No, I didn't. But note the point 'should'. Not 'will'. This is a subjective stance from someone who reached self-actualisation and considers this the greatest good to achieve. And I would hardly disagree, but the fact is, generally spoken, a huge portion of the masses - in earlier non-PC times one would call this the hoi palloi - is fairly content when it achieved level 2-3 on his list.
I hardly think one can hardly deny this. Even th Romans in ancient times knew about this, and had a term for it to keep the masses docile: "Panem et circenses". And they're basically right - in a societal context: give the masses food and entertainment, and most of them will be content and docile.
This does not mean any particular individual will be appeased by it, but for large numbers of people, the majority will be content with that. Ergo; if you make sure you have that, a lot of people won't bother with the rest.
Look at out current welfare system(s); there already is a considerable part of the populace that just lingers around and doesn't want to work. Yes, I know it's claimed they "can not find job", but here's where the naivety kicks in with the lefties. There are open jobs for lower jobs (working at MCDonalds, for instance, or for higher jobs). But the 'lower' jobs don't get filled in because it's looked down upon and it's deemed to be beneath them (that's why almost no job of nightman/garbage-pickup gets filled in by anyone else than immigrants; our own people don't want to do it anymore, even when it's pretty well-paid), or a lack of will to get additional education to get a 'higher' job - though you can follow courses quite easily, and the companies are even sponsoring the money for it). But they don't really *want* to do it. If not, it's impossible to explain we have thousands of open vacancies, yet still have 8-12% unemployment. One who thinks that this will get better by giving *everyone* an UBI, is gravely mistaken. The last few years our government has become less lenient and made some time-constraints when unemployed, especially for those leaving school. The result? A lot of those who were formerly unemployed, now have a job. It means that they couldn't *find* a job earlier, but that they *did not want* to find a job earlier, and the main reason is, they can live reasonably comfortable without it, with our lenient welfare-system. Of course, not ALL people can find *immediately* a job. It's not an OR-OR question. A moderate welfare system is not a bad thing. nd not all people try to profit from it, just like not all people will stop working if an UBI is introduced. But it's equally naive to think no-one, or only a very small percentage will stop working, and the rest will just continue working. Our current welfare system is not indicative of such an optimistic view.
Now, no doubt you can argue whatever socio-economic or psychological reasons there are out there, but the point is, you should realise there will ALWAYS be a big part of the populace that will not search for 'self-actualisation', or, if they do, will not search for work to establish that self-actualisation. It's also a given that this will not diminish, but augment, with an UBI, since you make it possible for more people to potato-couch around. It's not even necessarily a bad thing: do UBI-proponents not say exactly that; that an UBI coupled with automation, frees people from doing 'boring' jobs. Of course, eventually it will 'free' them from ALL jobs, but that's often forgotten.
I'll agree with your first point; it won't have to reach 100% before the problems start to arise.
I disagree with your last point, for the reasons mentioned in my earlier comment to you. (I mean the very last point, which claims the reduction of administrative overhead will be able to pay for the additional costs of a general, nation-wide UBI.)
What you are describing is what the current welfare and tax-system is already doing to some extend, with the distinction of being based on a (semi) flat-tax. And I'm all for a flat-tax, granted, but in your system one still would need to check what the exact income is of everyone, and so you're losing one of the big claimed advantages of an UBI, namely no more administrative overhead (and dito cost-savings).
Apart from this being rather esoteric and very doubtful to ever happen or be implemented, it wouldn't be that simple. For instance, you say 'any robot job', but what does that actually mean? Is my robomawer going to be the equivalent of a 'worker'? Should I then pay too? Or are individuals exempted from it?
Also... it's perfectly possible to automate a factory full of robots, while claiming you only employ 'one worker', namely the central computer, and that computer only controls lot's of 'arms'. (which can actually be correct and true). And, well, we don't give wages to employees based on how many arms they have, do we? Otherwise, a one-armed worker would only get half the pay as one with two arms.
Sure, you could maybe close that loophole, but there will be myriads of those. What if instead of 100 arms, you just have two, but doing 100 dierent things? Does that count as one worker? There is nothing prohibiting a human worker from doing those 100 things too, after all, only he'll do it less fast and less cheap. And is a computer itself a 'robot'? Or merely a tool? what if it contains an AI? Ho smart must the AI be to be considered a worker? If I have 1000 AI's, with one human worker supervising it, are they still '1000 virtual workers', or just 1000 tools under the command of one person?
And what's the point? If you're going to ask for virtual money anyway, why not just levy a virtual tax for that 'pool' you speak off? Counting how many robots exactly replace how many workers, what constitutes a tool and what a robot, and checking all that, will only cause administrative overhead, and we wanted to avoid that with an UBI, didn't we?
The companies aren't really paying anything, but virtual money for virtual workers?
My dear sir, if you make everything virtual, the only thing you'll get out of it is virtual foodstamps for virtual food and you'll only stay virtually alive on those.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. In any case, if that virtual money IS going to affect their profit (aka, it are considered real costs), then my above counter will still be true, and they'll be outcompeted by other firms not having 'replaced' any workers. If it has no effect or influence on their profits whatsoever, then why bother with such a scheme? You'd be better of by letting virtually everyone virtually pay virtually any amount you like.
Besides, there are legion ways to get around it. Companies make millions, for instance, but some daughter-company (not the same legal entity) in, say, Luxembourg, has the 'IP rights', and so the mother-company 'has to pay for the rights' and siphons most of it's profit over to the company in Luxembourg, and can legally deduce it as 'costs'. Suddenly making almost no profit in their home country, while paying very little tax in Luxembourg.
Note that this is all legal, at least in principle. (Luxembourg got slapped on the wrist for some deals by the EU, but is now just continuing, but with leaving behind no or less paper-trail, so it's become even more difficult to prove anything.)
So it's not that they can not move out of the USA, it's just they don't really need to move out. If you tax them to heavy in the USA (which isn't the case in South-Dakota;-), their profit will suddenly dwindle to nothing.
For it to be viable, you'd need to close down ALL those (mostly legal) backdoors *without creating new ones* - and good luck with that. and that, preferably on a world-wide scale.
So if one is waiting for that to introduce an UBI, I'm afraid it's going to take a damn long time, if ever.
Me tired too. I already commented on a post (of you or someone else) who also proposed the virtual salaries thing. Bottomline: very unlikely that will ever be turned into law, and even if it were, very unlikely that it would work the way you think it will.
It's also very morally dubious. Just like I won't pay for my gardener who mawed my lawn because I bought a robomawer, there is no intrinsic or compelling reason why others would pay people who don't deliver work anymore because they've been replaced by robots.
There would also be no reason for them not to ask for chapter 11, and then start a new legal entity, and a new factory with robots, without 'replacing' any workers, thus - and thereby maximising profit.
First of all, the concept is rather peculiar. Do we ask a farmer that he pays salaries for the people that used to do work on his field but are now replaced by machinery? Do we ask the state, banks or other companies to pay out the people that got replaced by easy of use of computers, money-machines, etc.? Should I pay the guy who used to maw my grass before I bought a robomawer?
No doubt there are some very specific cases where such a deal has been struck with a company, but it hardly applies as a universal manner and way of doing things. "Making a law" that forces it, is highly unlikely to happen any time soon, and I think is not all that realistic.
Besides... What's 'displaced'? If a new owner starts a completely new factory that didn't existed before, and thus he hasn't laid of any human employees, he hasn't 'replaced' anyone. Thus he doesn't have to pay anything. Which means a factory that had no former employees has an advantage on those that did. Meaning, in practise, the latter will file for bankruptcy and then start anew, because they're better off that way. And if they don't, they get out-competed by firms that don't have that handicap.
Your statement that you need people with money to buy things, might be true from a societal viewpoint, but that doesn't matter to corporations and companies. They just want to maximise their profit. They don't think long term about the good of society. Meaning: even when true, it won't stop the competition, and thus those that have lower costs for the same product will prevail above those who have to pay former employees.
In short, what you propose is very unlikely to happen, and even if it were, it's very unlikely that it would follow your rather rosy picture of how an economy (and people) will work and react...
Well, the optimum for a stable society would be around two, wouldn't it?
Thus, make monetary incentives - that are worthwhile - to reach that optimum, and gradually reduce it to nothing for anything that deviates too much from it. If it still doesn't help, after the fourth child: obligatory sterilisation.
I mean, c'mon: 4 is more than enough.
I'm always surprised at how controversial this seems to be, but in fact it makes sense. I mean, one can complain about China, and since they had a one-child policy but their mentality wasn't evolved back then to a modern society (hugely preferring a boy over a girl), it created some problems...BUT... they're no with a billion. Imagine they hadn't done that policy, how many more would there be now? 2-3 billion?
You deal with overpopulation in a soft manner first: monetary incentives, education, change of mentality, etc. But if that doesn't help, at a certain point, you need to enforce things, before they grow out of hand in the long term.
