Slashdot Mirror
VC, Entrepreneur Says Basic Income Would Work Even If 90% People 'Smoked Pot' and Didn't Work (techinsider.io)
An anonymous reader cites a story on TI: The chief complaint people lodge at universal basic income -- a form of income distribution that gives people money to cover basic needs regardless of whether they work or not -- is that it'll make them lazy. Sam Altman doesn't buy it. In a recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast, entitled "Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?" Altman argued basic income could support huge amounts of productivity loss and still carry the economy on its shoulders. "Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games, but if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that's still a huge net-win," Altman says. "And the American puritanical ideal that hard work for its own sake is valuable -- period -- and that you can't question that, I think that's just wrong." [...] The complaint Altman addressed on the Freakonomics podcast is a common one. Study after study, however, has shown that giving people extra money makes them feel financially secure. That security ends up leading to empowerment, not de-motivation.
This is the capitalist version of "let them eat cake." Because god help them if the proles feel like they deserve some of the money they're making capitalists.
That security ends up leading to empowerment, not de-motivation.
The powers that be don't want us plebes being empowered.
I strongly suspect that my level of "basic needs" I'm willing to "give" to someone who smokes pot and plays video games all day is much lower than they will demand.
Simply doesn't work at the moment http://www.economist.com/news/...
That his check to myself and the government is already in the mail. I look forward to spending his money.
The entire American capitalist system is predicated on the idea that workers don't have the freedom to just leave their jobs, no matter how bad the conditions. This is maintained by a careful system of salary collusion, artificial means of keeping wages stagnant and low (using H1B's and outsourcing, among other methods), and union busting.
A guaranteed income is a guarantee that your workers will no longer have to take whatever shit you sling at them.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
just not with my money. We could end crime by embedding a chip into everyone so we could track everyone's movements and know exactly were everyone is at every second. I don't see anyone jumping at that idea.
Peace, or Not?
This repeated idea is almost as good as people claiming to have beaten thermodynamics. It's really simple: More money available means that people will afford more and more expensive goods, services and housing. Prices and rents will increase, and suddenly whatever the basic income is will no longer be sufficient. And then what?
You said posting from your windows (tm) pc (tm) with your locitech (tm) ergonomic keyboard (tm). Anyone in the first world harping on materialism or capitalism is a foolish hipocryte. Give your computer away you pinko commie.
If 90% of the population can smoke pot and play video games, it sounds like they have a lot of DISPOSABLE income, not just a BASIC income. I know. Weed and video games are an expensive lifestyle.
Hopefully, the message would be something like: bored with only basic food items and broadcast TV? Want to smoke quality pot and play the latest video games? Well, find something you like to do or you feel contributes to society and go earn some money.
Detroit has plenty of areas where 90% of the people don't work and smoke pot. They all get government guaranteed [e.g. guaranteed by the paychecks of people who do work] basic income.
So sure, if you consider Detroit to be "working" then yes, I'm sure there are plenty of politicians who wouldn't mind implementing that plan at gunpoint to guarantee themselves a slave base -- uh I mean "voter base" -- on the backs of people who work while having fascinating loopholes for their rich donors to get out of paying for it.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
None of those places really employ that many people.
Pay people to do nothing, and more of them will appear. Then your 10% will find themselves carrying a load they do not need. At some point, they're going to quit doing so and then you have Soviet-style collapse. UBI is basically a Ponzi scheme: pay people to do nothing, so they buy our products, so we can keep being wealthy. The only working system would be to remove government from the equation, at which point the good people -- those who work, take care of their families, and so on -- would have to work less, costs would be lower and people could enjoy life more instead of being existentially miserable twats like the average person in Western civilization right now.
In the war between facts and dogma, facts have a habit of coming second. Facts are hard to think through and analyse properly, and proper analyses are detailed and tough to understand. Dogma doesn't have any of these drawbacks.
John_Chalisque
I'll just leave my usual links here. You've probably seen most of them before
In Praise of Idleness, essay
A town in Canada tried it.
Humans Need Not Apply
Ooh, a new one. Canada is going large-scale now? linky
Sweden is starting to take it seriously as a political issue. linky
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
An exaggeration to be sure, but nonetheless a valid point.
Where is this money coming from? Do we just print money and give it to everyone? That would devalue the money and we would be back where we started from.
In most articles that I have seen, seam to assume that the money would come from the existing tax base. It never adds up. The total tax base today pays for interest, military, border control, administration and so many other government functions. The savings from the elimination of the people maintaining the current welfare system is just a very small fraction of the money required.
If we are to continue having this discussion we need to show where the total money required for this is to come from. So far I have not seen a sustainable budget that would make this system feasible.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
It's so frustrating sometimes living in the bay area where ridiculous ideas like this are actually respected instead of laughed at.
So who's gonna make the food, clothing, and shelter in this world? Even if we assume it's cool and we'll just raid the 50% of wealth held by the 1%, you can't eat, wear or live under cash and gold. In order for millions of people to eat, you need people making food. In order for millions of people to wear clothing, you need people making clothes. In order for millions of people to have a roof over their heads, somebody has to build it.
Simply put, if 90% of the population just stopped doing anything but consume what's in front of them we would hit mass starvation as we spent the last of the 1%'s remaining money to buy food abroad. After that would be a monstrous civil war as the hungry masses try and survive. Similar experiments have been tried in the past with bad result.
It will work, but those Republicans will never let us make them pay their fair share so that we don't have to work.
I have to pay bills too, you know.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
A universal tradeable resource token is what money is. In earlier parts of civilisation things were simpler, and a money-trade system of resource organisation probably worked reasonably. The modern world has grown complex to a degree that organising resources using money no longer works well. There are too many middlemen, and too many ways for 'value' to leak out in the money system. With regards to the basic resources needed for living, there are surely better ways of organising the human and material resources we have.
John_Chalisque
Been there, done that. Now paying for at least 9:1 on useless potheads.
The only way this could be sustainable long term is either that you have to get castrated before getting the free income or to abandon democracy, because once we get past 50% of the voting population on welfare, they'll steal what's left. This was predicted in the 18th century and demonstrated in the 19th and 20th and 21st.
...are such economic paradises right now. And they were just practicing everyday garden-variety socialism, not this pie-in-the-sky land-of-the-lotus-eaters guaranteed minimum wage fantasy.
Now cue the "that's not true socialism/communism" loser brigade to explain how ever real-world example is somehow flawed and inferior to the pristine imaginary socialist paradise that exists nowhere but in their heads.
I guess now is also a good time to note that coming up is Victims of Communism Day is just around the corner on May 1st. You know, the day when we honor the memories of the 100 million people killed by communist governments.
And as long as I'm offending all the true believes, let's throw another log on their rage fire: I read a book once about a world where everyone stopped working. It was called Atlas Shrugged...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I need a 6000 sq ft mansion, two swimming pools, a fleet of luxury Italian sports cars and oh a private jet and a villa on Lake Como.
Take care of those "basics" for me and I'll stop going to work.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
American's already get worked up about the concept of universal healthcare and it being a socialist regime.. I can't imagine their response to this suggestion.
The only way universal basic income could work, is if everyone who claims it also loses the right to vote while on it.
Otherwise that 90% will simply vote themselves a "raise" every election, until the whole thing collapses.
Except you are confusing this and welfare. It is not the same thing. It is also not "free" it is basic. Everyone gets it, even those who work. There is a lot of overhead that could be saved in managing welfare systems by doing something like this.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I love how it first states "gives people money to cover basic needs" then goes on to say "Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games".
So apparently, pot and video games are basic needs of the population? An (at least presently) illicit drug and what can be a relatively expensive hobby? I understand that the line "pot and video games" is more of an image people think of but it also points towards one of the arguments around a universal income: what are the basic needs that should be met?
Do you give everyone enough money to have a house or an apartment? Can they afford to go out to dinner every night or should it be enough for only the occasional outside dinner? Do they drive a mercedes or ride a bus? How many "difficult" choices need to be built into the amount of money that someone gets for simply being born? And how much control does the government get to have over how it's spent? Should I be able to take my guarunteed income and buy a gun? Take it to a casino and blow it all, ending up on the street anyway? Do we need to have a safety net for the people who are irresponsible with their basic income? Not to mention whether or not the government now has the right to garnish some of that money to make sure you have health insurance, car insurance, are paying child support or even funneling the money to unions lobbying on "your behalf".
These are the questions that start to create a considerable amount of contention. It's not simply the possible creation of a "lazy" class.
Under guaranteed income, I would still work. I wouldn't be happy with the minimum. I'd be fine knowing a person that could make do with the minimum didn't really have to work.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
ANd what would these 90% of people would buy? Oh that is right, with no producers you have no product to buy which is the same as poverty.
Why should the farmer wake up and bust his butt at 5am in the morning to get the eggs for your breakfast if he had no financial incentive to do so. You would get less and scarcity would happen ... oh that is right the price would have to go up as a result since not everyone can get an egg. We call this inflation.
Debunked
http://saveie6.com/
Test it on the mice, so to speak. My suspicion is, people who work will strongly resent those who don't, and this will ultimately kill the whole thing.
Right now, when the government wants to expand the money supply, the Federal Reserve just sort of dumps money on the biggest financial institutions. Then it pays them a small interest fee for their service of having use of the money (0.25% according to this Investopedia article).
If the government really must inflate the money supply, then it seems to me that the best way to do it would be to spread the new money evenly among the citizens. It's just part of reality that when you have lots of money, it's easier to get more money, so almost all the time when we are talking about the economy, everything benefits the rich more than the poor. Here would be a direct payment that would definitely benefit the poor more than the rich.
Inflation effectively steals part of the value of the money. This is hardest on the poor, and people trying to live on a fixed income. Directly paying the inflation to the people would offset the harm, at least partially.
P.S. I'm a minarchist libertarian, so I don't really like seeing the government messing with the money supply at all. I'd rather just see prices deflate, so that maybe a hamburger would go back to costing a dime, and even a small income would be enough to live on. However, I'm not a trained economist, and apparently Milton Friedman believed we need to inflate the money supply as the economy expands. If you have to bet on whether Milton Friedman was right or I am right, you should bet on Milton Friedman. And if we accept that we need to inflate the money supply, I'd just as soon do it by paying the new money out to all the citizens.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Early pilgrims to the USA experimented with something *somewhat* like this. Crop yields were divided equally. Eventually too many stopped working the fields and just wanted their share. The system was quickly abandoned.
It works until one person in the 90%, who has enough money to buy chicken for dinner every night, realizes that his neighbor in the 10% has money for steak.
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
I don't really understand this statement. I'm going to get more money for working then for not working, so why would I resent someone who is not working? Why is that even anyone's business?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Who the heck is going to buy all these "incredible new products and services"? Basic income means they can't afford to buy anything other than food and housing.
There's nothing 'puritanical' about that idea, either. People wither away when they don't have a purpose in life. Sadly most people aren't too driven to find a purpose, they would just sit around, get fat, and do nothing -- except maybe get into some sort of trouble or other, or worse, keep reproducing out of sheer boredom. Work is good for people whether they themselves believe it or not, and that's my totally unscientific opinion on the subject, based on 50+ years of observations of people in general -- and note that this is also coming from someone who would benefit greatly from not having to work, yet be provided for the rest of his life. I'd just as soon not have to bother with some stupid job or other, and I'd spend my time going back to school, and riding my bikes, which is much more than I think the average person would end up doing.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
You people categorically against this do realize we are rapidly approaching a point where large parts of the population don't really have to work to support our basic societal infrastructure? So what happens then? Do we actually reevaluate our economic system or just proceed as we've been going with increasing economic inequality and subsequent societal unrest? Are you people so selfish that you would deny basic support for all if our society could afford it? There will always be an incentive for work because you'll be able to make more money and have more things.
... basic income movement is about making the down-trodden seem as repulsive as possible (i.e. "give them enough rope to hang themselves"), in order to more rapidly sell their large-scale extermination. I mean, how long will they be satisfied just smoking pot and playing video games before they'll be doing heroin and waging real urban warfare?
I think you're on to something.
Basically it's just a further increment of creeping socialism which will eventually end in revolution and ruin and decline of everything that made America great to begin with. Anyone with half a brain that wasn't schooled in what passes for education in the public school system will instantly recognize this as a silly idea. I'm nearly 66 years old so I grew up when the public school system actually taught people something useful. However education now teaches garbage and rewards failure as much as success. More welfare schemes such as Basic Income will simply reinforce the idea that honest work is for suckers.
Edwin
If you want to compare apples to tangerines with the post, I think you mean: None (tm) of those places (tm) really employ (tm) that many people (tm).
Bark less. Wag more.
I think people who work will have nicer things and non-basics. It will inspire people to work. It is odd though that life itself is not inspirational enough.
Instead of paying them so they can smoke pot and play vidya games, let them run five miles and field strip their rifles. Healthier lifestyle. Unless some old white politician decides YAPW would be a good distraction from whatever shitbaggery he's imminently in peril of getting thrown out of power for.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If you have lots of money, but have trouble with the idea of a basic income think of it as guillotine insurance!
-Some meme I saw somewhere
The entire Communist system is predicated on the idea that everyone has an equal liability to work. So I think you've confused communism and capitalism.
If by "happiness" you mean "millions of dead and suffering people" then yes indeed, all socialist countries produce is "happiness". Just look at how "happy" Venezuela is these days!
Doesn't matter though if you manage to get in good with the rulers, and can bask in the reflected opulence. Sucking-up to the overseers is on hell of a retirement plan.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Altman says. 'And the American puritanical ideal that hard work for its own sake is valuable -- period -- and that you can't question that, I think that's just wrong.' [...] Study after study, however, has shown that giving people extra money makes them feel financially secure. That security ends up leading to empowerment, not de-motivation." So, its a puritanical idea that work for work's sake is valuable, but if you give everyone an income, they will feel empowered to do what exactly? Work?
If 90% of people are given just enough money to afford lodging, food, pot, and video games.............who is going to buy these amazing products that the 10% is creating, and result in a "net gain?" If you answer is "well, the 10%, duh" then there's no gain...that's just passing dollars around.
Let's clear up a bit of garbage that some idiots don't understand
1) Basic = to what we give them in prison, minus the security. Food, housing, cheap clothing. In fact, it's CHEAPER to give people a Basic Income than it is to put them in prison (guards are not cheap)
2) No one, and I mean NO ONE, that's willing to live at that level of crap (and it is crap) is ever going to amount to much of anything. If you are stupid enough to live like this, you were never smart enough to significantly contribute to society. People that know how to write, dance, invent, discover, repair, etc. should and will continue to work and earn more.
3) The main areas where we would (and currently do) give more money is not for the people on Basic Income, but instead is for their children, which would need education etc. so that they don't get stuck at the Basic Income.
4) We already do this for many people already. It's called Social Security and Disability. Not to mention Prison and Institionalized - though those last two are a lot more expensive, they basically do the same thing.
5) The people we currently provide a basic income for (old, disabled, criminals and insane) are not considered free loading, lazy shmucks because we recognize that for various reasons, they can't meaningfully contribute.
6) All we are really talking about is adding "below average intelligence" to the category of disabled.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Well, to be honest, there is no other human choice.
What is the percentage of people that are useless? 30%, 40%? It has to be higher than the unemployment rate, given the amount of bullshit jobs that exist nowadays. This percentage is increasing thanks to the machine intelligence going on. One guy with modern tools can do the same work as many guys that hadn't those tools back then. Most of the population cannot become PhDs (lack of capabilities, money, lust, whatever), and even if they could, we just don't need 10^9 PhDs. What will be that percentage in 30 years? 80% 90%?
What do we do of these people? Let them starve and have social unrest? Give them what it takes to smoke pot and play video games and have most of the population happy?
We built all our previous civilizations on the value of human work. You have to realize that the value human work is very rapidly plunging towards zero. This is unprecedented in history. Do you really think we can continue business as usual and it will be fine?
Video of some good progressive thrash music
This could possibly work fine for the creators that want to create new things, have the vision and desire to see them come to fruition, whether they be physical constructs or intellectual. What this doesn't take into account is those in service industries that aren't creating, don't just love their jobs and work for a sense of fulfillment. How many janitors do you think there would be a year into this social experiment? Street sweepers? Fast food workers?
/. users have grown up on the Disney version of the tale, but go read the original version of The Ant and the Grasshopper.
Even more are those that produce just for other peoples' consumption. How many farmers do you think would grow crops to feed any more than their own family if they had a guaranteed income that was enough to live off of?
I know most
This is why people in the middle class and upper middle class oppose higher taxes and expanded social programs. We are supposedly too rich to reap the benefits of social programs but too poor to avoid paying taxes through tax shelters.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
the super-wealthy ruling class encourages people to think this way. anything having to do with raising the standard of living for the average peon, you are told to think of it as "socialism," conjuring ideas of brutal dictators and an oppressed society. if we were to improve conditions for the average worker drone, it would bankrupt everything and the whole system would come crashing down! they pander to your ignorance and bigotry, encouraging you to think of some poor black or mexican person getting a free sandwich somewhere, a sandwich they didn't earn, meanwhile think of how hard you work to get what you have! focus on hating your neighbor, on hating other average peons just trying to get by like yourself, maybe they are getting something they don't deserve, something you aren't getting! then they lead you to imagine a "wealth redistribution" scenario, where a bunch of hippies come around raiding YOUR pantry and YOUR wallet, to then hand out YOUR hard-earned piss-pot to these other undeserving people at YOUR expense.
make no mistake, people who talk about improving conditions for the average peon are not talking about raiding your pantry or your wallet. a literal handful of people at the very top of human society own, control, and hoard the vast majority of the planet's wealth and resources. these are the people who lead you to think this way about these issues, for obvious reasons. these are the forces people are trying to push back against, to improve conditions for everyone, including you. not excluding you, and certainly not at your expense. but these forces are betting that your resistance to viewing the world as actually being this way, combined with your ignorance and bigotry, will keep your attention and your anger focused on your neighbor instead of on them. are they right?
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
The problem with that theory is that we are essentially replacing the existing private middlemen with government middlemen. Any time the government offers a service or benefit it comes with strings attach. The government can't resist doing so. Engaging in some sort of social engineering for "your own good". Want government housing, then your behavior must conform to these government requirements. There will still be middlemen, there will still be management, they will merely be government ones looking not for a profit but to enforce compliance with whatever the social engineering "its good for you" idea of the day is. Actually that's a bad metaphor, it implies one idea is replaced with another, this is government we're talking about ... the ideas don't get replaced, they just stack new on top of old, they rarely go away.
It will most likely just give government new avenues of control with inevitably lead to new avenues of government corruption. Congress can not resist meddling with these avenues of control, either for their well intended social engineering or political payback to friends and enemies, as we see in today's tax code. The tax code probably being the greatest delivery vehicle with respect to influence buying and corruption.
If everyone gets it, where does it come from? All I see is inflation of the money supply. In other words, more unpayable debt to the fed bankers who loan money to the govt.
I come here for the love
Good grief I'm tired of you people attempting to blame the system for human nature. Human nature is why we have corruption, and have had corruption in every system of power since the beginning of civilization. A Capitalist Republic is the best system humanity has ever implemented to reduce and control the impact of human nature. The US was not a half ass Republic like we saw in other countries which still hold/held Monarchies and and Noble classes/families. It was fully implemented from ground up as a Capitalist Republic. The fact that it took well over 200 years for the system to become so noticeably corrupt speaks volumes for how well it works. Name one communist country that has been clean for more than a week. Name a Socialist country that has been clean for more than a year.
To GP, I call complete and utter horse shit. There is no expectation of a stagnant worker in Capitalism, in fact that view defies any writing by Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and countless Economists in between. Economic mobility is one of the keys of Capitalist theory. If workers don't believe they should work for X dollars at Employer-A they try to work for Employer-B at Y dollars. People being stuck means that competition is lacking, not that workers are intentionally stuck. Workers who are "stuck" should be able to start their own businesses to compete. Competition exists at each of the 3 legs of capitalism, or at least it should.
What you may be attempting to claim is that "starter" jobs should pay as much as "professional" jobs, which is horse shit. Who would want to work hard when there is no payoff or benefit? Oh yeah! That doesn't work very well, which is why worldwide innovation is relatively flat. The US innovation bubble is a fluke of Capitalism.
