PDA

View Full Version : Basic Income


mattsmith48
July 16th, 2017, 09:39 AM
As we all know, job lost due to automation will rapidly become a problem to the point where a basic income becomes inevitable. Since it is inevitable I was wondering what you guys think of it?

For people who don't know a basic income is a guaranteed an income sufficient to meet basic needs and live with dignity, given to all citizen regardless if they are working or not.

EDIT: For people who are against a basic income what is your solution to the inevitable problem of a high number of job lost to automation?

ShineintheDark
July 16th, 2017, 11:03 AM
The best allegory I can give for automation and basic income is the housing crisis in the UK. Automation and new methods mean we can essentially build as many houses as we want and need to serve our population and so in theory house prices should be falling. But there is no incentive for businesses and companies to take advantage of this as falling prices means less money for them and so houses are not being built. The same comes for basic income and automation: why automate and force yourself to pay basic income when you can purposefully keep behind the times and pay pitiful wages?

Snowfox
July 16th, 2017, 02:18 PM
mattsmith48 yes its ok but only with certain boundary conditions that are

1: every time person works he/she can keep that basic income fully without loosing single penny of it.

2:To make it easy to calculate if it is good idea to go to work there should be flat rate tax for all income from work.

3: There should be left certain professions that are secured from automation to keep it possible for people to find jobs. Its essentially important that there are working people and job life. Why would anyone bother to get education or do anything if all what life has to offer is living on dole? There should always be ways for people to make more than they are currently making and if there is no such a way people become passive.

4: We should think carefully what people do with their free time. Since there will be lots of free time for people since there are no jobs anymore. Current examples from areas with high percentage of people living on dole are not encouraging. Drinking all day along watching stupid tv shows and making babies at 14 and using and selling drugs and such....
ShineintheDark yes we have same crisis in Finland and Sweden as well. Practically there are no affordable homes. And you also know what I mean by living on dole and drinking all day along.

Our biggest crisis is not climate thats just technical problem that can be taken care of if there is affordable technology and right state of mind to get things done.
Our biggest crisis is to find something reasonable for people to do for living and if not for just living for getting something better. There has to be some reason why people get educated and why people dont waste their life to drugs and alcohol and decadent sex. Something to keep our civilization away from decadence.
mattsmith48 now you opened interesting thread

mattsmith48
July 16th, 2017, 03:17 PM
The best allegory I can give for automation and basic income is the housing crisis in the UK. Automation and new methods mean we can essentially build as many houses as we want and need to serve our population and so in theory house prices should be falling. But there is no incentive for businesses and companies to take advantage of this as falling prices means less money for them and so houses are not being built. The same comes for basic income and automation: why automate and force yourself to pay basic income when you can purposefully keep behind the times and pay pitiful wages?

Those businesses number one priority is to make money and at some point it is going to be much cheaper to just have robots do it instead of paying employees to do the same job.

mattsmith48 yes its ok but only with certain boundary conditions that are

1: every time person works he/she can keep that basic income fully without loosing single penny of it.

Yes that's how it should work.

2:To make it easy to calculate if it is good idea to go to work there should be flat rate tax for all income from work.

Would be easier to calculate, but it would create a lot more problems, if you set it too low you won't be able to pay for the basic income and when you get to a percentage that will allow you to pay for it, the tax would be so high it would make people stay at home instead of taking the lower paying jobs and paying an incredibly high amount in taxes.

3: There should be left certain professions that are secured from automation to keep it possible for people to find jobs. Its essentially important that there are working people and job life. Why would anyone bother to get education or do anything if all what life has to offer is living on dole? There should always be ways for people to make more than they are currently making and if there is no such a way people become passive.

Sure there is always going to be things that we'll need to do because the robots can't.

4: We should think carefully what people do with their free time. Since there will be lots of free time for people since there are no jobs anymore. Current examples from areas with high percentage of people living on dole are not encouraging. Drinking all day along watching stupid tv shows and making babies at 14 and using and selling drugs and such....

It is something we'll need to look at, but I think a lot of those cases are more linked to stress and pressure that a basic income would eliminate

mattsmith48 now you opened interesting thread

Thank you :)

Flapjack
July 16th, 2017, 05:03 PM
I think it should be quite high, giving money to the lower classes stimulates the economy a lot. As for an exact figure, I have no idea XD

DriveAlive
July 16th, 2017, 10:43 PM
I think it should be quite high, giving money to the lower classes stimulates the economy a lot. As for an exact figure, I have no idea XD

I agree that they lower class are very good at stimulating the economy, which is why lower taxes make sense.

I personally do not want to see a world where everyone is paid and does no work. That is not a quality of life.

If we actually get to the point of near total automation, there will be no need for money because everything can be produced cheaply and everyone just gets money. All economic class will disappear as no one will work harder jobs to make more money than others.

