Universal basic incomes

[Fugus]

Funny, the people I talk too, all who have well paying jobs are fucking laughing at this.

Congrats, they are a small cross section of the population and most likely an Echo Chamber when it comes to their views on many things. Happens in many areas. But that doesn't change the overall views and impacts.

Trust me, I know people who feel the same way. the majority of them are those who are overall uneducated who still managed to get into a decent job either by family connections, born into money, or did illegal shit and used their connections to buy their way into that job.

Generally the more attention is paid, the more they see the current situation as unsustainable and something like a UBI eventually becoming the only option short of killing people.

[Captain N]

I value my colleagues opinions, who I know are well educated, over some forum people who use hopes and wishes to back up what they say.

Except numerous people have provided evidence in this thread and as per usual you've hand-waved it, lied, and then proceeded to provide anecdotal evidence in which to back up your claim. It's not like you don't have a history of being a Compulsive Liar and a Shit Poster Mr. "Woke".

So you'll have to excuse me while I once more.

[Mehrunes]

"Work on improving your skills" is a logical conclusion from what I said though.

Obviously those already in the 85% stagnate or something.

I'm just saying that that is what makes capitalism work: employers need people with skills, people need employers with money. Of course it is not true for everyone, of course there are exceptions, of course capitalism is never absolute and there are corrupt elements in it... But overall, the narrative "employers are exploiting desperate people" is as far away from the truth as the opposite narrative "lazy people don't want to work and make the employers pay them much more than they deserve". Both sides have a say in the matter, and one of the sides only starts winning over the other when something is deeply corrupt in the given implementation of capitalism.

Look at all the people who said so in this post chain. Oh, wait... And both sides having a say in the matter does not mean they have an equal say and an equal position. Your insistence on that is an Utopian fantasy, not how capitalism works in practice.

Everyone has different goals, different standards. Some people are content with working the lowest-paid jobs and having a very basic quality of life. Others become obsessed with working up the career ladder to the point of forgetting what life is. I'm not giving an advice to anyone, again, I'm just explaining what makes capitalism work, from my point of view. Employers have a room for action and employees have a room for action. It is not a one-sided situation.

Gotta love your goalpost moving.

Again false. Many many jobs can easily be trained on the spot.

Hey, in May's defense, he did clarify in the next post that he's only explaining how capitalism works from his point of view. And he did not mention that this point of view is correct or has basis in reality.

[zenkai]

Except numerous people have provided evidence in this thread and as per usual you've hand-waved it, lied, and then proceeded to provide anecdotal evidence in which to back up your claim. It's not like you don't have a history of being a Compulsive Liar and a Shit Poster Mr. "Woke".

So you'll have to excuse me while I once more.

Numerous people have provided evidence that it won't work, but you chose to ignore it. I side with the evidence that proves it won't work, because I understand human nature and math.

The fact you use childish emojies shows that you don't have no idea what you are talking about.

[socanyou]

My thoughts are that people have no idea what they are talking about if they think technology will replace all or even >50% of jobs in any of our lifetimes. Let alone the "technology" we can imagine coming together, you need law and culture to follow. You're in double trouble if you think basic income is supposed to maintain a high quality of life. How many disabled people do you know riding on easy street with a few hundred dollars to spare every month? I can't think of a single country that could fundamentally facilitate basic income to any appropriate level, since our economies are built on raising the population and then forcing everyone to compete. Turning that over in any effective way would not just take tech, it would take a miracle.

Basic income sounds nice. working less sounds nice. but we don't have any shortage of problems in the world. once there is no value for us to be selling insurance or driving cars, value will be placed in markets, functions, and regions where technology is not as ubiquitous. the concept we are discussing in this thread is something that we could have already applied 30 years ago, and we are still miserably behind demand in even the most obvious areas (healthcare, education). self driving cars are cool and futuristic and might even help a few industries, but if we can't even get regular computers to handle simple databases in so many hospitals and schools, then talking about basic income due to automation is like discussing gardening on mars.

[Daelak]

And you don't understand the people who don't want to work will outweigh those who do, leaving holes in the job market, especially in services.

- - - Updated - - -

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/re...-basic-income/

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously, anyone who thinks Universal Income would work without full automation doesn't understand human nature and they are bad at math.

Then those jobs would pay more, so a person who wanted to work and get UBI can have both. Again, no problem.

It seems as though you don't understand basic supply and demand.