I realize that it's trendy and cool to say the US is bad. I fully admit that corruption is a huge problem that I don't know we can fix without a reset. I am a US Citizen who denounces the corruption and entrenched politicians all the time. That does not make Canada a "better" Government.
In a do-over would you choose another Capitalist Republic or go Communism? If you say Socialist I implore you to determine how you are going to be different than communism to succeed. The Socialist governments in the EU are really not doing as well as many are being led to believe.
Me, I'd do another Capitalist Republic.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
What is the purpose of money... Why don't we force 10% of the population to work to support the 90%?
That is essentially what the idiot VC is saying.
By taking from the producers to support 90% of the takers you are stealing from the person that either works hard, or took risks in hopes of a better future.
You are enslaving the individual because you are stealing a portion of the persons life for the benefit of another.
One function of money is to ensure fairness when it comes to transactions for goods or services in life. The person who has worked hard or took risks to advance his or her wealth status should enjoy the fruits of their own labor.
What the VC is advocating is quasi Communism.
I really wish the would make "Animal Farm" mandatory reading in schools again.
Where does the primrose path end that the VC is advocating? All animals are equal, just some more so than others...
Lastly, without property rights, there is no real freedom.
Why not look at people who are creating value, and then help them? They are already creating value. The president gave student loan waivers to a few hundred thousand folks who can never pay. If you are going to "create a basic income" why not pay off student loan debt for those who are creating value. They are going to take the difference and do something more efficient than the government would with the difference in money - like pay off a car or a mortgage, or even work on their startup.
If you had only a little money for the "basic income" how would you make the most of it? By paying for some random sampling to smoke weed and play video games, or by putting it toward some striated subsets of the population where it most directly contributes to new creation of value?
The Basic Income has a fundamental flaw: Businesses can just slash workers wages over time, so that the basic income just ends up subsidizing business wage payments...
Then, after all other welfare payments are consolidated into the Basic Income, the wealthy and business class can just block it from being increased in line with inflation, and then when a big enough economic crisis hits, the Basic Income can be attacked as unsustainable/unjustifiable, and can either be slashed or destroyed completely, thus achieving the long-sought-after right-wing goal, of destroying the entire Welfare system.
The Basic Income is a trojan horse - that's why the people you'd LEAST expect to be concerned about workers and the less-well-off's welfare, are promoting it.
A real solution, is the Job Guarantee - government as employer of last resort - where people are actually kept working/earning. The idea that there will ever not be enough work for everyone to do, is wrong - even with automation, the field of e.g. scientific research is effectively infinite, and will never require less work, always more.
And if that is the way modern capitalism worked, you might have a point. But when you consider the amount of corporate welfare in most industrialized countries, and couple that with the fact that, as the Panama Papers show, the very wealthy are so powerful that they can actually manipulate, if not outright force the political system to make sure not only profits are guaranteed, but large amounts of cash is protected in tax shelters. There's nothing wrong with being wealthy, but when being wealthy effectively creates a whole new political class, capable of overawing politicians to guarantee compliance and leniency, then i'd say we've left behind the idealized capitalism and are well on the way to kleptocracy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It identifies the costs of government and adds them to the proposed proportion of average income that basic income should provide, and offers the necessary average tax rate as the consequence. This is the equivalent of establishing why the plane won't fly from first principles, rather than saying 'well, this size of plane flies, so so will this one'.
The Basic Income has a fundamental flaw: Businesses can just slash workers wages over time, so that the basic income just ends up subsidizing business wage payments...
Then, after all other welfare payments are consolidated into the Basic Income, the wealthy and business class can just block it from being increased in line with inflation, and then when a big enough economic crisis hits, the Basic Income can be attacked as unsustainable/unjustifiable, and can either be slashed or destroyed completely, thus achieving the long-sought-after right-wing goal, of destroying the entire Welfare system.
The Basic Income is a trojan horse - that's why the people you'd LEAST expect to be concerned about workers and the less-well-off's welfare, are promoting it.
A real solution, is the Job Guarantee - government as employer of last resort - where people are actually kept working/earning. The idea that there will ever not be enough work for everyone to do, is wrong - even with automation, the field of e.g. scientific research is effectively infinite, and will never require less work, always more.
Venezuela made an attempt at a control economy and belly flopped when the oil revenues ran out. Greece's problem was more subtle - ultimately a failure of the tax man to collect what was owed in the context of a generally free market system. Both got into trouble when the money ran out, but not for the same reasons.
In Switzerland, we're actually voting on an initiative to amend the constitution with an article asking for the introduction of a basic income. In their proposal the proponents of the cause suggest a monthly "salary" for everyone of 2500 CHF (~2560 USD).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2016#Basic_income_referendum
I for one expect a solid 90% of voters (myself included) to reject the matter. But who knows?
Instead of basic income, give them an apartment, feed them, and sterilize them.
If they want more they can work.
Also, punishment for having more kids. Otherwise they will breed needlessly.
All those tasks already need to be done, and there are plenty of healthy pensioners who could be doing them. They don't, for the most part. The belief that the mass of the population would be more community inclined seems... optimistic.
And if you give everyone in America a check for something like $20,000 every year,
The federal and state budgets of the US totaled around 5.5 trillion dollars. There are around 210 million US citizens over the age of 18. This comes out to around $26k per person. This is if you spend EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR ON THIS PROGRAM. But let's say we settle on something smaller (like $13k). You are still going to have to roughly take in 50% more tax just to cover this program. And if the overall economy shrinks because of a drop in worker participation, won't that make it even more difficult to fund this?
First, the basic income replaces a lot of other programs, so it isn't as expensive as it looks. It's far cheaper to administer than welfare programs. Second, we raise taxes to cover the rest. Everybody's taxable income goes up.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
But almost certainly at levels of income that will not be satisfactory to them.
I don't think anyone should starve, so I would be happy to provide funds for as much beans, rice, and vitamins as would be necessary to prevent starvation. But I'm not happy about being asked to provide lobster, filet mignon, or even fast food.
"Basic needs" at this point though seems to be something like "a nice 2br apartment with all amenities and easy access to all the nice services, in a good school district, 400 channels on 50" 4k TV, 100Mbit internet, smart phone, game console" and "free pot". IOW, they expect my lifestyle without working for it (although I don't smoke pot), and demand instead that I reduce my lifestyle to fund theirs.
One of the main problem of "Guaranteed Basic Income" in my mind is education.
What will happen when we live a world where automation make most job disappear and "Guaranteed Basic Income" become necessary? How will you convince a kid to stay in school and/or educate himself in those condition? An income that will increase depending of your degree?
Elok
And as long as I'm offending all the true believes, let's throw another log on their rage fire: I read a book once about a world where everyone stopped working. It was called Atlas Shrugged...
I like that book. It is boring and poorly written, an unrealistic hysterical anti-communist diatribe written by a madwoman. But I like it because idiots latch onto it an wave it frantically as a banner. It makes identifying soft-headed rubes for interpersonal avoidance a trivial task.
Go on, tell me at length about the 'looters' who are going to steal everything, that's always good for a laugh...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Where will the goods, like food, come from that everyone is buying with their UBI? Even huge corporate farms need laborers and aren't anywhere close to being fully automated. Why would someone go out into the fields and slave away all day when they have a UBI?
Sort of like Cinderella and her step-mother and step-sisters.
Despite doing all the work and providing everything for the others, they will resent and demand their "fair share" of anything the 1 might manage to earn above the levels he is forced to "give" the 9.
Everybody who likes to point out the fact that humans "need" to work (let's call them the Idle Hands contingent) doesn't realize the fact that motivation is multifaceted, and only for the most menial types of labor does more money = more motivation. (See Daniel Pink's "Drive" for lots of discussion of this)
Honestly, welfare, disability, and social security pay already exist - if someone really wants to be a bum, they can, and either end up sleeping on a girlfriend's couch, living in Mom's basement, or going to prison if they have no other options and want 3 solid meals and a bed to stay in.
The truth of the matter is that people do work far more for social and personal reasons than just pure monetary gain. They want freedom, they want to learn, they want prestige and recognition from their peers, they want to see the world, they want to express themselves... look at stuff like Stack Exchange and all sorts of other "gamified" systems online. People will work their asses off for a virtual merit badge or to increase a progress bar on a screen.
Corey Doctorow's "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" is an interesting look at how a post-scarcity economy based on prestige might work. We're going to have to figure out what to do with the majority of the human race when AI and robots are better and cheaper than the average untrained human. It's only a matter of time.
Wow I have never heard this much B.S. from both the right and the left since I stopped watching politics. So since I maxed the curve on all my economics classes here in Arizona here is my 2 bits worth:
The concept of basic income is not based on Capitalism or Communism. It is based on a hybrid of both Socialism and Capitalism with the idea that we no longer have an economy of scarcity, but have one of plenty. Currently the only thing in our 1st world that is in short supply is
1. Good Jobs.
2. Space Travel.
3. Clean Energy.
The Things we have an over abundance of is:
1. Food.
2. Shelter.
3. Money
4. Dirty Energy
Some people will disagree with the things we have a lot of; and all I am going to say is start cracking a book, get 7 to 9 hours of sleep, or for the love of god get off the drugs.
Also the planet has never ever had a real communist government or a capitalist one for that matter. They have all been a gestalt of different economic policy's and government styles. (Labels are the B.S. of the lazy and Con-Men)
With the basic income idea the following is true:
1. The rich still get richer just at a slower rate then currently.
2. Government spending does go down, and government does shrink a little in a certain defined area.
3. You would still need social security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance.
4. You would still want to save money for retirement.
5. Workers would be more productive due to lower stress levels.
6. Consumer spending would go up which drives demand higher for products.
7. You will still need low income housing and shelter in theory.
8. You would have somewhere between 2% and 4% that just sitting in a shelter doing nothing and collecting there 10 grand income. (Best Guess)
9. Crime rate goes down.
Everybody wins and the top .05% will never miss the money anyway since they have no clue how much they have unless there money manger tells them minus what they steal from them. And they will just keep making more money and getting richer anyway you can't and shouldn't stop that.
The only thing it does not address is the crazy unrealistic cost of a college education.
Tetalon
Oh yeah? robots can already smoke and that's just the prototype. If they put their minds to it, they'll have robots that smoke *all* the marijuana, then what are you going to do?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Guaranteed income is the 20th century version of bread and circuses. It is an admission that jobs have vanished and what remains does not pay enough to raise a family in the style we have become accustomed to. Our population is surplus to requirements (with so much outsourced to away) and since we are not up to camps or other means to trim the population, this is an alternative to having a very PO'd group of armed citizens grow until they decide to take the establishment out. Personally, being retired, I no longer have to care -- being on social security and living off my savings. But as a society, letting the unemployed and under-employed pile up is not a recipe for social stability. And I think that as a society we really do need to do a rethink.
Today, doing nothing really isn't an option. You *have* to work somehow. By offering a basic income, you are, in effect, creating competition for those jobs. If I have the leverage to say "no", if some people find "nothing" a competitive alternative, then supply-and-demand for workers says that prices (ie, salary) will have to go up to match.
It's a double-whammy against the wealthy, in that they will have to pay a large chunk of *both* the basic income and the delta in salaries. On the other hand, they have benefited the most from income/wealth inequality over the last 3 decades, and increased automation will only make a basic income more necessary.
I'm not sure *anyone* has fully thought through the action-and-reaction of basic income, so I can't honestly say that it's "good", but one way or another its time may be coming.
I write software and smoke Pot, I make over $200K/year, maybe this view that if you smoke Pot, then you're a a slacker should be thrown out. Also, I live in Southern California, I don't think of myself as "Rich". I kinda of laugh when I see people get upset over $15/hour basic wage since you're definitely way below the poverty line in Southern California at $30K/year.
To improve lifestyle of a large fraction of people, more necessities such as healthy food, housing and medicines need to be produced. Basic income can potentially stimulate production, but we would need to remove other obstacles first. For example bureaucracy and NIMBY mentality need to be busted to build sufficient housing in Silicon Valley. Otherwise increasing supply of money will just raise prices and everyone is back where they started. It certainly does not sound like 10% of people can produce everything for everyone at current level of technology, and especially not in an ecologically sustainable way.
At most, basic income with very low overhead of making payments can be cheaper than the bureaucracy of managing eligibility and providing single purpose services (like shelters) for a small fraction of the poor. We need something else to solve large scale poverty.
but if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth
And what happens when that "90%" includes all the teachers, law enforcement, hospital workers and fire crews? Basically the people who do the shitty, but necessary, jobs that keep societies running?
It's fine for the aspirational people to assume that everyone is like them - but they aren't. Most people do the least-worst job that allows them to keep a roof, feed their kids and keep the lights on. Remove the need for them to work to do that and the food stops coming, the lights go out and the roof doesn't get repaired. If you will rely on those with some sort of moral imperative to earn, or those for whom work is a joy rather than an inconvenient necessity, then your society won't last a month.
Would you do a dangerous, unpleasant, stressful or demeaning job if you didn't need to? I don't see those sectors having many volunteer workers.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The 1%ers will lose their slave labor force.
I have lived and worked in the Netherlands, you have no idea what you are talking about if you think the Dutch mindset is in any way socialist in nature. They were the original capitalists, which made them wealthy beyond measure.
The mindset of people in the Netherlands is very far from that of the socialist...
Mainly you can tell they are not socialist by the fact they are (a) permissive, and (b) happy - neither the sign of socialism at work (as well know all too well from countless historical examples, socialism and totalitarianism go hand in hand).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They then demand that the 10% steak eaters fork over ever more, so that they too can have steak.
And then the 90% realizes that the 10% has nicer cars, or bigger houses, or prettier spouses, and begins demanding that they should be provided with those things too.
At some point, the "basic income" line "provides" a level of lifestyle such that there's little benefit to working to stay in the 10%. Fuck it, just take the free shit. Now you've got way too few providers and the system collapses.
Just wait long enough.
What a complete crock.
We have endless economic history that says otherwise.
And math and logic too. When 1000 people have a dollar and want 500 limited resources that cost $1, what happens to the price of those resources? They exceed the capacity to pay for them, and then you're right back where you started.
This douchewit sucks at math.
Why would they demand more? You're not making any sense. If that were the case, then welfare recipients would already be demanding more. Or maybe some of them are, but it doesn't matter because they're not going to get it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
people in the US is about $2T. Yep, that's a lot of money, about half of what the government spends per year.
If you confiscate all of that money from the super-rich, you get that one-time pot of $2T.
Redistribute that to the other 300M+ Americans, and each citizen receives about $6000.
What's the next trick?
No, the Greek failure wasn't of the tax man's poor collecting success. The failure was the culture's sense of entitlement to free stuff, or to making someone else pay for the stuff they didn't want to pay for. That same flaw has been boiling up in the US for a long time, and is coming to a head in the form of Bernie Sanders supporters and the like. When those that feel entitled to free stuff come unavoidably close to having to admit that that only works when they can force someone else to do the work they won't, they inevitably point to anyone who has accumulated more, created more, or squandered less, and calls them the villains (because even though it doesn't make you prosperous when you tear down someone else's prosperity, it soothes some part of the irrational mind for a few minutes, and buys time to pass the blame to someone else a year or two later).
Venezuela's particular failures, and Greece's, are both symptoms of the same problem. Just manifested a bit differently. Entitlement-minded collectivists always wind up in the same place, and tend to lash out at the end. See the juvenile finger-pointing from both the Greeks and the Venezuelans as they hit rock bottom. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault, and pretty much always the favorite bad guy is the neighbor who made better decisions.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Sure Greece lied to get into the EU and tax evasion is the national pasttime. But the heart of Greece's problem is that faced with an economic crisis, they refused to cut outlays to match tax receipts. Not once did Greece balance their budget since joining the Eurozone. For all the talk of austerity, Greece never practiced real austerity, i.e., cutting budget outlays until they matched receipts. They just pretended to temporarily slow the rate at which they were going broke. That is because the welfare state had become more sacred to them than the underlying economy required to support it, and because they figured the EU (which is to say the Germans) would end up bailing them out. Which is, in fact, what basically happened with much pain and suffering along the way.
Contrast that with the Baltic states, most of whom bit the bullet and balanced their budgets, and after brief downturns their economies were growing again.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
Speak of rent, I'm wondering how advocates of basic income intend to deal with people outbidding one another for property. The reason that places like New York or San Francisco are so expensive is because lots of people are essentially outbidding one another on rent or property, putting upward pressure on the prices. Now, think about how adding that much more income to their spending power is going to impact that. What happens when the rent then exceeds what somebody on this basic income can afford?
I know what you're thinking: Price controls, or maybe even go Karl Marx and just seize their property in the name of humanity and give it away. You still haven't solved the ultimate problem that an economy ultimately sorts out: How you allocate scarce resources. Land, and by extension, real estate, is a finite resource. There's only so many people that you can squeeze into New York City. So how do you decide who gets to live there and who doesn't? Some people talk about how they have a right to live in New York City, no matter how much rent costs. That's fine, but what are you going to do when people who think they have the right to live there exceeds the population capacity of the city? Something, somewhere has to give. The problem is even worse in San Francisco, because they (through the democratic process) won't allow anybody to build any additional housing.
I don't think "That's not fair!" is interesting or even very pertinent to this argument. There are two factors that favor a UBI: efficiency has increased to the point that most jobs are not relevant, and the tasks that capitalism does not incentivize are piling up . I see two possible solutions to these problems. One would be to force people to work the jobs that we make migrants and foreigners do, but that's impossible because people won't be told what to do except by an abstract force (money). The other is to give everyone enough money that they are free to do things that they want to do.
I think that quality of life and prosperity will increase if we relax the daily struggle. It's just time.
In some cases disability / welfare penalizes work. And people are better off not working / work very few hours.
Now the ACA should of helped there but that is an other thing.
In the past there are where people with disabilitys who had to cut there hours as the min wage went as if they made to much they lost there Health care and the places they where working at did not have a plan or was the mcdonald's mini med shit that did not cover anything.
Well, if there'd been a guaranteed income when I was young and motivated, I would have spent all my time playing and working on music and being happy and possibly making others happy. Since there was not, I had to be somewhat unhappy and work at things I did not want to do in order to eat and have enough money to work on music as a hobby.
Later, I taught myself C, C++, Rexx, Perl, Python etc and started working as a developer on other people's bad ideas. Again, had I had the freedom maybe I would have produced something worth talking about rather than yet another airline reservation system, another data import suite, a bunch of CRUD apps, several device drivers and some mortgage related software. None of which made me perfectly happy.
Don't deign to think you know what is in everyone elses head.
captcha: indolent
Venezuela made an attempt at a control economy and belly flopped when the oil revenues ran out. Greece's problem was more subtle - ultimately a failure of the tax man to collect what was owed in the context of a generally free market system. Both got into trouble when the money ran out, but not for the same reasons.
Nice try.
But the problem with socialism is the money always runs out eventually.
As an AC, I don't expect much respect, but here's my take:
I've worked for 20+- years. I've been educated (that is, indebted). I've been a comp forensics guy, I've been a physical scientist, I've been a field botanist, I've been a private investigator, a ranch hand, and among many more things, just dumb labor. It sucks. Most of these jobs have existed because of some inefficiency in the socioeconomic system, not because they produce an actual thing. And, I've worked very hard to survive within that environment. BUT, that is an utter waste of human potential--just as the service industry is.
I'll not suggest that we can simply unravel a few hundred years of capitalism in favor of an, essentially, investment driven economy of brilliant doohickies and pretty guis, but this is a subject on which we *have to* make the correct decision. Why?
Because, when we don't need several billion people's labor we are left with two choices: starve them out to preserve the old model of wealth extraction (see: Africa, everywhere else), or distribute resources in such a way that everybody has a shot at exploring the boundaries of their potential.
I foresee the objection: " but, wait, commie! How do we know how to allocate resources?! The market is so awesome at that! Hrr, drr!" NO! The market is not awesome at that. It just seemed that way compared to the insane idea of Soviet-style central management.
Blah, blah...listen, IMO, we are already past the point of debating this. Capitalism in the 20th century sense is dead--it's just that very powerful interests are capable of keeping it profitable for themselves. I can't do shit about it. Neither can Bernie, or likely, you. But, and I mean this is the most serious possible way, doing something about it is our only choice (given that we are ethical members of society).
At least any one with poor kids.
