PA "skill games" are basically just slot machines

 So, everyone is in a big fuss about so called "skill games" being banned. Why are they banned? Because they're basically slot machines. My opinion? Yeah, no crap. Like, it's not even subtle. The machines I see around PA look exactly or almost exactly like the machines that exist in casinos. And slot machines are basically designed to take your money. Doesn't mean you can't hit here or there. I was lucky on my last AC trip, but that's not the norm, and in the long run, you're gonna lose money. 

My honest opinion on gambling is this. I think there are some issues with it. I recognize not everyone has the education in stats that I do where they realize these things are rigged against them, and given capitalism is as messed up as it is, a lot of people will fall prey to them because let's face it, the idea of winning lots of money from gambling is more appealing than working. But much like with everything else capitalism, those delusions of success are often more appealing to people than the cold hard reality, and some people will just throw their money at the machines until they pretty much ruined their life.

This is why some want gambling to be banned. It's a "vice", like drinking, smoking, drugs. It's fine in moderation, it's addictive, and it can ruin lives. I dont agree with a full on ban, dont get me wrong, I am a libertarian and believe people should have the freedom to partake in vices. But that doesnt mean I dont support regulating them either. Im fine with say, "sin taxes" on marijuana or cigarettes. I'm fine with limiting gambling to casinos and limiting casino construction to certain zoning practices. I think the option should be there for anyone who wants it, but it should also be out of sight, out of mind. I dont like the proliferation of gambling as exists where people can throw money at sports betting apps or "prediction markets" willy nilly. I think it does prey on psychologically vulnerable people who do end up getting sucked in and making irresponsible decisions. 

Like, from my own perspective, as an EXTREMELY casual gambler, it's fine to go to a casino with a set amount of money, and spend the day gambling. I mean, people will spend $15 for a movie ticket and insane amounts on concessions for a 2 hour movie. People will spend significant money eating out or going to an amusement park. Concerts cost hundreds of dollars at times. What's the difference if they go to a casino and gamble instead? Ya know? if you're gonna spend a day out, there's nothing wrong with some casual gambling. Just like there's nothing wrong with going to a bar and ordering a drink or two. it's when the behavior becomes addictive, compulsive, and has negative outcomes that it becomes problematic. 

I do think there should be some restrictions on it. Not shoving these things into our faces in every store or restaurant or public place is a reasonable one. And we should probably have stronger restrictions against the people who keep going to the ATM and throwing money into things. I think that people should only be allowed to gamble so much a day, or within a 30 day or 365 day period. The amount can be reasonable, although admittedly it can be hard to decide how much is too much given the vast socioeconomic inequalities in this country. What is devastating for a lower wage worker can be pocket change to some rich new yorker spending the weekend at the borgata. Maybe put it at a percentage of income, but it can be hard to enforce that. So idk how that would work. Either way, there should be stronger protections to root out addictive behaviors and put limits on them before they ruin their lives. Casinos and betting apps already use algorithms to try to root out and limit intelligent gamblers who can beat the odds in sports betting. I know a lot of people complain about, say, draft kings for doing that, but they dont seem to root out problem gamblers who are ruining their lives. Quite frankly, there isn't a profit motive to do so. If anything casinos love these kinds of players as they make money off of them.

But yeah, there should be stronger laws there. And as far as getting rid of skill games sitting at the check out lane of your local grocery store, in a gas station, or in your local laundromat, yeah, that shouldn't be a thing. Again, you should actually have to drive to an actual casino to gamble. It shouldnt be pushed in your face at every moment of every day. That's just preying on psychologically vulnerable people at that point. It's totally unethical IMO. 

But again, I do wanna point out, gambling is fine in moderation, and if you're responsible at it too. I don't advocate for banning it. Just limiting it to the right place and time. 

