"Basic Income" is a terrible idea

[Deletedaccount1]

1. Only due to the fact that you're looking at a massive population crisis. And it's still likely to catch up with you just a little later.

2. That flood is what you'll get WITHOUT a basic income.

3. OH NO! Things will have to CHANGE!

4. Basic income limited to citizens.

5. On what basis do you presume this?

6. How? It won't be changing the amount of money, merely spreading it in a more equitable manner.

7. It can be financed fine given 3 and with conservatives and their excuse for fiscal policy run out of town on a rail (or hyperloop or whatever means of swiftly transporting them is available)

1. Why are you assuming a massive population crisis when that isn't the case virtually anywhere?

2. That flood won't occur because you are assuming that automatization is going to replace the vast majority of jobs while population somehow increases.

3. Easier said than done.

4. So you will allow a lot of misery just because people aren't citizens? I thought I was the bad guy here.

5. The basis that trading illegal items or activities becomes one of the only outlets of gaining income beyond the basic income.

6. It will rapidly shift the money supply and have an unknown effect on a huge number of industries which primarily rely on high income earners while employing low income earners.

7. "given 3" what does that mean? You assume that those things add up to being even close to what a basic income would cost. There is a reason why virtually no economist on the planet of any reputable school thinks this is a good idea.

[Karnak]

And neither do you. It is far more likely that you are the one who is overestimating the problem than I am the one underestimating it. Japan's unemployment rate is under 5% and we are the automated country on Earth, by far.

Before setting off to do my own business I have worked in automation. I know some of what is in the pipeline and Japan's current automation pales in comparison.

Japan's population is heavily tilted towards retirees compared to the US, or China (though China will have an even hire proportion of retirees than Japan in the future), India and so on. The low relative number of Japanese workers hides the effects of automation on the Japanese economy far better than it is hidden in the USA. Japan has also suffered through 25 years of stagnation, even Shinzo Abe's reforms have not been able to do much to boost Japanese spending.

[Azadina]

Oh snap. But no, I gave my reasons above. Feel free to actually make an argument which you probably won't because you never do.

They've been made all over the thread. Why should I repeat them when you haven't bothered reading any, and only joined in with "ys horribsle and evil idea"

[Deletedaccount1]

Before setting off to do my own business I have worked in automation. I know some of what is in the pipeline and Japan's current automation pales in comparison.

Japan's population is heavily tilted towards retirees compared to the US, or China (though China will have an even hire proportion of retirees than Japan in the future), India and so on. The low relative number of Japanese workers hides the effects of automation on the Japanese economy far better than it is hidden in the USA. Japan has also suffered through 25 years of stagnation, even Shinzo Abe's reforms have not been able to do much to boost Japanese spending.

China is facing stagnation and a retiring work force as well as you pointed out. The U.S. has a slowing population growth. India's population is expected to shrink as people start having less children as the economy improves.

Why don't you tell me what is in the pipeline if it is such a threat? Right now I have as much evidence to believe what you are telling me as I do a Mayan who was telling people the world would end in 2012.

- - - Updated - - -

They've been made all over the thread. Why should I repeat them when you haven't bothered reading any, and only joined in with "ys horribsle and evil idea"

I read some of them but none of the one's I have read take a right's based approach which is the entire reason it is an evil idea.

[Karnak]

5. The basis that trading illegal items or activities becomes one of the only outlets of gaining income beyond the basic income.

How so? Any economic effort by anybody can be used to earn additional money. Done right there is no penalty to doing so. Only in an idiotic application where earning money reduces the basic income a person gets does the black market get encouraged.

Person A gets the $30,000/yr basic income. Total income at the end of the year: $30,000.
Person B gets the $30,000/yr basic income and also sells paintings as she can. Total income at the end of the year: $42,000 ($30,000 from basic income + $12,000 from selling paintings).

Because person B put out effort to make more money she has more money to spend. Sure, she paid more in taxes, but even after that she had $9,000 to spend that person A did not.

[Bollocks]

And neither do you. It is far more likely that you are the one who is overestimating the problem than I am the one underestimating it. Japan's unemployment rate is under 5% and we are the automated country on Earth, by far.

Here are some reasons why it's a bad idea:

Decrease motivation to work or receive an education for necessary jobs that cannot be automated. Or it could cause such a flood into these careers that people fight over too few jobs while the rest do nothing.
Just a few reasons why it is a bad idea:

It requires a complete restructuring of taxation, social insurance, social security and pensions.

It will cause a huge flood in immigration.

It causes the rise of a shadow economy.

It will cause inequality by vastly raising price.

It cannot be realistically financed.

- - - Updated - - -



Your posts are always so wonderfully devoid of substance.

1. It will happen, Japan still offers a lot of low skill jobs to people, it has only automatized the fabrication process thus far. However as automatization advances it will become obvious that low skill jobs will become less and less common in the market, reducing the opportunities for the displaced people to seek jobs.

2. It would happen either way, if there is no basic income in order to survive people would fight for jobs that cannot be automatized.

3. The other way around is no good either, if there are no low skil jobs you would have a great deal of people with no money to spend on buisness, thus buisness have to fire employess in order to survive and less people have jobs and so the cycle continues.

[Azadina]

I read some of them but none of the one's I have read take a right's based approach which is the entire reason it is an evil idea.

The what? Right wing based approach, which is "I want all the money, screw everyone else"?

[Karnak]

The what? Right wing based approach, which is "I want all the money, screw everyone else"?