When my mom was a teacher one of the fights the teachers had with the district and state was over the school breakfast program. Schools did breakfast and lunch, with prices being reduced or eliminated based on financial need. The breakfasts were only for students in need, it wasn't something most students used or could use. They wanted to cut out the breakfasts to save money. The teachers pushed back because they knew, from talking to the kids, that for most of the kids on these programs the breakfast and lunch at school was the only food they got. Their parents were absent, or in jail, or addicts, or in various other ways simply not being parents and not caring for their kids. So one of the things the school could do to help them was make sure they got at least some nutritious meals. Also helped them learn and made them more likely to want to attend.
There are a non-trivial amount of people who make shitty decisions with their money.
I don't think UBI can really work across a large geographic are, because "basic costs" are too different from place to place.
It's the same conundrum revealed by minimum wage mandates across too large a geographic area.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Maybe full time should be cut down to 32 Hours. to start with X2 OT at 50 hours and X2.5 at 80 hours
I give my girlfriend a basic living allowance. She doesn't have to worry about basic living needs. She is much happier, which makes me much happier. ;)
RE: Altman argued basic income could support huge amounts of productivity loss and still carry the economy on its shoulders. "Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games, but if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that's still a huge net-win,"
In order for new products and services to actually create any new wealth, you need people to pay for those new products are services with their time. Merely trading existing wealth for a product or service does not create any new wealth. Trading time for money, what we call working for a living, does create wealth.
Try leaving a stack of $1 bills with a sign: "Free money. Please take only $1 per person." Leave it anywhere. If you think the sign will be honored be everyone, you're a far less cynical person than I.
I'm not a particularly religious person, but coveting your neighbor's *everything* has seemingly been a problem for thousands of years.
Some good people will be content with the stipend they receive. Some others will never be satisfied that someone else might have more than they have, regardless of how much the other person may have worked for what they have.
You seems to think the former will vastly outnumber the later; I think the opposite.
and that is the problem, you have been brain washed into resenting your fellow humans, notice how your politicians call the poor scroungers!
What we have now is increasing levels of inequality with a tiny fraction of the population taking more and more of the resources, as wallstreet says "greed is good" and you have been sold the idea hook line and sinker, do you really believe people most people earning $2+million a year actually deserve it, or actually work that hard? compared to someone who does the jobs like keeping things clean and actually benefit society?
for fucks sake start thinking instead of "wanting to be as greedy as you can!"
I htink we were collectively distracted by the poor term "the 1%". The actual 1%, the moderately wealthy, the successful doctors and dentists and lawyers and small business owners, they aren't the issue here. The 1% aren't the people in the Panama Papers.
We should instead be upset at "the richest 100 families", who IMO have been causing so many problems. In some ways, the difference between "ideal capitalism" and "capitalism as practiced in the US" is the difference between the 1% and the richest 100 families.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Oh please, this isn't that hard. The Basic Income is simple: everyone gets the same amount, period. (As I understand it; if I'm wrong, someone please correct me, but I don't think I am.) You don't get more money for living in NYC than in Bumfuck, Idaho. So if that basic monthly paycheck (which isn't going to be a whole lot by NYC standards) isn't enough for you, then you need to pack up and move somewhere cheaper. But guess what? Now that you have a guaranteed basic monthly income, you have money to move, and you don't have to worry about losing your job and not having a source of income, so you can afford to abandon the high-price city and move someplace cheaper and see if it works out for you. If it doesn't work out and there's no jobs there or you just plain hate it, no problem, you still have that basic income, so you can pack up and move again. Moving isn't that expensive when you don't have a lot of stuff anyway, the problem is the danger of losing your job and that paycheck, and not finding a new one in the new location. BI solves that.
Now, with that out of the way, real estate prices are pretty simple: leave them to market forces (to an extent). If a city makes itself so expensive that all the janitors and cooks and meter maids can't afford to live and work there, oh well! They'll have to figure out a solution on their own, such as building some lower-income housing, or they can just suffer the consequences.
In fact, this will probably be a really GOOD thing for getting rents lower: with the lowest-income people no longer required to work for a living, and only working because they want more money so they can buy iPhones or whatever (BI isn't going to provide them enough money for any luxury, just the basics), they're not going to put up with shitty jobs in high-rent cities any more, a bunch of them are going to move out to cheaper places. It'll be better for them to move to the middle of nowhere, collect their BI check, and smoke pot or watch TV or maybe start a small business than to hang around some ultra-high-rent city like NYC working their ass off just to pay the rent (or commuting for hours every day to live someplace more affordable) because the BI isn't close to sufficient to pay the rent there. This will force rents to come down in those cities, one way or another.
So, for your SanFran example, the city will basically implode, which is a good thing. Usually, things need to completely fall apart before people will fix them.
If VCs and entrepreneurs said it, it must be true...
basic healthcare is need as the jail / prison is better some people.
in this case I say jail is better. As the jail can pay there $500 MO for medication.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/michi...
This is nothing more than thinly veiled anti cannabis propaganda. Most people who regularly smoke cannabis are highly productive individuals. Whoever wrote this is interested only in protecting corrupt police cannabis profits. And all you suckers have bought right into it. People really are fucking stupid beyond belief.
Clearly the rate of pay for those basic jobs would rise substantially, and many would disappear; automated checkouts and robots in fast food restaurants. Probably some people would be willing to work a couple of days a week at more complex, if uninspiring tasks (cleaning springs to mind) to raise them above the absolute basic. And some people will value the status of job even if they don't NEED it. Pensioners offer this response. And the impact of forcing higher rates of pay for basic jobs would a valuable move to reduce wage inequality.
The Fascist nature of Earth's government had a double purpose â" keep down the masses, encourage the best and brightest to want to flee and give away their skills and work.
brwski
"Because without beer, things do not seem to go as well''
Already in the United States we pay close to 50% of our income in various taxes --Consider if you work, 15% of your income goes to social security/medicare, about 6% to your local state tax, (say) 15% to federal tax - but for the purposes of this, let's say it is 10%. Okay so we're at 31% of income. Now of the remaining 69% of your income let's say you spend 80% of that and your state has a 6% sales tax; so that's another 5.5% of your income there. Now we're at 36% of income. Now, let's say you own a house conservatively appraised at 250% of your income (lots of folks buy way more than that) and it's taxed at 1% of value/year. So there's another 2.5% of your income gone. Now, you drive a car and pay excise taxes on that - who knows how much? Call it...1/2 of 1% of income? So now we're at 39% of income. If you consume alcohol or tobacco, you pay taxes on that. If you travel by plane you pay taxes on the ticket over and above sales taxes. And these are just the taxes I've found by 30 seconds of thought. I'm not counting telecom taxes, which everyone on slashdot pays in one way or another. Many states have a 'personal property tax' where you pay tax on your personal items (Massachusetts has this). Fuel taxes. Now my point is, it's not that I think that hard work has such value - but I object to my already high taxes going to pay for someone to sit around and smoke pot. I have NO issue in supporting the genuinely disabled ("Genuinely" is the rub here). And unemployment is an insurance whose premium is paid by the worker and the employer. I have zero issue with the idea of social security - I have great issue with the fact that the money has been stolen AND the program expanded to do a bunch more than old age pensions. But given that we already work nearly half our year to pay taxes already, screw these bozos who want to do a basic income.
1) A basic income is not winning the lottery. Most people want much more than cheap food, shelter, and some clothes. Decent healthy food isn't cheap for starters... People will work for extras just as they try to get an education or a promotion to get more. DEMAND drives the economy and SUPPLY sets the price - more people will have purchasing power which will help the economy while limited supply for the increased demand will raise prices and in turn motivate people to earn more money.... it is not that far from how things work already. Many people wrongly complained about minimum wage ruining everything and it made things better; this is similar but addresses the lack of livable wage jobs. A.I. will eventually drive the point home to the public.
2) sig: Good honest politicians are extremely rare and must be kept as long as they are viable (and alive. see FDR.) They do not all turn bad-- most are bad to begin with and merely haven't been caught for the sort of things they did from the start.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I agree. People either live in NYC for one of two reasons:
* They need to hold down a job in NYC
* They like NYC for some reason.
In the first instance, basic income means they can just leave NYC because they don't need to live there anymore.
In the second, then it is up to them to make up the difference between their basic income and what it costs to live in NYC. Presumably that will be provided by an employer.
Maybe full time should be cut down to 32 Hours. to start with X2 OT at 50 hours and X2.5 at 80 hours
I swear, all these supposedly super-smart people have zero fucking clue about the second most basic element of human nature: the drive to get more than what you (or, in this case, the ownership & management classes) already have.
That change will do nothing but drive up costs -- which will drive up prices -- with the result of:
1) even more rapid development of automation, and
2) either pissing off exempt workers even more than we already are for having to work so much unpaid overtime, or accelerating the off-shoring/"H-1Bing" of what domestic IT employees remain.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The problem is that from generation to generation the percentage of the non-working class will grow unchecked. This is because they will both start having children earlier and have more children than the responsible class. Plus a growing percentage of them will be meth heads and criminals.
It also eliminates the need for a minimum wage which alleviates a lot of pressure on small and fledgling businesses. This is how you bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.
We just finance this with a tax on venture capitalists. Right, Mr. Altman?
Have gnu, will travel.
However, each of those programs will slowly be reintroduced because "basic income" isn't enough to provide adequate nutrition to children (WIC returns) or housing (section 8 returns) or medical care (medicaid returns) or phones (lifeline phones/rates return) or that disability is too disheartening on the "basic income" (Social Security disability program returns). As well, it will soon be determined that those who don't "need" the basic income really shouldn't get it (after all, does an tech who is already making twice the basic income really "need" more?). I'd give it thirty years before the system looked pretty much like it does today -- except "just not bothering to work" would actually be a viable option for many.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
The demand for eggs is unlikely to rise, and the incentive to produce will be far less, so that's probably a commodity whose price would rise in a basic income world to ensure that the farmer COULD be bothered to get up in the morning. However your point about education is mostly valid, except that the belief in certificates as the way to prove you can do a job is probably overdone.
With a guaranteed basic income you don't end up trapped by your job. If you are in SanFran and just managing to make ends meet you don't have the ability to up and move because that costs money and it will cause you to lose your only income. BI would allow you to relocate away to a cheap area, whether that area had employment or not.
It will push more people into taxable territory, raise profits, generally generate tax revenue.
Yes, inflation at the Fed tap but that is a step up. Currently we let the fed create money out of air (if it's digital, they buy notes at printing cost for currency) and loan it to banks, then for every program we generate a bunch of treasury bills to pay for it. The banks who borrow from the fed buy those higher interest t-bills and tax payers pay the higher interest on the t-bill. So, actually getting money without two tiers of banks between us and the Fed is a good deal.
We also tend to get pushed toward the 1% by income, wealth is what we need to focus on.
To get those jobs done, the workers will have to be paid more - though only enough to want to carry on doing it. Whereas people who seriously enjoy their jobs will be paid less - or rather won't receive wage rises when the prices of many items rise to create the incentive to get them created / done.
If a VC really thought that this model generated more income, the conversation would be different. Buy a plot of land. Build an arcology. Give people free food, housing, entertainment and money equivalent to a basic income. Establish an incentive program akin to employment for the product of invention and useful patents. Measure results against a list of urban areas where most VC investment occurs. Put your money where your mouth is, sir.
I think that there is enough wealth out there that we could provide a basic support to those in need, and should not be an excuse to discourage others from working - I think it would be a great top up though. And while many people would abuse it, many more would use it to improve their lives. Sure it would be tempting to sit at home and play video games, but after 2 or 3 days I would go nuts. I think people don't want to be poor or stuck in a crap job, and maybe even want to launch a business of some sort, or further their education - this could also mean a lot to the non-profit sector which currently faces declining funding; imagine NGOs basically having free labour and the good they could produce, especially when poverty would basically be eliminated for many of their clients. Having said that, I think some strings do need to be attached, because the reality is that people will mismanage their own money or outright abuse the system. There could be a work or drug-free type program (I believe in Australia welfare recipients need to pass a drug test), but I would hate to be the child of someone on welfare who failed a piss test. I think the resources exist and if managed properly the benefits could outweigh the costs - imagine the reduction in overhead if there was no more welfare/disability/etc. and just one central department - but just blindly handing out money without some sort of requirement probably isn't a solution just because we can do it.
Sometimes the worst parasites in a welfare system are not the recipients, but the social workers.
They came here.
At one time, SlashDot had comment sections worth reading.
Those days are long gone. They are a dot, receding rapidly in the rearview.
At one time, I thought these were "strawman" idiots, like what Rush and Anne Coulter set up (Here's a hint for you sad folks: THEY DON'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE TRIPE THEY SPEW -THEY ARE MUCH TOO SMART.
However, I have come to realize that there are, in fact, people that actually believe the crap they spew from their keyboards. Sadly, a significant number of folks do so in an extremely traceable manner.
I'd love to get half the idiots I know in the Software Engineering field out smoking pot, instead of writing God-awful garbage spaghetti code while trolling feminists.
A perfect candidate for this subsidy.
Captcha: "deceive" (I LOVE IT!)
I think the VC's claim is a little strange also:
Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games, but if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that's still a huge net-win,
Yes, people will continue to invent, they will create new products and services, music, art, etc. But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
This is the capitalist version of "let them eat cake." Because god help them if the proles feel like they deserve some of the money they're making capitalists.
That's truer than you realise. Marie Antoinette reportedly said, 'Qu'ils mangent la brioche.' Translated in the proper context, it meant that because flour supplies were so low, they should use alternate sources, in this case, the highly refined (cake) flour that was being saved off for herself and her family.
This was straight-up socialist redistribution she was calling for.
I think Marie Antoinette would have supported the idea of a guaranteed basic income.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
This sounds nice on paper, except you still haven't dealt with the problem of those who feel they have the "right" to live there. This describes a lot of the OWS types were were unemployed at the time of those protests, even for long periods of time by their own admission, yet refused to leave New York. Remember also that New York was one of those states that wanted to justify having unemployment for longer than 99 weeks. I really think you haven't thought this through as well as you think you have. (and I'm out of time to write a full response right now)
" It is also not "free" it is basic."
You're splitting hairs. Of course it is "free" to the recipients, that's the whole point.
"There is a lot of overhead that could be saved in managing welfare systems by doing something like this."
Not enough. The product basic-income * total-population is still much larger than welfare+overheads * number-of-welfarists.
Is universal health care for all citizens. You can go see a doctor any time you want without any type of payment. If everyone had universal health care then many people could get out of jobs they hate and take the jobs they really want to do.
I think the real obstacle to a UBI system isn't the perceived resentment of people "getting something for nothing" but the fact that employers have to shift to a 100% positive incentive system for employing workers.
With a UBI they won't be able to use the coercive power of poverty or financial ruin to motivate, harass or intimidate employees.
I just don't think the people in positions of employment authority would accept the idea that they no longer had this kind of power over people. I think a significant part of their entire management "philosophy" is based on coercive power -- put up with my shit, work late, etc.
This is probably more true in low-paying jobs because these employees have accumulated less wealth and are at a greater risk of financial disaster in losing their jobs -- or more inclined to put up with coercion to keep them.
It's probably more complicated for people in higher wage jobs. Usually the wage is higher because their skills are more in demand, but they also tend to have better working conditions and less coercively accept employer demands given the higher payoffs.
Let's give money to the murderers, rapists and insane is not a good selling point.
In Belgium, they have a egg and milk fund. Every kid in the country qualifies with no income limits. But you can only get eggs, milk and basic foods like that. I would be for a program like that because unlike food stamps, you won't be able to use them at the casino or a strip club.
It's not hard to calculate the total net worth of the top 100, 500, or whatever richest people. At least assuming that the numbers Forbes, et al. use are anything close to being in the ball park.
The total net worth of the Forbes 400 (US) is about $2T. The average net worth of a 2015 Forbes 400 member was $3.86 billion, obviously some like Gates at $76B, and Buffet at $62B are higher. Let's go ahead and imagine confiscating it all tomorrow and redistributing it fairly to the rest of the population.
Assuming only adults get a "fair share", each of the more than 242M US adults will get a bit more than $8000. That'll really make a difference!
Once.
Another math problem.
I'll assume that the "basic income" equates to a poverty level of spending. Census numbers tell us that there are about 133M households in the US, with an average of 2.6 members per household. Poverty-line income for a 2-member household is $16020 and for a 3-member household is $20160. I'll interpolate to get $18504 for each 2.6-member household. That's a mere $2.46T to be collected and doled out.
Taking all the net worth from the top 400 basically covers the first year of the program and gets rid of the "super-rich" problem at the same time. Takes care of the billionaire problem.
$2.46T is not such a large number that it could not be done, in fact it turns out to be almost exactly what we're currently spending on mandatory programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, income assistance, veterans programs). Cut all those and it's basically a wash. But I doubt anyone wants to make people pay for their own healthcare out their basic income, so those won't be cut. Gonna tell the old folks they can't have their Social Security but can have this basic income instead?
Based on recent income reports at the IRS, if we add a new 100% tax on all income over $200,000 we can collect just about that amount--assuming none of those 6 million households minds the 100% rate and goes on about their business of funding the basic needs of the rest of the country, and living on a mere $200,000 of after tax (albeit federal income tax only) income. Oh, I've ignored the the $18K they'll receive from the basic income pot, so $218K.
That takes care of the millionaire problem too.
I won't pay for other people to not work. Plain and simple. If i have to live like a pioneer and provide for myself I will. Screw all the freeloaders. I can tell you I will live fat and happy for myself. There is a great childs book that explains this for most morons very easily its called "The Little Red Hen!". I advise everyone to read it.
But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
It's not like everybody out there is going to be totally satisfied with a bare-minimum standard of living. If you want more than ramen for dinner every night and a one-bedroom apartment shared with a roommate, you'll have to work, and all those jobs will still be available. Most people would probably be happy to work a few hours a week for some discretionary income.
While I doubt that it was intended, the Welfare system in the US has become a trap. I believe that the majority who voted "yes" at least did so with good intentions, though there is some interesting theory behind that front.
If a single mom works, she loses benefits. If she has another kid she gets more benefits. If she gets married, she loses benefits. If she claims "he's the daddy" she gets money (child support is not inherently good or bad). So I agree with the concept of a system gone wrong.
Where I disagree is that it's only single moms who are trapped into that system. The disability programs are designed the same way. They are similar traps, but without dependency it's a little easier to move around.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It turns out that "alienated layabouts" are the number one target for ISIS recruitment in Europe.
It seems like the welfare state even in the socialist utopia is not all that. "Being useful" appears to be valuable in it own right.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
... governments are at least hypothetically responsive to the voter ...
No more than businesses are hypothetically responsive to the buyers of their products and services.
But really, this is total paranoia. All housing, even privately owned housing, has rules attached to it.
You seem quite ignorant of the nature of government strings. For example in various government housing projects people with criminal backgrounds are not allowed to stay overnight. Fathers are literally forced to be separated from their children because of the unintended consequences some political failed to consider. And as I suggested earlier, government failures tend to be quite persistent and continue year after year. This overnight problem has been recognized a largely counterproductive for decades.
You don't need basic income for that. You can just decide to move. In fact, the modern corporate employee is already a bit of a nomad. If anything, you need to apply artificial pressure to keep people bound to a particular location.
Working in America is nothing like being assigned to a company and an apartment like you would have been in communist Russia.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"Basic income would work even if 90% did nothing but smoke pot all day..."
Because the other 10% would be working themselves to death 24x7x365 trying to support a bunch of indigent fucktards who think they're owed a living, effort free.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'm fairly certain "smoking pot and playing video games" isn't mutually exclusive with "create new things".
Captcha: overwork, which is how I feel right now.
Regarding menial labor, why do we need to worry about who will do that junk? Nobody needs to! The only reason unskilled labor is cheaper than robots who could do their job better this very minute is that there is an endless supply of people desperate to feed themselves at the cost of their health, sanity, and dignity. Even without UBI in place, that tipping point is fast approaching in many industries. What are you going to do with all those poor souls when nobody wants them for burger-flipping?
As for law enforcement... What are you smoking? There are legions of people thirsty for pretty authority who like to convince themselves they are driven to protect others. I eagerly await the day when we can safely stop allowing humans to enforce the law.