Why I don't recommend Intel Arc cards very strongly

 So, it's no question at this point that if you're the kind of buyer I am, intel Arc cards are some of the best value on the market in theory. The A380 is $160, and while not super powerful, it beats the sea of ewaste that the sub $200 market often is. At $210 you get the A750, a RX 6600 tier card that equals the 6600 in value when it was a thing. For around $300 you can get the slightly more powerful B570 or B580, which have 10-12 GB RAM respectively, and are basically your only option under $500 to get more than 8 GB. 

Considering how your options from Nvidia include 6 GB 3050s and 2060s at this price range, with AMD not even offering a decent card until you spend an eyewatering $340 for a 7600 (how much a 6700 XT used to cost), you might be tempted to get intel Arc. But then you also should keep in mind the asterisks involved. 

REBAR and older system compatibility

If you're considering intel Arc at the $200-300 price range, I'm guessing you're looking for a card for an older system, or building a new budget system. If you're building a new budget system, odds are you're looking at like an R5 5500 or 5600x, so you'll be fine. But if you're on an aging build with an old CPU, especially an older intel CPU, you might wanna think twice. Arc is highly reliant on a feature called REBAR, which, while I'm a bit hazy on it, has to do with how your CPU uses VRAM. Basically it lets you use all the VRAM at once instead of in 256 MB chunks, and on intel cards, TLDR, if you dont have it enabled, you're gonna have a bad time. 

Here's the catch. The techology only works on 10th gen intel processors or later, or 3rd gen AMD ones. This is a pretty generous bar these days. After all, we're talking 6-7 year old tech these days, but if you're like I was in 2022 buying a 6650 XT, and you basically were still running a 7700k or something, yeah, you're gonna have a bad time. 

To be fair, if you have a system that's that old, you probably should have upgraded by now. Intel 6th and 7th gen processors dont even run on windows 11, and windows 10 was discontinued a year ago. Still, 8th and 9th gen people, especially those with like an 8700k or 9900k still might have somewhat viable processors in gaming and yeah, the Arc cards should in theory pair well with them. But if this features doesnt work, you're gonna have a bad time. 

If you're on AMD, and you're on a 1000 or 2000 series processor, you should upgrade anyway, you can do a bios upgrade and just slide in a 5000 series processor relatively easily without needing expensive motherboard or RAM upgrades. 

So...is this a huge deal in practice? No, not really I guess. I mean, it's 2026, if you're still on 2018 tech or earlier, you should be upgrading by now. Still, I can see why people with older flagship systems like an 8700k or 9900k wouldn't want to. Anyway, I always mention it since pre 2023 I was on a 7700k and this actually was a huge deal for me. 

Game compatibility

So, I guess this is the bigger issue these games, but intel has spotty game compatibility. Nvidia and AMD (formerly ATI) have been making cards since the late 90s/early 2000s. They have mature driver ecosystems with a lot of support for legacy games. You can stick a new card in your system and still expect your old ### favorite game from 2001 or whatever to still work. 

You have no guarantees with intel. Intel cards tend to work fine on newer games, but if you're playing some legacy game from the olden days like I often do (I'm replaying a crappy RTS from 1998 lately that I loved back in middle school), eh....you might wanna think twice.

The problems were worst at launch, they've gotten better over time, although even now, some games tend to have some issues. Eh....I dont trust it, not gonna lie. Sure, Intel will patch the better known ones that are still popular, but again, if you want something that "just works" and you don't have to think about it, well...think twice. 

Quite frankly, researching this for this article, I'm convinced the issues aren't as bad as I thought they were or were back at launch. But yeah.  

Conclusion

 With that said, is Arc worth it? In this economy....I think you should consider it at least. The issues aren't AS bad as I thought they were when I research them somewhat and think about the market in 2026, BUT...if you're on an older intel system and dont wanna be forced to upgrade your CPU (AMD users can just upgrade to a 5000 series assuming they're on AM4), or you really are concerned about compatibility with older games, well....maybe reconsider. I personally would want a system that runs flawlessly on as many games across a wide period of time ranging from the 1990s to the present day, and fear the idea of an Arc card refusing to boot some old game from 20-30 years ago, so I'm a bit reluctant and would rather pay a little more for AMD.