Famous conservative economist William F. Buckley was a proponent of the negative income rate.

PlasmaHam
July 16th, 2017, 11:26 PM
The world is far from a Star Trek style utopia you seem to be basing this on. Machines are not going to take over the workforce anytime soon. People have been claiming that since the Industrial Revolution began, and it still hasn't happened.

I agree with the statement above. If there ever becomes a point where automation controls the workplace, it would be more logical to simply abolish currency than it would be to establish a basic income.

lliam
July 17th, 2017, 12:07 AM
In an absurd way, Germany has already realized this years, if not decades ago.

On one hand, there's social welfare, which is inteded to serve basic needs.

On the other hand, the government pays money to entrepreneurs without meaning, so that they employ unemployed citizens.

This category also includes a variety of other services, which creates an amount of unnecessarily costs. Imo, wasted spend of money.

Also we can't talk about living in dignity in this case. In sum, these measures are ineffective patchwork.



If we would pay this entire inefficiently squandered money directly to the citizens as a unconditional basic income, we might even realize that we still save a lot of money, because on the one hand, this also means a lot of administrative effort will be unnecessary.

ah, there's always a glitch to the current, running sytem:
a basic income would make thousands of administrative employees unemployed in the range of social services.

Snowfox
July 17th, 2017, 01:00 AM
PlasmaHam and DriveAlive abolishing currency would be disastrous.
Money serves one extremely useful purpose which is allocation of resources.
What I mean is that automation may take away of cost of labour but it wont take away costs of available land or raw materials or energy.
Like if person is able to go to grocery store and pick anything he wants for free people would choose irrational amounts of beef and other delicacies and lots of fine cognac and best cheeses. And amount of wasted food would skyrocket.
Also they would get like 50 nice cars and in the end they would be totally unhappy.

If it costs nothing its taken as granted and no value is given to it.

Money on other hand makes us think what we can afford and what not. Money gives us reason to wake up at morning and start to do something so we could get what we want.

And biggest question about education has been left unanswered. Why bother to educate yourself if there are no jobs. Why educate yourself if you are never going to need that knowledge to anything.

And what hell people are going to do with their free time since they have only free time left.

DriveAlive
July 17th, 2017, 01:46 AM
PlasmaHam and DriveAlive abolishing currency would be disastrous.
Money serves one extremely useful purpose which is allocation of resources.
What I mean is that automation may take away of cost of labour but it wont take away costs of available land or raw materials or energy.
Like if person is able to go to grocery store and pick anything he wants for free people would choose irrational amounts of beef and other delicacies and lots of fine cognac and best cheeses. And amount of wasted food would skyrocket.
Also they would get like 50 nice cars and in the end they would be totally unhappy.

If it costs nothing its taken as granted and no value is given to it.

Money on other hand makes us think what we can afford and what not. Money gives us reason to wake up at morning and start to do something so we could get what we want.

And biggest question about education has been left unanswered. Why bother to educate yourself if there are no jobs. Why educate yourself if you are never going to need that knowledge to anything.

And what hell people are going to do with their free time since they have only free time left.
Which is exactly my point. The problem with a universal basic income is that it devalues money.

lliam
July 17th, 2017, 01:48 AM
PlasmaHam and DriveAlive And what hell people are going to do with their free time since they have only free time left.



They'll do what they do now in their spare time.

And if they have more leisure time, e.g., because they are unemployed ... depending on their academic or vocational education and training and personal inclination, they can do some kind of work through comunity service and such.

Snowfox
July 17th, 2017, 02:57 AM
They'll do what they do now in their spare time.

And if they have more leisure time, e.g., because they are unemployed ... depending on their academic or vocational education and training and personal inclination, they can do some kind of work through comunity service and such.

Lets be honest they drink until their liver or pancreas gives up which ever comes first or they use drugs with more or less similar results. They also can go to watch football game and smash half city to pieces which I believe is common hobby in Germany and UK. Or in case they dont find these normal things to do to be satisfying enough they end up killing small animals first then as hobby they start to kill humans. In today's world those who want to kill for fun end up being cops or muslims but then who knows. we just need to look current day super rich and their hobbies which include flaying firstborn babies to death and drinking blood and having sex with first borns.

People without anything better to do end up like that

Periphery
July 17th, 2017, 09:12 AM
mattsmith48

So wait you want to give those able to work but refusing to work money too?

mattsmith48
July 17th, 2017, 09:31 AM
PlasmaHam and DriveAlive As technology is getting better and better we are going to lose jobs and we won't be able to replace them, it is already in some sectors and it is something that will happen and we cannot fight.

Snowfox what kind of fucked up world do you live in.

Which is exactly my point. The problem with a universal basic income is that it devalues money.

