Universal basic incomes

[NED funded]

Which isn't anywhere even remotely close to either 20%, or 11%, which were the two figures you falsely cited. The only thing I can figure you were doing is trying to claim that going from 8% of people in that group not participating, to 11%, was a 20% increase.

And that's wrong. It's a 3% increase. There is no massive glut of people leaving the workforce.

Extend your same series back to 1980 (to pick a year). The trend keeps on going. It isn't a recent shift.

Nah the data refers to those in their 20s without college degree that have not worked for a year. That's around 22% (I double checked that)

- - - Updated - - -

Which isn't anywhere even remotely close to either 20%, or 11%, which were the two figures you falsely cited. The only thing I can figure you were doing is trying to claim that going from 8% of people in that group not participating, to 11%, was a 20% increase.

And that's wrong. It's a 3% increase. There is no massive glut of people leaving the workforce.

Extend your same series back to 1980 (to pick a year). The trend keeps on going. It isn't a recent shift.

I just noticed this, are we looking at the same data?

[Super Kami Dende]

Nice insult there. Guess we're done.

What insult? If you are referring to the Autist comment, literally the only type of Person I know of that feels being around other people is suffering is generally people with Autistic issues like Aspergers, or people with Mental Illnesses.

You are the one that suggested being around people was suffering.

[Captain N]

Yes, I do. I've gone from a Job earning 95k+ a Year to one at 50k a Year because I required having a Job to live and don't expect other people to support me indefinitely until I got another job earning the same amount.

What a stupid question.

So basically what you're saying is someone who has earned their unemployment who gets laid off should take a lower paying job because you were too stupid to take the unemployment you worked to earn?

Nobody is supporting you when you're on unemployment. You work to earn that in case you do lose your job.

[Super Kami Dende]

So basically what you're saying is someone who has earned their unemployment who gets laid off should take a lower paying job because you were too stupid to take the unemployment you worked to earn?

Nobody is supporting you when you're on unemployment. You work to earn that in case you do lose your job.

NO, What I am saying is people that sit around on their Lazy asses refusing Jobs because at some point they earnt more and believe they are worth more than other people are assholes and should accept working in lower paying jobs until such time they can find a similar paying job they were in. Otherwise they are just lazy fucks.

[Felaris Stormrage]

Not sure how you can legitimately argue against UBI. It's basically going to cover the essentials of living, nothing more; nothing less. It will be comforting to not see people struggling to get the basics and be able to focus more on improving their lives, if they choose to do so.

[Captain N]

NO, What I am saying is people that sit around on their Lazy asses refusing Jobs because at some point they earnt more and believe they are worth more than other people are assholes and should accept working in lower paying jobs until such time they can find a similar paying job they were in. Otherwise they are just lazy fucks.

If they had a job where they were being paid more they were worth more -- and they earned that 60% of their wages that unemployment benefits would pay them. As I said unless someone offered to pay me at or more than the $75,000/year that my unemployment benefits would grant me I wouldn't take the job either. What you're basically doing is OKing wage theft and blaming employees who decide to take their unemployment benefits and rest on them instead of working.

[Wells]

I much prefer giving workers jobs than deliberately moving to a future where there are no jobs.

Even if universal income is doable in the future, I think a lot of people are going to suffer along the way.

Standing in the way of automative progress is what causes people to suffer in the long term.

[Endus]

I just noticed this, are we looking at the same data?

You just noticed it? It's from your deleted post.

[NED funded]

You just noticed it? It's from your deleted post.

No I mean, are we looking at the same data? Because those that are out of the LFP is around 11%.

[Sunseeker]

"Basic income" is a necessary step in a transition away from currency. And no, I'm not saying we'll move back to a barter and trade system, we never left that, we just put money in the middle. It is a step towards a more Star Trek-like society where people do what they enjoy or are best at because they enjoy it the most and are good at it, not because it pays a lot of money. Most of the mundane tasks in life will be mechanized, but in doing so it will also likely destroy a lot of what mechanization is for. Growing your own food is a lot more realistic when you don't need to type papers 40+ hours a week. You will have less demand for cheap, fast goods because people's lives will slow down.

Eventually we must transition away from the idea of "jobs" and currency as the primary motivating factors in people's lives. Neither are healthy for long-term social stability.

[Macaquerie]

"Basic income" is a necessary step in a transition away from currency. And no, I'm not saying we'll move back to a barter and trade system, we never left that, we just put money in the middle. It is a step towards a more Star Trek-like society where people do what they enjoy or are best at because they enjoy it the most and are good at it, not because it pays a lot of money. Most of the mundane tasks in life will be mechanized, but in doing so it will also likely destroy a lot of what mechanization is for. Growing your own food is a lot more realistic when you don't need to type papers 40+ hours a week. You will have less demand for cheap, fast goods because people's lives will slow down.