Extremely limited, even. As the parent post said, they were aware that it would be temporary. Originally it would be for longer, granted, but they *still* were aware of it being temporary. And whether it's 2 years, or 3, or 5: you'll be less inclined to give up your job once you know you'll need that job back later.
Also, many things will never become clear with such limited experiments. For instance, there is a very big chance that, if a general, nation-wide UBI was implemented, that you'd get an automatic adaptation in regard to wages and pricing (rent for a house for instance), etc. You'll never get this with a limited, relatively small number of people, because the BNP, productivity, and general realisation nd economic effect of such a small portion of your populace is not measurable for a country or nation. however, the same UBI introduced nation-wide obviously WILL have retribution that could not have been found with a small example. Wages corporations pay are not going to decrease because 100 people are getting welfare/UBI extra. But they will decrease if *everyone* gets it.
The same goes for financing an UBI. It's no problem and hardly noticeable at all, that the state is able to sponsor an UBI of 100 people; it hardly makes a any dent in tax-revenue and expenditure, and won't have any effect on BNP. Do the same with the totality of your population, however, and you won't cope with your normal taxes anymore.
A lot of the effects, thus, won't show up in small-scale experiments.
Then again, I prefer another country to make a large-scale experiment.;-) After all, chances are it will go drastically wrong, and you could really fuck up a country/society for years to come, that way.
"Humans excel at a couple things that will never, and can never, be accounted for: endurance, and imagination."
"It doesn't matter how much effort these army-covered rich people put towards defending their hoards. Someone will always figure out a novel way that no one had anticipated before."
Ermm.. you know, rich people are humans too... So they excel at endurance and imagination too.
The parent poster is basically right, baring laws in a civilised country, of course; if rich people have enough power (and the will to be ruthless), soon they'll have the means to combat and stave off other, less well-equipped people. The forte of former upraises were numbers. Given more or less equal power, the one with the largest numbers usually won. With mass-produced robots which have high-tech weaponry only the rich can afford, the numbers as well as the destructive power speaks not in the favour of the hoi palloi mass uprisings anymore.
In the end, technology always wins (and the highest tech will always be in the hands of the rich and powerful first). That's why the Poland cavalry (with horses, thus) who were fighting German tanks failed miserably.
another variable is loyalty of the army to yourself. With humans, you'll always have some that either won't go through with it, rise up against you as well, etc. With an army of robots, this risk is severely reduced, and once you give the order, they will not hesitate in committing mass-slaughter.
It's still a bit in the future, but not THAT far in the future anymore. In the end, tech will have developed so much, one man with the right high tech weaponry can stave of and kill a thousand low tech soldiers.
1) the huge majority of people that are poor today are poor because they made/make shitty life choices.
That's a very strange assumption to make. Do you have evidence to back it up?
I'd contest that the huge majority of people that are poor today are poor because they were born into poor environments, and that being born into poor environments have well known socio-economic effects that result in people incapable of making good life choices.
You have the right correlation, but the causation is backwards.
I rather find thisa peculiar statement, frankly.
Sure, poor 'environments' have socio-economic effects, but one can hardly deny a loot of those are the direct result of people wasting their money and spending more than they earn, and make other bad decisions that are budgetary insane, aka 'shitty life choices'. I'm a bit tired of hearing the leftish vision and mantra that people are solely the result of the 'environment' they are born in. they are not. Otherwise, poor people never could get out of their poor environments, and looking at my grandparents, my parents, and myself, I can attest this is not true.
People are born in poor environments can't help that, but *staying* poor often is the result of bad habits and a certain mentality. If everything was controlled by your environment, and nothing by ones' own choice and manner of living and dealing with things, it would mean would be deterministic, and nothing you do yourself would make a difference. I refute such notion.
It's true one can have bad luck, or be born poor, etc., but it's also true a lot of times, the direct cause of being and remaining poor is ones' own choices and handlings.
I once knew a family with a lot of kids, who were complaining about not being able to provide food on the table, nor being able to pay for the rent, etc. But I did note that had an Xbox AND a PS3 AND a plasma TV... all luxury goods... and meanwhile they couldn't get food for their kids?
Ermm..maybe they had their priorities wrong?
In fact, maybe they should have started with having less kids?
So, I know what you're trying to say, but it's only partially true, and it shouldn't denote the fact that the cause often DOES lay with people themselves, and not some abstract 'environment'.
Can you sharelinks to the relevant scientific papers that describe, in detail and with numbers and calculations, costs will be offset by reduction in fraud and administration.
I know some proponents have *claimed* such a thing, but I've never seen it actually substantiated by hard data. And in all the papers I've read about UBI (and that were a lot already), I didn't see any detailed numbercrunching and hard data on it.
Frankly, I find th claim highly doubtful. An UBI inherently means EVERYONE gets it, including the working class and all those that don't get it now. Depending on the country and it's welfare system, this may triple or more the costs of the system. There is no way you can realistically recoup those costs back by reduced administration.
And that's even presuming everything is in an ideal state. No fraud anymore? Unrealistic. For instance, you have fraud where one person pretends to be several different persons; they'll scam the current welfare system now, but they'll do the same with an UBI (and thus getting several UI's) too. Maybe some forms of fraud will become useless, but that all fraud will dissapear is clearly a pipe-dream.
And ALL patchwork welfare systems? Unrealistic. In reality, things like pensions or invalidity is measured by the years you worked and how much disability you have, respectively. What are you going to do? Give someone who worked hard for 40 years to earn his pension a minimum wage - I mean an UBI - just like the person who never worked for a day? Even if that UBI is far less than his pension, and he can't really live from that UBI? (idem with a person with high disability, who needs for more than a minimum-wage UBI to survive?)
Ah, you say, but those can reduce their pension/invalidity income with the amount of the UBI, and only have the extra above that amount paid out. Very well. But that still means you need an administration to check who needs how much. So you'll sharply reduce your savings claimed by your former 'no administration'-mantra.
And thus we see, again, the difference between a theoretically nice idea, but which isn't in tune with reality (much like communism was), and will in practise never actually work as advertised.
"IMHO, they should just get rid of the patchwork of welfare programs, install a basic minimal income, and get it over with."
On itself, I could see some sense in that, in as far as one is a proponent of having such a welfare-system to begin with (and though I generally do, as it is now, I do think we're going overboard with it in the EU). It's becoming unmaintainable as it is.
Add to that - and this is the real problem - that getting rid of th patchwork WILL NOT be enough to provide for everyone, and an UBI is meant for everyone; aka, it will cost vastly more than all current welfare-programs together.
Short of a naive and ideologically coloured "we'll take it from the rich/corporations", I've never seen any detailed explanation on how to subsidise and finance such a huge welfare program. I mean, UBI. By 2025, most EU countries will not be able to sustain their current welfare-programs anymore, at least, not in the degree they are doing now. So how would they ever manage an even more elaborate one?
"The extra costs for the universal basic income program (aka, the new people who are getting support, which wouldn't be fully paid for by the reduction in welfare-program overheads) are paid for by new corporate taxes."
And those big, often international corporations will remain in the country where they are heavily taxed and not move to a neighbouring country where taxation is far lower, why, exactly?
"In turn, however, in addition to corporations not having to separately pay for pensions/social security and the like (since it's now rolled into universal basic income),"
What would that solve? Those pension/social security pensions would still need to be paid, if not by the corporations, then by the state. And where will the state get it? Dixit yourself, from the corporations. So you're basically saying: the corporations won't need to pay it separately as it is now, but they'll pay it through additional (UBI) taxes. Bottomline, they'll still have to pay for it, AND they'll have to pay more, since now there's an UBI for everyone to be financed by them too.
" minimum wages would also classified a government-required benefit (because they are), and what minimum a company has to pay a person is reduced by the individual's basic income."
Which would mean less wage being paid (in absolute terms), which means less taxes on those wages being paid, which means less tax-revenue for the state to finance the UBI.
I'm not quite sure why this is rated 'funny'. While I don't completely agree with everything you said, I thought a lot of it made perfect sense, and was clearly to the point.
At the very least, you made an elaborate and thoughtful post/comment, so people giving you a 'funny' seem rather to miss the points raised entirely.
Personally, I agree - and I think it's pretty obvious - that you are right in your claim that an UBI, when sponsored in the classical way, will fail. As you said, there is little doubt the wages, as well as prices (for rent, for instance) will adapt themselves after a while, to reflect the fact that everyone has an UBI, then. Which will make the UBI worthless in practise, because one will loose the capability to provide your basic needs with it.
But as for your 'parallel currency'... in the strict sense, that will never happen neither. Maybe in an indirect way, as with your food-stamps and such... but I'm doubting a bit if it will alleviate all problems with an UBI in the long term...