Though I never received "basic income" I did inherit enough money 20 years ago, low 5 figures, to quit the stressful lame job I had working for an idiot, because I felt empowered by the inheritance and would not have to work to pay my living expenses for a while if I budgeted and kept my expenses to a minimum. In that time I learned enough about the Internet and computing in general to start my own hosting business (no VC required) and kept learning as I worked. I eventually sold that business and transitioned into the job I have today. And that is not the end of the story, as I have become empowered again through the sale of a domain name, and am starting a completely new business venture, again no VC required.
The point being that it is true, a sense of independent security, achieved by having your basic needs met while you try to improve yourself, is so very empowering, and allows the spirited entrepreneur to accomplish that which would otherwise be virtually impossible.
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
Someone still has to be willing to "provide". In a society where you aren't encouraged to contribute, you will have trouble finding enough people to bother. If you tax the rich to death, they will just move or not bother. Resources have to come from somewhere and you are just assuming that there will be enough people wiling to contribute or those that you can steal from.
This isn't software where all you have to do is drag and drop to duplicate something. Beyond everything else, real estate is a scarce and expensive commodity.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If 90% aren't doing anything except sitting at home on their basic income, what kind of domestic market are those 10% going to have for their products?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Even if our country becomes automated enough that most people do not have to work, we should still require some community service for basic income. Think of all the good that 90% could do.
views on everyone. "Work is good for people whether they themselves believe it or not"?!?!?!? Shit jobs are disheartening, unproductive and almost certainly NOT good for everyone whether they like it or not.
A sense of purpose is good. People find that in all sorts of ways. Its quite possible that many people without it COULD find it if they felt secure enough to do what they want to. There are lots of ways that people can contribute very positively and substantially to Society outside what is considered by many to be "productive" employment. Artists, writers, musicians and other creative types, volunteers, etc. can be of great benefit to society and many who might do these things or others can't because they have to work a shit job to try to make ends meet
Furthermore, not nearly enough people in this discussion are actually discussing the idea that is posited in the story. If it works and does improve productivity as a whole (which is certainly a big if), then it doesn't really matter what your personal opinion is about it and it should be done for the good of our society as a whole.
I have a suggestion, rather than everyone sitting around drawing conclusions out of their asses, lets see what actually happens when someone tries it.
Its been tried, Imperial Rome, free bread and free circuses. Republic Rome and its work ethic and civic responsibility ethic (I have a duty to contribute to my society, to defend my society, etc) worked better.
... A group of senators were sent to tell Cincinnatus that he had been nominated dictator. According to Livy, the senators found Cincinnatus while he was plowing on his farm ... Cincinnatus then went to the Roman popular assembly and issued an order to the effect that every man of military age should report to the Campus Martius—the Field of Mars, god of war—by the end of the day ... Once the army assembled, Cincinnatus took them to fight the Aequi at the Battle of Mons Algidus. Cincinnatus led the infantry in person, ... After this, the war ended and Cincinnatus disbanded his army. He then resigned his dictatorship and returned to his farm, a mere fifteen days after he had been nominated dictator."
FWIW Cincinnatus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"... forcing him to sell most of his lands and retire to a small farm, where he and his family were able to subsist on the work of his hands
Yeah, kleptocracy, over the years we drastically reduced the progressiveness of taxation because it would supposedly help the economy by motivating the wealthy to be more economically productive (as if that were true), but of course it didn't, and the wealthy's take didn't trickle down -- it just gushed off-shore.
Everyone gets $500/month. Landlord raises the rent $500. Or more realistically since she knows people spend 1/3rd of their income on rent, 1/3 of $500. Same with grocery stores. It'll bounce around a bit but will come to a new steady state in a few months.
Numerous people have looked at the math, which you obviously haven't, and I suggested that we let the other countries that want to try it to do it first, then learn from their mistakes.
There is a huge gaping hole that should be plain to anyone who took econ 101. The above lacks the caveat, all other things being equal. Reality is they are not. The unique conditions of a country, or a state for that matter have a heavy influence on what can work and what will not. That is why various national one-size-fits-all plans accomplish little, while local plans that consider local conditions have a better chance.
For example Hawaii can have a generous social system because of direct taxation of tourists and indirect taxation on the spending of tourists. Alaska can be generous because of taxation on the oil industry. Other states lack these windfalls and can't learn much from Hawaii or Alaska, all other things not being equal.
At one time all the math said, flying was impossible.
Actually I thought it merely said human powered flight was impossible. Which was mathematically true until the recent inventions of some very lightweight exotic materials.
>pretty authority
Someday, we will throw off the shackles of our oppressors, and Slashdot will finally allow you to edit your comments.
A thought is, while employers have to pay more taxes for BI (hopefully), there would no longer be any need to enforce minimum wages as BI is the minimum wage. You would make BI + employed income, so employers would just have to pay you whatever minimum amount to make your time worthwhile to work for them. Want $x a month for luxuries, and have 160 hours of free time a month? Find a job that nets $x/160 per hour.
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
>pretty authority
Someday, we will throw off the yoke of our oppressors, and Slashdot will allow us to edit our comments.
This socialist experiment on a level of a country has been tried before, USSR pretty much had it, we had 'the right to work' and thus the 'right to basic income'.
The country does not exist anymore, I don't need even to get into the details of why this is a stupid (but also very importantly immoral) idea from the very beginning. If you think American system will handle it better than the Soviet system, go ahead, run your experiment. I will get a bucket of popcorn and a comfy chair, I want to see this mess happen IRL.
You can't handle the truth.
and now I just posted that twice because it looked like it was broken the first time
wtf is going on with this website today
The best way I think to implement the basic income concept is for the central bank to simply helicopter money a citizen's dividend to everyone in the population. The amount of dividend paid each week should be set to target inflation.
If the economy takes off again and things return to pre-07 levels of employment/growth, then the required dividend will fall to zero, and things will continue as 'normal'. However, if it turns out that automation, the end of consumerism, inequality, or a financial system meltdown, lead to a situation where prices continue to deflate and long term unemployment rises, the central bank will be able to generate consumer demand using the citizen's dividend.
The main benefit of this scheme is that it does not require us to determine whether automation is going to destroy all the jobs, or whether capitalism will magically find new jobs for everyone. If the former turns out to be true, then over time the dividend will grow to be a very live-able payment. If a whole lot of new industries pop up, the dividend will fall and people will have to go out and take up the jobs available in those industries. This is why it is important that the central banks set the rate, not politicians or else it will be impossible to ever reduce the dividend.
The other key thing is that such a scheme does not guarantee the dividend amount can replace all current welfare. I think this is important too. Preventing a stupid stagnation situation where people starve while they and their machines/land sit idle, is a thing I think most people can agree we need to avoid. However, deciding on an appropriate level of income redistribution is something that has been argued about since records began and, as a society, we don't seem any closer to agreement. For that reason I think it is both a pipe dream, and potentially consensus destroying to try to roll a social welfare system into our more acute need - which is a post-automation model for capitalism.
So if that basic monthly paycheck (which isn't going to be a whole lot by NYC standards) isn't enough for you, then you need to pack up and move somewhere cheaper.
That doesn't happen a lot today, so why would it happen under the new regime? People who cannot afford to live where they do now rarely just up and move; they prefer to sit and whine about how the cost of living is too high and there needs to be a higher minimum wage.
But guess what? Now that you have a guaranteed basic monthly income, you have money to move,
If the "basic monthly income" includes moving expenses, then it is already too high. No, people on BMI aren't going to have enough money to move - voluntarily.
the problem is the danger of losing your job and that paycheck, and not finding a new one in the new location. BI solves that.
BMI does nothing to create jobs. It does away with a large amount of consumption, so demands for everything will drop. With no demand, companies that have jobs will have layoffs. Those people will all join the low income BMI folks, buying less and enjoying life less. Saying that BMI solves the employment problem is like promising "if you like you job, you can keep your job."
But the failure of the VC analysis is pretty obvious. "if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that's still a huge net-win,". That assumes that the workers are all creative and creating wealth, and that just isn't going to happen. The guy who goes to work at Mickey D's to be able to afford better pot isn't creating incredible new products or wealth.
As for the other poster who claims that BMI means people won't be trapped by their jobs, well, you're wrong. People who work at a job they like will be trapped in that job just like always. Otherwise, they'll be taking a job just to have a job doing something they don't like. Is that better or worse than doing something you do?
Sure, if you're working just to get a paycheck, it doesn't matter where that is, as long as there is a job there. Even if Beyond Anyplace, Wyoming gets a sudden population increase because the rents are affordable on BMI, that doesn't mean there are going to be enough jobs for everyone who shows up. And, of course, those who have jobs and can afford higher rents will drive the rent up, forcing BMI recipients to go somewhere else.
It's pixie dust and unicorns. It isn't going to work. And it isn't going to get rid of the rich people; they'll just stop working and take the free money. They can live much longer on their bank accounts when the government is given them a guaranteed income to cover the basics.
If you think it's "immoral" to keep people from starving in the streets, then you and I have nothing in common and nothing to talk about. And if you think BI has any resemblance to Soviet-style policies, you're just an idiot.
With the increase in automation, globalization of corporations, outsourcing of jobs, etc, we're going to see (we're getting pretty close already) more than 50% of the US population, permanently unemployed or underemployed. In some countries the numbers will be more dramatic. There are other reasons for this as well, as others have noted. As a 53 year old man, I'm not pleased with the idea that a large portion of my future income might go to increased taxes to support a UBI or like programs but that's not my biggest concern. My biggest concern is what kind of changes will have to be made to our country and form of government in order to support these programs? Things like a UBI cannot be supported by a Constitutional "Democratic" Republic in my opinion. Human nature being what it is, I don't see how it can. What happens when the UBI supported portion of the population exceeds 50%, 60%, 70%? Someone has to pay the way and I don't think that there's enough 1%ers out there to do it all. That and while what's left of the working population is well, working, the population that is not is free to rally and protest for more free stuff. Also, if you are totally provided for by your government, who are you going to vote for comes election time? The folks that promise more free stuff of course. Unfounded concerns? Maybe... I'm really not sure how we should go about actually addressing the issue of permanent unemployment or UBI. I am definitely sure however, that we need to be discussing this now.
That doesn't happen a lot today, so why would it happen under the new regime? People who cannot afford to live where they do now rarely just up and move; they prefer to sit and whine about how the cost of living is too high and there needs to be a higher minimum wage.
They can't afford to move now because they're wage slaves: they can't afford to lose their job because they're living paycheck-to-paycheck and have no money to do anything differently. Of course, you have no comprehension of this because you've never had to live it.
The guy who goes to work at Mickey D's to be able to afford better pot isn't creating incredible new products or wealth.
Nice strawman. It only takes a small minority of people creating hugely successful enterprises (like Harry Potter, written by a woman on welfare) to make the system work for everyone. And Mickey D's isn't going to need many workers in the future because their jobs are being automated, so how exactly do you propose to handle that?
And it isn't going to get rid of the rich people; they'll just stop working and take the free money.
Wow, you anti-BI people are an incredibly stupid lot. I'm sure rich people will be perfectly happy to live on $1k a month in a tiny apartment with roommates...
Well, it sucks to live in a place without rent controls. Sure prices will shift a bit, but by and large necessities are regulated in price where I live, for obvious reasons. Lots of people get free money for various reasons already so it's probably something that goes on already to some degree.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
My biggest problem with guaranteed income is that unless you're some hot shot innovator, you're stuck with only the basic income, unless somehow someone values your "art." In theory, it works well enough domestically, but let's say I dream of moving to Japan, or some expensive US metro area. Unless somehow they agree with all this crap, how will I ever afford being able to move there? I can do so now on an upper middle class salary and time. I doubt a guaranteed income would provide the cash needed to do so, and considering what is hot in today's financial world, there's no fucking chance I can run with the big boys. Are people like me fucked? (Short answer: yes)
All this feels like it does is give the most wealthy the ability to close off the gates to their lifestyle to anybody who doesn't have the foresight to create a "Yo" messaging app.
There are a lot of people out there who are not creative, but very diligent. Me? I can be creative (in an artistic sense), but not nearly enough to generate any revenue independently. I'm pretty intelligent ("gifted program kid" here), but not so much so that I'm going to be revolutionizing the [x] industry. Guess people like me are fucked for having dreams, huh?
This sounds nice on paper, except you still haven't dealt with the problem of those who feel they have the "right" to live there.
Sure I have: they don't have any such right. They have a guaranteed monthly income, and they can spend it how they like. If they can't afford the rent in Manhattan on that, then they'll have to move.
Remember also that New York was one of those states that wanted to justify having unemployment for longer than 99 weeks.
You don't need unemployment with BI, just like you don't need "disability", SNAP, etc. All these social programs are band-aid attempts to fix the problems caused by poverty. Eliminate poverty with a basic income and you don't need them any more.
Exactly.
Now one problem I do see is that a bunch of people are going to whine that the BI isn't enough to pay for their Manhattan apartment, and that they don't want to move because their family is there or whatever, and a bunch of bleeding hearts are going to try to "fix" this somehow. That needs to be fought against. The system won't work if they try to do some BS like giving people in Manhattan some huge BI (too many people will just want to move where the BI is higher, and the cost will be unaffordable, plus it'd drive up rents even more, bringing demands for even-higher BI in high-rent districts).
If you have a desirable skillset, and/or a reserve of cash then absolutely. If however you are unskilled / low skilled and have no savings how would you make the move without taking a huge gamble?
How long do you think the 10% of people who actually work for a living will go on happily slaving away to carry the other 90%? Sooner or later somebody like John Galt (from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", excellent book!) will enter the scene and get the productive people to pull up stumps and leave the other 90% to fend for their useless selves. I wouldn't blame them, either. What a complete joke this Sam Altman is. I guess I'd happily sit at home watching FX, AMC, Showtime, etc, while Sam Altman rakes in the millions from his worthless theories. LOL!
You are trying to claim that we have this perpetual method of generating income without effort, and that wealth can just appear from nothing. Come down from your high loft and explain to us how we get 30K to give to everyone all the time without making that 30K have no value? Are you going to take all of the Gates, Clinton, Zuckerberg, Koch, Murdoch, etc.. etc.. wealth without them looking? Are you expecting them to just give away wealth for a while until they have no more wealth? Okay, and then what happens when the pool is dry?
Open and close your wallet real fast while repeating "there is no thing like wealth" until new wealth appears?
Giving everyone money means that you are taking it from someone else in some way. Inflation does not generate wealth, and that is what giving everyone a perpetual stream of money does. Why now ask the Weimar Republic how that worked out for them.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yes, it is immoral to keep people from starving in the streets with your ideology and BI is not just like a Soviet system, it pretty much is it. In the USSR people didn't pay taxes, there entire idea would have been preposterous, people simply made their pay levels across the country. For a specific stretch of the time you would have seen these pay levels: 19 rubles, 25 rubles, 40 rubles, 60 rubles, 80 rubles, 100 rubles, 120 rubles. 180 rubles, 200 rubles, 360 rubles. That was reality for some time, what did it actually mean? It meant that it doesn't matter, you could be a director, a teacher, a doctor, a factory worker, a construction worker. You had a set salary and you didn't know any other way.
Obviously the reality is that while everybody's productivity was comparatively tiny, everybody's salaries had nothing to do with their productivity. That WAS 'basic income'.
The joke went: we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.
You don't understand anything, you are the idiot, and yes, it is immoral to enslave even one person to keep thousands alive.
You can't handle the truth.
They can't afford to move now because they're wage slaves: they can't afford to lose their job because they're living paycheck-to-paycheck and have no money to do anything differently.
So BMI is going to be less than they're making today and they won't be able to afford it tomorrow, either.
It only takes a small minority of people creating hugely successful enterprises
The VC analysis uses the number "10%" doing this. There aren't 10% doing it today, and there won't be 10% tomorrow, especially when it's only 10% who are working at all. I suppose if 90% of the people are smoking pot all day then anything those 10% do will be "creative" and "hugely successful". Kinda like the old saying that "in the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king."
Wow, you anti-BI people are an incredibly stupid lot.
And you pro-BMI people are insulting and rely on ad hominem too much.
I'm sure rich people will be perfectly happy to live on $1k a month in a tiny apartment with roommates...
I think I already pointed out, they AREN'T GOING TO DO THAT. They'll take the free money and add a bit of their own and live pretty well. Much better than 90% of the people who will be making just $1k/month. You can live pretty well on $3k/month when everyone else is at $1k. That's just $24k/year. A guy with a million in the bank can go 41 YEARS without working another day on that "income", even assuming that his bank account isn't paying any interest at all. And a million in the bank doesn't make someone really rich these days.
And you think that people who make $1/month will have enough money to pick up stakes and move around?
This is an interesting proposal to address the alleged lack of demand in some economies, notably the Euro and Japan, but there is no such issue in the USA or the UK. There's some interesting research that a slug of money is often used very wisely in serious poverty striken communities in the Third World.
However your core failure is to distinguish stock from flow. Stock is the amount in the tanks, flow is what's going in or out. Helicopter money is a change in stocks; basic income is a change in flow to people.
It's amazing. I'm looking at so many posts that have been genuinely convinced the cash parasites are below, that the gaping black maws are beneath, that have no sense of where the country's cash flows.
It's amazing. Someone is born with an extra ten dollar handicap in the hunger games and they think themselves wealthy. The spectators watching you are rolling in wealth in that can't even be put on the same scale as you. They struggle to even gauge it themselves. Only your DNA suggests you're even the same species.
It's amazing. These internet badasses don't even realize they'll collect more than they "lose" on BUI.
Taxes cover welfare programs? You mean we are 19Trillion dollars in debt because taxes are covering our programs? You can't be talking about the US, where we are not able to pay our bills and have a huge amount of debt, growing by about 1Trillion dollars a year. If we cut all of our welfare programs we would still be extremely lopsided in tax revenue/spending
Here is an idea. Instead of repeating crap that you hear from certain politicians, why not take a look at the real world. Use real facts and develop fact based conclusions. People like you who view the world through some crazy kaleidoscope glass have spent the last 30 years telling everyone how great things are if only they could live in that world. It does not work, because that is not the world we live in!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
No, you're a fucking moron if you think Basic Income resembles a command economy with set pay levels. There's no talk in BI of having set pay levels. Are you really that fucking stupid?
And how the fuck is it "enslaving" people to keep people alive? Are you one of those fucking sociopathic morons who thinks taxes = theft? If so, go fuck off with your libertarian insanity and move to Somalia.
Why does every story on slashdot suggest you may like to read the Umpqua shooting story?
It even reflects on many jurisdictions dropping of corporate rates, to encourage investment. Guess what happens, corporations end up stockpiling cash (and who wouldn't in economic hard times). Thus you get the so-called "jobless" recoveries.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I don't have proof that this is universal or even entirely correct, but most people I have known who have been unemployed have quickly wanted work or do something productive to overcome the boredom, even when they have unlimited access to Netflix, YouTube and video games. Even my friend who hates his job recently told me that after a 3 week holiday, he was desperate to get back to work because he was bored. This is just an assumption (although something I'd love to research), but it almost seems like relaxation, e.g. Netflix, video games, etc., is a response to work, balancing out the stress of work with the anti-stress of relaxation. This idea reminds me of a study I saw recently where they found that mice would only prefer cocaine-laced water when they were socially isolated, basically using drugs to counter-act their negative situation. So, perhaps, relaxation in and of itself is not desirable, but rather the balance to the actually more desirable act of productivity. My point being that if you took a random sample of people and paid them enough to live comfortably for doing nothing at all, you might find that a good number of them will still resort to being productive in one way or another. Just a thought. Personally, I'm the creative type so I would gladly give up my well paying job to live off the guaranteed basic income, not because I want to be lazy, but because I want to be creative without constraints. If all went well, it would effectively lead to me being self employed. Of course, it's debatable as to whether that is an abuse of the system, or considered a terrible waste of tax-payer money, or if it's actually the type of productivity this article praises. All I know is that I would be happier AND contributing to society.
So BMI is going to be less than they're making today and they won't be able to afford it tomorrow, either.
They'll be able to afford it tomorrow because they don't have to worry about losing their fucking paycheck!! Holy shit, are you really this stupid?
The VC analysis uses the number "10%" doing this. There aren't 10% doing it today, and there won't be 10% tomorrow, especially when it's only 10% who are working at all.
