Who should those startups sell to? Maybe you haven't noticed it, but there simply ISN'T anything worthwhile to invest in.
Also, please stop with the mythical "job creation". You know what creates jobs? Someone demanding stuff. If I go to a carpenter and order something, I create work for him. If too many people go to him and ask for something to be built for him to do it himself, then and only then, he will hire someone. He won't hire someone to sit in his shop and look pretty, the only reason anyone hires anyone is to get that person to do a job for him. This requires that this job needs to be done AND to be paid. Because else I'm better off not hiring the person, since I will have to pay him, even if I can't sell the work he does to someone else.
If you want to create jobs in this economy, you have to have people to demand the goods and services you could potentially produce. We have the workforce and capital to produce without limit, what we need is someone demanding this stuff.
While I'm in favor of UBI, simply "spread the wealth" would probably do the economy a disservice. As much as we desperately need more money on the demand side, if you suddenly eliminate ALL the dough on the supply side, we replace the encroaching fire with a flood. Yes, the fire is extinguished all right, but whether the damage is less is debatable.
Considering that it's a site that is used internationally, and that in general international readers think it's funny you made Donald Duck the ruler of your country...
This statement is probably bullshit, but it serves its purpose: His die hard fans will simply believe it and any bad news is simply propaganda against him. What is or what isn't doesn't really matter either way.
In a way, it's genius. What astonishes me, though, is that for him works what didn't for the commie leaders of old: Saying that the media in the liberal west are just spreading lies.
I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans.
You are assuming a steady state economy. What you fail to see is that an increased demand will be met with an increased supply. Our economy is predominantly dependent on services, a product that is practically entirely dependent on workforce.
So unless you have zero unemployment (and if you had, UBI wouldn't even be discussed because the very reason UBI is on the table is that we're heading towards a time when we have not enough work for the people available), you can easily multiply services as long as there is capable workforce available.
Video games had some rather humble beginnings as well. Gaming wasn't mainstream until well into the 1990s and "adult gaming" certainly wasn't a real thing until the 2000s. In the 1980s, you'd probably already consider selling more than 50k copies a success.
VR is in the same boat today. Yes, the sales numbers are dwarfed by "normal" games, because adaption is certainly slow. First, the effort and space required to play in VR is some magnitudes higher. It's more of a time and space investment to get VR set up and ready to play. Which is probably quite on par with what people had to do in the 80s to hook up their console to the family TV, because it wasn't always connected like gaming systems are often today. Picking up and play was simply not a thing. Maybe in a few years having a "VR room" in your house becomes a reality, then a normality.
VR is, much like video games were in the 80s and 90s, still mostly a thing for enthusiasts and early adopters. Not the mainstream players that just want to pick up a game and play for an hour to pass the time.
But that's what we want. Perpetual growth. That's what our economy model requires. We based our economy on a perpetual motion machine, and now you complain about that?
Our current problem with job generation, or economy in total, is a lack of demand. Not for a lack of want, but for a lack of money. Are there people who would want to hire a plumber to fix the leaking pipes, to hire a roofer to fix the leaky roof or a electrician to take care of the weird wiring that shorts out every now and then? You bet. Why don't they? No money. Like the carpenter, the plumber and the electrician who are out of a job because there's nobody hiring them.
Why _must_ it be comfortable? Note that people may well not keep a job for longer than they have to with UBI. One job could actually be enough for 5 or more people since they might just work if they have to cover the cost for something that broke down like a washing machine or TV. Or you could see a lot more part-time workers who now have to work full time.
You're not going to continue working when you get about 500 bucks a month? Well... ok, if that's enough for you, great. Where I live this might even allow you to survive. Somewhere outside a town, without infrastructure, without a car, with... maybe... electricity and the closest store about 5 miles away. But hey, since you don't have to waste time to work, you have plenty of time to walk there.
Did the free money we pump into banks increase inflation? Or where do you think the bailouts come from? When you deposit 100 bucks with your bank, your bank lends out 1000 of them. Yes, I'm not kidding. Where do you think that money comes from? You don't pay back? No worries, here's a loan of 1100 to cover the 1100 you owe us. Of course you don't get that money, it's just now in your book as debt. And you suddenly owe us 1100 of the 1000 we gave you. Did that free money increase inflation?
