Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
... LastLast
  1. #81
    I have not heard of anyone talking about "basic income" outside of this forum.

    I assume work in the future will be more technical/specialized or will otherwise involve things that cannot be automated (social services, counseling, etc).

  2. #82
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    I have not heard of anyone talking about "basic income" outside of this forum.

    I assume work in the future will be more technical/specialized or will otherwise involve things that cannot be automated (social services, counseling, etc).
    There is a quote with a video of the US congress talking about it, just above your post..........

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by PvPHeroLulz View Post
    There is a quote with a video of the US congress talking about it, just above your post..........
    Shrug.

    We're not even funding Social Security appropriately, I'm not sure if I actually believe Congress will get behind the concept of basic income.

  4. #84
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    Shrug.

    We're not even funding Social Security appropriately, I'm not sure if I actually believe Congress will get behind the concept of basic income.
    It's a thing of the future, really. It's an inevetiable fate that no matter the opinions of people, it will come to pass. It's all about a question of time.

    It's not what you, i, or Freddy McFreedy would think. It's a standing fact that robots evolve and that they do more and more of the business.

    And with that fact, more and more will become jobless. There are more progressive countries that don't live on the idea of aggressive warmongering and capitalism, such as the US does - like Finland and Sweden for instance - They have welfare.

    And what is "Welfare", will eventually become what you call "Base Income".

    Just give it a few decades and it'll all come to be just fucking dandy, trust me.

  5. #85
    "Incentive to work" in my opinion would actually be higher with a basic added income. Why? Because right now a lot of people are barely struggling just to pay bills and buy food by working 40 hours a week. Add the basic income, and all of the sudden you're able to pay all your bills far easier while having extra money on top of that.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by PvPHeroLulz View Post
    It's a thing of the future, really. It's an inevetiable fate that no matter the opinions of people, it will come to pass. It's all about a question of time.

    It's not what you, i, or Freddy McFreedy would think. It's a standing fact that robots evolve and that they do more and more of the business.

    And with that fact, more and more will become jobless. There are more progressive countries that don't live on the idea of aggressive warmongering and capitalism, such as the US does - They have welfare.

    And what is "Welfare", will eventually become what you call "Base Income".

    Just give it a few decades and it'll all come to be just fucking dandy, trust me.
    We'll see. If it's a livable income it might be a good idea, I would hope there would be stipulations about it though...I can foresee lots of issues with this, welfare queens being just one issue.

  7. #87
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    We'll see. If it's a livable income it might be a good idea, I would hope there would be stipulations about it though...I can foresee lots of issues with this, welfare queens being just one issue.
    In Sweden, it's your Rent + a minimum. It's approx like 830 euros, about 1.2k dollars in your terms. + Possible other benefits, such as paying your electric bill, glasses, medical bills, etc.

    It's enough for me to pay rent, bills, food and some enjoyment. And it's a statistical measurement of how much you "need" to survive.

    And i don't think there will be a lot of issues with it. To be completely frank, i think that if the system adapts to it, i expect it to work for itself and be fully self-contained.

    Fact is, if it's not exposed to corruption, it'll be better than what we see currently.

  8. #88
    They should just elect Trump, I hear he's gonna give 1 million dollars to every single American. 300 million dollars is chump change to Trump anyway right?

  9. #89
    Let's see...

    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    Its first hurdle is arithmetic. As Robert Greenstein of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it , a check of $10,000 to each of 300 million Americans would cost more than $3 trillion a year.

    - Sure, if you just flat-out gave $10,000/year to everyone regardless of job status. The cost would go down significantly if you had it flex with the job status of the individual.

    Where would that money come from? It amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. Nothing in the history of this country suggests Americans are ready to add that kind of burden to their current taxes. Cut it by half to $5,000? That wouldn’t even clear the poverty line. And it would still cost as much as the entire federal budget except for Social Security, Medicare, defense and interest payments.