While you got -1 because of being deliberately offensive (and let's face it, you were), from a strict Darwinian concept you are basically right. By providing extra food, medicine, etc. to those places, yet they haven't developed their own modern societal structure nor changed their mentality (aka, lack of education, lack of services from the state, etc.), one has provided the worst of both worlds: the capability to massively procreate and at the same time a lack of will to restrain themselves and voluntarily limit the number of offspring.
Yes, still many are dying there, but without our aid, many, many more would die off. Which, of course, would set the balance in regard to overpopulation straight again, if it weren't for our aid.
All this is a strictly Darwinian vision on the matter, however. In practise, they're still human, and one can hardly let thousands starve for a long-term darwinistic vision on world population.
And also pragmatically; we either help them there, or they'll move to here.
I don't know. Short of letting them starve by the millions and not letting anyone through (good luck with that) here, I think the best option is trying to educate them there, and creating a more structured, modern state which provides for its citizens there.
Frankly, I see that rather happening in Asia and even South-America, than in Africa. That continent is riddled in problems, and, overall, has an extremely backwards mentality still, based on 'clans' and 'tribes', which are more important than the 'state', and thus, corruption and money-grabbing for one own and one's own clan abound. Throw in constant war and other societal disruptive influences, and I dare say that, of all continent, Africa will be the last to ever attain an modern society like that of the West.
Who would have thought? For once, I agree with you.
Eduction, and the state providing for basic needs, especially for the elder, is what drives birthrate down. Coupled with medical progress in general and contraceptives specifically, of course. Basically, in poor countries without any services, you need loads of children because you need them to provide for you in your old days, and because many of those children die before the age of 10. As was the case for most of the time in the West. The declining birthrate is a fairly recent development in the West, clearly linked to the medical, educational and societal developments of the last 50-60 years.
While it may be that eventually, if automaton and AI has taken over virtually any job, that an UBI will be the only thing left. In that case, out whole current neo-capitalistic free-market system might get tossed in the bin.
Until such a time, however, it's virtually impossible to implement a nation-wide UBI within our current system.
BTW, do note that, if an UBI is introduced because automation has taken all the jobs away, the whole argument of 'people working for an extra income' is going to be a moot point too. It's strange none of the proponents seem to realise this contradiction. An UBI because there's no work for humans anymore, but one is going to work to get 5100/month? Ermm...
But anyway, back to our current time and our current system. Let me just ask me this: who's going to pay for it? 'Nobody has proposed raising taxes to 90%' you say, but no-one has proposed how, exactly (preferably with numbers and calculations) one IS going to sustain such an UBI. Because, let's face it: the current welfare systems are sponsored by taxes. Which are for a large part deducted from your wage. So the working force pays taxes, and the taxes are used for the current welfare system. an UBI, by it's very nature, will cost a lot more, since it's intended for EVERYONE, not just the needy. In my country, as it is with most EU countries, this would drive up the costs with at least 300%. Because the millions who do work, would now get 'welfare' (UBI) too, obviously.
So how are you going to finance it? And please don't come with naive ideologically coloured nonsense as 'take it from the rich' or vague claims like 'it will pay for itself through economic ripple effects'. That's just unconvincing. The most obvious thing will be, that it's financed by the same thing that finances our current welfare-system: through taxes. Which, as the parent poster indicated correctly, means inevitably a huge raise in taxes, simply for the fact the system costs far more too. So it's not impossible to have the tax raised to 80-90%, for those that DO work. Which certainly will kill the incentive to work for an 'extra', which means still more people will stop working and just live of the UBI. Rince, repeat. apart from that, companies obviously will adapt their wages, and you'll not earn 2600/month anymore, but 2600-2500=100/month anymore. I think that's what the parent poster was alluding to. It's not that it's not understood that you can earn more, it's just that, if you're introducing a nation-wide UBI for everyone, prices and wages will start to reflect this. That's a given. Employees are competing too, after all. So if a person wants to earn something 'extra', and he has an UBI of 2500, and he can live a bit more comfortably if he has another 600 euro, instead of another 2600, he'll work for 600 euro extra.
Sure, if the difference is only 100 euro, most won't bother, but starting at 500-600, you'll have people willing to work for it, because they either want extra, or need the extra (you'll always have foolish people squandering their UBI away too, after all). But it won't be 2600/month anymore, because companies to will realise people are already getting 2500 'for nothing'. The same will be true for rental prices and such: prices will just adapt to the new reality that everyone has a 2500 euro (or dollars, or swiss franc, whatever) extra.
This, of course, in turn means that the taxes on these wages will be less, and thus there will be less tax-revenue for the state, which means there will be even LESS tax-revenue to spend on the UBI.
All these factors are pretty straightforward and easy to see, and I never saw a clear answer from UBI-proponents about those matters. Also note that, even when 'some' people no doubt will try to get 'more' (if it isn't too much taxed), a lot of people, following Maslows' hierarcy of needs, will be content with the UBI (at least, until rental and other prices rise - after which an UBI becomes meaningless anyway, since it can't cover basic needs anymore). Our own welfare-systems i
And UBI inevitable? It may be, but only if automation and AI have become so dominant that there simple aren't any jobs left that a human would do better. But in that case, 'having another job gets you more' will not apply anymore neither.
Ah yes, the 'creative' jobs. Well, unfortunately, not everyone can be a creative genius, even if all tried. Even artists have to compete, and there is no way that 8 billion people can become 8 billion successful artists or 'creativists'. Even now, only one in the ten-thousand can earn money with it, mostly those with either talent or best 'network' (connections), or sheer luck. If everyone had a try on being an artist, it simply would mean it would become one in a million.
The problem is... until such a world comes true, and our current neo-capitalist free-market system has to be put in the bin because there simply is no work anymore for humans, an UBI, on a national scale, can never work.
the main problem with this idea is: someone has to pay for it. And it will ALWAYS costs loads more than currnt wellfare-systems, since, inherently to an UBI, the working force ALSO gets it. That means a huge augmentation of the costs, at least tripling it, and possibly even making tenfold out of the costs, depending on the country and its respective wellfare-system.
One question I never see answered is: who is going to pay for it? And I mean, specifically, with detailed numbers and calculations. Even among the scientific papers not one goes into this. The most of an answer you ever get is 'take it from the rich' or 'it will have economic beneficial ripple effects'. Which is, respectively, too ideological naive and to vague to be of any use.
Currently, taxes are used for the wellfare system. If you're going to introduce a system that will cost triple or quadruple the amount, then you need to raise your taxes threefold or more too, or you'll have to find another realistic and sustainable revenue to cater and provide for an nation-wide UBI system.
Incentive does not go away, you say. For some, it won't. But for most, when the basic needs are dealt with, they'll be content. This follows naturally from human psyche (even the ancient romans were already aware of this with their 'panem et circenses') and it's also a baic tenet of Maslows hierarchy of needs.
So it doesn't matter if 'some' will seek more - as you undoubtedly will have - if 'enough' people DO NOT seek it and stop working, the whole system collapses. Even with out current wellfare systems in the EU, it's beginning to be top-heavy and unsustainable: there are just too many to provide for, to many who use (and misuse) the system. Now, expand this system to *everyone*. It's easy to see that even more will stop working. Which means, the others will have to pay for it all. Which means higher taxes. Which means less incentive for those others to work - no-one is going to work to earn 'a little bit extra', if that extra is taxed for 80%, now are they?
The problem I have with people being a proponent of an UBI is, thus, that they never explain in detail how, within our current system, one is going to pay for the huge extra cost in a sustainable manner, without letting the system crash on itself. The only things I heard thusfar, are either vague 'economic ripple effect will occur' (that will pay for everything, we're assured by proponents), or ideologically coloured and naive ('take it from the rich'). It's just not convincing.
While I'm partially convinced an UBI will happen sooner or later (well, actually later) when automation (robotics and AI) kicks in even more, it's still hard to see how it could be introduced in our own neo-liberal capitalist free-market system. Which, contrary to what many lefties claim, is still one of the better out there. Communism certainly wasn't better.
The whole idea of 'but some people will still work and be creative' is all good and well, but it doesn't explain where the money is going to come from in the first place. Because, intrinisically, and UBI is meant for *everyone*. Thus, it means the working force gets one too, and this means a giant increase in wellfare-spending. Scuze me, in UBI-spending. Where is that money going to come from?
I've searched my ass of to find scientific papers that would explain it to me, and I've found several on the subject of UBI's, most of them claiming and praising all the benefits, but *none* of them actually explained where the money is going to come from. Welfare (including 'pension', etc.) now is paid by taxes. Taxes are derived from people that earn money for the work they deliver. With an UBI the government is going to have to pay a tenfold of what they're paying now.
So my question is simple: where will that money come from?