There's only 10% creating real wealth. Most people's "work" is just make-work, or will be automated away shortly.
And you pro-BMI people are insulting and rely on ad hominem too much.
Well maybe if you didn't spout such stupidity, I wouldn't have to point out what morons you people are.
You can live pretty well on $3k/month when everyone else is at $1k.
Not if you want to drive a Ferrari or live in an exclusive place like next to Central Park or in Hawaii. What makes you think rich people are going to give up on wanting those things and be happy with a measly $3k/month?
A guy with a million in the bank can go 41 YEARS without working another day on that "income",
So what's stopping that guy from doing that *right now*?
Unfortunately, it's a little more complicated than that. Someone was smoking when they made their statement.
Another completely ignorant tool who has never ever read the Manifesto telling people how Marxism is pro laborer. Here is a hint, when the State has to keep a boot on the worker the workers do not control the labor. When the state has to abolish everything that pleases the worker to make them all the same, it's not the laborer controlling the system. When the state has to confiscate and re-distribute everything of value the laborer does not control the system.
Read the fucking book instead of repeating the summary someone wanted you to have.
And no, you have not read it.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games, but if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that's still a huge net-win,"
His claim is plain ridiculous. If 90% of the population didn't work civilization would crumble. There would literally be global level starvation and wars for basic resources as economies around the globe crumbled.
I'm the first to criticize the crazy right these days... however there is an extreme left element too. Some leftists seem to have forgotten the horrors of communism. A free lunch sure is nice but if we start giving too much power to the state everyone will suffer. Wealth does not grow on trees. It is created through effort. If we don't apply effort as a species we will regress back into savages. Period.
This gives a very different figure
http://www.ukpublicspending.co...
Pensions are not going into the pot - you've got to spread the welfare figure over the whole of the 18-66 age group; the local government figures are the ones that are still going to be spent - they don't make cash payments but are services to the elderly and disabled, which they won't be able to afford out of their basic income, and the fraught issue of housing; £280 is barely enough for rent in most areas, let alone to replace all welfare payments, but you're probably proposing half that from welfare deletions. To be fair you've got the impact of the disappearance of the income tax and capital gains tax thresholds, which might get you back up to £280 - but that assumes all welfare income recipients only receive basic income.
So that's why the Economist's figures are rather better than yours...
in order to better yourself you need to take risks
In order to become famous, notably wealthy, a successful entrepreneur, or an unsuccessful entrepreneur, you need to take risks. In order to become a reasonably comfortable anonymous middle-class person, you need to play it safe. (To stay in school is to play it safe.)
Every new technology has created more jobs than it has destroyed. Technologies that were minorly disruptive were minor net creators of jobs. Technologies that were hugely disruptive were huge net creators of jobs. Predict a pessimistic deviation from that paradigm at your own peril.
We don't "let them starve" now, and a failure to implement Sam Altman's idea does not constitute "letting them starve" in the future.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
If that were true no one on wellfare/disability/social security would live in any expensive city. They'd just move somewhere inexpensive and get wellfare there.
Or let's say people don't move because they get so much more wellfare/etc that they don't leave New York. Let's say with a basic income we'd just disperse everyone from major cities into the midwest and evenly distribute the population over the us.
What are the long term social, political and economic ramifications of that? Large cities are enormous engines of growth.
Not in the upside down "strict liability" world we live in.
Well, hell let's make the basic income $1M, think of the taxes we can collect on those incomes!
"Want $x a month for luxuries, and have 160 hours of free time a month? Find a job that nets $x/160 per hour."
What's stopping you from doing that now?
Or let's say people don't move because they get so much more wellfare/etc that they don't leave New York.
I think this is the case. They get more benefits in NYC, and if they move to Wyoming, they'd likely get little to nothing. Different states run their social services very differently, after all. So I think part of it is the disparity in programs at different locations, and part due to "enablement" of policies helping them stay there, such as rent controls, Section 8 vouchers, etc.
What are the long term social, political and economic ramifications of that? Large cities are enormous engines of growth.
They are. But is it really helping the city by having a bunch of people who are doing the minimum occupy valuable space there? I don't think so. People who want to do more than the minimum so they can stay there will: they'll work so they can afford to remain there, for whatever reasons they have. People who want to collect the minimum and smoke pot and play video games all day long won't: they'll be forced to move out, and honestly I'm not too broken up about that. They'll still be taken care of with their BI, but somewhere else. Real estate is a limited, scarce resource and aside from building ever-taller buildings, there isn't anything that'll change that.
As for other long-term ramifications? There's no way to know that for sure without actually doing it, but I think it'll be a net positive. I think it'll free up room for people who will benefit from being in the city (or closer to work), and in turn benefit the city and others in it. And I think it'll benefit society overall by reducing stagnation, by getting some people to move around more. In addition to all the other BI benefits of course.
In reality, most likely all the poor people from NYC would not disperse into rural Nebraska or wherever. Most people don't like to move that far, especially if they have any family. But they'll probably disperse farther from the city center, maybe even go a few hours away. Someone in NYC, for instance, could probably live far more cheaply in upstate NY somewhere, and still be close enough to visit on the weekends. There might be more people moving to small towns because they don't absolutely need jobs to pay the rent any more, and can instead live someplace cheap and work part-time to make ends meet and live better than they did before.
Someone above complained "We should instead be upset at "the richest 100 families", who IMO have been causing so many problems."
As if somehow taking care of them would solve the problems. So I tried to show how we can solve that problem, but it doesn't really do much except punitively eliminate the wealth of the top 400 richest people in the country.
Then I was further trying to show the depths to which very high taxation would actually have to reach to cover the stipend for everyone, because it seemed to me that some proponents think we can just tax a few rich people--get the 1% to "pay their fair share" and viola, magic money for everyone to be happy ever after.
The amount of money needed means punitive and confiscatory levels of taxation for everyone in the upper half, forever. You essentially create a maximum income of about $200,000. There's no disincentive in that is there?
It also eliminates the need for a minimum wage which alleviates a lot of pressure on small and fledgling businesses. This is how you bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.
That is a very significant observation.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Your little example is extremely superficial. You boil the idea of UBI down so far that whats left doesn't resemble a real UBI system.
I don't want to write a huge post pointing out the innumerable flaws of such a simple representation as that you've given, so we'll just do a single point. YES, of course taxes are going to go up. UBI is essentially wealth redistribution with a prettier name. Taxes are a huge part of that entire idea. But the way they go up makes all the difference in the world.
Almost every UBI system is accompanied by something resembling proportional taxation. Meaning, as you make more, you pay more. For some small amount over or equal to the UBI, you pay no taxes, and they rise from there. At some (current) middle-class-equivalent income is a break even point; you are effective paying an additional tax equal to the amount of the UBI you are receiving. Up to this point, everyone has more actual income than they did previous.
Beyond this point, everyone starts paying more in increased taxes than they are receiving from the new UBI. The top 1% of American's own 35% of the money, the top 20% own 85%. The bottom 60% own less than 5%. We are talking about covering the ownership of the bottom 50%--LESS THAN 5% of the US wealth--and even then the the actual portion of the UBI that needs paid for decreases as it approaches that break-even half-way mark.
I know, all the numbers jumbled together might be a little confusing, but think about this. Even if you just cut everything else away and said, "Look, the top 20% of the wealthy need to go ahead and pay a living wage to the lower 60%." All that means in numbers is that the top 20% would now own 80% (or even 75% if you want to literally double quality of life) instead of 85%. Big frickin deal. They get to have only 9 Mazeratis instead of 10.
If people are so greedy that half the population won't sacrifice 10% of their wealth or less to ensure the other half don't stay awake at night wondering where their next meal will come from, well, I'm just not sure that is really such a great nation.
If being able to sit on your ass all day leads to creating great new products, then why don't we see millions of new products coming from retired people?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It's just you that gets that suggestion... must be based on your browser history. I just get suggestions for stories about internet dating...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
To buy supplies to create the first products for sale, Wozniak sold his HP 65 Calculator for $500 and Jobs sold his VW bus for $750.
They couldn't afford a single idea that failed either. But they took the risk anyway.
A quick search for rags-to-riches stories (e.g. Oprah) will turn up a common factor: they all took huge risks when there was no margin for error.
A basic income providing a poverty-line lifestyle is almost certainly not going to change your risk tolerance. But if you say so...
A basic income actually has lots of support among libertarians because it would be far more efficient than the myriad welfare schemes that we have now and because the governmental social engineering that accompanies those schemes would be eliminated.
You have more in common with us than you think so there's no need to hurl insults.
Yes, it is immoral to keep people from starving in the streets.
I simply can't fathom how ensuring everyone has equal access to a dignified life with basic food, clothing and shelter could possibly be immoral. You'll either have to try to explain how that is or accept that your morals differ wildly from many people here.
In the USSR people didn't pay taxes. . . . People simply made their pay levels across the country.
Under a BI system,
It meant that it doesn't matter, you could be a director, a teacher, a doctor, a factory worker, a construction worker. You had a set salary and you didn't know any other way.
This is not how a BI system works. Everyone gets the same monthly BI stipend simply for being alive. Beyond that, each person is free to work—or not—as many jobs for whatever salary they can negotiate with their employer. Doctors will still make more than janitors, but the latter will be much more free to pick up and move, start a new career, or even start a business than they are now.
What was that sound? Did I just hear a massive, simultaneous erection from the libertarians out there? :)
Obviously the reality is that while everybody's productivity was comparatively tiny, everybody's salaries had nothing to do with their productivity. That WAS 'basic income'.
That's not basic income at all. It runs totally counter to BI as I explained above.
Yes, it is immoral to enslave even one person to keep thousands alive.
It's not slavery as anyone is free to pack up and move to a new society if they choose. Or just collect your damn check and smoke pot all day. We already pay taxes for societal goods, and much of that is wasted administering all these disparate needs-based programs. Not paying for the programs; paying administrators to perform assessments to approve or deny claims. All that waste would be freed up for the public good, and people wouldn't have to submit to such degrading invasions of their privacy.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
I pretty sure he's saying that he's been working at a back-breaking job for $32k, so his lifestyle is based on making $32k. Offer him $30k without any work requirement, and he's probably willing to forgo the $2k difference. He's used to living on that amount of money, and now will have plenty of free time. He's saying he is probably unwilling to continue to work a backbreaking job, even if it essentially doubled his income. Why bother if his lifestyle is unaffected by not working?
Assuming his job needed to be done--it probably did because someone was paying him $32k for doing it--his former employer is going to have to significantly increase the wages for that job just to entice someone to do it. Face it, people qualified for a $32K back-breaking job usually do not want that job. And those costs will get passed on to customers.
More pollution and more trash are by products of people using more resources.
I've seen visual proof that is false. Over the past 20 years, the sky over Denver has become much less smoggy, even as resource consumption increased. Why? R&D departments, funded by capitalists, developed internal combustion engines that burn fuel more completely.
Socialism tries to make it capitalism more efficient
A generous description of socialism is that it seeks to address social ills in the short term, at the expense of economic growth that would provide a more sustainable way of addressing those ills in the long term. (A less generous description is that socialists get off on exercising control over the fruits of others' labor.)
Owners of capital naturally seek the highest possible return on their capital. And high-return-on-investment endeavors, by definition, create more and better jobs than low-return-on-investment endeavors. So it is axiomatic that when government coercively directs capital into endeavors other than those that capitalists would choose, fewer jobs are created than otherwise would be. (Providing for the national defense is an exception. Building roads and bridges is not an exception.)
If you want people to have healthcare capitalism will always fail at that.
Another easily-disproven assertion. Over the decades before purchasing health insurance became mandatory, the number of uninsured people dropped drastically. Why? Economic growth, caused by capitalism, gave more and more employers the means to provide this benefit (and it gave governments a lot of additional tax revenue, enabling the creation of Medicaid and Medicare for citizens who don't work). As such, capitalism caused a huge, organic decrease in the number of uninsured people. Allowing this trend to continue for a few more decades certainly would have made health insurance universal, with minimal coercion.
It's claimed that the non-free-market tinkering of the "Affordable Care Act" has accelerated the decrease in the number of uninsured people. If true, it happened in a coercive, very non-organic way that certainly puts a dent in economic growth -- and $101 trillion in unfunded liabilities make me pessimistic that the approach is sustainable.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
You don't need unemployment with BI, just like you don't need "disability", SNAP, etc. All these social programs are band-aid attempts to fix the problems caused by poverty. Eliminate poverty with a basic income and you don't need them any more.
That's interesting because you didn't address the underlying concern, while at the same time bringing up a new one.
According to your theory, people will just leave these expensive places once they don't have a job tying them there, yet obviously that's not true at all because we're seeing people live there for very long periods without a job, relying solely on free money to get by. Furthermore, if everybody is going to make as much as everybody who is retired or disabled, then what happens when the real estate cost is driven up above what people already living there on a fixed income can afford?
NANCY PELOSI: Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance or that people could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risk, but not job loss because of a child with asthma or someone in the family is bipolar—you name it, any condition—is job locking.
This is the world you're supposing will exist.
When I saw what she had said I thought to myself: "I've always wanted to be a professional basketball player, but was held back by a lack of health insurance. Obamacare is going to let me live my dream of being a professional basketball player." I told my friends and family that, and they laughed. I said if Nancy says people can feel safe pursuing their dreams of being an artist or a poet, why can't I play professional basketball?
Now it seems that the real thing stopping me from being a professional basketball player is a lack of a basic income forcing me to be a wage slave.
Really? It's not my complete and utter lack of height and skill? It's not that no one in their right mind would ever want to pay to see me play basketball?
I took some solace when I realized that it costs almost nothing to put up a hoop in my driveway and play anyway even if I'm a shitty basketball player who could never survive on my basketball-related wages. Just like it costs almost nothing to write poems or paint pictures even if you're a shitty poet or painter turning out shitty poems and shitty art that no one would ever pay money for. Artists create art for arts sake.
relative to the effort needed to earn it?
I could work a second job to make even more money than I make now. Why don't I? Because it's not worth it to me to trade more of my free time for more money.
You are the fucking moron. BI leads to a command economy because it is irrelevant what the minimum amount that everybody is going to be getting at the base, that amount will have 0 purchasing power, that will be the floor that will provide nothing at all and in order for it to provide something prices and wages will have to be controlled, there is no way around that economic certainty. You are the moron who sees no further than 0.000000000000001nm beyond his own nose, you are a complete idiot, nincompoop and also completely and totally irredeemably immoral at that. Enslaving even one individual for the expressed purpose of using that slave labour to ensure life or survival of any number of unproductive individuals is absolutely and irredeemably immoral.
You can't handle the truth.
If you think it's "immoral" to keep people from starving in the streets, then you and I have nothing in common and nothing to talk about. And if you think BI has any resemblance to Soviet-style policies, you're just an idiot.
Actually one of the interesting things about the USSR was how they talked about how they had no poor people there. What's interesting is there are lots of stories of people who escaped the USSR who were literally in tears once they realized just how bad they had it while they lived there, and feeling equally bad about the relatives they had to leave behind to live in that shit.
One time an exchange student came to visit my uncle, and the first time he took her to a store to buy school supplies, she was awe stricken by how many choices of pens and other materials there were (there's only one model of everything in the USSR, and you're told that it's the best, such as the Trabant.) She literally thought that they had put on an elaborate show for her to impress her, something which a lot of Warsaw countries would do for foreign guests from wealthier countries to try to convince them that communist life is just awesome.
She also refused to smile most of the time, because in the USSR if you were smiling or otherwise happy, you were definitely standing out from the rest of the crowd, which was a good way to paint a KGB target on your back. For literally no reason at all, you'd just disappear and nobody would ever hear from or about you again.
The people damaged by the release of the Panama Papers aren't Americans.
Conspiracists say that's because a pro-American entity engineered their release. But could it be that capitalism is practiced a little more ideally in the U.S.? (After all, isn't it incongruous that 68 billionaires live in Moscow, while Russia's per-capita GDP is only $14,600?)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
everyone pays taxes—even people who don't work,
That doesn't make any sense. If I pay you $100 and take back $99, how much am I really giving you?
This is not how a BI system works. Everyone gets the same monthly BI stipend simply for being alive. Beyond that, each person is free to work—or not—as many jobs for whatever salary they can negotiate with their employer.
So does that mean you get more money if you have kids? I can think of a few ways that this would get abused. In fact I already know how a similar system is already abused in the US.
Yes, under some circumstances government must inflate the money supply to prevent deflation, and under other circumstances government must tighten the money supply to prevent inflation. I get that.
However, the Fed actively targets 2% annual inflation, and I don't really buy their explanation. When sellers have to go around marking up their prices by, on average, 2% per year, that doesn't seem like a productive use of their time and effort.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I don't think that's going to be the case. Americans don't particularly like manufacturing jobs because they're very tedious and repetitive. In economics there's a concept known as an opportunity cost. Suppose line work is only worth about $3 an hour (though realistically probably less.) Is it really worth it to you to spend 40 hours a week doing shit that you really don't like doing for only $6k a year above your existing $20k a year? (Or whatever this basic income amounts to.) I really doubt it, I think most people would just opt to take a permanent vacation, which is an opportunity cost decision they're making, as that extra $6k per year isn't really going to improve their quality of life much.
$6k a year goes a LOT further in China than it does here though, so it's more worthwhile for them to do that kind of work there. In addition to that, the fact that everybody would have a basic income in the US means that over time Americans will value their money even less.
The more I think about it, the more I think basic income is a horrible idea, which is mainly motivated by people thinking that just the fact that you're alive means you have the right to take anything you want without having to give anything up for it.
If you don't have the skills necessary to get a high-paying job, a basic income won't do a thing to change that.
If you do have the ability to command a high-paying job, there's not a thing stopping you from getting one today. A basic income won't change that.
The guy above made it sound so easy "Want $x a month for luxuries, and have 160 hours of free time a month? Find a job that nets $x/160 per hour." And that's true today: want a job that pays x? go out and find one. Basic income or not, if you have highly-valued skills, you will almost always be highly compensated. Basic income or not, if you have common skills, you will almost never make more than common wages.
That doesn't make any sense. If I pay you $100 and take back $99, how much am I really giving you?
That was my first thought as well, that it would be more efficient to skip taxing people who didn't work extra. However, it's probably more efficient to simply collect a flat tax for everyone. It's about eliminating the waste of needs-assessment and different scales. I'm no expert of course, and this is something that will be tested out in different countries to find an optimum. Obviously the BI and tax would have to be chosen so the after-tax BI actually covered the basics as intended.
So does that mean you get more money if you have kids? I can think of a few ways that this would get abused. In fact I already know how a similar system is already abused in the US.
The proposal I read about most provided a smaller BI for each child and elderly adult in the household. Yes, this will be abused by some, but it's blown way out of proportion today anyway. And being able to cover the basics and work to increase that without losing those basics will hopefully alleviate much of the impetus to cheat the system. I suspect most people who would be tempted to do that would prefer to play video games than raise more kids.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Also I like how you call Basic Income "simple" yet you haven't even addressed even the most basic issues that it will cause, such as perpetual hyperinflation. And no, you don't need to print money to cause inflation, simply taking it away from some source who has a lot of it (be that a person, multiple persons, or entities) and then flooding the economy with it will do the trick. And that's exactly what this whole plan proposes doing. It all has to do with the supply of money, which if somebody is storing it or otherwise "hoarding" as the term people like you like to use, then you're keeping the money supply down, even if it's done artificially. If you create an abundant supply of anything you can think of, people invariably value it less, which is exactly what inflation is.
The industrial revolution resulted in HUGE unemployment for at least two generations. The results were a disaster, even for those employed (because of the offer/demand gap, wages plummeted).
And still, the system did not fix itself "automagically". The conflicts produced by the new position of labour caused the rise of socialism and unionism and a result in restrictions to address the issue, like the 5 days week.
We *could* let the system cause disasters and try to wait for society and its conflicts to fix them. Or we could plan ahead and try to minimize the damage. It's not that the industrial (or the cognitive/AI) revolution ought to be prevented. Just that we can plan and modify the system accordingly because it's not a left wing think tank, but the very Forrester group that is saying that a very significant part of the jobs in the service industry will disappear soon. We can do better than wait two generations of misery for the system to fix itself.
yet obviously that's not true at all because we're seeing people live there for very long periods without a job, relying solely on free money to get by.