BUT....if you're focused primarily on newer titles, and you want something cheap and good, intel COULD work here. In a normal market it wouldnt be my go to option, BUT...given the insane price premiums both Nvidia and AMD cards are having in the sub $300 market, yeah I can see the A750 or B570 being decent options.  

Election Update 10/10/26

 So, I delay it a day and then only one poll comes out on Saturday, figures. The last two saturdays had TONS of polls come out, but i switch it up to account for that and I shift Texas by 0.2. Bleh. Anyway. Here's this week's update.

Senate

All in all, some mild change, mostly in favor of the democrats. Nebraska is dead heat with no clear leader. Kansas, FREAKING KANSAS is only R+0.2. Iowa remains a tossup, and Maine remains one.

Reflecting more on Maine, and having watched part of the debate, I think I figured out what's going on there. Susan Collins is a normie moderate republican who can successfully distance herself from the Trump administration, and Troy Jackson has the charisma of a wet blanket. The debate was SO BORING. I tried to watch it but it just couldnt keep my attention. Both these guys are like watching grass grow. For Susan Collins it feels like a welcome change of pace given the flair and pizazz of the Trump administration, but with Jackson it just...doesn't work. 

Anyway, those are the tossups. Alaska is lean D with a relatively weak margin. Minnesota is...idk wtf is going on there, should be D+6, not D+2. Texas, Ohio, and Michigan are all D+3ish. And yeah, the senate is looking pretty good for democrats. On the republican side South Carolina is R+2.4. That's kinda crazy. Florida is D+7, and then Montana is D+14, with Bodnar being held back by Bankhead refusing to drop out and allow the candidate with a chance a chance. 

House

 

So I added Alaska's district to the list of districts I auto flip. Unlike the others, it's not gerrymandering that does it, it's polling. The fact is, according to my model, the outcome is supposed to be D+9, so basically soft safe D. According to polling, it's supposed to be R+9 so soft safe R. Given my model and polling are 100% at odds with each other, I flipped this district, recognizing the flaws in my own model. Honestly, there are other districts where my model and polling disagree, but not like that. Most other disagreements are within the margin of error, or have polling within the margin of error. Like WA-03, my model predicts D+14, whereas the polling predicts R+1. A massive difference, sure, but R+1 still means 40% chance of democratic win, so I figured to just let that one ride. Another one is VA-01. My model predicts R+2, polling predicts D+4. These two numbers are within the margin of error of each other so I won't auto flip them. 

There isn't really enough polling to really justify making a full polling only model. Like seriously, we only have like 5 districts of 435 polled right now. And only around 75 or so are in play so to speak. So yeah, do the math, not worth my time. Polling that goes against the cook ratings also often ends up being wrong. Again, the Alaska polling is the exception. Not only are the differences massive, but cook still has it as likely R, the polling tells me likely-safe R depending on how lenient you are with ratings (5 point MOE and it's "likely" instead of safe). And only my model has it has like, safe D. So my model is very obviously wrong there. 

Anyway, this leads me to giving a R+3 correction to my model, where dems have 234 seats and republicans have 201, with the democrats still having a 99% chance of taking the house. Idk how reliable that is given my other system, but to be fair I dont trust that other system either. I'll go with this one for now as I seem apt at detecting errors and flipping outcomes that are out of line. 

Governors

 

Map is what it is. I have little to say on this one. Wtf at Oregon though. 

Conclusion

Anyway, that's this week's update. The senate is largely holding steady, we lost a tiny amount of ground in the house that is of little statistical significance, things are gonna fluctuate I guess, and the governors are where they are. I'll update weekly through election day, I'll probably make a couple predictions before election day itself like on Monday with me constantly editing it, and you'll have the final one by Tuesday afternoon before polls closed. 

Btw, I just voted today so....yeah. This crap is already going on. Love mail in ballots.  

GPU prices are getting worse

 Just when you thought it couldn't get worse....it gets worse.