A tenfold increase in taxes? In that case, the UBI will become next to worthless in covering your expenses. 'New companies' that will arise due to the UBI? not to burst the bubble, but even if a small part may take the chance of investing in a company that otherwise wouldn't, it's still a fact they will have to compete, and people will still go bust. The *average* chance of succeeding, thus, is not going to augment because of it. And there is an absolute margin too. As an analogy: one may have two restaurants doing well in a village of 100 men, but you can't possible hope that 100 restaurants will be successful in such a village. The same goes for your contention that 'some people want more than that'. Very well. But a very large part won't. That's just a given, because human nature just searches for the easiest way out most of the time, and *for most people*, when the prime needs are dealt with (aka, see Maslow's hierarchy of needs), it will suffice.
Power to them, you say. But you're forgetting one thing. If a large part of the populace doesn't work anymore - they still have to be paid. What is the government going to tax, if not the 'some' people that 'want more'. That's, basically, why communism failed too, though in theory it was a wonderful idea. It just didn't work in practise. Of course, if you tax those poeple more and more, they're less and less inclined to do the work for the extra money, because it's souped up by taxes. No-one is going to work if the extra income is then taxed at 90%.
Ah, I hear the left say, we'll let the 'superrich' and the 'big companies' pay for it. And that's...what I consider ideologically coloured BS. It won't happen, and even if you try, it won't succeed, as Hollande has noted when he introduced the 'tax for the superrich' in his own country. After a paltry two years, he had to retract it, in silence, since it was an utter failure. The reason being, of course, that the superrich and the big companies won't silently abide and stay in your country when you are going to tax them heavily. No, they're just going to move to another country. So, unless you introduce the same laws and same taxes in all states and countries worldwide - and good luck with that - it's never going to work.
Which, again, leads us to the question: who's going to pay for it, then?
The truth is, unless and until you have a world-wide system which is following another system than our current capitalism and free-market and still works (thus; not communism), it's nonsensical to introduce an UBI.
And UBI will always cost vastly more than whatever wellfare-system is paying now (at least, when a similar average payment as is now the case, is given to *every* citizen of a country). Without a air-
But that are the same things what were said back in the days that an e-car could only muster 100 km and the charging time was 3-4 hours. Now we're at 350 km and charging times of 30 min.
For sure, the tech will need to advance, and no-one said it was going to be easy. But I have little doubt we'll get there eventually. Seeing the current pace, I'm pretty sure in 5-10 years most of the issues now raised will have been dealt with, at least to some degree. It won't happen overnight, but it will be a steady progress. Now, H2-systems will know progress too, but the point is, there will not be a market anymore - especially when it'll cost about 500 billion to revamp all the petrol-stations, one can see this is a foolish and costly thing, for little benefit.
People wanting the H2-system to go ahead, are claiming the benefits are it can be loaded faster and one can drive further with it. But even now, this isn't a real problem for most people that don't drive interstate and can't wait 30 minutes. So let's say that in those 5-10 years they don't manage to triple the distance with e-cars, but only double it, and instead of 15 minutes, they only reduced it to 20-25 minutes.
Even then, the need or stimulus for H2 has already been cut drastically too (and it isn't really that big to begin with). Because the difference between 900 km and 700km, and between 15 min loading time and 20-25 minutes has become less, and the closer that gap gets, the less sense it makes to create a H2-system. And for even (a lot) more people, 700 km will be more than enough. Rince, repeat.
Now, granted, one could argue that H2 future tech might make it possible to go 1500 km and have loading times of 5 minutes.. but the point is, no-one except maybe a small niche is wanting or waiting for that. So it still means investing 500 billion into a H2-system/infrastructure does not make economic sense.
Basically, it's just a cost/benefit analysis. And since it costs 100 times more to set up a H2-system/infrastructure than a battery/grid system, you just can't recuperate the cost of the former to be competitive with the latter.
I'm not sure whether you really do not get this, or if you're being wilfully obtuse. I've seen it happen before, when people with a certain pet-idea or concept get logical criticism which can't be refuted, but they have difficulty acknowledging this.
In the off-chance that you're actually not comprehending this, and not being contentious, let me take this step for step:
You keep insisting that fuel cells and batteries essentially are the same (the working is the similar), but you fail to see that was not the argument (even though I explicitly stated three times what the exact argument is). So, let's try it this way: ok, batteries and fuel cells are more or less the same. In both you have a chemical reaction with an oxidiser, and in both things, when converting it back to electricity (for the car) you have losses. However, and please try to get it this time: your statement that both, fuel cells and batteries, are similar (both are energy-storage) IN NO WAY says anything about the efficiency of the respective cycle: electricity/fuel - chemical bounding - electricity conversion. Agreed?
Do note that it was about efficiency we were talking. All your talk about how both things are storage methods doesn't change anything to that. And efficiency is measured by what you get out compared with what you put in. So let's look at the respective cycles.
First you have the H2 cycle.
I'll take my example of a nuclear plant again, delivering electricity. For arguments' sake and easy to follow, let's say the plant delivers a unit of 100W. That's the energy we're working with. Now, of that 100W of electricity, we need part of it to create H2. This is necessary, because there are NO free pools of easily accessible H2. H2 is made by electrolysis of water, or other energy-extensive methods with natural gas, etc. This, obviously, cost energy too. Let's say it cost 20% of your energy. This means of the 100W you got, 20W is gone into making H2, so you're left with 80W. This you convert into H2. You then put this into the fuel cell, where it's chemical bound and stored, and can be retrieved with another loss of, say, 20%. What actually goes into your car as electricity, thus, is a mere 60W from the original 100W.
Now let's look at the BEV. You get the same 100W. You put it in the battery. There, it's chemically stored. When retrieving it, you have also a loss of 20% - just like with fuel cells - and thus, what you get out of it is 80%.
Now...getting 60%, or getting 80% out of 100W; what is the most efficient, you think?
It is clear as daylight, that a H2 system - thus, energy derived from H2 to provide electricity for cars - is ALWAYS going to be more expensive, then just using batteries for a car and putting the electricity in it. This has *nothing* to do with your mantra that 'both store energy' but everything with the fact that H2 is less efficient in delivering back the electricity they received, for any amount, any given unit of electricity you've put in it. And that's because you ALWAYS have to spend extra energy to *create* the H2, while you do not have with batteries. As said (numerous times by now), this is an extra step, which requires extra energy.
That batteries and fuel cells 'all cost energy', thus, changes NOTHING to the fact that using a H2 infrastructure is *less* efficient in providing electricity for your car. Because you loose extra energy for converting water or gas into H2. That's because you not only have losses in the conversion in the fuel cell (as you have in the battery), but in addition, you have losses in converting water or gas into H2, which also takes considerably energy, since you have to overcome the molecular chemical bonds of that water and gas first. With BEV's, you only have the losses in the chemical bounding and retrieval in the battery, (as you have with fuel cells), but you DO NOT have the extra energy-loss of having to convert it into a fuel first.
Do you now see what I mean? I don't think there is any way of denying what I say: it just take
I think you should repeat it to yourself as well.;-)
Look, I'll try to explain it once more. While you may argue that a fuel cell and a battery are the same, the fact is and remains that *IT COSTS ADDITIONAL ENERGY TO CONVERT WATER OR GAS INTO HYDROGEN*.
What part of this don't you understand?
Once again: a fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction. One can claim the same for a battery. Granted. But to *get* hydrogen, you already need to put in energy for the molecular bonds of water or gas to be made into H2. *Which you DO NOT* have with a battery receiving electricity.
A third time: the extra step, thus, is the conversion (and the energy this requires) of turning electricity INTO H2. That the (chemical - electricity) conversion in the fuel cell equals the (chemical - electricity) conversion in a battery, does nothing to mitigate the fact you already poured in more energy into it from the get go, or you wouldn't have the H2 to begin with.
I've explained it three times, now. Try to counterargument on the actual point I raised, now, at least.
And you're not grasping my last point neither. I'm not saying H2 technology will not progress, I'm saying that BEV's and the grid/chargers will evolve as well. You only would make a point if you start with the premise H2 technology would make giant strides forward, having breakthroughs and progress in leaps, and costs dwindle to a fraction, while at the same time batteries and the e-grid would stand still or would hardly progress anymore.
I find this highly unlikely.
Current technology gives an (economical) advantage to the latter, not to H2. Your counterargument is: but using future technology this will change. BUT... using future BEV/grid technology as well, nothing will change at all! Since no-one knows the future with certainty, making predictions where one progresses, and the other not, is rather silly, if not intellectual dishonest. So let's say: both technologies will progress. But since it has a head start, the gap to close for H2 will not get better.
Instead, the few advantages it has, namely longer distances and shorter loading times, will relatively soon be dealt with, by improved superchargers and batteries, within 5-10 years. Far too short a time for fuel cells to catch up and it to be worth investing 500 billion in a H2 infrastructure. So it's not a question of 'H2 technology not evolving' or only taking 'current tech' under consideration, it's a question of 'H2 not being able to close the advantages-disadvantages gap', since batteries and chargers are and will progress too. (and to be frank, do it at a faster pace than H2 technology).
