The thing I find most exciting about UBI is actually the potential abolishment of the minimum wage. Since nobody is "forced to work" then we can assume that they choose the jobs they do because they find the rewards (financial and otherwise) competitive. Cleaning toilets at WalMart will have to pay real money, because who would choose to do that if it didn't?
Social friction, like the robots reducing population levels to something more realistic for the planet to support?
Seems like robots are going to need more metallic ore mines, refining plants (ever see a bauxite processing facility?) and power generation facilities, I'm sure once they engineer an AI takeover of the financial sector, they'll have no problem buying all the land they need.
Personally, I'd rather live in a society where the freedom to succeed or fail includes a possibility of guaranteed success (success defined as: able to provide food, clothing, safe shelter, and basic medical care for you and your children) if you simply seek out a job that you can find within a month or two.
It used to be that way. Increasingly, medical care is a luxury for those who can get hooked up with large corporations, and getting hooked up with large corporations somewhat resembles playing the lottery.
I'm in the (neither fortunate/unfortunate) position of having a 6 year degree and 25 years working experience, this means that when I'm unemployed (which has happened 3 times in 25 years, always due to a drying up of income at the company leading to massive layoffs) - I often face the prospect of remaining unemployed for long periods of time, or moving the family across the country, again. If we don't uproot and relocate, we run the risk of "losing the house, etc." not to mention "COBRA" sucking our savings dry at outrageous speed.
From my position, I'm either in the game or out, employed full time making good salary with benefits, or retired - there's no middle ground available - unless you count scrounging from one $10K no benefits contracting gig to the next, never knowing where the next one is coming from, BTDT.
Making your own decisions is all well and good, but when the choices available to you are: work some BS job that pays less than you need to make rent, food and clothing, or don't and just get by somehow... calling that "freedom" is also nonsense.
Plenty of people will be exceeding the 2 child benefit limit, witness population growth in China after the "1 child per couple mandate" - they still managed to add 30% population after that "law" was passed, and now they're abandoning it.
All in all, yes, I'd like world population to shrink back into the 3-4 billion range, but I'd rather not do it with guns to mothers' heads.
As others have said: dual income does the trick. Also: my statement was for division of the real-estate market by area, if you live in an area with below median housing costs, you get quite a bit more house for your $200K.
I bought my first house for $80K on $35K income - could have done it on $30K but back then the banks wouldn't let you pull that IDR, no such conservatism today. My next home, 8 years later, was $305K - purchased in large part with the equity increase in the first home when it inflated to $205K
Today Robin Hood is evil. Under a supposed equality under law, Robin Hood is evil. Is Robin Hood evil under slavery (inequality of people under law), that is an interesting question.
Wage slavery is certainly better than 1800s Southern US slavery, but it still amounts to a similar fate. While wage slaves can choose their master, the free market is not making the masters treat them any better, and never has. Today's masters give their wage slaves so little compensation (30 hours a week of minimum wage) that they end up on government assistance programs for housing and nutrition - they get to spend their hard earned dollars on clothes from WalMart. I'd rather give the people a more simply (fairly) distributed UBI and take away minimum wage guarantees, that would put "masters" like WalMart in competition with churches, schools, and many other places where people might rather volunteer their time.
The checks have been coming for over 70 years now, they do create problems, but I think they have solved more problems than they have created.
Long term, something is going to have to be done about population, even minimal growth rates will be disastrous on the scale of millennia, but I don't think any country's politicians wants to be the "first to blink." China put out the "one child" policy, but didn't give it real teeth. It sounded good: One child per couple, but somehow since its introduction their population has still grown by 30%. Seems about as effective as Carter's 55mph national speed limit, yes people slowed down, no, nowhere near the amount prescribed by law.
Kudos to Japan for pioneering the declining population economy. Personally, I'd like to see the world heading back to a global population of about 3.5 billion, like when I was born. Certainly enough people to progress technology, put men on the moon, etc. but not so many as to completely decimate the natural world.
Well, I think a relatively stable population is a better choice than trying to force a decline.