That's because they're getting *too much* free money right now, because it's indexed to location, and it treats people unequally. People on Section 8 can get a really ridiculous amount of money to go rent a house (not an apartment, a nice-sized house). The system is entirely unfair: some people are able to get a lot of largesse (like women with kids), while others can't get squat (like a 30yo guy with no kids).
Furthermore, if everybody is going to make as much as everybody who is retired or disabled
Which isn't very much; how many times do I have to point out that this is a *****BASIC***** income? Disabled people can usually work too, and retirement is a choice.
then what happens when the real estate cost is driven up above what people already living there on a fixed income can afford?
Then they move out, just like they do right now. Retired people are frequently forced out of places because either the rent is too high, or if they own their home outright, they can no longer afford the property taxes.
Remember, they passed an amendment to the California constitution to try to deal with people's property taxes forcing them out, and now we have the mess in the Bay Area.
Personally, I think the whole property tax issue is a mess and that it should probably be eliminated in favor of only income taxes, but it's a complicated issue. The point is, no one is guaranteed the right to stay someplace, even today. It sucks if you've lived there a long time and you're retired, but capping their taxes means everyone else gets shafted, or the property is put under corporate ownership so the corporation can be bought and sold.
Oh please. This isn't creating an "abundant supply" of new money, it's just moving around, largely by eliminating existing social programs and letting people manage their money themselves instead of being chased around to see if they're "cheating", and the balance being made up with progressive taxation. For people in the middle, it'll be a wash: they'll be taxed more than now, but then the BI will make up for it so the net will be the same. For people making a lot, boo hoo, they'll have to cut back and not buy a new Rolls every year. And finally, this is a ***BASIC*** income. I don't understand why I have to keep repeating this, but apparently I do. It's enough to squeak by on with a crappy apartment with roommates and some basics from the grocery store. If the economy can't handle people being able to live in crappy apartments and buy spaghetti in the pasta aisle, then we have really serious problems.
This plan would rule out chicken nuggets and strippers. I'm out.
Well, if you have no job at all and you only get a tiny BI check, you don't think you're going to want to trade some of your now abundant free time for more money?
I don't know about you, but I don't really like the idea of living with roommates in a crappy apartment and not being able to afford going out to eat let alone travel internationally, so I'd go get a job. If you're so lazy that you'd rather sit around and smoke pot all the time, well I don't know what to say.
Sorry, not trying to insult you, only the Ayn Rand koolaid drinkers.
The way I see it, there's two kinds of libertarians. The reasonable ones, and the sociopathic assholes like Roman Mir who think things like roads should be all privatized.
You're right, BI does have a lot of support among the reasonable libertarians for the reasons you state. I also happen to agree with those reasons. Additionally, it gives people the *liberty* to live their life more how they please instead of being stuck as a wage slave, and not having to deal with government social engineering as you pointed out. However, as you can see with Roman Mir, BI does *not* have any support among that crowd, because they don't want any kind of taxation or government services at all.
Socialist redistribution is not voluntary.
You're confusing love making with rape.
Liberty.
But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
One of the primary reasons a basic income may be necessary in the near future is we will have machines to flip burgers, AIs to drive garbage trucks, and kiosks along with RFID chips to replace cashiers. While not guaranteed, there is a real possibility that the vast majority of jobs could become obsolete.
As for jobs that likely won't be automated, like police officers, the pay will simply match what is necessary to motivate people to work. Just like today.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Regardless of how you initially implement it, you're going to cause problems.
1) If you set basic income to what it takes to survive in rural america then the people in LA/NY are not going to be able to survive and/or will all leave and the big cities will come crashing down.
2) If you set basic income to what it takes to survive in NY then a large percentage of people in rural america would be better off just sitting at home which will cause rural america to crash
3) If you try to make cost of living adjustments then you cause all sorts of other problems and it's more open to manipulation by politicians.
#1 is still probably the best. I believe that is how social security currently is where you get the same amount regardless of whether you live in NY/LA or rural america.
Just give me all your money you asshole.
I see the Tax return as a manifestation of the basic income for decades.
We all get a basic 'tax credit' based on our family, occupation, living conditions, or health applied to our Taxes. In some cases we are owed credit ( Tax Return ) or we need to contribute. ( Pay more Taxes )
It's a clever method to double our taxation while only applying to the small percentage of the budget to welfare and apply the rest to whatever the congress critters want.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Oh please. This isn't creating an "abundant supply" of new money, it's just moving around, largely by eliminating existing social programs and letting people manage their money themselves instead of being chased around to see if they're "cheating", and the balance being made up with progressive taxation. For people in the middle, it'll be a wash: they'll be taxed more than now, but then the BI will make up for it so the net will be the same. For people making a lot, boo hoo, they'll have to cut back and not buy a new Rolls every year.
I like how you decided by yourself what quality of life others should have, like you've got it all figured out and everybody should trust you because you know best, and everybody else is wrong. How very Communist Party of you.
And finally, this is a ***BASIC*** income. I don't understand why I have to keep repeating this, but apparently I do. It's enough to squeak by on with a crappy apartment with roommates and some basics from the grocery store.
Probably because this is a very vague description. Most of my life has literally been spent living a life below the poverty line, and yet I've never felt poor. I've always had food, and I've always had an abundance of luxury items (before I got serious work, I had a flagship grade smartphone, a 47" tv, a really nice computer, a laptop, and a used Lexus LS400) and I made at most about $12k a year, and I otherwise only relied upon myself for everything I had. This is quite possible to do in Phoenix, Arizona, even to this day, so long as you wisely spend your money. Things like hitting bars on weekends isn't cheap and thus isn't wise.
Yet you can't do that everywhere, so you're going to need to be far more specific.
Now, knowing the politics of people of your persuasion, they typically define the concept of a living wage (which is silly for reasons I'm not going to get into here) but in California and New York, it's currently fashionable to define that as making $15 an hour at 40 hours a week. That means $31,200 a year. But since you clearly have everything already figured out, because after all, you said under no uncertain terms that Basic Income is simple, I'll let you describe how somebody is supposed to make live like you described both in Phoenix Arizona (which happens to be only slightly below the national average cost of living) and in New York. Also keep in mind that once you do this basic income thing, you need to account for how you're going to be driving up rent costs in the more affluent areas like New York City.
#1 makes no sense. People survive in big cities now because they work for a living. That isn't going to magically change with a BI, but you probably can expect a bunch of non-working people to migrate out of the cities. I don't see that as a problem. Big cities aren't going to "come crashing down" because a bunch of non-working people decided to leave and spend their BI in a small town somewhere. If anything, this should be better for both places: big cities will have real estate freed up from people who'd rather live someplace cheaper because they aren't being enabled by some locally-administered social program to stay there, and small towns which are currently becoming ghost towns would become revitalized to an extent.
I like how you decided by yourself what quality of life others should have, like you've got it all figured out and everybody should trust you because you know best, and everybody else is wrong. How very Communist Party of you.
You sound just like Roman Mir and the other Ayn Rand cultists who think there should be any taxes. Or worse that somehow advanced nations like Denmark with high taxes on rich people are somehow "Communist". How very stupid of you.
I'll let you describe how somebody is supposed to make live like you described both in Phoenix Arizona (which happens to be only slightly below the national average cost of living) and in New York.
I've already explained in this thread that BI would not be indexed to local cost-of-living. If the BI isn't enough for you to afford to stay in Manhattan without working, then you'll have to move or get a job. This isn't hard.
yet obviously that's not true at all because we're seeing people live there for very long periods without a job, relying solely on free money to get by.
That's because they're getting *too much* free money right now, because it's indexed to location, and it treats people unequally. People on Section 8 can get a really ridiculous amount of money to go rent a house (not an apartment, a nice-sized house). The system is entirely unfair: some people are able to get a lot of largesse (like women with kids), while others can't get squat (like a 30yo guy with no kids).
Furthermore, if everybody is going to make as much as everybody who is retired or disabled
Which isn't very much; how many times do I have to point out that this is a *****BASIC***** income? Disabled people can usually work too, and retirement is a choice.
You're being extremely inconsistent here. You said we're going to remove things like disability and replace it with basic income. Yet disability pays enough that most people can continue living at least in the general area where they've always lived, including in more affluent areas, which is especially important for people who are disabled or retired to live near long time friends or family members. But you're then saying that basic income shouldn't pay enough that somebody could get by in those high cost areas, so in other words those folks will now have to move away from the life that they've known once they become disabled, and have to just assume that wherever they go they'll find help and support. And that of course being up to and including being blind, quadriplegic, making work practically impossible.
And then of course, we still need to plant a dollar figure on top of it all. After all, you said that somebody should live a really crummy life on this income, but at least have a place to live. Yet the cost difference in that life from one region to another is HUGELY different. And again, when this plan takes effect, (which it won't given how really poorly thought out and blindly ideological it already is) you're also ignoring the upward pressure it will place on the cost of property ownership and/or rent.
So you can sit at home and make 5k/month or work and make 5.3k/month
Sounds like communism. Crummy housing is guaranteed, and you work for low wages
When the stoners get the munchies at midnight and they want to score some Taco Bell or Dominos - who are the working idiot chumps that will be serving them?
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
People are dumb shits when it comes to basic income.
1. Work your ass off for a few years.
2. Buy one of those houses nobody can afford on Basic Income.
3. Suddenly, you don't have to work if you play it smart, because you have money for food, upkeep and property taxes.
4. Enjoy retirement at the ripe old age of 35.
5. ???
6. Get committed to a mental institution because sitting on your ass with nothing to do is a hell of a lot worse than it sounds.
Who cares what words mean, I feel teh Bern. He said Socialism is good, so it has to be true. He also has been quoted as saying bread lines are good, those people in poverty need to suffer on occasion. BERNIE!
Marie Antoinette reportedly said, 'Qu'ils mangent la brioche.' ... they should use alternate sources, in this case, the highly refined (cake) flour that was being saved off for herself and her family.
Nonsense. While Marie Antoinette never said anything of the sort, the phrase was maliciously attributed to her and others, to make her appear out of touch.
And its the eggs and butter that make cake, or brioche, not the grade of flour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Shake your head and tape a nickel to it, your brain is skipping!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If the borders don't get closed and nothing happens to the 11.5million illegal workers you still have zero bargaining power as a worker. I hope you are not stupid enough to believe they are here so that a couple rich people can have maids, when the real damage is a huge section of the population forced to work for low wages. Sadly many people _are_ stupid enough to believe that shit.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If it results in leaving people ambivalent about whether they should work, that's an improvement. The current state of affairs highly disincentivizes work for anyone on most of the many social welfare programs, by revoking benefits by the amount they work, thus ensuring they see no benefits from work and feel like a slave and give it up.
This space intentionally left blank
Perhaps, in considering a basic income, we could learn something from Alaska's permanent fund dividend. Every citizen gets ~$2K a year... except, apparently anyone convicted of a felony during the past year. A basic income would need to be about 4 or 5 times that amount but the mechanisms and economic impacts can be instructive -- for example, the way increased spending by low-income residents in a year with a large dividend boosts (or fails to boost) the local economy.
This space intentionally left blank
I found some statistics to back up what I told you.
In 1900, approximately 100% of Americans were uninsured against hospital and medical expenses. By 1987, that odious number had dropped precipitously, to only 13%. (Source: Census Bureau Annual Social and Economic Supplements)
The robust economic growth associated with capitalism is the only factor that enabled this astounding triumph. (Yes, even those covered by Medicare and Medicaid can thank capitalism. Without it, there would have been insufficient tax revenue to create those programs.) Who, with any ability to put things in perspective and apply critical thinking to leftist propaganda, would not want to keep that winning streak going?
On the other hand, to the extent that a country heartily embraces socialism, the results are disastrous. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, repeated economic crises required the ruble to be revalued as follows:
- The original Soviet ruble had become so worthless that the second Soviet ruble was worth 10,000 of them.
- The third Soviet ruble was worth 1e6 of them. (Switching to scientific notation for obvious reasons.)
- The fourth Soviet ruble was worth 5e10 of them.
- The fifth Soviet ruble was worth 5e11 of them. (This revaluation was intended to prevent peasants who had saved money from buying consumer goods. Ah, the workers' paradise!)
- The sixth Soviet ruble was worth 5e12 of them.
- The seventh Soviet ruble was worth 5e13 of them.
- We're not done. The "unembracing" of socialism was a necessary but painful transition for Russia. All incarnations of the Soviet ruble had become so worthless that the "new ruble" of 1 January 1998 was worth 5e16 (yes, 50 quadrillion) original Soviet rubles.
In 1992 -- after socialism had had 75 years to spread its disincentive effects throughout Soviet society -- the GDP of the vast and technically proficient Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had been reduced to about the same magnitude as tiny Denmark's.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Not to mention states are always free to supplement BI if they want to keep people there. It's a local concern then, and can be decided at the state level.
The problem is, minimum rent automatically rises to about 90% of whatever this amount will be, regardless of how crappy the place is, because the owner knows the person will receive X dollars every month.
The same thing happens now with welfare. Welfare amount gets raised, rent magically gets raised that month as well, by the same amount.
And you won't be able to 'save' money by sharing a place. Two people, that will be 90% of two peoples income.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
"Idealist capitalism"
Thanks for the laugh! Too bad with all the coffee spilled over my entire desktop!
I htink we were collectively distracted by the poor term "the 1%". The actual 1%, the moderately wealthy, the successful doctors and dentists and lawyers and small business owners, they aren't the issue here. The 1% aren't the people in the Panama Papers.
We should instead be upset at "the richest 100 families", who IMO have been causing so many problems. In some ways, the difference between "ideal capitalism" and "capitalism as practiced in the US" is the difference between the 1% and the richest 100 families.
I wouldn't limit this to the US.
http://www.msn.com/en-in/money...
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
First, the basic income replaces a lot of other programs, so it isn't as expensive as it looks. It's far cheaper to administer than welfare programs. Second, we raise taxes to cover the rest. Everybody's taxable income goes up.
Which would require a tax overhaul that the rich and the corporations will fight, lobby against and, failing that, move their wealth and themselves to a more 'tax friendly' country.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
You and Arthur Laffer have both provided cogent descriptions of the same thing: the "Poverty Trap."
when those in poverty do go to work, they are effectively subject to extra, higher, marginal tax rates. Since welfare is phased out as income rises, the loss of benefits is economically the same as a tax on rising earnings.
Take the example of someone in poverty who receives $12,000 a year in welfare benefits and gets an offer for a job earning $16,000 a year.
- She will lose 50 cents in benefits for every dollar earned, an effective 50 percent tax that takes away $8,000 of her earnings.
- The payroll tax will take another 7.65 percent of earnings, federal income taxes another 10 percent at the margin, and state income taxes roughly another 5 percent at the margin, on the average.
- That leaves an effective marginal tax rate of 72.65 percent, leaving little incentive for the poor to work.
Art Laffer and Steve Moore call this "The Poverty Trap." Laffer examined the total effect of all needs tests and taxes affecting an inner-city family of four on welfare in Los Angeles. He found that the poor sometimes faced the highest marginal tax rates of all income groups. The family in his analysis, earning wages between zero and $1,300 per month, faced marginal tax rates ranging from 53 percent to a high of 314 percent. When the family's monthly wages increased from $1,000 to $1,100 per month, they lost $214 in spendable income. A 1995 Urban Institute study by Linda Ginnarelli and Eugene Steuerle confirmed these results, finding that the poor faced effective marginal tax rates of 70 percent to 101 percent. A more recent NCPA study by Laurence Kotlikoff and Jagadeesh Gokhale found that a low-income couple earning 1.5 times the minimum wage per hour moving from part-time to full-time work would lose an astonishing $1.06 for every extra dollar they earn.
I don't see anyone on the left who has nearly as much insight into this problem as you and Art Laffer do. Read more about how to eliminate the "Poverty Trap" here: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ib143 {Hint: the solution is not a violent revolution.}
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
Speak of rent, I'm wondering how advocates of basic income intend to deal with people outbidding one another for property. The reason that places like New York or San Francisco are so expensive is because lots of people are essentially outbidding one another on rent or property, putting upward pressure on the prices. Now, think about how adding that much more income to their spending power is going to impact that. What happens when the rent then exceeds what somebody on this basic income can afford?
I know what you're thinking: Price controls, or maybe even go Karl Marx and just seize their property in the name of humanity and give it away. You still haven't solved the ultimate problem that an economy ultimately sorts out: How you allocate scarce resources. Land, and by extension, real estate, is a finite resource. There's only so many people that you can squeeze into New York City. So how do you decide who gets to live there and who doesn't? Some people talk about how they have a right to live in New York City, no matter how much rent costs. That's fine, but what are you going to do when people who think they have the right to live there exceeds the population capacity of the city? Something, somewhere has to give. The problem is even worse in San Francisco, because they (through the democratic process) won't allow anybody to build any additional housing.
People migrate to cities to find work. With a basic income, a lot of people will no longer want to or need to live in a city to find (probably shitty) work just to make ends meet, which will lower demand for the supply of living space in turn lowering price for that living space.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
The Economist provided figures, just expressed as percentage of GDP, which translate straight into figures if that's what you want, but serve its purposes far better by illustrating why the figures won't add up.
If 90% of the people smoked pot, then the other 10% would need to grow incredible new innovative pot, as that's where the money is to be made.
Or the 10% create incredible new products and services and new wealth among themselves, severing the ties to the 90% Atlas Shrugged style.
Also, while giving people money makes them feel financially secure, it still has to be taken from someone else (who might then feel less financially secure since his finances are basically at the mercy of the tyranny of the masses?). And then basically eventually give up and join the non-workers as that seems less of a raw deal?
I personally do not like to be randomly tested for pot use, so that I can be employed and make more money, so that that money can be taxed and given to someone who uses pot. That's just plain cynical.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
UBI will be fine. We should not be giving any sort of basic income to unproductive races such as negros and muslimsm, that will just create a population explosion of undesirables. However, I can see UBI helping whites or indians have security while they start their own businesses which can greatly improve the economy overall.
Because you don't risk losing the ability to survive by moving house or job, you don't have to put up with a landlord doing that.
Moreover, if you have government housing then landlords can't do that. And remember, if your landlord owning many properties wants to eat out or have clean toilets that they don't have to clean themselves,you need somewhere that the people you employ can afford to live. Otherwise the millionaire has to clean all six toilets themselves.
If the proles are deluding themselves into believing they deserve a share of something they had absolutely no part in creating in the first place, they're welcome to try and take it. And no, working for a wage is not "contributing". So, when are you coming to get your "share", dipshits? We're standing here. (Crickets)
Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games...
I don't think so - most people don't want to be non-productive, they want to do something they feel is valuable in a wider sense, not just play or waste time on other entertainment. That is why rich people so often keep working hard on something, whether it is charity work or some epxpensive hobby - or expanding their business. It's also why a lot of people, once they've managed to shift their children out of the house, they take up allotment gardening or similar; I personally haven't ever worked as hard as I do now, all for no pay. Perhaps, if we didn't have to work for money, we would go and work hard on things we actually enjoy doing.
"Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games..."
90% already sit around and smoke pot and play video games. Just ask any grumpy conservative; they've been saying for years that only 10 percent of the population works--and they are one of the 10%--and the rest of population are damn commie libertard freeloaders. Which mean they 10 % have do 90% output or some carp...
Yet various surveys and reports(PDF) consistently show that more than half of Americans have less than $1000 saved to cover unexpected expenses, let alone quitting their job for a few months. You are fortunate. Most are not.
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Stop invoking this spectre of "OWS" "types" and ascribing whatever motives suit your argument to them. It's sad and obvious. Come up with real arguments and leave this childish shit behind.
Yet various surveys and reports consistently show that more than half of Americans have less then $1000 saved to cover unexpected expenses, let alone leave their job for several months. You are fortunate. Most are not.
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
How wonderfully vague. I'm sure that sounded great in your head, however on the screen it is entirely devoid of any message or implication.
Yes, people will continue to invent, they will create new products and services, music, art, etc. But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
Easy. Firstly as we progress even jobs like this will disappear.