Slashdot Mirror
No, I didn't. But note the point 'should'. Not 'will'. This is a subjective stance from someone who reached self-actualisation and considers this the greatest good to achieve. And I would hardly disagree, but the fact is, generally spoken, a huge portion of the masses - in earlier non-PC times one would call this the hoi palloi - is fairly content when it achieved level 2-3 on his list.
I hardly think one can hardly deny this. Even th Romans in ancient times knew about this, and had a term for it to keep the masses docile: "Panem et circenses". And they're basically right - in a societal context: give the masses food and entertainment, and most of them will be content and docile.
This does not mean any particular individual will be appeased by it, but for large numbers of people, the majority will be content with that. Ergo; if you make sure you have that, a lot of people won't bother with the rest.
Look at out current welfare system(s); there already is a considerable part of the populace that just lingers around and doesn't want to work. Yes, I know it's claimed they "can not find job", but here's where the naivety kicks in with the lefties. There are open jobs for lower jobs (working at MCDonalds, for instance, or for higher jobs). But the 'lower' jobs don't get filled in because it's looked down upon and it's deemed to be beneath them (that's why almost no job of nightman/garbage-pickup gets filled in by anyone else than immigrants; our own people don't want to do it anymore, even when it's pretty well-paid), or a lack of will to get additional education to get a 'higher' job - though you can follow courses quite easily, and the companies are even sponsoring the money for it). But they don't really *want* to do it. If not, it's impossible to explain we have thousands of open vacancies, yet still have 8-12% unemployment. One who thinks that this will get better by giving *everyone* an UBI, is gravely mistaken. The last few years our government has become less lenient and made some time-constraints when unemployed, especially for those leaving school. The result? A lot of those who were formerly unemployed, now have a job. It means that they couldn't *find* a job earlier, but that they *did not want* to find a job earlier, and the main reason is, they can live reasonably comfortable without it, with our lenient welfare-system. Of course, not ALL people can find *immediately* a job. It's not an OR-OR question. A moderate welfare system is not a bad thing. nd not all people try to profit from it, just like not all people will stop working if an UBI is introduced. But it's equally naive to think no-one, or only a very small percentage will stop working, and the rest will just continue working. Our current welfare system is not indicative of such an optimistic view.
Now, no doubt you can argue whatever socio-economic or psychological reasons there are out there, but the point is, you should realise there will ALWAYS be a big part of the populace that will not search for 'self-actualisation', or, if they do, will not search for work to establish that self-actualisation. It's also a given that this will not diminish, but augment, with an UBI, since you make it possible for more people to potato-couch around. It's not even necessarily a bad thing: do UBI-proponents not say exactly that; that an UBI coupled with automation, frees people from doing 'boring' jobs. Of course, eventually it will 'free' them from ALL jobs, but that's often forgotten.
I'll agree with your first point; it won't have to reach 100% before the problems start to arise.
I disagree with your last point, for the reasons mentioned in my earlier comment to you. (I mean the very last point, which claims the reduction of administrative overhead will be able to pay for the additional costs of a general, nation-wide UBI.)
What you are describing is what the current welfare and tax-system is already doing to some extend, with the distinction of being based on a (semi) flat-tax. And I'm all for a flat-tax, granted, but in your system one still would need to check what the exact income is of everyone, and so you're losing one of the big claimed advantages of an UBI, namely no more administrative overhead (and dito cost-savings).
Apart from this being rather esoteric and very doubtful to ever happen or be implemented, it wouldn't be that simple. For instance, you say 'any robot job', but what does that actually mean? Is my robomawer going to be the equivalent of a 'worker'? Should I then pay too? Or are individuals exempted from it?
Also... it's perfectly possible to automate a factory full of robots, while claiming you only employ 'one worker', namely the central computer, and that computer only controls lot's of 'arms'. (which can actually be correct and true). And, well, we don't give wages to employees based on how many arms they have, do we? Otherwise, a one-armed worker would only get half the pay as one with two arms.
Sure, you could maybe close that loophole, but there will be myriads of those. What if instead of 100 arms, you just have two, but doing 100 dierent things? Does that count as one worker? There is nothing prohibiting a human worker from doing those 100 things too, after all, only he'll do it less fast and less cheap. And is a computer itself a 'robot'? Or merely a tool? what if it contains an AI? Ho smart must the AI be to be considered a worker? If I have 1000 AI's, with one human worker supervising it, are they still '1000 virtual workers', or just 1000 tools under the command of one person?
And what's the point? If you're going to ask for virtual money anyway, why not just levy a virtual tax for that 'pool' you speak off? Counting how many robots exactly replace how many workers, what constitutes a tool and what a robot, and checking all that, will only cause administrative overhead, and we wanted to avoid that with an UBI, didn't we?
What? Ermm...you lost me there.
The companies aren't really paying anything, but virtual money for virtual workers?
My dear sir, if you make everything virtual, the only thing you'll get out of it is virtual foodstamps for virtual food and you'll only stay virtually alive on those.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. In any case, if that virtual money IS going to affect their profit (aka, it are considered real costs), then my above counter will still be true, and they'll be outcompeted by other firms not having 'replaced' any workers. If it has no effect or influence on their profits whatsoever, then why bother with such a scheme? You'd be better of by letting virtually everyone virtually pay virtually any amount you like.
In that case it reminds me a bit of this story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/710...
They don't have to. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Besides, there are legion ways to get around it. Companies make millions, for instance, but some daughter-company (not the same legal entity) in, say, Luxembourg, has the 'IP rights', and so the mother-company 'has to pay for the rights' and siphons most of it's profit over to the company in Luxembourg, and can legally deduce it as 'costs'. Suddenly making almost no profit in their home country, while paying very little tax in Luxembourg.
Note that this is all legal, at least in principle. (Luxembourg got slapped on the wrist for some deals by the EU, but is now just continuing, but with leaving behind no or less paper-trail, so it's become even more difficult to prove anything.)
So it's not that they can not move out of the USA, it's just they don't really need to move out. If you tax them to heavy in the USA (which isn't the case in South-Dakota ;-), their profit will suddenly dwindle to nothing.
For it to be viable, you'd need to close down ALL those (mostly legal) backdoors *without creating new ones* - and good luck with that. and that, preferably on a world-wide scale.
So if one is waiting for that to introduce an UBI, I'm afraid it's going to take a damn long time, if ever.
Me tired too. I already commented on a post (of you or someone else) who also proposed the virtual salaries thing. Bottomline: very unlikely that will ever be turned into law, and even if it were, very unlikely that it would work the way you think it will.
It's also very morally dubious. Just like I won't pay for my gardener who mawed my lawn because I bought a robomawer, there is no intrinsic or compelling reason why others would pay people who don't deliver work anymore because they've been replaced by robots.
There would also be no reason for them not to ask for chapter 11, and then start a new legal entity, and a new factory with robots, without 'replacing' any workers, thus - and thereby maximising profit.
First of all, the concept is rather peculiar. Do we ask a farmer that he pays salaries for the people that used to do work on his field but are now replaced by machinery? Do we ask the state, banks or other companies to pay out the people that got replaced by easy of use of computers, money-machines, etc.? Should I pay the guy who used to maw my grass before I bought a robomawer?
No doubt there are some very specific cases where such a deal has been struck with a company, but it hardly applies as a universal manner and way of doing things. "Making a law" that forces it, is highly unlikely to happen any time soon, and I think is not all that realistic.
Besides... What's 'displaced'? If a new owner starts a completely new factory that didn't existed before, and thus he hasn't laid of any human employees, he hasn't 'replaced' anyone. Thus he doesn't have to pay anything. Which means a factory that had no former employees has an advantage on those that did. Meaning, in practise, the latter will file for bankruptcy and then start anew, because they're better off that way. And if they don't, they get out-competed by firms that don't have that handicap.
Your statement that you need people with money to buy things, might be true from a societal viewpoint, but that doesn't matter to corporations and companies. They just want to maximise their profit. They don't think long term about the good of society. Meaning: even when true, it won't stop the competition, and thus those that have lower costs for the same product will prevail above those who have to pay former employees.
In short, what you propose is very unlikely to happen, and even if it were, it's very unlikely that it would follow your rather rosy picture of how an economy (and people) will work and react...
Well, the optimum for a stable society would be around two, wouldn't it?
Thus, make monetary incentives - that are worthwhile - to reach that optimum, and gradually reduce it to nothing for anything that deviates too much from it. If it still doesn't help, after the fourth child: obligatory sterilisation.
I mean, c'mon: 4 is more than enough.
I'm always surprised at how controversial this seems to be, but in fact it makes sense. I mean, one can complain about China, and since they had a one-child policy but their mentality wasn't evolved back then to a modern society (hugely preferring a boy over a girl), it created some problems...BUT... they're no with a billion. Imagine they hadn't done that policy, how many more would there be now? 2-3 billion?
You deal with overpopulation in a soft manner first: monetary incentives, education, change of mentality, etc. But if that doesn't help, at a certain point, you need to enforce things, before they grow out of hand in the long term.