[Endus]

Because government distribution of funds to the poor hasn't resulted in increased trade activity yet, except now this problem makes most of the country "the poor."

The current system isn't meant to produce any increase in trade activity. It's meant to offset hardship, barely. Nor is it responsible for poverty; that blame lies with the economic system itself, and the increasing wealth inequality it has encouraged and allowed for.

And when we point out these flaws, and say "UBI could fix that", you try to blame the wrong targets.

Ignoring that, if take either a right or left wing stance about it, and you'd come to the conclusion that the government cannot be trusted to safeguard the livelihoods of every single demographic, because the track record there is utterly abysmal. Can people in Appalachia who are still dirt poor trust the government to get it right this time, after 50 years and $20 trillion dollars of War on Poverty programs? Can people in Detroit?

Nobody but the government can be trusted to do so. And it's our government. It isn't a foreign entity. If you don't like what your government is doing, change it. If you don't have the votes, it's because most people are satisfied with how it's operating.

Can UBI make the unemployed not feel superfluous, because that's half the problem right there: Depression fostered by not feeling useless to society. If you're looking for a socioeconomic reason to explain why the inner city and the outer country are rife with drug abuse and suicide, that's a really solid one.

It allows them to find their own utility, rather than creating an artificial expectation of earning money to demonstrate one's value and usefulness. Is creating art your passion, even if you have no customers? Feel free to pursue that. Want to pursue research for your own purposes? Go nuts. You're beholden to nobody but yourself for determining your value or success. That's one of the big gains.

You can claim dissability by abusing pain killers and obessity, two of which are big problems in the US ( like I highly doubt the amount of people in dissability has increased that much since the 70s), in addition of not having a job being something people want to justify at all costs so that covers homemakers. And yes I'm fully aware of people going back to school. But thats not the phenomenom I'm talking about. There is a legit problem in which young and to an extent older individuals are just flat out not doing nothing but either watching tv or playing video games and yes this is counting going to school as being employed. The 20%(well 22) figure comes from there.

And the data shows that this claim is false. There is no such significant increase. It's just flat-out not happening. Do some people do so? Sure. But they've ALWAYS done so. It isn't new, and it isn't a change.

You've imagined a non-existent phenomenon, provided no evidence to back it, and what evidence you have cited conclusively demonstrated that it does not exist.

[Captain N]

Numerous people have provided evidence that it won't work, but you chose to ignore it. I side with the evidence that proves it won't work, because I understand human nature and math.

The fact you use childish emojies shows that you don't have no idea what you are talking about.

The only evidence provided that it wouldn't work came from a Libertarian Blog and a lot of people who believe the nonsense that everyone is going to stop working if their basic needs are met. This is rubbish as I've noted previously that a continuously falling unemployment rate means people are out there looking for work to live beyond the most basic lifestyles.

There's a thing about evidence that involves it being documented and researched and that we weigh the pros and cons of the system before implementation. Not your feels...and not the feels of your alleged friends who, like yourself, want to disregard history.

Based on empirical evidence previously brought forth in this thread I'm going to say you have no idea how mathematics work nor do you have any idea how human nature works. There would have to be changes to the tax system for UBI we've discussed this -- In fact @Endus has brought up a method in a previous thread as to how it could be put into place. As for human nature -- Contrary to your right-wing beliefs not everyone is lazy and is going to lie down and do nothing if you suddenly told them that at the very least they'll be able to afford clothing. food, and shelter, and possibly healthcare. Most (as noted by the US Human Condition to work obscene hours) would continue to work so they could do more with their lives.

[Endus]

Numerous people have provided evidence that it won't work, but you chose to ignore it. I side with the evidence that proves it won't work, because I understand human nature and math.

Nobody's provided any such evidence. What evidence we do have, such as Mincome, clearly demonstrates that it can work. If your claims here had any merit at all, experiments like Mincome couldn't have worked. That they did proves that your claims are misinformed. When it comes down to practical, real-world implementations, or what some random dudes hypothesize about, the former's always going to win out.

- - - Updated - - -

There would have to be changes to the tax system for UBI we've discussed this -- In fact @Endus has brought up a method in a previous thread as to how it could be put into place.

Before people go hunting those down, those were mostly theoreticals to demonstrate how things could work, mathematically. I made no claims then or now that they represented a fully-tested and implementable tax program, just an example of how things could be shifted in principle, and they were mostly overly-simplified to demonstrate the mathematical concepts in play.

