Give disabled people who are unable to work a survivable wage

What is America up to now, three admin/clerical jobs per every two doctors? The insurance companies complicate things so much.

Yeah, if it wasn’t artificial there would be a system to register a disability as impossible to recover from for stuff like loss of body parts.

"Hey everyone we figured out low power AI!" Then it turns out to be a bunch of people on disability Neuralink'd together into a customer support LLM.

worst thing is a lot of their “personal experiences” with fraud are pure bullshit.

They don’t try to empathise or understand someone who’se disabled. They see their neighbour get out their wheelchair and walk a few steps once and then decide “he’s a frauster”. Never mind that a large chunk of wheelchair bound people have the ability leave their chairs and stand up for short periods of time. They just can’t do it regularly or with any consistency. Or doing it worsens their underlying conditions.

But never mind, the conservative genius saw them leave their wheelchair once so now since he never has faced disability and his view is based on simplified steorotypes, thinks the person is faking.

Yeah, if they didn't you would have more people apply for disability payments instead of being a profit center for financing corps.

Universal basic income (like a bigger one than you are probably thinking), universal healthcare, eliminate most other welfare programs (UBI filling that role in place of things like SNAP and TANF, the remaining ones should be narrowly targeted and temporary - think WIC), institute a maximum wage (highest compensated person in a company can make no more than X% of the least compensated and Y% of the median compensated employee - makes it so that for executives to get a raise that rising tide has to lift every boat).

And plus we can just keep increasing taxes and UBI until we achieve the desired result.

Sounds great but do you really think the 1% will not fuck with a UBI?

We could also house the homeless for less than it would cost to punish them for being homeless.

We could feed the world on what we throw away in the US.

The disability attorneys I’ve spoken with say it’s a double-edged sword. The government is also reluctant to support indefinite opiate treatment (with good reason). They said I’d have better luck applying for SSI citing the psychological effects from the pain rather than applying for SSD for the disability itself.

Picard owns a huge vineyard and has people working there. Why

Harvest party with a hero of Earth seems pretty rad.

I study the history of money and pre-money economies as a hobby (oh god I'm such a fucking nerd) and you're 100% spot on. Before coins were invented, societies used ingots of metal. Before that, they used shells and beads. The first currency was used about ten thousand years ago (iirc).

And yeah, in the times and places throughout history where there wasn't an available currency, people practiced what was called a "gift economy." It works great on the small scale, and it still pops up in some communities even today. But on the large scale? Moving between cities, regions, and countries? Some form of currency is an absolute must.

The problem is that for anything to be used as currency, whether it's shells or coins, there has to be a critical mass that's the minimum to sustain an economy. That's where the hoarders (aka billionaires) are such a problem. As billionaires suck up currency, governments risk having the available currency fall below the critical mass. So, they make more. Which causes inflation.

So the billionaires really REALLY are the problem.

I found the Orville interesting as a thought experiment since their currency was reputation. Not sure how feasible that is, but nice to try to speculate how you'd have any kind of economy post-scarcity.

Money will always lead to a desire to hoard it. Money creates that greed and is something that should be abolished. Money simply acts as an unnecessary middle man to the distribution of goods. Money has to be abolished alongside the concept of property. Communal ownership is what would allow money to be done away with. And people would work and contribute because they would get to reap the benefits just as much as anyone else. Thats what mutual aid is. The sharing of resources mutually. I give my goods/services to the community which helps the community, and I get to also reap the benefits of what everyone else puts towards the community. And we have the means to meet everyone's needs now with the technology and productivity we have now.

We have the means to meet everyone's needs rn. We don't need some scifi replicator. The only things holding us back is the exploiting class, and people who think a middle man like money is needed. You are holding yourself back. Money is simply a middle-man to the distribution of goods. Through communal ownership of capital and what it produces, you do not need money as people can just take what they need. And people will work and produce because 1. What happens when people don't do the work? It doesnt get done and you don't get the goods, so if you want the goods you better ensure its made. If people refuse to do the work then I guess the good isn't worth making to begin with. And 2. People desire purpose and to be a part of communities, part of that is work. It just might not be the work they are doing currently.

Not gonna happen until we have Star Trek tech like matter replicators, and have killed all the bastards who first got their hands on them and try to keep them secret to exploit them for 0 cost high profit.

This would happen very quickly as soon as someone figures out how to bypass security on them (you just know they'll require some sort of janky app) and remotely orders a cocktail of bleach and ammonia.

Same in the US.

I worked as a fed in the US. The US federal government will spend a dollar to make sure a dime is spent properly.

is hogwash that mainstream media perpetuates because it gets views, right?

No, I do not know that. Please explain

At least under the Australian system, far more money is spent trying to "catch" them, than is spent on them.

Assume far more money is being spend on fire prevention, than what's currently lost in fire. Then that's not an argument pro, nor contra, fire prevention.

People like this will fight tooth and nail to prevent any theoretical "freeloaders" from getting less than minimum wage to survive on at the expense of something like 98.5% of people who make genuine claims (because your description is accurate, it is absolute torture to go through, and this bullshit lie is pushed to manufacture public support to make it even harder), but they accept tax dodging billionaires exploiting society for their own gain as an inevitable part of life they're happy to put up with because they've been brainwashed in to thinking one day it might be them (when the reality is you're probably thousands of times more likely to become ill and or disabled than you are to become filthy rich).

It's so fucking twisted.

The exaggeration or outright lying about welfare and social nets for political gain has roots back to the 60s. Reagan used the already created term "welfare queen" to disable even more help. Far easier to taint the whole thing than to improve fraud detection or shudder let the very small percentage of fraud exist while you try to help as many people as possible.

Republicans hate people. It's as simple as that.

Our respective experiences might differ based on context.

Where I live, there's 500k people on disability, on a work age population of around 5 million (1).

I was offered disability benefits, as I received my diagnosis.

I agree, it's about trade-offs.

That's why my first statement was: I do not think many people would disagree with the title.