Extremely limited, even. As the parent post said, they were aware that it would be temporary. Originally it would be for longer, granted, but they *still* were aware of it being temporary. And whether it's 2 years, or 3, or 5: you'll be less inclined to give up your job once you know you'll need that job back later.
Also, many things will never become clear with such limited experiments. For instance, there is a very big chance that, if a general, nation-wide UBI was implemented, that you'd get an automatic adaptation in regard to wages and pricing (rent for a house for instance), etc. You'll never get this with a limited, relatively small number of people, because the BNP, productivity, and general realisation nd economic effect of such a small portion of your populace is not measurable for a country or nation. however, the same UBI introduced nation-wide obviously WILL have retribution that could not have been found with a small example. Wages corporations pay are not going to decrease because 100 people are getting welfare/UBI extra. But they will decrease if *everyone* gets it.
The same goes for financing an UBI. It's no problem and hardly noticeable at all, that the state is able to sponsor an UBI of 100 people; it hardly makes a any dent in tax-revenue and expenditure, and won't have any effect on BNP. Do the same with the totality of your population, however, and you won't cope with your normal taxes anymore.
A lot of the effects, thus, won't show up in small-scale experiments.
Then again, I prefer another country to make a large-scale experiment. ;-) After all, chances are it will go drastically wrong, and you could really fuck up a country/society for years to come, that way.
"Humans excel at a couple things that will never, and can never, be accounted for: endurance, and imagination."
"It doesn't matter how much effort these army-covered rich people put towards defending their hoards. Someone will always figure out a novel way that no one had anticipated before."
Ermm.. you know, rich people are humans too... So they excel at endurance and imagination too.
The parent poster is basically right, baring laws in a civilised country, of course; if rich people have enough power (and the will to be ruthless), soon they'll have the means to combat and stave off other, less well-equipped people. The forte of former upraises were numbers. Given more or less equal power, the one with the largest numbers usually won. With mass-produced robots which have high-tech weaponry only the rich can afford, the numbers as well as the destructive power speaks not in the favour of the hoi palloi mass uprisings anymore.
In the end, technology always wins (and the highest tech will always be in the hands of the rich and powerful first). That's why the Poland cavalry (with horses, thus) who were fighting German tanks failed miserably.
another variable is loyalty of the army to yourself. With humans, you'll always have some that either won't go through with it, rise up against you as well, etc. With an army of robots, this risk is severely reduced, and once you give the order, they will not hesitate in committing mass-slaughter.
It's still a bit in the future, but not THAT far in the future anymore. In the end, tech will have developed so much, one man with the right high tech weaponry can stave of and kill a thousand low tech soldiers.
1) the huge majority of people that are poor today are poor because they made/make shitty life choices.
That's a very strange assumption to make. Do you have evidence to back it up?
I'd contest that the huge majority of people that are poor today are poor because they were born into poor environments, and that being born into poor environments have well known socio-economic effects that result in people incapable of making good life choices.
You have the right correlation, but the causation is backwards.
I rather find thisa peculiar statement, frankly.
Sure, poor 'environments' have socio-economic effects, but one can hardly deny a loot of those are the direct result of people wasting their money and spending more than they earn, and make other bad decisions that are budgetary insane, aka 'shitty life choices'. I'm a bit tired of hearing the leftish vision and mantra that people are solely the result of the 'environment' they are born in. they are not. Otherwise, poor people never could get out of their poor environments, and looking at my grandparents, my parents, and myself, I can attest this is not true.
People are born in poor environments can't help that, but *staying* poor often is the result of bad habits and a certain mentality. If everything was controlled by your environment, and nothing by ones' own choice and manner of living and dealing with things, it would mean would be deterministic, and nothing you do yourself would make a difference. I refute such notion.
It's true one can have bad luck, or be born poor, etc., but it's also true a lot of times, the direct cause of being and remaining poor is ones' own choices and handlings.
I once knew a family with a lot of kids, who were complaining about not being able to provide food on the table, nor being able to pay for the rent, etc. But I did note that had an Xbox AND a PS3 AND a plasma TV... all luxury goods... and meanwhile they couldn't get food for their kids?
Ermm..maybe they had their priorities wrong?
In fact, maybe they should have started with having less kids?
So, I know what you're trying to say, but it's only partially true, and it shouldn't denote the fact that the cause often DOES lay with people themselves, and not some abstract 'environment'.
Can you sharelinks to the relevant scientific papers that describe, in detail and with numbers and calculations, costs will be offset by reduction in fraud and administration.
I know some proponents have *claimed* such a thing, but I've never seen it actually substantiated by hard data. And in all the papers I've read about UBI (and that were a lot already), I didn't see any detailed numbercrunching and hard data on it.
Frankly, I find th claim highly doubtful. An UBI inherently means EVERYONE gets it, including the working class and all those that don't get it now. Depending on the country and it's welfare system, this may triple or more the costs of the system. There is no way you can realistically recoup those costs back by reduced administration.
And that's even presuming everything is in an ideal state. No fraud anymore? Unrealistic. For instance, you have fraud where one person pretends to be several different persons; they'll scam the current welfare system now, but they'll do the same with an UBI (and thus getting several UI's) too. Maybe some forms of fraud will become useless, but that all fraud will dissapear is clearly a pipe-dream.
And ALL patchwork welfare systems? Unrealistic. In reality, things like pensions or invalidity is measured by the years you worked and how much disability you have, respectively. What are you going to do? Give someone who worked hard for 40 years to earn his pension a minimum wage - I mean an UBI - just like the person who never worked for a day? Even if that UBI is far less than his pension, and he can't really live from that UBI? (idem with a person with high disability, who needs for more than a minimum-wage UBI to survive?)
Ah, you say, but those can reduce their pension/invalidity income with the amount of the UBI, and only have the extra above that amount paid out. Very well. But that still means you need an administration to check who needs how much. So you'll sharply reduce your savings claimed by your former 'no administration'-mantra.
And thus we see, again, the difference between a theoretically nice idea, but which isn't in tune with reality (much like communism was), and will in practise never actually work as advertised.
"IMHO, they should just get rid of the patchwork of welfare programs, install a basic minimal income, and get it over with."
On itself, I could see some sense in that, in as far as one is a proponent of having such a welfare-system to begin with (and though I generally do, as it is now, I do think we're going overboard with it in the EU). It's becoming unmaintainable as it is.
Add to that - and this is the real problem - that getting rid of th patchwork WILL NOT be enough to provide for everyone, and an UBI is meant for everyone; aka, it will cost vastly more than all current welfare-programs together.
Short of a naive and ideologically coloured "we'll take it from the rich/corporations", I've never seen any detailed explanation on how to subsidise and finance such a huge welfare program. I mean, UBI. By 2025, most EU countries will not be able to sustain their current welfare-programs anymore, at least, not in the degree they are doing now. So how would they ever manage an even more elaborate one?
"The extra costs for the universal basic income program (aka, the new people who are getting support, which wouldn't be fully paid for by the reduction in welfare-program overheads) are paid for by new corporate taxes."
And those big, often international corporations will remain in the country where they are heavily taxed and not move to a neighbouring country where taxation is far lower, why, exactly?
"In turn, however, in addition to corporations not having to separately pay for pensions/social security and the like (since it's now rolled into universal basic income),"
What would that solve? Those pension/social security pensions would still need to be paid, if not by the corporations, then by the state. And where will the state get it? Dixit yourself, from the corporations. So you're basically saying: the corporations won't need to pay it separately as it is now, but they'll pay it through additional (UBI) taxes. Bottomline, they'll still have to pay for it, AND they'll have to pay more, since now there's an UBI for everyone to be financed by them too.
" minimum wages would also classified a government-required benefit (because they are), and what minimum a company has to pay a person is reduced by the individual's basic income."
Which would mean less wage being paid (in absolute terms), which means less taxes on those wages being paid, which means less tax-revenue for the state to finance the UBI.
You're not thinking this through, squire.
Aha, a fellow Dune fan, I see. :-)
I'm not quite sure why this is rated 'funny'. While I don't completely agree with everything you said, I thought a lot of it made perfect sense, and was clearly to the point.
At the very least, you made an elaborate and thoughtful post/comment, so people giving you a 'funny' seem rather to miss the points raised entirely.
Personally, I agree - and I think it's pretty obvious - that you are right in your claim that an UBI, when sponsored in the classical way, will fail. As you said, there is little doubt the wages, as well as prices (for rent, for instance) will adapt themselves after a while, to reflect the fact that everyone has an UBI, then. Which will make the UBI worthless in practise, because one will loose the capability to provide your basic needs with it.
But as for your 'parallel currency'... in the strict sense, that will never happen neither. Maybe in an indirect way, as with your food-stamps and such... but I'm doubting a bit if it will alleviate all problems with an UBI in the long term...