No excessive printing of much money devalues it, giving money that already exist does not.

mattsmith48
So wait you want to give those able to work but refusing to work money too?

Yes them too, everyone would get it.

DriveAlive
July 17th, 2017, 10:36 AM
PlasmaHam and DriveAlive As technology is getting better and better we are going to lose jobs and we won't be able to replace them, it is already in some sectors and it is something that will happen and we cannot fight.

Snowfox what kind of fucked up world do you live in.



No excessive printing of much money devalues it, giving money that already exist does not.



Yes them too, everyone would get it.
Where are you getting all of this endless money to give? Do you give everyone a basic income and then tax this income and then give them a smaller basic income next year and so on?

Periphery
July 17th, 2017, 10:39 AM
So wait, you say the people who are too lazy to contribute to the economy should get the money which you will most likely take from the rich, who worked hard for that money. Do you even know how stupid that sounds?

Snowfox
July 17th, 2017, 11:40 AM
Everyone lets face this one point. Money can be printed and created out of nothing. its what central banks do. So it would just need central basnk to create that money and then give it to people for free. mattsmith48 I live in exactly same world than you I just realize things that most people dont want to know. One example of this is this pizza place in USA where super rich people went and then they went to basement to rape child sex slaves. Similar places exist everywhere.

mattsmith48
July 17th, 2017, 11:52 AM
Where are you getting all of this endless money to give? Do you give everyone a basic income and then tax this income and then give them a smaller basic income next year and so on?

Like The Special One said you pay it with taxes from the rich and other people who are still working.

So wait, you say the people who are too lazy to contribute to the economy should get the money which you will most likely take from the rich, who worked hard for that money. Do you even know how stupid that sounds?

Yes those rich people who worked very hard to be born from wealthy parents. Everyone would be getting this whether they work or not.

Everyone lets face this one point. Money can be printed and created out of nothing. its what central banks do. So it would just need central basnk to create that money and then give it to people for free.

They can't do that if a country print too much money it devalues it and causes inflation.

mattsmith48 I live in exactly same world than you I just realize things that most people dont want to know. One example of this is this pizza place in USA where super rich people went and then they went to basement to rape child sex slaves. Similar places exist everywhere.

You actually believed that?

DriveAlive
July 17th, 2017, 12:37 PM
Like The Special One said you pay it with taxes from the rich and other people who are still working.



Yes those rich people who worked very hard to be born from wealthy parents. Everyone would be getting this whether they work or not.



They can't do that if a country print too much money it devalues it and causes inflation.



You actually believed that?
So your solution to capitalism creating an automated society is to replace it with total wealth distribution? What happens once you run out of other people's money to give away?

mattsmith48
July 17th, 2017, 01:58 PM
So your solution to capitalism creating an automated society is to replace it with total wealth distribution? What happens once you run out of other people's money to give away?

Yes what is your solution to this problem? How would we run out? Yes a Basic Income would be expensive, but not as expensive as people may think. It could easily be payed for with an increase in taxes and with the money we are already using on other programs a basic income would replace.

Bull
July 17th, 2017, 02:22 PM
As we all know, job lost due to automation will rapidly become a problem to the point where a basic income becomes inevitable. Since it is inevitable I was wondering what you guys think of it?

For people who don't know a basic income is a guaranteed an income sufficient to meet basic needs and live with dignity, given to all citizen regardless if they are working or not.

As an avowed capitalist this is way too socialistic for me. Though the USA has creeping socialism we are still a capitalistic economy. We take care (to some extent) of the unfortunate, however, we also have a "freeloader class". We have crumbling highway systems, crumbling bridges, dams, water way navigation systems. During the 1930's the government put people to work in the WPA and CCC and the nation benefited greatly by the work done by the otherwise unemployed. This type of socialism I can support. It was not a hand out, but a hand up.

Also, I am tired of hearing politicians say the government "can't afford" something. USA had a huge national debt that grows daily, yet the rulers in Washington are dedicated to reducing taxes on those most able to pay. Too many in government seem to lack and understanding of economics 101: needs vs. wants in light of available resources. We cannot continue to cut revenue and increase spending forever!

mattsmith48
July 17th, 2017, 02:53 PM
As an avowed capitalist this is way too socialistic for me. Though the USA has creeping socialism we are still a capitalistic economy. We take care (to some extent) of the unfortunate, however, we also have a "freeloader class". We have crumbling highway systems, crumbling bridges, dams, water way navigation systems. During the 1930's the government put people to work in the WPA and CCC and the nation benefited greatly by the work done by the otherwise unemployed. This type of socialism I can support. It was not a hand out, but a hand up.

Also, I am tired of hearing politicians say the government "can't afford" something. USA had a huge national debt that grows daily, yet the rulers in Washington are dedicated to reducing taxes on those most able to pay. Too many in government seem to lack and understanding of economics 101: needs vs. wants in light of available resources. We cannot continue to cut revenue and increase spending forever!