Money is numbers on an account. Nothing else. Inflation, like pretty much all in this economy, is artificial. A tool to direct money and its flow. Your economy, like any economy in the developed world, relies mostly on services. Services, like money, can be multiplied at will. At least as long as you have available workforce. So unless your unemployment rate is very close to 0 (and please don't try to bullshit with the "official" numbers, you know as well as I do that the "official" unemployment numbers of the US have nothing to do with how many people are looking for a job), you can easily multiply your service offer... which only happens of course if there is demand, since you can hardly store services.
Poor people are now also the demographic that gladly and very willingly spends money on services. In other words, here's your chance to drive your economy forward.
Of course, if your goal is just to have a cheap, dependant workforce to maximize your own profit and to hell with the general economy, this would certainly be not in your interest.
So the idea is to take the people who are working now, earning 60-150k/yr as middle class citizens and when all their jobs disappear we replace it with taxes on those who have ended up with all the wealth, knowledge, invention, and processes the middle and lower classes have almost exclusively generated over the past couple hundred years set at a rate that fixes them at the federal poverty line?
You'd say fixing them at 0 money due to not having neither a job nor an UBI is better?
It's not (only) about the monetary situation, it's more about a feeling of security and safety. If I feel secure, I can take higher risks, quit my job and start a business myself even if I am unsure whether it's gonna take off. If there's nothing to fall back on, people would rather stay with a job that's probably not as productive but at least safer.
But in an economy that thrives on exploiting workers, something like this is anathema, I know.
Slashdot Mirror
Light a man a fire and he'll be warm for the day.
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
So he went and spent the money, helped a local store to survive and hire people to sell the junk to him? Awesome!
Curiously, I have been asking pretty much this when they took my money to bail out the rich so their golden parachutes won't be threatened.
Why?
Who should those startups sell to? Maybe you haven't noticed it, but there simply ISN'T anything worthwhile to invest in.
Also, please stop with the mythical "job creation". You know what creates jobs? Someone demanding stuff. If I go to a carpenter and order something, I create work for him. If too many people go to him and ask for something to be built for him to do it himself, then and only then, he will hire someone. He won't hire someone to sit in his shop and look pretty, the only reason anyone hires anyone is to get that person to do a job for him. This requires that this job needs to be done AND to be paid. Because else I'm better off not hiring the person, since I will have to pay him, even if I can't sell the work he does to someone else.
If you want to create jobs in this economy, you have to have people to demand the goods and services you could potentially produce. We have the workforce and capital to produce without limit, what we need is someone demanding this stuff.
While I'm in favor of UBI, simply "spread the wealth" would probably do the economy a disservice. As much as we desperately need more money on the demand side, if you suddenly eliminate ALL the dough on the supply side, we replace the encroaching fire with a flood. Yes, the fire is extinguished all right, but whether the damage is less is debatable.
Considering that it's a site that is used internationally, and that in general international readers think it's funny you made Donald Duck the ruler of your country...
This statement is probably bullshit, but it serves its purpose: His die hard fans will simply believe it and any bad news is simply propaganda against him. What is or what isn't doesn't really matter either way.
In a way, it's genius. What astonishes me, though, is that for him works what didn't for the commie leaders of old: Saying that the media in the liberal west are just spreading lies.
I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans.
If it's any help, I'll sing and beat a dog while doing so 'til you pay me to stop...
Then I guess people without a job won't be living in downtown LA...
You are assuming a steady state economy. What you fail to see is that an increased demand will be met with an increased supply. Our economy is predominantly dependent on services, a product that is practically entirely dependent on workforce.
So unless you have zero unemployment (and if you had, UBI wouldn't even be discussed because the very reason UBI is on the table is that we're heading towards a time when we have not enough work for the people available), you can easily multiply services as long as there is capable workforce available.
Video games had some rather humble beginnings as well. Gaming wasn't mainstream until well into the 1990s and "adult gaming" certainly wasn't a real thing until the 2000s. In the 1980s, you'd probably already consider selling more than 50k copies a success.