    Thinkers on the right solve the how-to-pay-for-it problem simply by defunding everything else the government provides from food stamps to Social Security. That, Mr. Greenstein observes, would actually increase poverty. It would redistribute wealth upward, taking money targeted to the poor and sharing it with everybody, including you and me.

    - Not if you do it like I described above, and condense everything into one package. You'd even be saving money on staff who maintain the current systems.

    The popularity of the universal basic income stems from a fanciful diagnosis born in Silicon Valley of the challenges faced by the working class across industrialized nations: one that sees declining employment rates and stagnant wages and concludes that robots are about to take over all the jobs in the world.

    - Actually, we tried it up here in Canada in the 70s and it worked pretty damn well!
    Also, considering the advances in technology and assuming that we're still going to be using a barter-based economic system Mincome will becomes an absolute necessity unless you feel you euthenizing a VERY large portion of the human population.

    Let's also not forget. Mincome would also eliminate the Minimum Wage, and probably be set at a level that allows an individual to live in the less populated portions of the Country (this aint going to be enough for Seattle or New York obviously). So there will still be motivation for individuals who truly do want to work.
    Last edited by Baelic; 2016-06-01 at 04:03 AM.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Justpassing View Post
    They should just elect Trump, I hear he's gonna give 1 million dollars to every single American. 300 million dollars is chump change to Trump anyway right?
    You're silly. Also this has been used on the forum before

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Tsubodia View Post
    the issue with this, is that its always the middle man.. average working bob who gets ass pounded by the changes, not the rich. the rich, would simply up and leave to a country where they were not getting the bollox taxed of them.

    "wealth redistribution" as a concept i totally disagree with. I dont believe that one person should be able to benefit from another direct financial earnings. I dont like the current status quo with a vast swath being controlled by the super rich, but i dont think people should just be given free handouts "because" without (potentially) ever working a single day in their life. at that point, we are encouraging people to be sponges
    The trouble is that it won't be that long...20 years, 50 years...till we are ALL sponges.
    Automation is coming in a big way and this time there won't be many jobs to move into because AI and advanced automation will take those as well.

    Whether its in fast food, cooking, policing, surgery, financial analysis, manufacturing....even playing music and art...automation can do it. It can do it now and time will simply make it cheaper and more effective and efficient. And that'll feed into things like training and experience. How will you become a Masterchef if robots handle all the cooking?

    UBI is probably the only solution that is going to work...unless you want to see entire cities filled with the poor and starving. It's not like income tax will raise a lot of money.

    You'll probably find we'll get a robot tax of so many thousands per years, coupled with a tax system that doesn't skew things towards the wealthy so much. And you'll end up with each adult citizen guaranteed so much income per year, which they can top up through whatever work they want or can do...but even then will only work if manufacturers don't engage in profiteering or push prices to the point UBI doesn't work.

    Whether or not you agree with UBI, the next 50 years will see an increasing degree of automation and this will inevitably lead to huge numbers of people as unemployed and with zero hope of getting a job. Why? Because robots will be cheaper and easier - whatever work there is, robots will do it. Those people will need homes...food...entertainment...and something to do. They will need money. Resources. If not UBI...how?

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    endus, you don't sound like you are familiar with the concept of price discovery. i suggest you read up on it. what would happen is landlords raise rents a little bit each year. some more aggressively than others. landlords would let the market decide where rents should be. if people get a big boost from a new UBI, price discovery will drive rents much higher as it searches for a new equilibrium. the test of the UBI would not be in year 1, but 10 years after implementation to determine where prices have gone. no one is saying rents would double overnite, but after 10 years of UBI there should be a large increase.

    price controls are not really an option either since that will lead to shortages of good housing. price controls greatly disincentivize constructing new homes or even upkeep of current housing.

    if it were as simple as giving everyone a free income forever, someone would have done it by now.
    Yay! This guy gets it...
    CPU: Intel i7 3770K Mobo: Asus P8Z77-V PRO GPU: 2X Asus GTX 770 OC SLI Heatsink: Hyper 212 EVO RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x8GB 1600mhz SSD: 120Gb Samsung 840 EVO HDD: WD 2tb Caviar Black PSU: Corsair HX850 Case: CM HAF 932 Advanced

  13. #93
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,913
    Quote Originally Posted by lordsphinx View Post
    Yay! This guy gets it...
    I don´t know. It has been tested for 5 years in a town in canada and as far as reports say nothing of that has happened. Also why would there be an increase? What´s the incentive to the increase? I mean apart from greed.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  14. #94
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    Shrug.

