get some type of tax write off.

I'm not opposed to going into the office. I prefer it most days. I would usually run in the morning at a trail near my office and/or go to the gym next door before work. Also my group runs were in that direction anyways (whenever we get to do those again) and on the same days as our team stand-ups anyways. My complaint is the idea that we had to be in the office for certain things when it is demonstrably untrue. These are situations were people are watching Netflix on their phones all day, but "need to be physically available" for IT work? My previous manager (who was also against having to be in the office) contemplated hooking up a Playstation in one of the conference rooms.

Bullet_Proof wrote:

Landlord has not earned it, huh? How is that possible? They provided you with a reliable shelter, a roof over your head, a place for you to relax and sleep and bring girls home to. That is worth $$$. Can you build your own shelter? They built it for you and/or already paid for it. All you had to do was move in with your s$it.

Property Rent is mostly based on the value the land is situated on. Land is considered a non-produced asset in all economic systems I've come across.

I pay earned income from work to my landlord so I can access an asset he has not produced.

Theoretically I could build my own house but would still need to buy the land.

I have a good landlord who'll do maintenance etc. to provide reliable shelter and I'm quite happy to pay for this service. But the value of that service does not determine most of what I pay.

thc gummy bear#2 wrote:

IT support worker here , i won't lie, been ripped and on friday was turning the hot office workers vpn network connections on and off just so they call and talk to me .

Love it. Beyond creepy but pretty good.

appleswan wrote:

I pay earned income from work to my landlord so I can access an asset he has not produced.

Theoretically I could build my own house but would still need to buy the land.

I have a good landlord who'll do maintenance etc. to provide reliable shelter and I'm quite happy to pay for this service. But the value of that service does not determine most of what I pay.

There is honestly a high level of stupidity to even try to rationalize an argument such as this.

Your landlord spent his/her own capital (money) to purchase land, and build a home/apartment for you to live in. There are costs to doing this beyond the initial investment, such as property taxes, insurance, maintenance and management. He/she owns that land and dwelling, and if you want to rent it, you can by mutual agreement. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to sign the lease and agree to the terms.

If you don't like it, maybe stay at home in mom's basement.

You've very accurately described what happens when a landlord lets out a property to a tenant.

If a landlord invests money in a business and it goes bust, then ya boo his money is gone. If it's a success then great, he's created something productive for the economy.

Where's the risk in leasing out property? He turns profit every month and if the tenant doesn't pay then he's still got he's capital investment.

So I stand by my assertion that aspects of economics repressively distribute wealth.

This isn't correct. Other groups are wondering why their unemployment claims haven't been processed yet.

honest advice wrote:

I've heard so many white people feeling guilty about getting the $1200 or $600 bonus for unemployment a week. Wondering this cant be true, I'll have to pay it back on my taxes next year right? Meanwhile blacks and other groups are like, WHEWWW HOOO, MORE WELFARE ON TOP OF WHAT WE ALREADY GET, IMA GO OUT AND BUY A NEW TV!

Its time to stop paying for everyone else whites. Dont feel guilty, the government is trillions of dollars in debt, we stopped having a real economy decades ago. Stop being stooges for millions of illegals who sponge off you. Do someone for yourselves, take whatever you can.

appleswan wrote:

You've very accurately described what happens when a landlord lets out a property to a tenant.

If a landlord invests money in a business and it goes bust, then ya boo his money is gone. If it's a success then great, he's created something productive for the economy.

Where's the risk in leasing out property? He turns profit every month and if the tenant doesn't pay then he's still got he's capital investment.

So I stand by my assertion that aspects of economics repressively distribute wealth.

You are assuming that the property will be rented every month, which they aren't. There are also tenants who fail to pay, and it can take months to legally have them vacate the property.

Also, not all landlords pay cash up front. Oftentimes someone might have a rental property that still has a mortgage, so very little if any is pure profit.

Every business, including landlords, operate on risk vs reward. Even if someone owns a home/apartment complex outright, it is their right to engage in free transactions with those who wish to rent them. It isn't your business or the government's business to interfere on a consensual transaction that is mutually beneficial.

It sounds like you have more of a problem with property ownership than anything.

The real issue is wage stagnation and wealth disparity. People don't mind working when they feel like they're being paid a fair wage relative to the work they're doing.

I would LOVE for people to go back to work. Everywhere is crowded at all times now not just after 5 Pm anymore.

I might quit if bossman tries to get me to go back to commuting after this. I've had a whole month to clearly demonstrate there's no company advantage in me waking up early to sit in traffic with everyone else.

The risk is people like you would sue the landlord if you injured yourself even if it was your own fault

I think you would sing a different tune if you stepped up to the plate one day and actually tried to be a rental property investor

r2k83 wrote:

Companies will have a hard time justifying the need to be in the office. Mine had everyone working from home in 7 days before the shutdowns even started (did a test run on March 11th to make sure network handled it). I had always complained about having to be in the office to monitor systems over the weekend of our busy season. None of the bullshit excuses from management are going to fly anymore. If I have to stay at home and be on call that is fine, but don't tell me I need to spend my weekend in the office.

Agree. I wrote 2 business cases at my company to allow our department to work from home. Both were shot down. They can't say no now that we have been forced to work from home and it's been successful. Not just for my department but the entire company. Ha! Take that!

Meanwhile 4000 more IT workers India have gotten approval over the last month to come to the USA and replace American workers. Neither party is doing nothing. We truly are being replaced, and the Kosher Sandwich of bought off Democrats and Republicans cares nothing about Americans and only cares about making $$$$ and expanding their global empire serfdom.

My company has weekly meetings and at the last one they said things were going well with everyone working at home and that it was something that they were going to encourage people to continue doing. More long term remains TBD though with new hires, etc. It'll be nice to at least be able to work part time from home though.

This is brilliant as MacDonalds pay me to sit at home and flip myself off instead of burgers ?

The OP was referencing universal basic income, I wasn't trying to open a discussion about property ownership.

I'm responding to the above criticism of UBI by comparing to existing economics. It's not socialist to receive benefit from other's work as many people are happy to profit (or defend it) while telling the rest of us it's lazy to do so.

When a landlord maintains/develops their property this is their asset and when a tenant pays rent - nothing is purchased and no capital is reduced by that transaction.

In this regard UBI is no different, it's payment without an exchange. You're confusing being a landlord with being a property developer. When you develop property and sell for profit clearly you are adding value and bring productive.

[quote]Bullet_Proof wrote:

Landlord has not earned it, huh? How is that possible? They provided you with a reliable shelter, a roof over your head, a place for you to relax and sleep and bring girls home to.

Really? Did the landlord create the land? Did he build the house or apartment building?

ellen556 wrote:

I would LOVE for people to go back to work. Everywhere is crowded at all times now not just after 5 Pm anymore.

This. People need to get the f away from me.