Okay, so you know how it is, Im gonna use PCpartpicker and list the prices of the most recommended GPUs by price, focusing primarily on more budget segments I'm more sympathetic toward.  

GT 1030- $105 

Okay so this came back down, for a while this was up to $125, which is insane given it's basically my old HD 5850 from 2010 except with 2 GB VRAM. Seriously, this card launched for $80 10 years ago. The 1050 which was priced at $110 at the time cost as much as this. The 1050 ti was $140. And again, this was 10 whole years ago. Imagine wanting $100 for like an 8600 GT in 2017. I mean...to be fair, that's not far off from the GT 710 being $96, or the 9500 GT for $120, so yeah, the market really IS that crap...

Maxsun RX 580- $140 (chinese) (4x 1030)

This one doesn't show up on PC part picker, but times are so desperate I'd actually legit consider this one. Sure there are cheaper ones at $120, but they're even sketchier chinese brands and mostly refurbs and old mining cards of questionable quality. Maxsun is actually new and while the brand is chinese, and from what I can tell they're basically selling 570s with a bios upgrade, uh....have you seen the market lately? Yeah, if I had to buy a cheap GPU, I'd seriously be considering this. Buyer beware, there is some level of sketch here, it's really the fact that the market is so awful that I'm including this one.

Arc A380- $160 (3x 1030)

Yeah, even the Arc cards are going up now. The 570/580 IS a little faster than this, and AMD has better drivers, but again...the 580 I recommended above is kinda sketchy. You could get this instead and it would be more reputable. Arc cards are iffy on drivers and their compatibility is iffy on the kinds of older systems that would use budget cards like this. Still, again, it's basically the best that's available. That's how bad the market is.

Arc A750- $210 (7x 1030)

 A much stronger card for $50 more. That's...what happens at the bottom of the market. You spend a little more you get far more value than if you spent less. Kinda "the more you buy the more you save" but for real. Again, it's intel. So....unreliable drivers, not the best for older systems, but hey, it's a relatively decent card on paper for not a ton of money. Again, I surfed through ewaste to find these, there isnt anything better. I did see R9 290xs and GTX 1050 tis at this price point though, but that's basically Arc 380/RX 580 tier performance. 

 RTX 3050 6 GB- $245 (4x 1030)

 "What happened to the 3050 8 GB?" It's like $350 now, that's what. Which is...awful. Absolutely awful. Still, the 6 GB exists. And that's bad because it lacks the 8 GB VRAM needed for modern titles, but this card still will do in a pinch I guess. Just be aware it might not run ALL games. The A750 is actually better, but again...intel just has those issues where I cant just say "buy an intel." It sucks.

RTX 2060 6 GB- $274 (6x 1030)

Better than the 3050 by a rather significant margin. Another upsell. Getting closer to A750 performance, but again, 6 GB VRAM is a limitation. I would consider all these GPUs up to this point below the minimum specs for modern games. 

Well, ok, the A750 technically hits them, but then the drivers suck on older ones. Especially on old systems that dont have rebar. Bleh.

 Arc B570- $290 (8x 1030)

Not much stronger than the A750, but should be included regardless. Has 10 GB VRAM and is a newer series. Still, doesnt bring much to the table honestly. Still Arc. Still flawed. 

 Arc B580- $330 (9x 1030)

 Another marginal increase, but this one has 12 GB VRAM

 RX 7600- $340 (8x 1030)

 So, this is my official go to recommendation. You want something that is, IMO: 1) new enough to have RT and modern features, 2) AMD or intel, 3) 8 GB VRAM, and 4) At least 6x GT 1030 if you want a comfortable gaming experience. The 3050 8 GB kinda squeaks by, only running below the 6x the 1030 mark, but it's not by much and you can basically make it work, you know? But this is the first one that actually meets ALL specifications. If you wanna put up with Arc, that A750 is a good bet, and you can probably make do with like the 2060 if you're willing to risk issues on some VRAM intensive games. But yeah, as far as something that I say actually clears ALL the bars, having good compatibility with almost every game out there, this is your card. And this is about where my own RX 6650 XT is performance wise too. It's solid. Feeling a little dated, but more akin to using a RX 580 or GTX 1060 in 2020-2021 or something. Like, it works, it gets the job done, but it's not great. Such a card should NEVER be worth $340. Maybe $125-150ish if I were being honest, but yeah, again, this is how insane the modern market is. 