Im curious to know what is your solution to this inevitable issue of automation?

Snowfox
July 17th, 2017, 03:19 PM
Bull solution is to print more money.

maddogmj77
July 17th, 2017, 03:35 PM
So wait, you say the people who are too lazy to contribute to the economy should get the money which you will most likely take from the rich, who worked hard for that money. Do you even know how stupid that sounds?

If you actually think most of the rich people work hard for their money, you're wrong. Rich people come from rich families. They build their wealth off of the exploitation of poor workers. CEO's don't work a day in their life yet rake in millions for nothing; what about THOSE 'free-loaders'?

This would be my solution.
Fully Automated Luxury Communism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmQ-BZ3eWxM)

Please, before you comment, think of something intelligent to say, not ERH-MERH-GERD, COMMUNISM!! BAD!!

Bull
July 17th, 2017, 03:40 PM
Bull solution is to print more money.

Absolutely NOT! That solves nothing but creates a whole set of other problems. The federal budget must be balanced by reducing spending and increasing revenue. Revenue is not increased by increasing inflation.

Bull
July 17th, 2017, 04:35 PM
Im curious to know what is your solution to this inevitable issue of automation?

Research the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps and learn what they achieved in a very short time by putting millions out of work people to work to the benefit of Americans. Americans supporting Americans to the benefit of all. Not welfare, not a hand out. Wages were at fair market value. Workers were working, earning, contributing to society. In my state there are many projects in use today that bear the identify of the WPA. I am the beneficiary of those projects completed in the 1930s thanks to the millions of people who would otherwise been on welfare.

The solution is not a hand out but a hand up. My understanding of "basic income" is a hand out because the recipient does nothing to earn the income. I do not mind my tax dollars (yes I pay income taxes-state and federal-sales taxes, excise taxes, and will pay property taxes etc. in the future) being used to support government programs such as WPA and CCC. I do not want my tax dollars used as hand outs! I do not want to support freeloaders.

Periphery
July 17th, 2017, 05:45 PM
If you actually think most of the rich people work hard for their money, you're wrong. Rich people come from rich families. They build their wealth off of the exploitation of poor workers. CEO's don't work a day in their life yet rake in millions for nothing; what about THOSE 'free-loaders'?

This would be my solution.
Fully Automated Luxury Communism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmQ-BZ3eWxM)

Please, before you comment, think of something intelligent to say, not ERH-MERH-GERD, COMMUNISM!! BAD!!

Assuming all the rich people are born rich and don't even work isn't very intelligent either. CEO's work harder than you can imagine, I doubt you know what it's like running a company (and looking at my family, I know what it's like).

Also, who is speaking about communism here? I'm not. Not sure where you got that but okay.

Dalcourt
July 17th, 2017, 10:20 PM
I read this article here (http://basicincome.org/news/2017/07/united-states-american-enterprise-institute-releases-proposal-universal-basic-income/).
I felt it quite interesting it shows one idea of how basic income can work since I feel it's not really clear to everyone here what it is about.


Another article about
Finland (https://qz.com/876985/finland-hopes-to-dispel-one-of-the-biggest-critiques-of-a-basic-income/)

Vlerchan
July 18th, 2017, 05:53 AM
Redistribution doesn't devalue currencies.

You could replace all current social programs with a universal basic income which covers a (very) basic standard of living. If extra revenue is required then tax land and carbon emissions - deregulate the hell out of everything too. In the process eliminate a host of beurocracies - it will make government much smaller in general - and eliminate the incentive issues that are associated with traditional welfare - i.e. the gains from moving from welfare to a job are larger under UBI. Traditional welfare also inhibits people from moving into temp roles - this will be of increasing consequence as we move toward a greater amount of jobs beings gigs - so it needs to be replaced irrespective.

Giving people who can't get employment work reduces incentives to upskill and get a better life. As part of a long-term plan to engage with automation it will - all likelihood - deepen the problem.

---

I wrote this on the bus. I will write a longer engagement if this thread is still living when I'm home.

lliam
July 18th, 2017, 07:39 AM
Lets be honest they drink until their liver or pancreas gives up which ever comes first or they use drugs with more or less similar results. They also can go to watch football game and smash half city to pieces ...

People without anything better to do end up like that



I can not refute all your claims.

But you speak about a minority of folks, the majority of the citizens will work as usual.

And if, as you claim, people massively are develop asocial behaviors and such, this is a development where the governent has to admit, that they are at least half way to blame for such deviations.


This is also the reason why I don't support the "unconditional basic income" model, which was often propagated in Germany.

But I go for the "conditional basic income" version. Only those who are employed or working ... or those who volunteer doining cummunity services get that income.