Secondly basic income gives you a modest comfortable living. You can safely afford to live in a home, eat, be clothed, enjoy the occassional meal out, have a car that works, etc. so you are not poor but you are not wealthy either
So if you then wait tables, you get to afford a bigger house, flashier car, etc
So basically capitalism is still alive, it is just that there is a guaranteed floor underneath it so that people who currently get screwed by it cannot fall below it into poverty (this % will skyrocket as we get better at automation).
ie this is just welfare done right
> But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
People who want to make more than just "basic income". People who want to buy a new home, car, computer, whatever.
But all of those are easily automated, compared to plumbing and other manual work.
Pretty soon the people that work and support the rest of the society will demand more rights for them or less rights for those that do not work.
This will create huge social problems, and may even lead to civil war.
The web would crumble under the strain...maybe attach a string that says basic income==20 hours of volunteer work a week.
If 90% aren't doing anything except sitting at home on their basic income, what kind of domestic market are those 10% going to have for their products?
They won't have a 'free market'. The government is going to be the biggest customer, and will provide the 90% with products bought from the 10%, this is like communism at it's best.
It's not "free" it is basic. At what point do you not understand that when someone gets something without earning it, IT IS FREAKING FREE. Of course someone else had to earn that money, and so the person getting it for free has less need to produce becasue he can sit at home and play video games while the person earning the money feels less willing to work because he sees his money going to pay for that worthless jackass.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The idea was proposed back in the 1960's. Check out Milton Friedman's idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_money
>Come down from your high loft and explain to us how we get 30K By eliminating corporate tax loopholes, inefficient welfare procedures, counting on lower crime rates from people who are no longer desperate, and counting on more innovation from people who can afford the time to innovate instead of working dead-end jobs. to give to everyone all the time without making that 30K have no value? This idea that the basic income would create a floor... That's your idea. And you have completely failed to justify it. Is a WIC dollar as given out now worthless? Is a Section 8 subsidy dollar as given out now worthless? If not why would a basic income dollar be worthless? How does a merchant know whether my dollar is coming from my basic income or from my job? How is significant inflation created without any money being added to the economy?
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
I think for terms of accuracy, it should really be the 0.01% or even the 0.001%. Since even 70000 of the richest people in the richest families are the ones causing the biggest issues for this planet.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
Whatever happened to survival of the fittest?
Let the weak ones die out along with their genetic material, we don't need any more mud in the pond.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
To such a wide thrown net, from McD employees to police officers... there's no single answer.
But McD is a good place to start... compared to a classy restaurant.
Do you tip your server at your local McD joint? Do you clean up after yourself at your local Le Snott, picking up dishes, taking them back?
Some service positions will become automated, some will become prestigious - some will be shifted onto the consumer.
Cashiers are already going the way of the fast food joint waiter with self checkout.
Another group of jobs will go to idealists and what are today known as hobbyists.
Why only do your own garden when you can do ALL the parks in the city?
You wanna fight crime? Stop jerking off to Batman and join the police. You can afford it. It's a middle class job - with a gun.
Wanna keep the city clean in another way, that for some reason can't be covered by robots, AND get paid? RISE ecofreaks!
And then there's that thing where with an increase of automation and lowered employability for basic, menial, jobs - having a job becomes an issue of prestige.
Meaningless lives gain purpose with a job. One is needed and relied on. One commands power when one's existence implies a function too.
"This whole place would fall apart without me." - said a screw.
AND THEN there's all those people who want a shiny thing that their basic income can't provide.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
In the nerd's mind there is no difference. Drugging and raping a woman is going to be the only form of sex the nerd will ever experience besides masturbation and bestiality.
I don't think rents would move down at all under this system.
In my area at least one of the driving factors of rental prices is property tax. If the Gov't has a tremendous additional burden of paying for everyone where will that money come from? They would likely have to step up every tax at their disposal.
"But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?"
The ones who want to eat better food than dog food, or go to the movies, or have a vacation somewhere, or own a car, the list goes on and on. I don't think many people actually will be comfortable or happy living on basic income, it just provides a safety net so people don't starve or become homeless.
anyone who wants a little extra in life, like all the crap that consumers are used to buying.. a basic income would cover gucci glasses or expensive sports cars but some people will still want those things and so they will continue to work. The difference is that basic income encourages people to work to live, instead of forcing people to work to survive.
The robots will do all of those jobs. And who's going to manufacture and repair the robots? Other robots.
The solution is that simple, it's robots all the way down.
I suspect most people who would be tempted to do that would prefer to play video games than raise more kids.
- ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hAAAAAA!!! Right. USSR.
Everybody cheated on everything (except taxes, nobody had any taxes to pay, nobody paid any taxes except that everybody got a tiny amount of money printed by the government, which had nothing to do with anybody's productivity).
Here is what WOULD happen: underground economy, where the vast majority of people would participate to avoid paying any taxes at all.
You can't handle the truth.
But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
You'll have to pay people proper money to do these tasks, which will suddenly become more valued by society. Win!
Sorry, I don't buy that argument at all. "Government" is not a singular monolithic entity. A BI would be a federal matter (though it'd help a lot if they passed a law forbidding state-level income taxes to simplify things). Property taxes have absolutely zero to do with the federal government, and very little to do with state government in fact, because they're levied locally. Setting up a BI wouldn't affect local taxation at all.
People hoarding money have mental problems. The biggest problem with BI is how difficult it makes for wealthy people to buy influence and push people around with their money. That's basically what most of these arguments boil down to.
Cheap storage VM.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. . . I . . aahh, just wow.
How do I economics, bruh? Or human nature for that matter.
Human beings have unlimited wants. Food, shelter, companionship, entertainment, care for our various ailments, even leisure time. There's always something more.
An economy is the process of adapting our limited resources to those unlimited wants. The more we produce, the more efficiently we produce it, the more of those wants get satisfied and the more people it can support.
If 90% of the population just chills and does nothing, even if that 10% can produce enough wealth for everyone to get by, you have one really shitty economy and everyone suffers in the long run..
Its all academic anyway. Those same unlimited wants extant in virtually every human being ever also drive those people to try and better their lives. As long as the best way to do that is to work and produce goods or services for other people, you won't ever get 90% of the population to sit on their asses and do nothing.
A basic income will have the exact same effect as minimum wage laws, plus one. Minimum wage laws render everyone who was making below that mark marginal, they either need to figure out a way to make their production worth more than that minimum wage, or find themselves out of work/relegated to part-time drudgery/working under the table for less-than-minimum wage. The basic income does all that, PLUS the money to pay them has to come from somewhere, meaning everyone else (and probably them too) pay a much larger tax percentage. Less is available to reinvest in the economy, businesses which could barely turn a profit before are now forced out of business. The economy as a whole suffers.
And for all you printing-press-bobos, even if the government just prints the excess money, just substitute 'inflation' for 'tax'. Everything else remains the same.
The increase of progress in technology will make people smarter, better, more rich, and more happy.
When I was 6 year old, in the school, I was showed a paper that explained that thank to technical progress, we will have to work less and less, and yet have enough to eat, dress up, and sleep.
It was written that sport will be needed to keep the people busy and fitt, because there will be no more physical work : all done by machines.
Now we shall even write Machines, with a capital M.
So I decided to become an engineer.
I worked until I became mad of tiredness and frustration.
Then I was cared for and cured of my adoration of work.
Thank God for technologists !
Thank Jesus for all the technology workers and prayers and evangelists who make the world a better place to live and enjoy !
Be Good and Nice.
-- chromatic the retired coder.
Disability might be the one welfare system I'd argue for keeping in some form or another. I'd like to see it limited to cases of actual complete or severely crippling disability. I currently know a guy who busted his knee on the job and now can't comprehend the idea of finding some other kind of work. He wants to sit around watching deluxe cable TV all day instead of finding a way to work that doesn't require walking or standing all day, and frankly that's BS. If I developed carpal tunnel I wouldn't expect everyone to give me a free pass and support my current standard of living. I'd adjust my standard of living, possibly moving, and or find some other line of work.
So far as the importance of living where you've always lived, that's some kind of imaginary right that people delude themselves into thinking exists. Maybe in the case of someone who relies on family or friends for daily care it's significant enough to worry about as a society, but otherwise screw them. The number of locations in the country where you can't find a very cheap place to live within a 2 hour drive of a very affluent location is vanishingly small. When I moved out of my parents place I moved less than 20 minutes away and had a housing bill that was probably less than 20% of what my parents were paying. If we quit disproportionately subsidizing peoples outlandish dreams of living in expensive cesspools like NYC the property markets will start to correct themselves.
I believe the idea is that, you can stop working, but that basic income won't cover pot or video games (TV or other things). So in reality, you probably would still have people still doing those other jobs so that they could afford the nice house, the big tv to watch the game... afford to have friends over for dinner... to have kids, etc, etc, etc. With that, I would still be nervous with how the implement it (having all states use the same common education level for the various grade levels is great, the implementation sure did suck a little, not to mention teaching to standardized tests instead of just trying to teach).
He's fucking insane. And clueless. I hope no one gives this moron another dime.
We'll need menial labor because there's nothing as flexible as a human. There's always going to be things that aren't worth figuring out how to the the automation to do, at least for the foreseeable future.
So, we need menial labor that robots can't do. Fine. We can pay people to do that. If it's unpleasant, we'll have to pay people more. What we won't be able to do is make people work crap jobs for peanuts, and I think that's an improvement.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The implication i got from it is that there's an entire class of people called social workers who's paycheck is paid by funds earmarked for assistance programs. These people's jobs consist of assessing the applicant's need and approving or denying them, most likely accompanied by mountains of paperwork, meetings, paperwork about meetings, etc. These people aren't producing anything, their jobs could probably be automated away right now, just determine the applicant's eligibility by tax records, offspring, etc. Every time i pass the welfare office and see that big brick building with the employee lot full of cars not held together with literal duct tape, like I've seen in the parking lot out front, i wonder how many more needy people could be fed/housed/clothed with what it takes to run that place. I think that's what he meant by "parasites".
The rich and the corps are going to fight against this anyway, since it interferes with the God-given right to have an endless supply of desperate people willing to work at sucky jobs for low wages. This will likely have to be combined with measures to make sure money that's earned in the US (or the UK, or Bolivia) gets taxed in the US (or UK or Bolivia), but the US market is far too important to pull out of because it insists on some level of fairness.
Really, should we be begging the rich to throw us crumbs, or build an economy that works anyway? The 0.01% really don't have that horribly much of the national wealth.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I get that economics is not simple, but good grief at least try to think. Try, just a little.
1. Eliminating tax loopholes does not generate more money because the tax rate would need to be reduced as it was corrected. Failure to do so drives all business out of the US.
2. Fixing the tax problems is an extremely complex and lengthy process. Try to do it with a gunshot law and you collapse the economy. If you don't believe that to be true, why not look at revenue for companies and employees at Tax Firms, Law firms specializing in tax law, CPAs. How many people are dependent on those people for their jobs? Yeah, it's a huge issue when you kill millions of high paying jobs.
3. We can not pay our bills now. If we are about a trillion dollars in additional debt each year, where does the extra money come from to pay every single person 30K for doing nothing? By claiming you can do things which can't be done, right? I'm sure we can ride our Unicorns around and eat rainbows while we hand out wealth we don't have.
Every country being claimed as a socialist utopia in Europe is having problems because you can't get something for nothing. You can only push out the debt for so long before things start to collapse. The best of the best has Oil, which does not and can not last for much longer. They are already trying to figure out what to do with the Government can no longer sell oil. They already struggle with high suicide rates, and a low birth rate meaning too few young to support the elderly. You really think it's so great, go live in one of your socialist utopias instead of trying to copy their failures here.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I have a pension. /.
I don't work. But I spend, I do community service, and I blog responses to
I have public medicare which covers doctors, hospitals, medications
If my basic income is too low, I would find some supplemental work.
One advantage of a basic income, is that I can do the software engineering that I always dreamed of doing when I was working, and had no time for it.
Imagine the inventions or discoveries you could make if your basic income allowed you to become a full-time inventor or researcher.
We still need capitalism to take the ideas and to bring them to fruition
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
You've fallen for the Marxian religious fallacy that labor has value.
Let's say four guys dig a hole in my back yard. How much is their labor worth?
Less than nothing. It was my neighbor who wanted the swimming pool.
Labor, and laborers, are worthless without intellect to manage them.
And given that most burger flippers still can't get my order right, the minimum wage is clearly far too high as it is.
What I've been trying to get people to talk about for something like 20 years is, what happens when most manufacturing and delivery is automated: what jobs are left?
Not a lot. Look at the US, where most of it has been offshored for cheap labor, and more and more people are working two or more low-paying jobs just to pay the rent and keep a roof over their heads. And now, scum like Carl's Jr is talking about completely automated restaurants, so they don't have to pay a living minimum wage.
Does anyone here want to argue that this is *not* happening?
Then there's the flip side of the argument: my late idiot, er, sister, was on welfare for a bunch of years before they finally granted her SSDI. Trust me, I was *glad* to pay taxes for her to not be working for anyone *I* needed or wanted to do business with (ok, maybe if she'd worked for the GOP....). Don't any of *you* have someone you wish was "no longer in the workforce"?
mark
First, some numbers according to Census data:
Total population of the US: 321.4 million
Working age people in the US (aka between 18 and 65): 197.7 million
Households in the US: 116.2 million
Average people per household: 2.63
People in households: 305.6 million
People outside households: 15.8 million
Federal Poverty Level For Household Sizes:
1 person: $11,808
2 people: $16,020
3 people: $20,160
Let's do magic (and by that I mean 6th grade math) to see what a universal income at the poverty level would cost in the US.
Average universal income per household would be $18,628.2
( 116.2 million households * $18,628.2 ) + ( 15.8 million non-household people * $11,808) = $2.35 TRILLION it costs.
Now, this guy says 90% of people could do nothing but smoke weed and the system would still work.
So, 197.7 million working people. 90% do nothing. That leaves 19.77 million people still working.
$2.35 trillion paid by 19.77 million people means each person would need to pay $118,867 in taxes to support just this! Forget roads, education, military, arts, foreign aid, courts, general government costs, environment, or anything like that.
The average person in the US only makes $51,000 per year, but they would need to pay $119,000 in taxes.
Apparently, 6th grade math is too tough for this guy.
He's a moron just based on the math, never mind his stupidity about trying to have a country the size of the US run on just 20 million workers. Stupidity on an epic level.
D'oh!
Yes, people will continue to invent, they will create new products and services, music, art, etc. But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
Everyone who wants more than basic income?
and if they choose to spend it on booze and lotto tickets do we let them and there kids die in the streets? frankly i would say yes that is exactly what we should do, ok take away there kids into protective services first. but we all know that most Americans wont let that happen.
The hard part of this is going to be getting the 90% who don't work to switch to pot from meth.
"There's only 10% creating real wealth. Most people's "work" is just make-work, or will be automated away shortly."
[Citation needed]
I agree. Most people could do their jobs in one day a week or less, but their employers and co-workers invent "make-work" activities to look important, which then requires that people spend more time at work. 40 hours a week already is insane; as you point out, two weeks of vacation is nuts. People should be working less since technology has freed us from the labors of the past. So why are we working more? And more importantly: why are so few people talking about this?
Second, we raise taxes to cover the rest. Everybody's taxable income goes up.
So, we give people money, tax the money we give them, and uses the taxes to pay for the money we gave them in the first place? Sounds solid to me.
But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
You get the basic income, but unlike welfare, you get it whether you work or not. So you'd flip burgers to increase your income beyond the level that basic provides.
It will push more people into taxable territory, raise profits, generally generate tax revenue.
That makes zero sense. So if we give people income, then tax that income, the taxes from the income we gave them are to pay for giving them income in the first place? Yeah I guess. As long as you tax them at 100%.
90% are peasants, 10% have power and wealth...sounds like the feudal middle ages doesn't it?
You can't live pretty well on $3k/month when 90+% of the population isn't creating anything. Scarcity of goods and services will increase demand. Free time will also increase demand for scarce goods and services. Try spending your millions to buy bread in a bread line when bread doesn't exist.
Huh? You don't pay this income out of taxes. You pay for it out of inflation, inflation has been stagnant in the US and our entire economic system depends on it. Out of control inflation is bad, no inflation is much much worse. You don't need to find a way to pay for this at all, we desperately need to create new inflation to keep money moving. We've already dropped the fed rate to effectively zero and with all refinancing in the world we can't give it away to the banks fast enough to create inflation.
But if we are going to create inflation we want a return on that inflation. Currently if someone pays no income tax because they make too little, if they get this extra income it could push them into taxable territory and disqualify for social programs which both generates revenue and the reduces taxpayer costs. Obviously people can generate business by spending this money, but more importantly more people will have disposable income for the first time and be able to actually invest both domestically and abroad. These investments increase the value of the US vs the world and help push us from a working class into an investment class society.
Last but not least, you can do away with a minimum wage and bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. Of course we would want to limit this program to citizens at the time implemented and natural born citizens descended from them to stop any sort of mass immigration for free money.
If Manhattan wants to keep those people then Manhattan would have to pay for it.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
I think I would use something like what I believe the NDIS is in Australia. You get money for your medical and other bills related to your disability.
Mental illness like high-function Autism might be enough for a couple of sessions are week to help you socially.
Someone who loses their legs might be a wheelchair and car modifications.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Blah blah blah. You don't get something for nothing. If you are paying out more overall, it's going to cost more. If you aren't paying out more, then WTF is the point?
"If you are paying out more overall, it's going to cost more."
Yes, in the form of inflation, every dollar in every pocket is worth less. Currently we create new inflation money and give it to the banks at near 0 interest and they in turn loan it to you to say buy a house, you pay them back a higher interest rate, they pocket most of that but pay the original loan back slowly (because a dollar tomorrow is worth less than a dollar today). The interest that has to be paid back creates a slight economic pressure, everyone has to find new value to produce the money to pay back their loans. You feel that pressure every time you have to make a mortgage or rent payment. That is what keeps the economy moving, if you have funds you must invest them not just because you want more money but because money is literally worth less every day it sits there.
Currently we are having trouble throwing enough new money into the system to generate that pressure. Money itself is not the point here, it's just a tool, the purpose of money is yes to allow the exchange of goods and services but more than that to drive people to create more value both domestically and to the world. This isn't a simple matter of double entry accounting matching up. A change like this adds new money into the system and does so where it will have a dramatic impact on the production of goods, services, and value nationally that makes us stronger economically. There will be an increase in tax revenues and decrease in government expenses as a result and that in turn can be used to improve education, health, and infrastructure all of which further enable increased and more valuable productivity.
America isn't all extremes. Set BI to what it takes to survive in a moderate city, say something like Virginia Beach, VA. Maybe determine the median income of the 35th-100th largest MSAs (metro area) in the US and do something with that number.
He effected a bored affect.
basic healthcare is need as the jail / prison is better some people.
English, dude.
The one thing I never see them ask is "Do I want to enslave myself to the collective?", they are always going on about how they think leveraging my productivity will be great for the collective, but they never ask me if I want to in the first place. Seeing as my productivity is mine to give or keep, all this discussion of the ways they want to spend my production is putting the cart before the horse.
Yeah, Manhattan is free to do so. I'm not sure why they'd want to, but I can't imagine why states or cities couldn't supplement the BI if they wanted to. I guess they could make an argument that they need to keep around more low-income creative types ("starving artists") or low-wage workers (janitors, cooks) and that they needed to boost the BI to keep them around. Personally, I think those people would probably rather stay if they could afford it, and the city would do a lot better working on their real estate/zoning policies to create affordable housing and their public transit instead of giving out more money to entice people to stay to provide a workforce for business that don't want to pay enough.
Americans won't let the kids be taken away by CPS? Why do you think that? CPS already takes peoples' kids away if they abuse or neglect them. I don't see how it would be (or should be) any different under BI.
I do imagine there will be some people who can't figure out how to stay in an apartment even with the BI, and I'm sure there'll be something to help them out too (maybe some kind of shelter where they can live but their BI check automatically goes to the shelter first so they can take their cut?). Running a whole society is extremely complex, so there's no way to deal with every single corner case in a 3-paragraph post on a message forum.
So far as the importance of living where you've always lived, that's some kind of imaginary right that people delude themselves into thinking exists
I've been saying that for a long time, yet I get modded as troll here when I do so. It's also one of the founding principles behind occupy wall street, and if you look at any of the slashdot discussions about San Franciscans protesting Google over making their cost of living go up, you'll see a lot of commenters defending the protesters (nevermind that Google started there, or that Google by far isn't the only company causing this.)