Knadra didn't say Right wing based approach. Knadra said "rights based approach", which in my experience usually means some Libertarian fantasy about the sanctity of property rights, though I could be mistaken as I've never encountered a Japanese Libertarian before.

Essentially the modern Randian Libertarian view is that wealth ownership is a fundamental right of whoever managed to accumulate the wealth and no matter the effect on society that wealth should only be used as the wealth's owner sees fit. Taxation is theft.

As a small business owner I have a fundamental problem with this as I need a functioning economy in order to make money. A few dozen trillionaires are not going to consume enough for many business owners like myself to survive. My customers are mostly in the three middle quintiles, very rarely in the 1% and, to the best of my knowledge, never in the .01%.

George Lucas did come into a store I worked at a long time ago though. He didn't buy anything. Just looked around at the games we had.

[Flurryfang]

Basic income is really a thing, which you need in a modern society. It makes it so that your skilled workers can wait out for the skilled jobs, and not take up the jobs, which none-skilled workers need. It also makes being unemployed less terrifying and gives you some breathing room to find the right occupation after getting laid off.

[Azadina]

Knadra didn't say Right wing based approach. Knadra said "rights based approach"

No, but it made just as little sense without explanation. It's as if I were to say that his reasons doesn't solve the AIfHK problem.

[Adam Jensen]

So . . . what's your solution to the looming jobs crisis when automation hits in 20-30 years?

[Masark]

As a small business owner I have a fundamental problem with this as I need a functioning economy in order to make money. A few dozen trillionaires are not going to consume enough for many business owners like myself to survive. My customers are mostly in the three middle quintiles, very rarely in the 1% and, to the best of my knowledge, never in the .01%.

George Lucas did come into a store I worked at a long time ago though. He didn't buy anything. Just looked around at the games we had.

Yeah, but what about the "small" businesses that make yachts, blingy gold-plated macs, and ultralimousines? Increasing taxes on the upper incomes even slightly would devastate them!

- - - Updated - - -

So . . . what's your solution to the looming jobs crisis when automation hits in 20-30 years?

Why would a solution be required? By the time the problem occurs, it won't be my problem anymore.

[Chrysia]

1. Why are you assuming a massive population crisis when that isn't the case virtually anywhere?

2. That flood won't occur because you are assuming that automatization is going to replace the vast majority of jobs while population somehow increases.

3. Easier said than done.

4. So you will allow a lot of misery just because people aren't citizens? I thought I was the bad guy here.

5. The basis that trading illegal items or activities becomes one of the only outlets of gaining income beyond the basic income.

6. It will rapidly shift the money supply and have an unknown effect on a huge number of industries which primarily rely on high income earners while employing low income earners.

7. "given 3" what does that mean? You assume that those things add up to being even close to what a basic income would cost. There is a reason why virtually no economist on the planet of any reputable school thinks this is a good idea.

1. Nobody is assuming shit. More than any other developed nation I'm aware of Japan is facing population growth below the replacement rate. The US for comparison. The reason there isn't an automation jobs crisis is because there aren't any young people to take the jobs.

2. Why would you assume population, in aggregate, is going to stop increasing suddenly?

3. Things change. It's rough, but that's the way of the world.

4. Rights are afforded to citizens and legal residents. This is pretty standard stuff.

5. That is not the economy being proposed, at all.

6. How many fucking businesses do you think rely primarily on high-income earners? The amount is tiny.

7. Except, you know, they do.

[Deleted]

Not really read anything about 'basic income' sounds a bit silly to me. How is this funded?

[Deleted]

Not really read anything about 'basic income' sounds a bit silly to me. How is this funded?

With savings from crime, healthcare and other areas. Google exists.

[Chrysia]

Not really read anything about 'basic income' sounds a bit silly to me. How is this funded?

Well, the Basic Income replaces a shit-ton of existing welfare programs, for starters. WIC? Gone. EBT? Gone. Housing assistance? Gone. Social Security? Gone. All consolidated under UBI, so you're actually reducing bureaucracy by eliminating the separate divisions that handle all these current programs.

[Deleted]

Google exists.

Sorry I'm asking a question on a forum where people discuss things.

I see you can't have a normal conversation just gotta throw some sarcasm in there.

Well, the Basic Income replaces a shit-ton of existing welfare programs, for starters. WIC? Gone. EBT? Gone. Housing assistance? Gone. Social Security? Gone. All consolidated under UBI, so you're actually reducing bureaucracy by eliminating the separate divisions that handle all these current programs.

Do you agree with basic income?

[Deleted]

Sorry I'm asking a question on a forum where people discuss things.

I see you can't have a normal conversation just gotta throw some sarcasm in there.



Do you agree with basic income?

you asked how it was funded. you can google that if you were genuinely interested in the answer(s). Instead you're being passive aggressive as some sort of entry into the discussion.

i'm assuming your next reply will involve something about socialism killing kittens.

And i'll have you know that sarcasm is the highest form of wit.

[PosPosPos]

Do you agree with basic income?

Do you agree with anything that has a huge net benefit to society?

[Mistame]

7. It can be financed fine given 3 and with conservatives and their excuse for fiscal policy run out of town on a rail (or hyperloop or whatever means of swiftly transporting them is available)

He has a point (at least in the US) on this one. It would cost over 3 trillion/year.

Person A gets the $30,000/yr basic income. Total income at the end of the year: $30,000.

Unless you use this example, which puts it well over 5 trillion (more than our actual total revenue).