[zenkai]

The only evidence provided that it wouldn't work came from a Libertarian Blog and a lot of people who believe the nonsense that everyone is going to stop working if their basic needs are met. This is rubbish as I've noted previously that a continuously falling unemployment rate means people are out there looking for work to live beyond the most basic lifestyles.

There's a thing about evidence that involves it being documented and researched and that we weigh the pros and cons of the system before implementation. Not your feels...and not the feels of your alleged friends who, like yourself, want to disregard history.

Based on empirical evidence previously brought forth in this thread I'm going to say you have no idea how mathematics work nor do you have any idea how human nature works. There would have to be changes to the tax system for UBI we've discussed this -- In fact @Endus has brought up a method in a previous thread as to how it could be put into place. As for human nature -- Contrary to your right-wing beliefs not everyone is lazy and is going to lie down and do nothing if you suddenly told them that at the very least they'll be able to afford clothing. food, and shelter, and possibly healthcare. Most (as noted by the US Human Condition to work obscene hours) would continue to work so they could do more with their lives.

Bullshit, there are 284 post, you think none of it has evidence? LOL!!!!

[Captain N]

Bullshit, there are 284 post, you think none of it has evidence? LOL!!!!

Then I'm sure you could find something in those 284 posts that backs up your claim that this won't work when others have provided evidence to the contrary. I mean all you've brought to the table personally was that blog and some anecdotes -- Perhaps you can do something better?

Before people go hunting those down, those were mostly theoreticals to demonstrate how things could work, mathematically. I made no claims then or now that they represented a fully-tested and implementable tax program, just an example of how things could be shifted in principle, and they were mostly overly-simplified to demonstrate the mathematical concepts in play.

I apologize if I made it come across as if your numbers were tested. I was simply commenting that you had made posts in the past where the math does seem sound and could be applied. It was more or less targeted at Zenkai's claim that he knows the math enough to say this wouldn't work.

[zenkai]

The only evidence provided that it wouldn't work came from a Libertarian Blog.

Universal basic income won’t make America great again, either

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...-again-either/

Donald Trump — a man who is cozy with white supremacists, violence, religious bigotry and misogyny — is the likely presidential nominee of Lincoln’s party. One quite minor consequence of this ongoing disaster is that I find it hard to say much at all about U.S. public affairs other than to make the simple observation that, well, Trump is an ongoing disaster. So in searching for something to write about with more layers than Trump, I looked abroad, to Finland of all places. And to Canada, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland. All of these countries, to one degree or another, are exploring universal basic income.

Imagine eliminating the entire welfare state — no more food stamps, cash and housing assistance, payments to the disabled, and all of the rest — and replacing it with a simple, elegant, single program: Every American gets a check just for being a citizen. All Americans would be given enough money to ensure that everyone can afford the basics necessary to live above the poverty line.

This program — universal basic income (UBI) — promises great relief to its beneficiaries. No longer are the poor subject to the whims, requirements and irritations of government bureaucracy. Under UBI, the welfare state is eliminated; the bureaucracy, gone. Gone, too, is the stigma associated with drawing benefits — if everyone wears the UBI scarlet letter, then no one does. Eliminated are the “poverty traps” associated with the “phase outs” of many of today’s safety net programs; UBI never phases out, so an extra dollar of work does not result in a loss of safety-net benefits. In a world with UBI, citizens no longer need to go to the government when the circumstances of their lives change: when they lose jobs, become disabled or see their incomes fall below a certain level.

Of course, there are many ways to implement a UBI program, with many bells and whistles that can and cannot be included. But the basic structure asks much from citizens by providing a base of economic security on which liberty must be properly practiced. Simply put, if you choose to spend your UBI check on drugs and alcohol and subsequently find yourself hungry and homeless, the government won’t help you. For UBI advocates, this is a feature, not a bug: Under UBI, citizens are responsible for their own choices. Even if those choices are bad, they remain their choices. Liberty is elevated; paternalism is dealt a devastating blow.

But perhaps liberty is elevated a bit too much?