This isn't a fair model, but it meets today's ideas that everyone has to contribute something constructive to the preservation of society. Therefore, a basic income can already be realized in any case today. Technically as well as theoretically.


What prevents us from implementing something like this are only inherited notions of the 200-year-old competition, meritocracy and capitalism society, which in the future simply makes it necessary to radically rethink those old fashion ideals, cause they are even now kinda outdated. And above all, we have to equate social services with all the productive jobs in the industry, etc.

Snowfox
July 18th, 2017, 02:01 PM
lliam government never admits that it caused any problem. Too many people from high position would loose their face. They would let whole nation to be destroyed totally if they can save their face. Not to mention that all of those who are in high positions have inherited their position or bought it. This is me being realistic.

But to the basic income. Yes future will be gig works mostly unless you bribed your self in to some government job.Then its steady income without any work.

Smaller government we have better we are is basic rule of life. Second one is that government should do only those things what it can do best. Third rule is that government should hold natural monopols to prevent exploitation.

lliam
July 18th, 2017, 04:53 PM
snowflake - you may be right, but I'm still an insupportably, incorrigible optimist.

Smaller social communities usually are more efficient as larger ones ... depends ...
Anyway, it's one reason why I like countries such as Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra, etc.

And I was glad to read when, according to a statistical survey in Germany, it came out that in larger cities, but also in smaller communities, thousands of people suddenly vanished because they simply died at a time, emigrated long ago and such.

The trend continues. Despite immigration, the population doesn't increase much. And if one day less than 10 million people will live in our country, that would be an almost big advantage for 'schland, at least, that's my personal view. But I guess, I will not experience it in my life span.

mattsmith48
July 18th, 2017, 09:37 PM
I read this article here (http://basicincome.org/news/2017/07/united-states-american-enterprise-institute-releases-proposal-universal-basic-income/).
I felt it quite interesting it shows one idea of how basic income can work since I feel it's not really clear to everyone here what it is about.


Another article about
Finland (https://qz.com/876985/finland-hopes-to-dispel-one-of-the-biggest-critiques-of-a-basic-income/)

About the second article about Finland trying it out to see if it makes people lazy and stop working. We had a somewhat similar experiment here in Canada back in the 70's and they found that the most people who stopped working were parents with young children and students, of course this was 50 years ago and a lot as changed since, but there is no reason to not thing that if a universal basic income was implemented now it would have the same effect.

Redistribution doesn't devalue currencies.

You could replace all current social programs with a universal basic income which covers a (very) basic standard of living. If extra revenue is required then tax land and carbon emissions - deregulate the hell out of everything too. In the process eliminate a host of beurocracies - it will make government much smaller in general - and eliminate the incentive issues that are associated with traditional welfare - i.e. the gains from moving from welfare to a job are larger under UBI. Traditional welfare also inhibits people from moving into temp roles - this will be of increasing consequence as we move toward a greater amount of jobs beings gigs - so it needs to be replaced irrespective.

Giving people who can't get employment work reduces incentives to upskill and get a better life. As part of a long-term plan to engage with automation it will - all likelihood - deepen the problem.

---

I wrote this on the bus. I will write a longer engagement if this thread is still living when I'm home.

I don't think it could replace all social programs, but it would replace a few programs.

Also nothing good as ever come out from deregulating shit.

Dalcourt
July 18th, 2017, 09:49 PM
About the second article about Finland trying it out to see if it makes people lazy and stop working. We had a somewhat similar experiment here in Canada back in the 70's and they found that the most people who stopped working were parents with young children and students, of course this was 50 years ago and a lot as changed since, but there is no reason to not thing that if a universal basic income was implemented now it would have the same effect.



That's basically what I think. I mean some people always paint a way too bleak picture. It's not that people are all so lazy and only work I they are forced.
They "they are too lazy to work" is a very common prejudice but apart from a handful black sheep people want to do something in their life.
I read a report...I couldn't find it anymore or else I had linked it here. It was about, I guess Sweden but I can be wrong, and it showed that in a similar experiment a couple of people gave up a job they had and were not happy with but not to be lazy but to start their own small business. The basic income gave them the possibility to earn enough to make ends meet till their business was fully established.

mattsmith48
July 18th, 2017, 10:17 PM
That's basically what I think. I mean some people always paint a way too bleak picture. It's not that people are all so lazy and only work I they are forced.
They "they are too lazy to work" is a very common prejudice but apart from a handful black sheep people want to do something in their life.
I read a report...I couldn't find it anymore or else I had linked it here. It was about, I guess Sweden but I can be wrong, and it showed that in a similar experiment a couple of people gave up a job they had and were not happy with but not to be lazy but to start their own small business. The basic income gave them the possibility to earn enough to make ends meet till their business was fully established.

Another good effect of a basic income I've read about is better overall health and lower hospitalizations for mental health issues. Money can be a great source of stress and a basic income can eliminate or at lease reduce that stress and ultimately make us save money on health care.

Porpoise101
July 18th, 2017, 10:21 PM
Look, once we attain post-scarcity I will maybe be for this sort of measure. The alternative would be a sort of dystopic post-apocalyptic capitalist world where a few owners of capital have massive quantities of wealth and have total control of society. In fact, if wealth and capital is not redistributed to the public then I fear for the total decay of society at that point. Yes, this sounds like the path to communism and it is. However, until we reach this level of technological development I am not really supportive of such a measure.

Employment is still going to be significant until mass automation and currently business do not automate enough to justify such a provision. For example, while billion-dollar companies may be churning out products through capital-intensive methods, small businesses often do not do so and tend to employ more labor to produce goods and provide services. This is because they do not have access to the economies of scale that a massive corporation does. The idea for a basic income is that you would distribute wealth from capital owners to those without. Typically this has been done through a corporate tax or progressive income tax. However, because smaller businesses get hit often by the same taxes/burdens a larger business is, the taxes levied to support a Universal Basic Income (UBI) would be too devastating on these smaller firms. Ultimately, the taxes needed would harm businesses, educe competition, and likely increase unemployment. This is just one reason why a basic income would be problematic, as we would probably have to come up with innovative taxation methods to finance it.

There was an article I read once that basically said UBI is difficult to implement because of these three traits:

Unconditional (available to all citizens)
Meaningful (enough money to satisfy living expenses)
Economically feasible (affordable enough for a government to budget)
According to the economist interviewed, it is really only possible to choose two of these traits at a time at the cost of the third one. And if you don't have all three traits then you lose some of the benefits UBI has to offer.

EDIT: last criticism I've seen relating to UBI is that it would make any chance of having open borders between two countries unfeasible if nationals of the country without UBI have the ability to collect benefits.

Dalcourt
July 18th, 2017, 10:26 PM
Another good effect of a basic income I've read about is better overall health and lower hospitalizations for mental health issues. Money can be a great source of stress and a basic income can eliminate or at lease reduce that stress and ultimately make us save money on health care.

Really haven't thought about this but it's a good point.
There are a lot of people who are under great pressure because of their work. They are unhappy with a current job situation. It results in mental health problems, burn out and all these can really add up to millions spent in health care in he long run.
If you would have the possibility to quit a job that is unhealthy for you without financially endangering your whole family this could really help.

DriveAlive
July 18th, 2017, 11:55 PM
We cannot have people wimping out of the hard work just because they know that the government will bail them out.

mattsmith48
July 19th, 2017, 12:05 AM
We cannot have people wimping out of the hard work just because they know that the government will bail them out.

And your point is?

Periphery
July 19th, 2017, 12:33 AM
And your point is?

That it doesn't make sense to actually support people too lazy to work. You're making people live without them having to make an effort, that only makes things worse.

Dalcourt
July 19th, 2017, 01:53 AM
We cannot have people wimping out of the hard work just because they know that the government will bail them out.

That it doesn't make sense to actually support people too lazy to work. You're making people live without them having to make an effort, that only makes things worse.

It's not all just about being lazy you know?

I remember both of you posting a couple of times about being stressed out due to pressure at school/college... whatever. Do you think adult work life will be a walk in the park? It's a lot of pressure and bullying out there. I'm sure you also could need a fallback there,too or do Momma and Daddy have to support you forever?

It's not about not wanting to do hard work and being lazy. Sometimes it's just a whole situation that is wrong and you can't get out of it since you have your bills to pay.
The handful of people who is really lazy will always be lazy no matter if there's a basic income or not. They will always find ways to live off others.

The majority of people in the world is decent and wants to do something useful with their lives. So just don't always assume the worst of others.

maddogmj77
July 19th, 2017, 02:52 AM
Assuming all the rich people are born rich and don't even work isn't very intelligent either. CEO's work harder than you can imagine, I doubt you know what it's like running a company (and looking at my family, I know what it's like).

Also, who is speaking about communism here? I'm not. Not sure where you got that but okay.

You obviously skipped over my link. Go back and look, that's what I was talking about.

lliam
July 19th, 2017, 02:56 AM
We should return to the core of the thread.

The thread initially linked to two things:

The advancing AI automation in many areas of employment and the universal basic income.


Whenever automation is used to make more and more jobs obsolet, more and more people will become unemployed.


In this aspect, discussing that (some) people don't wanna work, I guess that's almost as stupid as it is ridiculous.


One day it will be a fact that more and more professions, which today still require a high qualified education, are simply done by computers, and are no longer available as vacancies for humans.


Who then is interested in the few people who don't want to go to work and who will be satisfied with a basic income?


I claim: no one. And if someone use those folk as an argument, he's more stupid than Trump. And and above all he is impudent enough to propagate this populistically.


The basic income or similar programs will once be necessary to enable the large mass of unemployed people to live a relatively good life, also to keep the economy running, because people will not make the necessary money running it, but for a large part just machines and computers will earn that money for the unemployds.




btw: And thats the time, when America will turn into a liberal socialist country. Homemade, tbh. :D

Vlerchan
July 19th, 2017, 04:24 AM
I don't think it could replace all social programs, but it would replace a few programs.
I am not sure how to respond to a point as unspecific as this.

Also nothing good as ever come out from deregulating shit.
This is one of those points that are obviously incorrect. But since it's not the subject of this thread I am going to just suggest that you go read about how Sweden supports it's social model (hint: deregulation).

We cannot have people wimping out of the hard work just because they know that the government will bail them out.
Most Western governments already do this, in one for or another, through their entitlement programs. And it's politically infeasible to get rid of these. In such a case replacing them with a universal basic income might be proposed in order make the situation better.

You're making people live without them having to make an effort, that only makes things worse.
We do this already.

The reason that a move to a UBI is justified is that it is well-recognised that traditional welfare inhibits people from entering the labour market above and beyond what one would expect the UBI to do. This is because, the gains from moving from unemployment to employment are much greater, because various entitlements aren't lost. This is important as it specifically relates to taking up temp employment: traditional welfare creates use transaction costs here - people become less likely to accept a non-permanent role when there's a good chance it will not translate into a permanent position and they'll have to fork out time to sign back up for all their entitlements, and probably lose out on some amount during the transition (in fact I know people who won't take temp work, and extend their unemployment, precisely for this reason).

But here's the most important point.If you don't have a stable netting in place to catch the people who won't be ready for this Brave New World and you'll find they'll organize to dismantle technological innovation, regulate out the competition with robots. If you care about rich people, you'll find, once the politics of the issue are considered, they'll be a heap worse off if you don't create a robust social safety net that's appropriate for the coming shifts in production.

---

There's also a heap of reasons that acting in a manner that allows some to never have to gain employment poses significant benefits for others. Central is that it increasing the willingness of the others to endure creative destruction - technological advancement, free trade, etc.

Employment is still going to be significant until mass automation and currently business do not automate enough to justify such a provision.
Notably, I do think that we're about one or two decades off any great dis-employment effect of technology - if it happens, I still lean toward their being a return to the historical equilibrium [i.e. there will be greater employment in logistics, supply-chain management, data science], just as has always been the case. Nevertheless, conditional on it happening, UBI (and a complete deregulation of labour markets) seems like the invariably best solution to me. Though, I also think that conditional on us being able to sustain the program, a UBI is welfare-improving when compared to the hodge-podge of programs that are currently in place - esp. in developing countries where high levels of corruption significant distort the welfare outcomes that welfare programs produce.

...innovative taxation methods...
Do I hear land, carbon and consumption taxation? I think I do.

---

Here's how to the tax rate for low-skill workers operates in Britian, once you take into account benefit withdrawel, just so you guys might understand what I am talking about. The system in place at the moment is horrifically inefficient. UBI would be a significant improvement.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/files/2012/12/Screen-Shot-2012-12-16-at-12.18.45.png

But that's why we should repeal everything!, the vociferous an-cap cries. And he cries so because he fails to realise that welfare isn't worth supporting because one is in any way charitable, it is supportable because it provides insurance that would, otherwise, go unprovided by the market. For precisely the reason that it does make people less likely to work - but this must be traded against their increased willingness to accept disruptive technological change and creative destruction in general, eg. free trade.

---

tl;dr: This is about trade-offs. Your petty-moralisms are irrelevent.

Periphery
July 19th, 2017, 08:23 AM
You obviously skipped over my link. Go back and look, that's what I was talking about.

Yet there will still be plenty of people who will work full weeks. That just doesn"t work, nor is it actually very related to this current discussion about not working at all, not about working less for the same amount of money.

Vlerchan I know we already do this, it's also a problem over here in Belgium. The amount of money has been reduced however. My problem with this system is that if it's too high it will reduce motivation in those who do work. If you make it very high what are the chances it will be higher than someone's income? In low underpayed jobs that can happen. Why should those people work then? They can give up and earn anyways. That's the problem I have with it, why work for something if doing nothing will get you there?

mattsmith48
July 19th, 2017, 10:25 AM
I am not sure how to respond to a point as unspecific as this.

Some social programs like unemployment and disability would be replaced by a basic income, but things like health care and education can't be replaced by a basic income.

Vlerchan
July 19th, 2017, 11:07 AM
My problem with this system is that if it's too high it will reduce motivation in those who do work.
Sure. But the point I'm making is that traditional welfare lowers motivation more than a UBI would. This is because it reduces the gains from transitioning from welfare to a job to a much greater extent than the UBI would.