While you got -1 because of being deliberately offensive (and let's face it, you were), from a strict Darwinian concept you are basically right. By providing extra food, medicine, etc. to those places, yet they haven't developed their own modern societal structure nor changed their mentality (aka, lack of education, lack of services from the state, etc.), one has provided the worst of both worlds: the capability to massively procreate and at the same time a lack of will to restrain themselves and voluntarily limit the number of offspring.
Yes, still many are dying there, but without our aid, many, many more would die off. Which, of course, would set the balance in regard to overpopulation straight again, if it weren't for our aid.
All this is a strictly Darwinian vision on the matter, however. In practise, they're still human, and one can hardly let thousands starve for a long-term darwinistic vision on world population.
And also pragmatically; we either help them there, or they'll move to here.
I don't know. Short of letting them starve by the millions and not letting anyone through (good luck with that) here, I think the best option is trying to educate them there, and creating a more structured, modern state which provides for its citizens there.
Frankly, I see that rather happening in Asia and even South-America, than in Africa. That continent is riddled in problems, and, overall, has an extremely backwards mentality still, based on 'clans' and 'tribes', which are more important than the 'state', and thus, corruption and money-grabbing for one own and one's own clan abound. Throw in constant war and other societal disruptive influences, and I dare say that, of all continent, Africa will be the last to ever attain an modern society like that of the West.
Who would have thought? For once, I agree with you.
Eduction, and the state providing for basic needs, especially for the elder, is what drives birthrate down. Coupled with medical progress in general and contraceptives specifically, of course. Basically, in poor countries without any services, you need loads of children because you need them to provide for you in your old days, and because many of those children die before the age of 10. As was the case for most of the time in the West. The declining birthrate is a fairly recent development in the West, clearly linked to the medical, educational and societal developments of the last 50-60 years.
While it may be that eventually, if automaton and AI has taken over virtually any job, that an UBI will be the only thing left. In that case, out whole current neo-capitalistic free-market system might get tossed in the bin.
Until such a time, however, it's virtually impossible to implement a nation-wide UBI within our current system.
BTW, do note that, if an UBI is introduced because automation has taken all the jobs away, the whole argument of 'people working for an extra income' is going to be a moot point too. It's strange none of the proponents seem to realise this contradiction. An UBI because there's no work for humans anymore, but one is going to work to get 5100/month? Ermm...
But anyway, back to our current time and our current system. Let me just ask me this: who's going to pay for it? 'Nobody has proposed raising taxes to 90%' you say, but no-one has proposed how, exactly (preferably with numbers and calculations) one IS going to sustain such an UBI. Because, let's face it: the current welfare systems are sponsored by taxes. Which are for a large part deducted from your wage. So the working force pays taxes, and the taxes are used for the current welfare system. an UBI, by it's very nature, will cost a lot more, since it's intended for EVERYONE, not just the needy. In my country, as it is with most EU countries, this would drive up the costs with at least 300%. Because the millions who do work, would now get 'welfare' (UBI) too, obviously.
So how are you going to finance it? And please don't come with naive ideologically coloured nonsense as 'take it from the rich' or vague claims like 'it will pay for itself through economic ripple effects'. That's just unconvincing. The most obvious thing will be, that it's financed by the same thing that finances our current welfare-system: through taxes. Which, as the parent poster indicated correctly, means inevitably a huge raise in taxes, simply for the fact the system costs far more too. So it's not impossible to have the tax raised to 80-90%, for those that DO work. Which certainly will kill the incentive to work for an 'extra', which means still more people will stop working and just live of the UBI. Rince, repeat. apart from that, companies obviously will adapt their wages, and you'll not earn 2600/month anymore, but 2600-2500=100/month anymore. I think that's what the parent poster was alluding to. It's not that it's not understood that you can earn more, it's just that, if you're introducing a nation-wide UBI for everyone, prices and wages will start to reflect this. That's a given. Employees are competing too, after all. So if a person wants to earn something 'extra', and he has an UBI of 2500, and he can live a bit more comfortably if he has another 600 euro, instead of another 2600, he'll work for 600 euro extra.
Sure, if the difference is only 100 euro, most won't bother, but starting at 500-600, you'll have people willing to work for it, because they either want extra, or need the extra (you'll always have foolish people squandering their UBI away too, after all). But it won't be 2600/month anymore, because companies to will realise people are already getting 2500 'for nothing'. The same will be true for rental prices and such: prices will just adapt to the new reality that everyone has a 2500 euro (or dollars, or swiss franc, whatever) extra.
This, of course, in turn means that the taxes on these wages will be less, and thus there will be less tax-revenue for the state, which means there will be even LESS tax-revenue to spend on the UBI.
All these factors are pretty straightforward and easy to see, and I never saw a clear answer from UBI-proponents about those matters. Also note that, even when 'some' people no doubt will try to get 'more' (if it isn't too much taxed), a lot of people, following Maslows' hierarcy of needs, will be content with the UBI (at least, until rental and other prices rise - after which an UBI becomes meaningless anyway, since it can't cover basic needs anymore). Our own welfare-systems i
And UBI inevitable? It may be, but only if automation and AI have become so dominant that there simple aren't any jobs left that a human would do better. But in that case, 'having another job gets you more' will not apply anymore neither.
Ah yes, the 'creative' jobs. Well, unfortunately, not everyone can be a creative genius, even if all tried. Even artists have to compete, and there is no way that 8 billion people can become 8 billion successful artists or 'creativists'. Even now, only one in the ten-thousand can earn money with it, mostly those with either talent or best 'network' (connections), or sheer luck. If everyone had a try on being an artist, it simply would mean it would become one in a million.
The problem is... until such a world comes true, and our current neo-capitalist free-market system has to be put in the bin because there simply is no work anymore for humans, an UBI, on a national scale, can never work.
the main problem with this idea is: someone has to pay for it. And it will ALWAYS costs loads more than currnt wellfare-systems, since, inherently to an UBI, the working force ALSO gets it. That means a huge augmentation of the costs, at least tripling it, and possibly even making tenfold out of the costs, depending on the country and its respective wellfare-system.
One question I never see answered is: who is going to pay for it? And I mean, specifically, with detailed numbers and calculations. Even among the scientific papers not one goes into this. The most of an answer you ever get is 'take it from the rich' or 'it will have economic beneficial ripple effects'. Which is, respectively, too ideological naive and to vague to be of any use.
Currently, taxes are used for the wellfare system. If you're going to introduce a system that will cost triple or quadruple the amount, then you need to raise your taxes threefold or more too, or you'll have to find another realistic and sustainable revenue to cater and provide for an nation-wide UBI system.
Incentive does not go away, you say. For some, it won't. But for most, when the basic needs are dealt with, they'll be content. This follows naturally from human psyche (even the ancient romans were already aware of this with their 'panem et circenses') and it's also a baic tenet of Maslows hierarchy of needs.
So it doesn't matter if 'some' will seek more - as you undoubtedly will have - if 'enough' people DO NOT seek it and stop working, the whole system collapses. Even with out current wellfare systems in the EU, it's beginning to be top-heavy and unsustainable: there are just too many to provide for, to many who use (and misuse) the system. Now, expand this system to *everyone*. It's easy to see that even more will stop working. Which means, the others will have to pay for it all. Which means higher taxes. Which means less incentive for those others to work - no-one is going to work to earn 'a little bit extra', if that extra is taxed for 80%, now are they?
The problem I have with people being a proponent of an UBI is, thus, that they never explain in detail how, within our current system, one is going to pay for the huge extra cost in a sustainable manner, without letting the system crash on itself. The only things I heard thusfar, are either vague 'economic ripple effect will occur' (that will pay for everything, we're assured by proponents), or ideologically coloured and naive ('take it from the rich'). It's just not convincing.
While I'm partially convinced an UBI will happen sooner or later (well, actually later) when automation (robotics and AI) kicks in even more, it's still hard to see how it could be introduced in our own neo-liberal capitalist free-market system. Which, contrary to what many lefties claim, is still one of the better out there. Communism certainly wasn't better.
The whole idea of 'but some people will still work and be creative' is all good and well, but it doesn't explain where the money is going to come from in the first place. Because, intrinisically, and UBI is meant for *everyone*. Thus, it means the working force gets one too, and this means a giant increase in wellfare-spending. Scuze me, in UBI-spending. Where is that money going to come from?
I've searched my ass of to find scientific papers that would explain it to me, and I've found several on the subject of UBI's, most of them claiming and praising all the benefits, but *none* of them actually explained where the money is going to come from. Welfare (including 'pension', etc.) now is paid by taxes. Taxes are derived from people that earn money for the work they deliver. With an UBI the government is going to have to pay a tenfold of what they're paying now.
So my question is simple: where will that money come from?