Eventually we must transition away from the idea of "jobs" and currency as the primary motivating factors in people's lives. Neither are healthy for long-term social stability.

Money itself isn't really the problem though, it's just a construct that helps grease the wheels of commerce. The real issue is that for the last couple hundred years or so, economic growth has essentially meant mass production of consumer goods that have little intrinsic value and are only desirable because of effective marketing techniques. Going deep into debt to buy useless junk is not some sad side effect but a requirement for our current economy to function, because none of us would have jobs if people bought only what they actually needed.

[Stormspark]

Won't happen in the US without a major catastrophe. They would much rather just start arresting people for being poor like Belarus does.

[Zomis]

sure! lets do it! Then I can sit on my ass and post on MMOC all day! I want to be like all the cool kids! Work is for suckers!

[Wells]

sure! lets do it! Then I can sit on my ass and post on MMOC all day! I want to be like all the cool kids! Work is for suckers!

Work is for survival. If most people don't need to work for society to survive why should they have to?

[Vizardlorde]

Work is for survival. If most people don't need to work for society to survive why should they have to?

Because bootstraps work ethic and values or something.

[Macaquerie]

sure! lets do it! Then I can sit on my ass and post on MMOC all day! I want to be like all the cool kids! Work is for suckers!

Because whenever people are in the office they are always doing actual work and never wasting time on the internet.

[Endus]

No I mean, are we looking at the same data? Because those that are out of the LFP is around 11%.

I'll admit I assumed you were screwing with the data (particularly as your original number was, by your own admission, wrong), but even with this correction, you're still wrong. Here's your original statement;

Do you not see a problem when a large % (ooops around 11 my bad%) prime age men have given up looking for jobs and instead prefer their leisure tine.

People not in the labor force have not, as a group, "given up looking for jobs and instead prefer their leisure time".

https://www.bls.gov/bls/cps_fact_sheets/lfp_mock.htm

The labor force is the employed plus the unemployed. Which means the remainder is everyone who is neither. This includes the sick or disabled, it includes students, it includes people living off savings/inheritance, they may be retired early (if you're still looking at 25-54), they may be homemakers,

And y'know, BLS asked them. We don't even have to guess; we have the data; https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-...ey-working.htm

Of the 11.5% of the male 25-54 population that aren't in the labor force;
6% are sick or disabled,
1.1% are retired
1.2% are homemakers/caretakers
1.6% are going to school,
and just 1.6% cited "other reasons", which is a catchall group that includes "I've given up". So even that 1.6% is too high.

So there's your number. Something south of 1.6% of men aged 25-54 aren't working because they've given up looking. Not 20%, not 11%.

Also, the single biggest growth in those reasons was going to school. Between 2004 and 2014, the proportion of the "other reasons" category only shifted from 1.3% to 1.6%.

[Theodarzna]

sure! lets do it! Then I can sit on my ass and post on MMOC all day! I want to be like all the cool kids! Work is for suckers!

In a real sense, is there much you are doing with your life that will matter in 100 years?

Fuck, I'm physically going to bring a life into this world and once I'm dead I relatively confident that she will not be visiting my grave after I die with any great regularity.

I mean in a very serious way, what does it actually matter what you end up doing with your limited time here?

[May90]

I can tell you don't come from a place with high unemployment.

My local area has +14% unemployment. When there are more people that jobs your whole statement is false.

Not really. Bear in mind that each employer needs a certain set of skills. If you have a large set of skills, then you will be attractive to a large number of employers. Plainly, the more skills you have, the higher advantage over an average person you have. 15% unemployment, for example, is still 85% employment, so you only need to get into top 85% - which isn't hard, if you are willing to work on your skills. Unless you have a profession that, for some reason, is not needed in this particular region... But, again, your profession, to an extent, is a result of the choices you've made in life.

[Theodarzna]

Not really. Bear in mind that each employer needs a certain set of skills. If you have a large set of skills, then you will be attractive to a large number of employers. Plainly, the more skills you have, the higher advantage over an average person you have. 15% unemployment, for example, is still 85% employment, so you only need to get into top 85% - which isn't hard, if you are willing to work on your skills. Unless you have a profession that, for some reason, is not needed in this particular region... But, again, your profession, to an extent, is a result of the choices you've made in life.

Taken to its logical conclusion though you've not proposed a single solution. "Just be in the top 85%!" is the same as "Just don't be poor."