RTX 5050- $390 (9x 1030)

Not really worth it over the 7600 for $50 more. But hey, yeah, that's where this is at. Pathetic, isn't it?

RTX 5060- $430 (11x 1030)

I mean, worth it over the 5050 at least if you're gonna spend this much... 

9070 GRE- $550 (15x 1030)

So, I skipped over some choices. You have the 9060 XT 8 GB for $460, the 5060 ti 8 GB for $500, and the 9060 XT for 16 GB, but you should probably skip all 3 of those and just grab this. Sure, it only has 12 GB VRAM, but is probably far more worth it in terms of power than say, the 16 GB 9060 XT. Seriously, Im offering too many choices here.

Anyway, I dont even consider above $300 "budget" any more, let alone $500-600, so let's simplify the recommendations here.

Arc A750- $210

It's a solid card that tends to offer far more performance than a lot of cards above and below it. in terms of value. Seriously, its like the lower end card exist to upsell you to this. it's only real flaw is being intel which means spotty driver compatibility with old games, and old systems. It's okay, but yeah, it's cheap for a reason.

RX 7600- $340

The first real "no compromise" modern gaming experience card. Way overpriced for what it's worth, for the record I bought a 6650 XT 4 years ago that's comparable for this, and it is showing its age, but this is kinda the minimum experience if you want something that both runs new games and has broad compatibility with older games and equipment.

RX 9070 GRE- $550

While the 9060 XT 16 GB is kinda the new "minimum card" for a FUTUREPROOF experience, I'd still rather buy this despite the lower VRAM because it's only $30 more.

And of course:

RX 9070 XT- $815

If you're rich but not like "I wanna throw money away" kind of rich, buy this one.  

And yeah, that's the market. I never planned on writing these regularly, but the market is what it is, and the prices are changing so much that articles I should be writing once a year or once every two years are suddenly requiring constant updates and revision because these things are going up constantly. I cant wait for this AI bubble to pop.  

Election updates will take place on Saturday now

 So, I decided to put off my election update until Saturday, and to keep that pattern for the rest of the election cycle. The reason is simple. I chose to do it Friday because most polls come out on Monday-Friday, with fewer polls over the weekend. However, the past two Saturdays, we've had TONS of polls. TONS of them. However, Sunday is still relatively light. As such, I will do the weekly updates on Saturday afternoon/night rather than Friday. Thank you for your attention on this matter! (Yes, i know I sound like DJT). 

Tell me how this is not cruel and unusual punishment

 So, Christina Pike is awake, and YIKES, her condition is what I would describe as "death would potentially be preferable to this." She's apparently paralyzed on both arms. She can't eat. She has pneumonia. 

Look, even if you believe in the death penalty, and I don't, but let's say we did. This is NOT a humane way to do it. This woman is F-ed up from this ordeal. I honestly think at this point she would have been better dead. But now she's alive, in this messed up compromised state, and uh...yeah. Really makes you think "is this it, dawg?" Even if we're gonna be pro DP here, we can probably agree some other method of execution would've been a lot cleaner than this. Hanging, firing squad, electric chair, gas. All preferable to this, assuming they all worked. Even then, all of those have some risk of going wrong. One just has to watch the green mile to see how the electric chair can go wrong. Hanging can go wrong in grotesque ways. Bullets can miss. The asphyxiation from gas can lead to torturous effects. So yeah, I still lean toward "how about NOT killing people?" I mean, if we cant get lethal injection right, maybe we shouldn't do anything, but yeah. Honestly, I'm just left with a bad taste in my mouth like...yeah this is barbaric, can we NOT do this? 

