Could it be time for Universal Basic Income discussion?

[Endus]

It's hard to keep it secret because every attempt to build a socialism was disaster. But of course, the real socialism has not been tried yet

Oh, so you're just going to go straight to the McCarthyist ding-dong propaganda horseshit, rather than make any effort to come off as someone interested in discussion.

I really don't have any interest in entertaining your delusions. You're flatly wrong and are demonstrating that you do not understand even the terminology of the subject we're discussing.

[Kathandira]

It does not matter what their labour is worth to them
It matters what their labour is worth to you, the consumer, and the market.
Basicaly what it is worth to the people that are going to pay for it.

Imagine this scenario:
Imagine a guy is a table maker. He makes four tables this month.
He puts the price at 1000 each table and no one buys them.
People only get interested in his tables when he lowers the price to 250.

Essentially he is making 1000 per month.
Because that is what the consumers think his labour worths
What his labour is worth to him matters much less.

The price of your labour must be such that people must be willing to buy your skill.

You are missing all the background that supports supply and demand, as well as the comparison of quality of the product, it's marketing, and the cost of labor vs profit.

There is way more to this than your commend spoke to.

[segara82]

- snip-

Plus, they seem allergic to running the math. I've done napkin math on UBI funding more than a few times in the past, and the simple answers are;
1> You up income taxes/corporate taxes by a lot, and
2> Working class and middle class workers still make more net income, regardless of the tax increase.

I don't feel like running numbers again, so I'll just link to one of the many times I explained how this works, in theory;

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post46744544

You could get billions by ending the tax cuts that so far have only benefitted the rich. 1,5 trillion was the 2017 one and it will not live up to its promises.

[Yadryonych]

I really don't have any interest in entertaining your delusions. You're flatly wrong and are demonstrating that you do not understand even the terminology of the subject we're discussing.

You cant be unironically speaking of delusions while spewing out "horseshit" like that

Sure, maybe his business isn't profitable; he'd make those tables for some reason other than personal profit. That's totally fine and legitimate. There's plenty of other reasons to make those tables; maybe it's a hobby he enjoys, and he makes some money on the side doing it. Maybe he gets enough financial support elsewhere he doesn't need more money. Etc.

That's too many baseless suppositions for a belief supposedly not "rooted entirely in theory rather than fact"

[kail]

I surely wouldn't. I'd take my UBI and apply it towards paying off loans. Once those are paid, i'd put it all towards saving for a downpayment for a house. Once house is bought, it would go towards renovations.

Exactly. I wouldn't quit my job if UBI only covered my rent and food. I still have things I want to buy for myself, maybe improve some conditions or even move to a better apartment.

What a lot of people get confused is that UBI will let people live, eat, watch Netflix on a 4k TV while riding a recent year car without having to work. No, UBI is designed to that people are not forced into being homeless or starving because the job market doesn't allow them to. If they want to remain jobless, they are stuck at the bare minimum while putting the entire UBI back into the economy. Most would want some luxury spending money and higher QoL. That is where the career fits in.

[Thelxi]

I don't think right now is a good time for it at all. I do think it is potentially a good idea though and I'm sure it will be seriously considered eventually.

[Endus]

You cant be unironically speaking of delusions while spewing out "horseshit" like that

It's fact.

Your post demonstrated you have no comprehension of what "socialism" actually means, and are just regurgitating mindless McCarthyist propaganda.

That's too many baseless suppositions for a belief supposedly not "rooted entirely in theory rather than fact"

"Baseless suppositions" about an entirely imaginary hypothetical for which there couldn't possible be any basis for any assumptions?

The suppositions made had as much grounding in fact as the original hypothetical.

You're completely out to lunch if you think that was a counter-point.

[Kathandira]

Exactly. I wouldn't quit my job if UBI only covered my rent and food. I still have things I want to buy for myself, maybe improve some conditions or even move to a better apartment.

What a lot of people get confused is that UBI will let people live, eat, watch Netflix on a 4k TV while riding a recent year car without having to work. No, UBI is designed to that people are not forced into being homeless or starving because the job market doesn't allow them to. If they want to remain jobless, they are stuck at the bare minimum while putting the entire UBI back into the economy. Most would want some luxury spending money and higher QoL. That is where the career fits in.

Absolutely. I have friends in the arts. Each of them require a day job because art is not something that flies off the shelves, not unless you are an established well recognised artist. They would love if that was their full time job, and even more if their day job didn't put limitations on their time to create, and as well time to show their work. UBI would allow creative people who don't fit into the 9-5 mold actually do what they dream of doing. They could at least feed and house themselves, and have all the time they need to get their art careers moving.

Additionally to that, art doesn't sell well during times of recessions. Nor does it sell well when so many have a hard time justifying the purchase because they have to decide if they want an item that makes them happy, or paying a bill. UBI would also help the potential buys of art have to mentally negotiate less about making the purchase.

[segara82]

I don't think right now is a good time for it at all. I do think it is potentially a good idea though and I'm sure it will be seriously considered eventually.

Considering that 70% of the economy is consumption, which is in a downward spiral, disposable income that people spend would be the biggest kickstart for the economy to get back on track.

Even with the various goverments throwing billions of dollars at companies to keep them alive, without clients and consumers to buy their products and services they will close down eventually. No demand, no reason to produce/exist.

[kail]

Absolutely. I have friends in the arts. Each of them require a day job because art is not something that flies off the shelves, not unless you are an established well recognised artist. They would love if that was their full time job, and even more if their day job didn't put limitations on their time to create, and as well time to show their work. UBI would allow creative people who don't fit into the 9-5 mold actually do what they dream of doing. They could at least feed and house themselves, and have all the time they need to get their art careers moving.

Additionally to that, art doesn't sell well during times of recessions. Nor does it sell well when so many have a hard time justifying the purchase because they have to decide if they want an item that makes them happy, or paying a bill. UBI would also help the potential buys of art have to mentally negotiate less about making the purchase.

Haven't even thought of that tbh. UBI allowing individuals to make their own income without fear of poverty is certainly another plus.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think right now is a good time for it at all. I do think it is potentially a good idea though and I'm sure it will be seriously considered eventually.

When unemployment is hitting some record highs? When would be the right time to discuss UBI?

[Krastyn]

One of the advantages of a UBI replacing unemployment/welfare/ social security programs would be that benefits don't just die as soon as you get a job, certainly. A good example of a relative of a coworker is that Florida has programs for child care while you're looking for work. So you can have someone watch your kid while you do interviews and such.
Of course, once you actually FIND a job, that benefit ends. So, you need to find a job that pays you more than unemployment+welfare+EBT+childcare and whatever else.

UBI would indeed shine in a situation like that. As it's not a binary payment. You could get a job, and only lose some of the income, but you're still ahead. On top of that, instead of applying for multiple programs, and all the bureaucracy that comes with it, there's none.

Flip side is that UBI without population control would just get out of hand. You need to pay extra to people to take care of their kids while avoiding incentivizing having extra kids for the extra money.

This is the same kind of flawed logic that with UBI people will quit jobs en mass and just live off UBI. Having a child would give you enough to cover the basic needs of the child. You would be better off not having more kids, and just getting a part time job. You would end up with more money.

I'm sure many folks would be more open to UBI if it was portrayed as "we want to consolidate all the various social programs into one system", but Freedom Bucks was certainly not a useful rebranding.

Well, Freedom Bucks wasn't UBI, so the name doesn't really matter.

The biggest roadblock to UBI is the general financial illiteracy of the public. My experience with the Canadian education system was they did a horrible, horrible job teaching any kind of personal financials, business financials, or simple economics until university. The number of people who don't know simple things like how tax brackets work, or the difference between profit and revenue is staggering.

[Endus]

Haven't even thought of that tbh. UBI allowing individuals to make their own income without fear of poverty is certainly another plus.

It's one of the major underpinnings of UBI theory; it opens up the creative professions to a lot more options. You don't need a "day job" to fund your creative enterprise until you "make it" and can live off that creative work. If you have a great business idea but it takes time to build up clientele, the UBI can keep you afloat even while profits are minimal.

It's good for people trying to climb out of poverty, but not good for the wealthy (because they're paying a higher tax load, to fund it). And frankly, that's exactly how an economic system should work; those who are wealthy don't need more help; they're already wealthy.