    We're not even funding Social Security appropriately, I'm not sure if I actually believe Congress will get behind the concept of basic income.
    It would be funded appropriately if it was used for only Social Security. But it keeps getting used like a drunk ugly fat girl at prom.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  15. #95
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    24,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    endus, you don't sound like you are familiar with the concept of price discovery. i suggest you read up on it. what would happen is landlords raise rents a little bit each year. some more aggressively than others. landlords would let the market decide where rents should be. if people get a big boost from a new UBI, price discovery will drive rents much higher as it searches for a new equilibrium. the test of the UBI would not be in year 1, but 10 years after implementation to determine where prices have gone. no one is saying rents would double overnite, but after 10 years of UBI there should be a large increase.

    price controls are not really an option either since that will lead to shortages of good housing. price controls greatly disincentivize constructing new homes or even upkeep of current housing.

    if it were as simple as giving everyone a free income forever, someone would have done it by now.
    IMHO, this is an overblown effect, since one of the immediate outcomes is that many would likely leave their jobs or go into much smaller scale modes of work. I.E. there would be a cascade of people leaving full time for part time, part time for temp ect. And many people likely going self employed.

    Landlords doing that would be assuming someone gets this money AND keeps their previous work were they also earned income.

    Price Discovery would be halted simply because most people would likely leave their current jobs or leave their current capacity of work.

    ALSO a big part of UBI is wages going down since we no longer need a min. wage. SO even if someone was to decide they liked working 40 hours a week moving boxes about or running the register at Wal-Mart, they would be making a lot less, but all of it would be pure pocket money.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I don´t know. It has been tested for 5 years in a town in canada and as far as reports say nothing of that has happened. Also why would there be an increase? What´s the incentive to the increase? I mean apart from greed.
    You answered it yourself. If there is more money available to the consumer class, then those that offer goods and services to the consumer class have an incentive and a reason to raise prices. It may not effect small local communities, because people can choose to move one town away to avoid increases in rent, or travel to the next town for their groceries. When the program is instituted nationwide, you’ll see a different outcome.

    People are greedy by nature; there is nothing anyone is going to do to change that.
    CPU: Intel i7 3770K Mobo: Asus P8Z77-V PRO GPU: 2X Asus GTX 770 OC SLI Heatsink: Hyper 212 EVO RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x8GB 1600mhz SSD: 120Gb Samsung 840 EVO HDD: WD 2tb Caviar Black PSU: Corsair HX850 Case: CM HAF 932 Advanced

  17. #97
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    24,166
    Quote Originally Posted by lordsphinx View Post
    You answered it yourself. If there is more money available to the consumer class, then those that offer goods and services to the consumer class have an incentive and a reason to raise prices. It may not effect small local communities, because people can choose to move one town away to avoid increases in rent, or travel to the next town for their groceries. When the program is instituted nationwide, you’ll see a different outcome.

    People are greedy by nature; there is nothing anyone is going to do to change that.
    There wouldn't actually be MORE money. The factor people are forgetting is how many will cut back on hours worked since all work after Mincome or UBI would be purely for pocket money and luxuries. Once more, the Min. Wage can go since its functionally useless so many jobs will have less wages to reflect actual market value . So even if someone for whatever reason chose to stay on full time 40 hours a week at Wal-Mart after Mincome, they would only make a third of what the currently do, or some seriously reduced number. But since all living expenses are handled, they are just working for extra cash for luxury purchases. To be perfectly honest I think once UBI comes into affect the most immediate social change will be the majority of workers cutting back on hours worked from full time to part time, and many part timers just working odd temporary jobs here and there.

