There's no reason we can't implement UBI asynchronously
For what it's worth, of all of these solutions, UBI is the one that requires the least overhead, by far. Housing requires actually building houses. Education means making broad structural changes to many different levels of the whole system
UBI, as it has been mainstreamed, is literally just playing a trick within the money/accounting/tax system to lift people out of poverty. This will have a positive spill-over effect into other stuff
He alluded to how those systems being over-regulated and broken prevent the usual economic factors from working. E.g. if you don't allow people to build new houses in certain places then that makes it quite easy for housing prices to go up in those areas
Oh! I did not know that retaliation had a legal definition. Super relevant here and apologies for not knowing that -- glad to have learned something today
To reiterate, my gripe is not about anything "legal". Rather, my comments are focused on how our milieu responds to corporate actions
A huge Q.E.D. for my point: my original comment got flagged!
In exactly the sections I quoted. For example: "nip in the bud"
We could have a big discussion about the definition of the word retaliation, and under a lot of very reasonable definitions it's fine to me if we don't call it "retaliation"
The point is, Google is an organization that acts and reacts within a hugely complex system. I wish it was more acceptable for their employees to critique them, even if these critiques are largely received as taboo
The rulings stated it was legal for Google to do what they did. And I totally agree that it was legal - my gripe is with the difference in how society at large reacted to it. I've quoted a few relevant sections from the rulings
In the summary:
"we conclude that the memorandum included both protected and unprotected statements and that the Employer discharged [Damore] solely for [Damore's] unprotected statements. Therefore, the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act"
In the Action:
"The Board has acknowledged that it has a duty to balance an employee’s statutorily-protected rights against an employer’s legitimate right to enforce its workplace rules and managerial prerogatives"
"In furtherance of these legitimate interests, employers must be permitted to “nip in the bud” the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a “hostile workplace,” rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action."
An earlier decision they quoted in the ruling:
"In view of the controversial nature of the language used and its admitted susceptibility to derisive and profane construction, [the employer] could legitimately ban the use of the provocative [language] as a reasonable precaution against discord and bitterness between employees and management, as well as to assure decorum and discipline in the plant"
To me this sounds like they are saying that Google indeed retaliated, and it was legal for them to do so
For what it's worth, of all of these solutions, UBI is the one that requires the least overhead, by far. Housing requires actually building houses. Education means making broad structural changes to many different levels of the whole system
UBI, as it has been mainstreamed, is literally just playing a trick within the money/accounting/tax system to lift people out of poverty. This will have a positive spill-over effect into other stuff