At the risk of sounding unfashionable, one reason that I can’t support UBI — despite its many attractive and seductive features — is that we need a little paternalism. It is right and just that we have a social safety net — in a nation as wealthy as ours, no one should be able to fall too far. But UBI money doesn’t come from the Money Tree, and that reality needs to be respected. If we take money from John to give to Matthew, who would starve without it, then we owe it to John to make sure that his money is appropriately spent on Matthew’s food and shelter, not on Matthew’s alcohol and gambling. And surely there are a lot of Matthews out there who, if given the chance, would spend John’s money on alcohol and gambling. In addition, we can be confident that under UBI, at least some people will be taken advantage of, losing their benefit money. The children of recipients who spend their UBI unwisely also stand to lose quite a bit, and society needs to keep those children at the forefront of mind when evaluating safety-net programs.

In short, the wisdom of in-kind benefits would be made readily apparent if we adopted UBI.

Although removing stigma and the need to ask the government for help are appealing, they also result in outcomes of questionable morality. My wife is a very healthy woman. My neighbor has a serious physical disability. Should both receive the same amount of support from the government? Should a healthy man in his 20s and a blind man in his 40s be treated equally by the social safety net? I don’t think so. But under the logic of UBI, they would be.

Or would they? Another issue with UBI is its lack of realism. If UBI were introduced here, it wouldn’t take long for a politician to point out that, say, blind people need more support than those without physical disabilities. And then that workers who are disabled on the job deserve extra support over and above their base-line UBI benefit. And then it wouldn’t take very long for UBI to transform into something that looks very much like the system we have today. Why, then, change in the first place?

Then, of course, there is work. UBI would reduce work by reducing the need to work. If you think work is good, as I do, then this is a bad outcome.

A job provides much more than a paycheck. At a basic level, work occupies our time, which can be quite good in and of itself. (Do you want to live in a world filled with young men who don’t need to work?) Perhaps more significantly, working liberates us from our passions by directing them to the end of social improvement, creating a society characterized by mutual contribution, mutual dependence and mutual obligation. In a UBI world, those who choose to work will support those who choose not to — not those who can’t work, but those who won’t. This really would be a world of makers and takers.

That’s not a world I want to live in.


________________
Keep living in your fantasy world, wanting the government to take care of you, us productive people in society will continue to vote no, it won't happen in your lifetime, sorry.

[Tack980]

As a programmer... yeah either this is going to happen, or 70 % of people are screwed. We are making gains in replacing everything, including the "creative careers" field.

[Nadiru]

The current system isn't meant to produce any increase in trade activity. It's meant to offset hardship, barely. Nor is it responsible for poverty; that blame lies with the economic system itself, and the increasing wealth inequality it has encouraged and allowed for.

And when we point out these flaws, and say "UBI could fix that", you try to blame the wrong targets.

Yes, transfer payments do not increase trade activity. Please explain why UBI will, when UBI is literally a transfer payment system. As for poverty being caused by wealth inequality, these programs to fight poverty were enacted during a time of low income inequality. Inequality went up after they were put into place, which isn't a causal relationship but it has the function of derailing your causality something fierce.

It allows them to find their own utility, rather than creating an artificial expectation of earning money to demonstrate one's value and usefulness. Is creating art your passion, even if you have no customers? Feel free to pursue that. Want to pursue research for your own purposes? Go nuts. You're beholden to nobody but yourself for determining your value or success. That's one of the big gains.

So what happens when the people don't do that? When they just kinda sit around and don't pursue any goals because they perceive society as paying them to be quiet? AKA, what happens when you look at poor inner city, suburban, and rural areas and want to expand the systems that undergird that way of life? Because not having a purpose is rough, and finding purpose on your own takes an upper echelon intelligence. Most of these people are going to fall into drug abuse and cult behavior to deal with not having anything to do. Is that an equivalent big gain for you? If not, why not? If so, why are unproductive ventures equivalent to productive ones?

[zenkai]

Then I'm sure you could find something in those 284 posts that backs up your claim that this won't work when others have provided evidence to the contrary. I mean all you've brought to the table personally was that blog and some anecdotes -- Perhaps you can do something better?

Translation: "I made a baseless claim and I am too lazy to read, Zenkai you go do it"

[Endus]

Yes, transfer payments do not increase trade activity. Please explain why UBI will, when UBI is literally a transfer payment system.

Transfer payments can increase trade activity. Not sure where you got the idea they couldn't.

As for poverty being caused by wealth inequality, these programs to fight poverty were enacted during a time of low income inequality. Inequality went up after they were put into place, which isn't a causal relationship but it has the function of derailing your causality something fierce.

Programs like welfare don't "fight poverty" in the sense of trying to end poverty. They "fight poverty" in the sense of offsetting the worst impacts of being poor, like starvation.