    Most prices would fall due to reduced labour costs AND as automation kicks off, reduced production costs in general. More over since people aren't reliably pulling in Luxury income prices would have to stay low to keep people purchasing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    IMHO, this is an overblown effect, since one of the immediate outcomes is that many would likely leave their jobs or go into much smaller scale modes of work. I.E. there would be a cascade of people leaving full time for part time, part time for temp ect. And many people likely going self employed.

    Landlords doing that would be assuming someone gets this money AND keeps their previous work were they also earned income.

    Price Discovery would be halted simply because most people would likely leave their current jobs or leave their current capacity of work.

    ALSO a big part of UBI is wages going down since we no longer need a min. wage. SO even if someone was to decide they liked working 40 hours a week moving boxes about or running the register at Wal-Mart, they would be making a lot less, but all of it would be pure pocket money.
    Price discovery (or price setting as I called it) would happen regardless. If there is more money available to a population of people, then the result is inflation. That is unless you’re arguing that there wouldn’t be any extra money in the market. If that’s the case, then why bother with the UBI in the first place? Is it simply so people don’t have to work anymore? The argument again and again in this thread and threads in the past is that a UBI doesn’t disincentivise work, it allows working people to afford to live. It’s either one or the other, it can’t be both.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    There wouldn't actually be MORE money. The factor people are forgetting is how many will cut back on hours worked since all work after Mincome or UBI would be purely for pocket money and luxuries. Once more, the Min. Wage can go since its functionally useless so many jobs will have less wages to reflect actual market value . So even if someone for whatever reason chose to stay on full time 40 hours a week at Wal-Mart after Mincome, they would only make a third of what the currently do, or some seriously reduced number. But since all living expenses are handled, they are just working for extra cash for luxury purchases. To be perfectly honest I think once UBI comes into affect the most immediate social change will be the majority of workers cutting back on hours worked from full time to part time, and many part timers just working odd temporary jobs here and there.

    Most prices would fall due to reduced labour costs AND as automation kicks off, reduced production costs in general. More over since people aren't reliably pulling in Luxury income prices would have to stay low to keep people purchasing.
    Again, you can’t have it both ways. Either UBI disincentivises work, and people will work less –or- it doesn’t disincentivise work, and the result is inflation. Also, you’re saying that people will have extra money for extra cash and luxury purchases. I’m saying that the extra money they have will drive inflation and the rise in cost of basic goods and services. Again, you can’t have it both ways. Either they continue to work and have extra money (inflation), or the don’t continue to work (no incentive to work).
    CPU: Intel i7 3770K Mobo: Asus P8Z77-V PRO GPU: 2X Asus GTX 770 OC SLI Heatsink: Hyper 212 EVO RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x8GB 1600mhz SSD: 120Gb Samsung 840 EVO HDD: WD 2tb Caviar Black PSU: Corsair HX850 Case: CM HAF 932 Advanced

  19. #99
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,913
    Quote Originally Posted by lordsphinx View Post
    You answered it yourself. If there is more money available to the consumer class, then those that offer goods and services to the consumer class have an incentive and a reason to raise prices. It may not effect small local communities, because people can choose to move one town away to avoid increases in rent, or travel to the next town for their groceries. When the program is instituted nationwide, you’ll see a different outcome.

    People are greedy by nature; there is nothing anyone is going to do to change that.
    ... You can´t be greedy and that´s it. People have to be willing to pay the prices. The consumers however are greedy themselves and therefor won´t pay whatever price a company/landlord can come up with. It has to be reasonable.

    That said, i don´t think people are greedy by nature. They are selfish to a degree, yes, some more some less, but only a few are greedy. If you´re having a good life with current prices and on top get a mincome, there´s no need to increase prices. Why risk losing your customers?
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  20. #100
    The first thing we must do is dispel the faulty notion that the poor are the biggest drain on public resources. No poor people use more government services/benefits then the wealthy and business owners. I doubt you could combine 1,000,000 poor families and find they benefit more from welfare than the Waltons, for example.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •