Universal basic incomes

[Nadiru]

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

Defend your position; explain how.

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.

The only fantasy here is yours when you put forth the implicit claim that Homo economicus exists amongst the lower rungs of society when it hasn't been shown to exist much of anywhere.

[Endus]

Defend your position; explain how.

Are you claiming that all money held is traded equally by all members of the economy at all times?

Because unless you are, transferring money from less-active sectors to more-active sectors will serve to increase trade activity overall.

The only fantasy here is yours when you put forth the implicit claim that Homo economicus exists amongst the lower rungs of society when it hasn't been shown to exist much of anywhere.

And now you're inventing stuff I never said. This isn't a step forward.

[Nadiru]

Are you claiming that all money held is traded equally by all members of the economy at all times?

Because unless you are, transferring money from less-active sectors to more-active sectors will serve to increase trade activity overall.

You're not providing the whole timeline when you make that analysis for transfer payments because you leave out that you're first transferring money from more-active sectors to less-active ones and then doing it through an intermediary which itself must be paid & maintained, transferring money from more-active sectors and paying some to less-active sectors and some to somewhat-active sectors. If there is an increase in the nominal amount of trade activity it's because of inflation and thusly a nominal increase rather than a real one.

And now you're inventing stuff I never said. This isn't a step forward.

"They'll find their own utility" is the basis of homo economicus.

[Endus]

You're not providing the whole timeline when you make that analysis for transfer payments because you leave out that you're first transferring money from more-active sectors to less-active ones and then doing it through an intermediary which itself must be paid & maintained, transferring money from more-active sectors and paying some to less-active sectors and some to somewhat-active sectors. If there is an increase in the nominal amount of trade activity it's because of inflation and thusly a nominal increase rather than a real one.

Again, you're literally inventing things I didn't say, that directly contradict the things I said, and pretending I also said them.

"They'll find their own utility" is the basis of homo economicus.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/homoeconomicus.asp

Yeah, no. It's pretty clearly not, since I wasn't stating any kind of rational basis for this in the first place, if you read past the first half-sentence.

[Nadiru]

Again, you're literally inventing things I didn't say, that directly contradict the things I said, and pretending I also said them.

Your claim:

Because unless you are, transferring money from less-active sectors to more-active sectors will serve to increase trade activity overall.

Is true in a vacuum but disingenuous (to say nothing of false) in the context of this discussion because it leaves out key points of the source of the money and its distribution.

Yeah, no. It's pretty clearly not, since I wasn't stating any kind of rational basis for this in the first place, if you read past the first half-sentence.

You are invoking a rational argument, that people will intrinsically find things which will fulfill them if given enough resources. But fulfillment is as much a psychological issue as it is a material one and that's why the proposition will fall on its face, because UBI, like the current model of welfare distribution doesn't even broach the psychological aspect of fulfillment.

[Nadiru]

Exactly this. The way our economy works now, labor demand is essentially inelastic. It's the same reason drug companies can get away with price gouging. Pricing doesn't change demand because people don't have a choice to buy the drugs they need. Just like people don't have a choice to not work which artificially drives down wages because there's always someone else that will fill that role and take less money because they HAVE to have a job.

So what you're saying is that open immigration is a contributor to labor demand elasticity?

[Endus]

Your claim:

Is true in a vacuum but disingenuous (to say nothing of false) in the context of this discussion because it leaves out key points of the source of the money and its distribution.

What "vacuum"? It was a simple question. Do you think that all repositories of wealth are equally engaged in trade activity?

My point is that, in the real world (not a "vacuum"), that very clearly isn't true. And if it isn't true, then shifting funds from less-active to more-active sectors serves to increase trade activity.

Not to mention, this is all basically Keynesian economics, this is hardly a fringe argument, it's core economic theory that underpins most of modern economics.

You are invoking a rational argument, that people will intrinsically find things which will fulfill them if given enough resources. But fulfillment is as much a psychological issue as it is a material one and that's why the proposition will fall on its face, because UBI, like the current model of welfare distribution doesn't even broach the psychological aspect of fulfillment.

You literally just explained why your own argument, claiming that I was making a homo economicus claim, is wrong. Thanks?

UBI doesn't broach the concept of "fulfillment" at all. It merely removes barriers to fulfillment, and gives people the economic freedom to pursue it. It isn't meant to fulfill anyone, itself, nor to guarantee fulfillment. Just that you won't be forced to work in a dead-end job you hate just to keep a roof over your head as your dreams die.

[zenkai]

People here posting opinions and anecdotal evidence calling peoples opinions that differ than there's anecdotal evidence, it's fucking hilarious. Post some shitty dream filled opinion and I should take it as fact but you should ignore my opinion.

[NED funded]

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

- - - Updated - - -



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.



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.

Incomplete =/= wrong, specially when its online. ADH was incomplete for a year.

we document that 22 percent
of less-educated younger men report working zero weeks during the prior year in 2015. The
comparable number in 2000 was only 9 percent.

[zenkai]

Do you know the fucking definition of ancedotal evidence? All the evidence used to support a UBI posted here are studies done with samples sizes ranging from hundreds to thousands. Your only arguments have been, "My fat lazy friend is fat and lazy."

I don't give a fuck about your opinion on whether it works or not or anyone for that matters. I care about facts and studies that prove it can work if implemented correctly. You've provided no such evidence to the contrary.

So basically you have opinions based on feels.

[Nadiru]

What "vacuum"? It was a simple question. Do you think that all repositories of wealth are equally engaged in trade activity?

My point is that, in the real world (not a "vacuum"), that very clearly isn't true. And if it isn't true, then shifting funds from less-active to more-active sectors serves to increase trade activity.

Not to mention, this is all basically Keynesian economics, this is hardly a fringe argument, it's core economic theory that underpins most of modern economics.

No, not all wealth is equally engaged in trade activity, but the disparity is not so great that pulling wealth from one sector to another will cause activity to outpace the negative consequences of those actions. It's especially risky to try with a plan that inherently increases demand for staple goods without inherently increasing supply as well because the the inflationary impact on those goods.

You literally just explained why your own argument, claiming that I was making a homo economicus claim, is wrong. Thanks?

UBI doesn't broach the concept of "fulfillment" at all. It merely removes barriers to fulfillment, and gives people the economic freedom to pursue it. It isn't meant to fulfill anyone, itself, nor to guarantee fulfillment. Just that you won't be forced to work in a dead-end job you hate just to keep a roof over your head as your dreams die.

If UBI isn't broaching the issue of fulfillment, in what sense is it different from the system we have today? The scale effect is meaningless if it's not producing a different outcome, so how could you be calling for a "radical overhaul" if by your admission the system isn't doing anything differently? Are you hoping there's some second-order effect in play?

[Teleros]

What are you even saying? It doesn't make sense to include those that get paid? What does that even mean?

The U-6 measure of unemployment in the USA counts those who are in part-time work but who'd prefer to be in full-time work, which I think is silly. On the other hand it also includes those "marginally attached" to the labour force (see the blurb I quoted in my last post), which makes sense to me.

[Endus]

Incomplete =/= wrong, specially when its online. ADH was incomplete for a year.

You keep shifting goalposts.

You started out claiming that there was a big drop in men aged 25-54 participating in the workforce; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45160108

You then claimed that 20% of them had "given up looking for jobs"; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45160426

You then amended that claim to 11%, because we pointed out that no data supported that. http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45160680

Then you tried to say you were just talking about "those in their 20s without a college degree", which is a far cry from "all men aged 25-54"; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45160785

You then tried to ignore the data that explained why these men had left the workforce, to argue that your imaginary reasons were more "real"; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45166290

And now you've linked to another document that further restricts this to "less-educated younger men"; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45168418


This shit is frustrating. You've gone from "20% of men aged 25-54 have quit looking for work because they prefer leisure" to "20% of less-educated men aged 21-30 haven't been employed for a year for a wide range of reasons", and you're acting like that's remotely the same argument. Continuing to move the goalposts every time you're shown to be wrong, while trying to shore up that original, incorrect claim, is not a reasonable approach.

[Endus]

No, not all wealth is equally engaged in trade activity, but the disparity is not so great that pulling wealth from one sector to another will cause activity to outpace the negative consequences of those actions. It's especially risky to try with a plan that inherently increases demand for staple goods without inherently increasing supply as well because the the inflationary impact on those goods.

And yet, we do that all the time, and it's been a boon to the economy. 70+ years of economic history in basically every single developed nation demonstrates this.

If UBI isn't broaching the issue of fulfillment, in what sense is it different from the system we have today? The scale effect is meaningless if it's not producing a different outcome, so how could you be calling for a "radical overhaul" if by your admission the system isn't doing anything differently? Are you hoping there's some second-order effect in play?

Because it creates a baseline where personal fulfillment is a goal that can be pursued. Whereas today, it largely isn't. Economic realities force people to work jobs they don't want for money that they need to get by, and they shelve that fulfillment for some future day, or never.

It's like you're not reading my posts, or something. There very clearly WILL be different outcomes. They're just not focused on directly providing fulfillment, but instead on removing systemic barriers.

[Nadiru]

Because it creates a baseline where personal fulfillment is a goal that can be pursued. Whereas today, it largely isn't. Economic realities force people to work jobs they don't want for money that they need to get by, and they shelve that fulfillment for some future day, or never.