A tenfold increase in taxes? In that case, the UBI will become next to worthless in covering your expenses. 'New companies' that will arise due to the UBI? not to burst the bubble, but even if a small part may take the chance of investing in a company that otherwise wouldn't, it's still a fact they will have to compete, and people will still go bust. The *average* chance of succeeding, thus, is not going to augment because of it. And there is an absolute margin too. As an analogy: one may have two restaurants doing well in a village of 100 men, but you can't possible hope that 100 restaurants will be successful in such a village. The same goes for your contention that 'some people want more than that'. Very well. But a very large part won't. That's just a given, because human nature just searches for the easiest way out most of the time, and *for most people*, when the prime needs are dealt with (aka, see Maslow's hierarchy of needs), it will suffice.
Power to them, you say. But you're forgetting one thing. If a large part of the populace doesn't work anymore - they still have to be paid. What is the government going to tax, if not the 'some' people that 'want more'. That's, basically, why communism failed too, though in theory it was a wonderful idea. It just didn't work in practise. Of course, if you tax those poeple more and more, they're less and less inclined to do the work for the extra money, because it's souped up by taxes. No-one is going to work if the extra income is then taxed at 90%.
Ah, I hear the left say, we'll let the 'superrich' and the 'big companies' pay for it. And that's...what I consider ideologically coloured BS. It won't happen, and even if you try, it won't succeed, as Hollande has noted when he introduced the 'tax for the superrich' in his own country. After a paltry two years, he had to retract it, in silence, since it was an utter failure. The reason being, of course, that the superrich and the big companies won't silently abide and stay in your country when you are going to tax them heavily. No, they're just going to move to another country. So, unless you introduce the same laws and same taxes in all states and countries worldwide - and good luck with that - it's never going to work.
Which, again, leads us to the question: who's going to pay for it, then?
The truth is, unless and until you have a world-wide system which is following another system than our current capitalism and free-market and still works (thus; not communism), it's nonsensical to introduce an UBI.
And UBI will always cost vastly more than whatever wellfare-system is paying now (at least, when a similar average payment as is now the case, is given to *every* citizen of a country). Without a air-
But that are the same things what were said back in the days that an e-car could only muster 100 km and the charging time was 3-4 hours. Now we're at 350 km and charging times of 30 min.
For sure, the tech will need to advance, and no-one said it was going to be easy. But I have little doubt we'll get there eventually. Seeing the current pace, I'm pretty sure in 5-10 years most of the issues now raised will have been dealt with, at least to some degree. It won't happen overnight, but it will be a steady progress. Now, H2-systems will know progress too, but the point is, there will not be a market anymore - especially when it'll cost about 500 billion to revamp all the petrol-stations, one can see this is a foolish and costly thing, for little benefit.
People wanting the H2-system to go ahead, are claiming the benefits are it can be loaded faster and one can drive further with it. But even now, this isn't a real problem for most people that don't drive interstate and can't wait 30 minutes. So let's say that in those 5-10 years they don't manage to triple the distance with e-cars, but only double it, and instead of 15 minutes, they only reduced it to 20-25 minutes.
Even then, the need or stimulus for H2 has already been cut drastically too (and it isn't really that big to begin with). Because the difference between 900 km and 700km, and between 15 min loading time and 20-25 minutes has become less, and the closer that gap gets, the less sense it makes to create a H2-system. And for even (a lot) more people, 700 km will be more than enough. Rince, repeat.
Now, granted, one could argue that H2 future tech might make it possible to go 1500 km and have loading times of 5 minutes.. but the point is, no-one except maybe a small niche is wanting or waiting for that. So it still means investing 500 billion into a H2-system/infrastructure does not make economic sense.
Basically, it's just a cost/benefit analysis. And since it costs 100 times more to set up a H2-system/infrastructure than a battery/grid system, you just can't recuperate the cost of the former to be competitive with the latter.
I'm not sure whether you really do not get this, or if you're being wilfully obtuse. I've seen it happen before, when people with a certain pet-idea or concept get logical criticism which can't be refuted, but they have difficulty acknowledging this.
In the off-chance that you're actually not comprehending this, and not being contentious, let me take this step for step:
You keep insisting that fuel cells and batteries essentially are the same (the working is the similar), but you fail to see that was not the argument (even though I explicitly stated three times what the exact argument is). So, let's try it this way: ok, batteries and fuel cells are more or less the same. In both you have a chemical reaction with an oxidiser, and in both things, when converting it back to electricity (for the car) you have losses. However, and please try to get it this time: your statement that both, fuel cells and batteries, are similar (both are energy-storage) IN NO WAY says anything about the efficiency of the respective cycle: electricity/fuel - chemical bounding - electricity conversion. Agreed?
Do note that it was about efficiency we were talking. All your talk about how both things are storage methods doesn't change anything to that. And efficiency is measured by what you get out compared with what you put in. So let's look at the respective cycles.
First you have the H2 cycle.
I'll take my example of a nuclear plant again, delivering electricity. For arguments' sake and easy to follow, let's say the plant delivers a unit of 100W. That's the energy we're working with. Now, of that 100W of electricity, we need part of it to create H2. This is necessary, because there are NO free pools of easily accessible H2. H2 is made by electrolysis of water, or other energy-extensive methods with natural gas, etc. This, obviously, cost energy too. Let's say it cost 20% of your energy. This means of the 100W you got, 20W is gone into making H2, so you're left with 80W. This you convert into H2. You then put this into the fuel cell, where it's chemical bound and stored, and can be retrieved with another loss of, say, 20%. What actually goes into your car as electricity, thus, is a mere 60W from the original 100W.
Now let's look at the BEV. You get the same 100W. You put it in the battery. There, it's chemically stored. When retrieving it, you have also a loss of 20% - just like with fuel cells - and thus, what you get out of it is 80%.
Now...getting 60%, or getting 80% out of 100W; what is the most efficient, you think?
It is clear as daylight, that a H2 system - thus, energy derived from H2 to provide electricity for cars - is ALWAYS going to be more expensive, then just using batteries for a car and putting the electricity in it. This has *nothing* to do with your mantra that 'both store energy' but everything with the fact that H2 is less efficient in delivering back the electricity they received, for any amount, any given unit of electricity you've put in it. And that's because you ALWAYS have to spend extra energy to *create* the H2, while you do not have with batteries. As said (numerous times by now), this is an extra step, which requires extra energy.
That batteries and fuel cells 'all cost energy', thus, changes NOTHING to the fact that using a H2 infrastructure is *less* efficient in providing electricity for your car. Because you loose extra energy for converting water or gas into H2. That's because you not only have losses in the conversion in the fuel cell (as you have in the battery), but in addition, you have losses in converting water or gas into H2, which also takes considerably energy, since you have to overcome the molecular chemical bonds of that water and gas first. With BEV's, you only have the losses in the chemical bounding and retrieval in the battery, (as you have with fuel cells), but you DO NOT have the extra energy-loss of having to convert it into a fuel first.
Do you now see what I mean? I don't think there is any way of denying what I say: it just take
I think you should repeat it to yourself as well. ;-)
Look, I'll try to explain it once more. While you may argue that a fuel cell and a battery are the same, the fact is and remains that *IT COSTS ADDITIONAL ENERGY TO CONVERT WATER OR GAS INTO HYDROGEN*.
What part of this don't you understand?
Once again: a fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction. One can claim the same for a battery. Granted. But to *get* hydrogen, you already need to put in energy for the molecular bonds of water or gas to be made into H2. *Which you DO NOT* have with a battery receiving electricity.
A third time: the extra step, thus, is the conversion (and the energy this requires) of turning electricity INTO H2. That the (chemical - electricity) conversion in the fuel cell equals the (chemical - electricity) conversion in a battery, does nothing to mitigate the fact you already poured in more energy into it from the get go, or you wouldn't have the H2 to begin with.
I've explained it three times, now. Try to counterargument on the actual point I raised, now, at least.
And you're not grasping my last point neither. I'm not saying H2 technology will not progress, I'm saying that BEV's and the grid/chargers will evolve as well. You only would make a point if you start with the premise H2 technology would make giant strides forward, having breakthroughs and progress in leaps, and costs dwindle to a fraction, while at the same time batteries and the e-grid would stand still or would hardly progress anymore.
I find this highly unlikely.
Current technology gives an (economical) advantage to the latter, not to H2. Your counterargument is: but using future technology this will change. BUT... using future BEV/grid technology as well, nothing will change at all! Since no-one knows the future with certainty, making predictions where one progresses, and the other not, is rather silly, if not intellectual dishonest. So let's say: both technologies will progress. But since it has a head start, the gap to close for H2 will not get better.
Instead, the few advantages it has, namely longer distances and shorter loading times, will relatively soon be dealt with, by improved superchargers and batteries, within 5-10 years. Far too short a time for fuel cells to catch up and it to be worth investing 500 billion in a H2 infrastructure. So it's not a question of 'H2 technology not evolving' or only taking 'current tech' under consideration, it's a question of 'H2 not being able to close the advantages-disadvantages gap', since batteries and chargers are and will progress too. (and to be frank, do it at a faster pace than H2 technology).