The number of locations in the country where you can't find a very cheap place to live within a 2 hour drive of a very affluent location is vanishingly small.
No, not really. Every time some place becomes gentrified, you can find another place that has only begun gentrification. Right now that's Austin, Texas.
You sound just like Roman Mir and the other Ayn Rand cultists who think there should be any taxes.
If that's true, then cite specific examples. Meanwhile in that post you're laying out exactly how somebody on disability should live. That's called authoritarianism, which is a major component of communism as it has existed (at least the initial stages as defined by Marx, however no communist party has ever moved beyond this stage, hence I threw the term "communist party" at you and not "communist") with the other major component being the complete de-emphasis of the needs of the individual, which you've also espoused here.
Or worse that somehow advanced nations like Denmark with high taxes on rich people are somehow "Communist". How very stupid of you.
Actually go read my post history; I'm one of the few people on slashdot who pretty clearly lay out a distinction between the concepts of socialism, communism, and welfare, namely by following the textbook definition of all three. Your whole basic income premise is very distinctly welfare, furthermore, Denmark isn't (with only a few exceptions) socialist, contrary to popular slashdot belief, rather it's capitalist with a strong welfare component. The USSR wasn't communist, rather they fit very well within the definition of socialist, even though they self identified as communist.
I've already explained in this thread that BI would not be indexed to local cost-of-living. If the BI isn't enough for you to afford to stay in Manhattan without working, then you'll have to move or get a job. This isn't hard.
So people who are currently disabled will have to move away from the life they currently know, and away from potential family members who provide them assistance (i.e. carrying their groceries) after your plan goes into effect. And then you wonder why I say you behave like a member of typical communist parties.
Which is another way of paying for it. Paying for it in reduced real estate taxes rather then paying it directly (It is up to every city which way they go, and hopefully the unsuccessful models are replaced by the successful models)
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
If I had a basic income I could rely on, If probably get busy with a range of volunteer community projects I currently don't have time for because I work all day making money for someone else who will fire me the minute I can be replaced with a machine.
Only boring people are ever bored.
The system will probably not mathematically work if BI is indexed to cost-of-living. So what's your proposal?
And, if we're wishing for unicorns, creating a third house of congress that is chosen completely at random from each state (in my mind's eye, I see them as only being able to debate and vote on laws) keeps in check the power brokers.
I think that sort of might have been the original intended role of the House or Representatives. But yeah, populate it like the draft. If they can force you to serve in the military for a few years in the national interest they could force you to serve in Congress for two in the national interest. Of course, like the military there should probably be some induction screening. A basic training / boot camp of sorts. Perhaps more reading comprehension and math skills, less pull ups.
Ultimately the answer to that is whether you believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon - caused by there being too much money chasing too few goods, or whether it can have structural roots. Clearly there would be substantial economic dislocation, as certain items and services which were previously done by people on minimum wage are now done by decently paid staff. The price of tradeable goods - for which there is a foreign supplier - cannot rise significantly. However the price of goods and services generated by people who enjoy doing the work and now can afford to do so for free, will fall (oversimplification, but to make a point). similarly 'make work' jobs - where the person is kept on 'to be kind' or because the unions demand it, would probably fade, reducing costs in those industries.
It would make a good undergraduate thesis in economics to discuss it properly!
The implementation of a basic income will cost a certain proportion of GDP. If we want to give the entire population between 18 and 65 an income of 10% of GDP, the it will cost 10% of GDP x the proportion of the population that is in that age range. That money has to come from somewhere. Can a meaningful basic income be raised with a realistic level of taxation? That was the question which the Economist was asking, and answering 'no'. What has that analysis got wrong that makes this about a military aeroplane not a civil one?
but you're missing their point. Whatever the figure set for the basic income, high or low, it can be expressed as proportion of the average income. Their logic then applies. And if it's low, it offers nothing significant. If it's high, it's too expensive. Certainly for the UK the range of house prices ensures that a large of the population, a basic income will not be enough to live on. But the alternative - of setting a different basic income for different areas - will go down very badly; the people on the border between the different rates would scream the house down.
And why didn't they continue that experiment, if it was so successful? They ran out of money. If someone can make this kind of demonstration work *without outside money* they will have made a very good point.
But simply giving money to people with no plan on where to get it from long term will make those people happy, no doubt, but it doesn't do anything to prove that a basic income model could work on a national scale.
Just how big a gamble is it? When you have fuck-all, it's easy to pickup and move.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
My proposal? Don't do BI. If you really insist on it, then let it happen in one of the countries who are already more inclined towards it first and observe what happens.
Don't do BI? So how exactly do you propose to deal with the high unemployment caused by automation? Pretty soon we'll have automated long-haul trucking, so the truckers will all be out of a job, and fast food will be automated too, so no more jobs at McDs. How exactly do you propose to deal with that situation? Just let half the population starve?
thankyou. you just argued government's need to control rent as an economic lever looking for a fulcrum. 3-squares and a cot. private welfare.
the service industry leave the affluent? not likely. the affluent will keep them close at hand--quartered, if needed--and the staff need to market/gossip/and smoke weed
You might have fuck-all but you have a job that means you get to eat. You might be living in a shitty house in a crap neighbourhood but at least you are surviving. Especially if you have dependants moving is a huge gamble.
Don't do BI? So how exactly do you propose to deal with the high unemployment caused by automation?
Same way we always have, to be honest. New technologies have a funny way of creating new industries. The Luddite way of thinking has been disproven every time it has come up.
I'm a network engineer for example. That job didn't even exist more than 20 years ago. The closest thing to my job prior to it existing would be a switchboard operator, which didn't pay as much. And in case it hasn't yet occurred to you, there are no more switchboard operators.
The day we really have a completely automated society is the day that we no longer have a need for jobs. Could that day come? Possibly, but we're quite a ways off.
"The 0.01% really don't have that horribly much of the national wealth."
First of all, your focus is wrong. Once country does not exist in a vacuum.
Secondly, the .01% (of the world) have an enormous amount of wealth - though how much we will never know.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
I'm a network engineer for example. That job didn't even exist more than 20 years ago. The closest thing to my job prior to it existing would be a switchboard operator, which didn't pay as much. And in case it hasn't yet occurred to you, there are no more switchboard operators.
Oh come on, you must be confused if you think your job as network engineer is somehow newer than 20 years old. AT&T was employing people in that field for decades. If you want to look up old copies of Network World you can probably find job advertisements with that term by the nineties at the latest.
Yes, the technologies are somewhat different, but then that's true of doctors as well, it's not quite a change in paradigm. Network engineers have existed for quite a while, and I'm pretty sure my college had a course specifically in it as usually meant today at some point in the seventies.
And no, no, switchboard operators had a very different place in things than the network engineers. Very different.
homeless people in conditions as bad as any third world country.
Well, no. In Peru I saw communities of people living in cardboard boxes. These communities covered acres and acres. A dozen people living under an American bridge, while sad, doesn't come close to the bad conditions I saw.
The gentrification debate is interesting. I have little to no sympathy for renters because it's a known danger of renting and should always be a part of your decision making. When it comes to property owners I'm a little more sympathetic, but a property owner can simply sell and move on so it should be less of an issue. I can see how that might be a little traumatic for a property owner that is responsible for a property that has been in the family for generations or something, but if you're that established keeping up with the property taxes as they climb shouldn't be that huge.
I can drive five minutes and be in a neighborhood where the houses go for up to half a million. Or I can drive in a different direction and be in an area where homes sell for $15k to $40k.
What you're thinking of are the engineers who laid the original telecom infrastructure, and they weren't called network engineers. There were even fewer of those than there are network engineers of today, namely because they only did their job when they had to expand the physical infrastructure, which wasn't as common as building a network today. In those days, only the phone company did that. Nowadays, practically every medium to large sized company needs people to design, maintain, and build infrastructure, and furthermore, things are quite a bit more complicated now, even though they might seem like they "just work" to you, because you're just used to the packets going from A to B without any trouble most of the time.
People who see that new smartphone and say, "oooh, I want one of those."
Sure, it'll result in some shitty outcomes. UBI proponents believe that overall it'll probably be less shitty than what we have at the moment though.
Friends and family of the disabled would also have the same freedom to move with them too, without having to worry about finding a pay-cheque wherever they move to.
What you're thinking of are the engineers who laid the original telecom infrastructure, and they weren't called network engineers. There were even fewer of those than there are network engineers of today, namely because they only did their job when they had to expand the physical infrastructure, which wasn't as common as building a network today. In those days, only the phone company did that. Nowadays, practically every medium to large sized company needs people to design, maintain, and build infrastructure, and furthermore, things are quite a bit more complicated now, even though they might seem like they "just work" to you, because you're just used to the packets going from A to B without any trouble most of the time.
Again, you seem to be a bit confused, if you think that medium to large sized companies weren't working hard to design, maintain, and build their own infrastructure longer ago than you realize. As I said, you can find the term "network engineer" in usage by the early nineties in at least one work, the aforementioned Network World, and I wouldn't even hold that as a strict line, but would say the seventies for the origins as meant today, based on what my college offered.
Sure, with the phone company, they'd have been doing the work even longer, and of course, the old standby of Western Union. Plenty of network engineering on their part.
And it was often quite complicated, more so in ways than you may realize. But more and more machines and other automated systems have taken over, and a lot of them work better than what we did have. Faxes are a lot easier than pneumatic tubes and emails are even easier than those, and well, the old telegraph systems, even Edison was improving those in his day.
Whether or not there are more, or less people involved in the industry, that's harder to say(on the one hand, you can be sure that the per capita employment is down, but on the other hand, there is a lot more infrastructure now. Tough call there), but my problem was your claim of age not any particular assertion towards overall numbers. I don't think I made any comment on that.
20 years ago? Yes, believe it or not, your job did exist before that. People may think of HAL from 2001 when asked about computers of that time, but try looking up PANAMAC.
It wasn't the only such system, by far.
I get it, you think you've got the new hotness, that all the complicated things you do now are so awesome, but it's really just the continuation of a field that's been around for quite a while. We've come a long way from the Pony Express, but you weren't around for most of it, so your perspective is a bit off.
Yes, I can be pretentious and condescending to you as well. Really, if you don't believe me, go find some old college course catalogs. Or go read Network World. Or Byte. Or whatever. 20 years? No. I can't even give you 25 years. It's over thirty.
As I said, you can find the term "network engineer" in usage by the early nineties in at least one work
...And how long ago was that? Seriously dude.
Anyways, it doesn't matter. You can argue specifics all you want, and you'll literally be doing it forever. But the fact remains that if automation was truly destroying jobs in the long term, then the US unemployment rate should be well above what was seen in the depression right about now. I'm sure you can quote "some really smart dude" or "some really rich dude that seems to know a lot" who says economic doom is right around the corner, but the thing is, they've been saying this for about 200 years.
That said, I'm quite finished with this discussion. BI ain't happening here any time soon.
...And how long ago was that? Seriously dude.
It's the year 2016. Twenty years ago was 1996. Early nineties is before twenty years, and as I said, yet you didn't quote, I can't give you credit for being off by that much, when it's over thirty. Well, over thirty, to be honest. Did you miss the final paragraph?
I'll repeat it:
Yes, I can be pretentious and condescending to you as well. Really, if you don't believe me, go find some old college course catalogs. Or go read Network World. Or Byte. Or whatever. 20 years? No. I can't even give you 25 years. It's over thirty.
Network World isn't a hard line, it's just convenient because it's available online to show you how you are mistaken since there are job listings well before 1996...and if you want to consider the subject, as a publication, it started in 1986. It was serving a market. And of course, it was a spin-off from its parent publication, Computerworld. You'd find a lot about networking in business in it too. But for the latter, you might have to look at microfilm. Same with college course catalogs. I threw mine out or I'd have scanned it already.
Anyways, it doesn't matter. You can argue specifics all you want, and you'll literally be doing it forever.
If it didn't matter, why argue it yourself? It wouldn't have cost you anything to admit that you were a little thoughtless in your claim about the position of Network Engineer not existing twenty years ago, and it still won't.
It shouldn't take forever with you for you to do a little backtracking. Surely you're not that impervious to reason? All it would take is a little admission, you can just say maybe your example wasn't the best expression you could have made, and nothing else will change.
Or will it take forever before you get the gumption to do that? Says a bit about you, not me.
But the fact remains that if automation was truly destroying jobs in the long term, then the US unemployment rate should be well above what was seen in the depression right about now. I'm sure you can quote "some really smart dude" or "some really rich dude that seems to know a lot" who says economic doom is right around the corner, but the thing is, they've been saying this for about 200 years.
That said, I'm quite finished with this discussion. BI ain't happening here any time soon.
Well, whatever you think about the nature of employment and the labor pool, or the basic income, or economic doom, it won't make you any less wrong in your claim about network engineers not existing twenty years ago. That's been my contention from the start, and if you'd paid more careful attention, maybe you'd have noticed that was the specific area on which I have focused. Really, if you wanted to support your case on other matters, you'd think you'd be concerned about your own possible misstatements.
Stick with things that are true, yourself, it can be a bit hard to have to say you misspoke, but it's really quite worthwhile.
And on that specific fact, no matter how sullenly you stomp off in your tantrum, you'll still be in error. That you chose to compound.
A lot actually. If less people producing, you have less competition. You still need to buy basic necessities which, now days, includes the latest mobile phone. :) The economy adjusts, that's what it does.
I'm admittedly a 5%er, but it seems to me that the times I've been the least productive in my life is when I've felt I had no hope, or no money. There wasn't much incentive to excel. It wasn't until I became financially stable that I was able to make appreciable gains.
The bottom line here though, and the part that the author missed, is that different people thrive in different environments. I thrive when the stress of the day to day does not overtake me. Others might only strive when they are forced to. I think we, too often, try to put everyone in the same bucket. In the end, though, I think you would find some people becoming less motivated and some becoming more motivated, but I would not be surprised if everything remained net neutral from a work standpoint.
The one thing you might see is our willingness to take more risk, which leads to both innovation as well as carelessness.
This is the capitalist version of "let them eat cake." Because god help them if the proles feel like they deserve some of the money they're making capitalists.
They do deserve some of it - the amount that falls at the intersection of the supply and demand curves for the kind of labor they provide.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Unless it's ditch weed, pot isn't super-cheap anyway. "Grow your own" still requires specific infrastructure. If your not in specific states, your still spending $300+ for an oz. Reading around, most "serious smokers" can go through 2 oz in a month...probably more if your just sitting around all day . So I really doubt that this "basic income" will be enough to pay for anyone's "24/7/365" habits at $300-$600 or up per month.
This is some of the most leftist rhetoric I have heard. At least this guy doesn't bat around the bush, and take this the normal way, the slippery slope of slowly raising the minimum wage. A version of this has been tried, it's called communisim .
actually its not an ad hominem attack,, both remarks are irrellevant My personal observation and question with this idea is what happens through no fault of our own, jobs are automated to the extent that even the burger flipping jobs are automated out of existence and a living wage becomes a necessity like it or not. I foresee this as a problem the millennials will be dealing with en mass with in the next 5 to 10 years. See the links below for a reference on what I am talking about. https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU and http://www.businessinsider.com...
What is in the Freakonomics is he talking about?
What has created more wealth than any economic system in the history of mankind is the free enterprise system.
What has created stagnation is socialism.
What has creative control over people's lives is communism.
However, we cannot leave people out in the cold. We cannot submarine the free enterprise system to support somebody's weird idea of economics.
I wonder if he has some investment in Colorado? I wonder what sectot that would be in?
One of the aspects of crony capitalism is to have the government give money to people that they will spend on your industry.
Current (for context):
Last year alone, the federal government spent nearly $700 billion to fund anti-poverty programs. State and local governments kicked in an additional $300 billion, bringing the total to roughly $1 trillion.
Last year, the poverty threshold for a single individual under 65, was $12,119.
A UBI of $15,000 across 296m people would cost the country $4.4 trillion.
After eliminating the current systems of pensions, veterans affairs and social welfare would bring us to a net cost of between $1.5-$2.0 trillion.
Would UBI bring us $1.5 trillion in benefits? Maybe in 2020. But certainly not now.
There is no way it could be universal. Which would mean some kind of selective social welfare. Back to square 1? Skeptical.
I look forward to the outcomes of the research from y combinator.
I'm surprised I haven't found more discussion on the effect free money would have on immigration and people having children to claim their UBI.
This is the capitalist version of "let them eat cake." Because god help them if the proles feel like they deserve some of the money they're making capitalists.
This is such as astute criticism of capitalism. It's a simply breathtaking indictment of the system. Well done.
Now go back to your Mom's basement and WOW.
I can agree with this but only if ALL other entitlements are canned, such as healthcare entitlements etc. Let the people decide what healthcare they want just give them the money (average cost) instead. If they want to get cheaper insurance cause they are 100% healthy, and then pocket the rest for other goods or services, let them. . The less the government has to do the better. If the gov is going to be a mechanism of wealth redistribution, we should make it so that is ALL that is does and nothing more. Not sure what the magic number is, but if it were up to me I'd go further and let people get the whole years amount up front as lump some, so people can buy larger items like a used car. In the US you pretty much need a car in order to work. Is it perfect, of course not. Will there be fraud and people trying abuse the system. OF COURSE. But that's not going to be anything new. The current system is completely corrupt. So no change there.
To conservatives: This is better then the gov providing healthcare, as the politicians are terrible at negotiating price. Give people the money instead and let them decide. This will encourage lower prices as people will go where the prices/services are the best. Keep the insurance companies competing for business instead of racing to buy off politicians. Would you rather wealth redistribution and have to pay for expensive healthcare OR wealth redistribution and at least have a chance of lowering cost of Healthcare? You can't get rid of the wealth redistribution, you are outnumbered and the world believes in mob rule. So wouldn't you rather at least have lower costs?
"If 90% aren't doing anything except sitting at home on their basic income, what kind of domestic market are those 10% going to have for their products?"
So, the problem that you have with the suggestion is that, in your opinion, everyone else is as lazy, shiftless, and unwilling to work as _you_ are. If you were given just enough money to cover the necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, then you would simply do nothing but lie around your studio apartment with its Pullman kitchen, just staring at the four blank walls in your government-issue jumpsuitand napping in your sleeping bag. You wouldn't even bother get a job that would pay you enough extra to buy a pizza or a 40-oz or a lid.
That's absolutely amazing that, not only are you yourself totally worthless, but you also imagine that everyone else is a worthless a bum as you are.
Wait! Are you under the impression that "basic income" means enough for a furnished 2BR,W2W, w/HT&AC, 44" flatscreen TV, iMac, premium cable, stereo w/speakers, turntable, and 'phones, 2-car garage, enough walking-around money to buy gas, brew and smoke, and hit the clubs on the weekend, plus a boys' night out, a set of wheels, gas, and everything else that you normally put in 40+ hrs/wk to get? Is that what you consider "basic" to mean?
What planet are you from?!
This is the soviet system look how it was in the 70s and 80s, everyone just gamed a system tha produced nothing. And replace pot with vodka and you have the outcome.
That's kind of the point - we're moving to an automated society where robots and phones and computers handle most of that stuff (we're a long way away, but it's certainly possible that 100 years from now, the majority of waiters and burger flippers and trash collectors will be robots and that retail cashiers will be your phone and an rfid tag scanner at the door). The question is, can we create a sustainable economy that enables everyone to eat when there are very few jobs, and how do we handle the transition. A basic income provides a scalable method to transition from one state to the other with relatively little disruption.
They already do this in a fashion. They call it Obama care.
Yeah the same problem with those morons exists now. They work minimum wage and expect to live in NYC, and then whine because it is too expensive. The answer is move. No need for BMI, if they are not willing to do what is necessary to take care of themselves, I do not give 1 ^hit about them at all. They can starve and die, that is nature and the gene pool working itself out. The fact is that most people are too lazy or just unwilling to do what is necessary to make things better.
I am guilty of this as well, though I do not whine about it and stick my hand out asking for free stuff. I could easily be making 150K - 250K if I chose to, given my skills and experience. But I am not willing to move to where those salaries are and I am also not willing to put in the time and effort at work to sustain the job. My family is more important to me. So I settle for a job that takes care of our needs in an area where we can afford to live and deal with it. That is the way it is supposed to work.