It's like you're not reading my posts, or something. There very clearly WILL be different outcomes. They're just not focused on directly providing fulfillment, but instead on removing systemic barriers.

You have zero proof that there will be different outcomes; there's no data to support or refute your claim, which is why we're doing experiments in Finland and Ontario to begin with. If you're going to complain that I push my assertions as fact, please refrain from doing it yourself.

[Endus]

You have zero proof that there will be different outcomes; there's no data to support or refute your claim, which is why we're doing experiments in Finland and Ontario to begin with. If you're going to complain that I push my assertions as fact, please refrain from doing it yourself.

Mincome provided data, so again, you're just wrong here.

[NED funded]

You keep shifting goalposts.

You started out claiming that there was a big drop in men aged 25-54 participating in the workforce; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45160108

You then claimed that 20% of them had "given up looking for jobs"; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45160426

You then amended that claim to 11%, because we pointed out that no data supported that. http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45160680

Then you tried to say you were just talking about "those in their 20s without a college degree", which is a far cry from "all men aged 25-54"; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45160785

You then tried to ignore the data that explained why these men had left the workforce, to argue that your imaginary reasons were more "real"; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45166290

And now you've linked to another document that further restricts this to "less-educated younger men"; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post45168418


This shit is frustrating. You've gone from "20% of men aged 25-54 have quit looking for work because they prefer leisure" to "20% of less-educated men aged 21-30 haven't been employed for a year for a wide range of reasons", and you're acting like that's remotely the same argument. Continuing to move the goalposts every time you're shown to be wrong, while trying to shore up that original, incorrect claim, is not a reasonable approach.

Why do you have to be so condescending? Anyway here we go
1. My original claim was that there was some evidence that showed that individuals prefer their leisure time.
2. This is true there was a big drop.
3.This was my bad and I noticed this previous to noticing your post , but this is irrelevant given that I admitted it was my fault.
4.No, I said I mixed numbers.
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)
5.I did not try to ignore all the data. You provided data that showed this men, were mostly in disability. What happened that there is suddenly so many disabled men? I said that obessity and pain killer consumption are partially responsible for the increase. There could be other reasons along that.
4.This actually was to show that given the chances to susbsist without working(studying) or working less, people will take that. As shown in the paper.

[Gamer8585]

With automation continuing to displace core jobs in the economy we're either going to have to move to UBI or risk complete social breakdown. Since the dawn of civilization there has always been a minimum amount of resources required at consistent intervals to survive. In the modern day we use fungible currency as a representation of all possible resources in society since that makes it easier to enumerate and compare goods and services.

Unfortunately give the way modern civilization is economically structured there is a critical fail state when a person goes below the minimum. Unfortunately the fail state has very few inflection points to climb out of, and there are pressures that make the state worse. More of a death spiral than just a hole.

Society has been finding ways to mitigate the harms caused to people who are in this fail state (Food Stamps, Welfare, charities of all stripes), but because these provisions are costly its unlikely that anyone can actually get the minimum required over a long enough period to pull them out of the hole. Given that automation is threatening to make core lower and middle class (and even some upper class) position obsolete society needs to have a plan in place to absorb the coming increasing waves of people that suddenly find themselves jobless.

Retraining is unlikely to work because the remaining jobs that are available will either be:
1) Too technical and specialized for quick retraining (you don't go from Janitor to Professor of Quantum Chromodynamics in a 6month course at the local community college)
or
2) Oversaturated so many people won't be able to get into those jobs anyway.

UBI will at least allow a person to subsist while they look for work, get an education, develop a trade skill, or create art that can be sold. Doing nothing all day won't be glamorous or engaging so people will find ways to keep busy. Plus the UBI will be unlikely enough to afford any luxuries and people are still going to want those so they'll still need to work. The upside is that all prices will come down dramatically. With so many people out of work prices will deflate since dollars are going to be much more valuable, but also because much of the economy is automated costs will be incidental.

Its going to be a crazy reblancing when the shit hits the fan. UBI will at least insure against massive rioting. Its best that we design and implement it now before we're forced to make something in haste and have to deal with fixing the problems of a rush job.

Also, I hope that UBI is just the next step toward a completely cashless society, but that's another order of magnitude of difference.

[Teleros]

You're saying it doesn't make sense to include those that get paid. You're talking about part time people? How is counting part time employed people silly to you? They're still employed.

Exactly. The U-6 thing measures unemployment, yet it includes at least some part-time workers.

[Teleros]

Companies abuse the fuck out of part time hiring though. Wal-mart used to be way worse about it than they are now but they're still one of the biggest offenders. There's also companies that essentially only hire seasonal workers because then they never qualify for benefits even if they're working full time during that season.

Yeah. I've heard Obamacare has made the part-time work issue worse too. Something like not having to give benefits to workers if they do under such-and-such hours. No surprise really .