If everyone gets "one birth credit" which is a child that they get full benefits for, then a "traditional" married couple would get benefits for 2 children - replacement. Beyond that, you're on your own - no additional economic assistance for additional children. It would give Catholic charities something to do...
O.K. - there's an absolutely AWESOME concept. Establish UBI, then abolish minimum wage.
If people want to volunteer to work at WalMart for free, that's their choice - though I imagine there are plenty of other places people would rather volunteer their time, so WalMart might actually have to pay a competitive wage to get workers.
With UBI, the "thousand points of light" programs that are privately funded will need to figure out a new mission in life. Right now, they're saving people from a terrible fate by providing food, clothing, shelter, etc. when the people can't otherwise get it.
If UBI becomes a simple tier of the tax system, that applies to everyone who has a tax ID number, it _should_ change the attitude of proud ex-farmers (like my grandparents who were born about 100 years ago), who "won't never take charity from nobody, not the government, not nobody." That was their professed attitude, but they sure were tickled to go pick up their government cheese when they learned they were eligible.
Many people are tired of owning crap. You can go to WalMart and fill your house floor to ceiling with crap for modest prices (I've seen children's bedrooms stacked 4 feet deep in plastic toys). If you're in the upper 50% of income and lower 50% of U.S. real-estate markets, you can afford a new 4000 square foot home in the 'burbs with rooms that serve no other purpose than to store stuff (and I've known stay-at-home moms who spend years of their life managing empires of junk this way.)
At some point, many people mature and get over it. Especially those who have had it all and discovered how little "all" really does for them.
I hope that children of parents who have matured past the accumulation of junk stages can get over it at a younger age.
Japan's population is declining because so many of them live to work instead of working to live.
If you spend all your time in the office and on business trips, what's the point of having children? So other people can raise them? Too expensive, salarymen can't afford that.
So, I basically agree about UBI and echo the point that many have made: between welfare, food stamps and progressive income tax we're most of the way toward UBI already. What the current systems usually require is that you "demonstrate need" for some of the benefits to kick in - basically forcing people to become demonstratively unproductive in order to get the check. Seems like a make-work program for the people checking to make sure the recipients are unproductive, and a real productivity killer for the people who are getting the benefits.
I understand the limits of a program like Y-Combinator, but, for me, knowing that the program is temporary would completely change the nature of how it affects behavior. A true "social safety net" that can be relied upon is very different from a six to twelve month shot of extra cash.
That's the comforting line... it's all going to be allright - just put the women to work and make sure everyone is occupied like they are in Western societies today, entertained, comforted, but most importantly (and never mentioned) is kept busy to secure their comfort.
What happens when more and more are unemployed due to technological progress? How do you keep them busy then? If the "modern Western woman" had all the food, clothing, shelter and other comforts she needed without having to work 40 hours a week for 30 years immediately after leaving school, how many children would she tend to have then?
Telecommuting is far and away the safest option, and best for the environment (unless, like me, you telecommute to a city 1000 miles away, then you end up on an airplane every month or so - not so great for the environment, but still safer than a daily 20 mile drive.)
If you're going to take your e-bike up to 35mph, just call it what it is: an underpowered motorcycle, and wear a real helmet and some protective clothes, or not, it's your brain to risk splattering on the pavement if you wish.
Just because an e-bike _can_ do 20mph is no reason that it _has_ to do 20mph. I'd value the 300W assist cruising at a normal 12-15mph, if it meant I could arrive without being drenched in sweat.
In Florida, at least, unless you're a 5+bhp cyclist, you're banned from basically all limited access highways. That's just under 4KW, so it takes a LOT of electric motor to get legal on the freeway.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing I find most exciting about UBI is actually the potential abolishment of the minimum wage. Since nobody is "forced to work" then we can assume that they choose the jobs they do because they find the rewards (financial and otherwise) competitive. Cleaning toilets at WalMart will have to pay real money, because who would choose to do that if it didn't?
Social friction, like the robots reducing population levels to something more realistic for the planet to support?