If you're expecting me to defend the current system, when I'm one of those calling for radical overhaul, I'm not sure what you're looking for.

So what happens when the people don't do that? When they just kinda sit around and don't pursue any goals because they perceive society as paying them to be quiet? AKA, what happens when you look at poor inner city, suburban, and rural areas and want to expand the systems that undergird that way of life? Because not having a purpose is rough, and finding purpose on your own takes an upper echelon intelligence. Most of these people are going to fall into drug abuse and cult behavior to deal with not having anything to do. Is that an equivalent big gain for you? If not, why not? If so, why are unproductive ventures equivalent to productive ones?

At this point, you're just letting your imagination run wild, and expecting people to treat it as equivalent to facts. When it's just your own fantasies.

[Captain N]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...-again-either/
________________
Keep living in your fantasy world, wanting the government to take care of you, us productive people in society will continue to vote no, it won't happen in your lifetime, sorry.

Cool an article from Michael R. Strain -- oh what's this he's from the American Enterprise Institute.....let's just check to see how worthy the AEI is....


The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, known simply as the American Enterprise Institute, or AEI, is a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.[2][3] Its research is dedicated to issues of government, politics, economics and social welfare.

Founded in 1938, AEI's stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate".[4] AEI is an independent nonprofit organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...rise_Institute

Ah yes so just like the Conservative Government that shut down Minincome despite how well it was doing a Right Wing Think Tank also claims that UBI won't work....

You really need to get yourself some better sources...or at least figure out what the author is tied to.

Translation: "I made a baseless claim and I am too lazy to read, Zenkai you go do it"

Except you came right out and said you value your colleagues more than people on this forum who have no basis in reality. If you're going to provide evidence that this is going to fail besides your feels and Right Wing bullshit...then it's you who have no basis in reality.

[Stormdash]

The name is quite Orwellian? Implying that there is an 'earning' of some kind going on, as per how 'income' is connoted in common usage, when instead it's more correctly described as universal welfare.

[NED funded]

The current system isn't meant to produce any increase in trade activity. It's meant to offset hardship, barely. Nor is it responsible for poverty; that blame lies with the economic system itself, and the increasing wealth inequality it has encouraged and allowed for.

And when we point out these flaws, and say "UBI could fix that", you try to blame the wrong targets.



Nobody but the government can be trusted to do so. And it's our government. It isn't a foreign entity. If you don't like what your government is doing, change it. If you don't have the votes, it's because most people are satisfied with how it's operating.



It allows them to find their own utility, rather than creating an artificial expectation of earning money to demonstrate one's value and usefulness. Is creating art your passion, even if you have no customers? Feel free to pursue that. Want to pursue research for your own purposes? Go nuts. You're beholden to nobody but yourself for determining your value or success. That's one of the big gains.



And the data shows that this claim is false. There is no such significant increase. It's just flat-out not happening. Do some people do so? Sure. But they've ALWAYS done so. It isn't new, and it isn't a change.

You've imagined a non-existent phenomenon, provided no evidence to back it, and what evidence you have cited conclusively demonstrated that it does not exist.

The evidence I gave was about those out of the LFP, since I fucked up there. And no the data provided did not refute the claim. It just shows what people say to justify their unemployment. As pointed above it just gives a general image but misses a lot of things. Go check the ATUS in the BLS. Or now that you want it that much.
http://eml.berkeley.edu//~webfac/car...keleyhurst.pdf
This made its waves last year, when the findings were first announced.

[Endus]

But perhaps liberty is elevated a bit too much?
[...]
That’s not a world I want to live in.

Sure, I'm cutting out some middle ground, but the guy is literally complaining that people would be "too free".

- - - Updated - - -

The evidence I gave was about those out of the LFP, since I fucked up there. And no the data provided did not refute the claim. It just shows what people say to justify their unemployment. As pointed above it just gives a general image but misses a lot of things.

That doesn't mean you get to replace the data with whatever you've decided to invent out of thin air, which is exactly what you're trying to do.

Go check the ATUS in the BLS. Or now that you want it that much.
http://eml.berkeley.edu//~webfac/car...keleyhurst.pdf
This made its waves last year, when the discoveries were first announced.

Not only is that an incomplete work in progress (as it clearly states on the title page), it doesn't support your claims. They're looking at reductions in market hours by men aged 21-30, and not employment as a whole. And their numbers aren't anywhere close to yours, either.