[kamuimac]

Exactly. I wouldn't quit my job if UBI only covered my rent and food. I still have things I want to buy for myself, maybe improve some conditions or even move to a better apartment.

What a lot of people get confused is that UBI will let people live, eat, watch Netflix on a 4k TV while riding a recent year car without having to work. No, UBI is designed to that people are not forced into being homeless or starving because the job market doesn't allow them to. If they want to remain jobless, they are stuck at the bare minimum while putting the entire UBI back into the economy. Most would want some luxury spending money and higher QoL. That is where the career fits in.

i wonder if you know what you did there.

i bet you probably dont.

you just described typical social support system that most of EU countries already have .

state help you survive but if you want more - well guess what time to stop being lazy and start working.

while people who support UBI have no clue what they are even supporting.

- - - Updated - - -

It's one of the major underpinnings of UBI theory; it opens up the creative professions to a lot more options. You don't need a "day job" to fund your creative enterprise until you "make it" and can live off that creative work. If you have a great business idea but it takes time to build up clientele, the UBI can keep you afloat even while profits are minimal.

It's good for people trying to climb out of poverty, but not good for the wealthy (because they're paying a higher tax load, to fund it). And frankly, that's exactly how an economic system should work; those who are wealthy don't need more help; they're already wealthy.

ah ye - all those "Creative" people who live solely of social paychecks in EU countries

strange that usually their peak creativity is start to drink, party and f...c since they are 14-15 - and have couple of kids by the time they are 20.

if social paychecks woudl be called UBI im sure they would become next einstein combined with mozzart.

[Endus]

ah ye - all those "Creative" people who live solely of social paychecks in EU countries

strange that usually their peak creativity is start to drink, party and f...c since they are 14-15 - and have couple of kids by the time they are 20.

if social paychecks woudl be called UBI im sure they would become next einstein combined with mozzart.

Spare me the pointless moral quibbling about the creative class. It was pathetic in 1820, and it hasn't aged well at all.

[Twdft]

Flip side is that UBI without population control would just get out of hand. You need to pay extra to people to take care of their kids while avoiding incentivizing having extra kids for the extra money.

The main reason for having a lot of kids has always been poverty. Richer countries all over the world shrink in population, poorer countries grow.

I don't think population will grow much when everyone gets UBI.

[Endus]

The main reason for having a lot of kids has always been poverty. Richer countries all over the world shrink in population, poorer countries grow.

I don't think population will grow much when everyone gets UBI.

More specifically, child mortality rates (which tend to climb in poor nations). There's some developing countries who've implemented health care well enough to lower child mortality, and despite poverty still being fairly heavy, child mortality dropped, and so did birth rates. It's almost a direct correlation.

Hans Rosling has a bunch of TED talks on how direct the connection is; they're worth checking out if you're a statistics geek or interested in this stuff. Any Google for "hans rosling ted talk" will get you all the links you want.

[xenogear3]

I don't think population will grow much when everyone gets UBI.

Make sure UBI is not based on per person. It should be per family.
Otherwise, someone raises 10 kids and get $10000 a month.

Just like any other welfare program, it must be well designed, or be abused.

[Saltysquidoon]

Make sure UBI is not based on per person. It should be per family.
Otherwise, someone raises 10 kids and get $10000 a month.

So far as I'm aware children don't work so that won't be an issue.

[PC2]

The main reason for having a lot of kids has always been poverty.

Actually the main reason is memetic influence and not poverty. If anything poverty reduces your ability to have and support a lot kids.

Richer countries all over the world shrink in population, poorer countries grow.

That's just a correlation and a historical trend. The true cause of shrinking populations in first world populations is cultural values and motivations. You could be poor and not want children or be rich and want a lot of children, it all comes down to personal preference.

I don't think population will grow much when everyone gets UBI.

It's hard to predict the future but we'd need to know the future of human longevity and healthspans before we could get a clearer picture, if people die too fast then there would be negative feedback but the longer we live in good health the less it matters.

[Yadryonych]

Make sure UBI is not based on per person. It should be per family.
Otherwise, someone raises 10 kids and get $10000 a month.

Just like any other welfare program, it must be well designed, or be abused.

This pretty much defeats purpose and definition of UBI which is supposed to be unconditional and universal for everyone