Seems like robots are going to need more metallic ore mines, refining plants (ever see a bauxite processing facility?) and power generation facilities, I'm sure once they engineer an AI takeover of the financial sector, they'll have no problem buying all the land they need.
The money can always be there, taxes: pay them and the debt goes down.
If raising (and actually collecting) adequate taxes is a fantasy, then, sure, the money will never be there.
Personally, I'd rather live in a society where the freedom to succeed or fail includes a possibility of guaranteed success (success defined as: able to provide food, clothing, safe shelter, and basic medical care for you and your children) if you simply seek out a job that you can find within a month or two.
It used to be that way. Increasingly, medical care is a luxury for those who can get hooked up with large corporations, and getting hooked up with large corporations somewhat resembles playing the lottery.
I'm in the (neither fortunate/unfortunate) position of having a 6 year degree and 25 years working experience, this means that when I'm unemployed (which has happened 3 times in 25 years, always due to a drying up of income at the company leading to massive layoffs) - I often face the prospect of remaining unemployed for long periods of time, or moving the family across the country, again. If we don't uproot and relocate, we run the risk of "losing the house, etc." not to mention "COBRA" sucking our savings dry at outrageous speed.
From my position, I'm either in the game or out, employed full time making good salary with benefits, or retired - there's no middle ground available - unless you count scrounging from one $10K no benefits contracting gig to the next, never knowing where the next one is coming from, BTDT.
Making your own decisions is all well and good, but when the choices available to you are: work some BS job that pays less than you need to make rent, food and clothing, or don't and just get by somehow... calling that "freedom" is also nonsense.
Plenty of people will be exceeding the 2 child benefit limit, witness population growth in China after the "1 child per couple mandate" - they still managed to add 30% population after that "law" was passed, and now they're abandoning it.
All in all, yes, I'd like world population to shrink back into the 3-4 billion range, but I'd rather not do it with guns to mothers' heads.
As others have said: dual income does the trick. Also: my statement was for division of the real-estate market by area, if you live in an area with below median housing costs, you get quite a bit more house for your $200K.
I bought my first house for $80K on $35K income - could have done it on $30K but back then the banks wouldn't let you pull that IDR, no such conservatism today. My next home, 8 years later, was $305K - purchased in large part with the equity increase in the first home when it inflated to $205K
Today Robin Hood is evil. Under a supposed equality under law, Robin Hood is evil. Is Robin Hood evil under slavery (inequality of people under law), that is an interesting question.
Wage slavery is certainly better than 1800s Southern US slavery, but it still amounts to a similar fate. While wage slaves can choose their master, the free market is not making the masters treat them any better, and never has. Today's masters give their wage slaves so little compensation (30 hours a week of minimum wage) that they end up on government assistance programs for housing and nutrition - they get to spend their hard earned dollars on clothes from WalMart. I'd rather give the people a more simply (fairly) distributed UBI and take away minimum wage guarantees, that would put "masters" like WalMart in competition with churches, schools, and many other places where people might rather volunteer their time.
The checks have been coming for over 70 years now, they do create problems, but I think they have solved more problems than they have created.
Long term, something is going to have to be done about population, even minimal growth rates will be disastrous on the scale of millennia, but I don't think any country's politicians wants to be the "first to blink." China put out the "one child" policy, but didn't give it real teeth. It sounded good: One child per couple, but somehow since its introduction their population has still grown by 30%. Seems about as effective as Carter's 55mph national speed limit, yes people slowed down, no, nowhere near the amount prescribed by law.
"Theft and redistribution" - Robin Hood was evil?
Kudos to Japan for pioneering the declining population economy. Personally, I'd like to see the world heading back to a global population of about 3.5 billion, like when I was born. Certainly enough people to progress technology, put men on the moon, etc. but not so many as to completely decimate the natural world.
Birth rate of 2.1, assume by age 35, is a growth rate of 5% every 35 years, or 0.1395% per year - sounds like it's pretty much in control, right?
1.001395^2000 = 16.2, so that would put France at over 1 billion people by 4016. Still quite unsustainable.