Why should those people work then?
To add to their incomes.

I can't be sure what sort of background you come from but living on the bare minimum without some sort of formal purpose isn't an experience that most people relish either.

Interesting that you call the jobs underpaid though. Suggests that too many people are working in them already.

Some social programs like unemployment and disability would be replaced by a basic income, but things like health care and education can't be replaced by a basic income.
I wouldn't consider either of them social programs so I guess we agree.

DriveAlive
July 19th, 2017, 11:30 AM
What is the point of being educated if you have a basic income? You say it is so that you can get a better job than something at the bottom and move up in society, but a lot of people just do not have the skills to advance into the higher paid fields that would not be replaced by automation. Even if they could, it would crush the high pay of these jobs just because you would have so many more qualified candidates and then their goes your tax pool.

Vlerchan
July 19th, 2017, 11:53 AM
You say it is so that you can get a better job than something at the bottom and move up in society, but a lot of people just do not have the skills to advance into the higher paid fields that would not be replaced by automation.
UBI allows people to engage with micro courses and participate in unpaid internships and/or temp work in order to develop marketable skills.

Even if they could, it would crush the high pay of these jobs just because you would have so many more qualified candidates and then their goes your tax pool.
You can't train to be Steve Jobs. The reason these people demand such high incomes is because the elasticity of supply for their professions is near-zero.

So the highest earners are safe.

You might argue that we'll see a flood of machine learning engineers. But then research suggests that as a result of the agglomeration economies between these workers an increase in their supply can in fact cause incomes to rise.

---

Of course the income has to flow up to someone so this criticism is intrinsically invalid. But - more importantly I figure - your intuition about how a high skill economy would operate also is.

DriveAlive
July 19th, 2017, 11:57 AM
UBI allows people to engage with micro courses and participate in unpaid internships and/or temp work in order to develop marketable skills.


You can't train to be Steve Jobs. The reason these people demand such high incomes is because the elasticity of supply for their professions is near-zero.

So the highest earners are safe.

You might argue that we'll see a flood of machine learning engineers. But then research suggests that as a result of the agglomeration economies between these workers an increase in their supply can in fact cause incomes to rise.

---

Of course the income has to flow up to someone so this criticism is intrinsically invalid. But - more importantly I figure - your intuition about how a high skill economy would operate too also is.

You missed my point completely. I am not talking about Steve Jobs. I am talking about doctors and lawyers and the like who are making 100-500k a year. These jobs are fairly safe from automation. Those at the bottom who are getting replaced by automation would most likely not ever be able to enter these fields even with higher education. Therefore, they have far less options for that next level of economic advancement. Even if they could enter these fields, they would radically increase the supply of doctors for example and it would destroy the salary for that profession. That is a real consequence that the AMA has been trying to prevent by restricting their own professional pipeline so to speak.

Vlerchan
July 19th, 2017, 12:19 PM
These jobs are fairly safe from automation.
They're not.

But I nevertheless agree that moving into those jobs - medicine and law - will be quite difficult for the currently low skilled. But:

enter these fields even with higher education. Therefore, they have far less options for that next level of economic advancement.
Jobs that will matter will be in the likes of Logistics and Data Science - these are much more accessible than medicine and law.

Though I'm not sure if I understand your point. You seem to be striking a note of pessimism that certain groups will be able to get jobs. In such a case these people will become permanent welfare beneficiaries irrespective of whether we have a UBI or not - which brings us back to my central contention: a UBI would be more conductive to at least some of these finding jobs.

---

I also addressed middle high-earners (doctors and lawyers and engineers and so on) in the next section of that post where I referred to the example of machine learning engineers. Research suggests that to development of agglomerations will probably result in net income gains.

mattsmith48
July 19th, 2017, 01:54 PM
I wouldn't consider either of them social programs so I guess we agree.

It's just good to precise it. :)

DriveAlive
July 20th, 2017, 12:26 AM
They're not.

But I nevertheless agree that moving into those jobs - medicine and law - will be quite difficult for the currently low skilled. But:


Jobs that will matter will be in the likes of Logistics and Data Science - these are much more accessible than medicine and law.

Though I'm not sure if I understand your point. You seem to be striking a note of pessimism that certain groups will be able to get jobs. In such a case these people will become permanent welfare beneficiaries irrespective of whether we have a UBI or not - which brings us back to my central contention: a UBI would be more conductive to at least some of these finding jobs.

---

I also addressed middle high-earners (doctors and lawyers and engineers and so on) in the next section of that post where I referred to the example of machine learning engineers. Research suggests that to development of agglomerations will probably result in net income gains.

Certain groups will not be able to get jobs if that is the way you all think the world is going.