VR is in the same boat today. Yes, the sales numbers are dwarfed by "normal" games, because adaption is certainly slow. First, the effort and space required to play in VR is some magnitudes higher. It's more of a time and space investment to get VR set up and ready to play. Which is probably quite on par with what people had to do in the 80s to hook up their console to the family TV, because it wasn't always connected like gaming systems are often today. Picking up and play was simply not a thing. Maybe in a few years having a "VR room" in your house becomes a reality, then a normality.
VR is, much like video games were in the 80s and 90s, still mostly a thing for enthusiasts and early adopters. Not the mainstream players that just want to pick up a game and play for an hour to pass the time.
But that's what we want. Perpetual growth. That's what our economy model requires. We based our economy on a perpetual motion machine, and now you complain about that?
It will not generate jobs? You sure?
Our current problem with job generation, or economy in total, is a lack of demand. Not for a lack of want, but for a lack of money. Are there people who would want to hire a plumber to fix the leaking pipes, to hire a roofer to fix the leaky roof or a electrician to take care of the weird wiring that shorts out every now and then? You bet. Why don't they? No money. Like the carpenter, the plumber and the electrician who are out of a job because there's nobody hiring them.
Why _must_ it be comfortable? Note that people may well not keep a job for longer than they have to with UBI. One job could actually be enough for 5 or more people since they might just work if they have to cover the cost for something that broke down like a washing machine or TV. Or you could see a lot more part-time workers who now have to work full time.
True. And we can only afford this if no more than 1% of the population get to do it.
Maybe they noticed that someone would have to buy the shit they invest their money in and found out that people need money to do that.
You do know that UBI isn't to the tune of 10 grand a month, yes?
It's a free country, you're free to leave and settle in one that doesn't participate.
Don't come back running though when you're out of a job, though.
You're not going to continue working when you get about 500 bucks a month? Well... ok, if that's enough for you, great. Where I live this might even allow you to survive. Somewhere outside a town, without infrastructure, without a car, with ... maybe ... electricity and the closest store about 5 miles away. But hey, since you don't have to waste time to work, you have plenty of time to walk there.
Yeah, sure.
Did the free money we pump into banks increase inflation? Or where do you think the bailouts come from? When you deposit 100 bucks with your bank, your bank lends out 1000 of them. Yes, I'm not kidding. Where do you think that money comes from? You don't pay back? No worries, here's a loan of 1100 to cover the 1100 you owe us. Of course you don't get that money, it's just now in your book as debt. And you suddenly owe us 1100 of the 1000 we gave you. Did that free money increase inflation?
Money is numbers on an account. Nothing else. Inflation, like pretty much all in this economy, is artificial. A tool to direct money and its flow. Your economy, like any economy in the developed world, relies mostly on services. Services, like money, can be multiplied at will. At least as long as you have available workforce. So unless your unemployment rate is very close to 0 (and please don't try to bullshit with the "official" numbers, you know as well as I do that the "official" unemployment numbers of the US have nothing to do with how many people are looking for a job), you can easily multiply your service offer ... which only happens of course if there is demand, since you can hardly store services.
Poor people are now also the demographic that gladly and very willingly spends money on services. In other words, here's your chance to drive your economy forward.
Of course, if your goal is just to have a cheap, dependant workforce to maximize your own profit and to hell with the general economy, this would certainly be not in your interest.
There is no "deposit 3 months of rent and if you're late 3 months, you're out and I keep the deposit" in the UK?
Time to change rent laws.
So the idea is to take the people who are working now, earning 60-150k/yr as middle class citizens and when all their jobs disappear we replace it with taxes on those who have ended up with all the wealth, knowledge, invention, and processes the middle and lower classes have almost exclusively generated over the past couple hundred years set at a rate that fixes them at the federal poverty line?
You'd say fixing them at 0 money due to not having neither a job nor an UBI is better?
It's not (only) about the monetary situation, it's more about a feeling of security and safety. If I feel secure, I can take higher risks, quit my job and start a business myself even if I am unsure whether it's gonna take off. If there's nothing to fall back on, people would rather stay with a job that's probably not as productive but at least safer.
But in an economy that thrives on exploiting workers, something like this is anathema, I know.
So ... it would actually be a step up from the fourth world country it currently is?