Well, I think a relatively stable population is a better choice than trying to force a decline.
If everyone gets "one birth credit" which is a child that they get full benefits for, then a "traditional" married couple would get benefits for 2 children - replacement. Beyond that, you're on your own - no additional economic assistance for additional children. It would give Catholic charities something to do...
O.K. - there's an absolutely AWESOME concept. Establish UBI, then abolish minimum wage.
If people want to volunteer to work at WalMart for free, that's their choice - though I imagine there are plenty of other places people would rather volunteer their time, so WalMart might actually have to pay a competitive wage to get workers.
With UBI, the "thousand points of light" programs that are privately funded will need to figure out a new mission in life. Right now, they're saving people from a terrible fate by providing food, clothing, shelter, etc. when the people can't otherwise get it.
If UBI becomes a simple tier of the tax system, that applies to everyone who has a tax ID number, it _should_ change the attitude of proud ex-farmers (like my grandparents who were born about 100 years ago), who "won't never take charity from nobody, not the government, not nobody." That was their professed attitude, but they sure were tickled to go pick up their government cheese when they learned they were eligible.
Many people are tired of owning crap. You can go to WalMart and fill your house floor to ceiling with crap for modest prices (I've seen children's bedrooms stacked 4 feet deep in plastic toys). If you're in the upper 50% of income and lower 50% of U.S. real-estate markets, you can afford a new 4000 square foot home in the 'burbs with rooms that serve no other purpose than to store stuff (and I've known stay-at-home moms who spend years of their life managing empires of junk this way.)
At some point, many people mature and get over it. Especially those who have had it all and discovered how little "all" really does for them.
I hope that children of parents who have matured past the accumulation of junk stages can get over it at a younger age.
Japan's population is declining because so many of them live to work instead of working to live.
If you spend all your time in the office and on business trips, what's the point of having children? So other people can raise them? Too expensive, salarymen can't afford that.
So, I basically agree about UBI and echo the point that many have made: between welfare, food stamps and progressive income tax we're most of the way toward UBI already. What the current systems usually require is that you "demonstrate need" for some of the benefits to kick in - basically forcing people to become demonstratively unproductive in order to get the check. Seems like a make-work program for the people checking to make sure the recipients are unproductive, and a real productivity killer for the people who are getting the benefits.
I understand the limits of a program like Y-Combinator, but, for me, knowing that the program is temporary would completely change the nature of how it affects behavior. A true "social safety net" that can be relied upon is very different from a six to twelve month shot of extra cash.
That's the comforting line... it's all going to be allright - just put the women to work and make sure everyone is occupied like they are in Western societies today, entertained, comforted, but most importantly (and never mentioned) is kept busy to secure their comfort.
What happens when more and more are unemployed due to technological progress? How do you keep them busy then? If the "modern Western woman" had all the food, clothing, shelter and other comforts she needed without having to work 40 hours a week for 30 years immediately after leaving school, how many children would she tend to have then?
Telecommuting is far and away the safest option, and best for the environment (unless, like me, you telecommute to a city 1000 miles away, then you end up on an airplane every month or so - not so great for the environment, but still safer than a daily 20 mile drive.)
If you're going to take your e-bike up to 35mph, just call it what it is: an underpowered motorcycle, and wear a real helmet and some protective clothes, or not, it's your brain to risk splattering on the pavement if you wish.
If you would buy Chinese made e-bikes instead of homegrown, they would cost $300 instead of $1500.
Just because an e-bike _can_ do 20mph is no reason that it _has_ to do 20mph. I'd value the 300W assist cruising at a normal 12-15mph, if it meant I could arrive without being drenched in sweat.
Throw yourself off of a bike at 35mph and tell me how safe it is.
My college town mixes scooters and pickup trucks on the road. It's pretty grisly when the trucks forget to stop (and it does happen.)
In Florida, at least, unless you're a 5+bhp cyclist, you're banned from basically all limited access highways. That's just under 4KW, so it takes a LOT of electric motor to get legal on the freeway.