I know not everyone's gonna agree. A lot of comments i see with social media are like "she should have suffered MORE!", but we already know what kinds of people are saying that kinda stuff. Really showing that "Christian love", guys! Jesus totally would have approved! (He totally would not have approved). But yeah. Anyway. Idk, I look at this and think that this practice of ours is messed up and should be abolished. No one should go through this, and I don't particularly care if they were a murderer either. Two wrongs don't make a right.  

Responding to Sarah Huckabee Sanders' new anti welfare ad

 So...Sarah Huckabee Sanders is attempting to channel resentment politics in her new ad against welfare. Basically, she portrays a guy stay home, playing video games, and being even lazier than I could ever be. Ya know, using grabber tools to pick up chips, which is highly inefficient. That's actually more work than picking them up with your hands. i know it LOOKS lazier, but it actually isn't. But I digress. The point of the ad is clear, you work hard. This guy doesn't. You're paying for welfare so this guy can not work, that's not fair to you, and the answer is to add work requirements to force this guy to work. And then we're all stuck working! Yay....

Ugh...I know this ad is very effective among parts of the population, but the answer is, should it be? Should this be how we think about the subject? Obviously not. So...as the gamer who doesn't work and does play video games (and write anti work political philosophy) all day, let's have a grounded discussion on this.

On work requirements

First of all, work requirements already exist, they've always existed. There arent many NEETs who just live off of welfare. You could argue that the medicaid expansion gave them some healthcare access (the horror, nonproductive people getting the healthcare that they need), but for the most part, these welfare programs have had requirements for decades. The fact is, most NEETs just live with their parents or maybe in rare cases, a spouse. The state aint paying for their stuff, and the state is already draconian enough in trying to force people to work. So these guys are just drumming up resentment over a phenomenon that doesn't exist, and is poorly understood. 

If anything, these work requirements often make it harder for those who need help and who do work to get the help they need. Because the system errs on punishing those who don't work, they'd rather have situations where they punish those who do, but fail to meet requirements for arbitrary reasons. The fact is, these programs just hurt the poor more than anything. ANd I guess if your whole mentality in life is around ensuring that that one person you dont like is miserable that you'd rather punish several in collateral damage to get that way, all the power to you, but your morality is pretty crappy in my view, not that such people care what I think in the first place (I don't care what they think either, they're lost causes).

On "paying for welfare" so NEETs can play video games

Even if you did somehow pay for a NEET to play video games all day, let's think about this broadly. I'm a basic income supporter. I've looked at basic income from a mathematical perspective, and here's the reality. Basic income as I structured it would benefit 70% of workers directly. 70% of people who earn a wage, would get back more in basic income than they'd pay out. This is because if we had a $16,000 basic income, with a 20% tax rate, you'd need to earn $80,000 to pay $16,000 in additional taxes. Anyone under that is basically getting free money too. So your typical middle class income earner of $50,000 a year (roughly the median individual income) would get $6,000 (pay $10,000, get $16,000 back) under my plan. That scales even better for households. If you have a second adult like a spouse, they get UBI too so we'd be talking needing to earn $160,000 in basic income to pay back $32,000. And because I'd give every child $5,500, that's an additional $27,500 to that threshold per child. So your typical household of 2 adults, 1 kid, would basically need to earn $187,500 to pay back the $37,500 in basic income that they'd recieve. For reference, that's 80% of households in the US.

The same presumably applies with universal healthcare too. The net payers of such programs are often the top 20% of income earners, the bottom 80% generally benefit from them. How can this be? Income inequality, my dude, income inequality. We have this "K shaped economy" thats been forming over the past 40 years and currently most of the income and wealth pools among the top 20% while everyone else is struggling to get by. This is presumably why you feel like you work so hard and you struggle to get by. Because you do. And it's not right. But rather than blame some dude sitting on his couch literally not doing anything, you should probably be blaming the system that makes you miserable in the first place.

On who the real enemy is

 What this ad is intended to do is similar to that "look out, that immigrant wants to take your cookie" analogy. The system wants the overall "working class" (which in my own belief system includes the not working) to be at each others' throats. Immigrants are on welfare stealing your tax dollars. NEETs are on welfare stealing your tax dollars. There's always an enemy. And it's always trying to go to you saying, look, you work hard, so why don't they work hard, is that fair to you? And your natural response is, of course, GRRRR WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO WORK SO HARD IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORK SO HARD. So you basically want to make the person not as miserable as you....as miserable as you....to make it fair to you.

But that just makes us ALL miserable. The real, more productive question to ask is "why are we all working like this to begin with?" I mean, that's the question I asked, and the rabbit hole I went down, and at the end of the day, it's to make rich people rich. The economy has always been a scam to ensure that the wealthy people remain wealthy. It attempts to use the logic of "hard work" and meritocracy to give itself legitimacy, claiming that those who earn lots of money work hard, and that lazy people should get nothing. And then it always uses the resentment politics within the welfare system, as well as artificial divides like race politics, fear of immigrants, etc, in order to drum up resentment from the working class. This stops people from figuring out that the source of their misery is the system itself, and instead forces them to take it out on poor disadvantaged people who didn't do anything.

I mean, here's my viewpoint. You hate work. I mean, if you buy into resentment politics, Im guessing you dont like working. You don't think it's "fair" if someone doesn't work as hard as you. It threatens the legitimacy of the system in your mind. But because you buy into those values, your solution is "force this person to work to justify my suffering." But here's the thing. Your suffering shouldnt be justified. No one should have to go through what you go through. And that's MY point. I want a system where work is voluntary and we don't have to work. I want YOU to have the ability to sit on the couch and play video games too if you want to. And if you don't, fine, just leave me out of your twisted ideals for society if you actually LIKE your job. Because ironically, I get that a lot when I talk about eliminating work. "But I like working, there's dignity in work!". Cool. Then work. But dont try to force me to do it too. And if the system requires me to be coerced and miserable to justify your own acceptance of the system, then you should probably rethink your acceptance of the system. 

The fact is, in my view, we shouldnt have to work. We could have chosen to pursue a different path as a society, instead of going down the path of neverending growth and obsession with employing every person possible to ensure that we max out GDP, we could have chosen to work less all along. We could choose a lot of possible paths to do this. We could have eliminated poverty and made work voluntary with a basic income. We could reduce the work week, take longer vacations, lowered the retirement age, etc. Instead, we have a society that enforces unnecessary and artificial scarcity on people to force them to take jobs they dont want, and that they're criminally underpaid for, so some rich guy can make profits at the end of the day.

And that's really what it's about. The reason we went down this path was because businesses feared that if people didn't work, that they wouldnt be able to make money. So instead we created this system that imposes misery on everyone in order to keep the profits up and the rich people happy. And then they have the gall to say some dude who plays video games all day is the problem. They're not. The system is. 

Conclusion

 With all of that said, I'd advise anyone who seriously buys into this ad to reconsider their life. Odds are, you're not in that top 20% making all of the money. if you are, well...yeah, I wanna tax you so the rest of us can be free from having to work. You might not like that but tough, the majority should be on my side, fi they thought rationally and acted in their best interests about it.

But if you're not in that top 20%....well....actually, no, you're not paying for someone to sit on the couch. If you got a UBI, you'd be getting more than you'd be paying it. If you had universal healthcare, you'd probably be SAVING money on healthcare. With that said, reconsider your political priorities here. The fact is, you're closer to the homeless guy on the street or that NEET on the couch in terms of your class interests than you are to the wealthy whose system you're defending here. I advise you to think about what's best for you, and to actually support MORE welfarism, not less.

Or you can just take off your clothes or go back to the pile south park style because that's basically what you're doing if you buy into this stuff. Just a giant hugbox of misery and people voting against their interests.